EU labour migration: Three directives

Ahead of the EPSCO Council meeting (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs) 6 December 2010, the Belgian presidency has prepared an information note on legal immigration (labour migration).

The note presents the state of play with regard to three proposed directives:

1. Proposal for a Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (single permit)

2. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of seasonal employment (seasonal workers, see doc. 12208/10)

3.Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer (ICT, see doc. 12211/10)


Information notes such as this one are useful. Even better if the Oeil procedure numbers could be added to future ones.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. In catastrophic as well as happier times, Jason O'Mahony guides his readers to politics in Ireland, with reflections on books and TV series thrown in for good measure.

An own-initiative report in the European Parliament (Innovation Union)

Officially, it started with the Commission’s communication Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world; Brussels, 2.9.2009 COM(2009) 442 final. The paper launched a public consultation on the EU’s future innovation plan in the context of the post-Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs.



Own-initiative report

When the European Commission proposes (and coordinates), the European Council and the Council decide on policy guidelines, and the member states act and interact, without proposing new legislation, there is no legislative procedure for the European Parliament (EP) to take part in.



Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure (version December 2009) offers the EP the possibility to draw up an own-initiative report, if the Conference of Presidents gives authorisation to the committee in question.



Legislative Observatory Oeil




With the help of the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament, called Oeil, we can follow a procedure in the EP from the beginning to the end.



Under Procedures (which could add the word search), we can search on a number of different criteria.



Here we happen to know the Commission document, which opens a search page. After typing in the document type, year and number, we get the search result:



The procedure number, the name of the Commission document etc.



By clicking on the link to the procedure number INI/2009/2227, we can see the main steps and even the principal contents on one page, with links to further documents. The summary provides enough information for the general reader.



Useful or not?


We sometimes see views which are critical of the European Parliament “meddling” in affairs where it lacks legislative powers.

Is this view justified?

In my opinion, no.

First of all, the EP has powers over the EU budget as a whole, so it needs to have a view on the substance of union action, even when it takes place between the Commission, the Council and the member states.

Second, the EP is needed for political control (scrutiny) of action by the other institutions.

Third, even where the EP’s powers are weak, such as in foreign and security policy, it is preferable that the representatives of EU citizens use their limited powers actively and build their institutional knowledge base with a view to the day when the EU gets a politically accountable government.

Some of the criticism mentioned above may stem from irritation with silly or populist demands in EP resolutions.

The European Parliament is hardly the only elected body tempted to wish for all kinds of wonderful things, but in the long run it is important for the EP to be seen as a serious player.



Innovation Union



With an own-initiative report, the European Parliament was free to decide the time and the contents. While formally started in response to the Commission’s consultation paper (Green Paper), the EP adopted its resolution P7_TA(2010)0209 on 15 June 2010, just two days before the European Council finalised the guidelines for the Europe 2020 strategy, which includes the flagship initiative Innovation Union.

The EP resolution clearly targets the coming Commission communication on Innovation Union, expected in September.

Worth taking a look, if you are a stakeholder.




Ralf Grahn

Speed of EU legislation: Audiovisual Media Services Directive

In the comments section of a blog post of his, Julien Frisch mentioned ‘the speed of legislation’. This tied in nicely with the Grahnlaw series on the birth of the AVMS Directive 2007/65, a fairly typical legislative process in the European Union, I would say.



The blog post EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive proposal: Structure and essentials (6 January 2010) described how the Commission’s proposal was constructed and related the main substance of the proposed amending Diretive.



The Commission proposal COM(2005) 646 final tells us that the first consultation round was launched in 2003, followed by a Communication and hearings, leading to the 13 December 2005 proposal.



The web page of the procedure file COD/2005/0260 on Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament, tells us that the legislative process contained i.a. committee work and a first reading position by the EP, a modified proposal by the Commission and a common position by the Council, followed by a Commission communication on the common position, which paved the way for the Parliament’s second reading position.

The final amending Directive was adopted 11 December 2007 and published in the Official Journal 18 December 2007.

However, this was not the end of it. The EU member states were given two years from publication to adopt the necessary measures to turn the AVMS Directive into national law; the so called transposition date was 19 December 2009.

This was not a groundbreaking legal act, but an amending Directive. From launch to effect, the legislative procedure(s) lasted between five and six years, almost the time it takes a human to progress from womb to school.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Jon Worth may be young of age, but in the euroblogosphere he is one of the grand old men, debating European issues across national borders. His professionally designed blog is listed among the more than 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.

EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive proposal: Structure and essentials

Our latest blog post on European level audiovisual rules was published last year – such a long time ago - and it tried to use this example to show how we are able to follow all the official stages from an original proposal to the final legislative act, published in the Official Journal of the European Union: History of EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Following a legislative procedure) (31 December 2009).



The AVMS Directive 2007/65 was originally based on the Commission’s proposal COM(2005) 646 final, and key to the whole legislative procedure was Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament, with the procedure number (and nature) COD/2005/0260 opening up the process file.



Commission proposal COM(2005) 646 final


After the recapitulation of how to access the whole legislative process, we turn to the original proposal by the Commission:



Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL AMENDING COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities; Brussels, 13.12.2005; COM(2005) 646 final; 2005/0260 (COD); 29 pages.


(These titles are informative, but hardly media sexy.)


The useful information on the front page also told us that the proposal by the Commission was accompanied by two documents: SEC(2005) 1625 and SEC(2005) 1626.



The proposal began with an Explanatory memorandum, which presented the grounds for and objectives of the proposal, the general context, existing provisions in the area covered by the proposal, as well as consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union (pages 2 to 4).


Two paragraphs presented the essence of the matter:

In sum, the objective of the Commission’s proposal is to modernise and simplify the regulatory framework for broadcasting or linear services and introduce minimum rules for non-linear audiovisual media services.



• Existing provisions in the area covered by the proposal

Council Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC concerns “television broadcasting”. The present proposal amends the TVWF Directives in order to establish a modernised and flexible framework for television broadcasts, including other linear (scheduled) audiovisual media services, and to introduce a set of minimum rules for non-linear (on-demand) audiovisual media services.

Under Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment, the Commission described the consultations and some of the major issues (page 4 to 5):

• Scope of regulation (distinction between linear and non-linear services)
• Advertising (insertion and daily advertising limits)
• Protection of minors and human dignity (including incitement of hatred)
• Cultural diversity (transmission time quotas; free flow of non-linear services)
• Rights to information and short extracts


The Commission proposal listed and described the outside expert advice it had received (page 6) on the scheduling of European works and the impact of regulation on television advertising markets.


Under Impact assessment, the Commission mentioned and discussed five options, from repealing existing regulation or doing nothing to full harmonisation in the European Union (page 7 to 8).


Legal elements of the proposal discussed (page 8 to 9):

• Summary of the proposed action
• Legal basis (ativities of self-employed persons, provisions against restrictions on services)
• Subsidiarity principle (including obstacles to the freedom to provide services in the internal market)
• Proportionality principle (minimum harmonisation to ensure free movement of services in the internal market; co- and self-regulation)
• Choice of instruments


The Commission covered the points that the proposal (page 10):

• had no budgetary implications for the Community budget
• included a transitional period for the proposal
• provided for simplification of legislation
• included a review clause
• included a requirement for member states to notify transposition measures
• concerned the European Economic Area (EEA)



On page 10 and 11 the Commission offered a short explanation of the proposal, which is about the depth we want to go into in this blog post:

• Short explanation of the proposal

The aim of the revision is to define rules for audiovisual media services in a platform neutral way, which would mean that the same basic rules apply to the same kind of services. The set of applicable rules shall no longer depend on the delivery platform but on the nature of a service. The future regulation will distinguish between linear audiovisual services or “broadcasting”, including IPTV, streaming or web-casting on one side, and non-linear services, such as “video-on-demand”- services, on the other side.

The amending Directive introduces new definitions based around the notion of “audiovisual media service” in Article 1 of the amended Directive. The definition of audiovisual media services covers mass media in their function to inform, entertain and educate, but excludes any form of private correspondence, like e-mails sent to a limited number of recipients. This definition also excludes all services the principal purpose of which is not to provide audiovisual content, even where such services contain some audiovisual elements. Services where the audiovisual content is merely ancillary to and not the principal purpose of the service are not covered.

The new Articles 3c to 3h contain the basic tier of rules for all audiovisual media services. As a consequence, some of the specific provisions for television broadcasts, such as Article 7, Article 12 and Article 22a, can be abolished.

Non-linear (on-demand) services will be subject to some minimum principles with regard to

• protection of minors

• prohibition of incitement to hatred

• identification of the media service provider

• identification of commercial communication

• some qualitative restrictions for commercial communication ( ex. for alcohol or targeted at minors).

The new Article 3b introduces a rule on the non-discriminatory application of the right to short news reporting for linear services.

The main changes to Chapter IV on television advertising concern flexible rules for the insertion of advertising (amended Article 11), clear rules for product placement, the abolition of the daily limit on television advertising (old Article 18) and the dropping of quantitative restrictions with regard to teleshopping (old Article 18a).

The daily limit of three hours of advertising per days is considered obsolete, as it finds no application in practice and therefore it is deleted. The insertion rules have been simplified and made more flexible. Instead of being compelled - as is now the case – to allow 20 minutes time between each advertising break, broadcasters can now choose the most appropriate moment to insert advertising during programmes. Nonetheless, films made for television, cinematographic works, children’s programmes and news programmes may be interrupted by advertising only once per each period of 35 minutes.

Pages 12 to 29 contained the text of the proposed Audiovisual Media Services Directive.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Gobal Europe is a website with valuable materials and an eminent blog with a Morning Brief on international affairs from a European perspective each working day. Global Europe is listed among the nearly 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.

History of EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Following a legislative procedure)

Believe it or not; it is just like Dinner for One.




The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS Directive) 2007/65 covers audiovisual services (including on-demand services) in the digital age. The AVMS Directive renamed and amended the Television without Frontiers Directive (TVWF Directive) 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36.



Legislative history



Using Simple search on Eur-Lex, we find the AVMS Directive by year 2007 and number 65, which leads to a page with the name and publication of the Directive. Clicking on Bibliographic notice, we arrive at a page, which offers us the Procedure number COD(2005)0260 as well as a direct link to the European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory Oeil.




The Oeil page on the co-decision procedure COD(2005)0260 offers us enough material to keep us going for quite a while. In fact, all the official stages of the legislative process are there.

In addition, the page contains a summary of the Directive, with enough information to satisfy a casual observer, as well as links to summaries of all the previous stages. Further, the Oeil page offers a link to a Factsheet (FII/2005/0260), which summarises the Commission’s impact assessment.


However, let us not be content with this, but act as if we were doing serious research. Our natural starting point is the Commission’s original proposal (and even Green Papers etc. leading up to it).



Commission proposal COM(2005)0646



The Oeil page offers a link to the Commission’s original proposal, which leads to an Eur-Lex web page with access to all the available language versions and document formats of COM(2005) 646 final (as well as mentioning the accompanying documents).




Having chosen the English pdf version, we arrive at our goal, which after a bit of reordering looks like this:


Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL AMENDING COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (presented by the Commission); Brussels, 13.12.2005 COM(2005) 646 final (29 pages)

As we see, the front page contains other useful information (although we already know it): the procedure number 2005/0260 (COD) as well as references to the accompanying documents SEC(2005) 1625 and SEC(2005) 1626 (which can be accessed either through the Oeil page, or on Eur-Lex, Preparatory acts, choosing SEC documents).



Legislative Observatory Oeil




In a corresponding manner, the procedure number COD/2005/0260 is the key, and the web page of the European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory Oeil offer is the “control room” for every step of the law-making process, although I leave it to you to follow the steps.



It is like Dinner for One, by Laurie Wylie: The same procedure as last year, Miss Sophie?

The same procedure as every year, James!


The moral of the story is that legislative procedures in the European Union are not totally impenetrable. The same keys to the control room exist for other legal acts. It requires a certain amount of dedication to follow the process, but it is doable.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read the defence oriented Bruxelles2 blog, by Nicolas Grosverheyde, and other great euroblogs listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.

EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS Directive): Learning the ropes

In the previous blog post, EU Audiovisual Media Services: History, amendments & consolidation (28 December 2009), we sketched the history from the Television without Frontiers Directive 1989 to the “new”, amending TVWF Directive 1997.



Consolidation

In this context we mentioned the consolidated version of the Directive. One of the many useful EU web resources for people willing to learn is the Europa Glossary, which offers more or less intelligible explanations of EU jargon and terms.

Here is what Europa Glossary has to say on consolidation of legislation (informal or declaratory):

There is a special procedure for unofficial, purely declaratory consolidation of legislation and simplification of legal instruments. The incorporation of subsequent amendments into the body of a basic act does not entail the adoption of a new instrument. It is simply a clarification exercise conducted by the Commission. The resulting text, which has no formal legal effect, can, where appropriate, be published in the Official Journal (C Series) without citations or recitals.

In other words, the consolidated version offers you the updated text of the Articles in force. In the 1997 consolidation, the text of Directive 97/36 had been inserted into Directive 89/552.

But if you need to know the Whys of the legal Act, you have read the Recitals (Whereas) of the original Act, as well as the Recitals of the amending Act(s) with regard to the reasons and scope of the amendments.

If you want to dig deeper, the Recitals offer you the legislative history of the Acts: “legal basis”, references to the Commission proposal, opinions and resolutions. For this you need either the original Acts or to access the files on the legislative processes on Pre-Lex or Oeil.



Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS Directive)


In this case, we knew that there was a further major amendment to the TVWF Directive(s). We knew the number of the original TVWF Directive 89/552 (the amending Directive 97/36) and the latest amending AVMS Directive 2007/65.



Since we were interested in the latest amendment, we tried the simple search on Eur-Lex, filling in Directive, year 2007 and number 65 for the amending Directive under Natural number.



The page offered us access to the Bibliographic notice, which gave us the procedure number COD/2005/0260 and the Commission’s original proposal COM(2005) 646, among other things. There was also a link to the European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory Oeil.



The procedure file on Oeil is a gold mine, because at one glance it offers a view of the Commission’s original and modified proposals, the Council’s position and the European Parliament’s Committee reports and resolutions.



Procedure and substance


This blog post tried to offer readers examples of how to navigate the legislative procedures, in order to access and to understand EEC/EC/EU legal acts.

Procedural understanding offers generally applicable tools for interested users, but this mini-series started from a genuine interest into the substance of developing EU regulation of television broadcasting and audiovisual services.

The time has come, I think, to turn to the substance of the latest amending act, the AVMS Directive.

This will be the aim of future posts, intertwined with procedural remarks, when called for.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read Julien Frisch and other great euroblog(ger)s listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.