Tomorrow, 1 May 2009, five years have passed since the “big bang” enlargement of the European Union. The ten acceding member states were: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. (Bulgaria and Romania became EU member states on 1 January 2007.)
One of the principal aims of the European Community (European Union) is to eliminate barriers which divide Europe. For these purposes the EC (EU) activities include an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between the member states, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.
In other words, the four fundamental market freedoms which relate to free movement are not restricted to goods, services and capital, but apply to human beings as well.
New developments
Denmark lifts all and Belgium some restrictions on the free movement of workers from 1 May 2009. See the Commission’s press release: European Commission welcomes the decisions by Belgium and Denmark to open their labour markets (29 April 2009).
For an overview of the transitional provisions concerning workers from you can turn to the web page Enlargement - transitional provisions and the links you find there.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 30 April 2009
European Economic and Social Committee Opinions
The (European) Economic and Social Committee consists of representatives of organised civil society, and it must be consulted by the Council or by the Commission where the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) so provides.
The EESC (or ESC) may be consulted in other cases, as well as by the European Parliament. The EESC may issue opinions on its own initiative.
The relevant treaty provisions on this advisory body are Articles 257 to 267 TEC (in the Treaty of Lisbon Articles 300 to 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; TFEU).
Opinions
As with the Committee of the Regions, the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee is a mandatory requirement for Community legislation, when provided by the TEC, and the opinion is mentioned in the Preamble of the act.
For a student or researcher digging deeper into a Community act, the opinion is an essential reference.
The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) is the prime source for official materials on the European Union.
Far from the hectic pace of public information on the web and daily news reporting, the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee are published in the OJEU with some delay.
The latest example is today’s OJEU 30.4.2009 C 100, where you find the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee of the 448th plenary session held on 21 to 23 October 2008.
In other words, official publication takes place about six months after the session. Luckily, you can search the opinions by later sessions on the EESC web page Opinion Search.
Ralf Grahn
The EESC (or ESC) may be consulted in other cases, as well as by the European Parliament. The EESC may issue opinions on its own initiative.
The relevant treaty provisions on this advisory body are Articles 257 to 267 TEC (in the Treaty of Lisbon Articles 300 to 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; TFEU).
Opinions
As with the Committee of the Regions, the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee is a mandatory requirement for Community legislation, when provided by the TEC, and the opinion is mentioned in the Preamble of the act.
For a student or researcher digging deeper into a Community act, the opinion is an essential reference.
The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) is the prime source for official materials on the European Union.
Far from the hectic pace of public information on the web and daily news reporting, the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee are published in the OJEU with some delay.
The latest example is today’s OJEU 30.4.2009 C 100, where you find the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee of the 448th plenary session held on 21 to 23 October 2008.
In other words, official publication takes place about six months after the session. Luckily, you can search the opinions by later sessions on the EESC web page Opinion Search.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Cheaper Community trade marks
From 1 May 2009 the registration of a Community trade mark becomes cheaper. Basically this happens by setting the registration fee for an application at zero euros.
OHIM, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), based in Alicante (Spain) has not only covered its costs, but has built up substantial cash reserves.
The time has come to adjust the fees to the real costs of OHIM. This will benefit businesses registering Community-wide trade marks.
The move has been brewing for a long time, but the official confirmation comes only today, in the form of Commission Regulation (EC) No 355/2009 of 31 March 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 30.4.2009 L 109/3.
Ralf Grahn
OHIM, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), based in Alicante (Spain) has not only covered its costs, but has built up substantial cash reserves.
The time has come to adjust the fees to the real costs of OHIM. This will benefit businesses registering Community-wide trade marks.
The move has been brewing for a long time, but the official confirmation comes only today, in the form of Commission Regulation (EC) No 355/2009 of 31 March 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 30.4.2009 L 109/3.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
European Union: New State Aid Simplification Package
Despite its intensive work on state aid rules and decisions related to the financial and economic crisis, the Commission has launched two measures aiming at general state aid reform.
The European Commission has published a State Aid Simplification Package, which consists of two parts. For a quick view, see press release State aid: Commission adopts Simplification Package to accelerate state aid decisions (29 April 2009; IP/09/659).
The background MEMO/09/208, State aid: Commission adopts Best Practices Code and Simplified Procedure to accelerate state aid decisions – frequently asked questions, offers more information.
***
Simplified procedure
The Notice from the Commission on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State aid (Text with EEA relevance) has no date or number, but this is probably the document in question.
***
Best Practice Code
The Notice from the Commission on a Best Practices Code on the conduct of State aid control proceedings lacks both date and number, but this is probably the second document meant by the Commission.
***
State aid procedure
The Commission > Competition > State aid > State aid control > Legislation > Rules on Procedure web pages offer background but also an array of documents, including the two latest Notices.
There are also Citizen Summaries available.
Despite the pressures, clear identifiers would help readers.
Ralf Grahn
The European Commission has published a State Aid Simplification Package, which consists of two parts. For a quick view, see press release State aid: Commission adopts Simplification Package to accelerate state aid decisions (29 April 2009; IP/09/659).
The background MEMO/09/208, State aid: Commission adopts Best Practices Code and Simplified Procedure to accelerate state aid decisions – frequently asked questions, offers more information.
***
Simplified procedure
The Notice from the Commission on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State aid (Text with EEA relevance) has no date or number, but this is probably the document in question.
***
Best Practice Code
The Notice from the Commission on a Best Practices Code on the conduct of State aid control proceedings lacks both date and number, but this is probably the second document meant by the Commission.
***
State aid procedure
The Commission > Competition > State aid > State aid control > Legislation > Rules on Procedure web pages offer background but also an array of documents, including the two latest Notices.
There are also Citizen Summaries available.
Despite the pressures, clear identifiers would help readers.
Ralf Grahn
William Hague: Conservative Party for EU disintegration
Hat tip to Open Europe’s press summary for drawing my attention to the Timesonline interview: We’ll win the next election, says William Hague (29 April 2009).
There are several interesting replies concerning the future relations between the United Kingdom led by a Tory government and the European Union.
According to Hague, they would be active, energetic and engaged members of the EU.
The Conservative Party would spell out in its manifesto what action it would take to reverse European integration.
***
Some people may perceive a contradiction between the two statements.
Integration is a process bringing the people and member states of Europe closer. Reverse integration points in the opposite direction: disintegration.
***
Great Britain is about to change from standing on the brake to shifting into reverse gear.
It is high time for the core of the European Union to embark on a reform course and to step on the accelerator, without the United Kingdom.
Ralf Grahn
There are several interesting replies concerning the future relations between the United Kingdom led by a Tory government and the European Union.
According to Hague, they would be active, energetic and engaged members of the EU.
The Conservative Party would spell out in its manifesto what action it would take to reverse European integration.
***
Some people may perceive a contradiction between the two statements.
Integration is a process bringing the people and member states of Europe closer. Reverse integration points in the opposite direction: disintegration.
***
Great Britain is about to change from standing on the brake to shifting into reverse gear.
It is high time for the core of the European Union to embark on a reform course and to step on the accelerator, without the United Kingdom.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Crime victims (new documents)
We add a few complementary references to Commission documents concerning the standing of crime victims and compensation to victims of crime, which we wrote about in an earlier blog post: EU: Victims of crime & compensation (8 April 2009).
***
Standing of crime victims
Press release
Commission adopts report on implementation of framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (21 April 2009; IP/09/549)
The Commission has adopted the report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. This report was drawn up in accordance with Article 18 of the Framework Decision.
Report
The documents – COM or SEC – can be found through the Eur-Lex web portal’s pages on preparatory acts.
Brussels, 20.4.2009
COM(2009) 166 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA)
[SEC(2009) 476]
Staff working document
Brussels, 20.4.2009
SEC(2009) 476
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the COMMISSION'S REPORT based on article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on standing of victims in criminal proceedings [COM(2009)166 final]
***
Compensation for crime victims
European Union makes it easier for crime victims to obtain compensation (21 April 2009¸IP//09/548)
The Commission has adopted the Report on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, which aims to make it easier for victims to obtain compensation in cross-border situations. The report was produced in accordance with Article 19 of the Directive.
Summary on crime victims
Report on the implementation of the Directive on compensation to crime victims (21 April 2009; MEMO/09/159)
Directive 2004/80/EC
Summary for the attention of Vice-President J. Barrot
Report
Brussels, 20.4.2009
COM(2009) 170 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims
[SEC(2009) 495]
Staff working document
Brussels, 20.4.2009
SEC (2009) 495
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
accompanying document
TO THE REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims
[COM (2009) 170 final]
Ralf Grahn
***
Standing of crime victims
Press release
Commission adopts report on implementation of framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (21 April 2009; IP/09/549)
The Commission has adopted the report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. This report was drawn up in accordance with Article 18 of the Framework Decision.
Report
The documents – COM or SEC – can be found through the Eur-Lex web portal’s pages on preparatory acts.
Brussels, 20.4.2009
COM(2009) 166 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA)
[SEC(2009) 476]
Staff working document
Brussels, 20.4.2009
SEC(2009) 476
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the COMMISSION'S REPORT based on article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on standing of victims in criminal proceedings [COM(2009)166 final]
***
Compensation for crime victims
European Union makes it easier for crime victims to obtain compensation (21 April 2009¸IP//09/548)
The Commission has adopted the Report on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, which aims to make it easier for victims to obtain compensation in cross-border situations. The report was produced in accordance with Article 19 of the Directive.
Summary on crime victims
Report on the implementation of the Directive on compensation to crime victims (21 April 2009; MEMO/09/159)
Directive 2004/80/EC
Summary for the attention of Vice-President J. Barrot
Report
Brussels, 20.4.2009
COM(2009) 170 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims
[SEC(2009) 495]
Staff working document
Brussels, 20.4.2009
SEC (2009) 495
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
accompanying document
TO THE REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims
[COM (2009) 170 final]
Ralf Grahn
EU: Brussels I Regulation (new documents)
When we wrote about the Brussels I Regulation, we were unable to locate the report and the green paper referred to in the Commission’s press releases.
They have now been posted on the Eur-Lex pages dedicated to preparatory acts, among COM documents:
Brussels I Regulation report
Brussels, 21.4.2009
COM(2009) 174 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Green paper Brussels I Regulation
Brussels, 21.4.2009
COM(2009) 175 final
GREEN PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS
***
Overview
IP/09/606
We have the Commission’s press release: European citizens and business to benefit from greater access to justice - strengthening co-operation in civil and commercial matters (21 April 2009; IP/09/606).
According to the press release, on 21 April, the Commission adopted a report and a green paper on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement in civil and commercial matters. This Regulation, widely known as the "Brussels I Regulation", is the matrix of European judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. It aims at providing the legal support for the good functioning of the internal market, addressing two key questions which arise in the event of a dispute involving natural or legal persons from different Member States:
• The courts of which Member States shall have jurisdiction to rule on the dispute;
• How the judgment given by that court will be recognised and enforced in the other Member States.
MEMO/09/169
Report and Green paper on the review and application of regulation (ec) no 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (21 April 2009; MEMO/09/169)
On 21 April 2009, the Commission adopted a report and a green paper on the functioning of the existing rules on jurisdiction of the courts and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. It concludes that time has come to achieve a free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the European Union on the basis of mutual recognition of judgments among Member States.
Ralf Grahn
They have now been posted on the Eur-Lex pages dedicated to preparatory acts, among COM documents:
Brussels I Regulation report
Brussels, 21.4.2009
COM(2009) 174 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Green paper Brussels I Regulation
Brussels, 21.4.2009
COM(2009) 175 final
GREEN PAPER ON THE REVIEW OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS
***
Overview
IP/09/606
We have the Commission’s press release: European citizens and business to benefit from greater access to justice - strengthening co-operation in civil and commercial matters (21 April 2009; IP/09/606).
According to the press release, on 21 April, the Commission adopted a report and a green paper on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement in civil and commercial matters. This Regulation, widely known as the "Brussels I Regulation", is the matrix of European judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. It aims at providing the legal support for the good functioning of the internal market, addressing two key questions which arise in the event of a dispute involving natural or legal persons from different Member States:
• The courts of which Member States shall have jurisdiction to rule on the dispute;
• How the judgment given by that court will be recognised and enforced in the other Member States.
MEMO/09/169
Report and Green paper on the review and application of regulation (ec) no 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (21 April 2009; MEMO/09/169)
On 21 April 2009, the Commission adopted a report and a green paper on the functioning of the existing rules on jurisdiction of the courts and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. It concludes that time has come to achieve a free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the European Union on the basis of mutual recognition of judgments among Member States.
Ralf Grahn
Start updating, Jacques Barrot! (JHA)
The Commissioner in charge is Jacques Barrot: Welcome to the European Union’s area of freedom security and justice …
I was looking for information about the European Commission’s Justice and Home Affairs. What did I find? Or perhaps I should rephrase: What did I not find on the web pages of Barrot’s services?
The answer to the first question is: Almost no updated information.
The answer to the second question is: Antiquated information about one of the most rapidly evolving policy areas of the European Union.
***
General page
The latest update on the introductory page about the area of freedom, security and justice is the third annual report or scoreboard, adopted 2 July 2008.
Newsroom
The so called Newsroom had an item on Europol’s report about the fight against terrorism, from 21 April 2009.
Not bad, being just a week old? But since then, the Commission has communicated on other issues, without updating its Newsroom page.
Documentation centre
Someone looking for reports, Green Papers and proposals would probably go to the Documentation centre. What would he find?
What he finds is the consolidated acquis of the EU under Title IV TEC and Title VI TEU, updated in October 2008.
This is a valuable compilation of information sources, but where are the new proposals and reports?
Funding opportunities
The page on funding opportunities has actually been updated 1 April 2009.
Jacques Barrot
The Commission Vice-President’s own web page contains a greeting and undated wishes for the European elections.
Directorate-General
The web page of Commissioner Barrot’s services, the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, is a timeless piece, without any fresh contents.
Relevant web sites
There are links to various external web sites, but no contents on the web page.
***
Conclusions
Fresh information should be on offer right where you land, but the main category pages are stale and almost useless if you look for updated information. Even if you start exploring the links, you will find that the JHA D-G seems to have other things on its mind than to inform the public in a timely manner.
I am perplexed. During Franco Frattini’s time, the JHA web pages were updated swiftly, with new documents available and easy to find. Now you get the feeling that you are entering the Kingdom of Sleep. What has happened and why?
The D-G’s web pages are unreliable, because you don’t know how much information is missing. The only useful pages for fresh information seem to be through the link to the latest press releases, but they do not link to the documents in question. You have to search for them separately. This makes the task harder.
To conclude: Stale and useless. A profound change of attitude plus a quick overhaul are in order.
Ralf Grahn
I was looking for information about the European Commission’s Justice and Home Affairs. What did I find? Or perhaps I should rephrase: What did I not find on the web pages of Barrot’s services?
The answer to the first question is: Almost no updated information.
The answer to the second question is: Antiquated information about one of the most rapidly evolving policy areas of the European Union.
***
General page
The latest update on the introductory page about the area of freedom, security and justice is the third annual report or scoreboard, adopted 2 July 2008.
Newsroom
The so called Newsroom had an item on Europol’s report about the fight against terrorism, from 21 April 2009.
Not bad, being just a week old? But since then, the Commission has communicated on other issues, without updating its Newsroom page.
Documentation centre
Someone looking for reports, Green Papers and proposals would probably go to the Documentation centre. What would he find?
What he finds is the consolidated acquis of the EU under Title IV TEC and Title VI TEU, updated in October 2008.
This is a valuable compilation of information sources, but where are the new proposals and reports?
Funding opportunities
The page on funding opportunities has actually been updated 1 April 2009.
Jacques Barrot
The Commission Vice-President’s own web page contains a greeting and undated wishes for the European elections.
Directorate-General
The web page of Commissioner Barrot’s services, the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, is a timeless piece, without any fresh contents.
Relevant web sites
There are links to various external web sites, but no contents on the web page.
***
Conclusions
Fresh information should be on offer right where you land, but the main category pages are stale and almost useless if you look for updated information. Even if you start exploring the links, you will find that the JHA D-G seems to have other things on its mind than to inform the public in a timely manner.
I am perplexed. During Franco Frattini’s time, the JHA web pages were updated swiftly, with new documents available and easy to find. Now you get the feeling that you are entering the Kingdom of Sleep. What has happened and why?
The D-G’s web pages are unreliable, because you don’t know how much information is missing. The only useful pages for fresh information seem to be through the link to the latest press releases, but they do not link to the documents in question. You have to search for them separately. This makes the task harder.
To conclude: Stale and useless. A profound change of attitude plus a quick overhaul are in order.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
European Ombudsman: Annual Report 2008
P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, the European Ombudsman, has published his Annual Report for 2008 (27 April 2009).
The full 100 page report is available in English, but summaries are on offer in the other official languages of the European Union.
This is how the report explains its own structure:
The structure of the new Report is designed to guide the reader logically from an explanation of the Ombudsman's mandate and procedures (Chapter 2), to concrete case-handling activity in 2008 (Chapter 3), outreach activities (Chapter 4) and internal developments concerning personnel and budget (Chapter 5). The Report begins, as before, with an introduction by the Ombudsman, followed by an Executive Summary (Chapter 1).
***
European Ombudsman: Legal background
The core provision on the European Ombudsman is Article 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC):
Article 195 TEC
1. The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
In accordance with his duties, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him direct or through a Member of the European Parliament, except where the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings. Where the Ombudsman establishes an instance of maladministration, he shall refer the matter to the institution concerned, which shall have a period of three months in which to inform him of its views. The Ombudsman shall then forward a report to the European Parliament and the institution concerned. The person lodging the complaint shall be informed of the outcome of such inquiries.
The Ombudsman shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the outcome of his inquiries.
2. The Ombudsman shall be appointed after each election of the European Parliament for the duration of its term of office. The Ombudsman shall be eligible for reappointment.
The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Court of Justice at the request of the European Parliament if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he is guilty of serious misconduct.
3. The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his duties. In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any body. The Ombudsman may not, during his term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
4. The European Parliament shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.
***
Planning a complaint?
If you are planning a complaint to the European Ombudsman, you (or your advisor) would do well to read the Annual Report. It contains a lot of information about admissibility and the handling of inquiries.
Ralf Grahn
The full 100 page report is available in English, but summaries are on offer in the other official languages of the European Union.
This is how the report explains its own structure:
The structure of the new Report is designed to guide the reader logically from an explanation of the Ombudsman's mandate and procedures (Chapter 2), to concrete case-handling activity in 2008 (Chapter 3), outreach activities (Chapter 4) and internal developments concerning personnel and budget (Chapter 5). The Report begins, as before, with an introduction by the Ombudsman, followed by an Executive Summary (Chapter 1).
***
European Ombudsman: Legal background
The core provision on the European Ombudsman is Article 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC):
Article 195 TEC
1. The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
In accordance with his duties, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him direct or through a Member of the European Parliament, except where the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings. Where the Ombudsman establishes an instance of maladministration, he shall refer the matter to the institution concerned, which shall have a period of three months in which to inform him of its views. The Ombudsman shall then forward a report to the European Parliament and the institution concerned. The person lodging the complaint shall be informed of the outcome of such inquiries.
The Ombudsman shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the outcome of his inquiries.
2. The Ombudsman shall be appointed after each election of the European Parliament for the duration of its term of office. The Ombudsman shall be eligible for reappointment.
The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Court of Justice at the request of the European Parliament if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he is guilty of serious misconduct.
3. The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his duties. In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any body. The Ombudsman may not, during his term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
4. The European Parliament shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.
***
Planning a complaint?
If you are planning a complaint to the European Ombudsman, you (or your advisor) would do well to read the Annual Report. It contains a lot of information about admissibility and the handling of inquiries.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Human rights legislation & thematic files
Eur-Lex, the legal portal to legislation of the European Union (European Community), has published a new thematic file on human rights, one of the founding values.
The aim of a thematic file is to present core legislation, preparatory acts and other acts in a certain area in a convenient form for users.
The following thematic files offering EU legal materials are available:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/dossier/index.htm
• Human rights (23/04/2009)
• Possession of fire arms (26/03/2009)
• European health strategy (13/03/2009)
• European Union policy in the field of research and innovation (27/01/2009)
• The visual characteristics of the euro coins (29/01/2009)
• Endangered species (09/12/2008)
• Rules on alcohol consumption (18/11/2008)
• Prevention and recycling of waste (25/09/2008)
• Multilingualism in the EU (15/09/2008)
• Air safety (10/09/2008)
• Climate change (27/08/2008)
• European Neighbourhood Policy (25/08/2008)
• Air passenger rights in the European Union (19/08/2008)
• External relations EU - Turkey (18/08/2008)
• Immigration - Asylum (08/08/2008)
• Customs Tariff (31/07/2008)
• Avian influenza (30/07/2008)
• Fight against terrorism (16/07/2008)
• Personal Data Protection (10/07/2008)
• Campaign against smoking (08/07/2008)
• Recognition of diplomas and qualifications in the European Union (26/06/2008)
• Protection of children (26/05/2008)
• Travelling and disabilities (15/05/2008)
• Employment (24/04/2008)
• Protection of privacy (09/04/2008)
• Money laundering (27/03/2008)
• Freedom of expression (04/03/2008)
• Non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all in the EU (01/02/2008)
• Consumer protection (15/11/2007)
• Humanitarian aid (04/10/2007)
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (19/07/2007)
• The fight against corruption (16/05/2007)
• Value added tax (VAT) (29/11/2006)
• Cosmetic products (25/10/2006)
• Food safety (28/09/2006)
• Football (06/06/2006)
• Lisbon Strategy (17/05/2006)
• Security of energy supply (07/02/2006)
Ralf Grahn
The aim of a thematic file is to present core legislation, preparatory acts and other acts in a certain area in a convenient form for users.
The following thematic files offering EU legal materials are available:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/dossier/index.htm
• Human rights (23/04/2009)
• Possession of fire arms (26/03/2009)
• European health strategy (13/03/2009)
• European Union policy in the field of research and innovation (27/01/2009)
• The visual characteristics of the euro coins (29/01/2009)
• Endangered species (09/12/2008)
• Rules on alcohol consumption (18/11/2008)
• Prevention and recycling of waste (25/09/2008)
• Multilingualism in the EU (15/09/2008)
• Air safety (10/09/2008)
• Climate change (27/08/2008)
• European Neighbourhood Policy (25/08/2008)
• Air passenger rights in the European Union (19/08/2008)
• External relations EU - Turkey (18/08/2008)
• Immigration - Asylum (08/08/2008)
• Customs Tariff (31/07/2008)
• Avian influenza (30/07/2008)
• Fight against terrorism (16/07/2008)
• Personal Data Protection (10/07/2008)
• Campaign against smoking (08/07/2008)
• Recognition of diplomas and qualifications in the European Union (26/06/2008)
• Protection of children (26/05/2008)
• Travelling and disabilities (15/05/2008)
• Employment (24/04/2008)
• Protection of privacy (09/04/2008)
• Money laundering (27/03/2008)
• Freedom of expression (04/03/2008)
• Non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all in the EU (01/02/2008)
• Consumer protection (15/11/2007)
• Humanitarian aid (04/10/2007)
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (19/07/2007)
• The fight against corruption (16/05/2007)
• Value added tax (VAT) (29/11/2006)
• Cosmetic products (25/10/2006)
• Food safety (28/09/2006)
• Football (06/06/2006)
• Lisbon Strategy (17/05/2006)
• Security of energy supply (07/02/2006)
Ralf Grahn
Finland: Government Report on EU Policy (now in English)
When the Government of Finland published its Report on EU policy on 8 April 2009, it promised that an English version would be made available later (in addition to the Finnish and Swedish texts published initially).
The English version has now been published, and it is available for free.
The Government Report on EU Policy (Prime Minister’s Office Publications | 20/2009; 44 pages) has been given three sub-headings:
An empowered Union in the world
An empowered citizen in the Union
An influential Finland in Europe
The abstract offers the following descrpiton of the publication:
Abstract
The Government Report on EU Policy analyses the development of the European Union and the significance of EU membership to Finland. The report also lays down basic principles and key objectives for Finland’s EU policy and considers ways to develop the exercise of influence in the EU. Finland’s priorities in the European Union are related to a Europe of citizens, the economic success of Europe and the EU’s role as a prominent global actor.
Finland’s EU policy is based on constructive exercise of influence. The present report will serve as a basis for a future project aimed at developing the coordination of EU issues and tools for exerting influence in the EU.
Ralf Grahn
The English version has now been published, and it is available for free.
The Government Report on EU Policy (Prime Minister’s Office Publications | 20/2009; 44 pages) has been given three sub-headings:
An empowered Union in the world
An empowered citizen in the Union
An influential Finland in Europe
The abstract offers the following descrpiton of the publication:
Abstract
The Government Report on EU Policy analyses the development of the European Union and the significance of EU membership to Finland. The report also lays down basic principles and key objectives for Finland’s EU policy and considers ways to develop the exercise of influence in the EU. Finland’s priorities in the European Union are related to a Europe of citizens, the economic success of Europe and the EU’s role as a prominent global actor.
Finland’s EU policy is based on constructive exercise of influence. The present report will serve as a basis for a future project aimed at developing the coordination of EU issues and tools for exerting influence in the EU.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 27 April 2009
eLibrary of EU law and politics: Grahnlaw
Grahnlaw blog post number 1,000 is a reason to take stock. Since April 2007 Grahnlaw has grown into a small electronic library of EU law and politics.
Educational purpose
The main purpose of Grahnlaw is to provide education for citizens and businesses.
***
Beginnings
In the beginning, I looked at the United States Constitution, the European Court of Human Rights and at deciding moments in the history of European integration. Later, current EU politics and the Reform Treaty of the European Union became the main themes.
***
EU law
When the Council decided not to publish a readable, consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon, I started looking for ‘private’ consolidations of and materials on the new treaties, as well as campaigning for the publication of official consolidated versions in all the EU treaty languages.
I also began to present my own consolidated treaty texts, Article by Article. The Treaty on European Union (TEU) has been treated (more or less in full). The Council belatedly decided to publish the new treaties in a consolidated version
Some of the TEU posts have been revisited, and there are by now blog posts on about two thirds of the Articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Before the current detour viewing the special legislative procedures, we were among the institutional TFEU provisions of the Lisbon Treaty dealing with the Council.
***
EU politics
The treaty posts have been interspersed with discussion about EU politics, especially questions about democratic legitimacy and accountability. The negative result in the Irish referendum led to long exchanges about the future of the European Union. There have been a number of posts on the parliamentary ratification processes in member states, but the Lisbon Treaty saga is still unfinished.
Ahead of the European elections in June 2009, there have been posts on legal and political aspects of EU level democracy and its imperfections.
Both legal and political posts try to be factually correct and to offer materials and references for interested readers. I am grateful for discussion, as well as remarks on possible mistakes.
The blog’s motto “for a democratic European Union” means that Grahnlaw is not ideologically neutral. The general interest and an EU citizen’s perspective form the basis for observations, to the extent possible.
This does not exclude articles from or about individual countries (my own included), but I write independently from member states and the EU institutions.
***
Business interests
Novel themes have appeared, below the treaty level. Exploration of the practical side of the European Union (European Community) is ongoing.
I have noticed that the internal market (single market) including public procurement and competition including state aid, as well as enterprise policies (SMEs), are of interest to businesses, governments and other legal practitioners within and outside the European Economic Area (EEA).
EU residents are interested in their rights under Community legislation.
.
***
Long tail
I have noticed that many readers arrive as a result of web searches. The blog posts have a long tail. Newer posts may attract more readers, but on a single day, readers may access perhaps two hundred different blog posts.
Sometimes the tail is even too long. The search engine may have suggested an outdated entry, when there are several newer and more relevant posts on the subject. At times, using the search options within the blog or looking at the contents or headlines of newer posts might lead to fresher information.
***
Discussion
This virtual EU library appreciates comments, as well as hints about books and publications on EU law and politics. I have added a number of blogs and web sites to my blog roll, but suggestions are welcome.
Blogging is one reason to follow what other Euroblogs write. Bloggingportal.eu and other aggregators are a great help to keep track of discussions.
Sadly, after receiving too much dubious spam “comments”, I felt that I had to start monitoring comments before they appear. Spam submissions have practically disappeared, but comments have to wait for approval.
Writing about EU law and politics has been a passion of mine for a number of years. Some of my earlier contributions on EU themes can still be found in Swedish and Finnish on various forums and my other blogs (although some materials have disappeared).
Starting a blog in English was a way to join the Euroblogosphere and to contribute to a European public sphere. After two years, I feel that Grahnlaw in English serves this purpose.
About three quarters of the readers come from Europe and about one in five from North America, which leaves a readership of perhaps five percent from the rest of the world.
***
Why Euroblogging?
The educational motive is not one-sided. As a writer and ‘e-librarian’, I can hope to educate my readers, but I certainly educate myself.
Teaching is said to be the best way to learn. Writing is but a form of teaching.
In addition to possible altruistic motives, there are selfish and practical ones: Blogging provides the discipline to prepare for speaking engagements, teaching stints and providing advice for clients.
Last, but not least, I enjoy writing.
***
Future
Writing and posting is a process, and the priorities shift over time. At this moment, I see three areas or categories for future posts:
1) Lisbon Treaty (the treaties): Fairly soon a return to the systematic presentation of the Treaty of Lisbon (and the existing provisions). The treaty may enter into force, but if it does not, it is still going to remain the point of reference for discussions about EU Law for some time. (Despite its shortcomings, the Lisbon Treaty is better and more readable than the existing treaties.)
2) EU business and citizens: Highlighting the existence or some general aspects of new legislation and developments concerning businesses and individuals in cross-border situations.
3) EU politics: Facts and opinions with regard to EU citizenship and democratic principles at EU level.
Comments on the blog and the individual posts are welcome, although the blog is not a medium for offering legal advice.
Ralf Grahn
Educational purpose
The main purpose of Grahnlaw is to provide education for citizens and businesses.
***
Beginnings
In the beginning, I looked at the United States Constitution, the European Court of Human Rights and at deciding moments in the history of European integration. Later, current EU politics and the Reform Treaty of the European Union became the main themes.
***
EU law
When the Council decided not to publish a readable, consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon, I started looking for ‘private’ consolidations of and materials on the new treaties, as well as campaigning for the publication of official consolidated versions in all the EU treaty languages.
I also began to present my own consolidated treaty texts, Article by Article. The Treaty on European Union (TEU) has been treated (more or less in full). The Council belatedly decided to publish the new treaties in a consolidated version
Some of the TEU posts have been revisited, and there are by now blog posts on about two thirds of the Articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Before the current detour viewing the special legislative procedures, we were among the institutional TFEU provisions of the Lisbon Treaty dealing with the Council.
***
EU politics
The treaty posts have been interspersed with discussion about EU politics, especially questions about democratic legitimacy and accountability. The negative result in the Irish referendum led to long exchanges about the future of the European Union. There have been a number of posts on the parliamentary ratification processes in member states, but the Lisbon Treaty saga is still unfinished.
Ahead of the European elections in June 2009, there have been posts on legal and political aspects of EU level democracy and its imperfections.
Both legal and political posts try to be factually correct and to offer materials and references for interested readers. I am grateful for discussion, as well as remarks on possible mistakes.
The blog’s motto “for a democratic European Union” means that Grahnlaw is not ideologically neutral. The general interest and an EU citizen’s perspective form the basis for observations, to the extent possible.
This does not exclude articles from or about individual countries (my own included), but I write independently from member states and the EU institutions.
***
Business interests
Novel themes have appeared, below the treaty level. Exploration of the practical side of the European Union (European Community) is ongoing.
I have noticed that the internal market (single market) including public procurement and competition including state aid, as well as enterprise policies (SMEs), are of interest to businesses, governments and other legal practitioners within and outside the European Economic Area (EEA).
EU residents are interested in their rights under Community legislation.
.
***
Long tail
I have noticed that many readers arrive as a result of web searches. The blog posts have a long tail. Newer posts may attract more readers, but on a single day, readers may access perhaps two hundred different blog posts.
Sometimes the tail is even too long. The search engine may have suggested an outdated entry, when there are several newer and more relevant posts on the subject. At times, using the search options within the blog or looking at the contents or headlines of newer posts might lead to fresher information.
***
Discussion
This virtual EU library appreciates comments, as well as hints about books and publications on EU law and politics. I have added a number of blogs and web sites to my blog roll, but suggestions are welcome.
Blogging is one reason to follow what other Euroblogs write. Bloggingportal.eu and other aggregators are a great help to keep track of discussions.
Sadly, after receiving too much dubious spam “comments”, I felt that I had to start monitoring comments before they appear. Spam submissions have practically disappeared, but comments have to wait for approval.
Writing about EU law and politics has been a passion of mine for a number of years. Some of my earlier contributions on EU themes can still be found in Swedish and Finnish on various forums and my other blogs (although some materials have disappeared).
Starting a blog in English was a way to join the Euroblogosphere and to contribute to a European public sphere. After two years, I feel that Grahnlaw in English serves this purpose.
About three quarters of the readers come from Europe and about one in five from North America, which leaves a readership of perhaps five percent from the rest of the world.
***
Why Euroblogging?
The educational motive is not one-sided. As a writer and ‘e-librarian’, I can hope to educate my readers, but I certainly educate myself.
Teaching is said to be the best way to learn. Writing is but a form of teaching.
In addition to possible altruistic motives, there are selfish and practical ones: Blogging provides the discipline to prepare for speaking engagements, teaching stints and providing advice for clients.
Last, but not least, I enjoy writing.
***
Future
Writing and posting is a process, and the priorities shift over time. At this moment, I see three areas or categories for future posts:
1) Lisbon Treaty (the treaties): Fairly soon a return to the systematic presentation of the Treaty of Lisbon (and the existing provisions). The treaty may enter into force, but if it does not, it is still going to remain the point of reference for discussions about EU Law for some time. (Despite its shortcomings, the Lisbon Treaty is better and more readable than the existing treaties.)
2) EU business and citizens: Highlighting the existence or some general aspects of new legislation and developments concerning businesses and individuals in cross-border situations.
3) EU politics: Facts and opinions with regard to EU citizenship and democratic principles at EU level.
Comments on the blog and the individual posts are welcome, although the blog is not a medium for offering legal advice.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (IX; EP powers)
When a special legislative procedure is mentioned in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is normally an indication that at least one member state of the European Union has been reticent about attributing powers to the EU and even more negative about conferring ‘equal’ powers to the European Parliament, if the EU ever legislates on the issues in question.
Therefore, we have looked at the areas in the context of our series on the Council’s competences, because the position of the European Parliament is usually marginal.
But there are a few notable exceptions, in questions closely related to the European Parliament. In these areas the EP initiates legislation according to a special legislative procedure. Our first example was mentioned in post VII of this series. Here a few more examples will follow.
Our Odyssey of the special legislative procedure continues through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, officially the Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Initiated by European Parliament
MEPs’ Statute
The possible European election code or at least the common principles for the European elections, as well as the Duff report on possible future reforms, were mentioned in post number VII on the special legislative procedure. Here the Council is still the legislator, with the consent of the European Parliament (and possibly on its initiative).
But one of the rare instances of legislation officially initiated by the European Parliament is found in the second paragraph of Article 223 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of Members of the European Parliament (Members Statute) are laid down by a special legislative procedure. The Commission gives an opinion and the Council’s approval is needed, by unanimity if the rules relate to taxation. The provision can be seen as an expression of the EP’s internal autonomy.
Article 223(2) TFEU
(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)
1. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
2. The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.
***
Right of inquiry
Article 226 TFEU lays down the right for the European Parliament to set up a temporary Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of EU law.
The European Parliament creates the detailed rules concerning the right of inquiry by a special legislative procedure, but it needs the consent of the Council and the Commission, as laid down in the third subparagraph. The provision can be seen as an expression of the EP’s internal autonomy:
The detailed provisions governing the exercise of the right of inquiry shall be determined by the European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after obtaining the consent of the Council and the Commission.
***
European Ombudsman
The European Ombudsman, who examines complaints from citizens, works independently but resides in conjunction with the European Parliament. Therefore the EP has been given the leading role in devising the rules concerning the Ombudsman’s duties:
Article 228(4) TFEU
4. The European Parliament acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.
Ralf Grahn
Therefore, we have looked at the areas in the context of our series on the Council’s competences, because the position of the European Parliament is usually marginal.
But there are a few notable exceptions, in questions closely related to the European Parliament. In these areas the EP initiates legislation according to a special legislative procedure. Our first example was mentioned in post VII of this series. Here a few more examples will follow.
Our Odyssey of the special legislative procedure continues through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, officially the Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Initiated by European Parliament
MEPs’ Statute
The possible European election code or at least the common principles for the European elections, as well as the Duff report on possible future reforms, were mentioned in post number VII on the special legislative procedure. Here the Council is still the legislator, with the consent of the European Parliament (and possibly on its initiative).
But one of the rare instances of legislation officially initiated by the European Parliament is found in the second paragraph of Article 223 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of Members of the European Parliament (Members Statute) are laid down by a special legislative procedure. The Commission gives an opinion and the Council’s approval is needed, by unanimity if the rules relate to taxation. The provision can be seen as an expression of the EP’s internal autonomy.
Article 223(2) TFEU
(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)
1. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
2. The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.
***
Right of inquiry
Article 226 TFEU lays down the right for the European Parliament to set up a temporary Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of EU law.
The European Parliament creates the detailed rules concerning the right of inquiry by a special legislative procedure, but it needs the consent of the Council and the Commission, as laid down in the third subparagraph. The provision can be seen as an expression of the EP’s internal autonomy:
The detailed provisions governing the exercise of the right of inquiry shall be determined by the European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after obtaining the consent of the Council and the Commission.
***
European Ombudsman
The European Ombudsman, who examines complaints from citizens, works independently but resides in conjunction with the European Parliament. Therefore the EP has been given the leading role in devising the rules concerning the Ombudsman’s duties:
Article 228(4) TFEU
4. The European Parliament acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 26 April 2009
EU: Special legislative procedure (VIII & detour)
A post in our series on the various functions of the Council of the European Union elicited comments by JL about the absence of a presentation of the procedural aspects of the special legislative procedure, where the latest posts had covered the ground concerning subject matter.
Let us turn to the Council’s Rules of Procedure to complement our series with procedural aspects of the Council’s legislative work.
These provisions are of general interest with regard to the character of Council work and principles such as openness, transparency and accountability.
***
Materials
The latest consolidated version of Council Decision 2006/683/EC, Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure, originally published OJEU 16.10.2006 L 285/47, seems to be of 1 January 2009.
***
In a legislative capacity
Article 7 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure distinguishes the situations and sets the limits of the situations where the Council acts in a legislative capacity:
Article 7
Cases where the Council acts in its legislative capacity
The Council acts in its legislative capacity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) of the EC Treaty when it adopts rules which are legally binding in or for the Member States, by means of regulations, directives, framework decisions or decisions, on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Treaties, with the exception of discussions leading to the adoption of internal measures, administrative or budgetary acts, acts concerning interinstitutional or international relations or non-binding acts (such as conclusions, recommendations or resolutions).
Where legislative proposals or initiatives are submitted to it the Council shall refrain from adopting acts which are not provided for by the Treaties, such as resolutions, conclusions or declarations other than those referred to in Article 9.
***
Open deliberations
Article 8 contains provision on discussions in public and their availability on the web.
When the co-decision procedure applies (future ordinary legislative procedure), the presentation and the opening debate on a proposed legislative act is open, as well as other Council deliberations, the closing debate and the vote.
Other important new legislative proposals are normally discussed in public, and they may be discussed publicly later. This includes proposals falling under the special legislative procedure.
Special public debates may be arranged on important issues.
The 18 montth programmer of the troika (or trio) and other policy programmes are debated in public.
Items set for public deliberation or public debate are marked on the agenda.
The public discussions are available on the web.
Article 8
Council deliberations open to the public and public debates
1. Council deliberations on legislative acts to be adopted in accordance with the codecision procedure under Article 251 of the EC Treaty shall be open to the public as follows:
(a) the presentation, if any, by the Commission of its legislative proposals and the ensuing deliberation in the Council shall be open to the public;
(b) the vote on such legislative acts shall be open to the public, as well as the final Council deliberations leading to that vote and the explanations of voting accompanying it;
(c) all other Council deliberations on such legislative acts shall be open to the public, unless, on a case by case basis, the Council or Coreper decides otherwise with regard to a given deliberation.
2. The Council's first deliberation on important new legislative proposals other than those to be adopted in accordance with the codecision procedure shall be open to the public. The Presidency shall identify which new legislative proposals are important and the Council or Coreper may decide otherwise, whenever appropriate. The Presidency may decide, on a case by case basis, that the subsequent Council deliberations on a particular legislative act shall be open to the public, unless the Council or Coreper decides otherwise.
3. On a decision taken by the Council or by Coreper, acting by a qualified majority, the Council shall hold public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the European Union and its citizens.
It shall be for the Presidency, any member of the Council, or the Commission to propose issues or specific subjects for such debates, taking into account the importance of the matter and its interest to citizens.
4. The General Affairs and External Relations Council convened in a meeting as referred to in Article 2(2)(a) shall hold a public policy debate on the Council's 18-month programme. Policy debates in other Council configurations on their priorities shall also be held in public. The Commission's presentation of its five-year programme, of its annual work programme and of its annual policy strategy, as well as the ensuing debate in the Council, shall be public.
5. As from the sending of the provisional agenda pursuant to Article 3:
(a) those items on the agenda of the Council which are open to the public in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be marked with the words “public deliberation”;
(b) those items on the agenda of the Council which are open to the public in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be marked with the words “public debate”.
The opening to the public of Council deliberations and public debates in accordance with this Article shall be made through public transmission by audiovisual means, notably in an overflow room and through broadcasting in all official languages of the institutions of the European Union using video-streaming. A recorded version shall remain available for at least one month on the Council's Internet site. The outcome of voting shall be indicated by visual means.
The General Secretariat shall as far as possible inform the public in advance of the dates and approximate time on which such audiovisual transmissions will take place and shall take all practical measures to ensure the proper implementation of this Article.
***
Public votes etc.
Legislative votes and explanations of votes as well as such minutes are made public.
The same principle applies with regard to common positions in relation to legislative acts in accordance with the codecision and the cooperation procedure and related Conciliation Committee proceedings, as well as statements concerning the establishment of a convention regarding police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Various final votes are made public.
Article 9
Making public votes, explanations of votes and minutes
1. In addition to cases where Council deliberations are open to the public under Article 8(1), where the Council acts in its legislative capacity within the meaning of Article 7, the results of votes and explanations of votes by Council members, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the adoption of legislative acts, shall be made public.
The same rule shall apply for:
(a) results of votes and explanations of votes, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the adoption of a common position pursuant to Article 251 or Article 252 of the EC Treaty;
(b) results of votes and explanations of votes by members of the Council or their representatives on the Conciliation Committee set up by Article 251 of the EC Treaty, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the Conciliation Committee meeting;
(c) results of votes and explanations of votes, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the establishment by the Council of a convention on the basis of Title VI of the EU Treaty.
2. Moreover, the results of votes shall be made public:
(a) when the Council acts pursuant to Title V of the EU Treaty, by a unanimous Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members;
(b) when the Council adopts a common position within the meaning of Title VI of the EU Treaty, by a unanimous Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members;
(c) in other cases, by Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members.
When the result of a vote in the Council is made public in accordance with points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph, the explanations of votes made when the vote was taken shall also be made public at the request of the Council members concerned, with due regard for these Rules of Procedure, legal certainty and the interests of the Council.
Statements entered in the Council minutes and items in those minutes relating to the adoption of the acts referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph shall be made public by Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members.
3. Except in cases where Council deliberations are open to the public in accordance with Article 8, votes shall not be made public in the case of discussions leading to indicative votes or the adoption of preparatory acts.
***
Public access to Council documents
Public access to documents is a cornerstone of accountability and transparency. Article 10 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure refers to Annex II, which is presented below. Documents from and positions of member states are a special concern.
(The main rules are found in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The Commission’s proposal to repeal and replace the Regulation by a new Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; Brussels, 30.4.2008, COM(2008) 229 final 2008/0090 (COD), is a hotly discussed issue between the EU institutions and questioned by NGOs and experts, but that is another story).
Council’s Rules of Procedure:
Article 10
Public access to Council documents
The specific provisions regarding public access to Council documents are set out in Annex II.
***
Specific provisions
ANNEX II
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO COUNCIL DOCUMENTS
Article 1
Scope
Any natural or legal person shall have access to Council documents subject to the principles, conditions and limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the specific provisions laid down in this Annex.
Article 2
Consultation as regards third-party documents
1. For the purpose of applying Article 4(5) and Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and unless it is clear, upon examination of the document in the light of Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, that it shall not be disclosed, the third party concerned shall be consulted if:
(a) the document is a sensitive document as defined in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
(b) the document originates from a Member State and
was submitted to the Council before 3 December 2001; or
the Member State concerned requested that it not be disclosed without its prior agreement.
2. In all other cases, where the Council receives an application for a third-party document in its possession, the General Secretariat, for the purpose of applying Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, shall consult the third party concerned unless it is clear, upon examination of the document in the light of Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, that it shall or shall not be disclosed.
3. The third party shall be consulted in writing (including by e-mail) and be given a reasonable time limit for its reply, taking into account the time limit laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the third party shall be asked to give its opinion in writing.
4. Where the document does not fall within paragraph 1(a) or (b) and the General Secretariat, in the light of the third party's negative opinion, is not satisfied that Article 4(1) or (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable, the Council shall be seized of the matter.
If the Council envisages the release of the document, the third party shall be informed immediately in writing of the Council's intention to release the document after a time period of at least 10 working days. At the same time, the third party's attention shall be drawn to Article 243 of the EC Treaty.
Article 3
Requests for consultation received from other institutions or from Member States
Requests for consultations with the Council made by another institution or a Member State concerning an application for a Council document shall be sent via e-mail to access@consilium.europa.eu or by fax to (32-2) 281 63 61.
The General Secretariat shall give its opinion on behalf of the Council promptly, taking into account any time limit required for a decision to be made by the institution or the Member State concerned, and at the latest within five working days.
Article 4
Documents originating from Member States
Any request by a Member State under Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall be made in writing to the General Secretariat.
Article 5
Referral of requests by Member States
When a Member States refers to a request to the Council, it shall be handled in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the relevant provisions of this Annex. In the event of a total or partial refusal of access, the applicant shall be informed that any confirmatory application must be addressed directly to the Council.
Article 6
Address for applications
Applications for access to a document shall be addressed in writing to the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative, rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175, B-1048 Brussels, by e-mail to access@consilium.europa.eu or by fax to (32-2) 281 63 61.
Article 7
Processing of initial applications
Subject to Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, any application for access to a Council document shall be handled by the General Secretariat.
Article 8
Processing of confirmatory applications
Subject to Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, any confirmatory application shall be decided upon by the Council.
Article 9
Charges
The charges for producing and sending copies of Council documents shall be set by the Secretary-General.
Article 10
Public register of Council documents
1. The General Secretariat shall be responsible for providing public access to the register of Council documents.
2. In addition to the references to documents, it shall be indicated in the register which documents drawn up after 1 July 2000 have already been released to the public. Subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (1) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, their content shall be made available on the Internet.
Article 11
Documents directly accessible to the public
1. This Article shall apply to all Council documents, provided that they are not classified and without prejudice to the possibility of making a written application in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
2. For the purpose of this Article:
— “circulation” shall mean distribution of the final version of a document to the members of the Council, their representatives or delegates,
— “legislative document” shall mean any document concerning the examination and adoption of a legislative act within the meaning of Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
3. The General Secretariat shall make the following documents available to the public as soon as they have been circulated:
(a) documents of which neither the Council nor a Member State is the author, which have been made public by their author or with his agreement;
(b) provisional agenda for meetings of the Council in its various configurations;
(c) any text adopted by the Council and intended to be published in the Official Journal.
4. Provided that they are clearly not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the General Secretariat may also make the following documents available to the public as soon as they have been circulated:
(a) provisional agenda of committees and working parties;
(b) other documents, such as information notes, reports, progress reports and reports on the state of discussions in the Council or one of its preparatory bodies which do not reflect individual positions of delegations, excluding Legal Service opinions and contributions.
5. The General Secretariat shall make the following legislative documents available to the public, in addition to the documents referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, as soon as they have been circulated:
(a) cover notes and copies of letters concerning legislative acts addressed to the Council by other institutions or bodies of the European Union or, subject to Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, by a Member State;
(b) documents submitted to the Council which are listed under an item on its agenda marked with the words “public deliberation” or “public debate” in accordance with Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure;
(c) notes submitted to Coreper and/or to the Council for approval (I/A and A item notes), as well as the draft legislative acts to which they refer;
(d) decisions adopted by the Council during the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the EC Treaty and joint texts approved by the Conciliation Committee.
6. After adoption of one of the decisions referred to in paragraph 5(d) or final adoption of the act concerned, the General Secretariat shall make available to the public any legislative documents relating to this act which were drawn up before one of such decisions and which are not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1), (2) and (3), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, such as information notes, reports, progress reports and reports on the state of discussions in the Council or in one of its preparatory bodies (outcomes of proceedings), excluding Legal Service opinions and contributions.
At the request of a Member State, documents which are covered by the first subparagraph and reflect the individual position of that Member State's delegation in the Council shall not be made available to the public under these provisions.
***
Readers are welcome to share their experiences of the Council’s work methods and opennessi including the functionality of its web pages and search functions.
After this detour, the next instalment in this series is going to return the matters subject to the special legislative procedure, not yet covered in the previous posts.
Ralf Grahn
Let us turn to the Council’s Rules of Procedure to complement our series with procedural aspects of the Council’s legislative work.
These provisions are of general interest with regard to the character of Council work and principles such as openness, transparency and accountability.
***
Materials
The latest consolidated version of Council Decision 2006/683/EC, Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure, originally published OJEU 16.10.2006 L 285/47, seems to be of 1 January 2009.
***
In a legislative capacity
Article 7 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure distinguishes the situations and sets the limits of the situations where the Council acts in a legislative capacity:
Article 7
Cases where the Council acts in its legislative capacity
The Council acts in its legislative capacity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) of the EC Treaty when it adopts rules which are legally binding in or for the Member States, by means of regulations, directives, framework decisions or decisions, on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Treaties, with the exception of discussions leading to the adoption of internal measures, administrative or budgetary acts, acts concerning interinstitutional or international relations or non-binding acts (such as conclusions, recommendations or resolutions).
Where legislative proposals or initiatives are submitted to it the Council shall refrain from adopting acts which are not provided for by the Treaties, such as resolutions, conclusions or declarations other than those referred to in Article 9.
***
Open deliberations
Article 8 contains provision on discussions in public and their availability on the web.
When the co-decision procedure applies (future ordinary legislative procedure), the presentation and the opening debate on a proposed legislative act is open, as well as other Council deliberations, the closing debate and the vote.
Other important new legislative proposals are normally discussed in public, and they may be discussed publicly later. This includes proposals falling under the special legislative procedure.
Special public debates may be arranged on important issues.
The 18 montth programmer of the troika (or trio) and other policy programmes are debated in public.
Items set for public deliberation or public debate are marked on the agenda.
The public discussions are available on the web.
Article 8
Council deliberations open to the public and public debates
1. Council deliberations on legislative acts to be adopted in accordance with the codecision procedure under Article 251 of the EC Treaty shall be open to the public as follows:
(a) the presentation, if any, by the Commission of its legislative proposals and the ensuing deliberation in the Council shall be open to the public;
(b) the vote on such legislative acts shall be open to the public, as well as the final Council deliberations leading to that vote and the explanations of voting accompanying it;
(c) all other Council deliberations on such legislative acts shall be open to the public, unless, on a case by case basis, the Council or Coreper decides otherwise with regard to a given deliberation.
2. The Council's first deliberation on important new legislative proposals other than those to be adopted in accordance with the codecision procedure shall be open to the public. The Presidency shall identify which new legislative proposals are important and the Council or Coreper may decide otherwise, whenever appropriate. The Presidency may decide, on a case by case basis, that the subsequent Council deliberations on a particular legislative act shall be open to the public, unless the Council or Coreper decides otherwise.
3. On a decision taken by the Council or by Coreper, acting by a qualified majority, the Council shall hold public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the European Union and its citizens.
It shall be for the Presidency, any member of the Council, or the Commission to propose issues or specific subjects for such debates, taking into account the importance of the matter and its interest to citizens.
4. The General Affairs and External Relations Council convened in a meeting as referred to in Article 2(2)(a) shall hold a public policy debate on the Council's 18-month programme. Policy debates in other Council configurations on their priorities shall also be held in public. The Commission's presentation of its five-year programme, of its annual work programme and of its annual policy strategy, as well as the ensuing debate in the Council, shall be public.
5. As from the sending of the provisional agenda pursuant to Article 3:
(a) those items on the agenda of the Council which are open to the public in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be marked with the words “public deliberation”;
(b) those items on the agenda of the Council which are open to the public in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be marked with the words “public debate”.
The opening to the public of Council deliberations and public debates in accordance with this Article shall be made through public transmission by audiovisual means, notably in an overflow room and through broadcasting in all official languages of the institutions of the European Union using video-streaming. A recorded version shall remain available for at least one month on the Council's Internet site. The outcome of voting shall be indicated by visual means.
The General Secretariat shall as far as possible inform the public in advance of the dates and approximate time on which such audiovisual transmissions will take place and shall take all practical measures to ensure the proper implementation of this Article.
***
Public votes etc.
Legislative votes and explanations of votes as well as such minutes are made public.
The same principle applies with regard to common positions in relation to legislative acts in accordance with the codecision and the cooperation procedure and related Conciliation Committee proceedings, as well as statements concerning the establishment of a convention regarding police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Various final votes are made public.
Article 9
Making public votes, explanations of votes and minutes
1. In addition to cases where Council deliberations are open to the public under Article 8(1), where the Council acts in its legislative capacity within the meaning of Article 7, the results of votes and explanations of votes by Council members, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the adoption of legislative acts, shall be made public.
The same rule shall apply for:
(a) results of votes and explanations of votes, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the adoption of a common position pursuant to Article 251 or Article 252 of the EC Treaty;
(b) results of votes and explanations of votes by members of the Council or their representatives on the Conciliation Committee set up by Article 251 of the EC Treaty, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the Conciliation Committee meeting;
(c) results of votes and explanations of votes, as well as the statements in the Council minutes and the items in those minutes relating to the establishment by the Council of a convention on the basis of Title VI of the EU Treaty.
2. Moreover, the results of votes shall be made public:
(a) when the Council acts pursuant to Title V of the EU Treaty, by a unanimous Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members;
(b) when the Council adopts a common position within the meaning of Title VI of the EU Treaty, by a unanimous Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members;
(c) in other cases, by Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members.
When the result of a vote in the Council is made public in accordance with points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph, the explanations of votes made when the vote was taken shall also be made public at the request of the Council members concerned, with due regard for these Rules of Procedure, legal certainty and the interests of the Council.
Statements entered in the Council minutes and items in those minutes relating to the adoption of the acts referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph shall be made public by Council or Coreper decision taken at the request of one of their members.
3. Except in cases where Council deliberations are open to the public in accordance with Article 8, votes shall not be made public in the case of discussions leading to indicative votes or the adoption of preparatory acts.
***
Public access to Council documents
Public access to documents is a cornerstone of accountability and transparency. Article 10 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure refers to Annex II, which is presented below. Documents from and positions of member states are a special concern.
(The main rules are found in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The Commission’s proposal to repeal and replace the Regulation by a new Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; Brussels, 30.4.2008, COM(2008) 229 final 2008/0090 (COD), is a hotly discussed issue between the EU institutions and questioned by NGOs and experts, but that is another story).
Council’s Rules of Procedure:
Article 10
Public access to Council documents
The specific provisions regarding public access to Council documents are set out in Annex II.
***
Specific provisions
ANNEX II
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO COUNCIL DOCUMENTS
Article 1
Scope
Any natural or legal person shall have access to Council documents subject to the principles, conditions and limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the specific provisions laid down in this Annex.
Article 2
Consultation as regards third-party documents
1. For the purpose of applying Article 4(5) and Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and unless it is clear, upon examination of the document in the light of Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, that it shall not be disclosed, the third party concerned shall be consulted if:
(a) the document is a sensitive document as defined in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
(b) the document originates from a Member State and
was submitted to the Council before 3 December 2001; or
the Member State concerned requested that it not be disclosed without its prior agreement.
2. In all other cases, where the Council receives an application for a third-party document in its possession, the General Secretariat, for the purpose of applying Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, shall consult the third party concerned unless it is clear, upon examination of the document in the light of Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, that it shall or shall not be disclosed.
3. The third party shall be consulted in writing (including by e-mail) and be given a reasonable time limit for its reply, taking into account the time limit laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the third party shall be asked to give its opinion in writing.
4. Where the document does not fall within paragraph 1(a) or (b) and the General Secretariat, in the light of the third party's negative opinion, is not satisfied that Article 4(1) or (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable, the Council shall be seized of the matter.
If the Council envisages the release of the document, the third party shall be informed immediately in writing of the Council's intention to release the document after a time period of at least 10 working days. At the same time, the third party's attention shall be drawn to Article 243 of the EC Treaty.
Article 3
Requests for consultation received from other institutions or from Member States
Requests for consultations with the Council made by another institution or a Member State concerning an application for a Council document shall be sent via e-mail to access@consilium.europa.eu or by fax to (32-2) 281 63 61.
The General Secretariat shall give its opinion on behalf of the Council promptly, taking into account any time limit required for a decision to be made by the institution or the Member State concerned, and at the latest within five working days.
Article 4
Documents originating from Member States
Any request by a Member State under Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall be made in writing to the General Secretariat.
Article 5
Referral of requests by Member States
When a Member States refers to a request to the Council, it shall be handled in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the relevant provisions of this Annex. In the event of a total or partial refusal of access, the applicant shall be informed that any confirmatory application must be addressed directly to the Council.
Article 6
Address for applications
Applications for access to a document shall be addressed in writing to the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative, rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175, B-1048 Brussels, by e-mail to access@consilium.europa.eu or by fax to (32-2) 281 63 61.
Article 7
Processing of initial applications
Subject to Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, any application for access to a Council document shall be handled by the General Secretariat.
Article 8
Processing of confirmatory applications
Subject to Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, any confirmatory application shall be decided upon by the Council.
Article 9
Charges
The charges for producing and sending copies of Council documents shall be set by the Secretary-General.
Article 10
Public register of Council documents
1. The General Secretariat shall be responsible for providing public access to the register of Council documents.
2. In addition to the references to documents, it shall be indicated in the register which documents drawn up after 1 July 2000 have already been released to the public. Subject to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (1) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, their content shall be made available on the Internet.
Article 11
Documents directly accessible to the public
1. This Article shall apply to all Council documents, provided that they are not classified and without prejudice to the possibility of making a written application in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
2. For the purpose of this Article:
— “circulation” shall mean distribution of the final version of a document to the members of the Council, their representatives or delegates,
— “legislative document” shall mean any document concerning the examination and adoption of a legislative act within the meaning of Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
3. The General Secretariat shall make the following documents available to the public as soon as they have been circulated:
(a) documents of which neither the Council nor a Member State is the author, which have been made public by their author or with his agreement;
(b) provisional agenda for meetings of the Council in its various configurations;
(c) any text adopted by the Council and intended to be published in the Official Journal.
4. Provided that they are clearly not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the General Secretariat may also make the following documents available to the public as soon as they have been circulated:
(a) provisional agenda of committees and working parties;
(b) other documents, such as information notes, reports, progress reports and reports on the state of discussions in the Council or one of its preparatory bodies which do not reflect individual positions of delegations, excluding Legal Service opinions and contributions.
5. The General Secretariat shall make the following legislative documents available to the public, in addition to the documents referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, as soon as they have been circulated:
(a) cover notes and copies of letters concerning legislative acts addressed to the Council by other institutions or bodies of the European Union or, subject to Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, by a Member State;
(b) documents submitted to the Council which are listed under an item on its agenda marked with the words “public deliberation” or “public debate” in accordance with Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure;
(c) notes submitted to Coreper and/or to the Council for approval (I/A and A item notes), as well as the draft legislative acts to which they refer;
(d) decisions adopted by the Council during the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the EC Treaty and joint texts approved by the Conciliation Committee.
6. After adoption of one of the decisions referred to in paragraph 5(d) or final adoption of the act concerned, the General Secretariat shall make available to the public any legislative documents relating to this act which were drawn up before one of such decisions and which are not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1), (2) and (3), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, such as information notes, reports, progress reports and reports on the state of discussions in the Council or in one of its preparatory bodies (outcomes of proceedings), excluding Legal Service opinions and contributions.
At the request of a Member State, documents which are covered by the first subparagraph and reflect the individual position of that Member State's delegation in the Council shall not be made available to the public under these provisions.
***
Readers are welcome to share their experiences of the Council’s work methods and opennessi including the functionality of its web pages and search functions.
After this detour, the next instalment in this series is going to return the matters subject to the special legislative procedure, not yet covered in the previous posts.
Ralf Grahn
European elections and EU citizens
The think tank Notre Europe has published an interesting policy brief by Renaud Dehousse on the gap between the legislation the institutions of the European Union (are treaty bound to) produce and the expectations of EU citizens: L’action de l’Union répond-elle aux preferences des citoyens ? (25 April 2009; 4 pages).
How much does the difference between demand and offer diminish participation in the European elections?
The bulk of legislative output concerns agriculture and fisheries as well as the internal market.
Citizens’ expectations concern measures against insecurity, immigration and the environment, followed by energy, social issues and solidarity with poorer regions.
Dehousse notes that the Commission has become more responsive to the expectations of citizens (than the other institutions).
***
Dehousse does not find it surprising that participation is on a downward trend. Citizens cannot decide the composition of the executive. Citizens’ preferences must be given a greater weight, by expressing their preferences for the President of the Commission and by reforming the exclusive right of the Commission to propose legislation. Meanwhile, the citizens themselves can become agents for change by voting for candidates whose visions of Europe resemble their own:
Dans ces conditions, la baisse régulière du taux de participation aux élections européennes n’a rien pour surprendre. Pourquoi les électeurs se passionneraient- ils pour une consultation qui ne leur permet pas de peser sur la désignation de l’exécutif , ou pour un système politique dont les priorités leur paraissent éloignées des leurs ? Pour redonner du sens au vote européen, il faut trouver une façon de donner plus de poids aux préférences des citoyens, que ce soit en leur permettant d’exprimer leurs préférences quant au choix du président de la Commission, comme l’a proposé Notre Europe, ou en réfléchissant à une réforme des dispositions qui réservent à la Commission l’initiative en matière législative. Et les électeurs eux-mêmes peuvent s’ériger en acteurs du changement en apportant leur voix à des candidats qui s’engageraient à utiliser la panoplie des pouvoirs dont disposent les parlementaires pour défendre la vision de l’Europe à laquelle ils adhèrent.
Ralf Grahn
How much does the difference between demand and offer diminish participation in the European elections?
The bulk of legislative output concerns agriculture and fisheries as well as the internal market.
Citizens’ expectations concern measures against insecurity, immigration and the environment, followed by energy, social issues and solidarity with poorer regions.
Dehousse notes that the Commission has become more responsive to the expectations of citizens (than the other institutions).
***
Dehousse does not find it surprising that participation is on a downward trend. Citizens cannot decide the composition of the executive. Citizens’ preferences must be given a greater weight, by expressing their preferences for the President of the Commission and by reforming the exclusive right of the Commission to propose legislation. Meanwhile, the citizens themselves can become agents for change by voting for candidates whose visions of Europe resemble their own:
Dans ces conditions, la baisse régulière du taux de participation aux élections européennes n’a rien pour surprendre. Pourquoi les électeurs se passionneraient- ils pour une consultation qui ne leur permet pas de peser sur la désignation de l’exécutif , ou pour un système politique dont les priorités leur paraissent éloignées des leurs ? Pour redonner du sens au vote européen, il faut trouver une façon de donner plus de poids aux préférences des citoyens, que ce soit en leur permettant d’exprimer leurs préférences quant au choix du président de la Commission, comme l’a proposé Notre Europe, ou en réfléchissant à une réforme des dispositions qui réservent à la Commission l’initiative en matière législative. Et les électeurs eux-mêmes peuvent s’ériger en acteurs du changement en apportant leur voix à des candidats qui s’engageraient à utiliser la panoplie des pouvoirs dont disposent les parlementaires pour défendre la vision de l’Europe à laquelle ils adhèrent.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 25 April 2009
EU: Progress in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)
One of the most important policy fields of the European Union (European Community), in addition to the original common market (later internal market), is the evolving area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), in British parlance often referred to as Justice and Home Affairs (JHA).
Currently, it is split between intergovernmental police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, provided for by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and other issues, treated in the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
The Treaty of Lisbon would achieve a degree of normalcy, by bringing the basic rules together under Title V Area of freedom, security and justice, more or less in line with other policy areas subject to ‘Community legislation’.
The AFSJ is relevant for EU citizens and third country nationals, and it is one of the most rapidly evolving policy areas, despite exasperating procedures for parts of decision-making.
***
European Parliament
The European Parliament has held its annual debate on the progress made in the area of freedom, security and justice.
By 313 votes to 56, with 6 abstentions, the European Parliament voted a resolution, which can be found in the provisional compilation of texts adopted Friday 24 April 2009.
The heading of the resolution is (on page 277):
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0329
Annual debate on the progress made in 2008 in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)
European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the annual debate on the progress made in 2008 in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty)
***
Resolution
The European Parliament states the support of EU citizens for European level action, and it notes the evolving character of the area of freedom, security and justice. But the EP also remarks on a number of obstacles to progress (at member state level).
***
Lisbon Treaty crucial
The European Parliament underlines the importance of the Treaty of Lisbon, with the following arguments:
Calls on those Member States which have not ratified the Treaty of Lisbon to do so as soon as possible, as it will overcome the more significant shortcomings in the AFSJ by:
– creating a more coherent, transparent and legally sound framework,
– strengthening the protection of fundamental rights by giving binding force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ('the Charter') and by allowing the EU to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
– empowering citizens of the Union and civil society by involving them in the legislative process and granting them greater access to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ),
– involving the European Parliament and national parliaments in the evaluation of EU policies, thereby making European and national administrations more accountable.
***
Stockholm Programme
After the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme, the European Union is preparing its next five year programme for the development of the area of freedom, security and justice. It will probably be known as the Stockholm Programme. These are the greetings from the European Parliament to the Commission and the member states’ governments:
The European Parliament calls on the European Council, the Council and the Commission to:
(a) formally involve the newly elected European Parliament in the adoption of the next multiannual AFSJ programme for the period 2010-2014, as this programme, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, should be mainly implemented by the Council and Parliament by way of the codecision procedure; given that such a multiannual programme should also go far beyond the suggestions contained in the reports of the Council Future Groups, national parliaments should also be involved as they should play an essential role in shaping the priorities and in implementing them at national level;
(b) focus on the future multiannual programme, and primarily on the improvement of fundamental and citizens' rights, as recently recommended by Parliament in its resolution of 14 January 2009 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008, by developing the objectives and principles laid down in the Charter, which the institutions proclaimed in Nice in 2000 and again in Strasbourg on 12 December 2007.
***
Citizens’ rights
The EP resolution contains a number of concrete requests for improvements with regard to EU citizens’ rights.
There is no doubt that the policy issues involved are important for individuals, both EU citizens and third country nationals, since they comprise:
Free movement of persons
Visa policy
EU external borders policy
Schengen area
Immigration
Asylum
Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters
Drugs policy coordination
EU citizenship
Data protection
Fundamental rights
Racisim and xenophobia
Police and customs cooperation
Crime prevention
Fight against organised crime
External dimension of AFSJ
Enlargement from an AFSJ perspective
Ralf Grahn
Currently, it is split between intergovernmental police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, provided for by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and other issues, treated in the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
The Treaty of Lisbon would achieve a degree of normalcy, by bringing the basic rules together under Title V Area of freedom, security and justice, more or less in line with other policy areas subject to ‘Community legislation’.
The AFSJ is relevant for EU citizens and third country nationals, and it is one of the most rapidly evolving policy areas, despite exasperating procedures for parts of decision-making.
***
European Parliament
The European Parliament has held its annual debate on the progress made in the area of freedom, security and justice.
By 313 votes to 56, with 6 abstentions, the European Parliament voted a resolution, which can be found in the provisional compilation of texts adopted Friday 24 April 2009.
The heading of the resolution is (on page 277):
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0329
Annual debate on the progress made in 2008 in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)
European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the annual debate on the progress made in 2008 in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty)
***
Resolution
The European Parliament states the support of EU citizens for European level action, and it notes the evolving character of the area of freedom, security and justice. But the EP also remarks on a number of obstacles to progress (at member state level).
***
Lisbon Treaty crucial
The European Parliament underlines the importance of the Treaty of Lisbon, with the following arguments:
Calls on those Member States which have not ratified the Treaty of Lisbon to do so as soon as possible, as it will overcome the more significant shortcomings in the AFSJ by:
– creating a more coherent, transparent and legally sound framework,
– strengthening the protection of fundamental rights by giving binding force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ('the Charter') and by allowing the EU to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
– empowering citizens of the Union and civil society by involving them in the legislative process and granting them greater access to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ),
– involving the European Parliament and national parliaments in the evaluation of EU policies, thereby making European and national administrations more accountable.
***
Stockholm Programme
After the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme, the European Union is preparing its next five year programme for the development of the area of freedom, security and justice. It will probably be known as the Stockholm Programme. These are the greetings from the European Parliament to the Commission and the member states’ governments:
The European Parliament calls on the European Council, the Council and the Commission to:
(a) formally involve the newly elected European Parliament in the adoption of the next multiannual AFSJ programme for the period 2010-2014, as this programme, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, should be mainly implemented by the Council and Parliament by way of the codecision procedure; given that such a multiannual programme should also go far beyond the suggestions contained in the reports of the Council Future Groups, national parliaments should also be involved as they should play an essential role in shaping the priorities and in implementing them at national level;
(b) focus on the future multiannual programme, and primarily on the improvement of fundamental and citizens' rights, as recently recommended by Parliament in its resolution of 14 January 2009 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008, by developing the objectives and principles laid down in the Charter, which the institutions proclaimed in Nice in 2000 and again in Strasbourg on 12 December 2007.
***
Citizens’ rights
The EP resolution contains a number of concrete requests for improvements with regard to EU citizens’ rights.
There is no doubt that the policy issues involved are important for individuals, both EU citizens and third country nationals, since they comprise:
Free movement of persons
Visa policy
EU external borders policy
Schengen area
Immigration
Asylum
Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters
Drugs policy coordination
EU citizenship
Data protection
Fundamental rights
Racisim and xenophobia
Police and customs cooperation
Crime prevention
Fight against organised crime
External dimension of AFSJ
Enlargement from an AFSJ perspective
Ralf Grahn
EU: Application of Community Law
Yesterday the European Parliament fired a broadside against the Commission’s handling of its responsibilities and its failures to remedy the problems the EP had remarked upon earlier.
The application of Community law is a cornerstone of the European Union. As “guardian of the Treaties”, the Commission has a duty to monitor the correct implementation of Community legislation, which is crucial for EU citizens and businesses engaged in cross-border activities.
Yesterday’s resolution is an example that seemingly dull reports can be both “hot stuff” and important for citizens and businesses.
***
European Parliament
On Friday, the European Parliament voted on a resolution based on a report by the Committee on Legal Affairs (rapporteur Monica Frassoni) with regard to the application of Community Law. The resolution was adopted by 297 votes, against 13, with 7 abstentions.
At this stage, you can find the adopted resolution in the compilation of texts adopted Friday 24 April 2009 (from page 311).
The exact references are:
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0335
25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007)
European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the 25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (2008/2337(INI))
***
Parliamentary scrutiny
The main document under scrutiny was the 25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (COM(2008)0777).
The accompanying Commission staff working documents (SEC(2008)2854 and SEC(2008)2855), as well as the Commission Communication of 5 September 2007 entitled “A Europe of results – applying Community law” (COM(2007)0502), and the Commission Communication of 20 March 2002 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM(2002)0141), formed the basis for the EP’s own initiative report.
The resolution is critical of the Commission’s activities as the “guardian of the Treaties”.
The European Parliament regrets that, unlike in the past, the Commission has not responded in any way to the issues raised by Parliament in its previous resolutions, in particular its resolution of 21 February 2008; notes the lack of significant improvement with regard to the three fundamental issues of transparency, resources and the length of procedures.
The rest of the resolution lists specific criticisms of the Commission’s handling of one of its core tasks.
***
Citizenship Directive
I would like to pick out one detail, of concrete interest to EU citizens and their families, the resolution text concerning the so called Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC (point 15), where the criticism is aimed more at the member states than at the Commission:
Notes that the Commission has declared that a fundamental directive such as Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States has for all practical purposes not been properly transposed in any Member State; notes that the Commission has received more than 1 800 individual complaints in relation to that directive, registering 115 of them as complaints and opening five cases of infringement on the grounds of failure to apply the directive properly, recognises that the Commission has worked with Parliament to useful effect and in a spirit of openness where Directive 2004/38/EC is concerned; endorses the Commission’s proposed approach, whereby the directive is to be kept under continuous and exhaustive review, support, in the form of guidelines to be published in the first half of 2009, is to be provided to help Member States apply the directive fully and properly, and infringement proceedings are to be instituted against Member States whose legislation does not conform to the directive; expresses grave concern, however, as to the Commission’s ability to perform its role as “guardian of the Treaty” and the opportunity afforded to Parliament to check the complaint registration policy implemented by the various Commission departments;
***
The resolution is instructive reading for everyone interested in the rights of EU citizens and businesses, and together with the Commission documents it offers a number of avenues for reasearch.
Even if an own initiative report is not legally binding, it would be surprising if the Commission does not spring into action after the broadside delivered by the European Parliament.
Ralf Grahn
The application of Community law is a cornerstone of the European Union. As “guardian of the Treaties”, the Commission has a duty to monitor the correct implementation of Community legislation, which is crucial for EU citizens and businesses engaged in cross-border activities.
Yesterday’s resolution is an example that seemingly dull reports can be both “hot stuff” and important for citizens and businesses.
***
European Parliament
On Friday, the European Parliament voted on a resolution based on a report by the Committee on Legal Affairs (rapporteur Monica Frassoni) with regard to the application of Community Law. The resolution was adopted by 297 votes, against 13, with 7 abstentions.
At this stage, you can find the adopted resolution in the compilation of texts adopted Friday 24 April 2009 (from page 311).
The exact references are:
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0335
25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007)
European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the 25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (2008/2337(INI))
***
Parliamentary scrutiny
The main document under scrutiny was the 25th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (COM(2008)0777).
The accompanying Commission staff working documents (SEC(2008)2854 and SEC(2008)2855), as well as the Commission Communication of 5 September 2007 entitled “A Europe of results – applying Community law” (COM(2007)0502), and the Commission Communication of 20 March 2002 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM(2002)0141), formed the basis for the EP’s own initiative report.
The resolution is critical of the Commission’s activities as the “guardian of the Treaties”.
The European Parliament regrets that, unlike in the past, the Commission has not responded in any way to the issues raised by Parliament in its previous resolutions, in particular its resolution of 21 February 2008; notes the lack of significant improvement with regard to the three fundamental issues of transparency, resources and the length of procedures.
The rest of the resolution lists specific criticisms of the Commission’s handling of one of its core tasks.
***
Citizenship Directive
I would like to pick out one detail, of concrete interest to EU citizens and their families, the resolution text concerning the so called Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC (point 15), where the criticism is aimed more at the member states than at the Commission:
Notes that the Commission has declared that a fundamental directive such as Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States has for all practical purposes not been properly transposed in any Member State; notes that the Commission has received more than 1 800 individual complaints in relation to that directive, registering 115 of them as complaints and opening five cases of infringement on the grounds of failure to apply the directive properly, recognises that the Commission has worked with Parliament to useful effect and in a spirit of openness where Directive 2004/38/EC is concerned; endorses the Commission’s proposed approach, whereby the directive is to be kept under continuous and exhaustive review, support, in the form of guidelines to be published in the first half of 2009, is to be provided to help Member States apply the directive fully and properly, and infringement proceedings are to be instituted against Member States whose legislation does not conform to the directive; expresses grave concern, however, as to the Commission’s ability to perform its role as “guardian of the Treaty” and the opportunity afforded to Parliament to check the complaint registration policy implemented by the various Commission departments;
***
The resolution is instructive reading for everyone interested in the rights of EU citizens and businesses, and together with the Commission documents it offers a number of avenues for reasearch.
Even if an own initiative report is not legally binding, it would be surprising if the Commission does not spring into action after the broadside delivered by the European Parliament.
Ralf Grahn
EU: New E-Money Directive
The European Parliament has approved the text of a new E-Money Directive, aimed at providing the internal market with a legal framework, which removes obstacles to market entry. The Directive is meant to be transposed by the EU member states into national law by 2011.
***
European Parliament
The European Parliament has approved the text of a new E-Money Directive. At this stage, the adopted text can be found in the compilation of resolutions adopted on Friday 24 April 2009 (from page 142).
Here are the exact references:
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0322
The business of electronic money institutions ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2009 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (COM(2008)0627 – C6-0350/2008 – 2008/0190(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
***
Scope
Article 1 of the E-Money Directive lays down the scope:
Article 1
Subject matter and scope
1. This Directive lays down the rules for the ▌pursuit ▌of the ▌activity of issuing electronic money in accordance with which Member States shall distinguish the following five categories of electronic money issuers:
(a) credit institutions, as defined in point 1 of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC, including, in accordance with national law, branches within the meaning of point 3 of Article 4 of that Directive located in the Community in accordance with Article 38 of the same Directive of credit institutions having their head offices outside the Community;
(b) electronic money institutions, as defined in point 1 of Article 2 including, in accordance with national law and Article 8, branches located in the Community of the electronic money institutions having their head offices outside the Community;
(c) post office giro institutions which are entitled under national law to issue electronic money;
(d) the European Central Bank and national central banks when not acting in their capacity as monetary authority or other public authorities;
(e) Member States or their regional or local authorities when acting in their capacity as public authorities.
2. Title II of this Directive also lays down the rules for the taking up, the pursuit and the prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions.
3. Member States may waive the application of all or part of the provisions of Title II of this Directive to the institutions referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2006/48/EC, with the exception of those referred to in the first and second indent of that Article.
4. This Directive does not apply to monetary value stored on instruments exempted as specified in Article 3(k) of Directive 2007/64/EC.
5. This Directive does not apply to monetary value that is used to make payment transactions exempted as specified in Article 3(l) of Directive 2007/64/EC.
***
Commission response
The Commission issued an explanatory press release, which welcomed the EP resolution:
European Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s adoption of two proposals in the area of payments (on e-money and cross-border payments) (24 April 2009; IP/09/637)
***
Final adoption
The new Directive is now heading for final adoption by the Council and subsequent publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Ralf Grahn
***
European Parliament
The European Parliament has approved the text of a new E-Money Directive. At this stage, the adopted text can be found in the compilation of resolutions adopted on Friday 24 April 2009 (from page 142).
Here are the exact references:
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0322
The business of electronic money institutions ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2009 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (COM(2008)0627 – C6-0350/2008 – 2008/0190(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
***
Scope
Article 1 of the E-Money Directive lays down the scope:
Article 1
Subject matter and scope
1. This Directive lays down the rules for the ▌pursuit ▌of the ▌activity of issuing electronic money in accordance with which Member States shall distinguish the following five categories of electronic money issuers:
(a) credit institutions, as defined in point 1 of Article 4 of Directive 2006/48/EC, including, in accordance with national law, branches within the meaning of point 3 of Article 4 of that Directive located in the Community in accordance with Article 38 of the same Directive of credit institutions having their head offices outside the Community;
(b) electronic money institutions, as defined in point 1 of Article 2 including, in accordance with national law and Article 8, branches located in the Community of the electronic money institutions having their head offices outside the Community;
(c) post office giro institutions which are entitled under national law to issue electronic money;
(d) the European Central Bank and national central banks when not acting in their capacity as monetary authority or other public authorities;
(e) Member States or their regional or local authorities when acting in their capacity as public authorities.
2. Title II of this Directive also lays down the rules for the taking up, the pursuit and the prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions.
3. Member States may waive the application of all or part of the provisions of Title II of this Directive to the institutions referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2006/48/EC, with the exception of those referred to in the first and second indent of that Article.
4. This Directive does not apply to monetary value stored on instruments exempted as specified in Article 3(k) of Directive 2007/64/EC.
5. This Directive does not apply to monetary value that is used to make payment transactions exempted as specified in Article 3(l) of Directive 2007/64/EC.
***
Commission response
The Commission issued an explanatory press release, which welcomed the EP resolution:
European Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s adoption of two proposals in the area of payments (on e-money and cross-border payments) (24 April 2009; IP/09/637)
***
Final adoption
The new Directive is now heading for final adoption by the Council and subsequent publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Ralf Grahn
EU: New Regulation on cross-border payments
The Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) takes a further step towards completion. The Payment Services Directive (PSD) 2007/64/EC, which will be implemented from 1 November 2009, is going to be complemented by a new Regulation on cross-border payments, which extends the principle of equal charges for national and cross-border payments to direct debits.
***
European Parliament
The European Parliament has approved the text of a new Regulation on cross-border payments. At this stage, the adopted text can be found in the compilation of resolutions adopted on Friday 24 April 2009 (from page 129).
Here are the exact references:
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0321
Cross-border payments in the Community ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community (COM(2008)0640 – C6-0352/2008 – 2008/0194(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
***
Scope
Article 1 of the new Regulation presents its scope:
Article 1
Subject matter and scope
1. This Regulation lays down rules on cross-border payments within the Community, ensuring that charges for those payments are the same as those for payments in the same currency within a Member State.
2. This Regulation applies to cross-border payments, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2007/64/EC, which are denominated in euro or in the national currencies of the Member States which have notified their intention to extend the application of the Regulation to their national currency, in accordance with Article 14.
3. This Regulation does not apply to payments made by payment service providers for their own account or on behalf of other payment service providers.
4. Articles 6, 7 and 8 lay down rules regarding direct debit transactions denominated in euro between the payment service providers of the payee and of the payer.
***
Commission response
The Commission issued an explanatory press release, which welcomed the EP resolution:
European Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s adoption of two proposals in the area of payments (on e-money and cross-border payments) (24 April 2009; IP/09/637)
***
Final adoption
The new Regulation is now heading for final adoption by the Council and subsequent publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Ralf Grahn
***
European Parliament
The European Parliament has approved the text of a new Regulation on cross-border payments. At this stage, the adopted text can be found in the compilation of resolutions adopted on Friday 24 April 2009 (from page 129).
Here are the exact references:
P6_TA-PROV(2009)0321
Cross-border payments in the Community ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community (COM(2008)0640 – C6-0352/2008 – 2008/0194(COD))
(Codecision procedure: first reading)
***
Scope
Article 1 of the new Regulation presents its scope:
Article 1
Subject matter and scope
1. This Regulation lays down rules on cross-border payments within the Community, ensuring that charges for those payments are the same as those for payments in the same currency within a Member State.
2. This Regulation applies to cross-border payments, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2007/64/EC, which are denominated in euro or in the national currencies of the Member States which have notified their intention to extend the application of the Regulation to their national currency, in accordance with Article 14.
3. This Regulation does not apply to payments made by payment service providers for their own account or on behalf of other payment service providers.
4. Articles 6, 7 and 8 lay down rules regarding direct debit transactions denominated in euro between the payment service providers of the payee and of the payer.
***
Commission response
The Commission issued an explanatory press release, which welcomed the EP resolution:
European Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s adoption of two proposals in the area of payments (on e-money and cross-border payments) (24 April 2009; IP/09/637)
***
Final adoption
The new Regulation is now heading for final adoption by the Council and subsequent publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 24 April 2009
Elections in Iceland (continued) & Baltic states: perplexing euro adoption
Yesterday I admitted to being mystified by some Icelanders’ optimism regarding adoption of the euro currency, while rejecting membership in the European Union, or even membership negotiations.
Among the reasons for my perplexity in Iceland & EU: Monetary union only? (23 April 2009) were the existing exceptions, according to Wikipedia Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican.
***
FT Brussels blog
Today I see that Tony Barber of the FT Brussels blog had posted on another angle of the same problem: Hands up if you’d like to use the euro! (23 April 2009).
Barber appears to be as puzzled as I am over the fact that the Baltic states have laboured hard to become members of the European Union and to prepare for adoption of the single currency. But the European Central Bank refuses to ease the rules to let Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in, despite the hardship caused by the economic crisis.
All the while, Montenegro and Kosovo have used and keep using the euro, without being members of the EU or subject to the rules of the economic and monetary union (EMU).
Amazing!
***
By the rules
Whether Iceland or new EU member states in Central Europe, my post yesterday only indicated the basic premises for the euro currency, by a quote from the Preamble of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
If a country follows the rules, it has to:
1. Become a member of the European Union, and participate in economic policy coordination.
2. Fulfil the convergence criteria, also known as the Maastricht criteria (low inflation, budget deficit, government debt level, participation in the Exchange Rate mechanism, low interest rates).
Some humanity, solidarity, logic and enlightenment seem to be in order.
Ralf Grahn
Among the reasons for my perplexity in Iceland & EU: Monetary union only? (23 April 2009) were the existing exceptions, according to Wikipedia Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican.
***
FT Brussels blog
Today I see that Tony Barber of the FT Brussels blog had posted on another angle of the same problem: Hands up if you’d like to use the euro! (23 April 2009).
Barber appears to be as puzzled as I am over the fact that the Baltic states have laboured hard to become members of the European Union and to prepare for adoption of the single currency. But the European Central Bank refuses to ease the rules to let Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in, despite the hardship caused by the economic crisis.
All the while, Montenegro and Kosovo have used and keep using the euro, without being members of the EU or subject to the rules of the economic and monetary union (EMU).
Amazing!
***
By the rules
Whether Iceland or new EU member states in Central Europe, my post yesterday only indicated the basic premises for the euro currency, by a quote from the Preamble of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
If a country follows the rules, it has to:
1. Become a member of the European Union, and participate in economic policy coordination.
2. Fulfil the convergence criteria, also known as the Maastricht criteria (low inflation, budget deficit, government debt level, participation in the Exchange Rate mechanism, low interest rates).
Some humanity, solidarity, logic and enlightenment seem to be in order.
Ralf Grahn
Nosemonkey for hire: editing, writing & online content
J Clive Matthews of Nosemonkey’s EUtopia is not only a fellow Euroblogger with learning and temperament to discuss the European Union critically and to explain its workings to his less informed and more opinionated readers.
Professionally J Clive Matthews has an impressive record as editor, writer and online content producer. When communication skills are needed more than ever, Matthews is looking for new opportunities to serve clients.
Don’t let this opportunity pass!
Ralf Grahn
Professionally J Clive Matthews has an impressive record as editor, writer and online content producer. When communication skills are needed more than ever, Matthews is looking for new opportunities to serve clients.
Don’t let this opportunity pass!
Ralf Grahn
Aland Islands: Regional voice in EU affairs
For a small region, the Aland Islands have a strong voice in national EU affairs. Now the Finnish Government proposes enhancements, which may be of interest ─ apprehension or hope ─ to other central governments and regions in Europe.
***
A few days ago we wrote about the slow procedure concerning the approval of the EU Treaty of Lisbon in Aland Islands: Lisbon Treaty (21 April 2009).
***
Latest proposals
Preparation of EU affairs
The Government of Finland has now approved guidelines on how the small province (population 27,500) can partake in the preparation of EU affairs. Åland already is involved in the 30 something ministerial sections covering all EU affairs and in the EU committee consisting of the highest civil servants where they are brought together before being passed on to the Government’s EU committee, which coordinates EU affairs. Åland can also make its case directly to the ministers in the Government’s EU committee.
(All EU proposals and Council meetings are scrutinised by the Parliament – especially the Grand Committee - and Åland is represented there too, but that is another story.)
The aim of new guidelines is to find common positions between Finland (the member state) and Åland on all issues of interest to the region. If this proves to be impossible, the position of Åland will be communicated to the EU institutions in addition to Finland’s official view.
Infringement cases
Infringement cases are problematic, because Finland is responsible for implementing Community legislation in relation to the European Union. But if the issue at hand is part of the areas subject to autonomous legislation or administration by the regional authorities, there is little the member state can do, if Åland fails to fulfil an obligation under the treaty. (Politically Åland has undertaken to finance the penalty payments in such cases.)
The Government proposes amendments to the Act on the Autonomy of Åland. The amendments require approval by both the Parliament of Finland and the Åland Parliament. Their aim is to guarantee that Åland can make its case in Finland’s reply to the Commission and to the Court of Justice. Åland can appear in oral proceedings and the region can propose that Finland brings a matter before the Court of Justice.
The Government’s press release in Finnish and in Swedish (23 April 2009).
The detailed guidelines are available in Finnish (4 pages), but I did not find them in Swedish (yet?).
The Government bill will probably be formally sent to the Parliament after the presidential session later today. For those who are interested in the details, but not pressed for time, the text of the proposal will be found in Finnish and Swedish on the legislative information portal Finlex in about a week.
Ralf Grahn
***
A few days ago we wrote about the slow procedure concerning the approval of the EU Treaty of Lisbon in Aland Islands: Lisbon Treaty (21 April 2009).
***
Latest proposals
Preparation of EU affairs
The Government of Finland has now approved guidelines on how the small province (population 27,500) can partake in the preparation of EU affairs. Åland already is involved in the 30 something ministerial sections covering all EU affairs and in the EU committee consisting of the highest civil servants where they are brought together before being passed on to the Government’s EU committee, which coordinates EU affairs. Åland can also make its case directly to the ministers in the Government’s EU committee.
(All EU proposals and Council meetings are scrutinised by the Parliament – especially the Grand Committee - and Åland is represented there too, but that is another story.)
The aim of new guidelines is to find common positions between Finland (the member state) and Åland on all issues of interest to the region. If this proves to be impossible, the position of Åland will be communicated to the EU institutions in addition to Finland’s official view.
Infringement cases
Infringement cases are problematic, because Finland is responsible for implementing Community legislation in relation to the European Union. But if the issue at hand is part of the areas subject to autonomous legislation or administration by the regional authorities, there is little the member state can do, if Åland fails to fulfil an obligation under the treaty. (Politically Åland has undertaken to finance the penalty payments in such cases.)
The Government proposes amendments to the Act on the Autonomy of Åland. The amendments require approval by both the Parliament of Finland and the Åland Parliament. Their aim is to guarantee that Åland can make its case in Finland’s reply to the Commission and to the Court of Justice. Åland can appear in oral proceedings and the region can propose that Finland brings a matter before the Court of Justice.
The Government’s press release in Finnish and in Swedish (23 April 2009).
The detailed guidelines are available in Finnish (4 pages), but I did not find them in Swedish (yet?).
The Government bill will probably be formally sent to the Parliament after the presidential session later today. For those who are interested in the details, but not pressed for time, the text of the proposal will be found in Finnish and Swedish on the legislative information portal Finlex in about a week.
Ralf Grahn
Bulletin of the European Union ─ EU information sources
Are you a student, researcher, journalist, politician (MEP candidate), lobbyist, official or an interested citizen in need of updated information about the European Union in a given policy area?
Google has long ago become a verb, but for systematic information there are other resources worth mentioning.
EU Bulletin
Yesterday, 23 April 2009 the Bulletin of the European Union for December 2008 was published online.
General Report
The annual General Report on the Activities of the European Union (latest for the year 2008) offers students and others an overview of developments and sources concerning different policy areas.
EU Bulletin – final version
The monthly Bulletins present updated information. The new Bulletin EU 12-2008 covers the month of December, and it is the final version.
EU Bulletin – provisional versions
Quicker updates are available on the Bulletin EU Home page. At this moment, two provisional versions are available: The January/February Bulletin was published 25 March 2009, and the March Bulletin 2009 was put online 23 April 2009 (so the time lag was only about three weeks).
Almost up-to-date
Taken together, the General Report and the Bulletin offer comprehensive information with detailed references for further study, leaving the researcher only a few weeks to explore from other sources, to be fully updated on an issue of major importance.
Once you have exact references, you may more easily find additional information on the web pages of the institutions, even the Council.
In addition, the EU Bulletin pages contain useful links to acronyms, a glossary, Pre-Lex with Commission proposals and summaries of existing legislation. (The links to the index and the cumulative index did not work.)
Official Journal
The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) is the primary source to use for official EU materials, especially final legislative acts and decisions.
News and discussion
If you need the latest news, you can go directly to the press releases by the EU institutions (Commission, European Parliament, Council etc.) or you can follow the specialised news services with additional coverage, such as EurActiv, EUobserver and EUbusiness. For discussion among EU citizens and civil society, you can access Bloggingportal.eu, which aggregates 345 Euroblogs.
Ralf Grahn
Google has long ago become a verb, but for systematic information there are other resources worth mentioning.
EU Bulletin
Yesterday, 23 April 2009 the Bulletin of the European Union for December 2008 was published online.
General Report
The annual General Report on the Activities of the European Union (latest for the year 2008) offers students and others an overview of developments and sources concerning different policy areas.
EU Bulletin – final version
The monthly Bulletins present updated information. The new Bulletin EU 12-2008 covers the month of December, and it is the final version.
EU Bulletin – provisional versions
Quicker updates are available on the Bulletin EU Home page. At this moment, two provisional versions are available: The January/February Bulletin was published 25 March 2009, and the March Bulletin 2009 was put online 23 April 2009 (so the time lag was only about three weeks).
Almost up-to-date
Taken together, the General Report and the Bulletin offer comprehensive information with detailed references for further study, leaving the researcher only a few weeks to explore from other sources, to be fully updated on an issue of major importance.
Once you have exact references, you may more easily find additional information on the web pages of the institutions, even the Council.
In addition, the EU Bulletin pages contain useful links to acronyms, a glossary, Pre-Lex with Commission proposals and summaries of existing legislation. (The links to the index and the cumulative index did not work.)
Official Journal
The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) is the primary source to use for official EU materials, especially final legislative acts and decisions.
News and discussion
If you need the latest news, you can go directly to the press releases by the EU institutions (Commission, European Parliament, Council etc.) or you can follow the specialised news services with additional coverage, such as EurActiv, EUobserver and EUbusiness. For discussion among EU citizens and civil society, you can access Bloggingportal.eu, which aggregates 345 Euroblogs.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Iceland & EU: Monetary union only?
In two days (Saturday 25 April 2009) Iceland is going to vote on a new parliament, after the meltdown of the country’s financial sector and economy.
For a look at the background, you can read Iceland’s EU questions unanswered ahead of vote on EUbusiness (23 April 2009).
A few months ago, several reports indicated that the Icelandic population would be ready to change their status as part of the European Economic Area (EEA) into membership of the European Union. Later news items and blog posts have told us that many voters would want to adopt the euro currency, fewer would be prepared to start negotiations on EU membership, and even fewer imagine they would accept the accession terms.
Only the social democratic party (estimated to gain 31 per cent of the vote) is committed to EU membership.
***
Monetary union?
This situation has left me wondering if the voters in Iceland have secret knowledge, or if they are unwittingly optimistic about adopting a foreign currency.
Right at the start of the Treaty on European Union the Preamble states:
RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, a single and stable currency,
---
***
EMU
The economic and monetary union (EMU) includes the common currency. Iceland is not a protectorate or an enclave, but a sovereign state. Could it dispense with economic union, meaning coordination of economic policies, the stability and growth pact and all the rest, and just go straight for the euro currency?
To my knowledge, there is no such indication in the treaties, but I am doubtful because of the existing exceptions, according to Wikipedia Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican).
Or are the Icelanders thinking about adopting the euro unilaterally, without asking anyone?
I have to admit that I am mystified.
Ralf Grahn
For a look at the background, you can read Iceland’s EU questions unanswered ahead of vote on EUbusiness (23 April 2009).
A few months ago, several reports indicated that the Icelandic population would be ready to change their status as part of the European Economic Area (EEA) into membership of the European Union. Later news items and blog posts have told us that many voters would want to adopt the euro currency, fewer would be prepared to start negotiations on EU membership, and even fewer imagine they would accept the accession terms.
Only the social democratic party (estimated to gain 31 per cent of the vote) is committed to EU membership.
***
Monetary union?
This situation has left me wondering if the voters in Iceland have secret knowledge, or if they are unwittingly optimistic about adopting a foreign currency.
Right at the start of the Treaty on European Union the Preamble states:
RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, a single and stable currency,
---
***
EMU
The economic and monetary union (EMU) includes the common currency. Iceland is not a protectorate or an enclave, but a sovereign state. Could it dispense with economic union, meaning coordination of economic policies, the stability and growth pact and all the rest, and just go straight for the euro currency?
To my knowledge, there is no such indication in the treaties, but I am doubtful because of the existing exceptions, according to Wikipedia Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican).
Or are the Icelanders thinking about adopting the euro unilaterally, without asking anyone?
I have to admit that I am mystified.
Ralf Grahn
Economic crisis: EU state aid overview
The financial sector catastrophy and economic recession have led to enormous pressures on Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and her services.
The Commission has done its best to guide national administrations and EU businesses on the available options and the (changing) limits set to rescue measures, while working on the concrete packages proposed by the member states.
The latest compilation is the press release State aid: Overview of national measures adopted as a response to the financial and economic crisis (22 April 2009, MEMO/09/174), which summarises the guidance (Communications) from the Commission and the decisions adopted with regard to the financial sector and the real economy, as of 22 April 2009.
Ralf Grahn
The Commission has done its best to guide national administrations and EU businesses on the available options and the (changing) limits set to rescue measures, while working on the concrete packages proposed by the member states.
The latest compilation is the press release State aid: Overview of national measures adopted as a response to the financial and economic crisis (22 April 2009, MEMO/09/174), which summarises the guidance (Communications) from the Commission and the decisions adopted with regard to the financial sector and the real economy, as of 22 April 2009.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
European election FAQs
The European Parliament tells us that it has been deluged by questions about the upcoming European elections. It has now posted answers to four basic but frequently asked questions (FAQs), about the election dates, possible national holidays and links to D-Day, and the different dates (but simultaneous publication of results).
Worth a quick look.
Ralf Grahn
Worth a quick look.
Ralf Grahn
ECB: TARGET2-Securities Programme Board
A further step on the road to an operational borderless pan-European cash and securities settlement system.
See the Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/6 of 19 March 2009 on the establishment of the TARGET2-Securities Programme Board, which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 22.4.2009 L 102/12.
Article 1
T2S Programme Board
1. The T2S Programme Board shall be established as a streamlined management body of the Eurosystem with the task of developing proposals for the Governing Council on key strategic issues and executing tasks of a purely technical nature in relation to T2S.
2. The mandate of the T2S Programme Board, including its objectives, responsibilities, tasks, composition, working procedures, and budget, shall be as set out in the Annex to this Decision.
3. The names and resumés of candidates to be considered for appointment to the T2S Programme Board members shall be sent by members of the Governing Council to the Executive Board so that they are received no later than 8 April 2009. On the basis of such proposals, the Governing Council shall appoint members of the T2S Programme Board on 23 April 2009.
4. The T2S Programme Board shall commence work from mid-May 2009.
5. The T2S Programme Board shall communicate its agenda, a summary of its meetings and relevant documentation in relation to its meetings to the members of the PSSC to allow the latter to provide input to the T2S Programme Board.
***
TARGET2 – cash and securities settlement
The appointment of the TARGET2-Securities Programme Board is a further step to make the system operational:
At its meeting of 6 July 2006, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to explore, in cooperation with central securities depositories (CSDs) and other market participants, the possibility of setting up a new Eurosystem service for securities settlement, to be called TARGET2-Securities (T2S). As part of its tasks in accordance with Articles 17, 18 and 22 of the Statute of the ESCB, the Eurosystem envisages that T2S will be a service based on a single platform allowing for core, neutral and borderless pan-European cash and securities settlement, which will be offered to CSDs to enable them to provide their customers with harmonised and commoditised delivery-versus-payment settlement services in central bank money in an integrated technical environment.
Ralf Grahn
See the Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/6 of 19 March 2009 on the establishment of the TARGET2-Securities Programme Board, which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 22.4.2009 L 102/12.
Article 1
T2S Programme Board
1. The T2S Programme Board shall be established as a streamlined management body of the Eurosystem with the task of developing proposals for the Governing Council on key strategic issues and executing tasks of a purely technical nature in relation to T2S.
2. The mandate of the T2S Programme Board, including its objectives, responsibilities, tasks, composition, working procedures, and budget, shall be as set out in the Annex to this Decision.
3. The names and resumés of candidates to be considered for appointment to the T2S Programme Board members shall be sent by members of the Governing Council to the Executive Board so that they are received no later than 8 April 2009. On the basis of such proposals, the Governing Council shall appoint members of the T2S Programme Board on 23 April 2009.
4. The T2S Programme Board shall commence work from mid-May 2009.
5. The T2S Programme Board shall communicate its agenda, a summary of its meetings and relevant documentation in relation to its meetings to the members of the PSSC to allow the latter to provide input to the T2S Programme Board.
***
TARGET2 – cash and securities settlement
The appointment of the TARGET2-Securities Programme Board is a further step to make the system operational:
At its meeting of 6 July 2006, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to explore, in cooperation with central securities depositories (CSDs) and other market participants, the possibility of setting up a new Eurosystem service for securities settlement, to be called TARGET2-Securities (T2S). As part of its tasks in accordance with Articles 17, 18 and 22 of the Statute of the ESCB, the Eurosystem envisages that T2S will be a service based on a single platform allowing for core, neutral and borderless pan-European cash and securities settlement, which will be offered to CSDs to enable them to provide their customers with harmonised and commoditised delivery-versus-payment settlement services in central bank money in an integrated technical environment.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
There is now a new Commission Decision 2009/336/EC of 20 April 2009 setting up the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the management of Community action in the fields of education, audiovisual and culture in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003; published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.4.2009 L 101/26.
The Brussels based Agency is entrusted with the management of a great number of Community programmes, both intra-EU and international.
***
Executive agencies
The reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 in the headline means that there are standard administrative rules in place for Executive Agencies, which means that the individual acts can be fairly short (and it saves a lot of ink, when administrative provisions can be amended by changing one Regulation instead of scores of acts).
See Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes; OJEU 16.1.2003 l 11/1.
Article 1
Aim
This Regulation lays down the statute of executive agencies to which the Commission, under its own control and responsibility, may entrust certain tasks relating to the management of Community programmes.
Ralf Grahn
The Brussels based Agency is entrusted with the management of a great number of Community programmes, both intra-EU and international.
***
Executive agencies
The reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 in the headline means that there are standard administrative rules in place for Executive Agencies, which means that the individual acts can be fairly short (and it saves a lot of ink, when administrative provisions can be amended by changing one Regulation instead of scores of acts).
See Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes; OJEU 16.1.2003 l 11/1.
Article 1
Aim
This Regulation lays down the statute of executive agencies to which the Commission, under its own control and responsibility, may entrust certain tasks relating to the management of Community programmes.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
European Union: Justice abroad (Brussels I)
The Commission is moving on the so called Brussels I Regulation, officially Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) 16.1.2001 L 12/1.
The latest consolidated version is of 4 December 2008.
Report on Brussels I Regulation
Green Paper on Brussels I
For a quick overview, you can read the press release European citizens and business to benefit from greater access to justice – strengthening co-operation in civil and commercial matters (21 April 2009; IP/09/606).
***
There were no links in the press release to the Report or to the Green Paper (consultation paper), and I was unable to locate them on the pages of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security or the Pre-Lex pages, so interested readers have to try again later.
Ralf Grahn
The latest consolidated version is of 4 December 2008.
Report on Brussels I Regulation
Green Paper on Brussels I
For a quick overview, you can read the press release European citizens and business to benefit from greater access to justice – strengthening co-operation in civil and commercial matters (21 April 2009; IP/09/606).
***
There were no links in the press release to the Report or to the Green Paper (consultation paper), and I was unable to locate them on the pages of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security or the Pre-Lex pages, so interested readers have to try again later.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: Federalist manifesto
The European elections are getting closer, but without top candidates or a real debate on the challenges for Europe in a changing world.
Perhaps time to look at what the Union of European Federalists (UEF) has to say in its manifesto Stronger together in a federal Europe, the clearest constructive election programme I have seen to date.
Ralf Grahn
Perhaps time to look at what the Union of European Federalists (UEF) has to say in its manifesto Stronger together in a federal Europe, the clearest constructive election programme I have seen to date.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (VII)
The European Union has the shapeliest clay feet among international treaty based organisations.
Our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure continues, taking us through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Energy taxes
According to Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), energy policy measures are generally taken in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Fiscal measures form an exception, being subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure, where the European Parliament is only consulted:
Article 194(3) TFEU
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature.
***
Associated overseas countries and territories
The association of overseas countries and territories is in the hands of the Council.
Article 203 TFEU
(ex Article 187 TEC)
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall, on the basis of the experience acquired under the association of the countries and territories with the Union and of the principles set out in the Treaties, lay down provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the countries and territories with the Union. Where the provisions in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.
***
International agreements
Some agreements with third countries or international organisations outside the exclusive scope of the common foreign and security policy may need the consent of the European Parliament, despite the special legislative procedure, as indicated by Article 218(6)(a) TFEU:
Article 218(6)(a) TFEU
6. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision concluding the agreement.
Except where agreements relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, the Council shall adopt the decision concluding the agreement:
(a) after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in the following cases:
(i) association agreements;
(ii) agreement on Union accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(iii) agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures;
(iv) agreements with important budgetary implications for the Union;
(v) agreements covering fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies, or the special legislative procedure where consent by the European Parliament is required.
***
European “election law”
A special legislative procedure applies to the uniform procedure for the European elections. Unanimity and ratifications have prevented that. This has left the second options of some common principles. As a consequence, the elections are not even held on the same day, but the European Parliament is given the uncommon role of proposing legislation:
Article 223 TFEU
(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)
1. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
***
Future electoral reform?
There is a draft report by Andrew Duff of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 15.10.2008, 2007/2207(INI). It is awaiting EP decision.
Ralf Grahn
Our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure continues, taking us through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Energy taxes
According to Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), energy policy measures are generally taken in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Fiscal measures form an exception, being subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure, where the European Parliament is only consulted:
Article 194(3) TFEU
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature.
***
Associated overseas countries and territories
The association of overseas countries and territories is in the hands of the Council.
Article 203 TFEU
(ex Article 187 TEC)
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall, on the basis of the experience acquired under the association of the countries and territories with the Union and of the principles set out in the Treaties, lay down provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the countries and territories with the Union. Where the provisions in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.
***
International agreements
Some agreements with third countries or international organisations outside the exclusive scope of the common foreign and security policy may need the consent of the European Parliament, despite the special legislative procedure, as indicated by Article 218(6)(a) TFEU:
Article 218(6)(a) TFEU
6. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision concluding the agreement.
Except where agreements relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, the Council shall adopt the decision concluding the agreement:
(a) after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in the following cases:
(i) association agreements;
(ii) agreement on Union accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(iii) agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures;
(iv) agreements with important budgetary implications for the Union;
(v) agreements covering fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies, or the special legislative procedure where consent by the European Parliament is required.
***
European “election law”
A special legislative procedure applies to the uniform procedure for the European elections. Unanimity and ratifications have prevented that. This has left the second options of some common principles. As a consequence, the elections are not even held on the same day, but the European Parliament is given the uncommon role of proposing legislation:
Article 223 TFEU
(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)
1. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
***
Future electoral reform?
There is a draft report by Andrew Duff of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 15.10.2008, 2007/2207(INI). It is awaiting EP decision.
Ralf Grahn
USA & EU: Fathers founding and confounding
Tony Barber wrote The EU, the US founding fathers and the “last word” on the FT Brussels blog (20 April 2009) as if astonished that the Treaty of Lisbon could not and should not be the last word on EU reform.
The difference between America and Europe is that the US founding fathers wrote one unworkable blueprint, the Articles of Confederation, before they agreed on a robust Constitution a decade later. Fast learners with guts.
The European member states have tinkered with reform since 1950, and have achieved volumes of rules and exceptions. They are still a long way from a union either effective or democratic, although the European Union is exceptional among treaty based international organisations.
Individual leaders of EU member states have said that the European Union should take a break from institutional reform after the Treaty of Lisbon, but I am not aware of any solemn promises binding on the EU.
Anyway, to give such assurances would be stupid, especially if the leaders have analysed the shape of world affairs.
In effect a promised moratorium would be an undertaking to let Europe continue its slide into oblivion from the world scene. Well, it would not be the first former great civilisation in world history to do so (normally unwittingly), but is that in the interest of EU citizens?
Credit to Andrew Duff for stating the obvious.
Ralf Grahn
The difference between America and Europe is that the US founding fathers wrote one unworkable blueprint, the Articles of Confederation, before they agreed on a robust Constitution a decade later. Fast learners with guts.
The European member states have tinkered with reform since 1950, and have achieved volumes of rules and exceptions. They are still a long way from a union either effective or democratic, although the European Union is exceptional among treaty based international organisations.
Individual leaders of EU member states have said that the European Union should take a break from institutional reform after the Treaty of Lisbon, but I am not aware of any solemn promises binding on the EU.
Anyway, to give such assurances would be stupid, especially if the leaders have analysed the shape of world affairs.
In effect a promised moratorium would be an undertaking to let Europe continue its slide into oblivion from the world scene. Well, it would not be the first former great civilisation in world history to do so (normally unwittingly), but is that in the interest of EU citizens?
Credit to Andrew Duff for stating the obvious.
Ralf Grahn
Aland Islands: Lisbon Treaty
What is so special about 21 April 2009?
Very little, in fact. It is just the anniversary of the EU Treaty of Lisbon in the Åland Islands (population 27,500). On this day a year ago, the authorities in autonomous Åland registered the arrival of the request by the President of Finland to approve the amending treaty with regard to the areas subject to local legislation.
About a month and four plenary sessions later the Åland Parliament sent the proposal to its Legal Committee, responsible for legal business which relates to the autonomy of Åland and to international treaties which are applicable to Åland.
No report has appeared. The status file this morning tells us that the matter is still being prepared.
Approval of the Lisbon Treaty is not listed on the preliminary agendas of the three coming plenary sessions.
***
How should we interpret the situation?
Two conflicting forces are at work. The European Union is a project of deepening integration, in other words lowering barriers. The driving force of local politics in Åland is to strengthen the particular traits of local society (language, culture, political and economic rights, administration, businesses, legislation etc.). The special status of Åland was accepted by the European Union when Finland became a member state in 1995; the Åland Protocol, enshrined by the Lisbon Treaty, even condones practices, which are contrary to core internal market principles (as long as discrimination of outsiders is practiced equally).
The Lisbon Treaty affects areas of autonomous Åland legislation only marginally, but a positive response requires a two thirds majority in the local parliament with 30 members.
The slow response has little to do with the Lisbon Treaty ‘per se’, but has been used as a bargaining chip to press for concessions from the Finnish Government with regard to EU affairs. Åland already is fully involved in the preparation and conduct of these matters, so the aspirations have taken aim at representation (Council, European Parliament, Court of Justice), a harder nut to crack.
If a coming proposal to approve the Lisbon Treaty fails to get the required qualified majority, it would lead to an unprecedented situation. The amending treaty would not be applicable in a part of the territory of a member state. But what would follow, if the rest of the European Union had moved forward from the Treaty of Nice?
Finland would have to notify the European Union, and it would have to negotiate some sort of new status for Åland. But what would the EU accept today, given that exemptions increasingly complicate the application of EU legislation in an expanding union?
If the Treaty of Lisbon falls in the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland or Poland, the problem disappears. But so does Åland’s bargaining chip.
NB: Finland has concluded its ratification process. Åland decides only with regard to its own territory.
Ralf Grahn
Very little, in fact. It is just the anniversary of the EU Treaty of Lisbon in the Åland Islands (population 27,500). On this day a year ago, the authorities in autonomous Åland registered the arrival of the request by the President of Finland to approve the amending treaty with regard to the areas subject to local legislation.
About a month and four plenary sessions later the Åland Parliament sent the proposal to its Legal Committee, responsible for legal business which relates to the autonomy of Åland and to international treaties which are applicable to Åland.
No report has appeared. The status file this morning tells us that the matter is still being prepared.
Approval of the Lisbon Treaty is not listed on the preliminary agendas of the three coming plenary sessions.
***
How should we interpret the situation?
Two conflicting forces are at work. The European Union is a project of deepening integration, in other words lowering barriers. The driving force of local politics in Åland is to strengthen the particular traits of local society (language, culture, political and economic rights, administration, businesses, legislation etc.). The special status of Åland was accepted by the European Union when Finland became a member state in 1995; the Åland Protocol, enshrined by the Lisbon Treaty, even condones practices, which are contrary to core internal market principles (as long as discrimination of outsiders is practiced equally).
The Lisbon Treaty affects areas of autonomous Åland legislation only marginally, but a positive response requires a two thirds majority in the local parliament with 30 members.
The slow response has little to do with the Lisbon Treaty ‘per se’, but has been used as a bargaining chip to press for concessions from the Finnish Government with regard to EU affairs. Åland already is fully involved in the preparation and conduct of these matters, so the aspirations have taken aim at representation (Council, European Parliament, Court of Justice), a harder nut to crack.
If a coming proposal to approve the Lisbon Treaty fails to get the required qualified majority, it would lead to an unprecedented situation. The amending treaty would not be applicable in a part of the territory of a member state. But what would follow, if the rest of the European Union had moved forward from the Treaty of Nice?
Finland would have to notify the European Union, and it would have to negotiate some sort of new status for Åland. But what would the EU accept today, given that exemptions increasingly complicate the application of EU legislation in an expanding union?
If the Treaty of Lisbon falls in the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland or Poland, the problem disappears. But so does Åland’s bargaining chip.
NB: Finland has concluded its ratification process. Åland decides only with regard to its own territory.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 20 April 2009
European Union: One citizen, one vote
The democratic ideal is equal representation: One citizen, one vote.
The European Union is based more on its member states than on its citizens. Voting weight (when any votes can be taken) in the Council and representation in the European Parliament have been fixed through political negotiations by treaty level provisions, far from giving each EU citizen equal weight.
Julien Frisch’s blog post European Parliament elections 2009 (86): Are the Scottish underrepresented? (20 April 2009) illustrated the problem in the context of a potentially independent Scotland and its number of MEPs.
My own comment to that was:
The principle of degressive proportionality has been put into practice in a way which favours the smallest member states too much.
It is not based on popular representation, but on representation for member states.
This structural flaw becomes an argument for secession of regions within member states.
The 'first chamber' of the European Parliament should give each citizen's vote more or less the same weight.
Then it would be neutral with regard to independence movements within member states.
But the current arrangments form a package with Council voting rights.
Structural flaws like these are often hard to correct later. The Lisbon Treaty makes matters even worse by awarding a minimum of six MEPs to each member state.
Just as an illustration: Under Lisbon, if 83 million Germans were rearranged into 166 mini-states of half a million inhabitants each, they would be entitled to 996 MEP seats, way beyond the total number of seats in the European Parliament.
***
The Lisbon Treaty, Article 14(2) of the amended Treaty on European Union, offers the wrong incentives. As we saw, the end results could be absurd in extreme cases:
Article 14(2) TEU
2. The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens. They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.
The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament, respecting the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.
***
Liberal democracy is based on the individual. The vote of each citizen should have the same weight.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Julien Frisch has started a new mirror blog in German: Julien Frisch (Deutsch). Take a look.
The European Union is based more on its member states than on its citizens. Voting weight (when any votes can be taken) in the Council and representation in the European Parliament have been fixed through political negotiations by treaty level provisions, far from giving each EU citizen equal weight.
Julien Frisch’s blog post European Parliament elections 2009 (86): Are the Scottish underrepresented? (20 April 2009) illustrated the problem in the context of a potentially independent Scotland and its number of MEPs.
My own comment to that was:
The principle of degressive proportionality has been put into practice in a way which favours the smallest member states too much.
It is not based on popular representation, but on representation for member states.
This structural flaw becomes an argument for secession of regions within member states.
The 'first chamber' of the European Parliament should give each citizen's vote more or less the same weight.
Then it would be neutral with regard to independence movements within member states.
But the current arrangments form a package with Council voting rights.
Structural flaws like these are often hard to correct later. The Lisbon Treaty makes matters even worse by awarding a minimum of six MEPs to each member state.
Just as an illustration: Under Lisbon, if 83 million Germans were rearranged into 166 mini-states of half a million inhabitants each, they would be entitled to 996 MEP seats, way beyond the total number of seats in the European Parliament.
***
The Lisbon Treaty, Article 14(2) of the amended Treaty on European Union, offers the wrong incentives. As we saw, the end results could be absurd in extreme cases:
Article 14(2) TEU
2. The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens. They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.
The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament, respecting the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.
***
Liberal democracy is based on the individual. The vote of each citizen should have the same weight.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Julien Frisch has started a new mirror blog in German: Julien Frisch (Deutsch). Take a look.
European Union: Reform before enlargement
A little while ago this blog argued in EU: Enlargement fatigue? (1 April 2009) that the Lisbon Treaty may be an improvement compared to the Treaty of Nice, but it does not create an effective or democratic union.
In my opinion, the main fault of the French and German governments is not that they put a brake on EU expansion, but that they do not envision reform beyond the limited Lisbon Treaty.
***
Busek interview
EurActiv’s 17 April 2009 interview with Erhard Busek illustrates the problems: Busek: Western Balkans should join EU as a block.
Busek finds that it is now difficult with 27 members to come to decisions: with 32 or more it will be even more difficult.
If the countries of the Western Balkans accede, their number of votes in the Council and the number of MEPs will be much greater than their proportion of the EU population.
Busek names this as a problem. But he sees that in this way, pressure is created for changing the systems in the European Union. Personally he is convinced that the current voting weight repartition, as well as the lack of qualified majority vote in most of the situations, is the real background of these hesitations. It has nothing to do with region, because it's completely clear for all member states that all the Western Balkan countries should become members of the EU.
***
The Busek interview underlines the need for effective decision making and it at least touches upon one important aspect of democratic and fair representation, namely with regard to population numbers.
Ralf Grahn
In my opinion, the main fault of the French and German governments is not that they put a brake on EU expansion, but that they do not envision reform beyond the limited Lisbon Treaty.
***
Busek interview
EurActiv’s 17 April 2009 interview with Erhard Busek illustrates the problems: Busek: Western Balkans should join EU as a block.
Busek finds that it is now difficult with 27 members to come to decisions: with 32 or more it will be even more difficult.
If the countries of the Western Balkans accede, their number of votes in the Council and the number of MEPs will be much greater than their proportion of the EU population.
Busek names this as a problem. But he sees that in this way, pressure is created for changing the systems in the European Union. Personally he is convinced that the current voting weight repartition, as well as the lack of qualified majority vote in most of the situations, is the real background of these hesitations. It has nothing to do with region, because it's completely clear for all member states that all the Western Balkan countries should become members of the EU.
***
The Busek interview underlines the need for effective decision making and it at least touches upon one important aspect of democratic and fair representation, namely with regard to population numbers.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (VI)
To vote or not to vote: that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the secret vagaries of Council dealings, Or to take arms against a sea of apathy.
In my mind, every vote for a constructive alternative in the European elections counts. The Treaty of Lisbon would widen the area where the directly elected European Parliament legislates on an equal basis with the Council of the European Union.
But the intergovernmental Council remains the principal decision-maker and legislator in many policy areas.
If an issue is important or sensitive enough for the member states, they keep the reins and leave the European Parliament on the sidelines.
Our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure continues, taking us through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Social policy
In EU terms social policy is mainly concerned with employment and working conditions. Action by the European Union is generally a complement to member states’ action. According to Article 153(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in the following fields the Council shall act unanimously, in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (paragraph 1):
(c) social security and social protection of workers;
(d) protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated;
(f) representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including codetermination, subject to paragraph 5;
(g) conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in Union territory;
However, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament, may decide to render the ordinary legislative procedure applicable to paragraph 1(d), (f) and (g).
An enabling clause (passerelle) like this may be more important in principle than in practice, because a move to qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure requires unanimity, which was not in existence when the treaty was agreed. But it would make the procedure more flexible, since laborious treaty amendment and ratifications would be unnecessary.
Anyway, the enabling clause (passerelle) is blocked with regard to social security and social protection of workers; paragraph 1(c).
***
Research and technological development
According to Article 182 TFEU, the multiannual framework programme for research and technological development, is adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure after consulting the Economic and Social Committee.
But the implementing specific programmes are adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee; paragraphs 3 and 4.
***
Environment
There has been much talk about the European Union’s role in protecting the environment (cf. Article 191 TFEU).
The ordinary legislative procedure applies as a rule, according Article 192(1) TFEU, but the second paragraph lists the exceptions subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure:
Article 192(2) TFEU
2. By way of derogation from the decision-making procedure provided for in paragraph 1 and without prejudice to Article 114, the Council acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt:
(a) provisions primarily of a fiscal nature;
(b) measures affecting:
— town and country planning,
— quantitative management of water resources or affecting, directly or indirectly, the availability of those resources,
— land use, with the exception of waste management;
(c) measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.
**
Here, too, in a second subparagraph there is a passerelle, opening up at least a theoretical possibility to shift to qualified majority voting at some future date:
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
may make the ordinary legislative procedure applicable to the matters referred to in the
first subparagraph.
***
Comment
In general ‘special legislative procedure’ can be read as a prognosis for either:
a) no EU legislation, or
b) legislation of low quality (based on the lowest common denominator).
In addition, although the European Parliament is normally consulted, its opinion lacks power. Thus, the process is less transparent and the outcome is less legitimate than legislation based on the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision).
Ralf Grahn
In my mind, every vote for a constructive alternative in the European elections counts. The Treaty of Lisbon would widen the area where the directly elected European Parliament legislates on an equal basis with the Council of the European Union.
But the intergovernmental Council remains the principal decision-maker and legislator in many policy areas.
If an issue is important or sensitive enough for the member states, they keep the reins and leave the European Parliament on the sidelines.
Our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure continues, taking us through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Social policy
In EU terms social policy is mainly concerned with employment and working conditions. Action by the European Union is generally a complement to member states’ action. According to Article 153(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in the following fields the Council shall act unanimously, in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (paragraph 1):
(c) social security and social protection of workers;
(d) protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated;
(f) representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including codetermination, subject to paragraph 5;
(g) conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in Union territory;
However, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament, may decide to render the ordinary legislative procedure applicable to paragraph 1(d), (f) and (g).
An enabling clause (passerelle) like this may be more important in principle than in practice, because a move to qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure requires unanimity, which was not in existence when the treaty was agreed. But it would make the procedure more flexible, since laborious treaty amendment and ratifications would be unnecessary.
Anyway, the enabling clause (passerelle) is blocked with regard to social security and social protection of workers; paragraph 1(c).
***
Research and technological development
According to Article 182 TFEU, the multiannual framework programme for research and technological development, is adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure after consulting the Economic and Social Committee.
But the implementing specific programmes are adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee; paragraphs 3 and 4.
***
Environment
There has been much talk about the European Union’s role in protecting the environment (cf. Article 191 TFEU).
The ordinary legislative procedure applies as a rule, according Article 192(1) TFEU, but the second paragraph lists the exceptions subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure:
Article 192(2) TFEU
2. By way of derogation from the decision-making procedure provided for in paragraph 1 and without prejudice to Article 114, the Council acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt:
(a) provisions primarily of a fiscal nature;
(b) measures affecting:
— town and country planning,
— quantitative management of water resources or affecting, directly or indirectly, the availability of those resources,
— land use, with the exception of waste management;
(c) measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.
**
Here, too, in a second subparagraph there is a passerelle, opening up at least a theoretical possibility to shift to qualified majority voting at some future date:
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
may make the ordinary legislative procedure applicable to the matters referred to in the
first subparagraph.
***
Comment
In general ‘special legislative procedure’ can be read as a prognosis for either:
a) no EU legislation, or
b) legislation of low quality (based on the lowest common denominator).
In addition, although the European Parliament is normally consulted, its opinion lacks power. Thus, the process is less transparent and the outcome is less legitimate than legislation based on the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision).
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Swedish opinion on euro turns
For the first time an opinion poll shows more Swedes in favour of adopting the euro currency than those opposed. SR International – Radio Sweden reports that 47 per cent would now vote “Yes”, while 45 per cent would vote “No”: Swedes In Favour Of Euro (19 April 2009).
In the 2003 referendum 56 per cent voted against and 42 per cent for euro adoption.
***
The shift in opinion has become more marked during the economic downturn, which has seen the Swedish Crown lose in value.
The Swedish Liberal Party has actively pushed for Sweden to join the Eurozone, while other parties have ranged between outright hostility to a wait and see attitude.
Legally Sweden has an obligation to adopt the euro, since it has no opt-out in place or in the Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
In the 2003 referendum 56 per cent voted against and 42 per cent for euro adoption.
***
The shift in opinion has become more marked during the economic downturn, which has seen the Swedish Crown lose in value.
The Swedish Liberal Party has actively pushed for Sweden to join the Eurozone, while other parties have ranged between outright hostility to a wait and see attitude.
Legally Sweden has an obligation to adopt the euro, since it has no opt-out in place or in the Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
“Apathy is Not a Bug, It’s a Feature”
Andrei Tuch has written a provocative post worth reading and commenting on at the ThinkAboutIt European blogging competition: Apathy is Not a Bug, It’s a Feature (19 April 2009).
Take a look, and have your say. The post raises basic questions about European integration and about citizens' participation.
Ralf Grahn
Take a look, and have your say. The post raises basic questions about European integration and about citizens' participation.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Organised civil society programme
The advisory European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) consists of representatives of organised civil society, and the provisions are found in Articles 257 to 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
The EESC (or ESC) has adopted and launched A Programme for Europe: proposals of civil society.
On 40 pages the organised interest groups of European society have defined their views on the economic recovery and the upcoming European elections.
The EESC hopes to contribute to the development of an inclusive and mutually supportive European model, which must lead to stronger coordination between economic and political rules based on cooperation and integration strategies.
Participatory democracy
The EESC sees participatory dialogue as a complement to representative democracy. The Committee – not surprisingly – emphasises the role of representative civil society, and it proposes an institutional platform for civil dialogue as a contribution to its development.
The EESC does not propose reforms with regard to EU level representative democracy.
Ralf Grahn
The EESC (or ESC) has adopted and launched A Programme for Europe: proposals of civil society.
On 40 pages the organised interest groups of European society have defined their views on the economic recovery and the upcoming European elections.
The EESC hopes to contribute to the development of an inclusive and mutually supportive European model, which must lead to stronger coordination between economic and political rules based on cooperation and integration strategies.
Participatory democracy
The EESC sees participatory dialogue as a complement to representative democracy. The Committee – not surprisingly – emphasises the role of representative civil society, and it proposes an institutional platform for civil dialogue as a contribution to its development.
The EESC does not propose reforms with regard to EU level representative democracy.
Ralf Grahn
Governing Council of the European Central Bank: Voting rights
Slovakia became the 16th Eurozone country from the beginning of 2009. This forced the European Central Bank (ECB) to address the issue of voting rights. When we last wrote about this issue concerning the ECB Rules of Procedure, the matter was still under consideration.
Postponement
Before the end of 2008 the ECB decided to postpone the move to a new voting system, by Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2008/29 of 18 December 2008 to postpone the start of the rotation system in the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 7.1.2009 L 3/4. The postponement entered into force on 1 January 2009. The new voting system for governors of national central banks takes effect when two more countries adopt the euro.
An explanatory press release was issued 18 December 2008.
***
Future voting system
The future voting system has now been elaborated, by amending the ECB’s Rules of Procedure.
Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/5 of 19 March 2009 amending Decision ECB/2004/2 of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 18.4.2008 L 100/10.
The decision is based on monthly rotation between governors.
Ralf Grahn
Postponement
Before the end of 2008 the ECB decided to postpone the move to a new voting system, by Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2008/29 of 18 December 2008 to postpone the start of the rotation system in the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 7.1.2009 L 3/4. The postponement entered into force on 1 January 2009. The new voting system for governors of national central banks takes effect when two more countries adopt the euro.
An explanatory press release was issued 18 December 2008.
***
Future voting system
The future voting system has now been elaborated, by amending the ECB’s Rules of Procedure.
Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/5 of 19 March 2009 amending Decision ECB/2004/2 of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 18.4.2008 L 100/10.
The decision is based on monthly rotation between governors.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 18 April 2009
European elections FR: For or against Sarkozy?
What are the upcoming European elections about? A host of issues, different from country to country, but seldom bearing on the work of the European Parliament.
How can the few citizens of the European Union who bother to cast their ballots ever be supposed to understand the implications of their vote, if the political parties at European level (Europarties) have refused to nominate candidates for the Commission Presidency and the visible national parties compete on domestic platforms and grievances?
Perhaps a certain degree of European consciousness evolves slowly, so let us leave the new(ish) member states. Instead, let us find our model in one of the founding members, France, the home of the Schuman declaration.
Here is a snapshot presented by two French quality Euroblogs.
***
L’Européen jamais content
Cédric Puisney, also known as L’Européen jamais content, comments on an electoral campaign singularly out of breath in his blog post Européennes 2009 : UMPathétique (17 April 2009).
Puisney refers to the “stupid” call by the spokesperson for the Socialist Party (PS) Benôit Hamon for a vote of “sanction” against President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European elections.
After that Puisney turns to the campaign of the governing UMP party (EPP). He finds no political programme, but a visible appeal for donations. The real stars of the UMP campaign are not its top candidates, but Nicolas Sarkozy (the President of the French Republic), showing his voluntarist grin on the election poster.
***
Stupid or not, the campaign seems to be a contest for or against the sitting President of the Republic. Is representation for French citizens in the European Parliament really a question of a fifth column for the Elysée Palace or a counter-force to that?
With the possible exception of Sarkozy, most enlightened Europeans know that his term as acting President of the European Council ended nearly four months ago.
***
Diner’s Room
What if the European elections in France have really sunken to the level of a Franco-French dogfight?
Jules at Diner’s Room has written an ironic piece on the latest examples of Sarkozy’s famed modesty and diplomatic language to have gained international recognition: Classe mondiale (17 April 2009).
The comments are worth reading, too.
***
Together these blog posts give new life and meaning to the UMP slogan Quand l’Europe veut, l’Europe peut.
Need I exhort campaigners in newer member states to emulate the shining example given by the founding member and engine of European integration?
Ralf Grahn
How can the few citizens of the European Union who bother to cast their ballots ever be supposed to understand the implications of their vote, if the political parties at European level (Europarties) have refused to nominate candidates for the Commission Presidency and the visible national parties compete on domestic platforms and grievances?
Perhaps a certain degree of European consciousness evolves slowly, so let us leave the new(ish) member states. Instead, let us find our model in one of the founding members, France, the home of the Schuman declaration.
Here is a snapshot presented by two French quality Euroblogs.
***
L’Européen jamais content
Cédric Puisney, also known as L’Européen jamais content, comments on an electoral campaign singularly out of breath in his blog post Européennes 2009 : UMPathétique (17 April 2009).
Puisney refers to the “stupid” call by the spokesperson for the Socialist Party (PS) Benôit Hamon for a vote of “sanction” against President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European elections.
After that Puisney turns to the campaign of the governing UMP party (EPP). He finds no political programme, but a visible appeal for donations. The real stars of the UMP campaign are not its top candidates, but Nicolas Sarkozy (the President of the French Republic), showing his voluntarist grin on the election poster.
***
Stupid or not, the campaign seems to be a contest for or against the sitting President of the Republic. Is representation for French citizens in the European Parliament really a question of a fifth column for the Elysée Palace or a counter-force to that?
With the possible exception of Sarkozy, most enlightened Europeans know that his term as acting President of the European Council ended nearly four months ago.
***
Diner’s Room
What if the European elections in France have really sunken to the level of a Franco-French dogfight?
Jules at Diner’s Room has written an ironic piece on the latest examples of Sarkozy’s famed modesty and diplomatic language to have gained international recognition: Classe mondiale (17 April 2009).
The comments are worth reading, too.
***
Together these blog posts give new life and meaning to the UMP slogan Quand l’Europe veut, l’Europe peut.
Need I exhort campaigners in newer member states to emulate the shining example given by the founding member and engine of European integration?
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 17 April 2009
BBC’s free movement of EU labour map
The question of intra-EU free movement of persons is important for millions of EU citizens, especially those from the new member states.
The BBC offers a first aid kit for those who need information on existing restrictions. The public service broadcaster presents the matters in a readable fashion in its EU free movement of labour map (latest update 28 July 2008).
Read and enjoy before you buy your ticket.
Ralf Grahn
The BBC offers a first aid kit for those who need information on existing restrictions. The public service broadcaster presents the matters in a readable fashion in its EU free movement of labour map (latest update 28 July 2008).
Read and enjoy before you buy your ticket.
Ralf Grahn
Romania & Moldova: Loyal cooperation?
It is astounding how easily leaders of EU member states forget their basic treaty commitments. I have little sympathy for the unreformed regime in Moldova or its authoritarian policies to stifle political pluralism, stealing the elections long before the observers arrived.
But how can the leadership of Romania promise passports to one million Moldovans without thinking about its obligations to the other EU member states?
New Romanian citizens (from Europe’s poorest country) would automatically become citizens of the European Union.
Has the Romanian government consulted its partners about this sudden influx? Have they agreed? If so, where do we find the documents?
Loyal cooperation
Article 10 TEC
Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks.
They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this
Treaty.
***
Romania is not the first EU member state to act without concern for its partners, but old breaches are no excuse for new ones.
EUobserver reports EU dismayed by Romania mass citizenship plan (17 April 2009).
***
In addition to the lack of ’Community spirit’, the Romanian proclamation reveals one of the many weaknesses of a complementary citizenship, with different value in different member states.
Since loyal cooperation seems to be too weak a principle, EU citizenship needs to be reformed into an independent and unitary status, defining who is an EU citizen as well as the rights and obligations.
Ralf Grahn
But how can the leadership of Romania promise passports to one million Moldovans without thinking about its obligations to the other EU member states?
New Romanian citizens (from Europe’s poorest country) would automatically become citizens of the European Union.
Has the Romanian government consulted its partners about this sudden influx? Have they agreed? If so, where do we find the documents?
Loyal cooperation
Article 10 TEC
Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks.
They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this
Treaty.
***
Romania is not the first EU member state to act without concern for its partners, but old breaches are no excuse for new ones.
EUobserver reports EU dismayed by Romania mass citizenship plan (17 April 2009).
***
In addition to the lack of ’Community spirit’, the Romanian proclamation reveals one of the many weaknesses of a complementary citizenship, with different value in different member states.
Since loyal cooperation seems to be too weak a principle, EU citizenship needs to be reformed into an independent and unitary status, defining who is an EU citizen as well as the rights and obligations.
Ralf Grahn
EU customs: Economic Operators Registration and Identification number (EORI)
This eliminates one strip of red tape for importers of goods into the European Union: A lower level implementing Commission Regulation has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 17.4.2009 L 98/3, and it is set to enter into force on 1 July 2009.
EORI - single identification number
The object of the exercise is to admit a single EORI number (Economic Operators Registration and Identification number), unique in the European Community, assigned by a Member State customs authority or designated authority or authorities to economic operators and to other persons in accordance with the rules laid down in Chapter 6.
The act is called Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2009 of 16 April 2009 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
Ralf Grahn
EORI - single identification number
The object of the exercise is to admit a single EORI number (Economic Operators Registration and Identification number), unique in the European Community, assigned by a Member State customs authority or designated authority or authorities to economic operators and to other persons in accordance with the rules laid down in Chapter 6.
The act is called Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2009 of 16 April 2009 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is…?
The European liberal democrats (ELDR) launched their campaign for the June 2009 European elections and held their Council meeting yesterday. Here is the information they offer on the Council page:
“The ELDR Council Meeting will take place on the 16 April 2009 in Brussels, Belgium (from 11h00 to 14h00 followed by a lunch)
More info will follow in due course.”
The home page tells us that the Irish Fianna Fail has joined the liberals and that the ELDR has replied to the open letter by the Party of European Socialists (PES).
***
Commission President
But the most important question for EU citizens is the name of the liberal candidate to head the European Commission for the next five years.
On this, nothing.
Richard Laming of Federal Union fared no better in his search. In his blog post Silence speaks louder than words Laming concludes that the ELDR are not alone in European politics in ducking this issue, but that was not his understanding of what liberal politics was meant to mean.
***
Quisling Prime Ministers
They have all politically agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon, but they feel no obligation to act in the spirit of the two miserly concessions they made directly to the citizens of the European Union: To take account of the EP election results when appointing the candidate to become the President of the Commission and to put into practice the limited citizens’ initiative.
Long before the elections, the PES has been undermined, most notably by prime ministers Socrates, Zapatero and Brown.
The ELDR affiliated members of the European Council come from smaller countries such as Finland and Estonia, so their defection from the cause of European level democracy has gone largely unnoticed.
But the Quisling mechanism is the same: Overt or covert support for a second term for José Manuel Barroso (EPP), without interference from voters.
They did not even have the guts to support Barroso, if that is their intention.
Their subliminal message is: The European Union is their project, not ours. Solidarity between heads of state or government, but not towards the citizens of the European Union. The European elections do not matter.
A docile and less legitimate Commission strengthens the hand of national leaders in their ineffective and increasingly intergovernmental dealings at EU level, at a time when the world cries out for effective European solutions.
***
Results of deception
Catastrophic numbers of voters look set to abstain from voting in June, despite umpteen million euros plowed into awareness campaigns.
Paper or web pages – it doesn’t really matter: You cannot campaign on election manifestos or open letters, without flesh and blood candidates competing for at least one top spot.
The political parties at European level are abject failures, and I am still eagerly waiting for the first noteworthy contribution from their foundations (think-tanks), despite massive funding.
***
Alternatives?
It is extremely sad that Libertas is the only political party with pan-European ambitions, which has been able to attract attention even in media specialised on European affairs. Libertas has made a hash out of its launch.
If successful, a campaign against the Lisbon Treaty boils down to an expensive manoeuvre to retain the failed Treaty of Nice. It like opting for quicksand instead of progress.
There is no political programme for the coming five years, just strings of complaints and vague statements of pro-Europeanism contradicted by the recruited anti-European nationalists (and worse).
***
The state of this Union is bleak.
Ralf Grahn
“The ELDR Council Meeting will take place on the 16 April 2009 in Brussels, Belgium (from 11h00 to 14h00 followed by a lunch)
More info will follow in due course.”
The home page tells us that the Irish Fianna Fail has joined the liberals and that the ELDR has replied to the open letter by the Party of European Socialists (PES).
***
Commission President
But the most important question for EU citizens is the name of the liberal candidate to head the European Commission for the next five years.
On this, nothing.
Richard Laming of Federal Union fared no better in his search. In his blog post Silence speaks louder than words Laming concludes that the ELDR are not alone in European politics in ducking this issue, but that was not his understanding of what liberal politics was meant to mean.
***
Quisling Prime Ministers
They have all politically agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon, but they feel no obligation to act in the spirit of the two miserly concessions they made directly to the citizens of the European Union: To take account of the EP election results when appointing the candidate to become the President of the Commission and to put into practice the limited citizens’ initiative.
Long before the elections, the PES has been undermined, most notably by prime ministers Socrates, Zapatero and Brown.
The ELDR affiliated members of the European Council come from smaller countries such as Finland and Estonia, so their defection from the cause of European level democracy has gone largely unnoticed.
But the Quisling mechanism is the same: Overt or covert support for a second term for José Manuel Barroso (EPP), without interference from voters.
They did not even have the guts to support Barroso, if that is their intention.
Their subliminal message is: The European Union is their project, not ours. Solidarity between heads of state or government, but not towards the citizens of the European Union. The European elections do not matter.
A docile and less legitimate Commission strengthens the hand of national leaders in their ineffective and increasingly intergovernmental dealings at EU level, at a time when the world cries out for effective European solutions.
***
Results of deception
Catastrophic numbers of voters look set to abstain from voting in June, despite umpteen million euros plowed into awareness campaigns.
Paper or web pages – it doesn’t really matter: You cannot campaign on election manifestos or open letters, without flesh and blood candidates competing for at least one top spot.
The political parties at European level are abject failures, and I am still eagerly waiting for the first noteworthy contribution from their foundations (think-tanks), despite massive funding.
***
Alternatives?
It is extremely sad that Libertas is the only political party with pan-European ambitions, which has been able to attract attention even in media specialised on European affairs. Libertas has made a hash out of its launch.
If successful, a campaign against the Lisbon Treaty boils down to an expensive manoeuvre to retain the failed Treaty of Nice. It like opting for quicksand instead of progress.
There is no political programme for the coming five years, just strings of complaints and vague statements of pro-Europeanism contradicted by the recruited anti-European nationalists (and worse).
***
The state of this Union is bleak.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Lars Raaum’s Guide to EU legislation
Good news for students of politics and law: The Norwegian researcher and blogger Lars Raaum has written a handy guide called How to track EU legislation in 3 simple steps.
Despite your possible cynical thoughts, bred by constant marketing, Lars Raaum walks you through the steps in a logical and working manner, when you need to find out more about a piece of EU legislation.
Is it too good to be true?
Raaum admits that things get complicated when you reach the third step, the Council (which I often describe as the black hole of EU information). But you can hardly blame him for that.
Ralf Grahn
Despite your possible cynical thoughts, bred by constant marketing, Lars Raaum walks you through the steps in a logical and working manner, when you need to find out more about a piece of EU legislation.
Is it too good to be true?
Raaum admits that things get complicated when you reach the third step, the Council (which I often describe as the black hole of EU information). But you can hardly blame him for that.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: Am I a revisionist?
The European Parliament has published Graphical material promoting the European elections.
You find e-Banners in 23 languages, logos and postcards. There is a Logo Manual for the technically inclined. New material is promised.
***
Founding values – political correctness
Downloading the materials is free, but comes attached with conditions of use.
Why do I feel less enthusiastic after reading the conditions?
I freely admit that I am in sympathy with the principles evoked in the Preambles of the treaties forming the Treaty of Lisbon and the founding values in Article 2 of the amended Treaty on European Union (although the EU is far from the effective and democratic union I believe is in the interest of its citizens and the world):
Article 2 TEU
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
***
But then I read the variations and elaborations on the theme, and I get a quesy feeling of enforced political correctness:
Use of these communication products is authorised provided that:
• such use is related to the context of the European elections,
• such use is not linked directly or indirectly to a commercial purpose,
• such use is in no way associated with data or information that is of a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, revisionist, defamatory, insulting, obscene, pornographic or paedophile nature or tending to incite violence, especially racial violence; likely by its vary nature to undermine respect for the dignity of the human being, equal rights of women and men and the protection of children and adolescents; inviting minors to commit illicit or dangerous acts; encouraging others to commit crimes or offences or to consume prohibited substances; inciting suicide; inciting discrimination or hatred of a person or a group of persons on grounds of their origin, membership or non-membership of an ethnic group, a nation, a group, or a specific race or religion; excusing certain crimes (in particular, murder, rape, war crimes and crimes against humanity); contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality;
***
Revisionism?
When I grew up, I read about the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union hurling accusations of ‘revisionism’ at people deviating from the path of scientific socialism and its correct implementation.
Is the European Parliament about to prohibit such deviations, or has it concocted its own definition of what constitutes the ‘crime’ of revisionism?
As long as I don’t know, I have to count myself among the suspects.
Ralf Grahn
You find e-Banners in 23 languages, logos and postcards. There is a Logo Manual for the technically inclined. New material is promised.
***
Founding values – political correctness
Downloading the materials is free, but comes attached with conditions of use.
Why do I feel less enthusiastic after reading the conditions?
I freely admit that I am in sympathy with the principles evoked in the Preambles of the treaties forming the Treaty of Lisbon and the founding values in Article 2 of the amended Treaty on European Union (although the EU is far from the effective and democratic union I believe is in the interest of its citizens and the world):
Article 2 TEU
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
***
But then I read the variations and elaborations on the theme, and I get a quesy feeling of enforced political correctness:
Use of these communication products is authorised provided that:
• such use is related to the context of the European elections,
• such use is not linked directly or indirectly to a commercial purpose,
• such use is in no way associated with data or information that is of a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, revisionist, defamatory, insulting, obscene, pornographic or paedophile nature or tending to incite violence, especially racial violence; likely by its vary nature to undermine respect for the dignity of the human being, equal rights of women and men and the protection of children and adolescents; inviting minors to commit illicit or dangerous acts; encouraging others to commit crimes or offences or to consume prohibited substances; inciting suicide; inciting discrimination or hatred of a person or a group of persons on grounds of their origin, membership or non-membership of an ethnic group, a nation, a group, or a specific race or religion; excusing certain crimes (in particular, murder, rape, war crimes and crimes against humanity); contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality;
***
Revisionism?
When I grew up, I read about the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union hurling accusations of ‘revisionism’ at people deviating from the path of scientific socialism and its correct implementation.
Is the European Parliament about to prohibit such deviations, or has it concocted its own definition of what constitutes the ‘crime’ of revisionism?
As long as I don’t know, I have to count myself among the suspects.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
”Denmark’s EU opt-outs harmful”
Yesterday, Denmark’s new Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen speaking before the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) clearly stated that the EU opt-outs are harmful to the country’s interests. The Government will continue to work in order to abolish them. But he did not indicate when the time would be ripe.
Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship, and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The DIIS Summary on the Danish opt-outs is available here.
***
If opt-outs are harmful to Denmark, what about other EU member states with opt-outs?
Ralf Grahn
Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship, and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The DIIS Summary on the Danish opt-outs is available here.
***
If opt-outs are harmful to Denmark, what about other EU member states with opt-outs?
Ralf Grahn
Taliban or Vatican?
Taliban rule and Sharia law have been making headway in the most backward regions of our planet. Has the Vatican taken heart in its quest for medieval supremacy over temporal rulers?
The question has some relevance for the European Union, because the Vatican is an enclave within the EU’s territory.
See BBC News Vatican ‘vetoes’ US envoy names (14 April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm
In firmly rebuffing three ambassadors chosen by the US administration, the Vatican has pushed its ideological agenda well beyond international custom, although the Vienna Convention does not require any statement of reasons for denial of ‘agrément’ and accreditation.
Should President Barack Obama give in to the headstrong and reactionary agenda of Pope Benedict XVI?
Not in my view. The United States appoints its ambassadors. The US can live without a head of mission at the Holy See. There is no pressing need for President Obama to visit a hostile Pope with a medieval view of the world.
Obama, after all, was elected on a ticket of hope.
Ralf Grahn
The question has some relevance for the European Union, because the Vatican is an enclave within the EU’s territory.
See BBC News Vatican ‘vetoes’ US envoy names (14 April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm
In firmly rebuffing three ambassadors chosen by the US administration, the Vatican has pushed its ideological agenda well beyond international custom, although the Vienna Convention does not require any statement of reasons for denial of ‘agrément’ and accreditation.
Should President Barack Obama give in to the headstrong and reactionary agenda of Pope Benedict XVI?
Not in my view. The United States appoints its ambassadors. The US can live without a head of mission at the Holy See. There is no pressing need for President Obama to visit a hostile Pope with a medieval view of the world.
Obama, after all, was elected on a ticket of hope.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: Open letter to Europarties
About four weeks ago, Luc Van den Brande, President of the Committee of the Regions (CoR), joined with his European Parliament counterpart Hans-Gert Pöttering in calling on local and regional representatives from across the EU to encourage citizens to vote in June's European elections. The headline of the press release was Van den Brande and Pöttering urge regional and local elected politicians to get involved in European elections. All 27 versions can be accessed here.
It is remarkable how few changes would be needed to make the text applicable to the political parties at European level, the so called Europarties.
You know, the champions of EU citizens mentioned in Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community:
Article 191 TEC
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
***
There is one important distinction: Municipalities and regions are not directly dependent on the budget of the European Union. Europarties are.
The Europarties and their political foundations are financed by the European Parliament to the tune of about 18 million euros annually, but they have yet to nominate candidates for the post of President of the Commission.
Intimidated by members of the European Council, they have failed to stand up for the citizens of the European Union. They have (until now) failed in their primary task, and the results are seen in various polls on imminent abstention rates at the European elections.
Perhaps the letter to the Europarties could be spiced up with a threat to recover funds misused? For how can the Europarties even argue that they fulfil the conditions, if they fail in their primary task?
Ralf Grahn
It is remarkable how few changes would be needed to make the text applicable to the political parties at European level, the so called Europarties.
You know, the champions of EU citizens mentioned in Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community:
Article 191 TEC
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
***
There is one important distinction: Municipalities and regions are not directly dependent on the budget of the European Union. Europarties are.
The Europarties and their political foundations are financed by the European Parliament to the tune of about 18 million euros annually, but they have yet to nominate candidates for the post of President of the Commission.
Intimidated by members of the European Council, they have failed to stand up for the citizens of the European Union. They have (until now) failed in their primary task, and the results are seen in various polls on imminent abstention rates at the European elections.
Perhaps the letter to the Europarties could be spiced up with a threat to recover funds misused? For how can the Europarties even argue that they fulfil the conditions, if they fail in their primary task?
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Open Europe and Ulrich Beck
Once in a while Open Europe’s daily press summary contains a gem among the constant Jeremiads.
One example was Ulrich Beck's article in the Guardian This economic crisis cries out to be transformed into the founding of a new Europe (13 April 2009).
Recommended reading for all and sundry.
More Europe and why.
Ralf Grahn
One example was Ulrich Beck's article in the Guardian This economic crisis cries out to be transformed into the founding of a new Europe (13 April 2009).
Recommended reading for all and sundry.
More Europe and why.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: First-order voting weight
Just a quick thought, when various polls seem to promise abstention rates of 60 or 66 per cent at the June 2009 European elections:
If you belong to the four out of ten EU citizens who cast their ballots, your vote will count two and a half times compared to the potential turn-out.
In other words, first-rate voting weight for second-order elections.
***
As Clausewitz would have said: The European Union is too important to be left to the member states’ governments.
With the Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament would further gain in importance, although the march to EU level democracy promises to be long.
Ralf Grahn
If you belong to the four out of ten EU citizens who cast their ballots, your vote will count two and a half times compared to the potential turn-out.
In other words, first-rate voting weight for second-order elections.
***
As Clausewitz would have said: The European Union is too important to be left to the member states’ governments.
With the Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament would further gain in importance, although the march to EU level democracy promises to be long.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (V)
Once in a blue moon a special legislative procedure facilitates change by replacing treaty level change including ratifications. We find an example concerning the excessive deficit procedure.
On the other hand, usually unanimous Council legislation according to a special legislative procedure is an indication that unanimity lacked in the first place and is hardly to be expected later. Despite catastrophic results, prudential supervision seems to be a case in point.
Our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure, takes us through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Excessive deficit procedure
Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) spells out principle (half forgotten due to the economic crisis) that EU member states shall avoid excessive government deficits. It then lays down the roles of the Commission, the Economic and Financial Committee and the Council leading to an assessment whether an excessive deficit exists, as well as recommendations and measures.
Additional provisions concerning the procedures are found in Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure. The Protocol is legally binding and it contains treaty level provisions. Amending them would require both unanimous agreement and ratifications, but here the member states have agreed to facilitate change to a degree. The provisions of the Protocol may be replaced unanimously by a special legislative procedure, without time-consuming ratifications (Article 126(14) TFEU).
Article 126(4) TFEU
14. Further provisions relating to the implementation of the procedure described in this Article are set out in the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties.
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, adopt the appropriate provisions which shall then replace the said Protocol.
Subject to the other provisions of this paragraph, the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, lay down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of the said Protocol.
***
ECB and prudential supervision
Article 127 TFEU sets out the objectives and the tasks of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the European Central Bank (ECB). The ESCB shall contribute to the smooth conduct of policies pursued by the competent (national) authorities relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and the stability of the financial system.
Before the current financial and economic crisis, the member states’ governments we checked (United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland) congratulated themselves for retaining supervision at the national level. Even after the catastrophic results, leading to mind-boggling rescue operations involving EU-wide capital injections and guarantees of 3,000 billion euros, it is unsure to what extent the EU governments are prepared to create effective supervisory structures.
Just in case, the Lisbon Treaty contains the possibility to empower the European Central Bank, but subject to improbable unanimity and a special legislative procedure. The insurance sector is excluded even from the remote possibility.
Article 127(6) TFEU
6. The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may unanimously, and after consulting the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, confer specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions with the exception of insurance undertakings.
***
We have seen one facilitating and one obstructing example of the special legislative procedure, where a unanimous Council is the main actor and the European Parliament is only consulted.
Ralf Grahn
On the other hand, usually unanimous Council legislation according to a special legislative procedure is an indication that unanimity lacked in the first place and is hardly to be expected later. Despite catastrophic results, prudential supervision seems to be a case in point.
Our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure, takes us through the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Excessive deficit procedure
Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) spells out principle (half forgotten due to the economic crisis) that EU member states shall avoid excessive government deficits. It then lays down the roles of the Commission, the Economic and Financial Committee and the Council leading to an assessment whether an excessive deficit exists, as well as recommendations and measures.
Additional provisions concerning the procedures are found in Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure. The Protocol is legally binding and it contains treaty level provisions. Amending them would require both unanimous agreement and ratifications, but here the member states have agreed to facilitate change to a degree. The provisions of the Protocol may be replaced unanimously by a special legislative procedure, without time-consuming ratifications (Article 126(14) TFEU).
Article 126(4) TFEU
14. Further provisions relating to the implementation of the procedure described in this Article are set out in the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties.
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, adopt the appropriate provisions which shall then replace the said Protocol.
Subject to the other provisions of this paragraph, the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, lay down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of the said Protocol.
***
ECB and prudential supervision
Article 127 TFEU sets out the objectives and the tasks of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the European Central Bank (ECB). The ESCB shall contribute to the smooth conduct of policies pursued by the competent (national) authorities relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and the stability of the financial system.
Before the current financial and economic crisis, the member states’ governments we checked (United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland) congratulated themselves for retaining supervision at the national level. Even after the catastrophic results, leading to mind-boggling rescue operations involving EU-wide capital injections and guarantees of 3,000 billion euros, it is unsure to what extent the EU governments are prepared to create effective supervisory structures.
Just in case, the Lisbon Treaty contains the possibility to empower the European Central Bank, but subject to improbable unanimity and a special legislative procedure. The insurance sector is excluded even from the remote possibility.
Article 127(6) TFEU
6. The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may unanimously, and after consulting the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, confer specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions with the exception of insurance undertakings.
***
We have seen one facilitating and one obstructing example of the special legislative procedure, where a unanimous Council is the main actor and the European Parliament is only consulted.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 13 April 2009
Libertas: What you can’t get
You can buy buttons, mugs, tote bags, girls’ shirts, baseball caps and men’s T-shirts at the Libertas eStore.
The European elections are less than eight weeks away, but the Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on their site only in the coming weeks.
Is this the best democracy and accountability money can buy?
Ralf Grahn
The European elections are less than eight weeks away, but the Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on their site only in the coming weeks.
Is this the best democracy and accountability money can buy?
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (IV)
European politics on the never-never plan.
The dynamics – if you can call them that – of European integration are such that 26 member states may see the need for common legislation, but a treaty has to be concluded by every member.
Enter Political Fudge.
One stubborn member state holds out, while the rest manage to consecrate the principle of future legislation, subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
The European Union can proudly proclaim the potential to act, but nothing comes of it as long as even one member state invokes its veto. The directly elected European Parliament is marginalised.
We continue our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure, as laid down in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Indirect taxes
Harmonisation of VAT and other indirect taxes requires unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
Article 113 TFEU
(ex Article 93 TEC)
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.
***
Harmonisation of taxes, free movement and workers’ rights
Without qualified majority decisions there would be no working internal market, just a nice principle in the Treaty of Rome (EEC).
The ordinary legislative procedure applies to the approximation (harmonisation) of legislation aimed at the establishment and functioning of the internal market, with the exception of fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons (Article 114).
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure apply to the exceptions.
Article 115 TFEU
(ex Article 94 TEC)
Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.
***
European intellectual property rights
The Treaty of Lisbon would allow the creation of European intellectual property rights according to the ordinary legislative procedure, but the language arrangements have proven to be as vexed as ever (Article 118).
Article 118 TFEU, second subparagraph
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall by means of regulations establish language arrangements for the European intellectual property rights. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
The European Union is as strong as its weakest link.
Ralf Grahn
The dynamics – if you can call them that – of European integration are such that 26 member states may see the need for common legislation, but a treaty has to be concluded by every member.
Enter Political Fudge.
One stubborn member state holds out, while the rest manage to consecrate the principle of future legislation, subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
The European Union can proudly proclaim the potential to act, but nothing comes of it as long as even one member state invokes its veto. The directly elected European Parliament is marginalised.
We continue our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure, as laid down in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Indirect taxes
Harmonisation of VAT and other indirect taxes requires unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
Article 113 TFEU
(ex Article 93 TEC)
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.
***
Harmonisation of taxes, free movement and workers’ rights
Without qualified majority decisions there would be no working internal market, just a nice principle in the Treaty of Rome (EEC).
The ordinary legislative procedure applies to the approximation (harmonisation) of legislation aimed at the establishment and functioning of the internal market, with the exception of fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons (Article 114).
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure apply to the exceptions.
Article 115 TFEU
(ex Article 94 TEC)
Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.
***
European intellectual property rights
The Treaty of Lisbon would allow the creation of European intellectual property rights according to the ordinary legislative procedure, but the language arrangements have proven to be as vexed as ever (Article 118).
Article 118 TFEU, second subparagraph
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall by means of regulations establish language arrangements for the European intellectual property rights. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
The European Union is as strong as its weakest link.
Ralf Grahn
Europe’s road to oblivion
The BBC’s Mark Mardell wrote an interesting post on his Euroblog on 9 April 2009 A battle with Eurobabble.
During the USA – EU summit president Barack Obama represented the United States, but nobody represented Europe. Instead a number of national prime ministers or presidents addressed each issue.
How is the United States supposed to communicate with a cacophony of voices?
(An aside: Is strenuous American support for EU enlargement going to diminish the communication problems?)
***
Confusion can reign at national level, too. According to Helsingin Sanomat Halonen ja Vanhanen kehuivat Obama-henkeä (5 April 2009) both prime minister Matti Vanhanen and president Tarja Halonen denied that their competing claims to address the summit was the cause of both being denied the chance to speak.
***
Are there any lessons for the defenders of intergovernmentalism: freely cooperating sovereign nations (former great powers and all)?
They already have what they want: Bickering member states and leaders competing for two and a half minutes in the limelight are the political reality of the European Union’s supposedly common foreign policy.
Europe’s road to oblivion is paved with petty ambitions.
The real question is what the citizens of the European Union need for a better future.
Ralf Grahn
During the USA – EU summit president Barack Obama represented the United States, but nobody represented Europe. Instead a number of national prime ministers or presidents addressed each issue.
How is the United States supposed to communicate with a cacophony of voices?
(An aside: Is strenuous American support for EU enlargement going to diminish the communication problems?)
***
Confusion can reign at national level, too. According to Helsingin Sanomat Halonen ja Vanhanen kehuivat Obama-henkeä (5 April 2009) both prime minister Matti Vanhanen and president Tarja Halonen denied that their competing claims to address the summit was the cause of both being denied the chance to speak.
***
Are there any lessons for the defenders of intergovernmentalism: freely cooperating sovereign nations (former great powers and all)?
They already have what they want: Bickering member states and leaders competing for two and a half minutes in the limelight are the political reality of the European Union’s supposedly common foreign policy.
Europe’s road to oblivion is paved with petty ambitions.
The real question is what the citizens of the European Union need for a better future.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 12 April 2009
EU: Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas and other anti-intellectuals propagate a distorted picture of a mythical “Brussels”, where unelected officials swamp Europeans with harmful legislation. Instead of political programmes, they offer Jeremiads.
In the best case, these anti-EU crusaders are only deluded fools, although able to influence the ignorant. This should be enough for every informed voter to trust someone else, but I suspect that these anti-campaigners are not looking for supporters with critical faculties and basic knowledge.
In the worst case, these distortionists are perfectly aware of the reality, but consider it unfit for public consumption.
Let it be said: The Commission (where the unelected civil servants reside, just as their counterparts elsewhere are unelected) does not legislate in the main. It may be given limited powers to enact implementing legislation on the basis of existing legislation. The Commission proposes and administers. (In my view, the Commission should become a politically accountable government.)
The legislative powers belong to the Council, where the politically accountable ministers of the EU member states meet (not an ideal arrangement in my opinion, since their mandate is national, not an EU one). But unelected?
In some cases the Council of the European Union legislates on its own, or with marginal participation by the European Parliament, often unanimously, sometimes with high hurdles (qualified majority). This is the special legislative procedure of which we are going to see a few more examples.
(According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the directly elected European Parliament participates on an equal basis in many areas of legislation. This is usually called codecision, in the Lisbon Treaty officially the ordinary legislative procedure. Even in these cases large majorities are required in the Council.)
***
A few more examples of the special legislative procedure, as presented in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
External borders
Various measures concerning the external borders and short-stay residence permits are enacted by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 77 TFEU). However, the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states is of interest to EU citizens. For facilitating measures, a special legislative procedure and unanimity are required:
Article 77(3) TFEU
3. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 20(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
Family law
Judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications can advance by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 81 TFEU). Cross-border family situations are important for millions of EU residents. The member states have however exempted family law matters by special safeguards:
Article 81(3) TFEU
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, measures concerning family law with cross-border implications shall be established by the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision determining those aspects of family law with cross-border implications which may be the subject of acts adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The proposal referred to in the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the Council may adopt the decision.
***
Cross-border crime
We like to move around freely, but we want effective police action to curb cross-border crime. The ordinary legislative procedure applies to certain serious cross-border crimes, according to Article 83 TFEU. But new areas require unanimity. Minimum rules follow the previous legislative procedure:
Article 83(2) TFEU
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.
***
European Public Prosecutor
The first subparagraph of Article 86(1) TFEU contains the basic principle on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, by a special legislative procedure, although nobody believes in a unanimous decision. (Thus, the choreography leading to enhanced cooperation is in place.)
Article 86(1) TFEU, first subparagraph
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament.
***
Operational police cooperation
Isn’t effective police cooperation in the interest of law-abiding citizens? Article 87(1) concerns the establishment of police cooperation involving all the member states' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences; paragraph 2 lists measures falling under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Paragraph 3 reserves special treatment for operational police cooperation. If unanimity and a special legislative procedure fail, enhanced cooperation may follow between a group of member states.
Article 87(3) TFEU
3. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning operational cooperation between the authorities referred to in this Article. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
In case of the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft measures be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft measures concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
The specific procedure provided for in the second and third subparagraphs shall not apply to acts which constitute a development of the Schengen acquis.
***
Police operations in another member state
The rules for operations police and other authorities in the territory of another member state are enacted according to a special legislative procedure, unanimously.
Article 89 TFEU
(ex Article 32 TEU)
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Articles 82 and 87 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
From the viewpoint of an EU citizen, I would hope for more problem solving action and less fretting about sovereignty.
Ralf Grahn
In the best case, these anti-EU crusaders are only deluded fools, although able to influence the ignorant. This should be enough for every informed voter to trust someone else, but I suspect that these anti-campaigners are not looking for supporters with critical faculties and basic knowledge.
In the worst case, these distortionists are perfectly aware of the reality, but consider it unfit for public consumption.
Let it be said: The Commission (where the unelected civil servants reside, just as their counterparts elsewhere are unelected) does not legislate in the main. It may be given limited powers to enact implementing legislation on the basis of existing legislation. The Commission proposes and administers. (In my view, the Commission should become a politically accountable government.)
The legislative powers belong to the Council, where the politically accountable ministers of the EU member states meet (not an ideal arrangement in my opinion, since their mandate is national, not an EU one). But unelected?
In some cases the Council of the European Union legislates on its own, or with marginal participation by the European Parliament, often unanimously, sometimes with high hurdles (qualified majority). This is the special legislative procedure of which we are going to see a few more examples.
(According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the directly elected European Parliament participates on an equal basis in many areas of legislation. This is usually called codecision, in the Lisbon Treaty officially the ordinary legislative procedure. Even in these cases large majorities are required in the Council.)
***
A few more examples of the special legislative procedure, as presented in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
External borders
Various measures concerning the external borders and short-stay residence permits are enacted by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 77 TFEU). However, the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states is of interest to EU citizens. For facilitating measures, a special legislative procedure and unanimity are required:
Article 77(3) TFEU
3. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 20(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
Family law
Judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications can advance by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 81 TFEU). Cross-border family situations are important for millions of EU residents. The member states have however exempted family law matters by special safeguards:
Article 81(3) TFEU
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, measures concerning family law with cross-border implications shall be established by the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision determining those aspects of family law with cross-border implications which may be the subject of acts adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The proposal referred to in the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the Council may adopt the decision.
***
Cross-border crime
We like to move around freely, but we want effective police action to curb cross-border crime. The ordinary legislative procedure applies to certain serious cross-border crimes, according to Article 83 TFEU. But new areas require unanimity. Minimum rules follow the previous legislative procedure:
Article 83(2) TFEU
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.
***
European Public Prosecutor
The first subparagraph of Article 86(1) TFEU contains the basic principle on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, by a special legislative procedure, although nobody believes in a unanimous decision. (Thus, the choreography leading to enhanced cooperation is in place.)
Article 86(1) TFEU, first subparagraph
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament.
***
Operational police cooperation
Isn’t effective police cooperation in the interest of law-abiding citizens? Article 87(1) concerns the establishment of police cooperation involving all the member states' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences; paragraph 2 lists measures falling under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Paragraph 3 reserves special treatment for operational police cooperation. If unanimity and a special legislative procedure fail, enhanced cooperation may follow between a group of member states.
Article 87(3) TFEU
3. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning operational cooperation between the authorities referred to in this Article. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
In case of the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft measures be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft measures concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
The specific procedure provided for in the second and third subparagraphs shall not apply to acts which constitute a development of the Schengen acquis.
***
Police operations in another member state
The rules for operations police and other authorities in the territory of another member state are enacted according to a special legislative procedure, unanimously.
Article 89 TFEU
(ex Article 32 TEU)
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Articles 82 and 87 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
From the viewpoint of an EU citizen, I would hope for more problem solving action and less fretting about sovereignty.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (II)
The principle of conferred (attributed) powers. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The super majorities required by qualified majority voting (QMV); in part deferred until 2017. Enough limitations?
Not enough, says an EU member state or two; this is sensitive business. So the Treaty of Lisbon, itself the denominator of the least willing, hedges in legislation behind the walls of unanimity and the special legislative procedure.
Just as a reminder: There would have been no working internal market, if the member states had not abandoned the unanimity rule in important areas.
We continue to look at provisions where the Treaty of Lisbon retains the special legislative procedure, which leaves the directly elected European Parliament on the margins and normally offers little prospect of progress (unanimity).
In these cases the intergovernmental Council of the European Union is the decisive institution.
***
Diplomatic and consular protection
The principle of diplomatic or consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens is stated in Article 23 TFEU. The member states negotiate internationally and adopt the necessary provisions, but coordination and cooperation measures may be adopted within the EU framework, according to a special legislative procedure:
Article 23 TFEU
(ex Article 20 TEC)
Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. Member States shall adopt the necessary provisions and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection.
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt directives establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate such protection.
***
EU citizenship rights
The second paragraph of Article 25 TFEU offers a slim chance of strengthening EU citizenship rights, by unanimous decision and approval at national level:
Article 25 TFEU, second paragraph
On this basis, and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights listed in Article 20(2). These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
***
Restricting capital movements
Here is a rare example of a provision, where the special legislative procedure does not limit chances for progress, but is designed to make it difficult to back-track from existing measures which have liberalised the free movement of capital with regard to third countries:
Article 64(3) TFEU
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, only the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may unanimously, and after consulting the European Parliament, adopt measures which constitute a step backwards in Union law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries.
***
Why not see the European Union more as a means to reach pragmatic solutions for its citizens and firms?
Ralf Grahn
Not enough, says an EU member state or two; this is sensitive business. So the Treaty of Lisbon, itself the denominator of the least willing, hedges in legislation behind the walls of unanimity and the special legislative procedure.
Just as a reminder: There would have been no working internal market, if the member states had not abandoned the unanimity rule in important areas.
We continue to look at provisions where the Treaty of Lisbon retains the special legislative procedure, which leaves the directly elected European Parliament on the margins and normally offers little prospect of progress (unanimity).
In these cases the intergovernmental Council of the European Union is the decisive institution.
***
Diplomatic and consular protection
The principle of diplomatic or consular protection for unrepresented EU citizens is stated in Article 23 TFEU. The member states negotiate internationally and adopt the necessary provisions, but coordination and cooperation measures may be adopted within the EU framework, according to a special legislative procedure:
Article 23 TFEU
(ex Article 20 TEC)
Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. Member States shall adopt the necessary provisions and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection.
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt directives establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate such protection.
***
EU citizenship rights
The second paragraph of Article 25 TFEU offers a slim chance of strengthening EU citizenship rights, by unanimous decision and approval at national level:
Article 25 TFEU, second paragraph
On this basis, and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights listed in Article 20(2). These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
***
Restricting capital movements
Here is a rare example of a provision, where the special legislative procedure does not limit chances for progress, but is designed to make it difficult to back-track from existing measures which have liberalised the free movement of capital with regard to third countries:
Article 64(3) TFEU
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, only the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may unanimously, and after consulting the European Parliament, adopt measures which constitute a step backwards in Union law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries.
***
Why not see the European Union more as a means to reach pragmatic solutions for its citizens and firms?
Ralf Grahn
EU: Special legislative procedure (I)
We have seen numerous examples of the European Council and the Council subject to the unanimity rule, within the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), the common security and defence policy (CSDP), institutional reform and other issues.
In the area of legislation, far from all issues are decided by the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision) even if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force. Unanimous decisions are required in many instances.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, the intergovernmental Council of the European Union acts according to a special legislative procedure in cases where the directly elected European is less than an equal co-legislator.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
Here are examples of a special legislative procedure according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our source is the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Combating discrimination
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure for Council legislation:
Article 19(1) TFEU
(ex Article 13 TEC)
1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties and within the limits of the powers conferred by them upon the Union, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
***
Free movement of persons
Article 21 TFEU concerns the free movement of persons and necessary legislation. The third paragraph requires unanimity and lays down a special legislative procedure, when the Council adopts measures concerning social security or social protection:
Article 21(3) TFEU
3. For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
Municipal elections
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure apply to the detailed arrangements for EU citizens voting or standing as candidates in municipal elections in their state of residence, where they are not nationals:
Article 22(1) TFEU
(ex Article 19 TEC)
1. Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State.
***
European elections
Corresponding provisions apply to the European elections:
Article 22(2) TFEU
2. Without prejudice to Article 223(1) and to the provisions adopted for its implementation, every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State.
***
We have split the examples of the Council acting according to a special legislative procedure into a number of posts.
Ralf Grahn
In the area of legislation, far from all issues are decided by the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision) even if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force. Unanimous decisions are required in many instances.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, the intergovernmental Council of the European Union acts according to a special legislative procedure in cases where the directly elected European is less than an equal co-legislator.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
Here are examples of a special legislative procedure according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our source is the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Combating discrimination
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure for Council legislation:
Article 19(1) TFEU
(ex Article 13 TEC)
1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties and within the limits of the powers conferred by them upon the Union, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
***
Free movement of persons
Article 21 TFEU concerns the free movement of persons and necessary legislation. The third paragraph requires unanimity and lays down a special legislative procedure, when the Council adopts measures concerning social security or social protection:
Article 21(3) TFEU
3. For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
Municipal elections
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure apply to the detailed arrangements for EU citizens voting or standing as candidates in municipal elections in their state of residence, where they are not nationals:
Article 22(1) TFEU
(ex Article 19 TEC)
1. Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State.
***
European elections
Corresponding provisions apply to the European elections:
Article 22(2) TFEU
2. Without prejudice to Article 223(1) and to the provisions adopted for its implementation, every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State.
***
We have split the examples of the Council acting according to a special legislative procedure into a number of posts.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 11 April 2009
European Council President: Eliminating unwilling countries
The previous post looked at the dual membership of the European Union and NATO as a requirement for hopefuls (member states and candidates). In our opinion, due to their ambiguous relation to NATO and EU defence, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden had disqualified themselves from filling the posts of President of the European Council and double-hatted High Representative.
I should have mentioned that Denmark has an opt-out in place concerning the common security and defence policy, although it is a NATO member.
***
We turn to other evolving core areas of the European Union.
Schengen agreement
The Schengen agreement abolishes border controls between the member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
(Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania are not yet inside.)
***
Eurozone
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opted out of the common currency. Sweden has not bothered to join, despite its treaty obligation to adopt the euro.
(Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have committed themselves to entry, but have not made it yet.)
***
Justice and home affairs
Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the Treaty of Lisbon. Denmark has opted out of justice and home affairs (JHA) as well as EU citizenship (de iure).
***
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – politically binding since December 2000 – would become legally binding. Poland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
***
Lisbon Treaty
Let us use political ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as a proxy for being in the European mainstream.
Ireland has voted no and the Czech Senate has not voted on the amending treaty. The Polish President has refused to sign, although the Parliament has approved the Lisbon Treaty.
(In Germany the Constitutional Court has not given its verdict, but the political ratification process is concluded.)
***
Summing up
If we strike the unwilling or negligent countries, we are left with the talent pool coming from 17 EU member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
By ratifying the Lisbon Treaty the Czech Republic might join before the elections to the top offices, but the opt-outs elsewhere seem to be more firmly rooted.
According to these criteria, the EU member states outside one or more core areas at this point are: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
***
Is it unreasonable to expect that the President of the European Council and the empowered High Representative come from member states engaged in all the core areas of EU policy (or committed to joining)?
Ralf Grahn
I should have mentioned that Denmark has an opt-out in place concerning the common security and defence policy, although it is a NATO member.
***
We turn to other evolving core areas of the European Union.
Schengen agreement
The Schengen agreement abolishes border controls between the member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
(Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania are not yet inside.)
***
Eurozone
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opted out of the common currency. Sweden has not bothered to join, despite its treaty obligation to adopt the euro.
(Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have committed themselves to entry, but have not made it yet.)
***
Justice and home affairs
Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the Treaty of Lisbon. Denmark has opted out of justice and home affairs (JHA) as well as EU citizenship (de iure).
***
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – politically binding since December 2000 – would become legally binding. Poland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
***
Lisbon Treaty
Let us use political ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as a proxy for being in the European mainstream.
Ireland has voted no and the Czech Senate has not voted on the amending treaty. The Polish President has refused to sign, although the Parliament has approved the Lisbon Treaty.
(In Germany the Constitutional Court has not given its verdict, but the political ratification process is concluded.)
***
Summing up
If we strike the unwilling or negligent countries, we are left with the talent pool coming from 17 EU member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
By ratifying the Lisbon Treaty the Czech Republic might join before the elections to the top offices, but the opt-outs elsewhere seem to be more firmly rooted.
According to these criteria, the EU member states outside one or more core areas at this point are: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
***
Is it unreasonable to expect that the President of the European Council and the empowered High Representative come from member states engaged in all the core areas of EU policy (or committed to joining)?
Ralf Grahn
NATO & EU: Rewarding freeloading?
Since 1 April 2009 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has the following 28 members: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
In part, NATO is larger than the European Union. There are seven non-EU NATO members: Albania, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and the United States.
The remaining 21 are members of both NATO and the European Union. Double membership clearly represents the European mainstream.
Out of a total of 27 current EU member states, only six have left themselves outside NATO: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
These countries represent a fringe within the EU in four respects:
1. Their total population is about 28.2 million, or 5.7 per cent of a total EU population of 495.1 million.
2. Geographically they are more or less on the outer rim of the EU (although Austria has been overtaken and embedded by later entrants).
3. Their definitions of (military) non-alignment or neutrality have kept them outside NATO.
4. Their status with regard to the security and defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy can be described as an opt-out (The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States … ; Article 17 TEU).
To continue the discussion from my post Tony Blair new “EU President?” I ask: How could such a freeloading country (or a representative from one of them) be expected to drive forward a common defence policy and a common European defence?
This is, after all, one of the crucial areas for the European Council, and as such of its coming President.
Do the arguments look different, if we look at the double-hatted High Representative?
Am I being unreasonable or have these countries disqualified themselves from the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty?
In my humble opinion, responsibilities and rewards should go hand in hand.
Ralf Grahn
In part, NATO is larger than the European Union. There are seven non-EU NATO members: Albania, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and the United States.
The remaining 21 are members of both NATO and the European Union. Double membership clearly represents the European mainstream.
Out of a total of 27 current EU member states, only six have left themselves outside NATO: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
These countries represent a fringe within the EU in four respects:
1. Their total population is about 28.2 million, or 5.7 per cent of a total EU population of 495.1 million.
2. Geographically they are more or less on the outer rim of the EU (although Austria has been overtaken and embedded by later entrants).
3. Their definitions of (military) non-alignment or neutrality have kept them outside NATO.
4. Their status with regard to the security and defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy can be described as an opt-out (The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States … ; Article 17 TEU).
To continue the discussion from my post Tony Blair new “EU President?” I ask: How could such a freeloading country (or a representative from one of them) be expected to drive forward a common defence policy and a common European defence?
This is, after all, one of the crucial areas for the European Council, and as such of its coming President.
Do the arguments look different, if we look at the double-hatted High Representative?
Am I being unreasonable or have these countries disqualified themselves from the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty?
In my humble opinion, responsibilities and rewards should go hand in hand.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 10 April 2009
Economic crisis: EU State Aid Scoreboard
Theoretically the member states of the European Union have pledged the mind-boggling amount of 3,000 billion euros to counter the financial crisis and the economic recession, although the measures are highly unevenly spread across the member states.
In an unprecedented situation, the Commission has tried to uphold some respect for fair competition in the internal market against protectionistic urges, while allowing justified rescue measures.
In due time economic historians may come up with pondered views on how it should have been done, but for now the approved measures are on record for member states, financial institutions, firms and the public to digest.
The Report from the Commission: State Aid Scoreboard – Spring 2009 Update – Special edition on state aid interventions in the current financial and economic crisis, Brussels, 08.04.2009 COM(2009) 164 (30 pages), offers an overview of state aid measures1 undertaken by EU Member States in the context of the current financial and economic crisis and reviewed by the Commission until 31 March 2009 as well as an overview of the Commission's coordinating action in setting out general principles governing these aid measures.
The Table of contents offers a glimpse of the State Aid Scoreboard:
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
1. Early cases: Application of the standard rules on rescue and restructuring aid........... 5
2. Worsening of the crisis: Difficulties in the application of the standard rules on rescue and restructuring aid..................................................................................................... 8
3. The need to coordinate support to financial institutions: The Commission's Communications .......................................................................................................... 9
4. Measures adopted by Member States in support of financial institutions: schemes and ad hoc cases................................................................................................................ 14
4.1. Guarantee schemes covering the liabilities of financial institutions.......................... 16
4.2. Recapitalisation schemes ...........................................................................................18
4.3. Recent ad hoc cases (outside schemes)...................................................................... 20
5. Real economy and financial crisis: The 'Temporary Framework'.............................. 21
6. Procedures.................................................................................................................. 27
7. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 28
Annex 1: Where to find information on State aids................................................................... 30
***
However the actions are judged by posterity, we can ask: Where would Europe stand without its internal market, competition and state aid rules, arbitrated by the Commission?
Ralf Grahn
In an unprecedented situation, the Commission has tried to uphold some respect for fair competition in the internal market against protectionistic urges, while allowing justified rescue measures.
In due time economic historians may come up with pondered views on how it should have been done, but for now the approved measures are on record for member states, financial institutions, firms and the public to digest.
The Report from the Commission: State Aid Scoreboard – Spring 2009 Update – Special edition on state aid interventions in the current financial and economic crisis, Brussels, 08.04.2009 COM(2009) 164 (30 pages), offers an overview of state aid measures1 undertaken by EU Member States in the context of the current financial and economic crisis and reviewed by the Commission until 31 March 2009 as well as an overview of the Commission's coordinating action in setting out general principles governing these aid measures.
The Table of contents offers a glimpse of the State Aid Scoreboard:
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
1. Early cases: Application of the standard rules on rescue and restructuring aid........... 5
2. Worsening of the crisis: Difficulties in the application of the standard rules on rescue and restructuring aid..................................................................................................... 8
3. The need to coordinate support to financial institutions: The Commission's Communications .......................................................................................................... 9
4. Measures adopted by Member States in support of financial institutions: schemes and ad hoc cases................................................................................................................ 14
4.1. Guarantee schemes covering the liabilities of financial institutions.......................... 16
4.2. Recapitalisation schemes ...........................................................................................18
4.3. Recent ad hoc cases (outside schemes)...................................................................... 20
5. Real economy and financial crisis: The 'Temporary Framework'.............................. 21
6. Procedures.................................................................................................................. 27
7. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 28
Annex 1: Where to find information on State aids................................................................... 30
***
However the actions are judged by posterity, we can ask: Where would Europe stand without its internal market, competition and state aid rules, arbitrated by the Commission?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Finland’s EU policy: New report
We have posted earlier that the Government of Finland had promised an EU policy paper to Parliament this spring. It has now been published.
Here is the text of the Government’s press release:
Government Communications Unit
8.4.2009 14.05
Government Report on Finland’s EU Policy to be submitted to Parliament
The Government has, on Wednesday, 8 April, adopted a Report on Finland’s EU Policy. The report discusses the impact of EU membership on Finland, sets out basic guidelines and key objectives for Finland’s EU policy, considers ways to develop the exercise of influence in the EU, and analyses the development of the European Union.
In addition, the report takes a more far-reaching approach to the development of the European Union, presenting visions for the 2020s. The objective is to promote wide-ranging discussion on Finland’s EU policy in Parliament and in the Finnish society as a whole, with a view to issues such as the forthcoming European Parliament elections to be held in summer.
”This is the Government’s opening of discussion on Finland’s EU policy. Not least because of voting activity, I challenge the opposition, labour market organisations and NGOs to put forward their views on the type of EU policy that Finland should pursue,” Prime Minister Vanhanen said in connection with the release of the report.
According to the report, the effects of EU membership have been very positive in Finland. The membership has provided support for the economic environment in Finland and opened a variety of significant channels to exert influence. Membership in the EU has also brought clear advantages to citizens.
Finland’s priorities in the European Union focus on aspects such as the citizens’ Europe, the economic success of Europe and the EU's role as a prominent global actor. Special attention should be paid on determined efforts to eliminate obstacles to the mobility of people: Moving from one Member State to another should not be more complicated than moving within a country. Internal markets, a solid, level playing field and the euro lay the EU’s economic foundations. In the future, too, the EU's economic success will be dependant on the high level of knowledge and skills. A European Union acting in unison is best equipped to influence global development.
It is natural that Finland, as a prosperous Member State, belongs to the net contributors in the Union. The Government Report suggests that the EU budget be simplified, and the EU’s regional and structural policies be more particularly targeted at regions affected by poverty and special circumstances.
Finland’s EU policy is based on constructive exercise of influence, and Finland considers it important that the EU is strong and able to act. It is in the interest of Finland that matters be discussed at the EU level as this practise involves Finland in the decision-making process.
Further information: Jukka Salovaara, State Under-Secretary for EU Affairs, Government Secretariat for EU Affairs, tel. +358 9 1602 2182
***
Report
The 42 page Report is available in Finnish and in Swedish. An English translation will be published soon, hopefully here.
Ralf Grahn
Here is the text of the Government’s press release:
Government Communications Unit
8.4.2009 14.05
Government Report on Finland’s EU Policy to be submitted to Parliament
The Government has, on Wednesday, 8 April, adopted a Report on Finland’s EU Policy. The report discusses the impact of EU membership on Finland, sets out basic guidelines and key objectives for Finland’s EU policy, considers ways to develop the exercise of influence in the EU, and analyses the development of the European Union.
In addition, the report takes a more far-reaching approach to the development of the European Union, presenting visions for the 2020s. The objective is to promote wide-ranging discussion on Finland’s EU policy in Parliament and in the Finnish society as a whole, with a view to issues such as the forthcoming European Parliament elections to be held in summer.
”This is the Government’s opening of discussion on Finland’s EU policy. Not least because of voting activity, I challenge the opposition, labour market organisations and NGOs to put forward their views on the type of EU policy that Finland should pursue,” Prime Minister Vanhanen said in connection with the release of the report.
According to the report, the effects of EU membership have been very positive in Finland. The membership has provided support for the economic environment in Finland and opened a variety of significant channels to exert influence. Membership in the EU has also brought clear advantages to citizens.
Finland’s priorities in the European Union focus on aspects such as the citizens’ Europe, the economic success of Europe and the EU's role as a prominent global actor. Special attention should be paid on determined efforts to eliminate obstacles to the mobility of people: Moving from one Member State to another should not be more complicated than moving within a country. Internal markets, a solid, level playing field and the euro lay the EU’s economic foundations. In the future, too, the EU's economic success will be dependant on the high level of knowledge and skills. A European Union acting in unison is best equipped to influence global development.
It is natural that Finland, as a prosperous Member State, belongs to the net contributors in the Union. The Government Report suggests that the EU budget be simplified, and the EU’s regional and structural policies be more particularly targeted at regions affected by poverty and special circumstances.
Finland’s EU policy is based on constructive exercise of influence, and Finland considers it important that the EU is strong and able to act. It is in the interest of Finland that matters be discussed at the EU level as this practise involves Finland in the decision-making process.
Further information: Jukka Salovaara, State Under-Secretary for EU Affairs, Government Secretariat for EU Affairs, tel. +358 9 1602 2182
***
Report
The 42 page Report is available in Finnish and in Swedish. An English translation will be published soon, hopefully here.
Ralf Grahn
EU summits: One voice not enough for Finland?
Unclear Constitution sows confusion.
Helsingin Sanomat has brought it up again, this time in its international edition: President Halonen defends system of two representatives at EU summits.
“Two plates”
The issue has been dubbed the problem of two dinner plates by the media. Finland has been on a slow Constitutional trajectory from a royalist to a presidential and towards a parliamentarian form of democracy.
Generally, Finland can be seen as a stable and harmonius democracy, but the existing Constitution is a compromise, which embodies a directly elected President as main responsible for foreign policy with a Government in charge of EU affairs.
Every President and serious presidential hopeful since the beginning of Finland’s membership in the European Union has defended his or her participation in questions pertaining to the foreign and security policy of the European Union, and thus the meetings of the European Council.
Hence, the problem of two dinner plates at the meetings of EU heads of state OR government.
***
Constitution
The Constitution of Finland 11 June 1999 (731/1999) presents the fudge in Chapter 8 on international relations. The President is the foreign policy leader, but nowadays in co-operation with the Government.
On the other hand, the Government prepares all EU measures and executes them, possibly with the approval of Parliament:
Chapter 8 - International relations
Section 93 - Competence in the area of foreign policy issues
The foreign policy of Finland is directed by the President of the Republic in co-operation with the Government. However, the Parliament accepts Finland's international obligations and their denouncement and decides on the bringing into force of Finland's international obligations in so far as provided in this Constitution. The President decides on matters of war and peace, with the consent of the Parliament.
The Government is responsible for the national preparation of the decisions to be made in the European Union, and decides on the concomitant Finnish measures, unless the decision requires the approval of the Parliament. The Parliament participates in the national preparation of decisions to be made in the European Union, as provided in this Constitution.
The communication of important foreign policy positions to foreign States and international organisations is the responsibility of the Minister with competence in foreign affairs.
***
Parliamentary scrutiny
When Finland became a member of the European Union, it adopted a system of interactive parliamentary scrutiny built on the Danish model (and in many respects similar to the Swedish one).
Ahead of every Council meeting the responsible Minister discusses the issues with the Grand Committee (EU Committee), with the possibility to issue political guidance to the Government. Debriefings of the Council meetings take place afterwards.
All legislative and other EU proposals are communicated to Parliament and dealt with by the Grand Committee and special committees.
The Prime Minister discusses the meetings of the European Council before and reports afterwards.
The Government (not the President) is responsible for informing Parliament on both EU affairs and foreign affairs:
Section 96 - Participation of the Parliament in the national preparation of European Union matters
The Parliament considers those proposals for acts, agreements and other measures which are to be decided in the European Union and which otherwise, according to the Constitution, would fall within the competence of the Parliament.
The Government shall, for the determination of the position of the Parliament, communicate a proposal referred to in paragraph (1) to the Parliament by a communication of the Government, without delay, after receiving notice of the proposal. The proposal is considered in the Grand Committee and ordinarily in one or more of the other Committees that issue statements to the Grand Committee. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee considers a proposal pertaining to foreign and security policy. Where necessary, the Grand Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee may issue to the Government a statement on the proposal. In addition, the Speaker's Council may decide that the matter be taken up for debate in plenary session, during which, however, no decision is made by the Parliament. with the
The Government shall provide the appropriate Committees with information on the consideration of the matter in the European Union. The Grand Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee shall also be informed of the position of the Government on the matter.
Section 97 - Parliamentary right to receive information on international affairs
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament shall receive from the Government, upon request and when otherwise necessary, reports of matters pertaining to foreign and security policy. Correspondingly, the Grand Committee of the Parliament shall receive reports on the preparation of other matters in the European Union. The Speaker's Council may decide on a report being taken up for debate in plenary session, during which, however, no decision is made by the Parliament.
The Prime Minister shall provide the Parliament or a Committee with information on matters to be dealt with in a European Council beforehand and without delay after a meeting of the Council. The same applies when amendments are being prepared to the treaties establishing the European Union.
The appropriate Committee of the Parliament may issue a statement to the Government on the basis of the reports or information referred to above.
***
European Union
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP) are increasingly normal EU policy areas, and they encompass relations with the rest of the world. Member states’ foreign relations (hopefully) increasingly pooled through the European Union. The Treaty of Lisbon would be a modest but significant further step in this direction.
The border between EU foreign policy and ‘other’ foreign relations issues is becoming more artificial by the day.
***
Parliamentary scrutiny
Parliamentary scrutiny seems to work only in relation to a politically accountable Government.
The half-baked compromise of the Finnish Constitution needs to be reformed: Responsible Government and ceremonial President.
***
One voice in the world
Europe can hope to influence world events only if it learns to speak with one voice. How can a small state like Finland hope to influence anything if it refuses to speak with one voice even within the EU?
Ralf Grahn
Helsingin Sanomat has brought it up again, this time in its international edition: President Halonen defends system of two representatives at EU summits.
“Two plates”
The issue has been dubbed the problem of two dinner plates by the media. Finland has been on a slow Constitutional trajectory from a royalist to a presidential and towards a parliamentarian form of democracy.
Generally, Finland can be seen as a stable and harmonius democracy, but the existing Constitution is a compromise, which embodies a directly elected President as main responsible for foreign policy with a Government in charge of EU affairs.
Every President and serious presidential hopeful since the beginning of Finland’s membership in the European Union has defended his or her participation in questions pertaining to the foreign and security policy of the European Union, and thus the meetings of the European Council.
Hence, the problem of two dinner plates at the meetings of EU heads of state OR government.
***
Constitution
The Constitution of Finland 11 June 1999 (731/1999) presents the fudge in Chapter 8 on international relations. The President is the foreign policy leader, but nowadays in co-operation with the Government.
On the other hand, the Government prepares all EU measures and executes them, possibly with the approval of Parliament:
Chapter 8 - International relations
Section 93 - Competence in the area of foreign policy issues
The foreign policy of Finland is directed by the President of the Republic in co-operation with the Government. However, the Parliament accepts Finland's international obligations and their denouncement and decides on the bringing into force of Finland's international obligations in so far as provided in this Constitution. The President decides on matters of war and peace, with the consent of the Parliament.
The Government is responsible for the national preparation of the decisions to be made in the European Union, and decides on the concomitant Finnish measures, unless the decision requires the approval of the Parliament. The Parliament participates in the national preparation of decisions to be made in the European Union, as provided in this Constitution.
The communication of important foreign policy positions to foreign States and international organisations is the responsibility of the Minister with competence in foreign affairs.
***
Parliamentary scrutiny
When Finland became a member of the European Union, it adopted a system of interactive parliamentary scrutiny built on the Danish model (and in many respects similar to the Swedish one).
Ahead of every Council meeting the responsible Minister discusses the issues with the Grand Committee (EU Committee), with the possibility to issue political guidance to the Government. Debriefings of the Council meetings take place afterwards.
All legislative and other EU proposals are communicated to Parliament and dealt with by the Grand Committee and special committees.
The Prime Minister discusses the meetings of the European Council before and reports afterwards.
The Government (not the President) is responsible for informing Parliament on both EU affairs and foreign affairs:
Section 96 - Participation of the Parliament in the national preparation of European Union matters
The Parliament considers those proposals for acts, agreements and other measures which are to be decided in the European Union and which otherwise, according to the Constitution, would fall within the competence of the Parliament.
The Government shall, for the determination of the position of the Parliament, communicate a proposal referred to in paragraph (1) to the Parliament by a communication of the Government, without delay, after receiving notice of the proposal. The proposal is considered in the Grand Committee and ordinarily in one or more of the other Committees that issue statements to the Grand Committee. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee considers a proposal pertaining to foreign and security policy. Where necessary, the Grand Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee may issue to the Government a statement on the proposal. In addition, the Speaker's Council may decide that the matter be taken up for debate in plenary session, during which, however, no decision is made by the Parliament. with the
The Government shall provide the appropriate Committees with information on the consideration of the matter in the European Union. The Grand Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee shall also be informed of the position of the Government on the matter.
Section 97 - Parliamentary right to receive information on international affairs
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament shall receive from the Government, upon request and when otherwise necessary, reports of matters pertaining to foreign and security policy. Correspondingly, the Grand Committee of the Parliament shall receive reports on the preparation of other matters in the European Union. The Speaker's Council may decide on a report being taken up for debate in plenary session, during which, however, no decision is made by the Parliament.
The Prime Minister shall provide the Parliament or a Committee with information on matters to be dealt with in a European Council beforehand and without delay after a meeting of the Council. The same applies when amendments are being prepared to the treaties establishing the European Union.
The appropriate Committee of the Parliament may issue a statement to the Government on the basis of the reports or information referred to above.
***
European Union
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP) are increasingly normal EU policy areas, and they encompass relations with the rest of the world. Member states’ foreign relations (hopefully) increasingly pooled through the European Union. The Treaty of Lisbon would be a modest but significant further step in this direction.
The border between EU foreign policy and ‘other’ foreign relations issues is becoming more artificial by the day.
***
Parliamentary scrutiny
Parliamentary scrutiny seems to work only in relation to a politically accountable Government.
The half-baked compromise of the Finnish Constitution needs to be reformed: Responsible Government and ceremonial President.
***
One voice in the world
Europe can hope to influence world events only if it learns to speak with one voice. How can a small state like Finland hope to influence anything if it refuses to speak with one voice even within the EU?
Ralf Grahn
EU: State aid & national courts
Are the authorities pampering your competitors through unlawful state aid? If so, what can you do about it?
Are you confronted with a question concerning enforcement of state aid rules?
***
New Notice
The European Commission has issued guidance for competitors and national courts dealing with breaches of state aid rules: Commission notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) OJEU 9.4.2009 C 85/1.
The main purpose of the Notice is to inform national courts and third parties (competitors) about the remedies available in the event of a breach of state aid rules and to provide them with guidance as to the practical application of those rules. In addition, the Commission seeks to develop its cooperation with national courts by introducing more practical tools for supporting national judges in their daily work. The Notice replaces the 1995 Cooperation Notice.
The Notice is divided into three main parts: 1) Introduction, 2) the role of national courts in state aid enforcement, and 3) Commission support for national courts.
The Notice offers detailed guidance on or at least clear references to most of the questions a national court is confronted with in state aid cases.
Ralf Grahn
Are you confronted with a question concerning enforcement of state aid rules?
***
New Notice
The European Commission has issued guidance for competitors and national courts dealing with breaches of state aid rules: Commission notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) OJEU 9.4.2009 C 85/1.
The main purpose of the Notice is to inform national courts and third parties (competitors) about the remedies available in the event of a breach of state aid rules and to provide them with guidance as to the practical application of those rules. In addition, the Commission seeks to develop its cooperation with national courts by introducing more practical tools for supporting national judges in their daily work. The Notice replaces the 1995 Cooperation Notice.
The Notice is divided into three main parts: 1) Introduction, 2) the role of national courts in state aid enforcement, and 3) Commission support for national courts.
The Notice offers detailed guidance on or at least clear references to most of the questions a national court is confronted with in state aid cases.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
EU Services Directive: Sweden
The Swedish government has published a draft Bill on the Services Directive 2006/123/EC and sent it to the Council on Legislation for a legal opinion. This is normally the last stop before presenting a bill to the Parliament (Riksdag).
In the Swedish tradition, Lagrådsremiss: Genomförande av tjänstedirektivet (8 april 2009) comes with ample reasons, which may be of interest to drafters and practitioners in other EU member states. It comprises 247 pages.
The Services Directive, officially Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.12.2006 L 376/36. (The link is to the English version.)
The transposition date for the Services Directive is 28 December 2009 (Article 44).
Ralf Grahn
In the Swedish tradition, Lagrådsremiss: Genomförande av tjänstedirektivet (8 april 2009) comes with ample reasons, which may be of interest to drafters and practitioners in other EU member states. It comprises 247 pages.
The Services Directive, officially Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.12.2006 L 376/36. (The link is to the English version.)
The transposition date for the Services Directive is 28 December 2009 (Article 44).
Ralf Grahn
EU state aid: Public service broadcasting
Broadcasting offers a fascinating example of a sector where private companies compete with publicly funded entities.
The European Commission has been trying to find the right balance between competition and public funding in the broadcasting sector.
Today it issued a revised Draft Communication on the Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broadcasting, for a quick consultation of four weeks.
The reason for the new consultation round seems to lie in reactions from the EU member states, anxious to provide room for their public broadcasters, and the Commission indicates that it has taken some of these concerns on board.
An overview of the situation and links to relevant documents are provided in the press release State aid: Commission launches new consultation on revised rules for state funding of public service broadcasting (Brussels, 8th April 2009; IP/09/564), available in English, French and German.
***
Stakeholders have until 8 May 2009 to submit their comments.
Ralf Grahn
The European Commission has been trying to find the right balance between competition and public funding in the broadcasting sector.
Today it issued a revised Draft Communication on the Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broadcasting, for a quick consultation of four weeks.
The reason for the new consultation round seems to lie in reactions from the EU member states, anxious to provide room for their public broadcasters, and the Commission indicates that it has taken some of these concerns on board.
An overview of the situation and links to relevant documents are provided in the press release State aid: Commission launches new consultation on revised rules for state funding of public service broadcasting (Brussels, 8th April 2009; IP/09/564), available in English, French and German.
***
Stakeholders have until 8 May 2009 to submit their comments.
Ralf Grahn
Tony Blair new ”EU President”?
Because the Independent has relaunched Tony Blair’s candidacy for the post of President of the European Council, Re:Europa discusses the Properties of a President and concludes that a British President (Tony Blair) is out of the question, if Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are serious about regulating financial markets.
There is more discussion on the Independent’s campaign on the European Tribune.
***
Principled approach
In my view, three aspects need to be discussed before we turn to Tony Blair or any other candidate for the new post.
President of what?
The Treaty of Lisbon, if it enters into force, does not create a “President of the EU”. It does create the job of a President of the European Council, for someone to chair four annual meetings and to facilitate progress in between. International representative duties are not to be conducted at the expense of the High Representative.
Despite the limitations, the post is too important to be left solely to our national leaders.
Track record
When electing the person, thought should be given to the contribution by the country of origin and the personal role of the candidate.
The evolving core areas of EU action are crucial.
1) A European Union speaking with one voice in the world. Moves to achieve a coherent and consistent European common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and common security and defence policy (CSDP), away from solo flying by individual member states (including the UN Security Council, international orgnisations and relations with the USA). A proven commitment to a common European defence, in alliance with NATO.
2) The Schengen agreement abolishing border controls between the member states.
3) Adoption or at least the clear commitment to adopt the common currency (euro).
4) Justice and home affairs: Full participation in the area of freedom, security and justice.
5) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
6) Institutional reform: A driving force during the European Convention, the intergovernmental conference leading to the 2004 Constitutional Treaty and the IGC 2007 leading to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Future reform
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Union will continue to be a “hobbled giant”. Effective action and democratic legitimacy require further institutional reform.
The candidates have to prove not only their credentials, but their visions to the EU citizens they are willing to serve.
Election procedure
The European Council needs to arrange the election procedures in an open and transparent manner, inviting public discussion and campaigning.
Deals behind closed doors are possible only if the members of the European Council feel that EU citizens are not alienated enough from their project.
Candidate Blair
I invite readers to analyse the past actions of the United Kingdom and its long serving prime minister Tony Blair.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Ponder criteria and candidates from an EU perspective. It is unfair to blame Blair for not achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, when the God of three religions has failed.
There is more discussion on the Independent’s campaign on the European Tribune.
***
Principled approach
In my view, three aspects need to be discussed before we turn to Tony Blair or any other candidate for the new post.
President of what?
The Treaty of Lisbon, if it enters into force, does not create a “President of the EU”. It does create the job of a President of the European Council, for someone to chair four annual meetings and to facilitate progress in between. International representative duties are not to be conducted at the expense of the High Representative.
Despite the limitations, the post is too important to be left solely to our national leaders.
Track record
When electing the person, thought should be given to the contribution by the country of origin and the personal role of the candidate.
The evolving core areas of EU action are crucial.
1) A European Union speaking with one voice in the world. Moves to achieve a coherent and consistent European common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and common security and defence policy (CSDP), away from solo flying by individual member states (including the UN Security Council, international orgnisations and relations with the USA). A proven commitment to a common European defence, in alliance with NATO.
2) The Schengen agreement abolishing border controls between the member states.
3) Adoption or at least the clear commitment to adopt the common currency (euro).
4) Justice and home affairs: Full participation in the area of freedom, security and justice.
5) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
6) Institutional reform: A driving force during the European Convention, the intergovernmental conference leading to the 2004 Constitutional Treaty and the IGC 2007 leading to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Future reform
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Union will continue to be a “hobbled giant”. Effective action and democratic legitimacy require further institutional reform.
The candidates have to prove not only their credentials, but their visions to the EU citizens they are willing to serve.
Election procedure
The European Council needs to arrange the election procedures in an open and transparent manner, inviting public discussion and campaigning.
Deals behind closed doors are possible only if the members of the European Council feel that EU citizens are not alienated enough from their project.
Candidate Blair
I invite readers to analyse the past actions of the United Kingdom and its long serving prime minister Tony Blair.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Ponder criteria and candidates from an EU perspective. It is unfair to blame Blair for not achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, when the God of three religions has failed.
EU: Victims of crime & compensation
Becoming the victim of a crime can have devastating consequences. If it happens to you outside your country of residence, your difficulties in getting help may be even greater.
The member states of the European Union cooperate to build an area of freedom, security and justice. Currently police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is based on intergovernmental cooperation, under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). (The Treaty of Lisbon would generally improve the chances to reach tangible results.)
***
Standing of victims
Even under the existing provisions, the member states have achieved some progress. One example is the Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) 22.3.2001 L 82/1.
Based on Articles 31 and 34(2)(b) TEU, the Council has agreed on approximation (harmonisation) measures. Article 2 of the Framework Decision lays the foundations for the detailed provisions:
Article 2
Respect and recognition
1. Each Member State shall ensure that victims have a real and appropriate role in its criminal legal system. It shall continue to make every effort to ensure that victims are treated with due respect for the dignity of the individual during proceedings and shall recognise the rights and legitimate interests of victims with particular reference to criminal proceedings.
2. Each Member State shall ensure that victims who are particularly vulnerable can benefit from specific treatment best suited to their circumstances.
***
Overview
The Framework Decision lays down minimum standards applicable to all victims of crime, but some of the provisions are specifically aimed at ensuring the rights of crime victims from another member state. The headings of the provisions give an indication of the scope:
Article 1 Definitions
Article 3 Hearings, and provision of evidence
Article 4 Right to receive information
Article 5 Communication safeguards
Article 6 Specific assistance to the victim
Article 7 Victims' expenses with respect to criminal proceedings
Article 8 Right to protection
Article 9 Right to compensation in the course of criminal proceedings
Article 10 Penal mediation in the course of criminal proceedings
Article 11 Victims resident in another Member State
Article 12 Cooperation between Member States
Article 13 Specialist services and victim support organisations
Article 14 Trainingfor personnel involved in proceedings or otherwise in contact with victims
Article 15 Practical conditions regarding the position of victims in proceedings
***
Assessment
According to Article 17 the member states had an obligation to implement all the provisions by 22 March 2006. Article 18 contains their obligations to communicate their implementing measures to the Council and the Commission, and for the Commission to submit a report to the Council:
Article 18
Assessment
As from the dates referred to in Article 17, each Member State shall forward to the General Secretariat of the Council and to the Commission the text of the provisions enacting into national law the requirements laid down by this Framework Decision. The Council shall assess, within one year following each of these dates, the measures taken by Member States to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision, by means of a report drawn up by the General Secretariat on the basis of the information received from Member States and a report in writing submitted by the Commission.
***
Commission report
The Commission has now issued its assessment report, and the main findings are mentioned in the press release La Commission adopte le rapport de mise en œuvre de la Décision cadre relative au statut des victimes dans les procédures pénales (Bruxelles, 7 avril 2009 ; IP/09/549).
The report on the implementation of Framework Decisions 2001/220/JHA as such does not seem to have been published (yet?).
***
Compensation for victims
Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 6.8.2004 L 261/15.
Lacking a specific legal base, it was enacted on the basis of the so called flexibility clause, Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
The reasoning went like this:
“The Court of Justice held in the Cowan Case that, when Community law guarantees to a natural person the freedom to go to another Member State, the protection of that person from harm in the Member State in question, on the same basis as that of nationals and persons residing there, is a corollary of that freedom of movement. Measures to facilitate compensation to victims of crimes should form part of the realisation of this objective.”
[Cowan Case: Case 186/87, European Court reports 1989, p. 195.]
***
Main provisions
The Council Directive applies to victims of violent crime in cross-border situations, and it allows them to apply for compensation in their country of residence. The authorities have an obligation to assist the applicant:
Article 1
Right to submit an application in the Member State of residence
Member States shall ensure that where a violent intentional crime has been committed in a Member State other than the Member State where the applicant for compensation is habitually resident, the applicant shall have the right to submit the application to an authority or any other body in the latter Member State.
Article 2
Responsibility for paying compensation
Compensation shall be paid by the competent authority of the Member State on whose territory the crime was committed.
***
Review
According to Article 19 the Commission should report on the application of the Council Directive:
Article 19
Review
No later than by 1 January 2009, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Directive.
***
Commission report
Although not exactly on time, the Commission has now issued its report, as testified by the press release European Union makes it easier for crime victims to obtain compensation (Brussels, 7 April 2009; IP/09/548).
The press release contains the main findings on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, but as far as I was able to see, it has not been published (yet?).
More detail is given in an accompanying press release, available in French: Rapport sur l'application de la directive relative à l'indemnisation des victimes de la criminalité Directive 2004/80 CE (Bruxelles, 7 avril 2009; MEMO/09/159).
***
Apart from the concrete subject matter of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA and Council Directive 2004/80/EC, this post has tried to exemplify two questions of general interest:
1) The search for a legal base under the existing treaty provisions.
2) Communication and reporting requirements tied to the implementation of EU (EC) legislation.
Ralf Grahn
The member states of the European Union cooperate to build an area of freedom, security and justice. Currently police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is based on intergovernmental cooperation, under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). (The Treaty of Lisbon would generally improve the chances to reach tangible results.)
***
Standing of victims
Even under the existing provisions, the member states have achieved some progress. One example is the Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) 22.3.2001 L 82/1.
Based on Articles 31 and 34(2)(b) TEU, the Council has agreed on approximation (harmonisation) measures. Article 2 of the Framework Decision lays the foundations for the detailed provisions:
Article 2
Respect and recognition
1. Each Member State shall ensure that victims have a real and appropriate role in its criminal legal system. It shall continue to make every effort to ensure that victims are treated with due respect for the dignity of the individual during proceedings and shall recognise the rights and legitimate interests of victims with particular reference to criminal proceedings.
2. Each Member State shall ensure that victims who are particularly vulnerable can benefit from specific treatment best suited to their circumstances.
***
Overview
The Framework Decision lays down minimum standards applicable to all victims of crime, but some of the provisions are specifically aimed at ensuring the rights of crime victims from another member state. The headings of the provisions give an indication of the scope:
Article 1 Definitions
Article 3 Hearings, and provision of evidence
Article 4 Right to receive information
Article 5 Communication safeguards
Article 6 Specific assistance to the victim
Article 7 Victims' expenses with respect to criminal proceedings
Article 8 Right to protection
Article 9 Right to compensation in the course of criminal proceedings
Article 10 Penal mediation in the course of criminal proceedings
Article 11 Victims resident in another Member State
Article 12 Cooperation between Member States
Article 13 Specialist services and victim support organisations
Article 14 Trainingfor personnel involved in proceedings or otherwise in contact with victims
Article 15 Practical conditions regarding the position of victims in proceedings
***
Assessment
According to Article 17 the member states had an obligation to implement all the provisions by 22 March 2006. Article 18 contains their obligations to communicate their implementing measures to the Council and the Commission, and for the Commission to submit a report to the Council:
Article 18
Assessment
As from the dates referred to in Article 17, each Member State shall forward to the General Secretariat of the Council and to the Commission the text of the provisions enacting into national law the requirements laid down by this Framework Decision. The Council shall assess, within one year following each of these dates, the measures taken by Member States to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision, by means of a report drawn up by the General Secretariat on the basis of the information received from Member States and a report in writing submitted by the Commission.
***
Commission report
The Commission has now issued its assessment report, and the main findings are mentioned in the press release La Commission adopte le rapport de mise en œuvre de la Décision cadre relative au statut des victimes dans les procédures pénales (Bruxelles, 7 avril 2009 ; IP/09/549).
The report on the implementation of Framework Decisions 2001/220/JHA as such does not seem to have been published (yet?).
***
Compensation for victims
Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 6.8.2004 L 261/15.
Lacking a specific legal base, it was enacted on the basis of the so called flexibility clause, Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
The reasoning went like this:
“The Court of Justice held in the Cowan Case that, when Community law guarantees to a natural person the freedom to go to another Member State, the protection of that person from harm in the Member State in question, on the same basis as that of nationals and persons residing there, is a corollary of that freedom of movement. Measures to facilitate compensation to victims of crimes should form part of the realisation of this objective.”
[Cowan Case: Case 186/87, European Court reports 1989, p. 195.]
***
Main provisions
The Council Directive applies to victims of violent crime in cross-border situations, and it allows them to apply for compensation in their country of residence. The authorities have an obligation to assist the applicant:
Article 1
Right to submit an application in the Member State of residence
Member States shall ensure that where a violent intentional crime has been committed in a Member State other than the Member State where the applicant for compensation is habitually resident, the applicant shall have the right to submit the application to an authority or any other body in the latter Member State.
Article 2
Responsibility for paying compensation
Compensation shall be paid by the competent authority of the Member State on whose territory the crime was committed.
***
Review
According to Article 19 the Commission should report on the application of the Council Directive:
Article 19
Review
No later than by 1 January 2009, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Directive.
***
Commission report
Although not exactly on time, the Commission has now issued its report, as testified by the press release European Union makes it easier for crime victims to obtain compensation (Brussels, 7 April 2009; IP/09/548).
The press release contains the main findings on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, but as far as I was able to see, it has not been published (yet?).
More detail is given in an accompanying press release, available in French: Rapport sur l'application de la directive relative à l'indemnisation des victimes de la criminalité Directive 2004/80 CE (Bruxelles, 7 avril 2009; MEMO/09/159).
***
Apart from the concrete subject matter of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA and Council Directive 2004/80/EC, this post has tried to exemplify two questions of general interest:
1) The search for a legal base under the existing treaty provisions.
2) Communication and reporting requirements tied to the implementation of EU (EC) legislation.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Kouchner drops support for Turkey
The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has dropped his support for Turkish membership in the European Union. He cites the Turkish government’s pressure tactics at the NATO summit and its move away from the secular reform path.
La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).
Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.
***
We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.
Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)
***
President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?
Ralf Grahn
La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).
Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.
***
We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.
Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)
***
President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?
Ralf Grahn
EU: Criminal records
Slowly the European area of freedom, security and justice is taking shape. Two important justice and home affairs (JHA) acts concerning criminal records in cross-border cases have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 7.4.2009 L 93.
Framework decision
Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States
Purpose
Article 1
Objective
The purpose of this Framework Decision is:
(a) to define the ways in which a Member State where a conviction is handed down against a national of another Member State (the ‘convicting Member State’) transmits the information on such a conviction to the Member State of the convicted person’s nationality (the ‘Member State of the person’s nationality’);
(b) to define storage obligations for the Member State of the person’s nationality and to specify the methods to be followed when replying to a request for information extracted from criminal records;
(c) to lay down the framework for a computerised system of exchange of information on convictions between Member States to be built and developed on the basis of this Framework Decision and the subsequent decision referred to in Article 11(4).
***
Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)
The second act is Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA.
Material scope
Article 1
Subject matter
This Decision establishes the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS).
This Decision also establishes the elements of a standardised format for the electronic exchange of information extracted from criminal records between the Member States, in particular as regards information on the offence giving rise to the conviction and information on the content of the conviction, as well as other general and technical implementation means related to organising and facilitating the exchange of information.
***
Legal base
Both acts are based on Article 31 and the Framework Decision on Article 34(2)(b) and the ECRIS Decision on Article 34(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), where the provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are still located, because the Treaty of Lisbon is not yet in force.
As a reminder, here are the relevant treaty provisions (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E):
Article 31 TEU
1. Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States, including, where appropriate, cooperation through Eurojust, in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;
(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;
(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking.
2. The Council shall encourage cooperation through Eurojust by:
(a) enabling Eurojust to facilitate proper coordination between Member States' national prosecuting authorities;
(b) promoting support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of serious cross-border crime, particularly in the case of organised crime, taking account, in particular, of analyses carried out by Europol;
(c) facilitating close cooperation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, particularly, in order to facilitate the execution of letters rogatory and the implementation of extradition requests.
Article 34(2)(b) and (c) TEU
2. The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation, using the appropriate form and procedures as set out in this title, contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union. To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may:
-----
(b) adopt framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. Framework decisions shall be binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. They shall not entail direct effect;
(c) adopt decisions for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this title, excluding any approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. These decisions shall be binding and shall not entail direct effect; the Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall adopt measures necessary to implement those decisions at the level of the Union;
Ralf Grahn
Framework decision
Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States
Purpose
Article 1
Objective
The purpose of this Framework Decision is:
(a) to define the ways in which a Member State where a conviction is handed down against a national of another Member State (the ‘convicting Member State’) transmits the information on such a conviction to the Member State of the convicted person’s nationality (the ‘Member State of the person’s nationality’);
(b) to define storage obligations for the Member State of the person’s nationality and to specify the methods to be followed when replying to a request for information extracted from criminal records;
(c) to lay down the framework for a computerised system of exchange of information on convictions between Member States to be built and developed on the basis of this Framework Decision and the subsequent decision referred to in Article 11(4).
***
Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)
The second act is Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA.
Material scope
Article 1
Subject matter
This Decision establishes the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS).
This Decision also establishes the elements of a standardised format for the electronic exchange of information extracted from criminal records between the Member States, in particular as regards information on the offence giving rise to the conviction and information on the content of the conviction, as well as other general and technical implementation means related to organising and facilitating the exchange of information.
***
Legal base
Both acts are based on Article 31 and the Framework Decision on Article 34(2)(b) and the ECRIS Decision on Article 34(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), where the provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are still located, because the Treaty of Lisbon is not yet in force.
As a reminder, here are the relevant treaty provisions (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E):
Article 31 TEU
1. Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States, including, where appropriate, cooperation through Eurojust, in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;
(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;
(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking.
2. The Council shall encourage cooperation through Eurojust by:
(a) enabling Eurojust to facilitate proper coordination between Member States' national prosecuting authorities;
(b) promoting support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of serious cross-border crime, particularly in the case of organised crime, taking account, in particular, of analyses carried out by Europol;
(c) facilitating close cooperation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, particularly, in order to facilitate the execution of letters rogatory and the implementation of extradition requests.
Article 34(2)(b) and (c) TEU
2. The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation, using the appropriate form and procedures as set out in this title, contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union. To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may:
-----
(b) adopt framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. Framework decisions shall be binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. They shall not entail direct effect;
(c) adopt decisions for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this title, excluding any approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. These decisions shall be binding and shall not entail direct effect; the Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall adopt measures necessary to implement those decisions at the level of the Union;
Ralf Grahn
EU: Judgments in civil and commercial matters
This post is aimed at lawyers interested in the enforcement of European judgments.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 280/2009 of 6 April 2009 amending Annexes I, II, III and IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 7.4.2009 L 93/13.
As from tomorrow the lists in Annexes I to IV concerning these cross-border cases are being replaced by new consolidated versions. The contents of the Annexes at a glance:
Annex I Rules of jurisdiction referred to in Article 3(2) and Article 4(2)
Annex II on the courts or competent authorities to which the application referred to in Article 39 may be submitted
Annex III on the courts with which appeals referred to in Article 43(2) may be lodged
Annex IV on the appeals which may be lodged pursuant to Article 44
Ralf Grahn
Commission Regulation (EC) No 280/2009 of 6 April 2009 amending Annexes I, II, III and IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 7.4.2009 L 93/13.
As from tomorrow the lists in Annexes I to IV concerning these cross-border cases are being replaced by new consolidated versions. The contents of the Annexes at a glance:
Annex I Rules of jurisdiction referred to in Article 3(2) and Article 4(2)
Annex II on the courts or competent authorities to which the application referred to in Article 39 may be submitted
Annex III on the courts with which appeals referred to in Article 43(2) may be lodged
Annex IV on the appeals which may be lodged pursuant to Article 44
Ralf Grahn
European elections 2009 in French
Fondation Robert Schuman has launched thematic web pages dedicated to the European elections in June 2009: Élections européennes 2009.
The election pages are in French and they are sorted under four main headings.
• Information about the European Parliament: presentation, powers, composition, publications, quiz.
• The European elections: common rules, national rules, Europarties, national parties.
• Why vote? Introduction, political challenges, participation and electorate, reasons for voting.
• News: lists and programmes, opinion polls, results 2009 to be added.
The election pages appear well organised and informative with the general public in mind. The Robert Schuman Foundation plans to launch pages in English on 15 April 2009.
Ralf Grahn
The election pages are in French and they are sorted under four main headings.
• Information about the European Parliament: presentation, powers, composition, publications, quiz.
• The European elections: common rules, national rules, Europarties, national parties.
• Why vote? Introduction, political challenges, participation and electorate, reasons for voting.
• News: lists and programmes, opinion polls, results 2009 to be added.
The election pages appear well organised and informative with the general public in mind. The Robert Schuman Foundation plans to launch pages in English on 15 April 2009.
Ralf Grahn
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico
Eurocentric of The European Citizen wrote a post called America, the 28th Member State? on President Obama’s support for Turkish membership in the European Union.
Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.
***
I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.
The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.
It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.
Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:
This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.
To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.
It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.
Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.
According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.
Piece of cake, compared to Europe.
***
In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.
***
My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.
Ralf Grahn
Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.
***
I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.
The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.
It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.
Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:
This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.
To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.
It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.
Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.
According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.
Piece of cake, compared to Europe.
***
In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.
***
My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 6 April 2009
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union!
Why do Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy act so curmudgeonly about president Barack Obama’s strong support for Turkish membership in the European Union? Why not come up with innovative ideas of their own?
The best way to anchor Turkey firmly as a Western nation (and to serve American geostrategic interests) would be to accept it as a part of the Union.
Throw in Mexico for good measure. No more illegal immigration once the border is eliminated.
Why should the European Union have a monopoly on peaceful expansion, having grown from six to 27 since 1973? At the same time the USA has stagnated. The time has come for the United States of America to act responsibly by inviting two new states in need of anchoring. Adding two states to fifty shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
Send out the invitations from Europe, if the US government is too timid.
Ralf Grahn
The best way to anchor Turkey firmly as a Western nation (and to serve American geostrategic interests) would be to accept it as a part of the Union.
Throw in Mexico for good measure. No more illegal immigration once the border is eliminated.
Why should the European Union have a monopoly on peaceful expansion, having grown from six to 27 since 1973? At the same time the USA has stagnated. The time has come for the United States of America to act responsibly by inviting two new states in need of anchoring. Adding two states to fifty shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
Send out the invitations from Europe, if the US government is too timid.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Eurocentric
Once in a while there is cause to highlight a Euroblog worth reading, especially if it is fairly new and worth a larger readership than it may have had time to acquire. One such blog is Eurocentric’s The European Citizen.
When you read Eurocentric’s blog posts and comments, it is hard to believe the self-description: I am a second year student of Law and Politics…
The qualities are more akin to those of a graduate, researcher or teacher.
The latter part – with an interest in the EU and European politics – is much easier to believe.
Make Eurocentric a ‘must read’ among Euroblogs.
Ralf Grahn
When you read Eurocentric’s blog posts and comments, it is hard to believe the self-description: I am a second year student of Law and Politics…
The qualities are more akin to those of a graduate, researcher or teacher.
The latter part – with an interest in the EU and European politics – is much easier to believe.
Make Eurocentric a ‘must read’ among Euroblogs.
Ralf Grahn
European elections 2009 in German
CAP (Centrum für angewandte Politiksforschung) in Munich offers a mix of analysis and actuality on the June 2009 European elections.
The evolving pages are suited to the needs of teachers, researchers, students, journalists, officials and politicians who need background information on the elections to the European Parliament.
Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009 offers news and analysis, background notes, main themes, documents, electoral programmes, earlier election results, a selection of press items, useful links, partners and the contact details of the research team.
The documents pages offer access to more than forty publications of varying length. Naturally the ordinary CAP web pages present additional materials on European integration. Both are updated frequently, and worth checking at suitable intervals.
The main part of the information is in German, but some of the individual references are in English.
Ralf Grahn
The evolving pages are suited to the needs of teachers, researchers, students, journalists, officials and politicians who need background information on the elections to the European Parliament.
Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009 offers news and analysis, background notes, main themes, documents, electoral programmes, earlier election results, a selection of press items, useful links, partners and the contact details of the research team.
The documents pages offer access to more than forty publications of varying length. Naturally the ordinary CAP web pages present additional materials on European integration. Both are updated frequently, and worth checking at suitable intervals.
The main part of the information is in German, but some of the individual references are in English.
Ralf Grahn
European Parliament Political Groups
We are only two months from the European elections, to be followed by the forming of the (new) political groups in the European Parliament.
In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Library has published a standard note authored by Vaughne Miller on the political groups in the European Parliament.
European Parliament Political Groups (SN/IA/5031; 26 March 2009; 10 pages) offers a brief view of the EP political groups. After an introduction and a look at the structure of the EP groups, the note deals with the various benefits connected with the groups (material, procedural, committee composition, decision-making using co-decision, a comment and a comparison with Westminster).
***
Higher hurdle after European elections 2009
On page 3, the note correctly quotes the existing minimum requirements for a political group. According to Rule 29(2) of the EP’s Rules of Procedure the current minima for the formation of a political group are:
Rule 29(2)
2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-fifth of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty.
***
Given the proximity of the European elections and the formation of new groups, it would however have been helpful to mention the new rules entering into force at the first sitting of the new parliamentary term.
When the newly elected European Parliament convenes after the June 2009 elections, the requirements for forming a political group are going to be higher, according to the Decision on amendment of Rule 29 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure ─ Formation of political groups; Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0351.
As voted by the EPP and the PES, MEPs from at least a quarter of the member states will be needed; seven instead of six. The minimum number of MEPs rises from twenty to twenty-five.
Therefore it will be harder for motley crews of MEPs to the right of the centre-right (EPP) and to the left of the centre-left (PES) to find enough soul-mates to form political groups after the European elections.
The new Rule 29(2) sets the following requirements:
Rule 29(2) amended
2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-five.
***
One of the interesting questions after the European elections in June 2009 is going to be how the British Tories align themselves in the European Parliament, given the unquestionable importance of political groups in the running of the political business of the EP.
Ralf Grahn
In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Library has published a standard note authored by Vaughne Miller on the political groups in the European Parliament.
European Parliament Political Groups (SN/IA/5031; 26 March 2009; 10 pages) offers a brief view of the EP political groups. After an introduction and a look at the structure of the EP groups, the note deals with the various benefits connected with the groups (material, procedural, committee composition, decision-making using co-decision, a comment and a comparison with Westminster).
***
Higher hurdle after European elections 2009
On page 3, the note correctly quotes the existing minimum requirements for a political group. According to Rule 29(2) of the EP’s Rules of Procedure the current minima for the formation of a political group are:
Rule 29(2)
2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-fifth of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty.
***
Given the proximity of the European elections and the formation of new groups, it would however have been helpful to mention the new rules entering into force at the first sitting of the new parliamentary term.
When the newly elected European Parliament convenes after the June 2009 elections, the requirements for forming a political group are going to be higher, according to the Decision on amendment of Rule 29 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure ─ Formation of political groups; Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0351.
As voted by the EPP and the PES, MEPs from at least a quarter of the member states will be needed; seven instead of six. The minimum number of MEPs rises from twenty to twenty-five.
Therefore it will be harder for motley crews of MEPs to the right of the centre-right (EPP) and to the left of the centre-left (PES) to find enough soul-mates to form political groups after the European elections.
The new Rule 29(2) sets the following requirements:
Rule 29(2) amended
2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-five.
***
One of the interesting questions after the European elections in June 2009 is going to be how the British Tories align themselves in the European Parliament, given the unquestionable importance of political groups in the running of the political business of the EP.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 4 April 2009
Turkey ending its EU membership bid?
Is Turkey going to end its bid for accession to the European Union?
This is the way it looks after the opening of the NATO summit, where Turkey seems to have vetoed the candidacy of Danish premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen to become the next Secretary General.
The Turkish reforms were already down to snail’s pace, so perhaps Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has just decided to drive the last nail into the coffin of his country’s EU aspirations, without having to withdraw the bid formally.
Ralf Grahn
This is the way it looks after the opening of the NATO summit, where Turkey seems to have vetoed the candidacy of Danish premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen to become the next Secretary General.
The Turkish reforms were already down to snail’s pace, so perhaps Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has just decided to drive the last nail into the coffin of his country’s EU aspirations, without having to withdraw the bid formally.
Ralf Grahn
EU media measures & consultation
The Commission’s Media Task Force has compiled an Inventory of measures affecting the media, covering the following policy areas:
1) Audiovisual and media policies
2) Communications policy
3) i2010
4) Research
5) Other policy files with potential media impact
6) Commissioner’s groups
7) Reference – Lisbon strategy, impact assessment
Policies affecting the media are spread over fifteen Directorates-General and Services, which makes the Inventory a valuable tool for everyone interested in EU level developments. The Inventory is updated until January 2009.
***
SME consultation
The European Commission’s (DG INFSO) Media Task Force has launched an online consultation "European publishing small and medium-sized enterprises in the digital era: technological and business innovation ", in order to carry out a thorough investigation of the current state of publishing SMEs, in particular the obstacles they face and future development possibilities.
This questionnaire is aimed at SMEs in the field of publishing: books, newspapers and magazines.
Ralf Grahn
:
1) Audiovisual and media policies
2) Communications policy
3) i2010
4) Research
5) Other policy files with potential media impact
6) Commissioner’s groups
7) Reference – Lisbon strategy, impact assessment
Policies affecting the media are spread over fifteen Directorates-General and Services, which makes the Inventory a valuable tool for everyone interested in EU level developments. The Inventory is updated until January 2009.
***
SME consultation
The European Commission’s (DG INFSO) Media Task Force has launched an online consultation "European publishing small and medium-sized enterprises in the digital era: technological and business innovation ", in order to carry out a thorough investigation of the current state of publishing SMEs, in particular the obstacles they face and future development possibilities.
This questionnaire is aimed at SMEs in the field of publishing: books, newspapers and magazines.
Ralf Grahn
:
Friday, 3 April 2009
European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory launched
The European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory was duly launched 2 April 2009. The Commission has now published some additional information on the aims and organisation of the Observatory (Frequently Asked Questions; MEMO/ 09/146).
***
Council’s anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan
The Observatory is part of the European Union’s actions, put into context by the 25 September 2008 Resolution of the Competitiveness Council on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan.
***
EU Customs Action Plan to Combat IPR Infringements 2009-2012
A short while ago we noted another part of the European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan, Council Resolution 2009/C 71/01 of 16 March 2009 on the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009 to 2012, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 25.3.2009 C 71/1.
***
Industrial property rights
The Council Resolution, in turn, was based on the Commission’s Communication An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe (Brussels 16.7.2008; COM(2008) 465 final), dealing with patents and trademarks.
***
Community Trade Mark Regulation
Readers may have noticed the recast Community Trade Mark Regulation, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 24.3.2009 L 78/1. Officially, this text with EEA relevance is called:
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version).
Ralf Grahn
***
Council’s anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan
The Observatory is part of the European Union’s actions, put into context by the 25 September 2008 Resolution of the Competitiveness Council on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan.
***
EU Customs Action Plan to Combat IPR Infringements 2009-2012
A short while ago we noted another part of the European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan, Council Resolution 2009/C 71/01 of 16 March 2009 on the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009 to 2012, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 25.3.2009 C 71/1.
***
Industrial property rights
The Council Resolution, in turn, was based on the Commission’s Communication An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe (Brussels 16.7.2008; COM(2008) 465 final), dealing with patents and trademarks.
***
Community Trade Mark Regulation
Readers may have noticed the recast Community Trade Mark Regulation, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 24.3.2009 L 78/1. Officially, this text with EEA relevance is called:
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version).
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Euroblogging: Expanding Bloggingportal.eu
Two months have gone since I wrote about the launch of the Euroblog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu.
During this time, checking Bloggingportal.eu has become a daily habit for me, a handy way to scan about a hundred daily posts and to read the ones I find interesting (and have time for). I can also check the preferences highlighted by the editors.
I now have the latest post headlines appearing visibly on my own blog.
In two months the multilingual Bloggingportal.eu has expanded by almost 19 per cent, by 53 blogs (from 281 to 334).
Act now!
There is still room for expansion, I think. Bloggers can submit their own blog on European affairs or they can suggest a suitable blog for inclusion. Please, do.
***
The initiators and editors of Bloggingportal.eu are doing a great job in creating the European public space.
Ralf Grahn
During this time, checking Bloggingportal.eu has become a daily habit for me, a handy way to scan about a hundred daily posts and to read the ones I find interesting (and have time for). I can also check the preferences highlighted by the editors.
I now have the latest post headlines appearing visibly on my own blog.
In two months the multilingual Bloggingportal.eu has expanded by almost 19 per cent, by 53 blogs (from 281 to 334).
Act now!
There is still room for expansion, I think. Bloggers can submit their own blog on European affairs or they can suggest a suitable blog for inclusion. Please, do.
***
The initiators and editors of Bloggingportal.eu are doing a great job in creating the European public space.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
EU: Enlargement fatigue?
The French and German governments have ruled out further expansion of the European Union without the Treaty of Lisbon in force. The German CDU calls for consolidation after the latest wave of accessions, although some member states want to press ahead regardless of the institutional fundamentals.
See for instance Deutsche Welle ‘France, Germany Bolt EU Doors to Western Balkans’ (28 March 2009).
The three candidate countries hanging in the balance are Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey, with the rest of the Western Balkans as potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo).
Enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn is unhappy if the accession countries are barred through no fault of their own. He has some reasons on his side: The EU member states have unanimously opened the negotiations, and they should conclude them in good faith.
But there are other questions to consider.
The frontiers of Europe have never been defined, and the whole expansion process has been conducted without considering the opinions of EU citizens or European identity. As long as the fundamentals are open, the enlargement policy rests on thin air.
In 2004 and 2007 the European Union expanded from 15 to 27 member states. Bulgaria and Romania can hardly be counted as success stories at this point, but more serious is the change of atmosphere. The EU has become ever more like an intergovernmental bazaar, instead of a political union.
The Treaty of Nice (agreed in December 2000, signed in 2001) barely managed to adapt to the technical requirements of the coming ‘big bang’ enlargement, but politically it was a disappointment. Later stages of treaty reform ─ Laeken, the European Convention, the Constitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon ─ have not yet led to conclusive results.
The Lisbon Treaty may be an improvement compared to the Treaty of Nice, but it does not create an effective or democratic union.
In my opinion, the main fault of the French and German governments is not that they put a brake on EU expansion, but that they do not envision reform beyond the limited Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
See for instance Deutsche Welle ‘France, Germany Bolt EU Doors to Western Balkans’ (28 March 2009).
The three candidate countries hanging in the balance are Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey, with the rest of the Western Balkans as potential candidates (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo).
Enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn is unhappy if the accession countries are barred through no fault of their own. He has some reasons on his side: The EU member states have unanimously opened the negotiations, and they should conclude them in good faith.
But there are other questions to consider.
The frontiers of Europe have never been defined, and the whole expansion process has been conducted without considering the opinions of EU citizens or European identity. As long as the fundamentals are open, the enlargement policy rests on thin air.
In 2004 and 2007 the European Union expanded from 15 to 27 member states. Bulgaria and Romania can hardly be counted as success stories at this point, but more serious is the change of atmosphere. The EU has become ever more like an intergovernmental bazaar, instead of a political union.
The Treaty of Nice (agreed in December 2000, signed in 2001) barely managed to adapt to the technical requirements of the coming ‘big bang’ enlargement, but politically it was a disappointment. Later stages of treaty reform ─ Laeken, the European Convention, the Constitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon ─ have not yet led to conclusive results.
The Lisbon Treaty may be an improvement compared to the Treaty of Nice, but it does not create an effective or democratic union.
In my opinion, the main fault of the French and German governments is not that they put a brake on EU expansion, but that they do not envision reform beyond the limited Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
EU Council tasks: Enlargement
According to the Treaty of Lisbon, any European state which respects the EU’s founding values and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the European Union.
Although the Commission does the donkey work, the decisive steps of the accession process are intergovernmental, with the European Council, the Council as well as the member states’ governments and parliaments in key roles.
***
Eligibility
There are three groups of criteria for eligibility:
1) European state has not been defined, but in 1987 Morocco’s application to join the European Community was rejected on the grounds that it was not a European state. .
2) The values Article 49 of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU) refers to are mentioned in Article 2 TEU: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115).
3) The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. The current criteria have been laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen (1993) and Madrid (1995).
***
Council’s tasks
The applicant state addresses its application to the intergovernmental Council. The Council consults the Commission and needs the consent of the European Parliament for a decision to open membership negotiations.
Even if the formal decision is taken by the Council, unanimously, almost everyone would agree that the decisive political green light is given by the European Council.
The donkey work of conducting the accession negotiations is delegated to the Commission, but regulated and keenly followed by the Council. The applicant state has to adopt the existing Community legislation (acquis communautaire), and the negotiations advance Chapter by Chapter (35 in all).
The accession treaty is concluded intergovernmentally, between the member states and the applicant state, subject to ratification by all of them.
Ralf Grahn
Although the Commission does the donkey work, the decisive steps of the accession process are intergovernmental, with the European Council, the Council as well as the member states’ governments and parliaments in key roles.
***
Eligibility
There are three groups of criteria for eligibility:
1) European state has not been defined, but in 1987 Morocco’s application to join the European Community was rejected on the grounds that it was not a European state. .
2) The values Article 49 of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU) refers to are mentioned in Article 2 TEU: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115).
3) The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. The current criteria have been laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen (1993) and Madrid (1995).
***
Council’s tasks
The applicant state addresses its application to the intergovernmental Council. The Council consults the Commission and needs the consent of the European Parliament for a decision to open membership negotiations.
Even if the formal decision is taken by the Council, unanimously, almost everyone would agree that the decisive political green light is given by the European Council.
The donkey work of conducting the accession negotiations is delegated to the Commission, but regulated and keenly followed by the Council. The applicant state has to adopt the existing Community legislation (acquis communautaire), and the negotiations advance Chapter by Chapter (35 in all).
The accession treaty is concluded intergovernmentally, between the member states and the applicant state, subject to ratification by all of them.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
