Showing posts with label monitoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label monitoring. Show all posts

Friday, 26 May 2017

Monitoring the European Commission’s progress

The member states, who own the European Union, have designed a structural underachiever, including in the area hailed as the greatest success story of the EU: the internal market (single market). Se the blog entry Sisyphean internal market.  

Perhaps no Celestial City is in sight, but it is still important to see the strategically based progress of the Juncker Commission.


Call for action 2016

A year ago, the Commission called for swift action regarding various proposals pertaining to the Single Market Strategy, the Action Plan on Building the Capital Markets Union (CMU) and the Digital Single Market Strategy:

Delivering the Single Market Agenda for Jobs, Growth and Investment; Brussels, 1.6.2016 COM(2016) 361 final

Annexes [to the Communication]; Brussels, 1.6.2016 COM(2016) 361 final ANNEXES 1 to 2

A year on, I wanted to highlight this communication as a clearly written document on two of the Commission’s priority areas and the important CMU project.


Legislative priorities 2017

In addition to building the Single Market, the Capital Markets Union and the Digital Single Market, the Energy Union and the Economic and Monetary Union are among the priorities worth watching, if we are interested in the agenda for jobs, growth and investment.

The Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities 2017, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission decided to give priority treatment to legislative proposals under six headings:

  1. Giving a new boost to jobs, growth and investment
  2. Addressing the social dimension of the European Union
  3. Better protecting the security of our citizens
  4. Reforming our migration policy in a spirit of responsibility and solidarity
  5. Delivering on our commitment to implement a connected Digital Single Market
  6. Delivering on our objective of an ambitious Energy Union and a forward looking climate change policy

The individual and clearly referenced proposals are on offer in the Working document to facilitate the the monitoring and tracking of the follow-up annexed to the Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017 (both documents dated 13 December 2016).

Legislative Train Schedule update

The European Parliament offers a monitoring tool, for some metaphorical reason called the Legislative Train Schedule, built around the ten political guidelines (priorities) of the Juncker Commission (2014). Last updated in March 2017, the schedule offers general information about a priority area, as well as more detail about individual initiatives or proposals.

In addition to the screen version (with links and further links), there is also a  print version (pdf) to read or download for each of the ten Commission priorities, generally. Each offers something in the range of a hundred pages.

However, the fourth policy priority, a deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base, has been divided in a corresponding manner into five sub-groups, each with its own print version: products, services including transport, financial services, labour and taxation.  
In other words, we find the proposals sorted under the headlines of the priorities of the European Commission, with the internal market modification mentioned:

1. A New Boost for Jobs, Growth and Investment
2. A Connected Digital Single Market
3. A Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy
4. A Deeper and Fairer Internal Market with a Strengthened Industrial Base
4 A. Products
4 B. Services including Transport
4 C. Financial services
4 D. Labour
4 E. Taxation
5. A Deeper and Fairer Economic and Monetary Union
6. A Reasonable and Balanced Free Trade Agreement with the U.S.
7. An Area of Justice and Fundamental Rights Based on Mutual Trust
8. Towards a New Policy on Migration
9. A Stronger Global Actor
10. A Union of Democratic Change  

Mid-term reviews

The Juncker Commission, appointed for the period from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2019, is at mid-term right now. Midway invites everyone to evaluate progress and the Commission to set the sights for the remainder of the mandate.

This means that in various policy areas conducive to investment, economic growth and new jobs, assessments and reviews are taking place.

In addition to the Single Market, the Capital Markets Union and the Digital Single Market, the Energy Union and the Economic and Monetary Union are among Commission priorities to watch.



Ralf Grahn

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Improve information about EU citizens’ rights!

Ensuring correct implementation of the Citizens Directive 2004/38 by all EU member states has proven to be a tough task for the European Commission (brief background history in Swedish).



The Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States is mentioned only once in the twelve pages of the Commission’s 27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final:


Following the Metock judgment [C-127/08], guidelines were discussed in the expert group on the application of Directive 2004/38 before the launch of a programme of bilateral meetings with all Member States on the transposition of EU rules on free movement of citizens and their family members.


Commission staff documents missing



We saw that the monitoring report from the Commission was accompanied by two SEC documents. However, if you search for SEC(2010) 1143 or 1144 under SEC documents on Eur-Lex, you get the less than helpful reply ‘Not available in English’.

I wonder: Why has the Commission posted only the brief overview, but omitted the ‘beef’, which is contained in the detailed annexes?



EP Legislative observatory Oeil



Even the Legislative observatory Oeil of the European Parliament does not list the accompanying documents with the report from the Commission COM(2010) 538 in the customary manner, but if we are resilient enough to search for the annexes separately we actually find what we are looking for.

Searching should be easier.



Sector by sector analysis


We find a hefty 512 page document with more detailed analysis sector by sector, a treasure trove for researchers and lawyers:




Commission staff working document: Situation in the different sectors; Brussels, 1.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1143 final; 512 pages.

There are numerous references to the sad state of implementation of Directive 2004/38. I am going to quote just two examples.

The first one is in section 3.1.1.2. Report on progress made in 2009 regarding free movement of workers (on page 62):


The Commission services have received many queries and complaints concerning the residence rights of migrant workers in the host Member State. It is still partly due to the fact that in May 2006, Directive 2004/38/EC effectively entered into force and introduced new residence formalities and some important new rights (such as the right of permanent residence). With a view to ensuring the respect of the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC, the Commission services have been organising bilateral contacts with Member States to make sure that the Directive is correctly transposed and applied across the EU.

My second example is in the section 14.6. Free movement of persons (from page 439, the quote from the following page), where the Commission indicates the state of free movement of persons:


In 2009, the Commission continued to deal with a large number of enquiries and complaints in the area of free movement of persons – 1000 were replied in 2009 compared with 1070 in 2008. Complaints management was also a significant part of ensuring full and proper implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC. In 2009, 205 complaints were registered with the Secretariat-General (compared with 81 registered in 2008).

There were 37 written EP questions and 36 petitions in the area of free movement of persons in 2009.



Statistical annex

The other accompanying document is (part of?) a statistical annex, with 118 pages of detailed information about procedures:



Commission staff working document: Statistical annex - Annexes I to III (Volume 1); Brussels, 1.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1144 final



Comments

The Commission and the European Parliament should do more to inform about problems concerning the implementation of EU law, and to foster debate on these issues. This includes the enforcement of the rights of EU citizens and their families to free movement and residence.

I hope that the European Parliament takes a close look at citizens’ rights when it starts to evaluate the report on the application of EU law in 2009.

In mid October 2010 we are still looking at a report regarding 2009, however forward-looking the Commission has tried to make it.

There is a need for more timely information. The Commission has an opportunity to show its dedication to citizens’ rights, including Directive 2004/38, when it communicates its actions with regard to Paris and the other capitals.



The new Directorate-General Justice has formally updated its web pages, but the newsroom and the other pages are still more burdened by history than filled with complete and updated information. You have to go to the pages of justice commissioner Viviane Reding, which are more up to date (see News, Press releases and Speeches), but there are still many cracks between the floor boards.




Ralf Grahn



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

EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 673 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union (and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator.



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



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

EU: Preventing human rights infringements – CEPS proposal

In a research paper from the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) on the French Roma affair, the authors made an interesting proposal to strengthen human rights monitoring in the European Union. See:



Sergio Carrera and Anaïs Faure Atger: L’Affaire des Roms - A Challenge to the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, September 2010; 20 pages).

The researchers demonstrated the weakness and slowness of the existing ‘ex post’ enforcement procedures. In order to prevent further damage, the authors proposed a new mechanism to stop suspected violations (page 17):


The EU should therefore develop a new (preventive) enforcement mechanism that would complement the existing ones (the infringement and the fundamental rights proceedings). This procedure would be primarily destined to ensure that contested national policies and practices falling within the remits of EU law and fundamental rights (and applying exceptions and/or derogations to European rights and freedoms) would be immediately ‘frozen’ while the formal opening of infringement or fundamental rights proceedings would be still be considered and/or under study by the relevant services of the European institutions. For such an ex ante procedure to ensure its full effectiveness, careful attention should be paid at times of ensuring its overall objectivity, impartiality and accountability. It would also be necessary that the opening of the procedure would not only lie in the hands of the Commission, but that the latter could be also launched on the initiative of the European Parliament.

On page 18 Carrera and Faure Atger added some thoughts about this injunction-like freezing procedure, which would build on documented violations of citizens’ rights:


The new freezing enforcement procedure would be activated through the existence of ‘evidence’ provided (for instance) by the European Agency of Fundamental Rights (FRA) along with its Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) of Non-Governmental Organizations, which could be also tasked ‘to alert’ any suspected breaches of EU law and fundamental rights by EU member states. The next step would be the revision by the FRA of the pertinence of such allegations before a formal activation is put to the EU institutions. The existence of this EU-wide network for cooperation and information exchange set to act as the main channel for the FRA to engage civil society would enable an EU-wide coverage of the implementation of EU law in an enlarged EU. They could thus be responsible for informing/alerting if a violation of fundamental rights or EU law is suspected. The involvement of a network of independent experts who can be consulted quickly to present a report in relevant member states should also be another initiative to be considered in the implementation of such a procedure.



I noted this interesting proposal in a blog post yesterday: EU citizenship: France’s Roma expulsions documented by CEPS (11 October 2010).



There have been positive reactions from two Eurobloggers I value.


The writer of The European Citizen blog, Eurocentric (Conor Slowey) commented on my blog post. According to him, giving the European Parliament resolutions more force when it comes to breaching EU citizen rights could be a good step to ensure that EU citizenship rights are more effectively enforced (and in a timely manner).

However, how to improve enforcement caused Eurocentric some concern. Perhaps an independent Citizenship Ombudsman for monitoring citizenship rights across the EU might be a better way to ensure independent action.



In the blog post CEPS Proposes Freezing Enforcement Procedure (11 October 2010), Vihar Georgiev on the European Union Law blog presented a favourable initial reaction to the preventive mechanism.




As part of the Brussels Festival des libertés, the think tank CEPS and the ENACT research project (Enacting European citizenship) arrange a public debate On the margins of European citizenship, on 27 October 2010. This discussion may present an opportunity to address the weakness and lack of timeliness of existing procedures for monitoring the fundamental rights of EU citizens. Hopefully, we will see other reactions to the proposed freezing procedure by then.




Ralf Grahn



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

EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 672 673 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union (and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator.



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



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

Monday, 11 October 2010

EU citizenship: France’s Roma expulsions documented by CEPS

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

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



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


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

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

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




Ralf Grahn



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

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



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



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

Sunday, 23 May 2010

Tracking eurozone crisis measures: Reinforcing the Maginot Line?

In March, were the European leaders on top of things, or were they reinforcing the Maginot Line?

The main issues for the March 2010 European Council were the Europe 2020 strategy, the upcoming G20 summit and the next steps concerning climate change.

However, the Spring European Council gave some attention to questions regarding the Stability and Growth Pact, relevant to the eurozone crisis measures we are tracking in this series of blog posts.

These were important matters, but were our leaders prepared for later events?



European Council 25 to 26 March 2010

Source:



European Council 25/26 March 2010 conclusions (document EUCO 7/10)



Economic monitoring


Among monitoring mechanisms intended for the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth ─ the successor to the Lisbon strategy ─ the European Council mentioned the following relevant to economic policy coordination as well as strengthened coordination and surveillance of the budgetary discipline of eurozone countries (point 6,page 5):


c) Overall economic policy coordination will be strengthened by making better use of the instruments provided by Article 121 of the Treaty (TFEU)

d) Coordination at the level of the eurozone will be strengthened in order to address the challenges the euro area is facing. The Commission will present by June 2010 proposals in that respect, making use of the new instruments for economic coordination offered by Article 136 of the Treaty (TFEU).



The integrity of the Stability and Growth Pact and the specific responsibility of the ECOFIN Council in overseeing its implementation were mentioned, in point 6(f).

Rapid decisions were required on the Commission’s proposals to ensure the quality, reliability and timeliness of national data; point 6(h).



Task force on economic governance

The European Council initiated the Van Rompuy task force on economic governance:


7. The European Council asks the President of the European Council to establish, in cooperation with the Commission, a task force with representatives of the Member States, the rotating presidency and the ECB, to present to the Council, before the end of this year, the measures needed to reach the objective of an improved crisis resolution framework and better budgetary discipline, exploring all options to reinforce the legal framework.



Financial regulation and supervision



The European Council wanted rapid progress on financial regulation and supervision, incentives in the financial sector and a report on a “Tobin tax”:


8. Rapid progress is required on the strengthening of financial regulation and supervision both within the EU and in international fora such as the G20, while ensuring a level-playing field at the global level. Progress is particularly needed on issues such as capital requirements; systemic institutions; financing instruments for crisis management; increasing transparency on derivative markets and considering specific measures in relation to sovereign credit default swaps; and implementation of internationally agreed principles for bonuses in the financial services sector. The Commission will shortly present a report on possible innovative sources of financing such as a global levy on financial transactions.



Internal and international progress

The European Council was not oblivious of the need for progress:

9. This requires that the EU make rapid progress on all these issues internally. In particular, work on the new European supervisory framework needs to be concluded in time for the European Systemic Risk Board and the three European Supervisory Authorities to begin work in early 2011.

10. The Council and the Commission will report back on these issues to the June 2010 European Council, ahead of the Toronto Summit.



Correct me if I am wrong, but my feeling is that the complicated structures of EU decision making were not amenable to quick and decisive action. There was not yet a sense of ‘clear and present danger’ strong enough to cut through the differences between the member states.




Ralf Grahn

Sunday, 3 May 2009

Monitoring the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

The first Convention prepared the Charter of Fungamental Rights of the European Union, and it was solemnly adopted as politically binding at the European Council in Nice, in December 2000.

Later it was incorporated into the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, as Part II, and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.12.2004 C 310.

When the ratification processes of the Constitutional Treaty had petered out, the Treaty of Lisbon proposed to make the Charter legally binding, but the text was published separately, OJEU 14.12.2007 C 303/1.

Cf. Article 6 of the amended Treaty on European Union, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/19.

In other words, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enters into force if the Lisbon Treaty does, but one should bear in mind that the United Kingdom and Poland opted out of the Charter. (The UK has embarked upon a disconnected exercise to craft a national Bill of Rights.)


The differences between the versions are small, so if you have no need for a certain version, it is convenient to use the latest one.

***

Monitoring

The Commission, which drafts legislative proposals, systematically check them against fundamental rights.

The Commission has now published an appraisal of its monitoring activities: The Report on the practical operation of the methodology for a systematic and rigorous monitoring of compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Brussels, 29.4.2009 COM(2009) 205 final).



The Commission stresses the growing importance of fundamental rights issues in the area of justice, freedom and security (page 3), and it names the so called asylum package as a case in point. The obligations are not only procedural, but substantive as well.

The Commission then goes on to discuss improvements to the monitoring process.

The Commission concludes by underlining the need to foster a fundamental rights culture and that the respect for fundamental rights must be a common goal of all the institutions involved in the legislative process.



Ralf Grahn

Monday, 2 June 2008

EU TFEU: State aid monitoring, enforcement and block exemptions

The Commission monitors and enforces state aid rules in the internal market. The EU Treaty of Lisbon grants the Commission express powers to adopt regulations on block exemptions, although this reflects current practice based on delegated powers.

We look at the monitoring – notification and review – and the enforcement of EU state aid rules and the adoption of block exemptions in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon, as well as the current Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and the intervening treaty reform stages.


***

Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is found in the consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/92–93:

Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’

Title VII Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws

Chapter 1 Rules on competition

Section 2 Aids granted by states

Article 108 TFEU
(ex Article 88 TEC)

1. The Commission shall, in cooperation with Member States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the internal market.

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 258 and 259, refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union direct.

On application by a Member State, the Council may, acting unanimously, decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the internal market, in derogation from the provisions of Article 107 or from the regulations provided for in Article 109, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the State concerned has made its application to the Council shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council has made its attitude known.

If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case.

3. The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

4. The Commission may adopt regulations relating to the categories of State aid that the Council has, pursuant to Article 109, determined may be exempted from the procedure provided for by paragraph 3 of this Article.

***

In Article 2, point 78 of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) amended Article 88 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/69):

78) In Article 88, the following new paragraph 4 shall be added:

‘4. The Commission may adopt regulations relating to the categories of State aid that the Council has, pursuant to Article 89, determined may be exempted from the procedure provided for by paragraph 3 of this Article.’.

***

The TFEU table of equivalences tells us that Article 88 TEC first became Article 88 TFEU (ToL) in the original Treaty of Lisbon, but later renumbered Article 108 TFEU in the consolidated version (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/211).

***

The current Article 88 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is found under Title VI ‘Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws’, Chapter 1 ‘Rules on competition’, Section 2 ‘Aids granted by states’, in the latest consolidated version of the treaties in force (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/77–78).

Readers, who need the current Article 88 TEC or want to compare the TEC and TFEU texts, notice that there are two different kinds of amendments in Article 108 TFEU.

First, there is the specific amendment (mentioned above), which offers the Commission the possibility to adopt regulations on exemptions.

Second, there are the horizontal amendments mentioned in Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon. According to horizontal amendment 2(g) ‘common market’ was replaced by ‘internal market’ and in line with horizontal amendment 7 the words ‘Court of Justice’ have been replaced by ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’. Cf. OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/41 and 43. Both the current TEC and the future TFEU Article refer to other provisions, so the numbering in each is important in its context.

Article 88 TEC

1. The Commission shall, in cooperation with Member States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the common market.

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 87, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, refer the matter to the Court of Justice direct.

On application by a Member State, the Council may, acting unanimously, decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common market, in derogation from the provisions of Article 87 or from the regulations provided for in Article 89, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the State concerned has made its application to the Council shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council has made its attitude known.

If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case.

3. The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 87, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

***

We have now seen the starting line (the TEC in force) and finishing line (contents and numbering of the TFUE when it has entered into force).

For the sake of a systematic comparison, we look at the arcana of the Article during the intervening treaty reform stages.

First, we turn to the European Convention, the closest thing to a constituent assembly we as EU citizens have had. The Article in question is located among the provisions on state aid in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter I ‘Internal market’, Section 5 ‘Rules on competition’, within Subsection 2 ‘Aids granted by Member States’.

The attentive reader notices that the term ‘internal market’ is already in use, as well as certain terms abandoned later such as ‘European decision’ and ‘European regulations’ and ‘Council of Ministers’. In addition, there were a few changes in the wording, but without material effect.

The substantive amendment in Article III-57 of the draft Constitution proposed was the added fourth paragraph on the Commission’s powers to adopt European regulations relating to certain categories of state aid (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/37):

Article III-57 Draft Constitution

1. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the internal market.

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a Member State or through State resources is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article III-56, or that such aid is being misused, it shall adopt a European decision requiring the State concerned to abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the State concerned does not comply with this European decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested Member State may, in derogation from Articles III-265 and III-266, refer the matter to the Court of Justice direct.

On application by a Member State, the Council of Ministers may adopt unanimously a European decision that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the internal market, in derogation from Article III-56 or from European regulations provided for in Article III-58, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the State concerned has made its application to the Council of Ministers shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council of Ministers has made its attitude known.

If, however, the Council of Ministers has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall act.

3. The Commission shall be informed by the Member States, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article III-56, it shall without delay initiate the procedure
provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

4. The Commission may adopt European regulations relating to the categories of State aid that the Council of Ministers has, pursuant to Article III-58, determined may be exempted from the procedure provided for by paragraph 3.

***

In the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe the provisions on state aid were located in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter I ‘Internal market’, Section 5 ‘Rules on competition’, with Subsection 2 ‘Aid granted by Member States’.

In Article III-168 of the Constitutional Treaty the IGC 2004 introduced no material changes to the draft Constitution. The ‘Council of Ministers’ had contracted to ‘Council’ and the ‘Court of Justice’ had expanded to ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’ following from terminological choices. The referrals were, of course, renumbered and there were minimal alterations to the wording.

But, since the Constitutional Treaty is the preferred object of comparison for many readers, Article III-168 is presented in full, as agreed by the IGC 2004 (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/72):

Article III-168 Constitution

1. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the internal market.

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a Member State or through State resources is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article III-167, or that such aid is being misused, it shall adopt a European decision requiring the Member State concerned to abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the Member State concerned does not comply with this European decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested Member State may, in derogation from Articles III-360 and III-361, refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union directly.

On application by a Member State, the Council may adopt unanimously a European decision that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the internal
market, in derogation from Article III-167 or from European regulations provided for in Article III-169, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the Member State concerned has made its application to the Council shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council has made its attitude known.

If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall act.

3. The Commission shall be informed by the Member States, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article III-167, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

4. The Commission may adopt European regulations relating to the categories of State aid that the Council has, pursuant to Article III-169, determined may be exempted from the procedure provided for by paragraph 3 of this Article.

***

We have seen that Article 108 TFEU took over the substantive amendment proposed by the European Convention and the IGC 2004. Article 88 TEC forms the basis, with the IGC 2007 adopting new terminology to the extent indicated by the Lisbon Treaty horizontal amendments.

***


What has been said about Article 108 TFEU?


United Kingdom

Professor Steve Peers covered the Treaty of Lisbon in a number of Statewatch Analyses. ‘EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.3: Revised text of Part Three, Titles I to VI of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC): Internal Market and competition’ (Version 2, 23 October 2007) includes the current Title VI Common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws.

Peers highlighted the amendments to Article 88 TEC by Article 88 TFEU (ToL), to be renumbered Article 108 TFEU in the consolidated version, with the following comment (page 28):

“The amendment reflects existing practice.”

The analysis 3.3 and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:

http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm


***

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) offers a convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008). It offers the following comment on Article 108 TFEU, Article 88 TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty (page 11):

“Paragraphs 1 to 3 are unchanged from Article 88TEC. Paragraph 4 is new.”

The FCO comparative table is available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp

***

The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) discussed competition, including the state aid provisions, on pages 57 to 60.

It commented on Article 88 TEC and TFEU (ToL) on page 58:

“Amended Article 88 (Constitution Article III-168) adds a new paragraph (4) on categories of aid considered exempt from the conditions set out in paragraph (3) on compatibility with the internal market.”

The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf

***

The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) discussed the internal market and competition on pages 218 and 219, but I found no reference to Article 108 TFEU (Article 88 TEC and ToL) in this context.

The report is accessible at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf

In case anyone wants to dig deeper, state aid is discussed ‘passim’ in Volume II of the report ‘Evidence’.


***

Sweden

The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ is still valuable as a description of the Lisbon Treaty amendments, and it is available at:

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf

‘Lagrådsremiss – Lissabonfördraget’ is the Swedish government’s draft ratification bill, published 29 May 2008, and sent to the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet). The draft deals with the EU’s internal policy areas in Chapter 23 ‘Unionens interna åtgärder’, and section 23.1 presents the internal market (Inre marknaden), on pages 175 to 181.

On page 178 the draft bill mentions the new fourth paragraph and remarks that the amendment reflects current practice. Notice that the Swedish government uses the original Treaty of Lisbon numbers, not the ones of the renumbered consolidated TFEU:

”Till artikel 88 i EUF-fördraget har fogats en ny punkt fyra där det anges att kommissionen ska ha rätt att genom förordningar anta särskilda genomförandebestämmelser om granskning av stödåtgärder i medlemsstaterna. Ändringen motsvarar nuvarande tillämpning.”

The draft bill ‘Lagrådsremiss – Lissabonfördraget’ can be downloaded via a web page called Lissabonfördraget (Statsrådsberedningen, Lagrådsremiss, 29 maj 2008): Ladda ner Lissabonfördraget (pdf 1,5 MB):

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5676/a/106277


***

Finland

The Finnish ratification bill, ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp), explains Article 88 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 108 TFEU, and mentions the Regulation No 659/1999 which empowers the Commission to grant block exemptions (page 208):

”88 artiklaan (uusi 108 artikla) lisätään uusi 4 kohta, jonka nojalla komissio voi antaa asetuksia niistä valtiontukimuodoista, jotka neuvosto on SEUT 89 artiklan mukaisesti määritellyt sellaisiksi, jotka voidaan vapauttaa SEUT 88 artiklan 3 kohdassa määrätystä ilmoitusmenettelystä. Nykyisessä EYsopimuksessa ei ole vastaavaa määräystä, jossa nimenomaisesti annettaisiin komissiolle valtuus tällaisten asetusten antamiseen. Neuvosto voi nykyisin antaa asetuksella komissiolle valtuuden antaa vastaavanlaisia asetuksia. Neuvosto on antanut asetuksella N:o 659/1999 komissiolle valtuuden antaa ryhmäpoikkeusasetuksia joidenkin valtiontukimuotojen osalta. Määräys on samansisältöinen kuin perustuslakisopimuksen III-168 artikla.”

The Finnish ratification bill is available at:

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf


The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rd), offers the same description of Article 88 TFEU (ToL), the future Article 108 TFEU, on pages 210–211:

”Till artikel 88 (blivande artikel 108) fogas en ny punkt 4, med stöd av vilken kommissionen får anta förordningar avseende de kategorier av statligt stöd som rådet i enlighet med artikel 89 i EUF-fördraget har fastställt som möjliga att undanta från informationsskyldigheten i artikel 88.3 i EUF-fördraget. Det nuvarande EG-fördraget innehåller ingen motsvarande bestämmelse där kommissionen uttryckligen skulle tilldelas befogenheter att anta dylika förordningar. För närvarande kan rådet genom förordning ge kommissionen befogenheter att anta liknande förordningar. Genom förordning nr 659/1999 har rådet gett kommissionen befogenheter att anta förordningar om gruppundantag beträffande vissa kategorier av statligt stöd. Bestämmelsen har samma innehåll som artikel III-168 i det konstitutionella fördraget.”

The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:

http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf




Ralf Grahn

Tuesday, 15 May 2007

Fundamental rights monitoring: Commission

Fundamental rights as shared values of the European Union and as solemn declarations are all very well, but how about their practical effects?

There is, clearly, rising awareness within the EU institutions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission of the European Communities monitors compliance of its legislative proposals with fundamental rights according to the principles the Commission adopted in its 27 April 2005 Communication: Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Commission legislative proposals – Methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring, COM(2005) 172 final.

The Commission has integrated fundamental rights scrutiny into the pre-existing instrument of impact assessment, which looks at economic, social and environmental impacts of proposals.

Proposals with a special link with fundamental rights have a special recital, which formally state that they respect fundamental rights.

Further reasons may be given in an explanatory memorandum which accompanies the proposal.

Generally, the Commission guidelines have been welcomed, but many human rights activists have pointed out that fundamental rights ought to be made a fourth category (heading) in impact assessments, since economic, social or environmental aspects do not necessarily catch these aspects.

The interested reader can find an intelligent discussion in the House of Lords European Union Committee’s report: Human Rights Proofing EU Legislation (16th Report of Session 2005-06).

Ralf Grahn