EU: Preventing human rights infringements – CEPS proposal

In a research paper from the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) on the French Roma affair, the authors made an interesting proposal to strengthen human rights monitoring in the European Union. See:



Sergio Carrera and Anaïs Faure Atger: L’Affaire des Roms - A Challenge to the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, September 2010; 20 pages).

The researchers demonstrated the weakness and slowness of the existing ‘ex post’ enforcement procedures. In order to prevent further damage, the authors proposed a new mechanism to stop suspected violations (page 17):

The EU should therefore develop a new (preventive) enforcement mechanism that would complement the existing ones (the infringement and the fundamental rights proceedings). This procedure would be primarily destined to ensure that contested national policies and practices falling within the remits of EU law and fundamental rights (and applying exceptions and/or derogations to European rights and freedoms) would be immediately ‘frozen’ while the formal opening of infringement or fundamental rights proceedings would be still be considered and/or under study by the relevant services of the European institutions. For such an ex ante procedure to ensure its full effectiveness, careful attention should be paid at times of ensuring its overall objectivity, impartiality and accountability. It would also be necessary that the opening of the procedure would not only lie in the hands of the Commission, but that the latter could be also launched on the initiative of the European Parliament.

On page 18 Carrera and Faure Atger added some thoughts about this injunction-like freezing procedure, which would build on documented violations of citizens’ rights:

The new freezing enforcement procedure would be activated through the existence of ‘evidence’ provided (for instance) by the European Agency of Fundamental Rights (FRA) along with its Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) of Non-Governmental Organizations, which could be also tasked ‘to alert’ any suspected breaches of EU law and fundamental rights by EU member states. The next step would be the revision by the FRA of the pertinence of such allegations before a formal activation is put to the EU institutions. The existence of this EU-wide network for cooperation and information exchange set to act as the main channel for the FRA to engage civil society would enable an EU-wide coverage of the implementation of EU law in an enlarged EU. They could thus be responsible for informing/alerting if a violation of fundamental rights or EU law is suspected. The involvement of a network of independent experts who can be consulted quickly to present a report in relevant member states should also be another initiative to be considered in the implementation of such a procedure.

I noted this interesting proposal in a blog post yesterday: EU citizenship: France’s Roma expulsions documented by CEPS (11 October 2010).



There have been positive reactions from two Eurobloggers I value.


The writer of The European Citizen blog, Eurocentric (Conor Slowey) commented on my blog post. According to him, giving the European Parliament resolutions more force when it comes to breaching EU citizen rights could be a good step to ensure that EU citizenship rights are more effectively enforced (and in a timely manner).

However, how to improve enforcement caused Eurocentric some concern. Perhaps an independent Citizenship Ombudsman for monitoring citizenship rights across the EU might be a better way to ensure independent action.



In the blog post CEPS Proposes Freezing Enforcement Procedure (11 October 2010), Vihar Georgiev on the European Union Law blog presented a favourable initial reaction to the preventive mechanism.




As part of the Brussels Festival des libertés, the think tank CEPS and the ENACT research project (Enacting European citizenship) arrange a public debate On the margins of European citizenship, on 27 October 2010. This discussion may present an opportunity to address the weakness and lack of timeliness of existing procedures for monitoring the fundamental rights of EU citizens. Hopefully, we will see other reactions to the proposed freezing procedure by then.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Nowadays it is increasingly hard to find European enterprises, public authorities or interest groups without an active social media presence, or a stake in European Union affairs. Politics, policies, economics and law at a EU level are becoming more important in a globalising world, at least if Europeans still want to weigh in.

EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 672 673 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union (and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator.



You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.



Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?

EU citizenship: France’s Roma expulsions documented by CEPS

France’s expulsion of Roma shows that the rights of EU citizens are still in a formative phase, and issues of scope and exceptions concern other mobile Europeans as well.

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) has published a welcome research paper on the French Roma affair:



Sergio Carrera and Anaïs Faure Atger: L’Affaire des Roms - A Challenge to the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, September 2010)


One of the important contributions is that the authors document the pronouncements and actions of the French government in detail. This is enough to make the paper a valuable reference tool for all interested, but it offers more.

Carrera and Faure Atger also present how the other players have acted, including the tardy and initially weak response by the European Commission, the ‘guardian of the Treaties’.

The paper reveals the weaknesses of the current EU law monitoring system, and it argues that the current ‘ex post’ enforcement tools are ineffective in halting breaches of EU fundamental rights. In cases like the Roma expulsions the European Union needs an ‘ex ante’ freezing order, which could be launched by the European Parliament, not only the Commission.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Nowadays it is increasingly hard to find European enterprises, public authorities or interest groups without an active social media presence, or a stake in European Union affairs. Politics, policies, economics and law at a EU level are becoming more important in a globalising world, at least if Europeans still want to weigh in.

EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 672 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union (and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator.



You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.



Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?

Lisbon Treaty ratification: Four hurdles

Pjotr Maciej Kaczýnski, Sebastian Kurpas and Peadar ó Broin have analysed the state of play in four EU member states, where the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is on hold. ‘Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty ─ Ireland is not the only problem’ (EPIN Working Paper No. 18, published 24 September 2008; 16 pages) is available for downloading at:

http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1716

The issues and the coalitions for and against ratification in Ireland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland are treated in some detail, which makes the publication essential reading for everyone interested in the uncertain future of European integration.

Sweden is mentioned briefly, but the autonomous areas Gibraltar (United Kingdom) and the Åland Islands (Finland) remain outside the scope of the paper.


Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty rescue operation

Daniel Gros and Sebastian Kurpas of the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) have looked at the options for Europe after the Irish No vote. CEPS Policy brief No. 163 (June 2008) is available at:

http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1675

‘What next? How to save the Treaty of Lisbon’ starts with an assessment of different options under debate. These are:

1. Abandon the Treaty of Lisbon and continue with the Treaty of Nice

2. Reopening negotiations on a new Treaty

3. Increased efforts on flexible integration

4. Implementation of those elements in the Treaty of Lisbon that do not require ratification

5. Temporary withdrawal of Ireland from the EU

6. Continuing the ratification process followed by a second Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon

Gros and Kurpas then present what they call a feasible, legal and fair way ahead. Their Plan B proposes ratifying the consolidated treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. This would entail a speedy re-ratification by the member states that already have ratified the original Lisbon Treaty.

The second Irish referendum would be about a different question: Does Ireland wish to join the EU with the Lisbon Treaty in force?

***

The essentials of the CEPS proposal are the same as put forward by this blog, namely to save the substance of the Treaty of Lisbon within a new European Union among the ratifying states.

Given the potential unravelling of the Lisbon Treaty in a number of countries (the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Poland) and the possibility that some might balk at the abandonment of the ‘liberum veto’, the authors are perhaps unduly optimistic in proposing mandatory ratification by 26 states.

In my view, the basic criteria should be that the ratifying states continue, but the treaty is open for later accessions, a customary procedure regarding international treaties.

Another difference is that Gros and Kurpas, focusing on the rescue of the Lisbon Treaty, do not enter into a discussion of the growing popular resistance against the European Union and the profound disillusionment spreading among pro-Europeans.

Without a solemn pledge to institute EU level democratic legitimacy and accountability, the European project is headed for failure. This blog argues that the European Council has to set a new course towards fundamental democratic reform if it wishes to avert a worse catastrophe than the ship-wreck of the Lisbon Treaty.

The missing link between governing and governed must be established in a manner suited to the 21st century.


Ralf Grahn

Treaty of Lisbon: impact assessment

For most enlightened citizens it is enough to know the main changes the Reform Treaty of the European Union (Lisbon Treaty) brings about. The distinction between the European Union and the European Community, long ago abandoned in daily news reporting and colloquial speech, is going to disappear from the founding treaties. The main changes aim to improve the decision making and working of the EU institutions, so the benefits for the citizens are indirect: improved governance hopefully leads to better results for the citizens.

Almost all the media and many information services have reported on the new treaties and some of them have published fairly detailed fact sheets for general consumption.

But the European Union is also an object of study, research or work for many people. They need more detailed information. The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, including protocols and declarations, have been published on the Internet in all the official languages of the EU, except Irish.

The Treaty of Lisbon or Reform Treaty is highly unreadable, since only the amendments are presented, in a parsimonious manner.

The Council and the institutions of the European Union, as well as the governments of the member states, have refused to publish updated, consolidated versions for the general public for the time being. Luckily, a few research institutes and think-tanks have stepped in to fill the void. Already Spanish, French and English consolidations of the Lisbon Treaty are available, anticipating the contents of the treaties when in force.

The principle of equality of all EU citizens makes it highly desirable that the 20 language versions still missing could be published soon, even if equality has to be achieved without support from the EU institutions and the national governments. If there are not enough think-tanks and research institutes willing to take on the task, perhaps university, college or commercial publishers could sense an opportunity in addition to a civic duty. (For readers interested in basic information or consolidation, I refer to my earlier postings.)

There is, of course, en extensive literature on the now defunct Constitution. But more advanced analyses, specifically based on the Lisbon Treaty, are starting to appear. One good example is the joint study by three think-tanks based in Brussels – EPC, Egmont ja CEPS – which takes a fairly deep look at the institutional amendments: The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations.

In 147 pages the study offers a background view of the reforms and presents their contents, but goes further than that. The writers try to assess the scope and impacts of the proposed changes in real life.

The study is divided in chapters on the different institutions or subject matters: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Presidency of the Council, Qualified Majority Voting in the Council, National Parliaments, Enhanced Cooperation and Foreign Policy.

What was lost and what remained, when the 2001 Laeken declaration’s aims of a more democratic, transparent and efficient Union, in 2007 became an unreadable text, negotiated in secrecy, far from public scrutiny?

According to the writers, it would be sad to think that this complex document is the last word in institutional reform. They hope for a codified, clarified and readable future version of European rules and procedures.

The study can be downloaded for free from the web pages of the institutes.




Ralf Grahn


Source:

The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations; November 2007


Published by:

CEPS, the Centre for European Policy Studies; http://www.ceps.eu

Egmont, the Royal Institute for International Relations; http://www.egmontinstitute.be

EPC, the European Policy Centre; http://www.epc.eu

EU reform camp building

The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies Sieps is looking around for allies for budget reform within the European Union. The annual conference of the Institute, on 26 October 2007, was dedicated to The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future. On Tuesday, 6 November 2007, Sieps and the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) jointly host a seminar The EU Budget Review: Possibilities and Challenges for the Future.

At the Sieps conference Sweden’s EU minister Cecilia Malmström recollected that the current financial perspective of the European Union was a step in the right direction, but it was not far-reaching enough. She stressed the importance of the built-in review mechanism.

According to Malmström, citizens rightly expect the EU to use common funds well and efficiently. The Reform Treaty will lead to major improvements in this respect. The second major tool is a modern budget. The Swedish government believes that substantial reforms of EU spending – including re-prioritisation between areas of expenditure – are needed in order to achieve a budget that can contribute to the EU meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

Subsidiarity, European added value, proportionality and sound financial management are fundamental principles for a reform. The Swedish government has drawn some preliminary conclusions on the direction of the future EU policies: competitiveness, justice and home affairs, migration and asylum as well as external action.

The future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) should be guided by market orientation, consumer demand, environmental concern, deregulation and reduction of budget expenditure.

The European Union could contribute with strategic coordination of regional development in the wealthiest member states, whereas the actual European funding for cohesion policy should be reduced and allocated differently in the future.

An ideal income system based on member state wealth would probably be sustainable, transparent and legitimate, but as long as the EU budget is unreformed, it would lead to disproportionate net contributions. Fair burden-sharing between member states can only be achieved if a new income system is accompanied by spending reforms, Malmström concluded.

Malmström’s speech and presentations by Iain Begg, André Sapir and Göran Färm as well as a recording of the Sieps seminar can be found on the think-tank’s web pages.



Zero-based budgeting

Sieps has initiated a debate on the European Union’s budget review 2008/9 by publishing a discussion paper ”Agenda 2014: A Zero-Base Approach” by Daniel Tarschys.

According to Tarschys zero-based budgeting has been a heavy instrument in annual budget processes, but might suit the multiannual financial framework of the EU.


Research is needed well ahead of the closing stages, when quarrels on burden sharing between member states exclude all other considerations. The European Union has a multitude of aims, but the real high-level priorities of the Union should be sifted out. The efficiency and effectiveness of Union programmes should be analysed, not only historically, but with a view to the future. The starting positions and expectations of member states should be examined. Programmes with diminishing returns still have their beneficiaries and defenders; phasing-out mechanisms and compensation packages should be planned.


The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies is showing its pro-active stance in putting the crucial questions for the future of the European on its agenda and by its efforts to build coalitions for a reform agenda. The next long term budget (financial perspective) for five or seven years from 2014 is certainly one of these crucial areas of the Union.



To get started

Here, in addition to my previous posts, are a few sources for those who want to know more about EU (budget) reform:

The present long term budget (from 2007 including 2013) of the European Union is a good starting point: ”New budget, old dilemmas” by Iain Begg and Friedrich Heinemann.

If you want to reflect on a better budget for the EU, there is no turning back from the Common Agricultural Pollicy (CAP), still the biggest area of outlay in 2007. ”Why Europe deserves a better farm policy” by Jack Thurston presents the fundamental problems.

Iain Begg sorts out the basic budget terms and looks at both the budget review of 2008/9 and the financial perspective starting in 2014 in ”The 2008/9 EU budget review”. Is it possible to find solutions better adapted to the common good?


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies: The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future; 26 October 2007; presentations by Cecilia Malmström, Iain Begg, André Sapir and Göran Färm; web-tv recording; http://www.sieps.se

Daniel Tarschys: Agenda 2014: A Zero-Base Approach; Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies; October 2007; http://www.sieps.se

Iain Begg & Friedrich Heinemann: New budget, old dilemmas; Centre for European Reform; 22 February 2006; http://www.cer.org.uk

Jack Thurston: Why Europe deserves a better farm policy; Centre for European Reform; December 2005; http://www.cer.org.uk

Iain Begg: The 2008/9 EU budget review; EU-Consent EU-budget Working Paper No. 3; March 2007; http://www.eu-consent.net

Realistic treaty assessment

With a slimmed-down treaty [as outlined above], the EU would become somewhat more efficient and democratic, but it is questionable whether it would really prepare the Union for the future, Sebastian Kurpas and Stefano Micossi of the Centre for European Policy Studies concluded (CEPS Policy brief No. 130, May 2007: Will the European Council end the institutional deadlock in the EU? The Narrow Trail to an Agreement).

I am going to report how the member states have positioned themselves, according to the Policy brief.

The authors noted that any solution will have to respect a fundamental constraint: whatever new treaty emerges from the negotiations, the French, Dutch and British governments demand it to be of such nature that it will not require them to hold a new referendum.

In its opposition to meaningful institutional change, the United Kingdom will be able to enlist the support of Poland and the Czech Republic, certainly as regards opposition to constitutional symbols in the new treaty. However, Poland’s main interest is to prevent the double majority voting system in the Council as it is outlined in the Constitutional Treaty, to preserve at least some of the disproportionate weight relative to its population that it currently enjoys under the rules agreed during the Nice inter-governmental conference, Kurpas and Micossi remarked.

On the other hand, any deal must pay due recognition to the fact that 18 member states have ratified the Constitutional Treaty. The bulk of provisions in Part I must be saved, as any other solution would inevitably unravel the delicate balancing of the interests of the member states that made agreement possible in the last inter-governmental conference, Kurpas and Micossi wrote.

In a crisis scenario, the majority of the members that want a stronger union may eventually decide to proceed without permission of those that do not want to proceed. Anyway, the enlarged European Union will increasingly depend on mechanisms for flexible integration. These mechanisms should be used as a constructive tool to overcome tensions between countries that want to go ahead faster and those that prefer not to participate, said the authors.

Even if a compromise far beyond a lowest common denominator is found, important issues will remain on the table: particularly the conditions for future treaty reforms, which are of central importance in order to avoid institutional inflexibility, and the lack of transparency in a Union of 27 member states, Kurpas and Micossi reminded.

The Policy brief dealt with more detailed questions under discussion, but those interested enough are best served by reading the brief in its entirety.

Somewhat more efficient and democratic, but unfit for the future; that is a realistic assessment of the outcome of possible EU treaty reform. Our best hope?

Ralf Grahn