Ireland’s relationship with the EU-Canada trade agreement has a familiar rhythm. Every time the government thinks it has established a strong position, it is challenged in court, and the situation changes once more. This week, that person is Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan, who has filed a lawsuit against the government regarding the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2026, the law intended to enable the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, to be fully ratified.
Eileen Barrington of FP Logue solicitors, Boylan’s attorney, was given permission by Judge Brian Cregan on Friday to serve the government with a challenge to the 2026 Act. Sárán Fogarty, Boylan’s parliamentary assistant, is named as a co-plaintiff. This is very much the start of a dispute that could go on for a while, as the case is scheduled to return to court next week.
Going back to 2022 helps explain why this lawsuit is important. That year, then-Green Party TD Patrick Costello challenged the ratification of CETA before the Supreme Court, notably going against the stance of his own coalition government. The court determined that the agreement’s investor-state arbitration provisions were unconstitutional under the Irish Constitution. The main problem was quite specific: these programs, intended to resolve conflicts between governments and foreign investors, essentially circumvented Irish courts. Domestic courts would not have had any significant authority to react if a CETA tribunal had made an award against Ireland. The Supreme Court established a boundary.
President Catherine Connolly signed the 2026 Act into law this week as the government’s response to that decision. The bill addresses precisely what the Supreme Court found to be problematic and is presented as a constitutional remedy. Additionally, it quietly paves the way for the ratification of other international agreements, such as a trade agreement with Chile, that have comparable investor dispute procedures. It’s important to recognize that breadth. It implies that the government is attempting to create a legal framework for such agreements in the future rather than merely resolving one issue.
Long before this lawsuit, Boylan was outspoken about her worries. In short, she argues that the CETA’s investor court provisions make Ireland vulnerable to lawsuits from big businesses that, in her opinion, shouldn’t have a separate legal avenue to pursue claims against a sovereign state outside of its own courts. Several opposition TDs have adopted this stance, and it has some merit. Not only in Ireland, but throughout Europe, investor-state dispute procedures have drawn criticism.
It’s still unclear if the 2026 Act actually fixes the constitutional problems raised by the Supreme Court or if it just presents the same issue in a different way. Presumably, the courts will now be asked to determine that. Since 2017, CETA’s free trade provisions—which eliminate almost all tariffs between Canada and the EU—have been temporarily implemented, meaning that a large portion of the agreement is already in effect. The complete, formal ratification and, in particular, the associated investor dispute architecture are at risk in this legal challenge.
The government appears to be becoming irritated with the frequent disruptions to a deal that it believes is long overdue and economically advantageous. However, constitutional issues cannot be resolved by impatience. Ireland may have to start over if the courts concur with Boylan that the 2026 Act is inadequate.
