Many EU priority proposals pending

After the blog post Commission Work Programme 2018 looked at the CWP 2018 communication, the entry New and REFIT initiatives in Commission Work Programme 2018 glanced at the first two annexes, with ordinary legislative and political initiatives plus future of Europe proposals in the first annex, and REFIT   proposals in the second annex, but widening through a new communication on better regulation, an accompanying SWD(2017) 675 and a fresh REFIT Scoreboard.

Here we look at the priority proposals still pending.

Priority pending proposals

There was the Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017 conferring priority status on 58 proposals, but slow progress caused my choice of headline 22 September 2017 to State of the Union: legislative worries. I am not less worried now.

A month later we get this 14-page compilations of 66 pending proposal packages, all told:

Annex to the CWP 2018 communication; Strasbourg, 24.10.2017 COM(2017) 650 final ANNEX 3

If brevity is the soul of wit, the Annex III infographic should be commended for condensing the 66 pending proposal packages into just two pages.

Withdrawals and repeals

Withdrawal from the EU seems to be  the only process and Article 50 TEU the only provision in the EU treaties of interest among English mass circulation tabloids (and consequently, of what many people in Europe and America read about the European Union nowadays). Any other EU stories in these tabloids seem to support the purpose of creating horror images of the European Union in order to keep Leavers happy, despite their foolish decision and the government’s disastrous handling of Brexit.

However, we encounter the term ‘withdrawals’ in another context. The fourth annex of the Commission Work Programme for 2018 is:    

Annex to the CWP 2018 communication; Strasbourg, 24.10.2017 COM(2017) 650 final ANNEX 4

On five pages 15 planned withdrawals are presented, many of the proposals obsolete.  

The fifth annex adds a list of three superfluous proposals to be repealed:

Annex to the CWP 2018 communication; Strasbourg, 24.10.2017 COM(2017) 650 final ANNEX 5

Via the legal portal Eur-Lex with COM(2017) 650 as your reference, or the web page 2018 Commission work programme - key documents, you can look out for possible new language versions of the CWP 2018 documents. The #FutureOfEurope hashtag on Twitter yields an occasional gem for interested EU citizens.

Ralf Grahn

State of the Union: legislative worries

The European Commission’s English only State of the Union 2017 web page does not offer any updates this morning, but it only means that we have to look elsewhere for important developments.

Digital tax and Tallinn summit

Yesterday the Commission outlined a path towards fair taxation in the digital economy: press release IP/17/3305, questions and answers MEMO/17/3341 and vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis SPEECH/17/3402.

The exploratory communication is already available on the EU’s legal portal Eur-Lex, but at this time only in English:

A Fair and Efficient Tax System in the European Union for the Digital Single Market; Brussels, 21.9.2017 COM(2017) 547 final

The upcoming, 29 September 2017 Tallinn Digital Summit, arranged by the Estonian presidency of the Council of the European Union, offers the heads of state or government an opportunity to ponder the role of taxation as part of Europe’s digital future and the emerging digital single market.  For more detailed information, check the digital summit background paper and the state of play of the digital single market.

Naturally, it is economically important, especially for important American corporations, that the EU-US privacy shield fiction has received a clean bill of health: STATEMENT/17/3342.

Legislative worries

The next section in the State of the Union 2017 brochure (108 pages) is called the Policy Implementation Report (from page 79).

Against the backdrop of the blog post State of the Union: better regulation and enforcement and the corresponding brochure sections, the Policy Implementation Report offers a summary of the situation (page 80):  

Legislative Priorities: State of Play

On 13 December 2016, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission agreed on a Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017. They highlighted 58 initiatives for which a priority treatment in the legislative process was needed to help address the biggest of the European Union’s economic, environmental and societal challenges. The three institutions committed to ensure substantial progress and, where possible, delivery before the end of 2017. Of these 58 Commission proposals, 11 have already been agreed by the European Parliament and the Council and have therefore been delivered. If there is political will from the co-legislators, 19 initiatives are likely to be agreed by the end of 2017. For the remaining 28 proposals, agreement or substantial progress is unlikely to occur in 2017. For these outstanding proposals, the European Parliament and Council do not always move at the same pace, with one or the other accelerating or slowing progress. Strong political commitment from all EU Institutions will be required to complete these proposals in 2018.

The brochure then summarises progress for each of these 58 priority proposals in a convenient way; you can see the situation almost at a glance.

The presentation is technically beautiful, but the situation is worrying: 28 out of 58 legislative initiatives are stuck in the European Parliament or the EU Council, or both.

For more detailed views you can consult European Parliamentary Research Service EPRS publication The European Commission at mid-term and European Parliaments legislative train schedule (updated to the end of June).

Remaining sections

The sections of the State of the Union 2017 brochure still to cover are:

The European Solidarity Corps: One Year on

Visits to national Parliaments

Citizens’ Dialogues

Letter on the Roadmap for a More United, Stronger and a More Democratic Union  

Ralf Grahn

EU citizenship: Rapid reaction to Lamassoure’s report?

What happened to Alain Lamassoure’s report The citizen and the application of community law during the French presidency of the Council of the European Union during the latter half of 2008? Perhaps it was not entirely fair to start looking for concrete progress in the midterm review written by Christian Lequesne and Olivier Rozenberg (and published by Sieps), as I did in the blog post: Towards a citizens’ EU? Lamassoure report and French presidency (7 November 2010).

Each Council presidency reports on its ‘achievements’, and the French presidency in 2008 will hardly be remembered for more modesty than others. The report French presidency of the Council of the European Union: Review and outlook 1 July – 31 December 2008 runs to 42 pages

We search in vain for the name of Lamassoure to appear anywhere in the presidency report.

However, Chapter 3 sounds promising: A Europe at the service of citizens and enterprises (pages 14-26).

We do find encouragement for the mobility of young people (page 14), the construction of a European research area (ERA) including the free movement of researchers (page 14), the promotion of vocational mobility (page 15), improving professional mobility in terms of role and location (page 19), implementing rules for coordination of social protection systems (page 19), cross-border health care (page 21), advances in developing the common area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ; page 22), and other worthwhile causes.

We have to continue to page 23 to find the headline A Europe of Justice committed to strengthening the protection of people, facilitating the daily life of citizens and increasing mutual trust. Finally, on page 24, we find two paragraphs more directly related to concrete problems encountered by mobile EU citizens:

EU citizens, particularly those who exercise their right to free movement, expect European justice to facilitate their daily and family life. In this spirit, the French Presidency did its utmost to reach a political agreement on the regulation on maintenance obligations. This led to a decision, notably for the 170 000 couples of different nationalities in Europe that divorce each year, to simplify and accelerate the recovery of alimony, be it for adults or children.

Regarding dependent persons, ratification by France of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 will allow the Convention to enter into force. The Presidency has already managed to encourage several Member States to unite with it in a movement which should continue with a view to offering better protection from one State to another for handicapped children, wards and the elderly.

The EU citizens who exercise their right to free movement expect the EU to facilitate their daily and family life. This is acknowledged once in 42 pages, although the practical consequences were limited to quite specific instances.

There are some of his interviews and conferences in the meantime, but Alain Lamassoure’s web page Mission sur le citoyen et l’application du droit communautaire is silent on official action between the delivery of his report on 27 June 2008 and the Commission’s citizenship report 27 October 2010, exactly 28 months later.

Are the eleven million EU citizens living in another member state satisfied with the rapidity of reaction and effectiveness of response from the member states and the EU institutions?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Responsiveness – or lack of it – comes in many shapes and colours. Yesterday Mathew Lowry published a blog entry called The Brussels bubble may be growing, but it’s still a bubble, where he looks at the real social media challenges for the EU institutions. While you are at it, profit by reading a number of Lowry’s earlier posts about the European online public space.

Towards a citizens’ EU? Lamassoure report and French presidency

The free movement of persons is a fine principle, but in his 2008 report Alain Lamassoure MEP described the problems mobile EU citizens faced in real life with regard to cross-border healthcare, social security, the recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications, car registration and exports, fragmented consumer markets and consumer protection standards, and family and inheritance law, to name just a few.

In a nutshell, Lamassoure concluded that (page 32-33):

In practical terms, citizens need security and legal simplicity just as businesses do…Laws are not made for their authors, nor for the philosophers – but for their subjects, in the sense of the people who have to abide by the law. There are cases where abuses of subsidiarity are more to be feared than abuses of uniformity.

Referring to Eurobarometer opinion polls, Lamassoure stated that more than 9 out of 10 people want judicial cooperation in civil matters, particularly in family matters (page 44).

Based on the problems, needs and opinions, Lamassoure entered into a lengthy discussion about the relative merits of directly applicable regulations versus directives transposed into national legislation, including the quality of transposition and infringement procedures (page 48-55).

After discussing the adoption and transposition of European laws, Lamassoure turned to the citizen facing the national administrations (from page 56). He presented the various EU information channels and advisory services, often little known among the public. Thereafter he gave examples of bewildering administrative practices, with cross-border workers in some areas especially frustrated. There is a gap between European case law and legal acts on the one hand, and application on the ground on the other hand. Further, he discussed problems related to legal remedies.

It is somewhat depressing to see how complex and intractable the every day problems can be for mobile Europeans.

The report was requested by the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, and drafted by a French member of the European Parliament, Alain Lamassoure, ahead of the French presidency of the Council of the European Union, so many of the proposals for improvement are directed at the French government preparing to chair the European Council and the different Council configurations. But Lamassoure’s broad canvas includes a considerable number of suggestions for the EU institutions and the member states.

The report is a natural introduction to the various issues concerning EU citizens in cross-border situations, and it serves as the basis for evaluating later EU actions and laws intended to improve their situation.

The report exists in at least three language versions, the French original, a German translation and the English translation we have used here:

Alain LAMASSOURE, Député européen: LE CITOYEN ET L’APPLICATION DU DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE Rapport au Président de la République (8 juin 2008 ; 188 pages)

Alain LAMASSOURE, Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments: DER BÜRGER UND DIE ANWENDUNG DES GEMEINSCHAFTSRECHTS Bericht an den Staatspräsidenten( 8. Juni 2008)

Alain LAMASSOURE, Member of the European Parliament: THE CITIZEN AND THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW Report to the President of the Republic (8th June 2008)

Where did it lead, if anywhere?


French EU Council presidency

President Nicolas Sarkozy and French public opinion seemed to be in unison with regard to the need to protect French (and EU citizens) from the “threats” of globalisation, but it is hard to see traces of the Lamassoure report or active but mundane efforts to improve the rights of ordinary EU citizens in the work of the French presidency of the Council of the European Union.

At least, this is the impression I get from the midterm review of the French EU Council presidency written by two outside experts:

Christian Lequesne and Olivier Rozenberg: The French Presidency of 2008: The Unexpected Agenda (Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies Sieps 2008:3op; 57 pages)

Is this a lopsided view?


Ralf Grahn



P.S. Bit more complicated… is a very human blog, where rose22joh writes about British and European politics, parenting, faith and life, none of them easy to combine; this makes for interesting reading.

EU citizens and European law – Introduction by Alain Lamassoure MEP

One of the better moves of the French president Nicolas Sarkozy ahead of France’s presidency of the Council of the European Union was to ask Alain Lamassoure MEP to make some practical proposals for improving the effective application of Community law for ordinary people.

The report is dated 8 June 2008, and Lamassoure handed it over to Sarkozy 27 June 2008, just a few days before the beginning of the six month French Council presidency.

The English web page of the European Commission’s Directorate-General Justice recently linked only to the French original, so I decided to look for other language versions in order to make the report accessible to a greater number of people.

Despite time wasted on some inconclusive searches, we only have to go Lamassoure’s own web page to find the report in French, German and English. If there are translations into other languages, someone could be kind enough to indicate where they can be found. However, here are the direct links to the three language versions:

Alain LAMASSOURE, Député européen: LE CITOYEN ET L’APPLICATION DU DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE Rapport au Président de la République (8 juin 2008 ; 188 pages)

Alain LAMASSOURE, Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments: DER BÜRGER UND DIE ANWENDUNG DES GEMEINSCHAFTSRECHTS Bericht an den Staatspräsidenten( 8. Juni 2008)

Alain LAMASSOURE, Member of the European Parliament: THE CITIZEN AND THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW Report to the President of the Republic (8th June 2008)


EU citizen and application of EU law

The Lisbon Treaty is in force since 1 December 2009, so I am going to use the expression ‘EU law’ instead of the now outdated ‘Community law’, if possible. I will use the English language version of the report, since it is convenient for the Grahnlaw blog and a majority of its readers.

In the introduction to his mission, Lamassoure referred to what he called an ‘undulating legal landscape on the continental scale’. While sedentary people may be little aware of this, the nomads in our society – i.e. those businesses and people whose living space goes beyond their national borders – are the first to suffer from it, said Lamassoure (page 4).

The main aim of the report was to make sure that EU law benefits European citizens as our legislators intend it (page 5).


Citizens’ rights in a nutshell

On page 8 Lamassoure reminds us of the main Treaty provisions from the Treaty of Rome to the newly signed Treaty of Lisbon, which lay the foundation for the rights of EU citizens, at least in principle:

“Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.”

“Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.”

“Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.”

“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured.”

“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

In real life

From the noble principles Lamassoure proceeds to a more problematic reality, describing the low level of workers’ mobility, the lack of data about and political interest in cross-border marriages, fragmented consumer markets (including online shopping) despite the common currency, and the low level of knowledge about European Union citizenship and the rights that go with it (page 8-11).

Lamassoure compares the current exercise of electoral and civil rights with the absence of a real common market for goods before the Single European Act in 1985 (page 11-12).

Basis and overview

Lamassoure correctly points out that simplification measures have started with businesses before individual citizens. His report is not the first attempt to improve the human side of the European Union, but his overview across different sectors is a good starting point when we begin to look more closely at issues concerning EU citizens in cross-border situations and in different roles, as voters, consumers, workers, mobile persons, in family relationships etc.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. According to the Atlantic Initiative association, at Atlantic-Community.org, today's transatlantic agenda is global: from climate change to failed states, from terrorism to the financial crisis, Europe and America must develop common policy to face new global challenges. Worth remembering and following ahead of the EU-US summit in Lisbon 20 November 2010.

Application of blogs to EU law: Jaanika Erne and Martinned

Here on Grahnlaw we have discussed various aspects of EU legislation, more or less related to the Report from the Commission:



27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)


Here is a reminder of the related blog posts:



How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments (13 October 2010)



Smart Regulation in the European Union (14 October 2010)



How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library (15 October 2010)



Full-bodied EU acquis – the bouquet of EU English (16 October 2010)



Jaanika Erne



On her Ideas on Europe blog, Jaanika Erne has now done readers the service of writing a clear summary of what the Commission actually reported: 27th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU Law (2009) (17 October 2010).

Erne's summary highlights the resolution of infringement procedures at different stages, as well as statistics on new petitions by policy area.



More generally Jaanika Erne’s blog is worth following for its treatment of issues of legal education (University of Tartu, Estonia and Europe), human rights in Europe (ECHR and ECtHR) and EU legislative procedures.



Martinned


If legal blogs are suspected of seriousness, Martinned does not walk away scot-free, but blogs have their distinct personalities, and Martinned has its personal style.



Martinned manages to squeeze This Week in Luxembourg (14 October 2010) into about one snappy page, but with helpful links for those who thirst for more.




Among the legal Euroblogs on Bloggingportal.eu, Martinned is one of the few active blogs in its important niche right now: the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

A distinct style and a clear niche – not a bad recipe for a blog.




Ralf Grahn

Full-bodied EU acquis – the bouquet of EU English

Yesterday’s blog post noted that between 2008 and 2009 the body of European Union legislation had decreased by some 2060 regulations and 80 directives: How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library (15 October 2010).

As I said, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact or influence of EU legislation.

Since then, I thought about a few trivial or arcane details.

First of all, why did I insert the insider term ‘acquis communautaire’ after referring to the EU statute book? Second, why ‘communautaire’ when the Communities (except for Euratom) have disappeared, through the preordained ‘death’ of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and the European Community (EC) having been amalgamated into the European Union by the Lisbon Treaty? Third, why use the French term in English and other EU languages?



EU dictionary IATE



One of the excellent EU resources is the IATE website (InterActive Terminology for Europe), an online dictionary between all the official languages of the European Union. My impression is that the website is little known outside the circles of language professionals, such as translators, interpreters and lawyer-linguists, even if many officials, communicators, journalists, students and others who deal with issues of substance would need the services at times.

Why not bookmark the page?

Using French as the source language IATE offered a number of English translations, which varied according to the context. Among them were Acquis Communautaire, the body of EU law, Community acquis, body of existing Community legislation and practice, (adoption of the) acquis communautaire.

In short, there were more translations using the French term than a description in English: the body of EU law, or body of existing Community legislation and practice.

One lesson might be to use a description in plain language whenever we can.



Community method RIP


In a series of blog posts I discussed the obsolete term “Community method” recently used by leading EU politicians (here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

I ended up favouring the “Federal method” to replace the antiquated term, because it had more teeth. The European Citizen preferred “Union method”, Simon Blackley proposed the “ordinary decision process” and Eurogoblin would have been happy to stick with the “Community method” or even endured the “Union method”, as long as the word “Federal” could be kept in confinement on Ventotene, or somewhere.

Why on Earth, after so much discussion about the obsolescence of the term “Community” (except in a historical context) did I make even a fleeting mention of the word “communautaire”?

Intellectual sloth is the only explanation I can come up with. Please, accept my apologies.



“Acquis” in English and other EU languages


The “acquis communautaire” has its place in a historical context, but when we deal with contemporary issues even the French could start referring to the “UE acquis”.

If issues of word count matter, and in the playpens of Brussels insiders, the “EU acquis” (or the comparable expression in the relevant language) could replace the antiquated term.

IMHO the “EU statute book” I used was not bad as a colloquial expression, given the circumstances: the number of legal acts (regulations and directives).

However, the “body of EU law” is wider than the sum of legal acts. Therefore, I find that it is a short and good description in many cases.

The longer “body of existing Community EU legislation and practice” makes the scope clearer. Sometimes we may want to add “jurisprudence” or “case law” to the description to make it even more evident.

When we have room to explain matters to readers or listeners, we could sometimes opt for the “body of EU legislation, practice and case law” or a comparable expression in another language.


Now my next question: Is this a sane way to spend one’s Saturday morning? Please, no spam solicitations from headshrinkers (even if it would balance the extension type of cures abundantly on offer), but perhaps some people interested in languages could comment.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Speaking about languages, the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu offers you an opportunity to read up on European affairs (EU and Council of Europe) and improve your language skills.



The Euroblogger Vihar Georgiev is a productive writer on EU law and politics. In addition he is one of the relatively few Central and Eastern Europeans visible for blog readers in the old member states, and he does his share of multilingualism by blogging in English on European Union Law and its Bulgarian sister blog. He is also active on Twitter @vihargg.

How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library

On 13 October 2010 the European Parliament awarded its journalism prizes to for excellent media work on Europe. Among the four categories, the prize for Internet journalism went to the Euroblog pioneer James Clive-Matthews, also known as Nosemonkey.



You can read the winning blog post: What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009)


On the very day of the award ceremony in the European Parliament, across the Channel the House of Commons Library informed subscribers about the publication of its research paper 10/62, which presents a reworked view on the role of EU laws in Britain:




How much legislation comes from Europe? (13 October 2010; 59 pages)



This fits nicely with the EU law theme, or more narrowly EU business regulation, we have been looking at on Grahnlaw, in the blog posts How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments (13 October 2010) and Smart Regulation in the European Union (14 October 2010).



The summary conclusion of the UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62 is (page 1):

Using statistics from national law databases and the EU’s EUR-Lex database, it is possible to estimate the proportion of national laws based on EU laws. In the UK data from these sources provided estimates that suggest that over the twelve-year period from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation. Sectoral studies suggest that the agriculture forms the highest area of EU influence and defence the lowest. The British Government estimates that around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates from EU legislation.

Besides the indicative numbers (percentages) the study is interesting due to its discussion about the difficulties of quantitative comparisons and especially qualitative assessments of the influence of EU legislation on national law-making.

The various aspects and uncertainties covered make the Research Paper into an educational tool for those who are interested in various forms of EU level decision-making and interaction with the national level, naturally in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere: in EU member states Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, as well as non-EU states Norway and Iceland.

The Research Paper refers to popular (mis)conceptions and often repeated quotes, including Euromyths, as well as a host of studies which have tried to uncover both percentages and influences of EU law in the member states.



Comments

The frontlines in the debate about EU impact have not always been clear-cut. Opponents of the European Union (euphemistically called eurosceptics) have decried the “intrusiveness” of EU legislation, whereas pro-European may have exaggerated the importance of the EU.

It looks clear that the proportion of EU legislation is much smaller if we look at all areas of legislation than if we study policy sectors affecting businesses.

There are also huge differences between EU policy areas. The common agricultural policy (CAP) affects farmers and the common fisheries policy (CFP) fishermen, whereas defence is almost exempt from legislation derived from the EU.

I recommend reading the House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62, which offers a wide range of studies and opinions on these questions.

I am going to add only a few more comments on certain details.



After Nosemonkey’s blog post and as part of the following discussion, I presented a summary of the findings of Yves Bertoncini in the Grahnlaw entry How much law is EU law? (6 June 2009). The Research Paper offers more details on Bertoncini’s study, on page 8 and pages 31-32.


The Library Research Paper refers to the European Commission’s 26th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2008) (page 8):

“At the end of 2008, the rules of the Treaty were supplemented by some 8,200 regulations and just under 1,900 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States”.

There are now updated figures, because just before the publication of the Research Paper, the latest annual report was published on 1 October 2010, as noted in my 13 October blog post:



27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)

If we compare the reports, we can see that the numbers of regulations and directives have fallen significantly during 2009 (page 2). First the quote in question:

At the end of 2009, EU law comprised, apart from the rules of the Treaty, some 6140 regulations and just under 1820 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States.

The number of regulations has decreased by about 2060 and there are around 80 directives less than a year earlier.

Again, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact of EU legislation. The institutions of the European Union have pursued a “better regulation” agenda and a “better lawmaking” agenda. Obsolete legal acts have been taken off the statute book (acquis communautaire). Simplification exercises have resulted in recast acts, which can integrate two or more narrower acts. Some of the disappearances are more technical than substantial, even if more comprehensive acts add ease of use, as do consolidated or updated versions.

There have also been real efforts to “cut red tape”, but a more detailed look at the different simplification measures goes beyond the purpose of this blog post.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Eurogoblin, one of the editorial team of the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, has started experimenting with a daily EU Morning Briefing, which mixes events with personal comments. Worth following.

How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments

Quantity and quality are different things, but the European Commission offers an approximate answer to the question how many legal acts there are with European Union origin.

This detail is found in the Report from the Commission:



27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)



Quantity of EU regulation

The numbers won’t end discussions about how “intrusive” or expensive EU regulation is, or on the other hand how far away the more than 50 year old ex common market, now officially the internal market, is from the ideal of a seamlessly functioning single market.

However, even the detail about the number of legal acts on the EU statute book has some relevance. This is what the report tells us on page 2:

At the end of 2009, EU law comprised, apart from the rules of the Treaty, some 6140 regulations and just under 1820 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States.

Quality of EU regulation


The basic argument in favour of EU level regulation is that businesses have to contend with one set of red tape instead of 27, or 30 when we take the European Economic Area (EEA) into account.

There are external aspects as well. Internal market standards for a fairly rich EEA with about 506 million consumers set ‘de facto’ norms for businesses elsewhere. In short, if third country enterprises want to export to the EU, they have to achieve European product standards. In international trade negotiations the common commercial policy potentially gives the European Union clout way beyond what a member state could hope to achieve on its own.

Some of those who are wedded to ‘light touch regulation’ tend to forget that rules and standards are intended to protect people: life, health, safety at work, consumer protection. As an ideology, a race to the bottom is not exempt from dangers for the common good.

This still leaves open the question of the costs versus benefits of regulation. If we care for both businesses and wider societal effects, we have to search for answers in a more pragmatic and evidence-based manner than through pure ideology.

It is fairly easy to demonstrate the gross or even net contributions of member states to the budget of the European Union. It is more difficult to quantify the costs of EU regulation compared to the alternative, national norm-setting, or the savings for the national economies and businesses through joint regulation at continental level. - The alternative is not EU regulation or no regulation (and regulatory burden).

Anyone who proposes ‘freely cooperating, sovereign nation states’ as an alternative should study the common market as long as its progress was ruled by unanimity. Without supra-national decision-making there would be no real common market (even in the imperfect form of today).

The European Union is not totally deaf to criticism. “Better regulation” has long been one of those activities, which are little noticed by the wider public, but extremely important for both enterprises and EU citizens.



Smart regulation updates

“Smart regulation” is now the Commission’s preferred term for the “better regulation” agenda. The European Commission regularly reports on progress in this area.

For a quick overview, you can read the fresh press release from the Commission, available in 22 languages:



Smart regulation: ensuring that European laws benefit people and businesses; 8 October 2010 IP/10/1296



Impact assessments

The press release from the Commission followed on the heels of a report, where the Court of Auditors evaluated the impact assessment system. The Commission’s welcoming words can be found in another press release, also available in 22 languages:



Impact assessments improve the Commission's policy-making. Commission welcomes positive report by the European Court of Auditors; 28 September 2010 IP/10/1187

If you suspect the Commission of favourable spin, you may want to read the ECA’s own press release for comparison:



Press release 28 September 2010 ECA/10/19: Special report: Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?

Impact assessments are important challenges for national authorities, as well as for institutions and bodies at European level. If you find impact assessments worth deeper study, you can access the ECA Special report No 3/2010 (28 September 2010):



Impact assessments in the EU institutions: Do they support decision-making? (76 pages)

The ECA press release and the full report seem to be available in English, French and German.




Smart regulation communication



Those who want more on better or smart regulation can head towards the Commission’s well structured Better regulation web pages (although the latest documents have not always been added to the various pages).


Primary sources are better than secondary ones, so we set our course for the latest communication from the Commission.



Since the search among COM documents on Eur-Lex tells us that COM(2010) 543 is not available in English (=not posted), we have to be content with the English, French or German version available through the Key documents page under Better regulation. Here for the English language version of the Communication from the Commission:



Smart Regulation in the European Union; Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final (11 pages)


The Communication on smart regulation offers an updated view of efforts to improve the quality of regulation in and by the European Union. The document references make it a helpful source for those who want to get to grips with regulation policy at EU level in general, or delve into particular aspects.


***

We have not reached a conclusive answer on the right amount of EU regulation, but we are offered the chance to become confused at a higher level.




Ralf Grahn


P.S. Grahnlaw welcomes comments relevant to the topic discussed in each blog post. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. It is more difficult and time-consuming to eliminate them ‘ex post’ than to prevent them ‘ex ante’ (even this, a dreary chore). Here is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued facts and opinions appear.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages. We can share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.



If you are a reader, check out Bloggingportal.eu. The multilingual blog aggregator helps you become better informed about the European Union and the Council of Europe, and it offers you a fun way to improve your language skills.

Euroblogs can invite comments in different languages; those we are able to read, or the ones we understand the essentials of by using machine translation (bad, but fast and improving; often better into English than into other languages).

Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

Improve information about EU citizens’ rights!

Ensuring correct implementation of the Citizens Directive 2004/38 by all EU member states has proven to be a tough task for the European Commission (brief background history in Swedish).



The Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States is mentioned only once in the twelve pages of the Commission’s 27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final:

Following the Metock judgment [C-127/08], guidelines were discussed in the expert group on the application of Directive 2004/38 before the launch of a programme of bilateral meetings with all Member States on the transposition of EU rules on free movement of citizens and their family members.

Commission staff documents missing



We saw that the monitoring report from the Commission was accompanied by two SEC documents. However, if you search for SEC(2010) 1143 or 1144 under SEC documents on Eur-Lex, you get the less than helpful reply ‘Not available in English’.

I wonder: Why has the Commission posted only the brief overview, but omitted the ‘beef’, which is contained in the detailed annexes?



EP Legislative observatory Oeil



Even the Legislative observatory Oeil of the European Parliament does not list the accompanying documents with the report from the Commission COM(2010) 538 in the customary manner, but if we are resilient enough to search for the annexes separately we actually find what we are looking for.

Searching should be easier.



Sector by sector analysis


We find a hefty 512 page document with more detailed analysis sector by sector, a treasure trove for researchers and lawyers:




Commission staff working document: Situation in the different sectors; Brussels, 1.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1143 final; 512 pages.

There are numerous references to the sad state of implementation of Directive 2004/38. I am going to quote just two examples.

The first one is in section 3.1.1.2. Report on progress made in 2009 regarding free movement of workers (on page 62):

The Commission services have received many queries and complaints concerning the residence rights of migrant workers in the host Member State. It is still partly due to the fact that in May 2006, Directive 2004/38/EC effectively entered into force and introduced new residence formalities and some important new rights (such as the right of permanent residence). With a view to ensuring the respect of the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC, the Commission services have been organising bilateral contacts with Member States to make sure that the Directive is correctly transposed and applied across the EU.

My second example is in the section 14.6. Free movement of persons (from page 439, the quote from the following page), where the Commission indicates the state of free movement of persons:

In 2009, the Commission continued to deal with a large number of enquiries and complaints in the area of free movement of persons – 1000 were replied in 2009 compared with 1070 in 2008. Complaints management was also a significant part of ensuring full and proper implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC. In 2009, 205 complaints were registered with the Secretariat-General (compared with 81 registered in 2008).

There were 37 written EP questions and 36 petitions in the area of free movement of persons in 2009.

Statistical annex

The other accompanying document is (part of?) a statistical annex, with 118 pages of detailed information about procedures:



Commission staff working document: Statistical annex - Annexes I to III (Volume 1); Brussels, 1.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1144 final



Comments

The Commission and the European Parliament should do more to inform about problems concerning the implementation of EU law, and to foster debate on these issues. This includes the enforcement of the rights of EU citizens and their families to free movement and residence.

I hope that the European Parliament takes a close look at citizens’ rights when it starts to evaluate the report on the application of EU law in 2009.

In mid October 2010 we are still looking at a report regarding 2009, however forward-looking the Commission has tried to make it.

There is a need for more timely information. The Commission has an opportunity to show its dedication to citizens’ rights, including Directive 2004/38, when it communicates its actions with regard to Paris and the other capitals.



The new Directorate-General Justice has formally updated its web pages, but the newsroom and the other pages are still more burdened by history than filled with complete and updated information. You have to go to the pages of justice commissioner Viviane Reding, which are more up to date (see News, Press releases and Speeches), but there are still many cracks between the floor boards.




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 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 politics and law: Part federation, part something else? What?

Yesterday’s blog post “EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?” found that the European Union has “parliamentary” traits, but because of the structure of the EU it still feels artificial to try to cram even co-decision (the ordinary legislative procedure) under such a heading, now that the term “Community method” is obsolete.

I still hope for teachers, researchers and students of European Union politics and law, as well as others, to offer their views, but in the meanwhile I will continue the soliloqui.



Federal?

By the structure of the European Union I mean that its powers are basically derived from its constituent parts, the member states, not from the people, although democracy is one of the founding values of the EU (Article 2 TEU) and the functioning of the union is said to be founded on representative democracy (Article 10 TEU).

When the directly elected European Parliament acts at eyelevel with the Council, we can describe the system and the decision making as federal, although the term seems to lack precision.

Should we try that: federal decision making or the federal method?

Does it satisfy sense and sensibility?



What about the rest?

If part of EU decision making is described as federal, we are still left with a few problems.

Are we to exclude the term “federal” when we discuss EU politics, policies or issues, where the European Parliament plays a lesser role than the governments of the member states?

I have a hard time imagining that a 21st century political system in Europe could be called federal, if not also democratic: based on legitimate representative democracy at federal level (with powers at least equal to those of the states).

This leaves outside a number of matters on a sliding scale of intergovernmentalism, from more limited participation by the European Parliament and the Commission to inexistent.

On the flip side of the coin, there are special legislative procedures where the European Council and the Council decide as EU institutions, within the EU framework and its powers (competences), but in principle everything outside the attributed powers is left to purely intergovernmental decisions.

Actually, the existential questions for the European Union are in the hands of the member states, each of them sovereign enough on its own to prevent a decision (liberum veto). Only unanimous agreement by all governments (possibly requiring ratification by all parliaments, or even some national electorates) can reform the structures and powers.

This means that the future development of the European Union could be held hostage by first the government, then the parliament and possibly (if national constitutional requirements so say) the voters as well, even in the smallest member state; at present Malta with about 416,000 people, something like 0.083 per cent of the total EU population of 501 million. Big or small, is this legitimate?

Despite my reticence, should anything on this sliding scale of intergovernmental decision making be included under the concept “federal”?

If not federal, which terms should we employ for the various modes?

Intergovernmental? Confederal? International?




Ralf Grahn


P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.



It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.

Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.

Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?

Almost two decades ago, from 1 November 1993, the Treaty on European Union (TEU; Maastricht Treaty, 1992) established the European Union (EU) as the overall term and as the framework for intergovernmental second pillar foreign and security policy, as well as third pillar justice and home affairs.

However, the European Community (EC) carried on the activities of the European Economic Community (EEC), and these manifold policy areas were lumped together under the so called first pillar.

Only the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon sent the European Community to kingdom come, when the reform treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. The pillar structure was formally abolished, although many intergovernmental traits remain, under two distinct Treaties.



Therefore, the easy part was the Coroner’s renewed verdict on the death of the EC and ordering the reburial, when leading EU politicians had recently exhumed the body of the “Community method”, which had become a historical term. This was done in the blog post “EU: Community method RIP – or a stake through its heart!” (25 September 2010), because the first pronouncement had not been heeded.

Now the more difficult part remains. We need to settle the succession and we need a Baptist for the newborn.

At present, we have only the European Union, as in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What should we call the process when the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose?

Officially, we have the “ordinary legislative procedure”, which can be boiled down to “EU legislation” or “EU lawmaking” in everyday speech.

But the scope of decisions and processes is wider (formally: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions; Article 288 TFEU). There are budgetary issues and a host of administrative matters, such as plans, reports, duties to inform, comitology procedures and scrutiny processes.

There is need for a wider, more political term.

The directly elected European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union and the Council represents the (special interests of the) member states. When the EP and the Council decide on an equal basis, on a proposal from the Commission (duty bound to promote the general interest), they act as a first chamber and a second chamber of representatives in a federal system.



Should we stretch the term “parliamentary” to encompass at least this part of the EU political system?

The president of the Commission is, in practice, appointed by the European Council, although taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. Formally, the candidate is elected by the European Parliament, even if I consider the term “elected” in Article 17(7) TEU to be a misnomer for the right of refusal.

The other members of the Commission are, effectively, nominated by the governments of the member states, although by common accord with the president-elect. The Commission as a body needs the consent of the EP and it can be deposed by a vote of censure.

In other words, there are elements of normal parliamentary political accountability in play, but not rule by a simple majority in Parliament.

Where the Commission makes formal proposals, it is difficult for the EP and the Council to vote them down or amend them, if the Commission does not change its opinion. (In intergovernmental matters the role of the Commission varies from recommendations to almost non-existent.)

Does this mean that we have to discard the “parliamentary method” as well? If the EU is ‘sui generis’ enough to escape existing terms in this respect as well, which concept should we adopt to replace the outdated “Community method”?

Are you going to be our Baptist? How would you name the baby?

Your help is needed.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 668 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. 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 keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?