Hmm, prax je trochu iná..

Tu sú príklady ISDS súdov:

"For example, tobacco giant Philip Morris is demanding US$2 billion from Uruguay over health warnings on cigarette packets; Swedish polluter Vattenfall is seeking over US$3.7 billion from Germany following a democratic decision to phase out nuclear energy; and Canadian company Lone Pine is suing Canada via a US-subsidiary for CAN$250 million after the Canadian province of Quebec imposed a moratorium on shale gas extraction (fracking) over environmental concerns."

Nie je to rovnaka, ale vyssia uroven ochrany zahranicneho investora..

"First, investor-state arbitration violates the principle of “equality before the law”. It privileges ‘foreign’ investors over local entrepreneurs, citizens, and communities who do not have access to this parallel legal universe that grants extra-judicial property protection rights and procedures.

Second, it is a very one-sided process. Only companies can sue governments. Abusive corporations cannot be sued, for example, when they violate human rights.

Third, the system is not judicially independent, but has a built-in, pro-investor bias. Investor-state disputes are usually decided by a tribunal of three for-profit arbitrators. Unlike judges, they do not have a flat salary, but are paid per case. At the most commonly used tribunal, the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), arbitrators make US$3,000 a day. In a non-reciprocal system where only the investors can bring claims, this creates a strong incentive to side with them – because investor-friendly rulings pave the way for more cases and more income in the future."

Zdroj: http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2014/04/still-not-loving-isds-10-reasons-oppose-investors-super-rights-eu-trade