Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (CETA) and its Impact on Property and Zoning in Germany

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Abstract

The European Commission hopes that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA) will result in increasing wealth, more competitiveness, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. There are also plans to harmonize standards and to introduce or monitor new regulations and norms that go beyond the existing member-state legal framework and are to be safeguarded by means of regulatory collaboration and legal supervision. The debate on CETA has not yet reached planning law, construction law, or procurement law in practice. Land as immovable property is mentioned explicitly as an investment asset, and land policy is the “blind spot” in foreign investment treaties. This chapter analyzes the current dynamics for the comprehensive land policy structure in Germany. In this paper, the purpose and proportionality test of CETA—from the constitutional and national spheres down to the municipal level—will comprise of the criteria of fairness, legitimacy, the balancing of investors’ expectations, and states’ regulatory measures. This chapter explains why the standards and provisions of CETA potentially conflict with the constitutionally guaranteed principle of local self-governance in land policy. The democratic legitimacy of foreign investment treaties regarding real estate remains to be verified, since the controversial relation and distinction between lawful regulation, the fair and equitable treatment standard, and indirect expropriation, lack substantial empirical evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Leading, however still disputed cases are:Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v.The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 226;Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v.The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227 andVeteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v.The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 228 (cited as: “Yukos case”).

  2. 2.

    Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 August2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212.

  3. 3.

    Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Greece/Egypt BIT), Award, 12 April2002, 7 ICSID Reports 178;Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 April2004, 43 ILM 2004, 967.

  4. 4.

    Middle East Cement v. Egypt, Award, 12 April2002, paragraph 107.

  5. 5.

    Relevant jurisdiction can be derived from cases such asTECMED v. United Mexican States, Award 29 May2003;Occidental v. Ecuador, Award, 1 July2004;Siemens v. Argentina, Award, 6 February2007;Jan de Nul NV v. Egypt, Award, 6 November2008.

  6. 6.

    MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (Chile/Malaysia BIT), Final Award 25 May2004, 12 ICSID Reports 3; see also:Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award 18 July 2014.

  7. 7.

    MTD, Award, § 103.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., § 64.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., §§ 72–75.

  10. 10.

    Malaysia-Chile BIT; signed 11 November 1992, entered into force 4 August 1995.

  11. 11.

    Leading cases:Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (United Kingdom/Egypt BIT), Award, 8 December2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89;Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award 17 March 2006.

  12. 12.

    Leading case:Pope & Talbot v. Canada (NAFTA), Interim Award, 26 June2000, 7 ICSID Reports 69.

  13. 13.

    Leading cases:Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic (Germany/Argentina BIT), Award, 6 February2007;Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (United States/Ecuador BIT), Award, 18 August2008, 15 ICSID Reports 146.

  14. 14.

    Waste Management I, ICSID, Award, paragraph 98.

  15. 15.

    Sempra Energy v. Argentine Republic (US/Argentina BIT), Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May2005, paragraphs 300 and 301.

  16. 16.

    Leading case:Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 August2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212, paragraph 103.

  17. 17.

    Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 US 393 (1922).

  18. 18.

    Decision of the German Federal Administrative Court, 47, p. 144.

References

  • Alterman, R. (2010). Comparative analysis: A platform for cross-national learning. In R. Alterman (Ed.),Takings international. A comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights (pp. 21–74). Chicago: ABA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, I. (2003).Principles of public international law (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg, M., Griebel, J., Hobe, S., & Reinisch, A. (Eds.). (2015).International investment law (1st ed.). Baden-Baden and Munich: Nomos, Hart and C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke-White, W., & von Staden, A. (2010). The need for public law standards of review in investor-state arbitrations. In S. W. Schill (Ed.),International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 689–720). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caron, D. D., & Shirlow, E. (2015). Most-favored-nation treatment: Substantive protection. MTD v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/07. In M. N. Kinnear, G. R. Fischer, J. M. Almeida, L. F. Torres Arias, & M. U. Bidegain (Eds.),Building international investment law: The first 50 years of ICSID (pp. 399–414). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, G. C. (1962). What constitutes a taking of property under international law?British Yearbook of International Law, 38, 307–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costamagna, F. (2015). Regulating public services and international investment law. In M. Krajewski (Ed.),Services of general interest beyond the single market. External and international law dimensions (pp. 77–109). Berlin and Heidelberg: Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. (2012).Brownlie’s principles of public international law (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crema, L. (2013). Investors’ rights and well-being. Remarks on the interpretation of investment treaties in light of other rights. In T. Treves, F. Seatzu, & S. Trevisanut (Eds.),Foreign investment, international law and common concerns (pp. 50–70). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davy, B. (2012).Land policy. Planning and the spatial consequences of property. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieterich, H., Dransfeld, E., & Voß, W. (1993).Urban land & property markets in Germany. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer, R. (2002). Indirect expropriation of alien property.ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 1(1), 41–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer, R. (2005). Fair and equitable treatment: A key standard in investment treaties.International Lawyer, 39, 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escarcena, S. L. (2014).Indirect expropriation in international law. Leuven Global Governance Series. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016). EU-Canada summit: Newly signed trade agreement sets high standards for global trade. Retrieved February 6, 2017, fromhttp://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1569

  • Flessner, A. (2015). Investitionsschutz durch völkerrechtliche Verträge wie TTIP und CETA – ein Fall für das Verfassungsrecht!Recht und Politik, 3, 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortier, L. Y., & Drymer, S. L. (2004). Indirect expropriation in the law of international investment: I know it when i see it, orCaveat investor.ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 19(2), 293–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortier, L. Y., & Drymer, S. L. (2015). Indirect expropriation. In M. N. Kinnear, G. R. Fischer, J. M. Almeida, L. F. Torres Arias, & M. U. Bidegain (Eds.),Building international investment law: The first 50 years of ICSID (pp. 349–358). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gildeggen, R., & Willburger, A. (2016).What constitutes a compensation free regulation of foreign-owned property in international law? Some thoughts on the protection of foreign investment against expropriations, the states´ right to regulate, arbitrators and TTIP. Pforzheim: University of Pforzheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, A. K. (2008). Indirect expropriation. In A. Reinisch (Ed.),Standards of investment protection (pp. 151–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, M. (2008).Valuation for arbitration. Compensation standards, valuation methods and expert evidence. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (1934).Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Leipzig and Wien: Verlag Franz Deuticke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, M. (2014).Modalities for investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TTIP from a trade union perspective. Brussels: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, M. (2015a). Verfassungsrechtliche Probleme des Eigentumsschutzes durch internationales Investitionsrecht. In M. Krajewski, M. Reuß, & T. Tabbara (Eds.),Gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen des Rechts: Eigentum – Migration – Frieden und Solidarität. Gedächtnisschrift für Helmut Rittstieg (pp. 80–96). Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, M. (2015b). Introduction. In M. Krajewski (Ed.),Services of general interest beyond the single market. External and international law dimension (pp. 1–12). Berlin and Heidelberg: Asser Press and Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kriebaum, U. (2007). Regulatory takings: Balancing the interests of the investor and the state.The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 8(5), 717–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriebaum, U. (2008).Eigentumsschutz im Völkerrecht. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zum internationalen Investitionsschutz sowie zum Menschenrechtsschutz. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, A. (2013).The construction of property. Norms, institutions, challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, A. (2016). Introduction. In A. Lehavi (Ed.),Private communities and urban governance. Theoretical and comparative perspectives (pp. vii–vix). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magel, H., Thiel, F., & Espinoza, J. (2016). Bodenpolitik und Landmanagement – Eine internationale Perspektive. In W. Freeden, R. Rummel, & T. Kötter (Eds.),Handbuch Geodäsie, Band “Städtebau, Bodenordnung und Landmanagement”. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marboe, I. (2006). Compensation and damages in international law: The limits of “fair market value”.Journal of World Investment & Trade, 7, 723–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski, P. (2008). Policy issues. In P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, & C. Schreuer (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of international investment law (pp. 3–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch, A. (Ed.). (2008).Standards of investment protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch, A. (2015a). Internationales Investitionsschutzrecht. In C. Tietje (Ed.),Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (2nd ed., pp. 398–433). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch, A. (2015b). The likely content of future EU investment agreements. In M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, & A. Reinisch (Eds.),International investment law (1st ed., pp. 1884–1903). Baden-Baden and Munich: Nomos, Hart, C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabahi, B., & Birch, N. J. (2010). Comparative compensation for expropriation. In S. W. Schill (Ed.),International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 755–785). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schill, S. W. (Ed.). (2010a).International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill, S. W. (2010b). Fair and equitable treatment, the rule of law, and comparative public law. In S. W. Schill (Ed.),International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 151–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Eichstaedt, G. (2010). The federal Republic of Germany. In R. Alterman (Ed.),Takings international. A comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights (pp. 271–292). Chicago: ABA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer, C. (2006). The concept of expropriation under the ECT and other investment protection treaties. In C. Ribeiro (Ed.),Investment arbitration and the energy charter treaty, transnational dispute management (Vol. 2, pp. 108–159). Huntington, NY: JurisNet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, F. (2011). “Property entails obligations”: Land and property law in Germany.European-Asian Journal of Law and Governance, 1, 78–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, F. (2015). “Urban land grabbing” – On the debate surrounding the realignment of Berlin’s land policy. In E. Hepperle, R. Dixon-Gough, R. Mansberger, J. Paulsson, F. Reuter, & M. Yilmaz (Eds.),Challenges for governance structures in urban and regional development (pp. 95–108). Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, F. (2016). Wirtschaftsvölkerrecht bricht Baurecht? Zu den Auswirkungen des transatlantischen Investitions- und Handelsabkommens TTIP auf die Streitbeilegung und die gebaute Umwelt.ZfBR – Zeitschrift für deutsches und internationales Bau- und Vergaberecht, 6, 556–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde, K. J. (2010). A unified theory of fair and equitable treatment.N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics, 43(1), 43–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, B. H. (1975). Constructive takings under international law: A modest foray into the problem of “creeping expropriation”.Virginia Journal of International Law, 16, 103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yannaca-Small, K. (2008). Fair and equitable treatment standard: Recent developments. In A. Reinisch (Ed.),Standards of investment protection (pp. 111–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Cases

    United States

    International Arbitration

    • Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (United States/Ecuador BIT), Award, 18 August 2008, 15 ICSID Reports 146.

      Google Scholar 

    • Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Belgium-Luxembourg/Egypt BIT), Award, 6 November 2008, 2 ICSID Reports 9.

      Google Scholar 

    • Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 226.

      Google Scholar 

    • Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 August 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212.

      Google Scholar 

    • Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Greece/Egypt BIT), Award, 12 April 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 178.

      Google Scholar 

    • MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (Chile/Malaysia BIT), Final Award 25 May 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 3.

      Google Scholar 

    • Occidental Exploration and Production Co v. Republic of Ecuador (US/Ecuador BIT), Award, 1 July 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 59.

      Google Scholar 

    • Pope & Talbot v. Canada (NAFTA), Interim Award, 26 June 2000, 7 ICSID Reports 69.

      Google Scholar 

    • Sempra Energy v. Argentine Republic (US/Argentina BIT), Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005.

      Google Scholar 

    • Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic (Germany/Argentina BIT), Award, 6 February 2007.

      Google Scholar 

    • Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States (Spain/Mexico BIT), Award, 29 May 2003, 10 ICSID Reports 134.

      Google Scholar 

    • Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 228 (cited as the “Yukos case”).

      Google Scholar 

    • Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 April 2004, 43 ILM 2004, 967.

      Google Scholar 

    • Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (United Kingdom/Egypt BIT), Award, 8 December 2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89.

      Google Scholar 

    • Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227.

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt on the Main, Germany

      Fabian Thiel

    Authors
    1. Fabian Thiel
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Fabian Thiel .

    Editor information

    Editors and Affiliations

    1. Radzyner Law School, Gazit-Globe Real Estate Institute, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel

      Amnon Lehavi

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Thiel, F. (2018). The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (CETA) and its Impact on Property and Zoning in Germany. In: Lehavi, A. (eds) One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_8

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation