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 under Art. 4.1(b)]
[**= redactions under Art. 4.1(a) third indent]
Ref. Ares(2017)1963547 - 13/04/2017
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[**]


[**]
[**]
[**]
[**]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]

-  The comparison between the MIC and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment project 
(MAI, launched by the OECD in 1995), which ultimately collapsed. The Commission 
explained that while the MAI was an agreement encompassing both substantive and 
procedural rules on investment, the proposed MIC will only deal with dispute settlement and 
enforcement mechanisms. 
-  The link between the MIC and international agreements signed under the umbrella of the UN 
(inter alia, ILO Conventions, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights). 
The Commission emphasised that internationally agreed instruments in the fields of 
environment and labour are incorporated in the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) 
Chapter of the agreements on trade and investments that the EC negotiates, which provides 
for clear commitments to ratify and implement these instruments. On a follow-up question 
from 
[*]
 he also clarified that the MIC would interpret the TSD rules in the case of 
the EU, but essentially investment protection rules. 
[*]
 asked whether it would be advisable to request an opinion of the 
CJEU on the matter of compatibility of the MIC with the EU Treaties. In his response, the 
Commission
 referred to the EP INTA Committee meeting on 13th October 2016 and to the EPLS 
opinion on this topic and added that differently from the Accession Agreement to the ECHR 
(where the Commission considered it appropriate to request an Opinion of the CJEU), in this case 
the Commission is confident that the rules on the investment court system and the MIC are 
compatible with the Treaties. 
Lastly, on the issue of the MIC’s physical location raised by Bernd Lange,  the Commission 
explained that all discussions on location, administration, and financing are still ongoing, 
although it is already clear that the MIC (similarly to the International Criminal Court) will have 
to be designed to adapt in time in relation to membership or geographical representation of 
judges.