End user perspective: BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality

The previous blog post referred to the scope and structure of the transparency guidelines approved for publication by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC):

BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)

Chapter II promised to deal with requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy and states, as a general principle, that the end users’ perspective is paramount. The guidelines discuss how to best adapt a transparency policy to net neutrality-related issues, in particular by taking into account different types of end users and usages.


End user perspective

In Chapter II the guidelines discuss major requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy, identifying a set of criteria (page 14):

A fully effective transparency policy (which can be composed of various approaches and measures) should aim at satisfying all of the following characteristics:

- Accessibility
- Understandability
- Meaningfulness
- Comparability
- Accuracy

These criteria are then explained.


Horse's mouth or third party?

The guidelines discuss two approaches to providing end users with information. The direct approach means that the Internet Service Provider offers the user information directly. This route is compulsory.

The complementary, indirect approach means that third parties – such as technical experts in the Internet community, price comparison sites , content providers or NRAs - provide information.

The NRAs have to devise the obligations of the service providers in a proportionate manner, bearing in mind the costs of regulation. Proportionality is discussed on pages 19-20.


Offer and limits

Discussing various aspects of transparency, the guidelines conclude (page 24):

Finding: for net neutrality transparency, information is needed on both the general scope of the offer and on the limitations (general and specific) of the offer.

Traffic management

Chapter II ends with the following finding (page 26):

Finding: Common terms of references about aspects of the Internet access service, including where some agreement can be reached on traffic management measures considered reasonable, can help to make the transparent information to end users simpler, and therefore can make a transparency policy more effective.

Ralf Grahn

Scope and structure: BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) approved the transparency guidelines for publication:

BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)


Executive summary

The Executive summary on pages 3 to 5 offers a short introduction to the thinking of the Board of Regulators (BoR).

The guidelines stress net neutrality as a key pre-condition to the end users’ ability to choose the quality of the service that best fits their needs, but transparency alone is probably insufficient to achieve net neutrality.

At this stage, the guidelines seem to promise a discussion about various approaches to a number of issues, without clear-cut rules to apply.


Scope

The guidelines discuss transparency from three angles (pages 6-7):

- the types of information that different groups of end users (consumers, business customers at a retail level - see section 1 for a more precise description of the beneficiaries) and institutions need in order to promote the ability to make informed choices regarding the quality of the Internet access services;

- the best means of conveying this information to end users;

- possible ways for end users to monitor the features of their services, and for NRAs to verify operators’ information, and the related requirements.

Related, but separate issues under investigation are (page 7):

Other BEREC projects are closely linked to this work, namely projects on “Competition issues related to Net Neutrality” and “Net Neutrality and Quality of Service”.

Structure

The presentation of the structure of the paper offers an overview to prospective readers (page 7):

Chapter I focuses on the role of transparency with regard to net neutrality, explaining why it is important, but is not sufficient on its own to address the “net freedoms” objective (nor other concerns expressed in the net neutrality debate). In addition, we give an overview of the legal context and touch on the situation within EU Member States.

Chapter II deals with requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy and states, as a general principle, that the end users’ perspective is paramount. We discuss how to best adapt a transparency policy to net neutrality-related issues, in particular by taking into account different types of end users and usages.

Chapter III talks about the contents of a net neutrality transparency policy, including the most appropriate data to be used, and provides practical examples and case studies.

Chapter IV explores different ways to ensure transparency, talking about the way information is transmitted and discusses mechanisms for monitoring transparency.

Chapter V details the possible roles of the various institutions involved, in particular through case studies, and draws some general conclusions of the report.

Regulatory context

On the pages 10-13 the guidelines present the main EU provisions relating to transparency in the revised eCommunications framework and the role of different players (MS = Member State, NRA = National Regulatory Authority, ISP = Internet Service Provider):

The new EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications was required to be transposed by Member States by 25 May 2011. It brought important changes to the 2002 Regulatory Framework and also tackled the question of net neutrality by imposing on MS, NRAs and ISPs several obligations related to traffic management techniques.

Ralf Grahn

BEREC consultation on draft Guidelines on Net Neutrality and Transparency

At the political level the European Parliament, the EU Council and the Commission (Digital Agenda, Digital Single Market) have all been active on net neutrality issues recently. Closer to the ”factory floor”, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) tries to find common ground among some 35 national eCommunications regulators, aspect by aspect.


Draft guidelines

This autumn the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) published:

Draft BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality and Transparency: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 44 (October 2011; 64 pages)


Transparency and net neutrality consultation

BEREC launched a public consultation on 3 October 2011 (the announcement provided informationa about related net neutrality issues, but did not contain the end date of the consultation). The deadline, 2 November 2011, did appear on the News page.

Stakeholders, including individuals, delivered 77 contributions, available on the consultations page.


Board of Regulators

The Board of Regulators (BoR) 8-9 December 2011 gave its broad support to the documents submitted for approval. The BoR approved the Guidelines on transparency and the report from the public consultation for publication. The two documents:

Draft report on the contributions received during the public consultation on the draft Guidelines on transparency as a tool to achieve net neutrality BoR (11) 66

Revised draft Guidelines on transparency in the scope of net neutrality: best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67


Consultation report

In other words, the report about the public consultation has been published:

BEREC report on the public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality BoR (11) 66 (December 2011; 15 pages)

With a variety of respondents from different backgrounds, the contributions contain a number of approaches and opinions on the best manner to proceed regarding many issues.

Thus, the consultation report mainly provides a general summary of various opinions, without delving into specific contributions. Recommended reading for people interested in net neutrality issues.

One outcome is worth mentioning in order to link the draft guidelines with the final version (page 15):

Since the received general comments on net neutrality were very numerous and extensive, it was decided in particular to change the title of the document to “BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches”, to better reflect the intended scope of the guidelines and avoid any further confusion in this respect.

Approved guidelines

The guidelines approved for publication by the BEREC Board of Regulators (BoR):

BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)



Ralf Grahn

New EU Guidelines on international humanitarian law

The Council of the European Union explains the meaning of international humanitarian law:

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) — also known as the Law of Armed Conflict or the Law of War — is intended to alleviate the effects of armed conflict by protecting those not, or no longer taking part in conflict and by regulating the means and methods of warfare.

The Council sets out the purpose of its new guidelines on IHL:

The purpose of these Guidelines is to set out operational tools for the European Union and its institutions and bodies to promote compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). They underline the European Union's commitment to promote such compliance in a visible and consistent manner. The Guidelines are addressed to all those taking action within the framework of the European Union to the extent that the matters raised fall within their areas of responsibility and competence. They are complementary to Guidelines and other Common Positions already adopted within the EU in relation to matters such as human rights, torture and the protection of civilians.

The following Guidelines and Common Positions are mentioned in the Council Notice:

EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues (approved by the Council on 13 December 2001, updated on 19 January 2009); Guidelines for EU Policy towards Third Countries on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment (approved by the Council on 9 April 2001, updated on 29 April 2008); EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict (approved by the Council on 8 December 2003, updated on 17 June 2008); EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child (approved by the Council on 10 December 2007); Guidelines on Violence against women and girls combating all forms of discrimination against them (approved by the Council on 8 December 2008) and Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the ICC (OJ L 150, 18.6.2003, p. 67).

New IHL Guidelines



Updated European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), published in the Official Journal of the European Union 15.12.2009 C 303/12.

The Annex to the Guidelines contains references to the Geneva Conventions and other legal instruments on international humanitarian law (OJEU page 16-17).



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Discover 494 euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.

EU Guidelines: Human Rights & Humanitarian Law

The European Union publishes a lot of useful information for students of politics, law and economics, as well as other interested EU citizens.

Many of the publications are available at the EU Bookshop in printed or digital form (pdf):

http://bookshop.europa.eu

I would like to draw attention to a recent publication issued by the Council of the European Union (General Secretariat of the Council) ‘EU Guidelines Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law’ (March 2009; 89 pages).

The publication is downloadable for free in English and French (Lignes directrices Droits de l’homme et Droit International Humanitaire).

The Guidelines serve not only international EU missions, but they contain a wealth of information useful for students, teachers, researchers and others interested in the human rights and humanitarian law.

Here is a look at the contents:

1. Death Penalty (1998) (updated on 2008)

2. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (2001) (updated on 2008)

3. Human Rights dialogues with third countries (2001) (updated on 2009)

4. Children and armed conflict (2003) (updated on 2008)

5. Human Rights Defenders (2004) (updated on 2008)

6. Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child (2007)

7. Violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them (2008)

8. Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) (2005)


***

Death penalty

Because misleading information about the European Union is continuously spread on the web, I recommend that everyone unsure about the EU’s position reads the Guideline on the death penalty.

The conspiracy theorists repeating the ‘footnote within a footnote’ distortions are, I presume, beyond redemption.



Ralf Grahn

European Council: Tasks

The current Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) uses a sweeping formula to describe the tasks of the European Council (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/12):


Article 4 TEU

The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof.


***

General tasks

Impetus and general political guidelines cover all areas crucial for the development of the European Union. Without being an institution in the formal sense, the European Council is arguably the most important body setting the course for the European Union.

Its conclusions have set treaty reforms and other major developments in motion, but it also sets the limits to what the EU can achieve, taking into account the severe restrictions caused by consensus (unanimous) decision making.

***



Specific tasks

Besides the general guidelines there are some provisions on specific tasks for the European Council.

***

Reporting

According to the third paragraph of Article 4 TEU the European Council reports to the European Parliament after each meeting and annually:

The European Council shall submit to the European Parliament a report after each of its meetings and a yearly written report on the progress achieved by the Union.


***

Meeting report

The Presidency Conclusions issued at the end of each European Council are the main instrument to communicate the results, but a livelier version is offered when the member state holding the Council Presidency reports to the European Parliament.

***

Annual report

Subsidiarity and proportionality

According to the Protocol (No 30) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (1997) the Commission has an obligation to report annually on the application of Article 5 TEC. According to point 10 the European Council shall take account of the Commission report within the report on the progress achieved by the Union which it is required to submit to the European Parliament in accordance with Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union.

***

CFSP and CSDP

The intergovernmental European Council makes the crucial decisions pertaining to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including the common security and defence policy (CSDP), according to Article 13(1) and (2) TEU:

1. The European Council shall define the principles of and general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications.

2. The European Council shall decide on common strategies to be implemented by the Union in areas where the Member States have important interests in common.

***

European defence

If and when the progressive development of a common defence policy leads to a common (European) defence, the decision is taken by the European Council, according to Article 17(1) TEU:

1. The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

***

CFSP referral to the European Council

The decisions under Title V on the common foreign and security policy are basically taken unanimously by the Council, but with the possibility for a member state to abstain (Article 23(1) TEU).

Where the treaty foresees a decision by qualified majority, an opposing member state can use the so called emergency brake on grounds of important reasons of national policy. It must state its reasons and request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity (Article 23(2) TEU):

2. By derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, the Council shall act by qualified majority:

— when adopting joint actions, common positions or taking any other decision on the basis of a common strategy,

— when adopting any decision implementing a joint action or a common position,

— when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 18(5).
If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity.

-----

***

Enhanced cooperation in criminal matters

A referral to the European Council is possible with regard to a decision to establish enhanced cooperation in an area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Title VI). The detour delays but does not stop the decision, if the requirements are fulfilled (Article 40a(2) TEU):

A member of the Council may request that the matter be referred to the European Council. After that matter has been raised before the European Council, the Council may act in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph.


***

Enhanced cooperation generally

Enhanced cooperation between member states in an area referred to in the Treaty establishing the European Community can be referred to the European Council, but it does not stop the pioneering group from moving ahead after the discussion (Article 11(2) TEC):


A member of the Council may request that the matter be referred to the European Council. After that matter has been raised before the European Council, the Council may act in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph.


***

Broad economic policy guidelines

The European Council formulates conclusions on the broad economic policy guidelines (BEPGs), according to Article 99(2) TEC.

The spring (March) European Council is traditionally the venue for economic policy and reform, including the BEPGs and the Lisbon Agenda for Growth and Jobs.

In a union with a (partly) common currency, but with national fiscal and economic policies, the European Council meeting starting tomorrow 18 March 2009 has its plate full in the middle of the serious financial crisis and economic recession.

This time the conclusions would have to be ground-breaking, if the European Council wants to turn the tide:

2. The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community, and shall report its findings to the European Council.

The European Council shall, acting on the basis of the report from the Council, discuss a conclusion on the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community.

-----


***

ECB reporting

Article 113(3) TEC adds the European Council to the addressees of reporting by the European Central Bank (ECB), almost as an afterthought:

3. The ECB shall address an annual report on the activities of the ESCB and on the monetary policy of both the previous and current year to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and also to the European Council. The President of the ECB shall present this report to the Council and to the European Parliament, which may hold a general debate on that basis.


***

Joint employment report

The European Council adopts conclusions (during its spring meeting) on the joint employment report by the Council and the Commission, according to Article 128(1) TEC:

1. The European Council shall each year consider the employment situation in the Community
and adopt conclusions thereon, on the basis of a joint annual report by the Council and the
Commission.


***

Conclusion

The European Council has set in motion the major developments of the European Union during the last decades, but the construction is plagued by inadequate rules, highlighted by the recession.

Given that, what can we expect from the next two days?


Ralf Grahn

EU: Broad economic policy guidelines III

The multilateral surveillance of member states’ economic policies underwent few changes in the Constitutional Treaty, when compared to the draft Constitution. The substantial changes concern qualified majority voting (paragraph 4).

In the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed by all, but approved internally by 18 member states before it stalled, the introductory provisions on economic policy were located in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter II ‘Economic and monetary policy’, Section 1 ‘Economic policy’.

Article III-179 is found in OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/76-77:

Article III-179 Constitution

1. Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council, in accordance with Article III-178.

2. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, shall formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union, and shall report its findings to the European Council.

The European Council, on the basis of the report from the Council, shall discuss a conclusion on the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union. On the basis of this conclusion, the Council shall adopt a recommendation setting out these broad guidelines. It shall inform the European Parliament of its recommendation.

3. In order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, shall monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Union, as well as the consistency of economic policies with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2, and shall regularly carry out an overall assessment.

For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission on important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy and such other information as they deem necessary.

4. Where it is established, under the procedure referred to in paragraph 3, that the economic policies of a Member State are not consistent with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2 or that they risk jeopardising the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, the Commission may address a warning to the Member State concerned. The Council, on a recommendation from the Commission, may address the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide to make its recommendations public.

Within the scope of this paragraph, the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State concerned.

A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the other members of the Council, representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the participating Member States.

A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of these other Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

5. The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.

6. European laws may lay down detailed rules for the multilateral surveillance procedure referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4.

***


The Swedish government memorandum ‘Fördraget om upprättande av en constitution för Europa’ (Utrikesdepartemetet, Departementsserien (Ds) 2004:52, december 2004), page 238, described the differences between current practice and the Constitutional Treaty in the following terms:

“Det konstitutionella fördraget innebär inte några genomgripande förändringar i regelverket eller i fördelningen av befogenheter på det ekonomisk-politiska området. Antagandet av de allmänna riktlinjerna skall fortfarande ske på samma sätt som tidigare, med den skillnaden att endast euroländerna får rösta om de rekommendationer som riktar sig till dessa länder (artikel III- 194).

En viss förskjutning görs dock i riktning mot mer inflytande för kommissionen. Bestämmelserna syftar till att säkerställa genomförandet av medlemsstaternas åtaganden. Kommissionen skall till exempel få möjlighet att utfärda den första varningen till en medlemsstat som inte bedöms efterleva de allmänna riktlinjerna för den ekonomiska politiken. Rådet kommer dock, på samma sätt som i dag, med kvalificerad majoritet och på rekommendation av kommissionen, kunna besluta om att lämna den berörda medlemsstaten de rekommendationer som behövs. Skillnaden gentemot nuvarande bestämmelser är att den berörda medlemsstaten inte får delta i detta beslut (artikel III-179).

Om kommissionen bedömer att en medlemsstat har ett alltför stort underskott lämnar kommissionen i dag en rekommendation till rådet att slå fast detta. Enligt det konstitutionella fördraget kommer kommissionen istället att lämna ett förslag i denna fråga. Denna skillnad innebär att rådet, för att ändra innehållet i förslaget från kommissionen, måste uppnå enhällighet om ändringsförslaget. Vid en rekommendation från kommissionen, såsom fallet är i dag, har rådet möjlighet att ändra texten med kvalificerad majoritet.”

The Swedish government remarked that the differences are not profound, but the Commission is given some additional means to ensure compliance. The Commission could issue a first warning to a member state. Instead of a recommendation, as currently, the Commission would make a proposal concerning oversized deficits, which would mean that the Council would have to be unanimous if it wanted to disregard the proposal.

***

The government of Finland was a bit more specific in its description of Article III-179 of the Constitutional Treaty. The Finnish ratification bill ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan perustuslaista tehdyn sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 67/2006 vp), page 182─183, mentioned the Commission’s power to warn and it explained the new voting rules:

”III-179 artikla, jossa määrätään unionin ja jäsenvaltioiden talouspolitiikan yleislinjojen laatimisesta sekä taloudellisen kehityksen valvomisesta, vastaa pääpiirteittäin SEY 99 artiklaa.

Artiklan 4 kohdan mukaan neuvosto voi antaa jäsenvaltiolle suosituksia, mikäli sen talouspolitiikka ei ole unionin asettamien yleislinjojen mukaista. Uutta on se, että komissio on saanut yksin valtuudet antaa jäsenvaltiolle varoituksen. Myös määräykset neuvoston päätöksentekomenettelystä kyseisissä asioissa ovat uusia. Kun neuvosto päättää suosituksista, asiassa osallisena olevan jäsenvaltion edustaja saa osallistua keskusteluun, mutta hänellä ei ole äänioikeutta.

Artiklassa on määritelty erikseen, miten määräenemmistö saavutetaan kyseisissä tapauksissa. Määräenemmistöön tarvitaan vähintään 55 prosenttia äänioikeutettujen neuvoston jäsenten äänistä. Artiklan mukaan näiden neuvoston jäsenten tulee myös edustaa vähintään 65 prosenttia äänestykseen osallistuvien jäsenvaltioiden väestöstä. Tämä 65 prosentin vaatimus ei ole kuitenkaan ehdoton, koska päätöksenteon estävään määrävähemmistöön tarvitaan äänioikeutettuja jäseniä, jotka edustavat yli 35 prosenttia jäsenvaltioiden yhteenlasketusta väestöstä lisättynä yhdellä jäsenellä. Jos tämä vaatimus ei toteudu, katsotaan määräenemmistö saavutetuksi edellyttäen että 55 prosenttia neuvoston äänioikeutetuista jäsenistä puoltaa esitystä.”

The same remarks can be found in Swedish, in ’Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Fördraget om upprättande av en konstitution för Europa och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen (RP 67/2006 rd), page 186─187:

“Artikel III-179, där det bestäms om utarbetandet av allmänna riktlinjer för unionens och medlemsstaternas ekonomiska politik samt om övervakningen av den ekonomiska utvecklingen, motsvarar i stora drag artikel 99 I EG-fördraget.

Enligt artikel III-179.4 får rådet lämna en medlemsstat rekommendationer, om dess ekonomiska politik inte är förenlig med unionens allmänna riktlinjer. Nytt är att kommissionen ensam har fått befogenheter att varna medlemsstaterna. Även bestämmelserna om rådets beslutsförfarande i dessa frågor är nya. När rådet beslutar om rekommendationer får en företrädare för den berörda medlemsstaten delta i diskussionen, men han har inte rösträtt.

I artikeln bestäms särskilt hur kvalificerad majoritet uppnås i dessa fall. För kvalificerad majoritet krävs minst 55 % av rösterna från de röstberättigade rådsmedlemmarna. Enligt artikeln skall dessa rådsmedlemmar också företräda minst 65 % av befolkningen i de medlemsstater som deltar i omröstningen. Detta krav på 65 % är ändå inte ovillkorligt, eftersom det för en blockerande minoritet krävs ett antal röstberättigade medlemmar som företräder mer än 35 % av befolkningen i de deltagande medlemsstaterna, plus en medlem. Om detta krav inte uppfylls, skall kvalificerad majoritet anses vara uppnådd förutsatt att 55 % av de röstberättigade rådsmedlemmarna förordar förslaget.”

***

For a short comment in German, see for instance Klemens H. Fischer in ‘Der Europäische Verfassungsvertrag‘ (Nomos, Stämpfli & Manz, 2005), page 309, where he mentions „zwei neue Unterabsätze, die QM und SQM betreffen“ as well as the following two new elements, „Recht der Vervarnung durch die Kommission“ and „Aussckluss des betroffenen Mitgliedstaates bei der Abstimmund im Rat“.



Ralf Grahn

EU TFEU: Customs union aims

We look at the strategic objectives of the European Union's customs union in the light of the current Treaty establishing the European Community and the Lisbon Treaty undergoing ratification in the member states.



***

Article 27 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), in Chapter 1 The customs union, presents the following aims, addressed to the Commission. The latest consolidated version of the current treaties is found in OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/52:

Article 27 TEC

In carrying out the tasks entrusted to it under this Chapter the Commission shall be guided by:

(a) the need to promote trade between Member States and third countries;

(b) developments in conditions of competition within the Community in so far as they lead to an improvement in the competitive capacity of undertakings;

(c) the requirements of the Community as regards the supply of raw materials and semi‑finished goods; in this connection the Commission shall take care to avoid distorting conditions of competition between Member States in respect of finished goods;

(d) the need to avoid serious disturbances in the economies of Member States and to ensure rational development of production and an expansion of consumption within the Community.

***

The intergovernmental conference did nothing to disturb these guidelines in the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), so there are only a few light touches to apply to this provision to be able to read the consolidated version, as it appears in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). We bear in mind that ‘Community’ is replaced by ‘Union’, and that the final numbering of the TFEU differs from the Lisbon Treaty version:

Part Three Policies and internal actions of the Union

Title 1a (ToL), later Title II Free movement of goods

Chapter 1 (ToL and TFEU) The customs union

Article 27 TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 32 TFEU

In carrying out the tasks entrusted to it under this Chapter the Commission shall be guided by:

(a) the need to promote trade between Member States and third countries;

(b) developments in conditions of competition within the Union in so far as they lead to an improvement in the competitive capacity of undertakings;

(c) the requirements of the Union as regards the supply of raw materials and semi‑finished goods; in this connection the Commission shall take care to avoid distorting conditions of competition between Member States in respect of finished goods;

(d) the need to avoid serious disturbances in the economies of Member States and to ensure rational development of production and an expansion of consumption within the Union.

***

The intermediary stages in the treaty reform process were almost identical to the current and Lisbon Treaty wording:

Article III-40 Draft Constitution (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/34)

Article 151(6) Constitution (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/65)

***

The guidelines offered to the Commission are evident in part, with subparagraph (a) targeting external effects and subparagraph (b) aiming at improving competition internally.

The rise in global demand for energy, raw materials, water and food seems to outrun the resource base or the production capacity, which leads to higher prices. Scarcity increases the risk of unfair practices and serious disturbances as well as the possible need for reassessment of consumption patterns.

Like political objectives in general, the aims the Commission is ordered to follow can be contradictory in part. The real test is, as often, which guiding principles are ‘more guiding than others’.

The substantial objectives of the customs union are intrinsically linked to trade policy and internal market aims, but here we take a closer look at questions of more indirect import, focusing administrative developments of customs within the European Community (Union).

***

We assume that the reader is a non-specialist, who wants to get acquainted with the basic aims of the customs union.

The Commission’s ‘Customs strategy’ pages offer an introduction. The Commission proposes legislation, and there is a common customs border, but operations are carried out by 27 national customs administrations (working to fill the EU’s till). Customs and trade policy questions are intertwined. Smooth cooperation between different authorities and a paperless customs environment are present challenges.

The Commission’s customs strategy is from 2001, and there is a joint mission statement from the EU customs administrations (2005) as well as strategic aims and key actions. There are references to key documents for further study:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/policy_issues/customs_strategy/index_en.htm

We take note of the page ‘International Customs Day 26 January 2008’ for two reasons. Customs are crucial in the fight against the trafficking of drugs and drugs precursors. In 2007 the European Community was admitted to the World Customs Organisation (WCO), on an ‘interim basis’ akin to the WCO members’ rights and obligations:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/article_4709_en.htm

How the objectives in the customs policy area are reflected in customs legislation can be seen by looking at newish legislation in force, with the Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions highlighted as the basic legislation:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/legislation/legislation/customs/index_en.htm


Proposed legislation is on offer through the page ‘Customs proposals (legislation)’:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/legislation/proposals/customs/index_en.htm

Given the importance of the Community Customs Code and its implementing decisions, we are offered an explanatory framework ‘101’ by the Commission’s press release ‘Modernised Community Customs Code – Frequently Asked Questions’ (MEMO/08/101, 19 February 2008).

Then there is Decision No 624/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2013) (OJ 14.6.2007 L 154/25), which presents how the strategic goals of the European Community are pursued at the operational level of customs administrations through an action programme from the beginning of 2008 until the end of 2013 (in line with the current multiannual financial framework). The general reader is encouraged to read the recitals (‘Whereas’), setting out the priorities of the Customs 2013 Programme.


Ralf Grahn