This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'All documents relating to the Multilateral Investment Court for investment dispute resolution'.

[*= redactions made under Art. 4.1(b)]
[**= redactions made under Art. 4.1(a) third indent]
Ref. Ares(2016)6435856 - 15/11/2016
Ref. Ares(2017)1963547 - 13/04/2017
Raffaele (TRADE);  [*]
(TRADE); [*]
 (TRADE);  [*]
 (TRADE);  [*]
 Luisa (TRADE); 
Subject: Meeting with BusinessEurope on the Multilateral Investment Court 
Project - 14 November 2016 
Summary – initial meeting with Business Europe as Commission continues work on the Impact 
Assessment on the MIC. The meeting was to update BE on progress on the MIC, and in 
particular on the next steps of the impact assessment.  BE raised known concerns on 
appointment of judges and asked questions on relationship between ICS in EU FTAS, BITs and 
the multilateral court. 

  COM agreed to 
return to discuss the matters more thoroughly with BE committee (possibly to be scheduled 
week of 5 December) 

In a meeting with Luisa Santos (BusinessEurope, TTIP Advisory Group), COM  [*]
) presented the state of play of the 
Multilateral Investment Court (hereinafter “MIC” or “Court”) project:  
−  EU-internally: publication of the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) and launch of 
stakeholder consultations and meetings. 
−  EU-externally: building support on multilateral reform in G20, OECD, Nairobi sessions, and in 
the forthcoming Geneva meeting on 13th and 14th December 2016. 
In their answers to Luisa Santos’ questions, COM explained that: 
−  The Investment Court System (ICS) may provide for some interesting ideas for the 
discussions on the establishment of the MIC. Nevertheless, not necessarily all features of the 
ICS will be replicated in the MIC. 
−  As soon as it will enter into force, the MIC is conceived to replace the ICS and all other 
dispute settlement mechanisms provided in BITs that will be subject to the jurisdiction of 
the Court. 
−  The multilateral system would apply to disputes under an agreement between countries A 
and B when both countries have ratified the convention establishing the multilateral system 
and both countries have agreed that the investment agreement between them should be 
subject to the multilateral dispute settlement system, either through a negative or positive 
list. Ideally, also Member States’ BITs will fall within this scope of application. Nonetheless, 

the Commission will not be able to force Member States to subject their BITs to the 
multilateral system, this choice depending also on the other Party to the BIT. 
−  The rules on parallel claims/relation to domestic remedies are likely to need to remain in the 
underlying agreement – that would be an issue to be discussed.   
−  Once the MIC will enter into force, the de facto case law of ad hoc investment arbitration 
tribunals will not be binding on the MIC. As in other areas of international law (e.g. in the 
WTO), in the MIC system there will be no rule of stare decisis. Nevertheless, if the reasoning 
developed in previous investment awards is persuasive, it is likely that the Court will take it 
into consideration and/or follow it.  
In sum, the main concerns/arguments raised by Luisa Santos are that: 
−  The MIC might face problems in applying different investment treaties, whose substantive 
standards may differ significantly. Therefore, she expressed her view that substantive 
standards should also be harmonised soon. 
−  The MIC might replicate the ICS’ rule that the prerogative of appointing the arbitrators is 
reserved only to one party, the State, and no longer to investors, as in the traditional ISDS 
−  As a result of the reform of substantive standards of protection in the latest investment 
chapters of EU FTAs, a competition between countries is created. For instance, after CETA, 
an EU investor in Canada has stricter rights and conditions than a foreign investor of a 
different nationality in the same Canadian market.  [**]
Lastly, COM emphasised that a crucial turning point for the Commission’s negotiations of FTAs 
and work on the MIC will be the CJEU Opinion 2/15 on the EU’s competence to conclude an FTA 
with Singapore, which will define the scope of the EU external trade policy. 
The meeting concluded with an agreement to have a meeting with the relevant BE committee in 
December 2016 before the release of the public consultation questionnaire which would also 
give a chance to discuss the broader direction of EU investment policy.  
Prepared by  [*]
, visa  [*]