EU Council presidency of Denmark in the media 1/2

After a look at media reporting about the Danish presidency of the Council of the European Union, the euroblogger Jon Worth pronounced ”perhaps not stellar, but at least there is some online discussion about the Press Trip and the launch of the Presidency”.


UK official blogging (FCO Blogs)

You can check Worth's blog for several entries about the press trip and the Danish presidency. He proceeded to give sound blogging advice to the presidency blog launched by the Copenhagen British Embassy (FCO Blogs), based on the post by the UK ambassador Nick Archer about the beginning of the Danish presidency.

According to the ambassador, the prime minister and the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom are passionate enough about some of the (thirty plus) policies of the European Union to abstain from heading for the exit, namely growth, jobs, Single Market and free trade.


Linking and engaging

I am not going to start providing photos, but let us take Jon Worth's blogging lesson about linking and engaging (discussing) seriously, just adding that substance and sources have a role in political and legal affairs.

It may be somewhat self-centred to start by linking to myself before beginning the wider media tour, but my blog posts present and discuss the Danish priorities and make references to primary sources, while occasionally linking to news reports and media comments, including blog entries.

Grahnblawg (SV): Ekonomisk politik under pågående kris: Danmark ordförande i EU:s råd

Grahnlaw (EN): Growth and jobs: Denmark's EU Council presidency

Eurooppaoikeus (FI): Tanska vesijohtovedellä maineeseen: Painotukset EU:n neuvoston puheenjohtajana

Grahnblawg (SV): Danmark första gröna ordförandeskapet för EU:s råd?

Grahnlaw (EN): A safe Europe a priority Denmark has opted out of

Grahnlaw (EN): EU Council presidency with opt-outs

Grahnlaw (EN): Thorny questions for Denmark and EU Council

Eurooppaoikeus (FI): Tanska: neljän prioriteetin ja poikkeuksen paradoksi EU:ssa

***

Far from stellar, but an introduction to the next six months of monitoring. In part 2/2 I am going to look at some of the news and opinion I have noticed and gathered for my readers with regard to the EU Council presidency of Denmark.



Ralf Grahn

The state of the European Union: EU-27 Watch No 9 published

Actually, EU-27 Watch offers more than it promises. Despite its name, the Internet platform compiles materials on European policy debates in 31 countries, as reported by researchers from national research institutes (think tanks): 27 EU member states as well as the four candidate countries for accession, Croatia, Turkey, Macedonia and Iceland.



The EU-27 Watch No 9 now published is an important overview of the European Union as seen from national capitals through expert eyes.



Under the Current Issue, the Introduction by Katrin Böttger and Julian Plottka provides an excellent summary of European Union events and opinions during the latest six months: The EU in 2010 – between excitement over the Lisbon Treaty and anxieties about the financial and economic crisis.



Alternatively, you can access the pdf version of the EU-27 Watch No 9 Introduction (and the Questionnaire) as a pdf file. The main policy areas covered are:


• Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty;
• Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy;
• European economic policy and the financial and economic crisis;
• Climate and energy policy; and
• Other current issues and discourses in the reporting countries.



Economic policy

Note that EU economic policies and the financial and economic crises are discussed extensively, not only in the dedicated chapter, but in the own-initiative chapter on domestic debates as well (Other current issues). The economy is the central issue right now, even if the remedies to apply are far from clear at this stage.



Countries and policy areas



There are now two ways to approach the new EU-27 report. You can read the country sections on the various policy debates, or you can peruse the policies you are interested in sorted into country contributions.

One thing I missed from the old EU-27 reports was the convenient possibility to access or download the whole publication as one file, at one go.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly, and as Eurobloggers we should promote interaction among Europeans. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

EU TFEU: Support, coordinate and supplement

There are at least three kinds of changes to look out for, when we try to make sense of what the Treaty of Lisbon means for the European Union (EU):

1) Where do the amended treaties, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) introduce substantial or material changes?

2) When do the differences aim at better methodology or presentation?

3) Which amendments, including most horizontal ones, merely result from certain choices of terminology followed throughout?

The provisions introducing EU (‘Community’) competences in the TFEU offer us examples from each group.

You are offered an opportunity to test your own thinking, based on the following presentation.


***

The intergovernmental conference decided to supplement its exposition of EU competences by inserting an Article 2e TFEU in the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL). See OJ 17.12.2007 c 306/47:

Article 2e TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 6 TFEU

The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be

(a) protection and improvement of human health;

(b) industry;

(c) culture;

(d) tourism;

(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;

(f) civil protection;

(g) administrative cooperation.

***

Going backwards we can compare TFEU Article 2e of the Lisbon Treaty with its nearest antecedent, Article I-17 Areas of supporting, coordinating or complementary action of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/17):

Article I-17
Areas of supporting, coordinating or complementary action

The Union shall have competence to carry out supporting, coordinating or complementary action. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:

(a) protection and improvement of human health;

(b) industry;

(c) culture;

(d) tourism;

(e) education, youth, sport and vocational training;

(f) civil protection;

(g) administrative cooperation.

***

The differences between the corresponding Articles in the ToL and the Constitution are minute (supplement / complement).

***

The basis for the IGC 2004 which agreed on the Constitutional Treaty was the European Convention and its draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/11):

Article I-16
Areas of supporting, coordinating or complementary action

1. The Union may take supporting, coordinating or complementary action.

2. The areas for supporting, coordinating or complementary action shall be, at European level:

— industry,

— protection and improvement of human health,

— education, vocational training, youth and sport,

— culture,

— civil protection.

3. Legally binding acts adopted by the Union on the basis of the provisions specific to these areas in Part III may not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations.

***

There are some differences between the draft Constitution and the Constitution. Let us take a closer look.

If we disregard the changes which appear to be only of an editorial nature, we notice the addition of two areas between the Convention and the Constitution. The IGC 2004 added tourism and administrative cooperation.

Dropping paragraph 3 of the Convention draft does not extend EU powers to harmonise member states’ legislation, since Article 12(5) of the Constitutional Treaty (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/15) and Article 2a(5) TFEU (ToL) already provide this restriction:

Article 2a(5) TFEU (ToL)

5. In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Treaties, the Union shall have
competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the
Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas.

Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions of the Treaties relating
to these areas shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations.

***

The Constitution and the Convention are only intermediary stages in a long reform process leading up to the Lisbon Treaty. The meaningful comparison, from a material point of view, is what the Reform Treaty changes compared to the current treaties.

Let us look briefly at the different areas. What stays the same? What is new and when was it introduced?

The general, but less systematic presentation in the existing Article 3 TEC offers us a picture of the activities of the European Community (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/44-45).


Article 3 TEC

1. For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein:

(a) the prohibition, as between Member States, of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect;

(b) a common commercial policy;

(c) an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital;

(d) measures concerning the entry and movement of persons as provided for in Title IV;

(e) a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries;

(f) a common policy in the sphere of transport;

(g) a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted;

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the functioning of the common market;

(i) the promotion of coordination between employment policies of the Member States with a view to enhancing their effectiveness by developing a coordinated strategy for employment;

(j) a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund;

(k) the strengthening of economic and social cohesion;

(l) a policy in the sphere of the environment;

(m) the strengthening of the competitiveness of Community industry;

(n) the promotion of research and technological development;

(o) encouragement for the establishment and development of trans-European networks;

(p) a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection;

(q) a contribution to education and training of quality and to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States;

(r) a policy in the sphere of development cooperation;

(s) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and promote jointly economic and social development;

(t) a contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection;

(u) measures in the spheres of energy, civil protection and tourism.

2. In all the activities referred to in this Article, the Community shall aim to eliminate
inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women.

***

Existing areas

The following areas mentioned in the TFEU (ToL) are already covered by detailed TEC provisions:

(a) Complementing member states’ activities for human health protection is elaborated in Article 152 TEC. (Article III-179 draft Constitution, Article III-278 Constitution).

(b) Actions to ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry exist are elaborated in Article 157 TEC. (Article III-180 draft Constitution, Article III-279 Constitution)

(c) Cultural cooperation is covered in Article 151 TEC. (Article III-181 draft Constitution, Article III-280 Constitution).

(e) Article 149 TEC takes up education, vocational training and youth. (Articles III-182 and III-183 draft Constitution, Articles III-282 and III-283 Constitution).

***

“Orphans”

Civil protection and tourism, introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht, are mentioned in Article 3(1)(u) TEC, but lack material provisions. This means that action has relied on and been confined to the unanimity and other requirements of the flexibility clause, Article 308 TEC.

These “orphans” were “adopted” by giving them “parents” in the form of substantial provisions in the following way:

Civil protection (f) was taken up and given a substantial provision by the Convention, Article III-184 draft Constitution. (Article III-284 Constitution).

Tourism (d) was accorded the same treatment only by the IGC 2004, with the material Constitutional Treaty Article III-281.

***

New areas

Sport (e) was introduced by the Convention, inserted into the substantial Article III-182 draft Constitution. (Article III-282 Constitution).

Administrative cooperation (g) was introduced by the Convention, with Article III-185 of the draft Constitution offering contents. (Article III-285 Constitution).

***

If you want to get a closer look at EU supporting action in a certain area, your next stop would be to look up the relevant TFEU provision in the Reform Treaty (and, perhaps, trace the changes from its antecedents).

***

We can see that both the Convention and the IGC 2004 contributed towards the ToL novelties concerning EU action to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the member states, but that the IGC 2007 added nothing to what had been reached in the previous intergovernmental conference.


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