Estonian Academy Publishers

A new article J. Erne, “Primary and secondary law-making in the renewed EU” has appeared in the journal of the humanities and social sciences „Trames“, Vol. 14, Issue 3, 2010, pp. 250-270.

Abstract

The aim of the article is to explain the renewed primary and secondary law-making in the EU context. The article defines international treaties and secondary law; classifies international treaties, indicates the status of secondary laws; and introduces the law-making procedures under international law, EU law, and Estonian law. The main general conclusions are that international treaties that for the purposes of this article are defined as international agreements concluded between states and / or international organizations in written form and governed by international law, can be classified as private law treaties or contractual treaties, and law-making treaties. The latter in turn can be divided into constituent international treaties and common international treaties. This is how treaties can also be defined and classified under EU law that distinguishes between the constituent treaties and international agreements. For the purposes of this article, the EU’s international agreements are defined as the EU’s agreements with third countries and / or international organizations, and the delegation for concluding such treaties comes from the constituent treaties. The EU’s international agreements can be classified by division of competences between the EU and its Member States; by subject-matter, by parties, etc. – depending on which classification the negotiation and conclusion procedures of the agreements differ. Based on the constituent treaties of the EU, the legal acts of the EU, the constituent treaties foreseeing the legal acts, the competent institution, the procedure, and the form of the act are adopted. The article gives also an overview of the Council and Commission legislation, and the renewed consultation procedure, ordinary legislative procedure, and consent procedure. In the end, the article demonstrates that the develop­ments in Estonian law reflect the international and EU law-making developments.

Keywords

international treaties, international treaty-making, secondary legislation, decision-making in the EU, Estonian Foreign Relations Act, Procedure for Proceeding of the European Union Documents.

What is this book about? The book consists of writings of 16 EU law scholars – Jürgen Schwarze, John Erik Fossum, Jean-Bernard Auby, Augustin Jose Menendez, Paul Craig, Takis Tridimas, Chris Bovis, Mike Feintuck, Mike Varney, Gordon Anthony, Massimo La Torre, Diana-Urania Galetta, Patrick Birkinshaw, Jacques Ziller, John Bell, Constantinos Kombos, Called together by the Institute of European Public Law of the University of Hull in 2009.

J.E Fossum looks in „The Future of the European Order“ (p.34) for the main cause of democracy in today’s Europe. He understands democracy as a legitimation principle, and as organizational form, where the legitimation principle can be embedded in different organizational forms, while he considers that there are two central requirements necessary – autonomy (those affected by laws must be authorized to make law – citizens must understand themselves as authors of law), and accountability. He asks, whether the main cause of democracy is the nation-state, the multilevel EU, or a viable European democracy that ultimately depends on local democracy. He concludes that talking of Europe’s future, one cannot solely base on nation-based democracy, as nation-state democracy is undergoing profound changes. With the help of citizens, Europe is growing out of nation-state. Fossum still sees such model of democracy meaning that the Member States should retain the power to control – and he is of opinion that the Member States should have the power of veto. That way, he understands, the federalists’ Monnet and Spinelli model of the EU (the EU being more than a support structure for the Member States) is supported. Fossum sees the EU’s particularity being that the EU’s relationship with its social contingent differs from that of the Member States, the clearest example of such being the European Parliament (p.38). While Fossum sees the elected directly by the people European Parliament as one channel of democratic representation, he sees as another channel the Council representing the people indirectly through their states. The named institutions have helped the EU to move beyond the intergovernmental model.

Fossum explains that the EU cannot be considered federal, because:

● it lacks a proper federal government;

● there exists significant incongruence btw. the tasks actually allocated to the EU-level on the one hand, and the representative body’s ability to control those at the very same level, on the other;

● the EU’s structure of authority is more dispersed;

● of the EU’s cultural pluralism and institutional heterogeneity.

Fossum considers the EU’s significant elements of statehood being:

● legal competence to exercise functions of statehood in a range of areas (human rights, economics, etc.);

● its decisions are carried out (the Member States carry out its decisions).

He sees the weaknesses of the EU lying in the core state functions:

● military security;

● taxation;

● police;

● military capabilities.

At p.49 Fossum stresses that there exists no unified European public sphere, and that therefore the scope for an all-inclusive public debate among citizens is highly limited. At the same page he assumes that if one understands the EU as a non-state based system of government, one could still view the EU as kind of pyramidal structure - Δ – on top of which structure lies the global system of norms; on the intermedial level of what lies EU law, and on the lower level lie the Member States and their regions.

What else was interesting for me in this article? Fossum names interdependence and interweaving parallelly as transnationalization, federalization, and cosmopolitanization.

A. Menendez writes in „Governance and Constitutionalism in the European Order“ about three key elements of the theory of governance as a theory of politics and law:

1) characterization of politics as a non-normative domain;

2) redefinition of law as a means at the service of efficiency (entailing its softening);

3) redefinition of the constitution from a fixed reference point to an experiment.

P. Craig writes in „Legal Control of Regulatory Bodies: Principle, Policy and Teleology“ about the EU’s regulatory bodies. He defines „regulatory body“ for the purposes of that article to include all EU bodies and agencies, included those who do not have power to issue binding regulatory norms, but still participate in regulatory process to varying degrees.

M. Feintuck, and M. Varney distinguish in „Regulating Media Markets: The Need for Subsidiarity and Clarity of Principle“ between:

● „positive“ content regulation – regulation might require broadcasters to broadcast certain types of public service content;

● „negative“ content regulation – prohibits certain types of content or places restrictions on the broadcast of certain types of output (p.162).

M. La Torre distinguishes in „Citizenship and European Democracy: Between the European Constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon“ between treaty and constitution in the following way:

● A treaty is sth. produced by a state (being that way imposed from above – ↓ );

● A constitution is sth. produced by the citizens’ majority (being imposed from below – ↑ ).

La Torre further explains that a treaty does not necessarily assume a democratic procedure – it is an agreement, a commitment btw. distinct parties who remain so and in which they are guided by strictly business or prudential interest. Constitution, in Europe, is an act of popular sovereignty, by a people who constitute themselves as such, and who create a common arena of activity and coexistence. At p.199 he explains that the two terms are opposite and consequently one faces the following alternatives:

● either the citizens decide the structure of overall coexistence (constitution),

● or the head(s) of state reach an agreement to join forces in a particular area (treaty).

Starting from p.203, La Torre examines the citizenship clause in EU law, and explains that European citizenship is not a primary, original status, but sth. supplementary or derived, meaning that one is a European citizen if and only if one is a citizen (or national) of a Member State. Which means supranational citizenship, but does not mean “dual citizenship” that has been removed from EU law. He sees EU citizenship consisting of five rights:

-free movement,

-suffrage;

-consular protection;

-the right to petition;

-the right to address EU bodies in one’s own state language, whereas

he sees the right to good administration as under those rights, and explains that right separately at p.204.

At p. 207, La Torre writes about constitutionalism, distinguishing between:

● Constitutionalism of the Ancients – where 2 spheres of public power were separated:

-gubernaculum – sphere of government and of government prerogatives, where the courts have no competence and citizens cannot assert rights;

-iurisdictio – sphere of private rights, in which government power does not have sovereign prerogative, and that is protected by possible court action.

He writes that constitution in the Ancients is granted to the citizens by the sovereign; or is a pact btw. the citizens and the sovereign (as alliance between Jahve and the chosen people);

● Modern constitutionalism – where 3 basic characteristics may be distinguished:

a) public powers are subject to constitutional rules (so there is no gubernaculums as distinct from the iurisdictio);

b) constitutional rules are the product of extraordinary or exceptional procedure of collective deliberation (through this the community self-institutes itself in its majority);

c) citizens are holders of full and intense constitutional rights.

La Torre writes that modern constitutions are built on 3 pillars:

1)      superlegality – constrains ordinary legislation and administration;

2)      constitutional moment – foundational collective act;

3)      bundle of fundamental rights that predetermine the content of ordinary legislation and administration (there is no public power that cannot be challenged by claiming fundamental rights).

In the end of the article, La Torre also distinguishes between:

● “democracy” – in its classical meaning(s); and

● “demoi-cracy” – democracy in the plural; or rule of peoples in the plural; or plurist, not monist entity; or “multilevel constitutionalism”; or “mixed commonwealth”. He explains that different demoi can mutually recognize each other; and be capable of considering and reaching binding and enforceable norms.

J. Ziller writes in „Multilevel Governance and Executive Federalism: Comparing Germany and the European Union“ about 5 different functions exercised in the EU system of government:

1) The legislative function – that has grown from the ECSC rule making to law making, and under which function he distinguishes between: –ordinary legislative procedures, and –special legislative procedures. He also distinguishes between the EU’s general normative acts in the framework of the legislative function, and the general normative acts in the framework of the executive function (-delegated and –implementing acts under Articles 290 and 291 TFEU);

2) Implementation – used also in Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; Article 291 TFEU; and Article 17 TEU, the latter distinguishing btw. coordinating, executive, and management functions of the European Commission);

3) Supervisory function with its 2 types: judicial review (remedies, incl. preliminary reference remedies, and –oversight (Member States’ compliance with Treaty obligations; the role of the European Commission here, p.259);

4) Function of direction – incl. policy guidance, and programming;

5) The organic function – derived from organ-theory.

J. Bell writes in “The Role of European Judges in an Era of Uncertainty“ about the different functions of the CJEU.

And finally, C. Kombos begins his article „The Esoteric Dimension of Constitutional Pluralism: EU’s Internal Constitutional Sub-units and the Non-symbolic Cumulative Constitution“ with indicating that the EU’s constitutive document takes the form of an international treaty. He at p.317 compares the CJEU’s „core“ human rights cases C-60/00: Carpenter; C-112/00: Schmidberger, and C-36/02: Omega, with the more recent social rights cases C-341/05: Laval, and C-438/05: Viking.

At p. 322 Kombos sees the CJEU as undertaking the task to provide critical human rights yardstick for assessing the lawfulness of EU measures intending to strengthen the security objective.

The book is an excellent reading for EU law lecturers, students, and other people interested in the essence and developments of EU law.

● Sustainable development in the EUROPE 2020 Strategy (worked out in collaboration with the Belgian Federal Council on Sustainable Development);

● Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Common Security and Defence Policy;

● The future role of COSAC after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon – Continuation of the debate of the XLIII COSAC meeting.

Some examples:

Question 1.3.1. Does your Parliament/Chamber think that the decision-making process, linked to the EUROPE 2020 Strategy, is sufficiently stringent for the Member States and that the oversight by the national and, if applicable, regional Parliaments is sufficiently assured?

Question 1.3.5. In which way national Parliaments/Chambers may contribute to strengthening the sustainable development aspect of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy?

Question 2.1. Does your Parliament/Chamber believe that an interparliamentary exchange on CFSP and CSDP is useful and helpful to improve parliamentary scrutiny at a national and/or European level?

Question 2.2. Does your Parliament/Chamber consider that interparliamentary scrutiny at EU level should cover both CSFP and CSDP or CSDP only?

Question 3.4. Does your Parliament/Chamber consider it acceptable to invite keynote speakers from outside the European Union (e.g. the NATO Secretary General, the U.S. Ambassador, etc.) to address COSAC on CFSP and/or CSDP?

The 14th bi-annual report will be presented at the XLIV COSAC meeting in Brussels from 24 to 26 October 2010.

And: I just discovered that when the EU legal acts, and COM-documents are available in the official languages of all Member States, the policy documents are rather available in English and French only.

The official website of the flower carpet (with links to the making of the carpet, the history of the carpet, etc.): http://www.flowercarpet.be/site/main.php?lg=en

From 13 to 22 August 2010, Brussels Summer Festival will be held on and around the Place des Palais. Link: http://www.brussels.be/artdet.cfm?id=4000

Chapter 1: The new powers of national parliaments after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon

1.1.   Review of regulations adopted (dealing mainly with: constitutional and legal provisions and parliamentary standing orders)

1.2.   The new powers of the national parliaments in the EU decision making process (dealing with: monitoring the EU institutions, compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, political monitoring of Europol, evaluation of Eurojust, participation in the simplified revision of the Treaties (Passarelle Clause), applications for accession to the EU, interparliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament)

1.3.   Replies of the European Parliament

Chapter 2: The future role of COSAC

2.1. COSAC’s strengths and weaknesses (included debates on the COSAC Agenda; contributions and conclusions; different aspects of the COSAC meetings)

2.2. The future role of COSAC (included Agenda; EU Draft Acts; COSAC-coordinated subsidiarity checks; COSAC and political groups; resources of COSAC; conferences)

2.3. Future procedure for COSAC meetings (their format; other procedural issues)

In the beginning, the Report observes that after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the majority of Parliaments/Chambers has approved, or will approve in the near future, regulations to adjust their national systems to the new Treaty. The Report mostly reflects the reactions of the national parliaments on the changes brought by the Treaty of Lisbon.

As for monitoring the activities of the EU institutions, the Report focuses on: (1) the different activities that are monitored; (2) the selection process of monitored activities; (3) the parliamentary bodies involved in the selection process; (4) the Government’s role in the monitoring procedure; and (5) the resources at the disposal of each Parliament/Chamber for this purpose. As such monitoring is not compulsory, the Member States select the activities and documents monitored (the author of this posting is of opinion that the Member States are still bound directly by EU law, not by the selections of other Member States). It still seems important that the Member States are free to determine both the criteria, as well as the parliamentary body to select the documents to be monitored.

The Report brings out a clear distinction between two simplified Treaties’ revision procedures (Passarelle), based on Article 48.6 TEU, and Article 48.7 TEU. The difference is that under Article 48.6 TEU, the amendment does not enter into force “until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”, i.e. the procedure from a Parliament’s point of view does not differ from an ordinary revision of the Treaties:

Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

The procedure foreseen in Article 48.7 TEU requires a Parliament/Chamber to take an initiative of its own, in case it opposes a decision to be taken by the European Council:

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.  

The Bi-annual Reports are available on the COSAC website at: http://www.cosac.eu/en

- Globalization and the emergence of new economic powers;

- The technological revolution, triggered in particular by Information and Communication Technology;

- The growing importance of services in the economy;

- Environmental challenges;

- The collapse of the Soviet block;

- Enlargement, from 10 to 27 Member States;

- Greater economic diversity linked to enlargement;

- Introduction of a single currency;

- Increase in migrations and in cultural diversity;

- Open rejection of further (or even existing) EU integration, through referenda in several Member States;

- Explicit clarification of the limits of acceptability, by one Member State, of further EU integration in the future (ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court of July 2009);

- Lisbon Treaty,

have been the basis of and indicated in the Report to the President of the European Commission „A new strategy for the single market. At the service of Europe’s economy and society“ that was published on 9 May 2010. The Report has been worked out by Mario Monti, professor of the Università Commerciale L. Bocconi, and named also as „Monti Report“.

The Report is divided into five main Chapters:

A market in search of a strategy.

Building a stronger single market.

Building consensus on a stronger single market.

Delivering a strong single market.

A political initiative to strengthen the single market (and EMU).

As for concepts, the Report uses the notion of single market, save quoting documents referring to the “internal market”. The Report explains why from „a conceptual and communication point of view, “single” seems more appropriate than “internal”“ – Firstly, “internal” refers to the domestic markets, rather than the EU-wide market. Secondly, “internal” may picture “fortress Europe”. Thirdly, the Report considers “single” more committing in the sense that particular goods or services within the EU are treated as “single”, rather than fragmented. (The official version, used in the Treaties and other documents after the Lisbon Treaty enetred into force, is “internal market”).

The importance of the Report is revealed in the beginning of it, where the single market is recognized as a „key strategic objective for Europe“, which should be „pursued with renewed political determination“. If, the Report says, one analyses the single market critically, one may distinguish between three challenges the internal market faces – first, little political and social support; second, uneven treatment of the various components of the internal market; third, the internal market was not treated as a priority policy area for quite a long time.

The Report identifies four clusters of Member States: continental social-market economy countries, Anglo-Saxon countries, Central and Eastern European countries, and Nordic countries. As unification of these strategies is important, the Report proposes a new strategy to avoid the risk of economic nationalism, but the Report also aims at new areas, and consensus building.

This strategy consists of three sets of initiatives:

1. Initiatives to build a stronger single market;

2. Initiatives to build consensus on a stronger single market;

3. Initiatives to deliver a stronger single market.

The initiatives are grouped in clusters of recommendations that concern:

- ensurance of better functioning of the single market in the perspective of citizens, consumers and SMEs;

- creation of a digital single market;

- exploitation of the potential of the single market to support green growth and Europe’s transition to a low-carbon, resource efficient economy;

- reaping the full benefits of the single market for goods;

- fully exploiting the potential of the single market for services;

- ensuring geographical labour mobility in the single market.

- establishing the “physical” infrastructure for the single market.

The initiatives deal with:

- the conciliation between economic freedoms in the single market and workers’ rights, following the Viking, Laval and other rulings of the CJEU;

- the place of social services within the single market;

- the integration of EU’s policy goals in public procurement policy;

- how to use tax coordination to safeguard national tax sovereignty as market integration proceeds;

- the balancing of competitiveness and cohesion within the single market through regional development policies;

- the potential for an active industrial policy based on sound competition and state aid policies;

- how to ensure that the single market remains open, but not disarmed, vis-à-vis competitors at a global level.

- ensuring light but effective regulation in the single market;

- reinforcing enforcement, by establishing a coherent system in which infringement actions, informal problem solving mechanisms and private enforcement form a seamless web of remedies against breaches of EU law.

Key recommendations for making the single market work for citizens, consumers and SMEs:

● Ensure the free circulation and recognition of official acts;

● Introduce a European Free Movement Card;

● Make progress in the mutual recognition of civil acts relating to international marriages and to successions and wills;

● Ensure easier cross-border debt recovery, including a wider use of the European Small Claim portal;

● Abolish double taxation of registration for cars;

● Adopt EU legislation on collective redress;

● Improve the transparency of bank fees, ensure the availability of standardised and comparable information for retail financial products and facilitate bank customer mobility;

● Speed up implementation of the Small Business Act;

● Adopt the Statute for a European Private Company.

Key recommendations for Europe’s digital single market:

Telecommunications services and infrastructures

● Review of the sector to prepare proposals for creating a seamless regulatory space for electronic communications, including proposals to reinforce EU level regulatory oversight, to introduce pan-European licensing and EU level frequency allocation and administration.

E-commerce

● Present proposals to end the fragmentation of EU consumer legislation and introduce in particular harmonised rules for delivery, warranty and dispute resolution.

● Present proposals to simplify the business environment for cross-border detail transactions, including VAT rules, the cross border management of recycling rules and of copyright levies on blank media and equipment.

Online digital Content

● proposals for an EU copyright law, including an EU framework for copyright clearance and management

● proposals for a legal framework for EU-wide online broadcasting.

Key recommendations for the single market and green growth: energy, climate change, environment:

● Establish new EU regulatory frameworks for the large scale deployment of renewable sources, smart metering, smart grids and transparent wholesale energy markets;

● Establish a single market for green products, by developing EU-wide standards for measuring and auditing carbon footprints and for energy efficient products, including trade certificates for renewable energy products;

● Step up targeted EU funding for energy infrastructure.

Key recommendations for the single market for goods: reaping the full benefits:

● Assess the effects of the 2008 package on the functioning of the internal market for goods and identify possible further steps;

● Review the EU standard setting system striking the right balance between EU and national levels;

● Adopt new measures to deal with remaining technical and administrative barriers which prevent the establishment of a single market for rail;

● Establish a single transport document and liability regime for multimodal transport;

● Adopt the EU patent and a single patent jurisdiction as a matter of urgency.

Key recommendations for the single market for services: the powerhouse of the European economy:

● Examine which initiatives are required regarding the services sectors that are not or not fully covered by the services directive and make any necessary proposals;

● Adopt the proposed cross-border health care directive and take supporting actions, in particular launch a benchmarking of the healthcare systems in the Member States.

Key recommendations for workers in the single market: old problems and new challenges:

● Coordinate social security systems for highly mobile individuals, and in particular for researchers;

● Introduce a 28th regime for supplementary pension rights for cross-border workers;

● Remove tax obstacles to cross-border work;

● Extend automatic recognition of qualifications;

● Strengthen the transparency and recognition of qualifications and skills, developing national qualifications systems and establishing the ESCT system;

● Strengthen the EURES system transforming it into a fully fledged platform on placement within the single market.

Key recommendations for the single market for capital and financial services:

● Make sure that the structure of financial supervision is such as not to lead to fragmentation of the single market;

● Explore the possibility of reinforcing financial integration through the issuance of E-bonds.

Key recommendations for the physical infrastructure of the single market: meeting the investment challenge:

● Facilitate the combination of public-private partnerships with the use of structural funds;

● Examine whether an ad hoc European regulatory framework would be needed to encourage long term investors’ focus on infrastructure projects;

● Provide maximum legal security as regards competition policy in the area of infrastructure investment and financing.

In Chapter 3, the Report refers to the judgments of the CJEU in the cases C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation, Finnish Seamen’s Union v. Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Eesti, and C-341/05, Laval v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet as to some underlying policy documents of the Report.

The inspired by the cases key recommendations are:

● Clarify the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive and strengthen dissemination of information on the rights and obligations of workers and companies, administrative cooperation and sanctions in the framework of free movement of persons and cross-border provision of services;

● If measures are adopted to clarify the interpretation and application of the Posting of Workers Directive, introduce a provision to guarantee the right to strike modelled on Art. 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 and a mechanism for the informal solutions of labour disputes concerning the application of the directive.

Key recommendations for social services and the single market are:

● Further increase the flexibility of the State aid rules applicable to financial compensation;

● Review the procurement rules with a view to aligning them with the rules on compensation;

● Present a proposal, possibly on the basis of Article 14 TFEU, for a regulation ensuring that all citizens are entitled to a number of basic banking services;

● Examine the case for extending, possibly on the basis of Article 14 TFEU, universal service in electronic communications to the provision of broadband access; Strengthen rights of air passengers.

Key recommendations for harnessing public procurement for Europe’s policy goals:

● Re-think public procurement policy to make it simpler, more effective and less onerous for national and local authorities; Strengthen SMEs participation by applying the Small Business Act Code of Conduct;

● Clarify the rules applicable to “in-house” provision;

● Make public procurement work for innovation, green growth and social inclusion by imposing specific mandatory requirements.

Key recommendations for the tax dimension of the single market: working together to safeguard tax sovereignty:

● Further work on the elimination of tax barriers within the single market, modernising e-invoicing rules, updating rules on cross border relief, introducing a binding dispute settlement mechanism covering double taxation suffered by individuals and reviewing the savings directive;

● Work towards a common definition of the corporate tax bases and move forward with the work of the code of conduct group on business taxation;

● Reform VAT rules in a single market-friendly way;

● Develop the area of environmental taxation in the broader context of tax policy and their impact on growth and employment;

● Agree on the establishment, at the initiative of the Commission, of a Tax Policy Group chaired by the Commissioner in charge of taxation and composed of personal representatives of the Member States Finance Ministers as a forum for strategic and comprehensive discussion of tax policy issues.

Key recommendations for competitiveness and cohesion: the regional dimension of the single market:

● Evaluate the potential impact on EU regions of the relaunch of the single market;

● Introduce a conditionality clause in Structural Funds to reward the Member States most disciplined in transposing single market directives;

● Tighten up rules preventing the use of structural funds in support of company re-location.

Key recommendations for the single market and industrial policy:

● Review merger regulation abolishing the so called “two-thirds rule”;

● Develop a new approach to industrial policy which builds on a mutually reinforcing relation with single market and competition rules.

Key recommendations for the external dimension of the single market:

● Promote a pro-active market access agenda in the G20 and other multilateral fora, with a specific focus on subsidies;

● Press for the introduction in bilateral Foreign Trade Agreements of provisions on subsidies;

● Press for greater opening of public procurement markets, in particular in the BRICs.

Key recommendations for regulating the single market:

● Use regulations rather than directives when possible;

● Use the 28th regime as an ad hoc solution where appropriate.

Key recommendations for reinforcing enforcement:

● Set out a benchmark for the maximum average duration of infringement procedures, limiting to 6 months procedures for non notification and 12 months all other infringement procedures;

● Explore how to align the Commission infringement powers to those it has under competition policy;

● Amend the Procedural Regulation on State aid to modernise the procedure and strengthen the investigative powers of the Commission, bringing them in line with those in the fields of mergers and antitrust;

● Strengthen preventive action by shaping enforcement-friendly regulation based on impact assessment, introducing systematically correlation tables and stepping up technical assistance to national administrations;

● Create single market desks within Representation offices with the task of pre-screening conformity between single market legislation and national implementing rules and to liaise with national administrations responsible for implementation;

● Extend Mutual Evaluation Process to new legislative initiatives;

● Integrate the ex post evaluation of the implementation situation in a given sector into Market Monitoring analysis;

● Select every year one or more EU laws for screening by the EP through a process involving input from National Parliaments and the COSAC;

● Extend the EU Pilot scheme to all 27 Member States and step up the SOLVIT system ensuring EU co-funding and a clearer legal basis.

● Step up administrative cooperation by extending the IMI system to other areas of legislation

● In the long term, establish an EU network of alternative dispute resolution centres.

Private enforcement:

● Step up EU law training initiatives for judges and legal professionals in partnership with Member States;

● Adopt minimum standards on the right to compensation for damages.

Wider political background can be viewed at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/index_en.htm

Is it realistic to live in the nuclear free world? – Although more advanced weapons are proliferating, the question is actual again today, under the shadow of, for example, North Korea having tested rockets. The Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said today that as long as the nuclear weapon exists, we will live under the threat of it. He also stressed the need for disarmament education in schools, including teaching that “status and prestige belong not to those who possess nuclear weapons, but to those who reject them.” Link: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35539&Cr=nuclear&Cr1

Some solutions that the Project offers are: better use of human talent, co-operation, governance (the Project refers to EU governance model as “governing in partnership“), strengthened economic governance, building of a global economic strategy that takes into account the euro as the world’s second reserve currency and deals with the negative impact of global economic imbalances on Europe’s competitiveness, ensurance of monetary stability, reforms of the functioning and supervision of financial institutions, maintenance of social cohesion, competitive and sustainable social market economy, effective enforcement mechanisms, structural reforms, reforms of education (including professional training), revised budgetary instruments, budgetary reallocations, greater private sector funding, new sources of revenue, improvement of tax coordination, implementation of common energy policy, tackling demographic challenge, labour market reform, strengthening the single market, technological change, etc.

The Project does not discuss much the need for institutional reform, but names the need to strengthen the European Council’s, and the Eurogroup’s leadership role in coordination with the Commission and the European Parliament, and refers to the need for strong political leadership that could be capable to sustain an honest and fruitful dialogue with citizens and to govern in partnership. The Project names development of greater citizen participation in the EU as one of the Lisbon tools, and it uses the concept ”political citizenship”, the development of which is opening up the possibility of a popular initiative on legislative matters and increasing the role of national parliaments.

For enhancement of European political citizenship, the Project foresees the EU to develop political rights (for example, encouragement of Member States to grant voting rights in national elections to nationals of other Member States after a certain period of residence and tax payments; “Europeanisation” of European Parliament elections through the introduction of cross-border lists; and usage of national parliaments as conduits for the public to engage in European political debates). In this context, the Project also suggests that elections should be made more meaningful for citizens, so that the citizens could have more knowledge about EU policies, and the capability to identify with European politicians. The Project also suggests more publicity and more transparency both in relation to high-level decisions (as the appointment of the permanent President of the European Council and the High Representative), and in the day-to-day work of the EU. The relevant tools include digital resources (e-governance); the European dimension in public media; incentives for private media to broadcast programmes on the EU. The Project encourages greater European participatory democracy. With the aim to make possible consultation with the civil society in legislative processes, the Project proposes the Commission and the Council to consult the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions more systematically.

In its end, the document calls the Member States up to plan together the new Agenda for the EU.

I add here link to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: „Reviewing community innovation policy in a changing world“, COM(2009) 442 final, from 2.9.2009: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/com(2009)442final_en.pdf , and a link to public consultation on EU innovation policy: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/future-policy/consultation/index_en.htm 

Call for proposals IX-2011/01 — ‘Grants to political parties at European level’; OJEU 24.6.2010 C 164/12 – The total sum, subject to approval by the budgetary authority, is EUR 17 400 000, in order to be eligible, the political party at European level must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003, the closing date for forwarding the applications is 1 November 2010.

Call for proposals IX-2011/02 — ‘Grants to political foundations at European level’; OJEU 24.6.2010 C 164/17 – the closing date for forwarding the applications is 1 November 2010.

Curious about the meaning of the terms “political parties at European level” and “political foundations at European level“, I looked in the Treaties, and found that political parties at European level are regulated:

● by Article 10(4) TEU:

4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.

 ● by Article 224, TFEU:

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, by means of regulations, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level referred to in Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in particular the rules regarding their funding.

The Treaties do not further define or explain the concepts „political parties at European level“ and „political foundations at European level“. The definition of „political party at European level” can be found in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 that also defines „political party“ and „alliance of political parties” as follows:

1. “political party” means an association of citizens:

- which pursues political objectives, and

- which is either recognised by, or established in accordance with, the legal order of at least one Member State;

2. “alliance of political parties” means structured cooperation between at least two political parties;

3. “political party at European level” means a political party or an alliance of political parties which satisfies the conditions referred to in Article 3.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003, and Section 2.2. of the Call for Proposals lay down the conditions of eligibility for a grant:

A political party at European level shall satisfy the following conditions:

(a) it must have legal personality in the Member State in which its seat is located;

(b) it must be represented, in at least one quarter of Member States, by Members of the European Parliament or in the national Parliaments or regional Parliaments or in the regional assemblies, or it must have received, in at least one quarter of the Member States, at least three per cent of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections;

(c) it must observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law;

(d) it must have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so.

I would appreciate recommendations for further research (Chapters in books, articles), because I think that the above is not enough to explain the area of EU law to students.