Elements of style: digital single market in European Parliament

If better and more uniform regulation than elsewhere, such as the federal United States and Canada, is the Digital single market litmus test or benchmark for each measure, can we learn anything from the reception of the DSM communication COM(2015) 192 and the accompanying evidence paper SWD(2015) 100 in the European Parliament?

But first, let us discuss a few elements of style with regard to the European Parliament.

Monster committee report

Here, as in other cases, the key is to find the procedure reference - the Open Sesame - through the search page on  the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament. Having found the procedure file 2015/2147(INI) it is plain sailing.

We notice that two rapporteurs, Kaja Kallas and Evelyne Gebhardt, produced a joint report for two committees (the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO), regaled with opinions from six other committees.

The resulting report A8-0371/2015 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act contained 78 pages, almost four times the number of pages in the DSM communication from the Commission (20 pages).

Since no legal act was proposed, the European Parliament prepared the report on its own initiative (INI).

I find it fair that the EP wants to exercise parliamentary scrutiny regarding developments in important policy areas, regardless of if the Parliament already has powers to legislate on concrete proposals, or if the Council or the governments of the member states have kept the powers. Parliamentary scrutiny contributes to openness (transparency), the fundamental principle evoked in Article 1 TEU.

I appreciate the good documentation of EP reports and resolutions, as one way to facilitate discussion.

But I wonder why the European Parliament has to say something about everything even remotely touching the subject at hand.

If and when the Parliament has an original contribution or different opinion, these tend to drown in an ocean of verbosity.

If the European Parliament chose to concentrate on the points it wants to make (and their reasons), would the plenary debates become a bit more focused and informative as well?     

What’s in a name?

Another thing I wondered at was the naming of the report: Towards a Digital Single Market Act.

The title reminds us of the communication:

Towards a Single Market Act - For a highly competitive social market economy - 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another; Brussels, 11.11.2010 COM(2010) 608 final/2

But this was a green paper, the basis for consultation; after the public hearing the European Commission published the Single Market Act (SMA) white paper communication, the equivalent of the DSM strategy:

Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence -  "Working together to create new growth"; Brussels, 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final   

  

The SMA later became the SMA I, when the Commission published its second strategy or package of measures, SMA II:

Single Market Act II - Together for new growth; Brussels, 3.10.2012 COM(2012) 573 final  

Admittedly, a seamless European digital single market is still unborn, but the strategy was a ready enough outline of promised actions and proposals, which is why I have failed to understand “Towards”.

The roadmap or package contained many actions, but I failed to understand the next phase as an “Act”, a word I found somewhat pompous with regard to the SMAs at the time.

What’s in a name? The contents matter, but still I am grateful if someone can explain these oddities to me.

Ralf Grahn

Tracing Single Market Act proposals

I have kept my account of the Single Market Act (SMA I & II) at a general level, without going into the contents or procedures concerning individual legal proposals or administrative measures. However, should the need arise, it is good to know that someone has been there, done that.

Once again, here are the links to the two SMA communications from the Commission:

Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence - "Working together to create new growth"; 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final

Single Market Act II - Together for new growth; 3.10.2012 COM(2012) 573 final

Single Market Act summary

The Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament offers a summary (in English or French) on the Single Market Act.

First, there is a recap of both SMA packages and of progress made by the beginning of May 2014.

Second, there is a list of the main proposals as well as their procedure files, which both link to the procedure file contents. This means that you can follow the procedure until the final vote in the European Parliament.

The Platform for EU Interparliamentary Exchange IPEX offers a gateway to the member states, while you can follow the Eur-Lex link until you reach the adopted act.    

Single Market Act: State of Play

The Parliament offers a detailed follow-up tool as well, covering the main part of the road between the original packages and the situation today for most proposals:

Single Market Act: State of Play: In-depth analysis for the IMCO Committee; Update 16 October 2014 (European Parliament: Directorate-General for internal policies) (33 pages)

Page 5 summarised the remaining actions at publication time in the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

The study contains exact references and links to Commission proposals, legislative procedures and ensuing legal acts, first for the twelve Single Market Act I levers including complementary actions (pages 7-23), then for the twelve Single Market Act II levers (pages 24-33).

***

With these tools in your hands, I take leave of both Single Market Act packages.

Ralf Grahn

A single market to consumers and citizens (2010) introduced

The latest Grahnlaw blog post concerning the development of the internal market during this decade looked at the report by professor Mario Monti: A new strategy for the single market at the service of Europe’s economy and society (9 May 2010; 107 pages).

Consumers and citizens

In parallel with Monti’s work the European Parliament prepared an own-initiative report - 2010/2011(INI) -  drafted by Louis Grech (S&D) and approved 3 May 2010 by the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) for the plenary.

The report on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens A7-0132/2010 was debated in the EP plenary on 19 May 2010 together with three other reports - here a summary of the discussion in Swedish - and voted the following day: 578 for, 28 against and 16 abstentions.

Resolution P7_TA(2010)0186

After documenting the relevant internal market policy and assessment papers at the time, the European Parliament resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens P7_TA(2010)0186 reminded readers of the remaining obstacles  in the way of citizens, consumers and SMEs wishing to move, shop, sell or trade across borders with the same sense of security and confidence they enjoy in their own member states.

***

Today, this is a potent reminder of how negligently many national (even European Council and EU Council) politicians treat their duty to promote the EU citizenship right to move and reside freely, as well as the four internal market freedoms: the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.

Ralf Grahn

European Parliament (IMCO): Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights

After the introductory blog post about the proposed EU regulation about customs enforcement of intellectual property rights COM(2011) 285, we follow this future ”more robust enforcement tool” to the European Parliament.

The committee stage in the EP is soon closing for the new regulation. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) is scheduled to vote on 29 February 2012 (agenda item No 21).

The draft report by Jürgen Creutzmann PE470.069 proposes 60 amendments to the Commission text.

The rapporteur wants to make the distinction between procedural and substantive intellectual property (IP) law even clearer. Thus, the regulation should not set out any criterion for determining an infringement of intellectual property rights (IPR).

The report does not subscribe to a simplified procedure only for counterfeit and pirated goods, but wants all IPR infringements to be treated in the same, simplified manner.

Small consignments are a special case. Creutzmann does not want the Commission to use a delegated act to define a small consignment. Hence, he introduces a definition into the regulation. A total weight of less than 2 kilograms seems clear enough, but does ”less than three items” mean a maximum of two?

The explanatory statement (from page 44) shows unwavering support for toughening customs control, welcoming the extension of the scope to all types of IPR infringements contemplated by the EU's and member states' substantive legislation, including parallel trade and overruns.

Since this regulation should remain procedural, Creutzmann calls for future substantive legislation, as in:

The rapporteur is of the opinion that the substantive IP law should recognise the principle that fake goods also constitute infringements of IPR when they are for private use and encourages the Commission to address this problem by revising the respective legislation.

-----

The principle of freedom of transit was never intended to apply to illicit trade, including goods which infringe IPRs. Therefore the rapporteur encourages the Commission to ensure in future revisions of substantive IP law that goods placed under suspensive procedures that are imitations or copies of goods protected in the EU by IPRs can always be classified as counterfeit and pirated goods.

Opinions

Marielle Gallo has prepared the opinion PE478.335 of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) about the proposal to replace regulation 1383/2003. Some amendments were proposed.

The opinion PE476.120 of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) was prepared by Josefa Andrés Barea. The opinion discusses especially goods in transit, parallel trade and international cooperation.


Amendments

In addition to the sixty amendments proposed by the rapporteur, IMCO can look forward to voting on a number of other amendments (61 – 259), found in document PE480.583.

The preliminary date for the EP plenary debate is 22 May 2012.



Ralf Grahn
speaker on EU affairs, especially digital policy and law

P.S. 1: For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. More than 900 euroblogs are aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Is your blog already listed among them? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?

P.S. 2: A few moments ago, the petition launched by @Avaaz for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject #ACTA had already been signed by 2,363,595 netizens, but more are welcome until the official funeral of the anti-piracy treaty.