EU Single Market Act varia

Since the Grahnlaw blog post EU Commission: Internal market reform (9 December 2010), I have actually been busy writing about the internal market or single market, although on my other blogs and partly in other languages.

Here is a summary of the latest entries:

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU Single Market Act: Disappointing start? (10 December 2010). Should we be impressed by the substance of the proposals or by the launch of a wide discussion with possible action in the future?

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Finnish): Saako kelkasta pudonnut Eurooppa sisämarkkinat heräämään? (12 December 2010). Asian nations are forging ahead and surpassing Europe in several fields, but are we experiencing any urgency with regard to the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) for growth and jobs, or concerning internal market reform?

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Finnish): EU:n sisämarkkinoiden toimenpidepaketti (Single Market Act) (12 December 2010). Since the Commission has launched (only) a wide discussion, we don't really know where the Single Market Act is going to lead – that is if the discussion is real and not an exercise in manipulation. Reference to the proposal COM(2010) 608.

Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish): EU:n 'Single Market Act' on käännösongelma (13 December 2010). The entry describes how the terminology has developed from the common market to the internal market, without forgetting the aspirational single market. However, elements of the Single Market Act are lost in translation into Swedish and especially Finnish. On the other hand, the Finnish description is probably the most realistic of four language versions compared. How should linguistic choices be made?


Single Market Act corrigendum or corrigenda

Beware, if you search for the communication from the Commission COM(2010) 608 or read the bibliographic notice on Eur-Lex (with 22 existing language versions), you are not warned that at least the English language version has been revised, and the text you choose has not been corrected.

If you know to look for one or more corrigenda, you could try Council search, but I cannot vouch for it, because the pages were down due to maintenance when I tried to test it.


Update 13 December 2010: ”Delegations will find attached a new version of Commission document COM (2010) 608 final”, says Council document 13977/1/10 REV 1 (en), but I still don't know about other language versions.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. On the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu you can now find the post from 716 Euroblogs. The European online public space keeps growing, but enough to keep Europe from shrinking in the world?

EU TFEU: Internal market

Entrepreneurs and businesses may have found little of direct interest in the institutional wrangling over institutional issues of the European Union, except for the realisation that improved workings of the EU provide a better framework for decisions concerning the security of firms and individuals, too.

The Lisbon Treaty preserves and modernises the treaty provisions of more immediate interest to persons who work within the Union, who trade in goods or services within the large free trade area or who invest outside their national borders.

The key concepts are the ‘internal market’ and the ‘four freedoms’.

***

In the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) marked the transition to a new and substantial part of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Under its new name, the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), sports new headings for the Part and its first Title (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/52):

39) In the heading of Part Three, the words ‘AND INTERNAL ACTIONS’ shall be inserted after ‘POLICIES’.

INTERNAL MARKET

40) A Title I, with the heading ‘THE INTERNAL MARKET’ shall be inserted at the beginning of Part Three.

41) An Article 22a shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 14. Paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

‘1. The Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties.’.

***

In order to understand the intended changes, we go to Part One Principles and the Article being amended, Article 14 TEC (in the latest consolidated version of the TEU and the TEC, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/48-49):

Article 14 TEC

1. The Community shall adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31 December 1992, in accordance with the provisions of this Article and of Articles 15, 26, 47(2), 49, 80, 93 and 95 and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty.

2. The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.

3. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine the guidelines and conditions necessary to ensure balanced progress in all the sectors concerned.

***

Our aim is to find out what the amended treaty is supposed to look like. This we do by merging the express and horizontal (points 2(a), 2(b) and 2(d)) amendments with the current text as well as checking the future numbering of the Article:

Part Three Union policies and internal actions

Title I The internal market

Article 22a TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 26 TFEU

1. The Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties.

2. The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.

3. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine the guidelines and conditions necessary to ensure balanced progress in all the sectors concerned.

***

For the sake of easy comparison we take note of the preceding stages of treaty reform. The European Convention, in Part III The policies and functioning of the Union, placed Title III Internal policies and action, Chapter 1 Internal market, Section 1 Establishment of the Internal Market, with Article III-14 (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/30):

TITLE III
INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION

Chapter I
Internal market

Section 1
Establishment of the Internal Market

Article III-14 Draft Constitution

1. The Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing the internal market, in accordance with this Article, Article III-15, Article III-26(1) and Articles III-29, III-39, III-62, III-65 and III-143 and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Constitution.

2. The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the Constitution.

3. The Council of Ministers, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt European regulations and decisions determining the guidelines and conditions necessary to ensure balanced progress in all the sectors concerned.

***

The IGC 2004 shared this systematic approach, but merged the draft Constitution Articles III-14 and III-15 into one (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/58):

TITLE III
INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION

CHAPTER I
INTERNAL MARKET

SECTION 1
ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERNAL MARKET

Article III-130 Constitution

1. The Union shall adopt measures with the aim of establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

2. The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital is ensured in accordance with the Constitution.

3. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt European regulations and decisions determining the guidelines and conditions necessary to ensure balanced progress in all the sectors concerned.

4. When drawing up its proposals for achieving the objectives set out in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission shall take into account the extent of the effort that certain economies showing differences in development will have to sustain for the establishment of the internal market and it may propose appropriate measures.

If these measures take the form of derogations, they must be of a temporary nature and must cause the least possible disturbance to the functioning of the internal market.

***

The common market turned from a noble aim to an achievable goal when measures based on qualified majority voting became possible after the (initially twelve year) transitory period.

The original ‘common market’ and the later ‘internal market’ are both in use in the TEC (depending on when a provision was born), but according to horizontal amendment 2(g) of the Lisbon Treaty the words ‘common market’ shall be replaced by ‘internal market’ (throughout the Treaties).

The draft Constitution still mentioned the ‘aim of establishing the internal market’, but it relinquished the TEC mention of the target date ’31 December 1992’, linked to the Single European Act (1986).

The Constitution took the draft text one step further by ‘establishing or ensuring the functioning of the internal market’ in paragraph 1. In essence, the Lisbon Treaty adopts this text.

***

The ‘four freedoms’ in paragraph 2 form the core of the internal market, and it is religiously upheld in every version from the current TEC (actually from the Treaty of Rome) to the Lisbon Treaty: The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty (now ‘the Treaties’).

If there is one thing every citizen of the European Union should know about EU law, in addition to the main institutional arrangements, it is the ‘four freedoms’:

The free movement of

Goods
Persons
Services
Capital

The four freedoms were present at the birth of the original EEC Treaty (Rome Treaty), then as the ‘common market’, and given added boost by the Single European Act. The target date of 31 December 1992 was important, but a seamless internal market is a perpetual quest.

The internal market may not work perfectly, and the tens of thousands of pages of secondary legislation may seem like a nightmare, but think of the alternatives.

Fifty years of efforts have brought about unprecedented harmonisation and recognition of standards within the European Community (Union).

The enlargement of the European Economic Community (EEC) of six into a European Community (Union) of 27 member states with the added three members of the European Economic Area (EEA), namely Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, has led to the largest and most advanced free trade area of the world.

The ‘tons of EC rules’ (directives) achieve some sort of proportions if you think that you or your firm would have to grapple with 30 different rulebooks.

The attraction of the internal market does not stop at the present EU borders. A few states are officially on course for membership, adapting to the common rules. Then there is a number of prospective applicants pursuing voluntary harmonisation.

Some sort of influence is spread through various cooperation agreements: European Neighbourhood Policy, Mediterranean policy (Barcelona process), and African, Caribbean and Pacific states (APC).

European rules and standards are important enough to merit serious attention from exporters around the world. With existing internal concepts and a common trade policy, the European Union fills the basic requirements to ‘export’ its values in more formal settings, like bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.

Despite its imperfections, the internal market is a global success story, built on the acceptance of supranational rules as means to enhance common prosperity.

***

Since the foundation the specific legal bases for ‘measures’ is given in paragraph 1, someone may wonder what the ‘guidelines and conditions necessary to ensure balanced progress in all the sectors concerned’ in the third paragraph are all about.

Paragraph 3 seems to exist as an option for long term strategies or programmes, which would serve to improve the internal market and the balance between different industrial and service sectors. This would offer the Commission a framework for future preparatory work (but may be satisfactorily covered by existing policy and work programmes).

***

Even if the main thrust is one, essential, part of the internal market – competition – there is reason to take note of the Protocol on the internal market and competition, annexed to the Lisbon Treaty (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/154):

PROTOCOL
ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,

HAVE AGREED that:

to this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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

***

An introductory tour of the internal market can start from the EU Single Market web pages. Yes, the Commission seems to prefer the concept ‘single market’. Go to:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/index_en.htm

This is a good starting point for ‘everything’, from the general policy framework to topical headlines.


Ralf Grahn

EU: TFEU Shared competence

SCANDAL: COMMON MARKET SCRAPPED!

When the European leaders flew to Lisbon to sign the re-wrapped Constitution they had not read, they dumped the cherished Common Market on the scrap heap of History!

Confirmed by Constitutional experts!

Read more!

***

Many unbelievable things have been said about the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), but this is one point where tabloids and bloggers with a traditionalist and nostalgic agenda seem to have missed an opportunity, so I decided to give them a helping hand.

The facts are, in a way, correct, as they should be according to the Tabloids’ Style Guide.

Let me fill in the background:

In the Lisbon Treaty the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) made a number of horizontal amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), which was renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Point 2(g) imparts that:

“Throughout the Treaty … the words ‘common market’ shall be replaced by ‘internal market’.“

Do not take my word for it. You can check yourself in the Official Journal (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/41).

***

I admit that this was a scheming and devious way to bring a whole group of treaty changes to your attention: the horizontal amendments.

In the new order of things, certain terms and concepts have been substituted throughout. These terminological or editorial changes affect an awful lot of the TFEU provisions without altering the substance.

***

Let us now turn our attention to today’s sermon: shared competence.

Yesterday we looked at the areas where the member states have delegated exclusive powers to the European Community, to be merged into the European Union. Exclusive competence is wonderfully clear, as long as we are able to ascertain the boundaries of these powers.

Starting to think about competence shared by the European Union and the member states, we realise that there is a new element of complexity. ‘Who does what?’ becomes one of the defining questions in the relationship between the EU and each member.

The division of powers has to be settled somehow, over a range of areas and often in minute detail, as in all systems with different levels of responsibility.

Some mix of detailed provisions and jurisprudence is usually needed to settle the difficult questions. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the voluminous treaties (and much secondary legislation) is the anxiety with which the member states have approached delegating powers to the European Community, thus reducing the scope for litigation.

(On the other hand, laborious and muddled compromises may lead to the opposite result.)

***

Today, our aim is more modest than to settle esoteric issues of law. In true Civil Law style we turn to written legislation to find a systematic approach to the basic questions of law.

The IGC 2007 offers us the following fundamental rules on the ‘division of labour’ between the European Union and its member states (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/46-47):

Article 2c TFEU (ToL), to be renumbered Article 4 TFEU

1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 2 B and 2 E.

2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:

(a) internal market;

(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;

(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;

(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;

(e) environment;

(f) consumer protection;

(g) transport;

(h) trans-European networks;

(i) energy;

(j) area of freedom, security and justice;

(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

***

If you read the Article attentively, you will find that the wording is careful. Words like ‘principal areas’ indicate a need to look deeper, and paragraphs 3 and 4 single out a few areas for special treatment.

But on the whole we have a robust User’s Manual for the most frequently asked questions:

When confronted with the question ‘shared competence’, we can at least start by following our operating instructions:

1) Is this an area of exclusive EU competence? If the answer is ‘no’ (Article 2b), we turn to our following question.

2) Is it an area where the EU can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the member states (Article 2e)? If the answer is in the negative, too, we have at least eliminated a lot of potential traps.

3) We can turn our attention to the areas mentioned in Article 2c TFEU. If we find the area mentioned, we have covered a lot of ground.

Actually, the few TFEU Articles on competences in general give us a fair indication of what the whole treaty is about, and the areas of shared competence in particular are the ones where “Brussels” pours out the vast bulk of its legislation and where the overwhelming part of the Union’s budget is spent (for the most part in and by the member states).

Note that the IGC 2007 inserted the combat against climate change under the ‘environment’ in the detailed provisions of the TFEU. In the same way ‘energy’ was strengthened.

Paragraph 3 covers areas which could just as well have been located under supporting actions, since they operate mainly through Union programmes intended to complement activities in fields where the member states operate freely, and the nation states operate their own bilateral programmes in the areas of development aid and humanitarian assistance alongside EU action as recognised in paragraph 4.

***

But what does it mean, when the competence is shared or concurrent?

The hard and fast rule is found by returning to Article 2a(2) TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 2(2) TFEU:

“2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall again exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.”

We see that the EU has supranational competence, with two basic exceptions:

1) The Union has not exercised its competence.

2) The Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.

Yes, true to their promise the governments of the member states have provided for the option to decrease some of the powers of the Union by giving them back to the member states.

The attentive reader may notice a distinction. The exclusive competences are, exaggerating slightly, ‘gone forever’, meaning that a treaty amendment would be needed to re-nationalise these areas. Ordinary legislation is enough to ‘return to sender’ chunks or morsels of shared competence.

***

The diligent student may want to look at the drafting history of the provision on shared competence.

Here are some materials to start digging, but let us work backwards for a change:

The corresponding provision of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is Article I-14 Areas of shared competence (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/16). Comparing the similarities and differences between the Treaty of Lisbon and the Constitution we find that the Articles are almost identical, with only editorial changes in the Reform Treaty.

Article I-13 Areas of shared competence proposed by the European Convention in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe differed from the Constitution in a few stylistic choices, none of them with material consequences (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/11).

The Convention was the innovator concerning the systematic approach, and substantially it added the area of energy, which had relied on the flexibility clause in Article 308 TEC. Therefore you would have to look at the detailed provisions of the existing TEC or turn to a textbook to find a general description of the present situation, but the material differences from TEC to ToL are not significant, perhaps with the exception of energy and climate change.

***

There are a few additional points to make before we leave the concurrent or shared competences.

The question of subsidiarity does not rise in the framework of exclusive Union competence, but when both the EU and the member states are active in the same area, catchwords like ‘added value’ enter the scene.

The latest version of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality forms part of the treaties, and it sets out a whole system of scrutiny involving the national parliaments (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/148-150):

PROTOCOL
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBSIDIARITY
AND PROPORTIONALITY

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

WISHING to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union,

RESOLVED to establish the conditions for the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as laid down in Article 3b of the Treaty on European Union, and to establish a system for monitoring the application of those principles,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
Each institution shall ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as laid down in Article 3b of the Treaty on European Union.

Article 2
Before proposing legislative acts, the Commission shall consult widely. Such consultations shall, where appropriate, take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged. In cases of exceptional urgency, the Commission shall not conduct such consultations. It shall give reasons for its decision in its proposal.

Article 3
For the purposes of this Protocol, ‘draft legislative acts’ shall mean proposals from the Commission, initiatives from a group of Member States, initiatives from the European Parliament, requests from the Court of Justice, recommendations from the European Central Bank and requests from the European Investment Bank for the adoption of a legislative act.

Article 4
The Commission shall forward its draft legislative acts and its amended drafts to national arliaments at the same time as to the Union legislator.

The European Parliament shall forward its draft legislative acts and its amended drafts to national Parliaments.

The Council shall forward draft legislative acts originating from a group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank and amended drafts to national Parliaments.

Upon adoption, legislative resolutions of the European Parliament and positions of the Council shall be forwarded by them to national Parliaments.

Article 5
Draft legislative acts shall be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Any draft legislative act should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This statement should contain some assessment of the proposal's financial impact and, in the case of a directive, of its implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States, including, where necessary, the regional legislation. The reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators. Draft legislative acts shall take account of the need for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators and citizens, to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved.

Article 6
Any national Parliament or any chamber of a national Parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, in the official languages of the Union, send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. It will be for each national Parliament or each chamber of a national Parliament to consult, where appropriate, regional parliaments with legislative powers.

If the draft legislative act originates from a group of Member States, the President of the Council shall forward the opinion to the governments of those Member States.

If the draft legislative act originates from the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, the President of the Council shall forward the opinion to the institution or body concerned.

Article 7
1. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and, where appropriate, the group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, if the draft legislative act originates from them, shall take account of the reasoned opinions issued by national Parliaments or by a chamber of a national Parliament.

Each national Parliament shall have two votes, shared out on the basis of the national Parliamentary system. In the case of a bicameral Parliamentary system, each of the two chambers shall have one vote.

2. Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the draft must be reviewed. This threshold shall be a quarter in the case of a draft legislative act submitted on the basis of Article 61 I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the area of freedom, security and justice.

After such review, the Commission or, where appropriate, the group of Member States, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, if the draft legislative act originates from them, may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision.

3. Furthermore, under the ordinary legislative procedure, where reasoned opinions on the non-compliance of a proposal for a legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least a simple majority of the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the proposal must be reviewed. After such review, the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal.

If it chooses to maintain the proposal, the Commission will have, in a reasoned opinion, to justify why it considers that the proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. This reasoned opinion, as well as the reasoned opinions of the national Parliaments, will have to be submitted to the Union legislator, for consideration in the procedure:

(a) before concluding the first reading, the legislator (the European Parliament and the Council) shall consider whether the legislative proposal is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, taking particular account of the reasons expressed and shared by the majority of national Parliaments as well as the reasoned opinion of the Commission;

(b) if, by a majority of 55 % of the members of the Council or a majority of the votes cast in the European Parliament, the legislator is of the opinion that the proposal is not compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, the legislative proposal shall not be given further consideration.

Article 8
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by a legislative act, brought in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 230 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Member States, or notified by them in accordance with their legal order on behalf of their national Parliament or a chamber thereof.

In accordance with the rules laid down in the said Article, the Committee of the Regions may also bring such actions against legislative acts for the adoption of which the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that it be consulted.

Article 9
The Commission shall submit each year to the European Council, the European Parliament, the Council and national Parliaments a report on the application of Article 3b of the Treaty on European Union. This annual report shall also be forwarded to the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

***

Then we have the Protocol on the exercise of shared competence (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/156), even if I admit to difficulties placing it in the correct category: self-evident and redundant or profound. Perhaps it is just an indication of political atmospherics:

PROTOCOL
ON THE EXERCISE OF SHARED COMPETENCE

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Sole Article
With reference to Article 2 A of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on shared competence, when the Union has taken action in a certain area, the scope of this exercise of competence only covers those elements governed by the Union act in question and therefore does not cover the whole area.

***

Finally, there is no way I could leave your thirst for Declaration 18 in relation to the delimitation of competences unslaked (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/254-255):

18. Declaration in relation to the delimitation of competences

The Conference underlines that, in accordance with the system of division of competences between the Union and the Member States as provided for in the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence. The latter situation arises when the relevant EU institutions decide to repeal a legislative act, in particular better to ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Council may, at the initiative of one or several of its members (representatives of Member States) and in accordance with Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, request the Commission to submit proposals for repealing a legislative act. The Conference welcomes the Commission's declaration that it will devote particular attention to these requests.

Equally, the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting in an Intergovernmental Conference, in accordance with the ordinary revision procedure provided for in Article 48(2) to (5) of the Treaty on European Union, may decide to amend the Treaties upon which the Union is founded, including either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the said Treaties.

***

If you, dear reader, managed to get this far, you have my respect and sympathy.


Ralf Grahn