EESC on open internet and net neutrality in EU

On 26 October 2011 the advisory body, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), adopted an opinion on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The open internet and net neutrality in Europe COM(2011) 222 final.

Differing from the EU institutions (Commission, later Parliament and Council), the EESC was prepared to advance more decisively and rapidly, recommending that the principles of an open internet and net neutrality should be formally enshrined in EU law as soon as possible.

According to the EESC, the definition of the principles should contain at least the following elements:

i. Freedom and quality of Internet access

The European Commission should agree a common EU standard on "minimum quality of service" according to the principles of general interest, and should ensure that there is effective monitoring of its application.

ii. Non-discrimination between Internet traffic streams

As a general rule, no differentiation be made between the way in which each individual data stream is treated, whether according to the type of content, the service, application, device or the address of the streams origin or destination. This applies to all points along the network, including interconnection points.

There may be exceptions to this principle, provided they comply with the guidelines set out in proposed recommendation no. iii.

iii. Supervising Internet traffic management mechanisms

Marking exceptions to the principles stated in proposals nos. i and ii, and to limit any possible deviations from these, when ISPs do employ traffic management mechanisms for ensuring the quality of access to the Internet, that they comply with the general principles of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non discrimination between parties and transparency.

iv. Managed services

To maintain the capacity of all players' to innovate, electronic communications operators must be able to market "managed services" alongside Internet access, , provided that the managed service does not degrade the quality of Internet access below a certain satisfactory level, and that vendors act in accordance with existing competition laws and sector-specific regulation.

v. Increased transparency with respect to end users and a defined set of standardised information

There should be clear, precise and relevant information on the services and applications that can be accessed through ISPs: their quality of service, their possible limitations, and any traffic management practices. The EC should guarantee transparency for consumers, including clear information on terms and conditions, the right to use any lawful application and the means of switching providers. The EC should promote more dialogue and effective co-regulatory mechanisms between industry and the national regulators, under the auspices of the EC, in order to agree on EU-wide transparency principles and a set of standardised information.

Ralf Grahn

“State of the Union”: Draft Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission

Despite saying so, the draft report for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) on the revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission [5.8.2010; 2010/2118(ACI)] did not contain an annex with the agreement, nor did the draft reports by Paolo Rangel clarify the supposedly new “State of the Union” address.

In order to find the legal base for the “State of the Union” debate and to fill the gaps in my knowledge, I decided to search the register of the Council of the European Union. Luckily, I found what I was looking for:



Council document 12717/10: Draft Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission - Reply to the letter of 30 June 2010 of the President of the Coreper

When we search the document, we actually find the “State of the Union” address and debate. Their position is far from prominent: We have to go Annex 4 – Timetable for the Commission Work Programme, which starts on page 24 of the Council document (and page 22/23 of the draft agreement).

On the same page, in point 5, we find the relevant text:

Each year in the first part-session of September, a State of the Union debate will be held in which the President of the Commission shall deliver an address, taking stock of the current year and looking ahead to future priorities for the following years. To this effect, the President will in parallel set out in writing to the Parliament the main elements guiding the preparation of the Work Programme for the following year.

After continued exchanges (point 6), the Commission adopts its Work Programme for the following year in October (point 7) and the European Parliament may hold a debate and adopt a resolution in December (point 8).

I am happy, if the European Parliament and the European Commission further develop an orderly, harmonious and forward-looking relationship.

However, the advance information from the Commission gave the public (on Barroso’s website and in his letter to the MEPs) the distinct impression that the “State of the Union” address was based on the (new) framework agreement, but as we have seen, this agreement has not been approved by the EP plenary, nor has it entered into force.

In my humble view, the “State of the Union” address and debate constitute institutional innovations of a highly symbolic nature, not to be buried into an obscure provision of an annex to an agreement.

In addition, the AFCO Committee failed to mention this novelty in either of its draft reports, and it neglected to annex it to its report, despite the contrary wording.

Thus, the EC and the EP have failed to act transparently.



Luckily, as I pointed out in the previous blog post, the members of the AFCO Committee still have the possibility to table amendments to the Rangel reports before the final versions are voted on. Excluding the “State of the Union” would protect the image of the EP and the EC.



Outside help



In an earlier blog post on the “State of the Union” debate, I asked for help to find relevant legal and political decisions.

I am grateful for valuable comments, which strengthen my belief in collaboration and quick corrections in the online world.



The Twitter pseudonym @Elena2020 offered links to two state of the Union speeches by Romano Prodi, which punctured the impression of a first ever and led to a corrective blog entry.

An Anonymous commenter supplied a reference to the Council document and a succinct description of the decision-making process. Even if I had found the document by then, and located the provision, this confirmed the view I had formed.



Yesterday, after the Strasbourg session week, the EP spokesperson Jaume Duch Guillot sent me a useful parallel text of the current and future framework agreement, which clarified matters further (Wikipedia).

I want to thank them for their kind assistance and contributions.



Council reservations?

This is more like a footnote to the “State of the Union” saga:



The third party in the “institutional triangle”, namely the Council, seems to have (had) some reservations about the deal between the other two. Thus, on the heavy agenda of the Committee of the Permanent Representatives (Coreper, Part 2) for 9 September 2010 (document 13257/1/10) was the following point:

44. Draft framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission
− Legal Service opinion 12964/10 JUR 348 INST 302

We can surmise that the Council’s Legal Service has either been asked to draft an opinion, or done so on its own initiative, but the contents are not public.



Conclusion



Today’s two blog posts add some information, but confirm our earlier view: The “State of the Union” is in fact the mislabelled state of the Commission’s Work Programme for 2011.




Ralf Grahn

Eurozone and economy now top themes on Bloggingportal.eu

Lately the ‘eurozone’ and the ‘economy’ generally have been top themes on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, which has grown to aggregate 577 euroblogs.

The new coalition government in the ‘unitedkingdom’ has also elicited a fair number of blog posts, as the tangled relationship between ‘britain’ and the rest of Europe.

However, practically all areas of EU activities are covered by passionate eurobloggers, many of them able to communicate more to the point than the institutions.

Although biased, as one of the Bloggingportal.eu editors, I feel that the portal has evolved into a solid and timely source for solid information and opinion on European Union affairs.




Besides the rewarding view of all headlines, you can opt for the editors’ choice on the front page, subscribe to RSS feeds of all posts or the promoted ones, as well as subscribe to the daily and weekly newsletter.



Take a look at Bloggingportal.eu!


Ralf Grahn

Why support Mary Robinson for President of the European Council?

It is about time for something in the European Union to come the citizens’ way.



In an excellent post, Frank Schnittger over at the European Tribune has laid out the main reasons to support Mary Robinson, in “Mary Robinson for President of the European Council” (20 October 2009).

The short message to the EU leaders is: Elect the person we can be proud of.



Among other things, EU citizens can join the growing Facebook group in support of Mary Robinson becoming the President of the European Council. There are now 6,124 supporters, which means that 122 had joined since yesterday morning.


Tony Blair


From yesterday morning, 272 persons had signed the Stop Blair petition, which had grown to 39,624 signatures.



Ralf Grahn

Growing support for Mary Robinson

The life and work of Mary Robinson embody the values of the European Union internally and in the wider world. She would lend the new office of President of the European Council a dignity few others can, and she would bring the citizens and the EU closer to each other.

***

Mary Robinson


The Facebook group in support of Mary Robinson becoming the President of the European Council keeps growing. There are now 6,002 supporters, which means that 412 have joined since Saturday morning.

***

Tony Blair


During the same three day period, the Stop Blair petition has grown to 39,352 signatures, with 1,662 new ones recorded.



Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty resistance (Murdoch press)

Have you ever wondered at the lack of basic knowledge about the European Union in Britain? Have you ever been surprised at the ridiculous assertions by many British anti-EU activists?

The Murdoch press is hardly the only reason for this depressing state, but its active lowering of standards can hardly be ignored.



Fraser Nelson: Cameron v Blair: Game On! in News of the World is a piece of writing where almost every sentence is intentionally propagandistic, factually incorrect or misleading.

It would require too much space to correct all the errors in the article, so I offer the reader just one sentence as a sample, no more and no less distortive than the rest of the column.

It is about Blair and it discusses him as a potential candidate for the post of president of the European Council:

“All he needs is for the Czechs and Poles to cave in, as the Irish have.”

***

Let us see


Yesterday we saw that the Irish had voted more than two to one in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, with a higher turnout than last time. The outcome is the free choice of the people, in an undisputedly free and fair referendum.

According to Nelson, the Irish have caved in. (To themselves and their true interests?)


Yes, the Poles have to cave in too.

The Lisbon Treaty has been approved by qualified majorities by both houses of the Polish parliament.

Only one Pole is on record for procrastination, namely president Lech Kaczynski, who should formally sign the ratification instrument. Many believe that he will fulfil his constitutional duty next week.


The last necessary cave in predicted in this short sentence is that of the Czechs.

It sounds bombastic, as if the Czech people were up in arms against the nefarious EU plots. In fact the two chambers of the Czech parliament have approved the Treaty of Lisbon by qualified majorities months ago, and the government is keen for the ratification to be concluded.

One Vaclav Klaus, who is the president elected by Czech parliament, and 17 senators, defeated in the democratic arena, are known to have acted to cause further delay. We have a total count of 18 noble resistance fighters at this point in time.


***

Functioning democracy?

Crusading populist media are a danger for democracy.

It is quite sad that the world’s most selling English language newspaper and other Murdoch papers are deliberately used to indoctrinate the public.

It is tragic that journalists and others accept lucre to produce such drivel.

It is sad that a large public pays to become misinformed.

***

The Murdoch press is but one of the reasons why Britain lacks maturity to cooperate constructively in the European Union.

Which other reasons are there?



Ralf Grahn

Daniel Hannan admits changed mood ahead of Lisbon referendum

The irreconcilable UK anti-EU crusader Daniel Hannan admits that the mood in Ireland has changed ahead of the Lisbon 2009 referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Hannan even conjectures on the reasons.

He only misses the most obvious causes for the latest reliable opinion polls:

The Irish voters are more knowledgeable because of information efforts and a longer debate. They are less confused by misleading assertions by No campaigners, because of clarifying guarantees and assurances by Ireland’s European partners. They realise that they are better off within the Eurozone and with the support of the European Central Bank, than outside on their own. They trust the business leaders, economists, academics, trade unionists and farmers’ leaders who believe that the Lisbon Treaty is in the best interests of Ireland. They comprehend that their country can make friends and influence people by participating fully in the European Union, rather than by rejecting the amending treaty.

The Irish may even see why Conservative English politicians are so keen for them to wreck the Lisbon Treaty.


Ralf Grahn

European Union: Coordination of social security systems (institutional triangle)

This is an axample of the so called co-decision procedure, according to Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), when the European Parliament has proposed amendments to the common position of the Council of the European Union.

The EP amendments require an absolute majority of the component members (one of the reasons why the European Parliament needs to find consensus solutions rather than seek headline-grabbing confrontation internally). The Commission has to deliver an opinion on the amendments.

***

Social security systems

The Commission has now published two opinions:


OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty; Brussels, 5.6.2009 COM(2009) 264 final (available in all the official EU languages).



Procedure number: 2006/0006 (COD)


The complex structure of the European Union extends the consensus approach beyond the walls of the European Parliament, as you can see from the following excerpts. According to Article 250(2) TEC, as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time:


“The Commission accepts all 8 amendments adopted by Parliament. The 8 amendments were agreed following informal contacts between Parliament and Council with a view to a second reading agreement. The amendments are of a technical nature, aiming in particular to ensure that the persons concerned receive a timely answer to their requests from the competent institution and appropriate information, including guidance on administrative procedures.”


“5. CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out
above.”


***


The related second matter is:

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and determining the contents of its annexes AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty; Brussels, 5.6.2009 COM(2009) 265 final (available in English, French and German).




Procedure number: 2006/0008 (COD)


***


These are examples of the “institutional triangle” – Commission, Council, European Parliament – in action, following the steps of a choreography called the institutional balance.

Naturally, some readers may be interested in the subject matter – the coordination of social security systems – but having led you to the water, I leave you to drink.


Ralf Grahn

EU: Data protection

Readers, who are interested in the protection of personal data, can find a number of opinions of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 6.6.2009 C 128:



Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Final Report by the EU-US High Level Contact Group on information sharing and privacy and personal data protection

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee towards a European e-Justice Strategy

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare

Second opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the review of Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Council directive imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products


***

European Data Protection Supervisor

The pace of the official publication of the opinions is measured, to say the least, so it serves the needs of those, who look at the reasoning and older material.

More up-to-date material is found on the web pages of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).



There you find more information about the EDPS, supervision, consultation (including fresh opinions) and cooperation. There are links to relevant legislation.

The publications include a Position paper on the role of Data Protection Officers in ensuring effective compliance with Regulation (EC) 45/2001, which concerns the Community institutions.




Ralf Grahn

European Economic and Social Committee Opinions

The (European) Economic and Social Committee consists of representatives of organised civil society, and it must be consulted by the Council or by the Commission where the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) so provides.

The EESC (or ESC) may be consulted in other cases, as well as by the European Parliament. The EESC may issue opinions on its own initiative.

The relevant treaty provisions on this advisory body are Articles 257 to 267 TEC (in the Treaty of Lisbon Articles 300 to 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; TFEU).


Opinions

As with the Committee of the Regions, the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee is a mandatory requirement for Community legislation, when provided by the TEC, and the opinion is mentioned in the Preamble of the act.

For a student or researcher digging deeper into a Community act, the opinion is an essential reference.

The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) is the prime source for official materials on the European Union.

Far from the hectic pace of public information on the web and daily news reporting, the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee are published in the OJEU with some delay.

The latest example is today’s OJEU 30.4.2009 C 100, where you find the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee of the 448th plenary session held on 21 to 23 October 2008.






In other words, official publication takes place about six months after the session. Luckily, you can search the opinions by later sessions on the EESC web page Opinion Search.




Ralf Grahn

EU: Excessive government deficits IIIb

Does the Constitutional Treaty differ from the draft Constitution with regard to excessive government deficits?

Let us see what our legal materials have to say.

***

Draft Constitution Article III-76 and Constitution Article III-184 compared

Materially, in paragraph 6, if an excessive deficit exists, the IGC dropped that the Council shall adopt, “according to the same procedures,” and added, “without undue delay, on a recommendation from the Commission,” recommendations addressed to the Member State concerned.

In other words, the Commission’s opinion (“first warning”) directly to the member state was retained (paragraph 5) as was the Commission’s proposal on whether an excessive deficit exists (paragraph 6). These two amended the current Article 104 TEC.

But the Commission’s role was downgraded to a recommendation, when the Council was to make the crucial decision on recommendations to a “sinning” member state. Thus, the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2004) repelled one ‘communitarian’ advance, leaving the intergovernmental character of the excessive deficit procedure essentially intact, despite tinkering with the earlier stages.

In the Constitution text, the second to fourth subparagraph of paragraph 6 elaborated on the qualified majority and the blocking minority.

The same elaborations were made in paragraph 7 of the Constitutional Treaty concerning later decisions.

***

The Swedish government memorandum ‘Fördraget om upprättande av en konstitution för Europa’ (Utrikesdepartemetet, Departementsserien (Ds) 2004:52, December 2004) described the signed Constitutional Treaty.

Article III-184 was discussed in the context of provisions excluding the member state concerned from voting in the Council (page 135):

”I ett antal artiklar i fördraget förutses omröstning i frågor där inte alla medlemsstater deltar. I dessa artiklar klargörs att kvalificerad majoritet skall bestämmas med ovannämnda procentsatser avseende de av medlemsländerna som ingår i sådant beslutsfattande. Det klargörs också hur stor en blockerande minoritet skall vara i detta sammanhang. Föreskrifter av detta slag finns exempelvis i artiklarna I-44.3 om fördjupade samarbeten, I-59.5 om tillfälligt upphävande av vissa rättigheter som följer av medlemskap i unionen, I-60.4 om frivilligt utträde ur unionen, III-179.4 om allmänna riktlinjer för medlemsstaternas och unionens ekonomiska politik, III-184.6 om offentliga underskott samt III-312.3 om permanenta strukturerade samarbeten.”

The Swedish government referred to the importance of the Stability and Growth Pact, as confirmed by joint Declaration (No. 17) on Article III-184 (pages 239─240):

“I en gemensam förklaring (17) till artikel III-184 bekräftar regeringskonferensen bl.a. att stabilitets- och tillväxtpakten är ett viktigt instrument för att uppnå en ökning av tillväxten och ett säkerställande av sunda offentliga finanser.”

***

On the whole, the Swedish draft ratification bill ‘Lagrådsremiss ─ Fördraget om upprättande av en konstitution för Europa’ (2 June 2005) reiterated the remarks made in the memorandum mentioned above.

***

The government of Finland laid out the Constitutional Treaty in its ratification bill ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan perustuslaista tehdyn sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 67/2006 vp). On page 183 the government remarked that Article III-184 is essentially the same as Article 104 TEC, except for the provisions on voting and qualified majority in paragraphs 6 and 7:

”III-184 artikla, joka velvoittaa jäsenvaltioita välttämään julkisen talouden liiallisia alijäämiä, vastaa SEY 104 artiklaa lukuun ottamatta artiklan 6 ja 7 kohdissa olevia äänestys- ja määräenemmistösäännöksiä.

Artiklan 6 ja 7 kohdissa on määräyksiä neuvoston menettelystä, kun se päättää liiallisen alijäämän olemassaolosta sekä siihen liittyvistä seuraamuksista. Määräykset päätöksentekomenettelystä näissä asioissa ovat uusia. Kun neuvosto päättää liiallisen alijäämän olemassaolosta, asiassa osallisena olevan jäsenvaltion edustaja saa osallistua keskusteluun, mutta hänellä ei ole äänioikeutta. Päätöksenteossa sovelletaan III-179 artiklan yhteydessä selostettua määräenemmistön määritelmää.”

***

The same remarks appear 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 187:

”Artikel III-184, som ålägger medlemsstaterna att undvika alltför stora underskott i den offentliga sektorns finanser, motsvarar artikel 104 i EG-fördraget med undantag för bestämmelserna om omröstning och kvalificerad majoritet i artikel III-184.6 och III-184.7.

Artikel III-184.6 och III-184.7 innehåller bestämmelser om rådets förfarande när det avgör om underskottet är alltför stort samt om påföljderna därav. Bestämmelserna om beslutsförfarandet i dessa frågor är nya. När rådet avgör om underskottet är alltför stort får företrädaren för den berörda medlemsstaten delta i diskussionen, men han saknar rösträtt. Vid beslutsfattandet tillämpas den definition av kvalificerad majoritet som förklaras i samband med artikel III-179.”

***

Klemens H. Fischer in ‘Der Europäische Verfassungsvertrag‘ (Nomos, Stämpfli & Manz, 2005), included the text of Declaration No. 17 on Article III-184. He first made the observations that „Artikel III-184 EUVV korrespondiert mit Artikel 104 EGV“ and „Artikel III-184 EUVV korrespondiert mit Artikel III-76 VVE“ (page 315).

He then added an interesting paragraph on the dealings during the intergovernmental conference:

„Das Verfahren bei übermäßigem Defizit sollte während der gesamten Regierungskonferenz ─ neben dem institutionellen Paket ─ einen der Brennpunkte darstellen; nicht zuletzt durch die prekäre Haushaltssituation in Deutschland, aber auch in Frankreich. Diesen beiden Staaten gelang es jedoch nicht, die Kernbereiche dieses Verfahrens aufzuweichen, da sich einige Nettozahlerstaaten, allen voran die Niederlande und Österreich, vehement dagegen zur Wehr setzten. Die von der Regierungskonferenz angenommene Erklärung No. 17 zeugt aber dennoch von der immanenten Gefahr der Aufweichung des Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspaktes, dessen hervorragende Bedeutung in der Erklärung erneut betont wird; eine Garantie für die strikte Beibehaltung des Paktes ist diese Erklärung aber sicherlich nicht.“

***

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) ‘White Paper on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ (Cm 6309, September 2004) remarked generally on government achievements during the IGC 2004 concerning economic governance (page 29):

“58. The Government secured changes during the IGC to make it clear that Member States remain responsible for determining and co-ordinating their economic policies. Ministers within the ECOFIN Council will continue to have the greatest and final say in setting out broad economic policy guidelines as a framework for co-ordination. A provision giving the Commission power to propose economic policies for Member States with an excessive deficit has been dropped.”

***

The next instalment turns to the IGC 2007 and the Lisbon Treaty.



Ralf Grahn

EU: Excessive government deficits Id

The Eurogroup, the EU finance ministers (ECOFIN) and the EU heads of state or government (European Council) are going to convene in the wake of the Elysée summit of the European G8 members.

We already saw that there is not going to be one European response, but an effort to coordinate national ones. We also heard about the new flexibility concerning budgetary discipline (and state aid).

Before the summit, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa had called for a European fund to support banks. In the 3 October 2008 Reuters interview, the former European Central Bank board member and the recent minister of finance of Italy saw the need for public capital at the European or Eurozone level, because the national level leads to conflicts:

http://www.borsaitaliana.reuters.it/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2008-10-03T092502Z_01_MIE4920AQ_RTROPTT_0_OITBS-CRISI-PADOASCHIOPPA-FONDO.XML

Padoa-Schioppa also mentioned that the rules of the Stability Pact can be suspended in an emergency:

"In una situazione di aperta crisi sarebbe molto più pericoloso per qualunque tipo di stabilità, compresa quella di bilancio, non agire nel modo opportuno per risolvere la crisi che assumere azioni straordinarie".

***

Suspending budget discipline?

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, but how much can the EU system of budgetary discipline be eviscerated legally?

We already saw that the Commission examines compliance with budgetary discipline on the basis of the reference value of 3 % of gross domestic product.

The treaty level escape clause is Article 104(2)(a) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), where “alternatively, the excess over the reference value is only exceptional and temporary and the ratio remains close to the reference value”.

If the process advances, the Commission addresses an opinion to the Council, but the Council decides “after an overall assessment” if an excessive deficit exists, and the Council makes recommendations to the member state concerned with a view to bringing the situation to an end within a given period. Cf. Article 104(5) ─ (7) TEC.

***

In the next posts, we are going to take a closer look at secondary legislation and rules for interpretation.


Ralf Grahn