Showing posts with label agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agreement. Show all posts

Friday, 5 February 2010

EU and Switzerland: Bilateral treaties and challenges

Since Switzerland is outside the European Union (EU) as well as the European Economic Area (EEA), the relations have been developed mainly on the basis of bilateral agreements. The Treaties Office of the European Commission’s DG External Relations offers access to the existing EU-Switzerland treaties, bilateral and multilateral, 175 in all.




DG Trade presents an overview of trade with Switzerland, noting that:


Switzerland's main trading partner is the EU. On the other hand, Switzerland is currently the fourth largest trading partner of the EU. Trade figures in 2008 show €80 billion in imports and €97.6 billion in exports. In terms of imports, Switzerland was the EU's 5th most important trading partner in 2008, after the US, China, Russia and Norway. Regarding exports, Switzerland was the 3rd after the US and Russia in the same period.



The presentation contains on overview of how the agreements have developed, including the Bilateral I package (in force from June 2002) and the Bilateral II package (signed in October 2004).




Among the 130 Commission Delegations and Offices, the European Union has a Delegation in Berne, Switzerland (for Liechtenstein as well). The New Year’s greeting (available in German, French and Italian) by the Head of Delegation Michael Reiterer is refreshingly free from empty phrases. Instead Reiterer outlines the macro level challenges ahead and digs into new areas of cooperation as well as unresolved issues on the table, such as tax fraud and evasion.




More information about the history of cooperation and ongoing issues is offered on the web page (here the German version) Die EU und die Schweiz and further topical links:


Agrarfreihandel


On trade in agricultural goods:

Ein allfälliges Abkommen im Agrar- und Lebensmittelbereich (FHAL) liegt im beiderseitigen Interesse der EU und der Schweiz.


Beihilfendiskussion


State aid:

Die Europäische Kommission hat im Februar 2007 eine Beihilfenentscheidung getroffen. Die EU hat eine Beihilfenentscheidung getroffen, was nicht ausreichend zur Kenntnis genommen wird, weshalb auch von "Steuerstreit" gesprochen wird.


Elektrizität


Electricity:

Ein Elektrizitätsabkommen zur Sicherung der Energieversorgung, zur Regelung des Transits und zur Teilnahme der Schweiz am europäischen Elekrtizitätsbinnenmarkt liegt im beidseitigen Interesse der EU und der Schweiz.


Erweiterungsbeitrag


Participation in cohesion policy costs:

Die Kohäsionspolitik der Europäischen Union hat zum Ziel, die Unterschiede im wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungsstand der europäischen Regionen zu verringern. Damit soll der wirtschaftliche und soziale Zusammenhalt innerhalb der EU verstärkt werden. Die Schweiz profitiert dank ihrer bilateralen Abkommen, welche sie mit der EU abgeschlossen hat, direkt von jeder Erweiterung der Union, weshalb die EU die Schweizer Behörden einlud, einen Beitrag an die europäische Kohäsion zu leisten.


Personenfreizügigkeit


Free movement of persons:

Personenfreizügigkeit zwischen der Schweiz und der EU.


Schengen


Cooperation in the Schengen area:

Im Rahmen der Schengen Zusammenarbeit wird der Reiseverkehr erleichtert, indem die systematischen Personenkontrollen an den gemeinsamen Grenzen zwischen den Schengen-Staaten aufgehoben werden.


Zinsbesteuerung


Taxation of savings income:

Die Richtlinie regelt die Besteuerung von Zinserträgen, welche an natürliche Personen in einem EU-Mitgliedstaat ausserhalb ihres eigenen Wohnsitzstaates gezahlt werden.


Zollsicherheit


Customs security cooperation:

Aus Sicherheitsgründen sind Wirtschaftsteilnehmer verpflichtet, die Zollbehörden im voraus über Waren zu informieren, die in das Zollgebiet der EU ein- oder aus diesem ausgeführt werden. Das betrifft zu einem grossen Teil auch die Schweiz.






Ralf Grahn








P.S. A federal system is democratic and aims at resolving issues at the right level. The Federal Union Blog argues for federalist solutions in Britain, Europe and the world.

The Federal Union Blog is listed among 522 great Euroblogs (at the latest count) on growing multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, your useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, more than thirty policy areas, communication, economics, finance, business, civil society and law.

At the same time Euroblogs are an agreeable way to brush up one’s skills in foreign languages.

If you are interested in the EU or the euroblogosphere, you can also subscribe to the RSS feed for new blog posts appearing on Bloggingportal.eu.

By the way, I also discuss European issues, including the relations between the EU and Switzerland, in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus and in Swedish on Grahnblawg.

Thursday, 10 December 2009

EU-USA Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance

The Agreements on Extradition and on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, both signed in Washington DC on 25 June 2003 enter into force on 1 February 2010.



A notice by the Council with regard to the entry into force of the EU-USA agreements was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 10.12.2009 L 323/11.

For the substance of the matter, we go back some six years. The Council decision presents the context of judicial cooperation between the European Union and the United States:



COUNCIL DECISION of 6 June 2003 concerning the signature of the Agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (2003/516/EC), published OJEU 19.7.2003 L 181/25.


The annexed Agreements contain the applicable provisions:



AGREEMENT on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America, published OJEU 19.7.2003 L 181/27.




AGREEMENT on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, published OJEU 19.7.2003 L 181/34.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Growing, multilingual Bloggingportal.eu now aggregates 494 euroblogs. Blogs on EU affairs and policy areas can gain visibility, credibility and readers by joining our common European “village well” for facts, opinion and gossip. Click on Contribute to propose a new blog.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

EU-USA SWIFT & TFTP agreement materials

The home affairs part of the Justice and EU Home Affairs Council 30 November 2009 contains the following conclusions on the approved EU-US agreement on financial messaging data for counterterrorism investigations (document 16883/09; page 11):



EU-US AGREEMENT ON FINANCIAL MESSAGING DATA FOR COUNTERTERRORISM
INVESTIGATIONS

The Council adopted an EU-US agreement on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data for purposes of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP 16110/09). It also adopted two political declarations on the subject.

The agreement aims to continue to allow the US Department of the Treasury to receive European financial messaging data for counter-terrorism investigations, while ensuring an adequate level of data protection. Requests by the US have to be verified by the competent authority of the relevant EU member states, they have to substantiate the necessity for the data and they have to be tailored as narrowly as possible. The agreement also provides for a joint review procedure, redress possibilities as well as a suspension clause.

The agreement is temporary. It will be provisionally applied as from 1 February 2010 and expire on 31 October 2010, at the latest. The European Parliament must consent to the formal conclusion of this temporary agreement in the coming months.

Any long-term agreement for the time after 31 October 2010 must be negotiated and concluded under the rules of the Treaty of Lisbon. These provide that the European Parliament must be fully informed at all stages of the negotiations and must give its consent to the formal conclusion of an agreement.

Concerning that follow-up agreement for the time after 31 October 2010, a Council declaration calls upon the Commission to submit as soon as possible, and at any rate no later than February 2010, a recommendation to the Council for the negotiation of a long-term agreement. It also states that the current agreement is without prejudice to any provisions in that long-term agreement.

In a second declaration, the Council and the Commission commit themselves to the Lisbon rules, i.e. to inform the Parliament immediately and fully at all stages during negotiations.

The negotiations on the provisional agreement adopted today, started in July 2009 and responded to a decision by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to store its European financial messaging data no longer in a database located in the US, but only in Europe.

Under the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), the US Department of the Treasury seeks to identify, track and pursue suspected terrorists and their providers of finance. It was set up shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Relevant results of the US analysis have been and will continue to be shared with EU member states. A report by the former French investigating judge Jean-Luis Brugiere, commissioned by the Commission, concluded in December 2008 that the TFTP had generated considerable intelligence value also to the EU member states.


***

Council decision




This time the Council published a reference (and link) to the relevant document (16110/09; 26 pages): COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.


It contains the decision, a declaration and the agreement comprising 15 Articles, so some improvement has been made under the Swedish Council presidency.


It is now possible to discuss the issue on the basis of the final text of the agreement. Better late than never (despite the earlier, leaked versions).




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page or concentrate on the editors’ choice of articles on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Monday, 30 November 2009

Council publishes Questions and Answers on EU-US SWIFT agreement

The Council of the European Union has published a five page document with questions and answers on the so called SWIFT agreement on the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), concluded for nine months one day before the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page or concentrate on the editors’ choice of articles on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Mainstream media and EU-USA SWIFT agreement

Have civil society and blogging communities put the EU-US SWIFT agreement on the pages of the mainstream media, or is it the other way around?



Without possessing the philosopher’s stone on that question, I am able to report that at least some mainstream media do report on the problems associated with the “free flow” of Europeans’ financial data to the US intelligence community.

Do the results of my haphazard searches add to my confidence in mainstream media?




In the news



Is the signing of the SWIFT agreement just a formality? Not if you believe the AFP report: Austria, Germany blocking EU-US data deal: officials (27 November 2009). According to the report, Austria and Germany were still blocking the accord on Friday. Discussions were expected during the weekend, but it looks like the choice is about the duration of the agreement: six, nine or twelve months.




Europolitics, Brian Beary: Parliament pushes to delay SWIFT bank records agreement (27 November 2009). The European Parliament, in a letter by EP president Jerzy Buzek, has made a last minute appeal to the Swedish EU Council presidency to pull the agreement off the agenda. The EP wants to be fully involved under the Lisbon Treaty, which enters into force on 1 December 2009.



Spiegel Online, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp: Spying on Terrorist Cash Flows ─ EU to Allow US Access to Bank Transaction Data (27 November 2009) says that it looks like the EU is going to agree to the controversial SWIFT deal, referring to massive US pressure. According to this report, both Germany and Austria have given in and the EU Council is expected to sign an agreement “politically divisive and of dubious legality”.



Deutsche Welle: Datenschutz – Erlaubt Europa US-Konto-Spionage? (27 November 2009) presents the member state governments railroading the EU-US agreement while bypassing the European Parliament.



EUobserver, Valentina Pop: MEPs flex legal muscles over police reforms ahead of new treaty (25 November 2009) noted that an initiative by the Green group to thwart the EU-US bank data transfer deal fell through, and member states’ ministers were likely to adopt the SWIFT banking agreement on Monday. According to diplomatic sources, the prospect of having to start from scratch was incentive enough for the member states to adopt the deal on Monday.



Baltic Review, by eurotopics: Brussels too soft on the US (26 November 2009) publishes an opinion by Die Presse: The SWIFT deal is a further example of Washington not taking the EU seriously.



Tagesschau: Länder stemmen sich gegen SWIFT-Abkommen (27 November 2009) notes that the Bundesrat (where the Länder are represented) has demanded better data protection, but that the resolution is not legally binding on the German federal government. German politicians and the banking sector have criticised the low data protection standards. The German data protection supervisor Peter Schaar had criticised the SWIFT deal as a massive breach of fundamental rights, and signing the agreement would lead to would lead to legal challenges in the German federal constitutional court and the European Court of Justice. Schaar could not see the agreement as constitutional. Politically it was still unclear if Germany with abstain or vote against on Monday, although CDU spokesman Hans-Peter Uhl considered an agreement necessary in the fight against terrorism.



Heise Online, Stefan Krempl: Bundesrat warnt vor Wirtschaftsspionage durch SWIFT-Abkommen (28 November 2008) is quality reporting with useful links, i.a. to the decision by the Bundesrat (Drucksache 788/09; 27 November 2009), which details the concerns of the German Länder.



Romandie News has published an AFP bulletin: Terrorisme : les Européens divisés sur l’accès aux données bancaires (27 November 2009).

There are a number of newspaper articles in German quality media such as Die Zeit, Die Welt and others (but I only have one life).


***


Watchdogs?


During my somewhat random search, I have noticed that there has been serious and continuing discussion about the SWIFT agreement issues in German(y).

By the way, to cut a few historical corners, the Federal Republic of Germany was essentially an American creation, endowed with a Basic Law designed to respect parliamentary procedures and enshrining human rights. Right now it looks like the lessons have succeeded, with Germany just about the only place where fundamental rights are taken seriously, and the old US teachers in need of enlisting as pupils.

In addition to German media, there are also some fairly ‘non-national’ reports by news agencies or media with an EU focus or international readership, but traditional national media seem to have been fast asleep, unworried by their governments and politicians, too placid to dig on their own.

Naturally, I may be completely mistaken, having missed journalistic feats in languages unknown by me (and unrepresented in my web searches), but this is my first impression. Pray, tell me that I’m wrong.

Are social media, such as blogs, responsible for this decline, too?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

EU & USA: SWIFT agreement ─ Sweden “informs”

Yesterday, in the blog post SWIFTly signed – Long term damage? (Updated), I criticised the Swedish EU Council presidency for acting against its proclaimed principles of openness, transparency and accessibility with regard to the proposed bank data transfer deal with the United States of America.

Important as the fight against terrorism is, expediency should not override democratic scrutiny and open debate, when fundamental rights are at stake.

Have matters improved since early Friday afternoon?

Actually, Friday brought some improvements, but left the fate of the SWIFT agreement between the EU and the US hanging in the air.


Presidency and Council information



During Friday, the Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union published information about the Council meeting Monday 30 November 2009, Justice and Home Affairs configuration: Stockholm Programme and work to combat human trafficking at Council meeting. The general press release highlights “some of the issues”, but not the SWIFT agreement.



The provisional agenda of the JHA Council meeting (dated 13 November 2009; document CM 4735/09) still mentions the bank data transfer agreement, without any reference to documents of substantive value:


“Council Decision authorising the signing of an Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme
- Adoption”




Understandably, the short pre-meeting video with ambassador Christian Danielsson on preparation in Coreper II concentrates on the strategically important five year Stockholm Programme, which covers the whole of the evolving area of freedom, security and justice, but the interview makes no mention of the SWIFT deal.



The Background note on the Justice and Home Affairs Council 30 November to 1 December 2009, by the Council Press service (dated 27 November 2009), breaks the silence by mentioning the US agreement among the highlighted questions (front page):


“Ministers will also discuss a draft EU-US agreement on financial messaging data for counterterrorism investigations.”



Under Home Affairs (Monday, 30 November), the background note presents the following general information about the financial data transfer agreement (page 5):


“EU-US agreement on financial messaging data for counter-terrorism investigations

The Council will discuss an EU-US agreement on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data for purposes of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP).

The negotiations on the agreement started in July 2009 and responded to a decision by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to store its European financial messaging data no longer in a database located in the US, but only in Europe. The agreement aims to continue to allow the US Department of the Treasury to receive European financial messaging data for counter-terrorism investigations, while ensuring an adequate level of data protection.

Under the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), the US Department of the Treasury seeks to identify, track and pursue suspected terrorists and their providers of finance. It was set up shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

Relevant results of the US analysis have been and will, under the draft agreement, continue to be shared with EU member states. A report by the former French investigating judge Jean-Luis Brugière, commissioned by the Commission, concluded in December 2008 that the TFTP had generated considerable intelligence value also to the EU member states.

SWIFT is a Belgium-based company which operates a worldwide messaging system used to transmit, inter alia, bank transaction information. It has been estimated that SWIFT handles 80% of the worldwide traffic for electronic value transfers.”


***


Where do we stand?


We note that the background note Friday says “discuss a draft”, not “sign” or “approve”. Does this mean that concluding the agreement is off the agenda Monday, and that the governments are going to give the EU’s data protection rules and parliamentary procedures some serious thought?

We also note that the information on offer – although a huge improvement on past practice – is bland, incomplete and one-sided. Privacy, data protection or fundamental rights are not mentioned, but valuable intelligence is. There are no documentary references to enlighten debate.




The SWIFT agreement is not among the issues debated publicly on the JHA webcast Monday 30 November 2009.

The fight against terrorism is too important to spoil by shady dealings and sowing mistrust in an EU on the threshold of becoming a union, “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

Admittedly, proceedings behind closed doors have created a problem with the end of the year approaching fast. Still, I am reasonably optimistic that, given the opportunity, the European Parliament would do its bit to look for temporary solution if the Council agrees to trust our system of representative democracy.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

European Union: Interinstitutional agreements (EP)

The “institutional triangle” of the European Union ─ the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament ─ needs internal cooperation to function properly.

The treaties define the competences of the European Union (European Community) as a whole and assign the roles to the players, but much of their interaction is left unregulated at this level.

The institutions have therefore developed practices and concluded agreements to ensure functioning relations. Interinstitutional agreements are a means to this end.

These agreements are neither well indexed nor presented on the web pages of the institutions, but we aim to present a rough sketch on the basis of what we find on the basis of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. This leaves certain interinstitutional agreements outside the scope of this blog post (at least in part: Council, budget procedures, comitology, subsidiarity, better regulation).

One of the annexes to the EP Rules of Procedure has direct bearing on the rights of EU citizens. We add some information about the current stage of the Commission’s controversial proposal regarding public access to documents.

***

EP Rules of Procedure: General rule

The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008) illustrate the aims and the forms of so called interinstitutional agreements. The aim is to improve or clarify procedures. According to Rule 120 these interinstitutional agreements can appear in various forms. They are subject to scrutiny before approval by the European Parliament:


CHAPTER 6 INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS

Rule 120 Interinstitutional agreements

1. Parliament may enter into agreements with other institutions in the context of the application of the Treaties or in order to improve or clarify procedures.

Such agreements may take the form of joint declarations, exchanges of letters or codes of conduct or other appropriate instruments. They shall be signed by the President after examination by the committee responsible for constitutional affairs and after approval by Parliament. They may be annexed to the Rules of Procedure for information.

2. Where such agreements imply the modification of existing procedural rights or obligations or establish new procedural rights or obligations for Members or bodies of Parliament, or otherwise imply modification or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, the matter shall be referred to the committee responsible for examination in accordance with Rule 201(2) to (6) before the agreement is signed.


***

Annexing interinstitutional agreements to the EP Rules of Procedure

As we saw in Rule 120, interinstitutional agreements may be annexed to the EP’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 204 gives further directions on the arrangement of annexes, with point (c) dedicated to interinstitutional agreements.


Rule 204 Arrangement of annexes

The annexes to these Rules of Procedure shall be arranged under the following three headings:

a) implementing provisions for procedures under these Rules, adopted by a majority of the votes cast (Annex VI);

b) provisions adopted in implementation of specific terms of the Rules of Procedure and in accordance with the procedures and majority rules laid down therein (Annexes I, II, III, IV, V, VII(A) and (C), IX and XV);

c) interinstitutional agreements or other provisions adopted pursuant to the Treaties which are applicable within Parliament or which have a bearing on its operation. Decisions to annex such provisions to the Rules of Procedure shall be taken by Parliament by a majority of the votes cast, on a proposal from its committee responsible (Annexes VII(B), VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XVI).


***

Annexed interinstitutional agreements

The annexes mentioned in Rule 204(c) and in the Index of the EP Rules of Procedure give an indication of the subjects covered.


***


Annex VII.B

VII.B.Access by Parliament to sensitive information in the field of security and defence policy

Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy (OJ 30.11.2002 C 298/1).


***

Annex VII.C

VII.C.Implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement governing Parliament access to sensitive information in the sphere of security and defence policy

European Parliament decision of 23 October 2002 on the implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement governing European Parliament access to sensitive Council information in the sphere of security and defence policy (OJ 30.11.2002 C 298/4).


***

Annex VIII



Annex VIII Detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry

Decision of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry (OJ 19.5.1995 L 113/2).


***

Annex X

Annex X Performance of the Ombudsman's duties

Annex X.A Decision of the European Parliament on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (adopted by Parliament on 9 March 1994, OJ 4.5.1994 L 113/15, and amended by its decisions of 14 March 2002, OJ 9.4.2002 L 92/13, and 18 June 2008, OJ 17.7.2008 L 189/25), and Annex X.B Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting implementing provisions (adopted on 8 July 2002 and amended by decision of the Ombudsman of 5 April 2004), are at least formally separate decisions, but the inquiries of the Ombudsman require cooperation from the EU institutions and bodies.


***

Annex XI OLAF

At least formally Annex XI contains a unilateral decision adopted on 18 November 1999 by the European Parliament, but it pertains to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF):

ANNEX XI Prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests

European Parliament Decision concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests


***

Annex XII Comitology

The so called Comitology procedures are mainly played out between the Council (member states) and the Commission, but a complementary agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission provides that the EP is to be kept informed about the committee proceedings.

In a gracious bow to transparency the EU member states even allow the European Parliament to know ‘lists of the authorities to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong’. [Wow!]


ANNEX XII Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC.


***

Annex XIII Framework agreement Commission

The relations with the Commission have been covered in a Framework Agreement (EP decision of 26 May 2005), with provisions on confidential information in Annex 1 and a timetable for the Commission’s legislative and work programme in Annex 2.
.

Annex XIII Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission has the following scope:


I. SCOPE

1. The two Institutions agree on the following measures to strengthen the political responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission, extend constructive dialogue, improve the flow of information between the two Institutions and improve the coordination of procedures and planning.

They also agree on specific implementing measures for the forwarding of confidential Commission documents and information, as set out in Annex 1 and on the timetable for the Commission’s legislative and work programme, as set out in Annex 2.


***

Annex XIV

Annex XIV is mentioned in Rule 204(c), but it has been deleted.


***

Annex XVI Public access to documents

The provisions on the public’s access to documents takes the form of a joint Regulation:

Annex XVI Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents

European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 31.5.2001 L 145/43).


This Regulation has direct bearing on the rights of EU citizens. Therefore there is reason to mention the Commission’s controversial proposal to amend the Regulation: Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (Brussels, 30.4.2008 COM(2008) 229 final).

On 19 February 2009 the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has tabled a report A6-0077/2009, by rapporteur Michael Cashman.

The report proposes the approval of the proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (and incorporating the technical amendments approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs), with amendments:



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0077+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN



Ralf Grahn

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

European Parliament: Hearing the Commission

According to the second paragraph of Article 197 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), Members of the Commission may attend all meetings and shall, at their request, be heard on behalf of the Commission.

Under the consolidated Treaty of Lisbon, the first paragraph of Article 230 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) would shorten this to: The Commission may attend all the meetings and shall, at its request, be heard.

In the Framework Agreement mentioned below, the Commission seeks to ensure that, as a general rule, Members of the Commission are present at plenary sittings for agenda items falling under their responsibility, whenever Parliament so requests.


***


Statements

According to the Rules of Procedure, the Commission (as the Council and the European Council) can ask the EP President for permission to make a statement:


Rule 103 Statements by the Commission, Council and European Council

1. Members of the Commission, Council and European Council may at any time ask the President for permission to make a statement. The President shall decide when the statement may be made and whether it is to be followed by a full debate or by thirty minutes of brief and concise questions from Members.
-----


Rule 104 provides for information from the Commission about its latest decisions:

Rule 104 Statements explaining Commission decisions

After consulting the Conference of Presidents, the President may invite the President of the Commission, the Commissioner responsible for relations with the European Parliament or, by agreement, another Commissioner, to make a statement to Parliament after each meeting of the Commission, explaining the main decisions taken. The statement shall be followed by a debate of at least thirty minutes in which Members may put brief and concise questions.


***

Relations more broadly


The provisions on hearing in the Chamber cover only a part of the multi-faceted relations between the European Parliament and the Commission.

Therefore we take a broader view of the relations between these institutions and look at how some of them have been regulated in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008).


***


Interinstitutional agreements

The “institutional triangle” ─ the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council ─ have developed complementary rules through so called interinstitutional agreements.

The EP’s Rules of Procedure offer the following general principles concerning these agreements:


CHAPTER 6 INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS

Rule 120 Interinstitutional agreements

1. Parliament may enter into agreements with other institutions in the context of the application of the Treaties or in order to improve or clarify procedures.

Such agreements may take the form of joint declarations, exchanges of letters or codes of conduct or other appropriate instruments. They shall be signed by the President after examination by the committee responsible for constitutional affairs and after approval by Parliament. They may be annexed to the Rules of Procedure for information.

2. Where such agreements imply the modification of existing procedural rights or obligations or establish new procedural rights or obligations for Members or bodies of Parliament, or otherwise imply modification or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, the matter shall be referred to the committee responsible for examination in accordance with Rule 201(2) to (6) before the agreement is signed.


***



Framework Agreement

There are several interinstitutional agreements, but Annex XIII to the EP Rules of Procedure contains the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, which aims to ensure that their powers and prerogatives are exercised as effectively as possible.

Here is a summary of matters covered.


The rules concern the political accountability of the Commission, information at every stage of legislative and budgetary processes, as well as on the Commission’s legislative and work programme. The Commission undertakes to inform the EP about action taken on the basis of requests by the European Parliament.

The Commission promises information about negotiations on international agreements from the preparatory stage onwards.

The Commission presents proposals for the European Union’s multiannual programming, with a view to achieving consensus on inter-institutional programming between the Institutions concerned.

As a general rule, the Member of the Commission responsible for an item under consideration in a parliamentary committee shall be present at the relevant committee meeting, when invited. Members of the Commission shall be heard at their request.

Annex 1 of Annex XIII concerns the forwarding of confidential information to the European Parliament and Annex 2 presents a timetable for the Commission legislative and work programme.



Ralf Grahn

Saturday, 7 February 2009

EU Law: Concluding international agreements

The merger of the European Community into the European Union facilitates the conclusion of international agreements, which is reflected in the general procedure for concluding these agreements in the Treaty of Lisbon. The legitimacy of international agreements is enhanced by the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament, but. CFSP agreements and certain other agreements still require unanimous Council decisions and leave the EP to be consulted.



***

Current treaty

Article 300 of the Treaty establishing the European Community provides for the procedure leading to the conclusion of international agreements between the EC and third countries or international organisations.

The Commission conducts the negotiations, but the Council decides on every major step from the opening of negotiations onward, as shown in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, published OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/176–177:

Article 300 TEC

1. Where this Treaty provides for the conclusion of agreements between the Community and one or more States or international organisations, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council, which shall authorise the Commission to open the necessary negotiations. The Commission shall conduct these negotiations in consultation with special committees appointed by the Council to assist it in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue to it.

In exercising the powers conferred upon it by this paragraph, the Council shall act by a qualified majority, except in the cases where the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 provides that the Council shall act unanimously.

2. Subject to the powers vested in the Commission in this field, the signing, which may be accompanied by a decision on provisional application before entry into force, and the conclusion of the agreements shall be decided on by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. The Council shall act unanimously when the agreement covers a field for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules and for the agreements referred to in Article 310.

By way of derogation from the rules laid down in paragraph 3, the same procedures shall apply for a decision to suspend the application of an agreement, and for the purpose of establishing the positions to be adopted on behalf of the Community in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt decisions having legal effects, with the exception of decisions supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.

The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed of any decision under this paragraph concerning the provisional application or the suspension of agreements, or the establishment of the Community position in a body set up by an agreement.

3. The Council shall conclude agreements after consulting the European Parliament, except for the agreements referred to in Article 133(3), including cases where the agreement covers a field for which the procedure referred to in Article 251 or that referred to in Article 252 is required for the adoption of internal rules. The European Parliament shall deliver its opinion within a time limit which the Council may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. In the absence of an opinion within that time limit, the Council may act.

By way of derogation from the previous subparagraph, agreements referred to in Article 310, other agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures, agreements having important budgetary implications for the Community and agreements entailing amendment of an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 shall be concluded after the assent of the European Parliament has been obtained.

The Council and the European Parliament may, in an urgent situation, agree upon a time limit for the assent.

4. When concluding an agreement, the Council may, by way of derogation from paragraph 2, authorise the Commission to approve modifications on behalf of the Community where the agreement provides for them to be adopted by a simplified procedure or by a body set up by the agreement; it may attach specific conditions to such authorisation.

5. When the Council envisages concluding an agreement which calls for amendments to this Treaty, the amendments must first be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

6. The European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or a Member State may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the provisions of this Treaty. Where the opinion of the Court of Justice is adverse, the agreement may enter into force only in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

7. Agreements concluded under the conditions set out in this Article shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States.


***

The original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 173 of the original Treaty of Lisbon inserted an Article 188n replacing Article 300 TEC, in OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/97–98:

173) An Article 188 N shall be inserted, replacing Article 300:

[Text not repeated here]


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, here is what the renumbered Article 218 TFEU would look like; consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/144–146:


Article 218 TFEU
(ex Article 300 TEC)

1. Without prejudice to the specific provisions laid down in Article 207, agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with the following procedure.

2. The Council shall authorise the opening of negotiations, adopt negotiating directives, authorise the signing of agreements and conclude them.

3. The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team.

4. The Council may address directives to the negotiator and designate a special committee in consultation with which the negotiations must be conducted.

5. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision authorising the signing of the agreement and, if necessary, its provisional application before entry into force.

6. The Council, on a proposal by the negotiator, shall adopt a decision concluding the agreement.

Except where agreements relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, the Council shall adopt the decision concluding the agreement:

(a) after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament in the following cases:

(i) association agreements;

(ii) agreement on Union accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

(iii) agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures;

(iv) agreements with important budgetary implications for the Union;

(v) agreements covering fields to which either the ordinary legislative procedure applies, or the special legislative procedure where consent by the European Parliament is required.

The European Parliament and the Council may, in an urgent situation, agree upon a time-limit for consent.

(b) after consulting the European Parliament in other cases. The European Parliament shall deliver its opinion within a time-limit which the Council may set depending on the urgency of the matter. In the absence of an opinion within that time-limit, the Council may act.

7. When concluding an agreement, the Council may, by way of derogation from paragraphs 5, 6 and 9, authorise the negotiator to approve on the Union's behalf modifications to the agreement where it provides for them to be adopted by a simplified procedure or by a body set up by the agreement. The Council may attach specific conditions to such authorisation.

8. The Council shall act by a qualified majority throughout the procedure.

However, it shall act unanimously when the agreement covers a field for which unanimity is required for the adoption of a Union act as well as for association agreements and the agreements referred to in Article 212 with the States which are candidates for accession. The Council shall also act unanimously for the agreement on accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the decision concluding this agreement shall enter into force after it has been approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

9. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall adopt a decision suspending application of an agreement and establishing the positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt acts having legal effects, with the exception of acts supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.

10. The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure.

11. A Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised.


***

Comments

The abolishment of the separate European Union and the European Community by merging the EC into the EU, with legal personality, extends and facilitates the general procedure for negotiating and concluding international agreements.

The agreements are concluded in the name of the European Union.

International agreements relating to the common foreign and security (CFSP) still have special traits within the general procedure.

The role of the European Parliament is strengthened where its consent is needed.

Unanimity remains the rule for Council decisions in the following cases:

· When unanimity is required for the adoption of a Union act
· Association agreements
· Economic, financial and technical cooperation agreements with candidates for accession
· Accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (plus ratification needed)

In substance Article 218 TFEU is similar to Article III-325 of the Constitutional Treaty, with the addition that the European Convention on Human Rights requires both unanimous decision and ratification by the member states.



Ralf Grahn

EU Law: Association agreements

Association agreements imply a deeper relationship between the European Community (European Union) and third countries than run of the mill international agreements, but this category of agreements is brought to attention more by the existence of a special treaty provision than by its clarity. In practice, the term association has been used for various kinds of agreements.




***

Current treaty

Article 310 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) provides for the establishment of an association with one or more state (third country). The “special relationship” is emphasised more by the existence of this provision than by its contents.

Reciprocal rights and obligations are the bread and butter of international agreements. Common action and special procedure hint at more evolved relations. Article 310 TEC does not elaborate on the objectives or contents of the relationship.

The conclusion of an association agreement is ruled by Article 300 TEC, with the notable requirement in paragraph 2 that unanimity is required in the Council.

Article 310 TEC is found in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.12.2006 C 321 E/179:



Article 310 TEC

The Community may conclude with one or more States or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 172 of the original Treaty of Lisbon inserted the text of Article 310 TEC into the treaty with a new number 188m and a small specific amendment (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/97):


172) An Article 188 M shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 310. The word ‘States’ shall be replaced by ‘third countries’.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, Article 188m would appear renumbered as Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), including the specific amendment that the partners would be called third countries as elsewhere in the treaties, since (Member) States is the term reserved for EU members. As usual, Community would be replaced by Union according to the horizontal amendment (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/144):


Article 217 TFEU
(ex Article 310 TEC)

The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.


***

Brief overview

The Lisbon Treaty would not change the substance of Article 310 TEC. Thus, it would not expand upon the objectives, categories or contents either.

For a brief overview you could read the clear but somewhat incomplete Wikipedia article European Union Association Agreement, which focuses on two policy areas of heavier involvement, namely the Stabilisation and Association Process and the European Neighbourhood Policy (latest update 22 December 2008):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Association_Agreement


***

Stabilisation and Association Process

The Commission offers web pages on the Stabilisation and Association Process, the framework for EU negotiations with the Western Balkan countries on their way to their eventual EU membership. You can start here:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/how_does_a_country_join_the_eu/sap/index_en.htm



***

European Neighbourhood Policy

The Commission explains the European Neighbourhood Policy on this and on related pages:


http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm


***

Scope of association agreements


Eur-Lex does not present association agreements as a group among classification headings. There are 31 pages of hits (many of them updates of existing agreements) under Association when you look at International agreements classified according to subject matter:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?RechType=RECH_AccorMat&mat=ASSO&repihm=Association


A simple search of the Commission’s Treaties Office Database offers 50 (basic) agreements to the search term ‘association’, which is a manageable number to start eliminating the false starts:

http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/SimpleSearch.do


***

European Economic Area (EEA)

One association worth special mention is the agreement on the European Economic Area. The Preamble of EEA agreement reaffirms he high priority attached by the parties to the privileged relationship between the European Community, its Member States and the EFTA States, which is based on proximity, long-standing common values and European identity;

The scope of the agreement on the European Economic Area goes well beyond free trade by providing for the continuing reception of large parts of the evolving Community acquis as well as participation in EU programmes in various policy areas:


Article 1

1. The aim of this Agreement of association is to promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the Contracting Parties with equal conditions of competition, and the respect of the same rules, with a view to creating a homogeneous European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA.

2. In order to attain the objectives set out in paragraph 1, the association shall entail, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement :

(a) the free movement of goods;

(b) the free movement of persons;

(c) the free movement of services;

(d) the free movement of capital;

(e) the setting up of a system ensuring that competition is not distorted and that the rules thereon are equally respected; as well as

(f) closer cooperation in other fields, such as research and development, the environment, education and social policy.


***

Overseas countries and territories


Overseas countries and territories (OCTs) are a special group where the term association is used (Articles 182 to 188 TEC; Articles 198 to 204 TFEU).



Ralf Grahn

Monday, 2 February 2009

EU cooperation with third countries

The European Community (European Union) cooperates with third countries in a variety of areas, which has resulted in a plethora of international agreements.

The EU Treaty of Lisbon clarifies the provision on economic, financial and technical cooperation and strengthens the role of the European Parliament to some extent.

***

Current treaty

Since the Treaty of Nice entered into force, Article 181a of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) has provided for cooperation with countries outside the European Union, third countries other than developing countries (catered for in Title XX).

The cooperation is described in general terms as economic, financial and technical.

The general objectives of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms are mentioned.


Since the Treaty of Nice the Council is generally able to adopt measures by qualified majority voting (QMV), but the European Parliament is only consulted.


Unanimity is required for the association agreements with states or international organisations and for the agreements to be concluded with the states on the last laps for membership as candidates for accession to the Union.

The European Community can conclude international agreements, but the EC and the member states have parallel powers.

Here is Article 181a TEC, as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/127:


TITLE XXI
ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

Article 181a TEC

1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty, and in particular those of Title XX, the Community shall carry out, within its spheres of competence, economic, financial and technical cooperation measures with third countries. Such measures shall be complementary to those carried out by the Member States and consistent with the development policy of the Community.

Community policy in this area shall contribute to the general objective of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and to the objective of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of paragraph 1. The Council shall act unanimously for the association agreements referred to in Article 310 and for the agreements to be concluded with the States which are candidates for accession to the Union.

3. Within their respective spheres of competence, the Community and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and the competent international organisations. The arrangements for Community cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Community and the third parties concerned, which shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with Article 300.

The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 165 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) inserted a new Chapter 2 on economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries, and Article 2, point 166 amended Article 181a, which became Article 188h, OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/94–95:

ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

165) A Chapter 2 ‘ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES’ shall be inserted, taking over the heading of Title XXI of Part 3.

166) An Article 188 H shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 181a; it shall be amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

‘1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, and in particular Articles 188 D to 188 G, the Union shall carry out economic, financial and technical cooperation measures, including assistance, in particular financial assistance, with third countries other than developing countries. Such measures shall be consistent with the development policy of the Union and shall be carried out within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action. The Union's operations and those of the Member States shall complement and reinforce each other.’;

(b) paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:

‘2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of paragraph 1.’;

(c) at the end of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, the words ‘, which shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with Article 300’ shall be deleted.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

With a feeling of relief we turn to the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), where Article 188h has become Article 212 and been given a readable form, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/142:

CHAPTER 2
ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

Article 212 TFEU
(ex Article 181a TEC)

1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, and in particular Articles 208 to 211, the Union shall carry out economic, financial and technical cooperation measures, including assistance, in particular financial assistance, with third countries other than developing countries. Such measures shall be consistent with the development policy of the Union and shall be carried out within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action. The Union's operations and those of the Member States shall complement and reinforce each other.

2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of paragraph 1.

3. Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and the competent international organisations. The arrangements for Union cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Union and the third parties concerned.

The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.


***

Lisbon Treaty changes

The Treaty of Lisbon clarifies the meaning of ‘third countries’ in this context by saying that they are other than developing countries, to which the provisions on development cooperation apply. These policy areas still have to be consistent.

The relations between the European Union and the member states are given a more positive slant. They shall complement and reinforce each other.

The second TEC subparagraph of paragraph 1 on democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms has been dropped and replaced by the reference to the framework of the principles and objectives of the EU’s external action (Chapter 1 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union; Articles 21 and 22 TEU).


The role of the European Parliament is strengthened by the introduction of the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision) replacing consultation.

There is no mention of the separate (unanimous) procedure concerning the association agreements or the agreements to be concluded with the States which are candidates for accession to the Union, but these are provided for in Articles 207 and 208 TFEU (with consent of the European Parliament for association agreements and possibly on other grounds).

The wording of the scope – economic, financial and technical cooperation – remains the same, but if there is a special legal base for international cooperation measures this is applied (for instance trade).


***

International agreements

Normally the international agreements would be called (and are) treaties. But presumably to make the distinction clearer, the TEU and the TEC reserve the term Treaty for themselves and refer to other treaties as international agreements. Hence, on Eur-Lex you find the page International agreements, which allows you to look under classification headings and subject matter:


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/accords/accords.htm



Ralf Grahn

Sunday, 1 February 2009

EU Law: International development cooperation

Cooperation with third countries and international organisations is one aspect of he European Community’s (European Union’s) action to promote global development.


***

Current treaty

Article 181 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) provides for cooperation and agreements with third countries. The member states retain their powers to act on the international arena and to conclude international agreements.

Article 181 TEC, as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties in force, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/127:


Article 181 TEC

Within their respective spheres of competence, the Community and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations. The arrangements for Community cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Community and the third parties concerned, which shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with Article 300.

The previous paragraph shall be without prejudice to Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 164 of the original Lisbon Treaty (ToL) amends and renumbers Article 181 TEC, OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/94:


164) An Article 188 G shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 181; the second sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph shall be deleted.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty


After one more renumbering the undeleted parts appear of what has become Article 211 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in the consolidated version published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/142:


Article 211 TFEU
(ex Article 181 TEC)

Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations.


***

Lisbon Treaty changes

Roughly two thirds of the text is deleted, but it is hard to see anything of value getting lost. In addition, Article 209(2) TFEU already says it.

Even the remaining part of the provision seems to have only an informative (declaratory) value.

Article 211 TFEU is the same as Article III-318(3) of the Constitutional Treaty.



Ralf Grahn

Friday, 5 December 2008

EU level social partners: Contractual relations and agreements

The social dialogue at European Community (European Union) level can lead to contractual relations, including agreements, between management and labour.

The EU level social partners are confederations of national business organisations and trade unions, so how can these agreements between be put into effect?

Are there any practical examples of implemented European level agreements by European level social partners?


***

Social policy objectives

As a reminder, the social policy objectives mentioned in Article 136 TEC (ex Article 117), in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/103, are important for management (employers, businesses) and labour (trade unions):

– promotion of employment

– improved and harmonised living and working conditions

– social protection

– dialogue between management and labour

– development of human resources

– combating exclusion.

***

Article 139 TEC

Article 139 (ex Article 118b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) invites management and labour to establish contractual relations, including agreements at European level.

The European level organisations are free to agree how they cooperate.

Basically they cannot conclude agreements binding on third parties (labour markets in the member states).

Binding effects can be achieved in two ways:

1) Community level agreements can be transformed in accordance with the procedures and practices in each member state.

2) The Council can issue norms in matters covered by Article 137 TEC.

In the latter case, the organisations agree and request, the Commission proposes and the Council decides.

Unanimity in the Council is required concerning the fields covered in Article 137(1)(c), (d), (f) and (g) TEC. In other cases qualified majority voting applies.

Agreements concerning pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs are excluded. Cf. Article 137(5) TEC.

The current Article 139 TEC, as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/109:

Article 139 TEC

1. Should management and labour so desire, the dialogue between them at Community level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements.

2. Agreements concluded at Community level shall be implemented either in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member States or, in matters covered by Article 137, at the joint request of the signatory parties, by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission.

The Council shall act by qualified majority, except where the agreement in question contains one or more provisions relating to one of the areas for which unanimity is required pursuant to Article 137(2). In that case, it shall act unanimously.

***


Original Lisbon Treaty (ToL)

Article 2, point 118 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) amends Article 139 TEC in the following way (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/81):

118) Article 139(2) shall be amended as follows:

(a) at the end of the first subparagraph, the following sentence shall be added: ‘The European Parliament shall be informed.’;

(b) in the second subparagraph, at the beginning of the first sentence, ‘The Council shall act by qualified majority, except where the agreement’ shall be replaced by ‘The Council shall act unanimously where the agreement’ and the second sentence shall be deleted.

***

Renumbering ToL

The Table of equivalences of the original Treaty of Lisbon tells us that the social policy title was to be renumbered Title X and that the Article 139 TFEU (ToL) was to be renumbered Article 155 TFEU in the consolidated version of the amending treaties (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/214).


***


Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

The exclusion of the European Parliament was mitigated by adopting the obligation to inform the EP from Article III-212(2) of the Constitutional Treaty, as proposed by the European Convention in Article 106(2) of the draft Constitution.

After the horizontal amendments and the editorial change to the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, Article 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in the consolidated TFEU, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/116, appears as follows:

(TITLE X
SOCIAL POLICY)

Article 155 TFEU
(ex Article 139 TEC)

1. Should management and labour so desire, the dialogue between them at Union level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements.

2. Agreements concluded at Union level shall be implemented either in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member States or, in matters covered by Article 153, at the joint request of the signatory parties, by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission. The European Parliament shall be informed.

The Council shall act unanimously where the agreement in question contains one or more provisions relating to one of the areas for which unanimity is required pursuant to Article 153(2).

***

Social partners

Again, Article 139 TEC and Article 155 TFEU employ the vague concept ‘management and labour’ in the English language version, but the reference to the Community (Union) level gives some guidance.

More distinctly, when I compared five other language versions of Article 155 TFEU they employ the term ‘social partners’ or something close to that, clearly evoking representative organisations of employers (businesses) and labour (trade unions) at European level.

German: Sozialpartner
French: partenaires sociaux
Spanish: interlocutores sociales
Finnish: työmarkkinaosapuolet
Swedish: arbetsmarknadens parter

For management and labour in the English language version of the current and future treaties, read social partners, because other language versions are explicit.

***

Main European level social partners: Who are they?

The membership of the main Social dialogue committee (SDC) includes the main cross-sectoral players: the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Confederation of European Business (Businesseurope), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP), the European Associaiton of Craft, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (UEAPME), Eurocadres and the European Confederation of Executives and Managerial Staff (CEC):

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/interprof_en.htm


***

Social dialogue

The Commission’s DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities offers web pages with information about the European social dialogue. A distinction is made between bipartite dialogue involving employers and trade unions (the subject of Article 139 TEC and Article 155 TFEU) and a tripartite dialogue with the participation of public authorities (the subject of Article 138 TEC and Article 154 TFEU). Consultation takes place both generally (cross-industry social dialogue) and on a sectoral basis:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/index_en.htm

***

Bipartite social dialogue

The Commission’s DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities offers a web page Bipartite Social Dialogue at European level:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/bipartite_en.htm

In addition to the main social dialogue committee (SDC), there are 33 sectoral committees.

***

Social dialogue results

A web page called Typology of European social dialogue results presents practical examples:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_dialogue/typology_en.htm

***

Eurofound

Additional information on various aspects of employment issues from a research and communication viewpoint is offered by Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/about/index.htm



Ralf Grahn

Monday, 26 May 2008

EU TFEU: Competition law: Anti-competitive agreements

The Constitutional Treaty would have offered the citizens of the European Union an internal market where competition is free and undistorted. The EU Treaty of Lisbon does not mention free and undistorted competition among the objectives of the European Union.

Therefore, most of the discussion about EU competition law in the light of the Lisbon Treaty has centred upon the symbolic downgrading of competition, whereas the unchanged substantive provisions have generated sparse comment.

The first competition Article deals with anti-competitive agreements between firms.


***

We enter a new Title, Chapter and Section in order to look at competition rules in the EU Treaty of Lisbon.

Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is found in the consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/88–89:

Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’

Title VII Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws

Chapter 1 Rules on competition

Section 1 Rules applying to undertakings

Article 101 TFEU
(ex Article 81 TEC)

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

(c) share markets or sources of supply;

(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

— any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,

— any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,

— any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

***

In Article 2, point 75 of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) laid out the specific amendments to Article 80 TEC and in point 76 Article 85 TEC was amended. Thus, no specific amendments were made to Article 81 TEC (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/68).

***

The TFEU table of equivalences tells us that Article 81 TEC first became Article 81 TFEU (ToL), but later renumbered Article 101 TFEU in the consolidated version (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/211).

***

The current Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is found under Title VI ‘Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws’, Chapter 1 ‘Rules on competition’, Section 1 ‘Rules applying to undertakings’, in the latest consolidated version of the treaties in force (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/73–74).

The only change made by Article 101 TFEU was to replace the words ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’ twice in the first paragraph, according to horizontal amendment 2(g). Cf. above and OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/41.

Therefore, Article 81 TEC is not reproduced here.

***

For the sake of a systematic comparison, we look at the Article during the previous treaty reform stages.

First, we turn to the European Convention, which located the provisions on competition in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter I ‘Internal market’, Section 5 ‘Rules on competition’, with Subsection 1 ‘Rules applying to undertakings’.

In Article III-50 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe the words ‘internal market’ were used in the first paragraph instead of ‘common market’. The third paragraph dropped the words ‘The provisions of’, but otherwise the provision was exactly the same as the future Article 101 TFEU (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/35).

***

The location and wording of Article III-161 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was the same as for the corresponding provision of the draft (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/68–69).

The IGC 2007 did not bother to delete the words ‘The provisions of’ at the beginning of the third paragraph, but otherwise the Constitutional Treaty and Article 101 TFEU are identical.

***

We have seen that Article 101 TFEU is almost exactly the same as the current Article 81 TEC, the only difference being the systematic use of ‘internal market’ instead of the older expression ‘common market’.

But, this picture would be incomplete if we did not venture outside the wording of the Article.

First, according to Article 3(1)(b) TFEU the EU has exclusive competence in ‘the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market’.

Second, we mention the revised objectives of the European Union. According to the Lisbon Treaty version of Article 3(3) TEU:

“The Union shall establish an internal market.”

The current Article 3(1)(g) TEC ‘system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted’ was deleted from the objectives of the European Union. Having satisfied the French demands to make competition not an objective, but a means, the governments of the member states agreed on a Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition (OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/309):

PROTOCOL (No 27)
ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,

HAVE AGREED that:

To this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

This protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

***

In principle, the IGC 2007 followed the agreements of the IGC 2004, but Annex 1 of the IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07), point 3 (page 11) contained the wording of Article 2 about the internal market without the words ‘where competition is free and undistorted’. The text of the draft protocol is on the same page.

The Council’s legal service gave the following opinion about the scope of Article 308 of the EC Treaty (the ‘flexibility clause’), dated 22 June 2007 (Council document 11198/07):

1) It results from the practice of the Institutions that, for the implementation of Article 308 of the EC Treaty ("flexibility clause"), the reference to "the objectives of the Community" has been interpreted widely by the Institutions, in order to cover all purposes and objectives coming within the general framework of the Treaty, and not only to cover those listed in Article 3. A recent example of this practice is the adoption of the Regulation establishing the Agency on Fundamental Rights(1). This corresponds to the case law of the Court of Justice(2): the Court of Justice has said that Article 235 of the EC Treaty (now Article 308) "cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of Community powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the Treaty as a whole and, in particular, by those that define the tasks and the activities of the Community".

2) The fact that, in a future Treaty, Article 3 listing the objectives of the Union would not contain a specific reference to "a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted" would not, therefore, prevent the EU legislator to act in order:

− to "establish an internal market" (future Article 3, paragraph 3), and

− that the activities of the Union "shall include (…) the adoption of an economic policy which is based (…) on the internal market (…) and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition" (future Article 4).

3) The future IGC may deem it appropriate, for reasons of transparency, to accompany the text of the future Treaty by a Declaration stating that "with regard to the establishment of the internal market as set out in article 3 TEU, the Conference confirms that the Union will, if necessary, take action under Article 308 to ensure that competition is not distorted".

4) The future IGC might also choose to add a Protocol to the future Treaty, in order to confirm the above. Such a Protocol would be in conformity with the Treaty but legally superfluous.


The footnotes:

(1) Regulation No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007, OJ L53, 22.2.2007, p. 1.

(2) See Opinion of the Court of Justice of 23 March 1996, Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR, p. I-1759.

***

What has been said about Article 101 TFEU?


United Kingdom

Professor Steve Peers covered the Treaty of Lisbon in a number of Statewatch Analyses. ‘EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.3: Revised text of Part Three, Titles I to VI of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC): Internal Market and competition’ (Version 2, 23 October 2007) includes the current Title VI Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws.

Peers highlighted the amendment to Article 81 TEC and TFEU (ToL), to be renumbered Article 101 TFEU in the consolidated version, without comment (page 24).

The analysis 3.3 and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:

http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm

***

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) offers a convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008). It offers the following comment on Article 101 TFEU, Article 81 TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty (page 11):

“Unchanged from Article 81 TEC.”

The FCO comparative table is available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp

***

The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) discussed competition on page 57 to 60, not without doubts being expressed with regard to the abolition of free and undistorted competition from among the EU’s objectives.

The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf

***

The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) discussed the internal market and competition on pages 218 and 219.

The main discussion centred around concerns about the removal of ‘free and undistorted competition’ (according to Article I-3(2) of the Constitutional Treaty objectives), but the Committee’s conclusion was the following:

“9.18. We would be concerned if any possible symbolic downgrading were translated into efforts to depart from the principles of free competition that have formed the cornerstone of the internal market. However, Article 51 of the TEU gives equal weight to the Treaty Articles and Protocols and Articles 81–83 of the TEC will remain the same as Articles 101–103 of the TFEU. Therefore, the change does not appear to be significant.”

The report is accessible at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf

***

Sweden

The consultation paper of the government of Sweden, ‘Lissabonfördraget; Statsrådsberedningen, Departementsserien (Ds), Ds 2007:48’ published 20 December 2007, deals with the internal market on pages 261 to 269, ’22.1 Inre marknaden’. On page 264 the consultation paper describes the Protocol on the internal market and competition (Protokollet om den inre marknaden och konkurrens), and it refers to the opinion of the Council’s legal service (document 11198/07).

The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ is available at:

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf

***

Finland

The Finnish ratification bill, ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp), includes only a short comment on the unchanged nature of Article 81 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 101 TFEU (on page 207), but mentions competition among the EU objectives on page 19:

”Perustuslakisopimukseen verrattuna unionin tavoitteita koskevasta määräyksestä on poistettu viittaus siihen, että kilpailu unionin sisämarkkinoilla on vapaata ja vääristymätöntä. SEUT 2 b artiklassa sisämarkkinoiden toimintaa varten tarvittavien kilpailusääntöjen vahvistaminen määritellään kuitenkin jatkossakin unionin yksinomaiseen toimivaltaan kuuluvaksi. Tähän muutokseen liittyen sopimukseen on liitetty kilpailua ja sisämarkkinoita koskeva pöytäkirja, jossa sopimuspuolet katsovat, että SEU 2 artiklassa määritelty tavoite sisämarkkinoiden luomisesta käsittää järjestelmän, jolla taataan, ettei kilpailu vääristy. Sopimuspuolet sopivat, että unioni toteuttaa toimenpiteitä tämän tavoitteen toteuttamiseksi.”

More or less the same factual and non-committal remarks are made on page 132, when Article 2 TEU (ToL), renumbered Article 3 TEU, is dealt with.

The Finnish ratification bill is available at:

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf

The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rd), offers the same brief observation about Article 81 TFEU (ToL), the future Article 101 TFEU, on page 209.

The remarks about the role of competition among the objectives of the EU is on page 19:

”Jämfört med det konstitutionella fördraget har omnämnandet av en inre marknad där det råder fri och icke snedvriden konkurrens strukits från bestämmelsen om unionens mål. Enligt artikel 3 i EUF-fördraget ska unionen dock även i fortsättningen ha exklusiv befogenhet när det gäller fastställandet av de konkurrensregler som är nödvändiga för den inre marknadens funktion. I anslutning till denna ändring åtföljs fördraget av ett protokoll om den inre marknaden och konkurrens där de fördragsslutande parterna beaktar att den inre marknaden enligt definitionen i artikel 2 i EU-fördraget innefattar en ordning som säkerställer att konkurrensen inte snedvrids.
De fördragsslutande parterna enas om att unionen ska vidta åtgärder för detta ändamål.”

The description on page 132 of the Finnish version is found on page 135 of the Swedish one.

The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:

http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf



Ralf Grahn