Time for a UK mass exodus from the clutches of the EUSSR? (5 x updated)

Was I uncharitable regarding British tabloids, large parts of the political establishment and the UK educational system, which have utterly failed to frame the UK discussion on ”Europe” in constructive and forward-looking terms? My criticism in UK and the fall of the ”EU dictatorship” (12 January 2011) seems mild in comparison to fellow euroblogger @Nosemonkey who tweeted about the ”barking mad #EUbill reading/debate”.


Westminster bubble

Generally ”Europe” is treated as an alien, hostile and threatening empire (EUSSR), rather than as the team the United Kingdom is playing on (and should be playing for).

I invite you to be your own judge. Read the record of the 11 January debate on the European Union Bill in the Westminster Parliament.

How do you, as an EU citizen, perceive that the House of Commons debate on parliamentary sovereignty (or Crown in Parliament), especially the Tory rebellion led by Bill Cash targeting the independence of courts (the rule of law), addresses our real concerns about values, security and prosperity in a world increasingly shaped by rising powers (BRICs)?


Bleak House ahead

The Gulf Stream Blues blog noted that the Tory rebellion was defeated, but the government's European Union Bill is heading for adoption, and Bleak House lies ahead: UK throws a spanner in EU integration (12 January 2011):

In the end, if the British vote 'no' on something the rest of the EU is ready to approve, the only logical next step would be for the British to have an 'in or out' referendum on its own membership. One can't quite predict how that will go, but I suspect it would be a 'yes' because deep down the British know they need the EU. But they can't stay in it if they're going to drag it down by rejecting every attempt at treaty change.

So there you have it, quite a bleak future for the UK's relationship with the EU. And there's little chance of this bill being overturned by a later government.

For Europeans, being dragged down by the United Kingdom is not the brightest of prospects.


Sterile sovereignty

In my view, framing the debate about the European Union in terms of (parliamentary) sovereignty is sterile. The rights and interest of citizens are primary, which a House self-obsessed with its own sovereignty does little to serve.

Yesterday, the Federal Union blog made a similar observation, in: Where sovereignty lies (12 January 2011). What matters, are the rights of citizens, not the rights of MPs. The rights of citizens need to be strengthened:

For a number of reasons, most of them good ones, the principle that what parliament says, goes, is no longer unbending. International treaty obligations, including notably those of the European Union, plus many other home-grown concerns, combine to restrict what parliament may do. Purists of the old school, as exemplified by Bill Cash, may dislike what has happened, but it is nevertheless the case. Even leaving the EU would not restore parliamentary powers to their former glory. What matters, though, are the rights of citizens, not the rights of MPs – do not confuse the two – and those rights are being strengthened.

Pace of learning

In the political culture of the United Kingdom the concept and meaning of national citizenship have yet to take root.

Sixty years after the establishment of the Council of Europe (CoE) and the conclusion of the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the protection of citizens' rights through the rule of law seems alien to considerable parts of the British political establishement.

In addition, the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR are often confused with decisions by the European Union, itself no spring chicken, with roots going back to the 1957 (EEC) Treaty of Rome.

If you do not believe me about the constant confusion and misinformation, see Talking about the EU: The European Court of Human Rights is NOT an EU institution (11 January 2011).


Ignore, deny or accept

Ignoring, denying and accepting all seem to be alternatives equally presentable, even if we discuss a matter of fact.

Little wonder that the Federal Trust is going to host a conference 20 January 2011 on these great unknowns: Citizenship and the Lisbon Treaty – can the British ever be European citizens?


Dual citizenship

Despite the excruciatingly slow pace of learning, legally the case is clear. Citizenship of the European Union was introduced by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), also known as the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed in 1992 and entered into force in 1993.

Today, this dual citizenship – national and EU – is enshrined in Title II on provisions on democratic principles of the Treaty on European Union (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/20):

TITLE II
PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

Article 9 TEU

In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

Concrete provisions on and benefits of the bonus EU citizenship are found in Part Two of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union (Articles 18 to 25).

Through the treaties and secondary legislation EU citizenship confers some, but not full, political rights on the citizens. The European Union is still ”owned” by the member states, instead of vested in its citizens.

The member states even hold the keys to who becomes an EU citizen, since it follows automatically from national citizenship, without effective brakes on mass naturalisation by an individual government: National and EU citizenship: What if? (30 November 2010). .

As we saw, EU citizenship is less than twenty years old, almost nothing compared to the age of the Council of Europe, the ECHR, the Treaty of Rome (EEC) and other landmarks of European integration still freely ignored or misunderstood by large sections of British media and nationals.


Ignorance or denial?

Should we rejoice that denial is better than ignorance, because the denier at least is aware of the existence of his or her citizenship of the European Union?

In addition, the protest comes without cost. If you tell the world that you reject your EU citizenship, you still retain your status and the benefits.

The effective, non-gratuitous way to get rid of EU citizenship is to become a national of a state which is neither an EU member, nor a potential member. This leaves plenty of exotic options among the 192 member states of the United Nations.


Mass exodus?

The Tory rebellion having failed, European Union Bill of the UK government is on the road to the statute book, and the campaigns to get Britain out of the EU seem to be going nowhere (even if UK secession might be a blessing for the rest of the union).

Why don't the tabloids, Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan and others act in the spirit of the Pilgrim Fathers to flee oppression by the EUSSR dictatorship and head for a new start in a more promising land?

Afghanistan? Belarus? Burma? Cuba? North Korea? Iran? Libya? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Zimbabwe?

The choice is almost endless for those who cherish their age-old English liberties enough to flee the evil European Union. (See Freedom in the World, Freedom House ratings of more than a hundred countries in 2010.)

Do I see lines forming in front of the Consulates, crowds crying Exodus, English political notables packing their bags and media campaigning in overdrive to spur people to take liberty into their own hands?


Update 13 January 2011: The European Citizen has written a blog post on the trials and tribulations of the UK Parliament to come to terms with sovereignty in the context of the debate on the European Union Bill.


Update 2, 14 January 2011: Nosemonkey has returned to the EU and UK sovereignty in a long, but interesting blog post.


Update 3, 14 January 2011: Eva en Europa writes (in Spanish) about the British drift away from the rest of Europe manifested by the European Union Bill debate.


Update 4, 14 January 2011: The House of Commons debate on the European Union Bill does not convince Caroline Bradley of Blenderlaw about the merits of parliamentary sovereignty.


Update 5, January 2011: Charles Reed on the Ethics and Foreign Policy blog wonders if the European Union Bill introduces referendums for the wrong type of questions.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Parliament magazine focuses on the directly elected European Parliament, which co-legislates on more of the important issues concerning EU businesses and citizens than before the Lisbon Treaty. Lobbyists have spotted the influence of the EP. Should EU citizens too?

EU for the disabled and ageing

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the ten new factsheets for citizens of the European Union are posted on the web pages of vice-president Viviane Reding, not DG Justice? Mercifully there was no reference to the political guidelines of Commission president José Manuel Barroso on this page.

Translations have been promised, but at this moment the factsheets are available in English, French and German. The first is one A4 page dedicated to people with physical or mental disabilities, including restrictions brought on by ageing:

Removing obstacles for the disabled

The main thrust of the leaflet seems to be, first of all to acknowledge that there are many people with disabilities and that ageing will increase their numbers substantially, and secondly to plug the new disability strategy, contained in a fresh communication from the Commission:

European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe; Brussels 15.11.2010, COM(2010) 636 final

The relatively brief strategy was accompanied by a detailed analytical staff working document SEC(2010) 1323 (88 pages) and an initial implementation plan SEC(2010) 1324 (20 pages).


Update 8 December 2010: For the convenience of readers, links to the Commission staff working documents accompanying the communication from the Commission (available only in English):

European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe; Brussels 15.11.2010, SEC(2010) 1323 final

European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe - Initial plan to implement the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 - List of Actions 2010-2015; Brussels 15.11.2010, SEC(2010) 1324 final



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Macarena Rodríguez blogs actively and expertly from Brussels to Spain (and the Spanish speaking world) on La Oreja de Europa (Europe's Ear), underlining the quality and engagement of Spanish Euroblogs.

Viviane Reding and EU Justice

Justice and Home Affairs affect citizens and businesses more directly than most EU policies, and there is a whole lot going on.

The Lisbon Treaty entered into force a year ago, and the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) now resembles 'normal' policies and internal actions of the European Union more than before.

The previous blog post looked briefly at Cecilia Malmström and EU Home Affairs, so now we take a peek at Viviane Reding and EU Justice.


EU Justice

Viviane Reding is vice-president of the European Commission and responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship. Her Commission website is actively updated.

It took about six months, but then the Commission got separate Directorates-General for Home Affairs and Justice, both from 1 July 2010. However, they still seem to share the same culture. When I checked the Documentation centre and the Newsroom of DG Justice, they looked as lethargic as the corresponding web pages of their erstwhile fellow workers.

I wonder why.


JHA Council

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) share the same Council configuration. The conclusions from the last meeting of this Council configuration during the Belgian presidency run to 37 pages, which gives us an indication of highly active policy areas:

Press release: 3051st Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs), 2-3 December 2010 (provisional version; document 16918/10)

As with home affairs, there is a need for critical but constructive reporting and discussion about EU justice, fundamental rights and citizenship issues.


Citizenship report

I have been following EU citizenship issues on my blogs, so we might as well quote the Council conclusions with regard to the report from the Commission COM(2010) 603:

2010 EU citizenship report

The Council took note of the Commission's 2010 EU citizenship report: Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens' rights (15936/10). The report analysis the areas where citizens are facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights and proposes 25 initiatives for tackling these obstacles.

You can find the initiatives in the blog post 'EU citizenship: 25 proposals' as well.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. 'The Blog with the European perspective' is how the team blog Kosmopolito describes itself; now closely following Wikileaks / Cablegate.

EU citizenship: France’s Roma expulsions documented by CEPS

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

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



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


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

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

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




Ralf Grahn



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

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



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



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

My Europe Week: Mother’s Day and Europe Day 9 May 2010

According to Wikipedia, if I counted correctly, it is Mother’s Day in a majority (14) of the member states of the European Union, globally in 77 countries this second Sunday of May 2010.

Being 9 May, this year Mother’s Day and Europe Day coincide in these 14 EU countries.

In my own country, Finland, Mother’s Day is an official flag day. Europe Day is a flag day recommended by the Ministry of the Interior. If possible, you should fly the EU flag alongside the national flag.

I appreciate the symbolism of the national and the EU flag side by side.

The nurture and care of a mother ultimately aim at adulthood and independence of her child. From our mother, we learn our mother tongue, but wisely she does not prevent us from learning other languages.

For most of us, our fatherland (patria) is where we study, work and live, but a wise father does not imprison us, if our destiny takes us into the wider world.

Being an EU citizen is having a bonus citizenship, with freedom to move and reside, as well as some political rights. It does not deprive us of national citizenship, but amplifies it.

However, at some point in time, mothers and fathers have to accept their children as adults. This goes for our national leaders as well.


Empowerment


After the intergovernmental trivium and the supposedly apolitical and technocratic supranationalism of the quadrivium, our political leaders should allow, even encourage, our progress to become fully empowered members of the universitas of higher learning.

The primary and secondary levels were necessary, but why keep us back?


My message to the political leaders this Europe Day is: Understand to stand back and start preparing us a complete system of representative democracy at EU level.

Full citizenship, please.



Share your Europe



Europe Day 9 May 2010 is a good occasion to share your Europe.



On Europe Day 9 May 2010, the editors of Bloggingportal.eu invite you, bloggers and non-bloggers, to share your visions for the future of Europe on the My Europe Week blog. You can read the roundups on My Europe Week, or you can access the posts tagged #myeurope on the special Bloggingportal.eu page.

Twitter away under the hashtags #MyEurope and #EuropeDay.




Ralf Grahn

Reding and Malmström: Urgent & complete redesign of EU Commission website needed

When the new Barroso II Commission finally is allowed to start working, at least two Commissioners face the urgent task to update the web pages and step up the communication effort of their services. They are Viviane Reding (Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship) and Cecilia Malmström (Home Affairs).



For some inexplicable reason, we have seen that the current Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security would remain intact, although the European Union is getting a “justice minister” and an “interior minister”.

If true, this means that the two Commissioners will have to agree on the steps to take, but one thing is crystal clear. In these policy areas with a direct impact on EU citizens, something needs to be done – and quickly.



The briefest tour of the web pages of DG Justice, Freedom and Security makes it abundantly clear that the website has to be redesigned and updated. Currently this DG probably has the worst web presence among the Commission services.



If Director-General Jonathan Faull has been mentioned as the new chief of Internal Market and Services for Commissioner Michel Barnier, directing communications and web design cannot have been among the merits counted for the new job.




Ralf Grahn







P.S. Cross-border communication is a necessity in the European Union and beyond, with scrutiny by active citizens. At the same time Euroblogs are an agreeable way to brush up one’s skills in foreign languages.

While resolutely outside the European Union, Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). Thus, EU has profound implications for Norway, and Norwegian opinions are of European interest.

Written by Norwegian journalists, Europabloggen.no (in Norwegian) bridges the communication gap between the EU and Norway.



Europabloggen.no 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.

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 in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus and in Swedish on Grahnblawg.

Must read Euroblogs in French

When we look at the Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, we notice that some of the top blogs are in French.

The Coulisses de Bruxelles, Regards-citoyens, Bruxelles2 (Europe de la Défense) and Le Taurillon make it worth your while to brush up your French and to get acquainted with informed debate about European integration.


Coulisses de Bruxelles



Coulisses de Bruxelles (Libération), written by the Brussels correspondent Jean Quatremer, is one of the most read and linked Euroblogs. Quatremer is well informed about EU politics, especially about what is brewing among French politicians, and he posts regular updates: a post a day, on the average. He is critical of the structural weaknesses of the European Union and clear in his views on the need for reform. Defending the French language in the institutions of the European Union and in Belgium is his hobbyhorse. His blog posts often lead to long discussions, much of them conducted between knowledgeable readers.


Regards-citoyens



Regards-citoyens may at first look like an assembly line for turning out blog posts, but despite the volume the articles are fairly scholarly in nature. Political and legal aspects of the European Union are dealt with in some depth, with document references etc. Institutional issues, citizenship and democracy are recurring themes. Bloggingportal.eu has classified Regards-citoyens under Individuals, but it seems to be a group or network of at least a few individuals, who also use outside material. Somehow, it would be nice with an “impressum”, a clear presentation and contact data.



Bruxelles2 (Europe de la Défense)



Nicolas Gros-Verheyde is a journalist on European affairs, and his blog Bruxelles2 (Europe de la Défense) is focused on the evolvement of the EU’s common security and defence policy. The blog mixes news items on incidents, such as attacks by pirates, with detailed analysis of diplomatic and institutional developments in the CSDP area, sometimes based on unpublished drafts of official documents. With about three posts a day, Bruxelles2 is the, or one of the most frequently updated Euroblogs.


Le Taurillon



Le Taurillon, magazine eurocitoyen, is a web publication of Jeunes Européens – France, with the following programme:

« Actualité et analyses sur l’Union européenne, les politiques communautaires et les débats politiques sur l’Europe. »

Generally, Le Taurillon can be said to stand for profound democratic reform of the European Union, although the contributors speak with individual voices. Le Taurillon has sister publications in English, German and Italian, largely produced by voluntary translators.


***

Especially if you have already had your fill of English tabloids on “Brussels”, French quality Euroblogs are a healthy diet of fact and reason. Enjoyable language learning is a bonus.



Ralf Grahn

Romania & Moldova: Loyal cooperation?

It is astounding how easily leaders of EU member states forget their basic treaty commitments. I have little sympathy for the unreformed regime in Moldova or its authoritarian policies to stifle political pluralism, stealing the elections long before the observers arrived.

But how can the leadership of Romania promise passports to one million Moldovans without thinking about its obligations to the other EU member states?

New Romanian citizens (from Europe’s poorest country) would automatically become citizens of the European Union.

Has the Romanian government consulted its partners about this sudden influx? Have they agreed? If so, where do we find the documents?

Loyal cooperation

Article 10 TEC

Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks.

They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this
Treaty.


***


Romania is not the first EU member state to act without concern for its partners, but old breaches are no excuse for new ones.

EUobserver reports EU dismayed by Romania mass citizenship plan (17 April 2009).


***

In addition to the lack of ’Community spirit’, the Romanian proclamation reveals one of the many weaknesses of a complementary citizenship, with different value in different member states.

Since loyal cooperation seems to be too weak a principle, EU citizenship needs to be reformed into an independent and unitary status, defining who is an EU citizen as well as the rights and obligations.


Ralf Grahn

EU citizenship: Right of petition

One of the rights of citizens of the European Union is the right of petition, extended to other residents of the EU.

The subject matter has to come within the Community's fields of activity and it must affect the petitioner directly, which means that general grievances are inadmissible.

We look at the current treaty provisions, the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure before suggesting a few web pages with information about the Committee on Petitions (PETI).


***

Current treaty

According to Article 21(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) every citizen of the Union has the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 194.

Article 194 TEC actually broadens the scope of petitioners beyond EU citizens. The right extends to atural persons residing in a member state (third country nationals) and to legal persons having their residence or registered office in a member state.

Not all grievances are admissible.

The matter has to come within the European Community’s fields of activity.

The matter must affect the petitioner(s) directly (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/133):

Article 194 TEC

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Community's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 182 of the original Treaty of Lisbon amended Article 193 TEC and point 183 amended Article 195 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/102).

This means that there were no specific amendments to Article 194 TEC.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

The Community’s fields of activity became the Union’s according to the customary horizontal amendment and the provision was renumbered in the consolidated Lisbon Treaty, as Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/150):


Article 227 TFEU
(ex Article 194 TEC)

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.


***


Comment

In the Lisbon Treaty the EU citizenship provision corresponding to Article 21 TEC is Article 24 TFEU, which refers to Article 227 TFEU.

Article 44 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union is the third place where the right to petition is enshrined (OJEU 14.12.2007 C 303/11):

Article 44 Charter
Right to petition

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to petition the European Parliament.


***

EP Rules of Procedure

The Title VIII Rules 191 to 193 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure contain more details on petitions (16th edition, October 2008):



TITLE VIII PETITIONS

Rule 191 Right of petition

1. Any citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to Parliament on a matter which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.

2. Petitions to Parliament shall show the name, nationality and permanent address of each petitioner.

3. Petitions must be written in one of the official languages of the European Union.

Petitions written in any other language will be considered only where the petitioner has attached a translation or summary drawn up in an official language of the European Union. The translation or summary shall form the basis of Parliament's work. Parliament's correspondence with the petitioner shall employ the official language in which the translation or summary is drawn up.

4. Petitions shall be entered in a register in the order in which they are received if they comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 2; those that do not shall be filed, and the petitioner shall be informed of the reasons therefor.

5. Petitions entered in the register shall be forwarded by the President to the committee responsible, which shall first ascertain whether the petitions registered fall within the sphere of activities of the European Union.

6. Petitions declared inadmissible by the committee shall be filed; the petitioner shall be informed of the decision and the reasons therefor.

7. In such cases the committee may suggest to the petitioner that he contact the competent authority of the Member State concerned or of the European Union.

8. Unless the petitioner asks for it to be treated in confidence, it shall be entered in a public register.

9. Where the committee deems it appropriate, it may refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

10. Petitions addressed to Parliament by natural or legal persons who are neither citizens of the European Union nor reside in a Member State nor have their registered office in a Member State shall be registered and filed separately. The President shall send a monthly record of such petitions received during the previous month, indicating their subject matter, to the committee responsible for considering petitions, which may request those which it wishes to consider.



Rule 192 Examination of petitions

1. The committee responsible may decide to draw up a report or otherwise express its opinion on petitions it has declared admissible.

The committee may, particularly in the case of petitions which seek changes in existing law, request opinions from other committees pursuant to Rule 46.

2. An electronic register shall be set up in which citizens may lend their support to the petitioner, appending their own electronic signature to petitions which have been declared admissible and entered in the register.

3. When considering petitions or establishing facts, the committee may organise hearings of petitioners or general hearings or dispatch members to establish the facts of the situation in situ.

4. With a view to preparing its opinions, the committee may request the Commission to submit documents, to supply information and to grant it access to its facilities.

5. The committee shall, where necessary, submit motions for resolutions to Parliament on petitions which it has considered.

The committee may also request that its opinions be forwarded by the President to the Commission or the Council.

6. The committee shall inform Parliament every six months of the outcome of its deliberations.

The committee shall, in particular, inform Parliament of the measures taken by the Council or the Commission on petitions referred to them by Parliament.

7. The President shall inform petitioners of the decisions taken and the reasons therefor.



Rule 193 Notice of petitions

1. Notice shall be given in Parliament of the petitions entered in the register referred to in Rule 191(4) and the main decisions on the procedure to be followed in relation to specific petitions. Such announcements shall be entered in the minutes of proceedings.

2. The title and a summary of the texts of petitions entered in the register, together with the texts of the opinions and the most important decisions forwarded in connection with the examination of the petitions, shall be made available to the public in a database, provided the petitioner agrees to this. Confidential petitions shall be preserved in the records of Parliament, where they shall be available for inspection by Members.


***

We note that the current Article 194 TEC speaks of matters coming within the fields of activity of the Community, whereas the EP Rules of Procedure refer to the European Union’s field of activity.

If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, Article 227 TFEU will refer to a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity, but nothing says that the member states (Council) will want to contribute to petitions with regard to the CFSP and CSDP. At least we will have to wait for petition practice to evolve.


***

European Parliament information

The European Parliament offers five web pages with readable information about Petitions:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do;jsessionid=774E682BEF855A02BF18F0B99FE49F68.node2?language=EN&id=49



***

EP Committee on Petitions (PETI)


News and information about the EP’s Committee on Petitions can be found on:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/homeCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI


For the seriously inclined, the web pages on Reports may be of interest:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/reportsCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI


The same can be said for draft reports:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/draftReportsCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI


An overview of the work of the Committee on Petitions is offered by the fresh (9 February 2009) draft Report on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the parliamentary
year 2008 (2008/2301(INI)); rapporteur: Mairead McGuinness:


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-418.130+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN


***

EP and EU citizenship

A related topic: The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) conducted a hearing on European citizenship on 16 February 2009.

The hearing was related to the 5 February 2009 draft Report on Problems and prospects concerning European Citizenship (2008/2234(INI); rapporteur: Urszula Gacek. The draft Report, 2008/2234(INI), is available here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-419.850+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN



Ralf Grahn

Official Journal of the European Union

Is the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU or OJ for short) in need of improvement?

It started with a blog post by Julien Frisch over at:

http://julienfrisch.blogspot.com

Julien’s article was called Decision on the legal nature of the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union, and it referred to an official document discussing technical options.

He went on to invite a comment from me. While my technical ‘nous’ score hovers around zilch, it led me to jot down a few practical thoughts about the Official Journal and the Eur-Lex portal from the viewpoint of a daily user and an EU citizen.

The practical message is: Improvements are needed and there are examples that it can be done.

Here is the comment on Julien’s blog:



Julien,

Thank you for your invitation to comment, although I feel more like a car driver or even passenger than an auto mechanic or assembler of cars. In other words, my experience of the Official Journal is that of a daily user, who tries to think about the needs of other EU citizens, not a technical expert.

My layman’s guess would be that in the long run we are either going to have an authentic digital Official Journal, with paper copies stored away as a back-up, which would mean that the signatures would be electronic, or the symbolic importance of signing is seen as great enough to attach the signatures to paper, but the digital OJ would be as official.

For a practitioner, the availability of the OJ (and its different language versions) on the web is crucial. Real time delivery, instead of snail mail is one evident advantage.

I already mentioned the language versions. Occasionally I use a number of them for comparison, but it would lead to storage problems and to expense to have to subscribe to several versions.

One of the problems facing historians, political scientists and lawyers is the lack of certain key pieces of legislation in currently used formats, like pdf. I hope that the EU would make available at least all the treaties since 1951 and a number of older crucial documents (like the White Book leading to the Single European Act and the intergovernmental conferences) in an accessible format and somewhere easy to find.

Even if the paper you referred to was quite technical, there were some heartening words about improved search facilities.

It is often hard to know if a certain feature is lacking or if I just lack the technical ‘nous’ to find desired items, but in my experience the Official Journal functions well if you already have the exact reference or a link leading to the exact act.

If not, the searches sometimes turn out to be laborious.

Consolidated versions of legislative acts are unofficial, but for users with practical aims legislation in force is a great help. I have found national legal portals in Sweden and Finland much easier to use in this respect, and the acts much easier to find than when I search on Eur-Lex.

These portals usually offer you options to go for the original act (or amending act), the legislation in force (continuously updated consolidated versions), the preparatory works (governemtn bills) and information about the legislative process including links to parliamentary committee documents etc., as well as secondary legislation like regulations.

All this is available with a few clicks, without time-consuming searches.

Evidently something needs to be done and could be done at EU level.

The EU could definitively learn from some of the member states, because accessible legislation for free is, in my humble opinion, a fundamental democratic right.

It is easy to see the multitude of European languages, even the 23 official EU languages, as a drain on resources. But my view is that this diversity is a European reality, and our common legislation has to be accessible to EU citizens in their own languages.

European Union: Nobody but Barroso?

Even if José Manuel Barroso happened to be the best Commission President ever, the European political families should be hard at work competing for the next five year stint at the helm of the Commission. If political parties at European level, representing 500 million EU citizens, are unable to find one qualified candidate each, they betray both their calling and the voters.

However, progress has been slow and the preliminary discussions mainly confined to intergovernmental discussions brought to light by snippets of information to the public.

Consequently, blogger friend Jon Worth launched the campaign Anyone But Barroso on his Euroblog, in order to kick-start the democratic impulses among the European parties:

http://www.jonworth.eu/do-you-think-barroso-is-rubbish-if-so-then-help-us/

The aim is commendable, but the results are dismal.

***

European People’s Party

One of the few things we EU citizens have seen, is that José Manuel Barroso seems keen to take on another five years as Commission President.

But the latest news item from the European People’s Party is EPP President Wilfried Martens commending the Commission’s economic stimulus package under Barroso’s leadership (26 November 2008). But this still falls short of a public nomination or even an endorsement of Barroso’s candidacy:

http://www.epp.eu

In other words, even Barroso has not been nominated as yet, although a number of members of the nominating European Council from different political families have spoken out in favour of him.

***

Party of European Socialists

Yesterday the Party of European Socialists (PES) published its manifesto for the June 2009 European elections ‘People first. A new direction for Europe’. The election manifesto was adopted by the PES Council in Madrid (1 December 2008):

http://www.pes.org/content/view/1457/72

Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, is positively brimming with confidence in an EurActiv interview today:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/interview-socialists-confident-leading-parliament/article-177676

Schulz argues that the socialists are going to become bigger than the conservatives and the liberals combined after the June 2009 elections. He seems oblivious of the current predilection for centre-right parties in EU member states and of internecine warfare among French socialists, split three ways. But most of all, he fails to address how his boundless optimism is going to be transmitted to European electors by a faceless campaign without a top-drawer candidate for the Commission Presidency.

***

European Liberal Democrats Party

The great annual event for the European Liberal Democrats Party (ELDR) was the party congress on 30 and 31 October 2008 in Stockholm. The congress adopted resolutions with a view to the European elections, but not a word was communicated on the party’s candidate to take over the post as President of the European Commission:

http://www.eldr.eu/index.php?newlang=english

***

European Green Party

I tried to find a press release on the leading Green candidate on the web site of the European Green Party:

http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/rubrik/9/9034.htm

Hardly surprising by now, but I found nothing (nobody).

***

Election results

The Treaty of Lisbon is not going to be in force in time for the European Parliament elections in June, but Article 214(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires the approval of the European Parliament for the President of the Commission:

Article 214(2) TEC

2. The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.

***

Even under the current rules, a European Parliament with backbone could ensure open nominations in advance, public campaigns interacting with the citizens of the EU and respect for the outcome of the EP elections.

Nothing prevents the heads of state or government (European Council) to proclaim that they are going to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, because they already committed themselves politically when they signed the Constitutional Treaty in 2004.

***

Political parties

Still under the existing rules, Article 191 TEC sets out the important task for the European political parties, the one for which they and their foundations can draw funds from EU taxpayers:

Article 191 TEC

Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
-----


How can the political parties at European level even pretend to fulfil their basic tasks, if they fail to field candidates for the Commission Presidency?

***

Libertas

After this depressing perusal of the state of the union, I have to return to the Anyone But Barroso slogan.

Instead of ruminating about my preferred candidate, I don the cap of an independent political tactician.

If I happened to be in Declan Ganley’s shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate a moment before becoming or launching the Libertas candidate for President of the Commission.

The European level parties have, as it seems, rejected the voters and created a vacuum waiting to be filled. In the case of Libertas this gift from heaven would give them at least three aces on a silver tray: one positive campaign message instead of only negative ones, a face to project to millions of television and PC screens all over Europe and the potential for a real break-through in the EP elections.

If this happens, the established European political parties have brought it upon themselves.


Ralf Grahn

European Union: Danish opt-outs

The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) recently published a report ’De danske forbehold over den Europæiske Union: Udviklingen siden 2000’ (The Danish Opt Outs from the European Union: developments since 2000). Today the downloadable report has been published in book form, but for most international readers there is a handy four page executive summary in English:

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2008/EU_udredningen_08/Preversion/EU08_Executive_Summary%28en%29.pdf

As an appetizer I quote from the summary:

“Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship, and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The opt-out for Union citizenship has no practical significance today, but in the three other areas the consequences now are considerably greater than they were in 2000. The Lisbon Treaty will further increase the significance of the Danish opt-outs, especially in relation to JHA.”

***

The report, commissioned by the Danish Parliament (Folketinget), has the following background:

Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government has planned to let the Danes vote on the abolishment of at least some of the opt-outs, seen as more of an obstacle than a help to Denmark.

But the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has lead to the postponement of these plans.

See, for instance Information.dk ‘Irsk nej truer afskaffelse af danske forbehold’ (Irish no delays abolishing Danish opt-outs), 14 June 2008:

http://www.information.dk/160827


Ralf Grahn

European demos

For the anti-EU crowd it is standard fare to deny the existence of a European demos or people, and even the prospect of one. Some even deny the existence of EU citizenship. Hasn’t the allegation that the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty would ‘enforce’ an EU citizenship been one of the popular myths surrounding treaty reform?

Their concept is more akin to ‘Blut und Boden’ myths than to reasoning based on citizenship and political rights.

Since the Maastricht Treaty entered into force, 1 November 1993, every citizen of an EU member state is a citizen of the European Union.

But the political rights are underdeveloped.

Granting the citizens of the union the main political rights – to vote the officeholders into and out of office and to set the course for the EU – would create the European demos.

It is as simple as that, but until now the governments of the member states have preferred to cashier the meaningful ballot.

Crudely put, the current European demos consists of 27 persons at a time.


Ralf Grahn

Fifth freedom? What about the basic ones?

The European Council was up to some grandstanding again at its spring gathering. The presidency conclusions brought us the following visions (Presidency conclusions, document 7652/08):


“In order to become a truly modern and competitive economy, and building on the work carried out on the future of science and technology and on the modernisation of universities, Member States and the EU must remove barriers to the free movement of knowledge by creating a "fifth freedom" based on:
• enhancing the cross-border mobility of researchers, as well as students, scientists, and university teaching staff,
• making the labour market for European researchers more open and competitive,
providing better career structures, transparency and family-friendliness,
• further implementing higher education reforms,
• facilitating and promoting the optimal use of intellectual property created in public research organisations so as to increase knowledge transfer to industry, in particular through an "IP Charter" to be adopted before the end of the year,
• encouraging open access to knowledge and open innovation,
• fostering scientific excellence,
• launching a new generation of world-class research facilities,
• promoting the mutual recognition of qualifications.”

***

Sounds fine, until you start thinking that Europeans are more than worker ants, toiling away to amass resources to be redistributed by politicians.

Four market freedoms of free movement are all right, but we Europeans are citizens, too. And when we pause to think about the European leadership in action, we come to the sad conclusion that they have cared little for our political and citizenship rights of late.

Are they the leaders who have shown no signs to open up the running for the presidency of the European Council or the High Representative for public scrutiny or democratic accountability?

Are they the leaders who profess the value of democracy both internally and externally, but show little signs of relinquishing the ‘managed democracy’ they have instituted at EU level?

Are these the same leaders who for months on end have stonewalled publishing the coming and now signed Lisbon Treaty in readable, consolidated versions, even if the amending treaty is the most important document to be produced within the European Union since 2004?

Are they the Commission and the European Parliament who have been content to let the Council keep the citizens in the dark?

Are they the European Parliament, which as an institution has sided with its ‘culturally diverse’ membership against calls for publishing and rooting out the squandering and misappropriation of public funds?

***

The common denominator for the questions above seems to be that less than free movement of knowledge has been the express desire of the honourable men (and women), who have taken upon themselves the burden to uphold their prerogatives.

By all means, remove barriers to the free movement of knowledge by creating a "fifth freedom", but start by giving EU citizens grown ups’ rights.


Ralf Grahn

EU TFEU: Reporting and improving citizens’ rights

We conclude our survey of existing and proposed rights for EU citizens by looking at the reporting requirements for the Commission. Under the Lisbon Treaty strengthening our citizenship rights still has to pass the proverbial eye of the needle.

***

In the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), Part Two Non-discrimination and citzenship, of the amended Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) made the following change to Article 22 TEC (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/52):

38) In Article 22, second paragraph, the words ‘the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’ shall be replaced by ‘the rights listed in Article 17(2). These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.’.

***

Still waiting for the Council to confirm that it has relented and now intends to publish the consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty, we go to Article 22 TEC, the one to be amended, under Part Two Citizenship (available in the latest consolidation of the TEU and the TEC, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/51):

Article 22 TEC

The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee every three years on the application of the provisions of this Part. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.

On this basis, and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

***

We now have to insert the express amendment and watch out for changes lurking out there among the horizontal amendments (points 2(b), 3 and 5) and check the annexed Tables of equivalences to arrive at what should be the amended Article as consolidated:

Article 22 TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 25 TFEU

The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee every three years on the application of the provisions of this Part. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.

On this basis, and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights listed in Article 17(2) [TFEU (ToL), renumbered 20(2) TFEU]. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

***

Arguably, the most remarkable stage of the long reform process generally was the European Convention leading to the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. But in Non-discrimination and citizenship under Title II of Part III the Convention was far from radical. The corresponding Article III-13 looked like this (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/30):

Article III-13 Draft Constitution

The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council of Ministers and to the Economic and Social Committee every three years on the application of the provisions of Article I-8 and of this Title. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.

On this basis, and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Constitution, a European law or framework law of the Council of Ministers may add to the rights laid down in Article I-8. The Council of Ministers shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. The law or framework law concerned shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

***

The reporting requirement in paragraph 1 may look the same, but the draft Constitution widened the scope, because the Title expanded to encompass non-discrimination. (Article I-8 was the main provision on citizenship.)

Paragraph 2 of the draft Constitution cautiously retained the legal base for improving citizens’ rights, subject to unanimity in the Council and ratification by the member states. The position of the European Parliament was improved, from mere consultation to consent.

***

The IGC 2004, under Title II Non-discrimination and citizenship, followed the wording of the draft with only adaptations of terminology and referral, with ‘On the basis of this report’ perhaps intended to be somewhat more restrictive than ‘On this basis’. See OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/57:

Article III-129 Constitution

The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee every three years on the application of Article I‑10 and of this Title. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.

On the basis of this report, and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Constitution, a European law or framework law of the Council may add to the rights laid down in Article I-10. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. The law or framework law concerned shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

***

The Lisbon Treaty took over the substance of the Constitutional Treaty, although it reverted to the TEC's and the draft Constitution’s beginning of paragraph 2, ‘On this basis’, perhaps a subtle indication of the will to mark the Council’s independence in relation to the Commission’s report.

All in all, the citizens’ initiative excepted the developments of EU citizens’ rights are hardly perceptible from the TEC through the draft Constitution and the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty.

***

Further reading is offered by the latest report by the Commission, the “Fifth Report on Citizenship of the Union (1 May 2004 – 30 June 2007)”, Brussels 15.2.2008, COM (2008) 85 final, and the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document, SEC (2008) 197.


Ralf Grahn

TFEU: Citizen’s right to move and reside freely

The EU Law Blog published a post ‘Fifth Commission Report on Citizenship’ on 5 March 2008, with essential links to case law of the Court of Justice and to Commission documents on citizenship of the Union:

http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2008/03/fifth-commissio.html

Here, we look at the basic treaty provisions on EU citizenship in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon, offering the reader possibilities to compare the current Treaty establishing the European Community with the intermediary Convention and Constitution stages leading up to the amending Lisbon Treaty.


***

In the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) agreed to change the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), which becomes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In the renamed Part Two Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union, Article 18 is amended as follows (Official Journal, OJ, 17.12.2007 C 306/51):

35) Article 18 shall be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 2, the words ‘the Council may adopt’ shall be replaced by ‘the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt’ and the last sentence shall be deleted;

(b) paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:

‘3. For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.’

***

Since inserting innovations agreed in the 2004 IGC into the Treaty ‘by way of specific modifications in the usual manner’ does not begin to make sense for the normal reader, the following step is to fetch the patient to be operated on, namely retrieve the text of the current provision (in the latest consolidated version of the existing treaties OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/49-50):

Article 18 TEC

1. Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.

2. If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain this objective and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. The Council shall act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251.

3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to provisions on passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document or to provisions on social security or social protection.

***

Then, the horizontal and the express amendments have to be inserted to arrive at a consolidated version of the Article according to the Lisbon Treaty:

Article 18 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 21 TFEU

1. Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect.

2. If action by the Union should prove necessary to attain this objective and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.

3. For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

***

The European Convention, chaired by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, tabled the following proposal in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/30):

Article III-9 Draft Constitution

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right, referred to in Article I-8, of every Union citizen to move and reside freely and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, European laws or framework laws may establish measures for that purpose.

2. For the same purpose and unless the Constitution has provided for powers of action in this area, measures concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document and measures concerning social security or social protection may be laid down by a European law or framework law of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

***

The IGC 2004 agreed on the following text in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/56-57):

Article III-125 Constitution

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right, referred to in Article I-10(2)(a), of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, European laws or framework laws may establish measures for that purpose.

2. For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, a European law or framework law of the Council may establish measures concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document and measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

***

For a short description of the proposed Article, we can quote the UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 (page 24):

Article 18 (Constitution Article III-125), like present Article 18 TEC, allows the Union to enact the necessary legislation to ensure freedom of movement, even where the Treaty does not expressly provide for it, specifying measures concerning social security or social protection for which the Council must act by unanimity after consulting the EP.

***

The freedom of movement and the freedom to reside within the EU follows from our status as citizens of the Union, not only if we are, for instance, workers or self-employed.

In each version, paragraph 1 spells out the important principle that every citizen of the European Union, namely every person who is a citizen of a member state, has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states.

Paragraph 1 of the TEC and the ToL is essentially the same. Although the treaties contain the germ of equality between EU citizens, the right to move and reside is subject to limitations and conditions, of which more when we glance at the secondary legislation.

Between themselves the draft Constitution and the Constitution were almost identical.

***

The substance of paragraph 2 of the current TEC and the ToL is essentially the same, the co-decision procedure having become the ordinary legislative procedure, as elsewhere in the Lisbon Treaty.

***

In paragraph 3 TFEU, the sensitive questions of social security and social protection, hitherto exempt from action within the context of Article 18 TEC, open up to a special legislative procedure where the European Parliament is consulted, but they require unanimity by the Council.

The Article 18(3) provisions on passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document have been deleted from paragraph 3 TFEU, but moved to Title V, Chapter 2 Policies on border checks, asylum and immigration, which introduces a special legislative procedure, with consultation of the European Parliament and unanimous Council acts.

As Steve Peers points out in his EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.2 this power has been inserted into the external borders provisions, where the UK, Ireland and Denmark will be able to opt out of it (page 5).

See OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/59:

Article 62(3) TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 77(3) TFEU

3. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

***

The right to move and reside freely within the European Union is important for millions of EU citizens, who reside in another member state.

For them and their family members 30 April 2006 was a milestone, because Directive 2004/38/EC entered into force, codifying, clarifying and extending their rights (OJ 30.4.2004 L 158/77):

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)


Article 1 Directive2004/38/EC
Subject

This Directive lays down:

(a) the conditions governing the exercise of the right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States by Union citizens and their family members;

(b) the right of permanent residence in the territory of the Member States for Union citizens and their family members;

(c) the limits placed on the rights set out in (a) and (b) on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

***

For workers’ free movement there is the amended Council Regulation No 1612/68 Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (A consolidated version is available.)


Ralf Grahn


Source:

UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community; 6 December 2007

Steve Peers: Statewatch Analysis, EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.2: Revised text of Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC); Version 2, 23 October 2007

EU TFEU: Citizenship of the Union

NOTICE 7 MARCH 2008 (9.15 EET):

I have noticed that I made a mistake, for which I apologise. The 'contamination' I ascribe to the English consolidated version of the TEC of 2006, was caused by me while working with the different versions. Read with a grain (or more) of salt.

When I have the time, I intend to either edit this post or to post a corrected version.

Humbly,
Ralf Grahn

___________________________________________________________________




Is the Treaty of Lisbon going to foist a new, unwanted, EU citizenship upon 490 million unsuspecting Europeans?

Does a change from a ‘complementary’ to an ‘additional’ EU citizenship materially alter our status, including our national citizenship?

Some of the wilder allegations in the blogosphere seem to contend that both (mutually exclusive) contentions are true.

Let us look at the legal issues at stake.

Most readers of this blog have been citizens of the European Union since the Treaty on European Union (TEU) entered into force, in November 1993. Some became EU citizens later, through enlargement, while a considerable number of readers are citizens of another Union, with somewhat longer traditions, the United States of America.

Today, we take a look at the legal basics of the “bonus citizenship” of the European Union, in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL).

***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) reordered and amended the existing treaties by the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) was renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and Part Two of the TFEU is now called Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union.

Point 34 of the Lisbon Treaty (Article 2) sets out the reception and marginal amendments of our status as citizens of the EU (Official Journal, OJ, 17.12.2007 C 306/51):

34) Article 17 shall be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1, the word ‘complement’ shall be replaced by ‘be additional to’;

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

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:

(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the
Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.

***

As usual, the text of the IGC 2007 makes sense only in conjunction with the current treaty, in this case the TEC (the latest consolidated version in OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/49):

PART TWO
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION

Article 17 TEC

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.

***

The following step is a merger of the existing text with the agreed amendments, which should lead to the following new Article:

Article 17 TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 20 TFEU

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:

(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the
Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.

***

Someone may think that the present ‘locus’ of Union citizenship is odd. The Maastricht Treaty established citizenship ‘of the Union’, but placed the provisions in the Community treaty.

Possibly, some misunderstandings concerning citizenship of the EU have to do with the less than natural language of hereby establishing a status, which has existed since 1993, in the same way as the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and later the European Community (EC) has kept on ‘establishing’ through various treaty reforms.

In short, citizenship of the EU was established more than 14 years ago.

In my humble opinion, the Reform Treaty should have been clearer.

***

Then, the attentive reader spots a problem. How can the Lisbon Treaty replace the word ‘complement’ by ‘be additional to’, when the consolidated TEC we just read already uses ‘be additional to’?

On the other hand, our leaders have made clear that consolidated versions are made public for illustrative purposes only, and that they have no legal value.

Piqued by this inconsistency, I checked Article 17 TEC in the handy Blackstone’s EC Legislation, where ‘complement’ is used.

Going back to the Maastricht Treaty, as presented on the Eur-Lex Treaties web pages, does not help us that much, since the original 1992 wording is different (although it should reassure us that citizenship of the Union was established back then):

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm

Article 8

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.

Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.

***

The following reform was the Treaty of Amsterdam, where we make a discovery:

9. Article 8(1) shall be replaced by the following:

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

While the preceding Maastricht Treaty had boldly stated that each citizen of a member state is a citizen of the Union, the Amsterdam Treaty seemingly wanted to reassure all and sundry that nothing replaced national citizenship. The word ‘complement’ had made its appearance.

In the 1997 consolidated version of the Amsterdam Treaty, we find the renumbering from Article 8 to Article 17 TEC, and the citizenship of the Union ‘shall complement’:

Article 17 (ex Article 8) TEC

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

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.

***

I failed to find any relevant mention of ‘citizenship’ in the Treaty of Nice, but in the latest consolidated version (2006) an ‘additional’ Union citizenship seems to have introduced itself.

Is this the spectre of self-reforming treaties that some fear?

The unannounced change remains a mystery, but a little later we are going to look at the intermediary stages of treaty reform, the Convention’s draft Constitution 2003 and the IGC 2004’s Constitution. Is it possible that a slip through ‘contamination’ occurred during the 2006 consolidation?

***

The most striking difference between the current TEC and the new TFEU Article is the added text and detail in paragraph 2, but the difference is mainly systematic and presentational, not substantial. The new Article offers us the main contents at a glance, where we presently have to read the following Articles to get a general picture of our rights.

For more detail, you have to go to the following Articles of the Lisbon Treaty, too.

Some details change with the Treaty of Lisbon, but we will get back to them when we have looked at the intermediary stages of the treaty reform process.

***

The European Convention, led by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, proposed the following Article I-8 Citizenship of the Union, in Part I, Title II Fundamental rights and citizenship of the Union, of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/9-10):

Article 8 Draft Constitution
Citizenship of the Union

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Constitution. They shall have:

— the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

— the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

— the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

— the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the Institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Constitution's languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

3. These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Constitution and by the measures adopted to give it effect.

***

The IGC 2004 agreed on the following text, in Part I , Title II Fundamental rights and citizenship of the Union (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/13-14):

Article I-10 Constitution
Citizenship of the Union

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the
Constitution. They shall have:

(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Constitution's languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the
Constitution and by the measures adopted thereunder.

***

We notice that the draft Constitution elevated citizenship of the Union to the ‘constitutional’ and visible part of the proposed treaty. At the same time, the proposed Article I-8 gave an overview, with legal bases detailed in Articles III-9 to III-13.

Article I-10 of the Constitution was almost identical to the draft. Detailed provisions allowing secondary legislation followed in Articles III-125 to III-129.

The IGC 2007 left the presentation of citizenship of the Union in the old Community treaty, now TFEU, but compensated by mentioning citizenship in the TEU:

The TEU Preamble refers to the establishment of ‘a citizenship common to the nationals of their [the signatories’] nationals’, as presently.

The bare essentials of citizenship are laid out in Article 8 TEU (ToL), renumbered Article 9 TEU:


“In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.”

In addition, there are a number of references to ‘citizen’, ‘citizens’ and ‘citizenship’ in the new TEU, marking one step along the road towards more developed citizens’ rights within the European Union.

***

The IGC 2007 reverted to the formula “Citizenship of the Union is hereby established” in Article 17 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 20 TFEU, which seems to have caused some consternation.

In paragraph 1, EU citizenship is a complement to national citizenship in the present TEC according to the Amsterdam Treaty (but ‘additional to’ in the 2006 consolidation), and ‘additional to’ was used in both the draft Constitution and the Constitution. The Lisbon Treaty replaces the Amsterdam Treaty wording with a Union citizenship, which ‘be additional to’ national citizenship.

Does the different choice of words lead to any real difference in meaning? Since there is an express change, one has to start with the presumption that it has some meaning.

Let us start with a basic dictionary check (The New Penguin English Dictionary):

‘Additional’ is explained as ‘added, extra or supplementary’.

‘Complement’ (verb) is described as being ‘complementary to (something)’, whereas the noun ‘complement’ is given the primary meaning ‘something that fills up or completes a whole, or adds extra features to enhance it’.

I find it hard to see any significant difference between the concepts.

***

I failed to find any mention in the IGC 2007 Mandate.

***

Would we be wiser if we looked at another language version of the Lisbon Treaty?

The Treaty of Lisbon was drafted in French. Even if all the language versions are ‘equally authentic’, French is our logical first choice for a comparison:

a) au paragraphe 1, le mot «complète» est remplacé par «s'ajoute à»;

It looks the same as the English ToL version.

The French draft Constitution Article I-8 employed the wording:

« La citoyenneté de l'Union s'ajoute à la citoyenneté nationale et ne la remplace pas. »

The Constitution Article I-10 in French did the same:

« La citoyenneté de l'Union s'ajoute à la citoyenneté nationale et ne la remplace pas. »

The French rendering of the Lisbon Treaty is correct, since the current Article 17 TEC being amended uses the words:

« La citoyenneté de l’Union complète la citoyenneté nationale et ne la remplace pas. »

Even the French consolidated version from 2006 uses the same words.

We have now followed the French and the English versions of the provision on EU citizenship side by side, and the only ‘odd man out’, with its anticipatory use of ‘additional to’ is the latest consolidated version in English.

***

Did the European Convention have anything particular in mind, when it made the original change?

Étienne de Poncins, who worked in the Convention Secretariat, makes no comment in his book other than that the substance of Article I-8 « n’est pas fondamentalement nouvelle » (page 98).

The Praesidium document 528/03 of 6 February 2003 used the word ‘additional’ in the English version of then Article 7, and the Explanatory note stated:

“The definition of citizenship of the Union in paragraph 1 follows that given in the current
EC Treaty. This paragraph also establishes the principle of equality between all European citizens.”

The French version of Article 7(1) employed the new words ‘s’ajoute’, as you can see in the Note de Praesidium à la Convention:

« 1. Possède la citoyenneté de l'Union toute personne ayant la nationalité d'un Etat membre. La
citoyenneté de l'Union s'ajoute à la citoyenneté nationale et ne la remplace pas. Toutes les
citoyennes et tous les citoyens de l'Union sont égaux devant la loi. »

The Praesidium Note explicative in CONV 528/03 (page 14) states:

« Article 7:

La définition de la citoyenneté de l'Union donnée au premier paragraphe suit celle du présent traité CE. Ce paragraphe consacre en outre le principe d'égalité entre toutes les citoyennes et tous les citoyens européens. »

***

Based on the material presented, I conclude that the European Convention intended no material change by employing the slightly different wording ‘s’ajoute’ instead of ‘complète’. Had any material change been the aim, it would have been contrary to the Explanatory note.

In addition, the experienced UK diplomat Sir John Kerr, who was the Secretary General of the European Convention, and who himself translated a number of the Praesidium documents which were confidential before publishing, would most probably have reacted if the change of words had aimed at substantial change.

Therefore, the conclusion seems to be that a minor change of nuance made in French and in English during the Convention has worked its way through to the Treaty of Lisbon, although the consolidated English version from 2006 somehow made anticipatory use of the Convention and Constitution wording, a slip now legalised by the Lisbon Treaty.

***

Why did I trouble you (and myself) with this?

As far as I see, two misconceptions about the citizenship of the EU have been spread in the blogosphere, and presumably these allegations may mislead the public.

First, the Treaty of Lisbon does not, in reality, establish an EU citizenship, which exists since 1993, in spite of the Treaty’s express but unfortunate wording.

Second, allegations that replacing ‘complement’ by ‘be additional to’ is to have material (and sinister) effects are rubbish, and we may suppose that few readers of the English 2006 consolidation have been disturbed in the least.

***

Finally, one substantial aspect of Union citizenship, starting with a quote from the UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 (page 24):

‘The ECJ has indicated on several occasions that “citizenship of the Union is destined to be the
fundamental status of nationals of the Member States”.’

This is succinctly put, the evolving state of citizens of the European Union from mere ‘market operators’ (workers, entrepreneurs, investors) to more fully-fledged citizens, something Rudolf Streinz describes as the progress from “Marktbürgerschaft” towards Unionsbürgerschaft” (page 379).


Ralf Grahn


Source:

Étienne de Poncins: Vers une Constitution européenne; Éditions 10/18, 2003

UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community; 6 December 2007

Rudolf Streinz: EUV/EGV Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft; Verlag C. H. Beck, München 2003

EU Treaty of Lisbon: Official languages

The expansion of the European Communities and later the European Union are reflected in the growing number of Treaty languages, although the Treaty of the first community, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), was drafted in an official version only in French, still the chosen language of European diplomacy during the first half of the 20th century.

The Treaties of Rome, on the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), were drawn up in the four languages of the six founding members: Dutch, French, German and Italian.

The successive Accession Treaties have been concluded in new languages, leading to corresponding adaptations of the Treaty languages.

The Lisbon Treaty reflects the linguistic diversity of the European Union, and it adapts the Treaties to take account of 23 equally authentic Treaty languages. In addition, the reform treaty encourages official translations by the member states of the Treaties into other official languages, i.e. regional and minority languages.

***

Speaking about languages: You can use natural, human language, or you can form part of an august body such as an intergovernmental conference and distance yourself from humanity. The IGC 2007 communicated its agreement like this in Article 53 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/40):

61) Article 53 shall be amended as follows:

(a) the first paragraph shall be numbered 1, the languages listed in the second paragraph of the current Article 53 of the Treaty on European Union shall be added to the list in this paragraph and the second paragraph shall be deleted;

(b) the following new paragraph 2 shall be added:

‘2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.’.

***

The language regime of the European Union is hardly a secret, or a novelty, so why not let a reader of the Treaty of Lisbon understand the contents at one go?

RESOLVED to speak a little closer to the citizen, I

HAVE DECIDED to present the readable and consolidated text of Article 53 TEU here:

Article 53

1. This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States.

2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

***

The corresponding provision in the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), to be renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is Article 314. The original Treaty languages are mentioned in the first paragraph, the languages added by the Accession Treaties in the second paragraph and the latest additions, Bulgarian and Romanian, referred to in the Appendix, when we look at the latest consolidated version of the current TEC, in OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/180.

The unified draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe naturally needed only one provision on the then 21 languages, Article IV-10 Languages, to be adjusted in accordance with the Act of Accession (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/93).

In the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe Article IV-448 Authentic texts and translations included the same 21 languages, in a numbered paragraph 1, and added a paragraph 2 on the translation of the Treaty into other official languages of the member states (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/191).

The other novelty of the Constitutional Treaty was Declaration number 29 on linguistic diversity.

Looking at Article 53 TEU and Article 314 TFEU, to be adapted by the Treaty of Lisbon, we can see that the novelties of the Constitutional Treaty have been adopted, adding Bulgarian and Romanian.

***

The Declaration, too, has been adopted, with the number 16 (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/254):

16. Declaration on Article 53(2) of the Treaty on European Union

The Conference considers that the possibility of producing translations of the Treaties in the languages mentioned in Article 53(2) contributes to fulfilling the objective of respecting the Union's rich cultural and linguistic diversity as set forth in the fourth subparagraph of Article 2(3). In this context, the Conference confirms the attachment of the Union to the cultural diversity of Europe and the special attention it will continue to pay to these and other languages.

The Conference recommends that those Member States wishing to avail themselves of the possibility
recognised in Article 53(2) communicate to the Council, within six months from the date of the signature of the Treaty of Lisbon, the language or languages into which translations of the Treaties will be made.

***

To complete the presentation of authentic Treaty languages, we turn our attention to Article 7 of the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007), which states that the Treaty of Lisbon itself has been drawn up in the 23 languages mentioned above (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/134).

***

The Treaty languages have both symbolic and practical importance, but the everyday use of these languages is crucial for the citizens of the European Union. The existing Article 290 TEC offers us the barest outline:

Article 290 TEC

The rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Community shall, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Statute of the Court of Justice, be determined by the Council, acting unanimously.

The IGC 2007 adds the words ‘by means of regulations’ and adapts the names of the institutions, leading to the following new wording in the Lisbon Treaty:

Article 290 TFEU

The rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union shall, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, be determined by the Council, acting unanimously by the means of regulations.

***

Here are some hints for further reading:

For the official language regime of the EU, go to Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (originally OJ L 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385, but with several amendments and therefore best read in the consolidated version):

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1958R0001:20070101:EN:PDF

Wikipedia offers an overview (in need of some updating) in the article Languages of the European Union:

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

***

The European Union is unique among international organisations in involving not only states but directly applicable legislation concerning private firms and individuals, as well as offering incipient democratic rules of governance and citizenship. In my view, the language regime of the European Union has to reflect the linguistic diversity of the EU and its citizens, including the novelties introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to accommodate the regional and minority languages.


Ralf Grahn