Ceta Mixed Agreement

The first subparagraph of Article 133(5) EC may be concluded only if this Agreement does not contain provisions which go beyond the internal competences of the Community within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 133(6) EC and none of the areas listed in the second subparagraph of Article 133(6) EC`. Following this opinion, the EU divided its draft treaty with Singapore into a free trade agreement and an investment protection agreement (IPA). The EU has also removed investment from its recent Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan. The trade agreements with Japan and Singapore, which do not need to be ratified by member states, have entered into force. However, the original architecture of CETA, including part of the investment, has been maintained. This led to a new opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Communities on a question from Belgium on the compatibility of the ICS with EU law under CETA. In its Opinion No 1/17, analysed in this EJIL contribution, the ECJ stated that the CICS was compatible with EU law. On the basis of these two ECJ opinions and considerable political pressure, CETA was concluded as a mixed agreement that required ratification by all Member States before it could enter fully into force. .

. .