Transcript Introduction to EU law

Introduction to EU law
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Structure – EU institutions
EU legislation – principles
Influence
Accession
Capacity to implement acquis
Partnerships
1. Structure: EU Institutions
 - Council of EU (ministers, topic)
 - European Council (heads of state)
 - European Parliament (732 members
directly elected)
 European Commission (1 per state)
 European Court of Justice (1 per state)
 Court of Auditors
Decision-making (legislation) - 1
 Involved institutions:
 - Council of Ministers
 - European Parliament
 - European Commission
Decision-making (legislation) - 2
 Different procedures, depending on the
issue (treaty provision used as basis)
 Initiative: mostly European Commission
 Consultation (EP can advise)
 Co-operation (EP can amend, art. 251 EC)
 Co-decision (EP can amend,reject, art.
252)
Decision-making (legislation) - 3
 3 pillars of EU
 EC (used to be EEC, Euratom + ECSC also included)
 Common Foreign and Security Policy
 Justice and Internal Affairs (police and judicial cooperation
in criminal affairs)


Agriculture part of first pillar. Decision making in pillar 1
mostly co-decision, in others EP less involved
Agriculture policy made by consultation (art. 37 sub 2 EC)
Decision-making (legislation) - 4
 Ultimately, Members States (Council or
European Council) have final say

Political decisions by European Council
for instance to deal with impasses
But
 After adoption of legislation it is out of
political hands

Court can interprete and give binding
decisions on legislation (creating a
consistent frame of community law)
2. EU Law Principles
 EC – EU : own system of law, special because



Direct sources of rights and obligations for states and
citizens (van Gend & Loos, 1962) (vs states create
obligations they want)
Priority (previous and later national legislation) (CostaENEL, 1964) (vs later legislation repeals previous
legislation)
Autonomous character of the law system of the EU (vs
states hand over competencies they choose and choose
their obligations)
EU Law Principles - 2

Court decides what is community law!

Court (ECJ) deals with directives, regulations, treaty
provisions in:
Direct approach (Court of First Instance) (also: EP vs EC)
Prejudicial question (referral by national court, national
court acts as EU body in applying EU law)


EU Law Principles - 3



Directives & Regulations (art. 249 EC)
Both are binding for member states. They commit themselves to
transposing them into national law. If a state does not do this (or does it
after the agreed deadline), as a citizen in court you can use them as
follows:
Regulation: direct transposal (literal text of regulation is binding)
–

Depending on formulation: direct rights and obligations for citizens to use (in
court) – clear, intended, target group clear
Directive: state has to formulate own law in line with aim and text of
directive before certain date (commitment is binding, form and methods
up to Member State)
–
In case of non-compliance and clear: can use (in court)
EU Law Principles – 4
 Trend:
 EU makes policies for more and more issues,
more and more intertwined (ever closer union,
art. 2 EC)
 Court reinforces EU order: less space for
national interpretations, emphasis on
harmonising law (interpretation) for EU citizens
(for instance: now criminal punishments for
environmental tresspasses under EU jurisdiction
according to Court!)
EU Law Principles – 5
 Discussion
 EU/Court tends to protect weaker parties
(women, employees, consumers)
 Court tends to use Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the EU (Nice 2000, not binding yet –
would be binding if Constition were adopted) to
levy the 4 freedoms (movement of goods,
services, persons, capital) (Schmidtberger)
 4 freedoms are used to harmonise treatment of
citizens
EU Law Principles – 6
 Discussion
 Member states have less room for own
policies (e.g. NL drug policy,
euthanasia...)

Compromises on political level undermine
unity and clarity of law as applied by ECJ
Influence – 1
 Political Parties from non-member states are members of
European parties and can influence policies of those
parties -> voting in EP
 - Lobby national parties or directly European parties
 Member states and candidates can influence policies
 Lobby national government
 European networks/organisations
 - Lobby European networks
4. Influence - 2
 Commission initiates policies
 Lobby Commission (e.g. Commissioner
Environment open for NGO input)
 EU policies tend to favour public participation
 Use this as tool on national level (compliance
with EU)
 Use legal options available to protest!
–
For example: fundamental rights, incl. jurisprudence of
ECJ and ECHR
Accession
 Copenhagen criteria (1993)
–
–
–
–
–


- stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human
rights and respect for minorities
- functioning market economy
- acquis and support the various aims of the European Union
- public administration capable of applying and managing EU laws
in
practice
The EU reserves the right to decide when a candidate country has
met these criteria and when the EU is ready to accept the new
member
Accept acquis (approximation) : legislation + jurisprudence
Monitored by EC, with input from new member states and other
sources
Stabilisation and Association process
 Specific for Western Balkans (since 2000,
Zagreb)
–
–
–

Stabilisation and development market
economy
Regional cooperation
Prospect of EU accession
+ elements of previous accession
processes (since 2003, Thessaloniki)
SAp
 Stabilisation and Association Agreements
(SAAs)
–
–
–
–


Gradual alignment to EU legislation in some areas
Free trade area with EU
Regional cooperation
Cooperation with EU on justice, visa, etc
Trade measures
Financial assistance (CARDS)
SAp since Thessaloniki
 European Partnerships
 Political Cooperation CFSP
 Assistance institution building
 Promoting economic development
 Opening Community programmes, incl
environment
Accession process
 Europe Agreements/Association Agreements/SAAs
 Accession Partnerships/European Partnerships
 Pre-accession assistance (IPA)
 Co-financing from IFIs
 Participation in EU programmes/agencies/committees
 NPAA
 Progress Reports/Regular Reports
 Political Dialogue
Capacity to implement effectively




Adoption, application and enforcement of acquis
(Copenhagen, Madrid, Luxembourg, Helsinki)
Adjusting structures of administration
Examples: paying agencies in frame of SAPARD:
if not, no SAPARD
Money & Men?
(Nicolaides)
 Empowered and accountable institutions +
 Decision making independence +
 Performance obligations and control

Execution of a task requires:
–
–
–
Knowledge
Ability
Willingness






Knowledge
Knowledge on EU law and policies, obtainable also via
screening process, seminars, advice, etc
Ability
Committing resources, extra staff, trainings, acquaintances
with MS practice (TAIEX, twinning programmes)
Willingness
Mostly neglected according to Nicolaides, related to
institutional design




Willingness
Effective implementation has become a “harder”
requirement
This is both a clarification (lessons learned) and
a toughening of EU position (raising entry
requirements, unilateral, no criteria for judging
preparedness, bringing commitments forward in
time: before accession it all has be in order)
So preparedness and assessment of this may
obstruct accession!




Willingness
First time that Candidates had to show effective
implementation was in fifth enlargement: 10 new
MS
Integration in EU further advanced, so
weaknesses in administration capacity and
incorrect and incomplete implementation touch
at the core of EU
Also within EU Commission is more and more
supervising implementation



Willingness
How does the EU deal with incorrect and
incomplete implementation internally?
No direct judgement of administrative
capacity but indirectly








Publication of national records of transposition
Publication of surveys of business opinions
Encouraging citizens and businesses to take action
Inspections carried out by the Commission
Legal proceedings against MS
Evaluation by Commission of state of internal market
Monitoring and coordination of national policies
Peer review and pressure



Quality of results, not just transposition
All methods together
Diverse systems in place in EU: extract
basic elements







knowledge – ability – willingness
a. Observable or quantifiable terms
b. Ability to define targets, actions needed, measuring
results, assessment of achieving targets
c. Conditions in which institute operates must be known
d. Learning capacity
e. Means for adjusting actions: resources + legal power
f.
Mistakes: review, evaluation, adjustment rather than
pretending no mistakes will be made






g. No prior approval needed! (flexibility is needed within
boundaries)
h. Discretion
i. Coordination
j. Accountability (assigned missions, safeguard against
abuse): openness, transparency, explanations, standards
k. Appeal & judicial control
It becomes in the interest of the institute to perform as
expected!





Effects and impacts on others
Side effects
Behavioural reactions of targeted groups
= reducing compliance costs + strengthening
detection and raising penalties
(Maybe copy existing procedures that work well)







Trust!
EU is asking more detailed information...
Expectations about future behaviour
Track record
Impossible to act in another way
(evaluation + adjusting)
(willingness!)


Elaborate rules
Educate and guide target groups

Partnerships
–
What is a partnership?
–
What are reasons to develop a partnership?
–
Partnerships are for Milieukontakt a more
structured and formalised way of cooperating
with strategically chosen organisations with a
time frame of 2 to 4 years.
Partnership Requirements MKI
 Shared mission
 Successful experience in cooperation
 Mutual trust
 Position of partner
 Concrete ideas
 Insight in SWOT of partners
 Stability and capacity
 Partner organisation supports broadly
partnership
Reasons for a partnership can be:
– united forces can lead to better results
– strengthen the organisational capacity
– sharing resources, time and capacity can help to realise
the aims more effectively
– increasing the efficiency
– more effective lobby and better promotion of the work
– to learn from each others knowledge and expertise

What is the common ground between the network
members?
–
What is the common ground between the network and the
ministry?
–
What can each of us bring to a partnership? What can be our
role?
–
Who is the other? What are strengths and weaknesses of the
partners?












Why this partnership
Vision/Mission
Aims & Results
What
Duration
What is needed for our partnership to work?
Requirements of each of the partners for the partnership
Shared principles?
Communication
Decision making?
What are the steps to develop the partnership?
MoU?