European Union Basics (FAQ), Part4/8
euba...@allmansland.com
Posting-Frequency: once every three weeks
URL: http://eubasics.allmansland.com/commission.html
+ NB READERS OF THIS TEXT VERSION:
+ The original and most recent version of this file is always available
+ on the world-wide web. If you have Web access, please consider viewing
+ it there at the URL mentioned above.
EU Basics FAQ: The European Commission
[QUESTIONSABOUTEU]
General information
The European Commission is the body with the formal and exclusive power to
initiate all EU legislation, and which is supposed to represent the interest
of the Union as a whole, both in the political processes within the EU as in
negotiations with the outside world. This means that it must take no
instruction from any of the member states' governments; it is accountable
only to the European Parliament (as well as, as any EU institution, to the
European Court). Also, it is the main body with a duty to look after correct
implementation of the treaties and subsequent legislation.
The Commission's members are nominated by their national governments and
must be acceptable to all the government leaders of the member states. Small
member states each have one Commissioner, while the larger ones (Germany,
France, Italy, UK, Spain) each have two. That makes a total of 20
Commissioners now.
Generally, every Commission is more or less balanced in party affiliation
(Britain always appoints a Tory and a Labour candidate, and the Benelux
countries used to see to it that one of their Commissioners was a
Socialist, one a Christian-Democrat and one a Liberal. This is, in fact, no
longer the case (at present, for instance, there are two Christian-Democrats
and one Socialist for the Benelux countries. In the previous Commission,
this was the same, though with partly different members).
The Directorates-General of the Commission
The Commission is a big organisation, whose tasks have been divided in
different departments or Directorates-General on the one hand, and some
supporting services on the other hand.
DG I External Economic Relations
DG IA External Political Relations
DG II Economic and Financial Affairs
DG III Industry
DG IV Competition
DG V Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs
DG VI Agriculture
DG VII Transport
DG VIII Development
DG IX Personnel and Administration
DG X Information, Communication, Culture, Audiovisual
DG XI Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection
DG XII Science, Research and Development
DG XIII Telecommunications, Information Market and
Exploitation of Research
DG XIV Fisheries
DG XV Internal Market and Financial Services
DG XVI Regional Policies
DG XVII Energy
DG XVIII Credit and Investments
DG XIX Budgets
DG XX Financial Control
DG XXI Customs and Indirect Taxation
DG XXII Education, Training and Youth
DG XXIII Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and
Cooperatives
DG XXIV Consumer Policy
Services
Secretariat-General of the Commission
Forward Studies Unit
Joint Research Centre
Inspectorate-General
Legal Service
Spokesman's Service
Joint Interpreting and Conference Service
Statistical Office (EUROSTAT)
Translation Service
Informatics Directorate
Security Office
European Community Humanitarian Office
Euratom Supply Agency
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Enlargement Task Force (TFE)
It might be worth pointing out that the relationship between the Commission
Members themselves and the staff of the European Commission is similar to
that between Government ministers and the permanent civil service, in the
sense that the former have no security of tenure, and inevitably with a
different number of Commission Members and DGs their portfolios don't
necessarily correspond directly to the DG structure.
Who is the President (chairman) of the European Commission?
The function of President (or chair) of the Commission has undoubtedly
become much more important in the last ten years. This has much to do with
the personal style of the man who has held the job for the last ten years,
the French socialist Jacques Delors, and the extension of the EU's powers
during his presidency. Mr. Delors predecessors were mainly considered top
civil servants, but the political profile of the function has become much
stronger.
These are the Commission presidents since the 1967 merger[1]:
1967-1970 Mr Jean Rey (Liberal, BE)
1970-1972 Mr Malfatti (Christian Democrat, IT)
1972 Mr Sicco Mansholt (Socialist, NL)
1973-1976 Mr Frangois Ortoli (Gaullist, FR)
1977-1980 Mr Roy Jenkins (Socialist [now LibDem], UK)
1981-1984 Mr Gaston Thorn (Liberal, LU)
1985-1994 Mr Jacques Delors (Socialist, FR)
1995-2000 Mr Jacques Santer (Christian Democrat, LU)
As Richard Corbett[2] writes,
+A new Commission is chosen every five years in the months followin
g the European parliamentary elections by a two-step procedure. In th
e first step, the European Council[3] (Heads of Governments of Member
States) choose a candidate for President of the Commission. This can
didate must be chosen by consensus, which is sometimes hard to reach.
The candidate is then presented to the European Parliament which tak
es a vote on the candidate, by a simple majority of those voting. Thi
s is formally a consultative vote, though it is hard to imagine a can
didature proceeding any further should Parliament's vote be negative.
In the second phase of the procedure, the Member States agree, afte
r consulting the President-designate, on the remaining members of the
Commission. The Commission as a whole then agrees itself on the allo
cation of portfolios among the members and on its programme, which it
presents to the European Parliament. The Commission may only take of
fice if it then obtains a vote of confidence from the European Parlia
ment (simple majority of those voting). Prior to the vote of confiden
ce, Parliament organizes public hearings with each of the candidates
who must appear before the parliamentary committee which corresponds
to their prospective portfolios.;
The EP approved Mr.Santer by a margin of only 22 votes on July 21st., 1994.
After the EP organised hearings for all other prospective members of the
Commission, the new Commission started work at the end of January, 1995.
Where can I find the European Commission on the net?
EMAIL CONNECTIVITY
NOTE: This section contains information that is no longer up-to-dat
e. It will be updated in the next version of the FAQ
Most people working at the European Commission should now be reachable
though the Internet at the address <given_name_in...@mhsg.cec.be>.
The example of <J.Sa...@mhsg.cec.be> is purely fictional because this
address system applies only to the Commission's staff (civil servants),
rather than the Commissioners (politicians). Indeed, rumour goes that the
authors of the Bangemann Report (on the information society) used faxes (not
e-mail) to exchange drafts and comments ;-)
Some of the DG's have their own Internet domain as well, but their users
should still be reachable under the scheme described above.
DATABASES AND INFOSYSTEMS
As of March 1995, the European Commission has set up its own general
WorldWideWeb-server under the name of +Europa;, in addition to some specific
WWW servers that had already been developed before. It was announced as
follows:
On 25 February 1995, during the +G7 Conference on the Information S
ociety;, the European Commission introduced a new on-line database of
information about the European Union, intended for the general publi
c and known as +Europa;. The main function of Europa, which can be fo
und on the World Wide Web with the URL http://www.cec.lu/[4] is to p
rovide information and guidance in clear everyday language on topics
of interest to consumers within the single market. However, it also c
ontains basic information about the European Institutions, and a coll
ection of some of the more grotesque so-called +euro-myths; put about
by eurosceptics, explaining how they arose and the reality behind th
em. Initially, Europa will be available in English only, but the EC p
lans to provide versions in other EU languages in due course.
___________________________________
Edited by Roland Siebelink & Bart Schelfhout[5]
corrections and suggestions welcome.
[Go to Table of Contents][6]
*** References from this document ***
[1] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/general.html#merger
[2] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[3] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/councils.html#eu-council
[4] http://www.cec.lu/
[5] mailto:euba...@allmansland.com
[6] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/index.html
euba...@allmansland.com
Posting-Frequency: once every three weeks
+ NB READERS OF THIS TEXT VERSION:
+ The original and most recent version of this file is always available
+ on the world-wide web. If you have Web access, please consider viewing
+ it there at the URL mentioned above.
EU Basics FAQ: Councils representing governments
[councilsrepresenting...]
What is the Council of Ministers?
COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
The Council of Ministers (or simply Council) represents the member state
governments. The Council is composed of member state ministers: depending on
the matter under discussion, either the ones responsible for specific policy
areas (environment, transport, treasury) or the foreign ministers for
general affairs.
The Council decides unanimously on major policy decisions as laid down in
the treaty provisions, and in principle decides with a qualified majority
on other matters, and for some matters (research, structural funds) on the
decisions about provisions to implement the decisions taken in unanimity.
For this purpose, each member state's votes are weighted
(less-than-proportionally to the number of inhabitants) and cast in a block:
10 votes each for France, Germany, Italy, the UK;
8 votes for Spain;
5 votes each for Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal;
4 votes each for Austria and Sweden;
3 votes each for Denmark, Finland and the Republic of Ireland;
2 votes for Luxembourg.
A qualified majority decision is valid if 62 out of 87 votes are in favour
of it (in other words: more than a 70% majority vote is required). In some
cases the majority in favour must also include at least ten countries.
Note: In April 1994, the UK tried to oppose an extension of the 70% rule to
the prospective EU of 16 member states, arguing that the blocking minority
should remain on 23 votes (out of 90) to retain a powerful blocking
mechanism for minority states. Britain's arguments were not accepted, but it
was agreed that a blocking minority of 23-26 votes would cause a proposal to
be reconsidered and delayed for some time. As Norway has rejected
membership, an extension of this agreement to the EU of fifteen means
essentially the same, except for the fact that a blocking minority of 26 is
now already enough to have the proposal rejected outright.
As Andrew MacMullen[1] notes,
+This should not be confused [but often was, especially in the Brit
ish press, RS] with the so-called national veto arising out of the 19
65 French inspired crisis and boycott and the ambiguous Luxembourg ac
cords of 1966. This has allowed countries to claim the right to a vet
o where they consider their vital national interests are involved. Th
ere is no clear definition of what this involves since it is simply a
flexible political instrument . A classic instance was the German go
vernment invocation in 1985 to block a 1% cut in cereal prices which
German farmers found objectionable.;
And Nick Bernard[2] wrote in eunet.politics:
+There are in fact two different issues: the question of the so-cal
led veto properly speaking, which is a reference to the Luxembourg ac
cords of 1966 (and the UK understanding thereof) and the issue of the
weighting of votes in Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) with enlargeme
nt of the EU. In the UK, politicians (on all sides) did little to cle
ar this ambiguity.;
COUNCIL DECISIONS AND SECRECY
The Council always meets behind closed doors; only the outcome of the
decision is published afterwards. In some cases it is not even clear which
Member States have supported or rejected which parts of the original
Commission or European Parliament proposals. This secrecy is often thought
to be one of the most undemocratic aspects of the European Union; Council
members are effectively unaccountable to their national parliaments for
whatever +national; position they claim to defend within Council meetings,
and they can always blame other Member States (without means of
verification) for Council decisions out of line with national European
policies.
Personally I feel that there is also a more philosophically undemocratic
aspect to this secrecy: the fact that there is no publicly acknowledged
opposition to Council policies. It is my view that the right to dissent
publicly is a fundamental aspect of democracy, even if democracy also
requires dissenters to loyally follow majority decisions until they can
muster a majority for their own dissenting proposal. The secretive and often
+unanimous; decision making within the Council does not acknowledge the fact
that there are always different sides to a coin, and hence alienates itself
(and the EU as a whole) from the European Citizen.
Ole Villumsen[3] send me a very interesting contribution with regard to
another aspect of Council secrecy: the secret protocols appended to
decisions.
+The Council passes rules that are made public, and produces protoc
ols containing declarations, which are kept strictly secret. It happe
ns, although seldom, that the secret protocols say the opposite of th
e published rules. Examples are:
The TV directive says that TV programmes can be interrupted by
commercials no more frequently than once every 20 minutes. A secret
Council declaration states that TV stations can easily deviate from this
rule if it fits better with programme scheduling. Of course, this
flexibility can only be utilized by TV stations that have received a hint
about the declaration.
In February 1995, the ministers of industry passed a directive on
protecting the citizen against registration of personal data. The
directive prescribes that member countries forbid (computerised,
presumably) processing of sensitive personal information, such as ethnic
origin, political or religious conviction, and information on health and
sex life. At the same time, the ministers and the Commission agreed on a
secret declaration stating that member countries can +pay regard to the
country's juridical and sociological characteristics, for example in
matters of information on genetic identity, political affiliation,
physical condition, punishments, personal habits, etc.;
Normally it is the job of the Commission to ensure that the rules a
re followed, in practice by checking that national legislations imple
ment them. When the commission knows about the secret protocols, it c
an take them into account. Should an ordinary citizen bring a case to
court, the court will have to judge according to the published rules
only.;
(Source: Danish newspaper Information, Saturday, May 20, 1995)
In a separate message, Ole also noted that there is some progress to
reducing secrecy:
+The good news is that the Council of foreign affairs ministers on
their Monday meeting [...] May 29 decided that they will no more use
the option of keeping their voting secret. Whether the decision has e
ffect for the Council when other kinds of ministers meet, was not cle
ar from my newspaper (Information, May 30 1995).
Richard Corbett[4] finds this section somewhat exaggerated:
No +protocols; - which are legally binding texts - are adopted in s
ecret. What is secret is declarations attached to the Council minutes
whereby individual States, the Commission or the Council collectivel
y make a statement as to how they interpret a legal text.
This is indeed a problem, but the European Court has ruled - and Co
uncil itself accepts - that the legal text actually adopted (and publ
ished therefore in the Official Journal) is the only one with binding
legal effect. Council has now agreed to limit the use of such declar
ations and, where they are made, will normally publish them. However,
it has not abolished entirely the possibility of making declarations
and keeping them secret.
As regards voting in Council, the Council does now publish the resu
lts of all such votes. However, it retains the right to decide not to
publish them, even if it has not recently used this right.
What is the European Council?
The European Council was formally established in 1974, building on the
practice of holding Summits of EC Heads of Government, but its existence was
only legally recognized in the Single European Act of 1987. The European
Council is a special meeting of the Council of Ministers, in which the
representatives of the Member States are the political heads of government
themselves (13 PMs and the Presidents of France and Finland, plus their PMs
if in a situation of +cohabitation;). The Foreign Ministers and three
members of the Commission, including its President, also participate. The
European Council should not be confused with the Council of Europe,[5] which
is a totally separate international organisation independent of the EU.
WHO ARE THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL?
Whether a Member State is represented by a Prime Minister or by a President
is dependent on the constitution of the Member State in question. In twelve
of the fifteen Member States the Head of State (President or Monarch) has a
largely ceremonial function, hence the Prime Minister is the political head
of government and the representative to the European Council. The Finnish
and French Presidents are Head of State as well as political head of
government, so they go to the European Council themselves (although France
has sent both the President and the Prime Minister in times of
+cohabitation;). Stefan Lintl[6] reports that Austria is unresolved whether
to send the Chancellor or the President, as they seem to have conflicting
powers in this matter.
In response to some people requesting it, I have tried to compose a listing
of the current members of the European Council. As prime minister or
president, each member is of course also a very senior member of a political
party, the affiliation of which in the European Parliament is put between
brackets after their name. As I have compiled it by heart the list is not at
all complete yet, but I am counting on the readers of this list to send
in[7] all missing information.
AT Mr Franz Vranitzky, Federal Chancellor (PES)
BE Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene, Federal Prime Minister (EPP)
DE Mr Helmut Kohl, Federal Chancellor (EPP)
DK Mr Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Prime Minister (PES)
ES Mr Josi Aznar, Prime Minister (EPP)
FI Mr Martti Ahtisaari, President (XXXXX)
FR Mr Jacques Chirac, President (UE)
GR Mr XXXXX, Prime Minister (PES)
IE Mr John Bruton, Taoiseach (EPP)
IT Mr Romano Prodi, Prime Minister (leaning towards PES)
LU Mr XXXXX, Prime Minister (EPP)
NL Mr Wim Kok, Prime Minister (PES)
PT Mr Antonio Guterres, Prime Minister (PES)
SE Mr Gvran Persson, Prime Minister (PES)
UK Mr John Major, Prime Minister (EPP)
WHAT ARE THE POWERS/ACTIVITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL?
The European Council convenes twice a year, in the last month of each member
state's presidency of the Council.[8] In addition to some powers of its own
(mainly institutional ones), in theory it has all the legal powers of the
Council of Ministers. However, it does not normally operate in this mode.
The heads of government prefer to meet relatively informally, without being
tied to a bureaucratic agenda, but with plenty of photo-opportunities and
press conferences. Its meetings and statements are often very important in
providing political impetus or laying down guidelines in areas of prime
importance to the EU, but it leaves the day-to-day legislative work to the
ordinary Council meetings. The European Council also has the main
responsibility for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
In addition, Emile Noel[9] notes that:
+Unlike the Council of Ministers, the European Council convenes in
the absence of experts, senior civil servants or other supporting sta
ff (except interpreters). This plays a major part in its political ef
fectiveness [and puts a great burden on personal skills of the politi
cians present], but may often cause problems with subsequent implemen
tation of its decisions.;
Who is the President of the (European) Council?
Both the Council of Ministers and the European Council have a rotating
presidency, with each member state being chair of both for six months only.
These are the presidencies of the latest and following years:
1991 Luxembourg, the Netherlands
1992 Portugal, United Kingdom
1993 Denmark, Belgium
1994 Greece, Germany
1995 France, Spain
1996 Italy, Ireland
1997 Netherlands, Luxembourg
1998 United Kingdom, Austria
1999 Germany, Finland
2000 Portugal, France
2001 Sweden, Belgium
2002 Spain, Denmark
___________________________________
Edited by Roland Siebelink & Bart Schelfhout[10]
corrections and suggestions welcome.
[Go to Table of Contents][11]
*** References from this document ***
[1] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[2] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[3] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[4] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[5] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/related.html#coe
[6] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[7] mailto:euba...@allmansland.com
[8] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/councils.html#councilpres
[9] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#emile-noel
[10] mailto:euba...@allmansland.com
[11] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/index.html
euba...@allmansland.com
Posting-Frequency: once every three weeks
+ NB READERS OF THIS TEXT VERSION:
+ The original and most recent version of this file is always available
+ on the world-wide web. If you have Web access, please consider viewing
+ it there at the URL mentioned above.
EU Basics FAQ: Other EU institutions
[otherEU]
What is the European Court of Justice?
The following text was kindly provided by Frangois Thunus[1].
+The European Court of Justice can be compared to the supreme court
of the European Union. It has the task of interpreting the Treaties
or secondary EU legislation when disputes arise. [ Note: This is a
very important task, since final compromises reached within the Coun
cil are often deliberately fuzzy to reach any agreement at all.] Its
rulings are binding for all Courts of the Member States, which have t
o set aside national law if it does conflict with European law [1][2]
The case law of the Court can also be relied upon in National Court
.[2][3] If a Member State hasn't applied correctly the Treaty, it may
be liable for damages. [3][4] Since the Maastricht Treaty, the Court
also has the possibility to impose fines on Member States that don't
comply with its ruling.
COMPOSITION
The European Court of Justice consists of fifteen Judges (one from
each Member State) and nine Advocates-General who assist the Court by
making an independent preliminary assessment of the case. The Court
may or may not follow them. The Court's rulings are directly applicab
le in all Member States.
The judges and the advocate General are appointed by the Council fo
r 6 years. This term can be renewed. According to the Treaty, Judges
are choosen amongst people that could exercise the highest juridical
functions in their home countries. There is no provision in the Treat
y as to the nationality of the said judges, so technically, the Court
could be composed of 15 Scots, or 15 Danes. In practice however, [no
te: for some reason], there is one judge for each country. The judges
then elect the President amongst themselves.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Since 1988, the Court has become a two-headed jurisdiction. The bur
den of cases was too heavy for the Court alone, and a decision of the
Council created the Court of First Instance. The CFI started working
in 1989. The Court of First Instance, as the name doesn't suggest at
all, isn't a first degree of jurisdiction. It has a different jurisd
iction: it is concerned with European staff cases, competition cases,
conflicts arising from the application of the ECSC Treaty, etc. Afte
r the IGC of 1996, it is most likely that all the competences of the
Court will be transferred to the CFI, exception made for one: prelimi
nary rulings (art 177).
The CFI has 15 judges as well, but there is no Advocate-General. Th
e CFI may however decide to appoint one on an ad hoc basis, if it bel
ieves the case requires it: it will then be one of the judges not app
ointed to the case. For the rest, the rules of procedures are broadly
the same as for the Court. For the purpose of this document, anythin
g said about the Court means both the Court and the CFI. There is a v
ery limited possibility to +appeal; against a ruling of the CFI to th
e Court. +Appeal; is quoted because it is not an +appeal; properly s
peaking. The possibility is as I said very limited, to points of law
and to very specific instances. It is closer to the French concept of
+Cassation;: findings of facts will not be rediscussed. It is not us
ed widely, and when used, the Court has usually confirmed the judgeme
nt of the CFI.
PROCEDURES
The procedure of a case is more or less the following:
The complaint is lodged at the registry by A, parties are notified
(parties are: the Institutions, the Member States, and the actual parties
to the case, here let's say B);
The defence (from B) comes in, as well as any comment by the institution
or member states;
A has then a right to reply to the defence;
B adds anything to what was said above (end of the written procedure);
The judge-rapporteur makes a report for the hearing, which sums up the
facts of the case and the legal arguments. The report is sent to the
parties as well;
Oral hearing: the parties present their case briefly (most was said in
writing) and answer all questions of the Court;
At a later stage, the advocate general assigned to the case delivers his
opinion in a public hearing (if there is any, in the case of CFI);
The judge rapporteur then makes a preliminary draft of the judgment which
is then discussed by the court in deliberation;
Judgement is given in a oral hearing and sent to the parties.
LENGHT OF PROCEEDINGS
The average lenght of proceedings is about 18 months. The Court how
ever is not responsible for this. There are several factors that expl
ain the length of procedure: when a reference is received, it has to
be translated in all official languages before it can be sent to each
government. Then the Institutions and Governments have, as per the T
reaties, a certain amount of time to present their observations. The
Court may not continue the proceedings until it has received the said
observations and the official delay is passed by.
They have 2 months to react to the first complaint, starting on the day
they have received the translation;
2 months to react to the defence, starting on the day they have received
the translation;
2 months to react to the reply, starting on the day they have received
the translation;
2 months to react to the rejoinder, starting on the day they have
received the translation.
All together you already have 8 months here, not to mention transla
tion delays, etc.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Court maintains its own staff of legal translators and interpretors,
but it receives also about 450 cases/year... Proceedings are usually a
bit faster in the CFI, but staff cases help maintain the average low: the
staff of the Court (including CFI) is currently around 1000 permanent
people.
Anybody can come directly before the Court, but the easiest way is
usually to use the art. 177 procedure (preliminary ruling), whereby the
case is presented in a local Court which then refers the case to the
European Court.
The European Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg, is not to be confused
with the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg, which is
only competent for issues arising from the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Personal Freedoms, and is recognised by
all member states of the Council of Europe[5].
REFERENCES
See Costa/ENEL [case 6/64, ECR 64 p 1141], and more recently Simmenthal
[case 106/77, ECR 78 p. 629] or Factortame [c-221/89, ECR 1990 p.I-2433]
See case Van Gend en Loos, 26/62, ECR 63 p. 1
Case Francovitch [joint cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, ECR 91 p.I-5357].;
What is the Court of Auditors?
The Court of Auditors checks whether the accounts of all EU institutions are
in accordance with legislation and jurisdiction, and it can comment on EU
institutions' financial management. It is intended as a safeguard against
abuse of the financial arrangements involved in EU policies, including
questions of improper expenditure, fraud, as well as waste and value for
money. It has fifteen members (one from each member state), supported by a
permanent professional staff of some 335. Its resources are generally
considered inadequate to carry out its important functions.
What is the Economic and Social Committee?
The Economic and Social Committee consists of representatives of the major
interest groups from different sectors of economic and social life, notably
of industry, trade unions, farmers, transporters and other sectors affected
directly by the EU's economic and social policies. They must be consulted
for policies in several areas defined in the treaties; they can be consulted
by the Council or the Commission in other areas as well. There is little
evidence of the ESC playing a significant role in the policy process.
The ESC comprises 222 members (MESCs):
24 each from Germany, France, Italy and the UK
21 MESCs from Spain
12 each from Austria, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal and
Sweden
9 each from Denmark, Finland and the Republic of Ireland
6 from Luxembourg
What is the Committee of Regions?
The Committee of Regions is a new advisory body established by the
Maastricht Treaty, to take into account the views of regional and local
government in European decision making. The advisory Committee of Regions is
a compromise between the aspirations of powerful regions in federally
organised member states (such as Germany, Spain and Belgium), which have
long asked for direct influence on EU decision making, and the views of much
more centralised member states (such as the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands)
whose regional governments have only derived powers from a strong central
government.
The CoR has the same numeric composition as the ESC: totalling 222 members
(MCoRs)[6]. It is important to note that the MCoRs are appointed by their
national governments, not directly by any regional authority.
What is the European Monetary Institute?
The Maastricht Treaty inlcudes provisions for the establishment of a
Economic and Monetary Union by the end of this century. This was not the
first try: attempts (to codify the objective) failed in 1962, 1970 and 1978.
The European Monetary Institute (based in Frankfurt) has the task of
co-ordinating monetary policy of the central banks of the member states
within the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), and to prepare the
so-called third stage of Economic and Monetary Union, in which a single
European currency will be introduced. This stage is intended to start in
1999. At the start of the third stage, the EMI will be renamed to European
Central Bank (ECB). The director of the EMI is Mr Alexandre Lamfalussy
(Belgium), who will be succeeded by the President of the Dutch Central Bank,
Mr Wim Duisenberg, at the end of 1996.
___________________________________
Edited by Roland Siebelink & Bart Schelfhout[7]
corrections and suggestions welcome.
[Go to Table of Contents][8]
*** References from this document ***
[1] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[2] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/other.html#refs
[3] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/other.html#refs
[4] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/other.html#refs
[5] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/related.html#coe
[6] ftp://ftp.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/org/cec/misc/Regions-of-Europe
[7] mailto:euba...@allmansland.com
[8] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/index.html
euba...@allmansland.com
Posting-Frequency: once every three weeks
+ NB READERS OF THIS TEXT VERSION:
+ The original and most recent version of this file is always available
+ on the world-wide web. If you have Web access, please consider viewing
+ it there at the URL mentioned above.
EU Basics FAQ: Related organisations
[whatsthediffbetweenEUand...]
The European Community?
The European Community, formerly known as European Economic Community, is by
far the most important of the three Communities, who together form the first
pillar[1] of the European Union. This is the only pillar in which there is a
significant role for central institutions like the Commission and the
European Parliament, and in which majority voting is used for a number of
procedures.
The Common Market?
The Common Market was one of the most important objectives of the original
EEC Treaty. Within 12 years from the date of commencement (1 January 1958)
of the Treaty, the Member States were required to have formed a common
market for products, services, persons and capital within a fully fledged
customs union. No tariffs or quantitative barriers were to remain.
The Common Market objective was effectively attained two years early, from
1968 onward. After this initial success, economic crises during the 1970s
and 1980s induced Member State governments to keep or even reinforce
numerous other, +qualitative; trade barriers (known as NTBs, Non Tarriff
Barriers), such as health and safety regulations.
Since this was a serious impediment to the development of a real internal
market, business leaders of all member states (united in the so-called Round
Table of Industrialists) as well as some EU political leaders started to
lobby to continue on to a real Single European Market, in which
+qualitative; trade barriers would be attacked as well. Member states
finally embraced this goal in the Single European Act of 1987. The project
was supposed to be completed by January 1st, 1993, but some of the new rules
haven't yet been implemented, notably in the domain of free traffic for
persons without border controls.
Personal note: in another respect, the term +Common Market; used to be a
common term in English/the UK (& USA) to refer to the EEC. It was abandoned
only in the early 1990s, thereby reinforcing the impression, predominant
among English-speakers, that the extension of the European Union to other
areas than just economic activity is a very recent phenomenon and a radical
change from the Europe they agreed to join in 1973.
This impression is disputable in my view, as the federalist tendency has
existed from the very beginning of European integration and was even much
stronger in the 1950s (eg the EDC Treaty) than it is today.
Many observers agree that the UK government in particular has consistently
failed to explain to the British people that the European project
encompasses more than just a free trade area (at least for many continental
Europeans), out of fear of losing support for the project.
The Council of Europe?
The Council of Europe is quite a different organisation from the EU. It is a
purely intergovernmental organisation much more like the United Nations;
unlike EU legislation, its treaties are not directly applicable in national
law, unless ratified by the normal parliamentary procedures of the member
state concerned. The Council of Europe (Conseil de l'Europe, Europarat)
should not be confused with the European Council[2] (Conseil europien,
Europdische Rat), which is an EU institution.
Even through these limited powers, the CoE has achieved some remarkable
results since its founding in 1949. Apart from stimulating grassroots
European integration through cultural and educational projects, the CoE is
probably best known for the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Personal Freedoms and its associated European Court for Human
Rights in Strasbourg (not to be confused with the EU Court of Justice in
Luxembourg). CoE members actually allow their nationals to challenge
national legislation and jurisdiction before this court, which has thus
become a sort of guarantee for human rights, even for countries which do not
have a written constitution (such as Britain) or a supreme court.
Current CoE members include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
The Western European Union?
The Western European Union was founded in 1954 as a defence alliance between
the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Italy,
after the rejection of the 1952 European Defence Community Treaty in 1954.
It was more or less dormant until the beginning of the 1990s, when it was
revived as a sort of common intermediary solution between an organisation of
the European NATO members and Defence aspirations of the European Union. It
was specifically mentioned as such in the Maastricht Treaty. Spain, Portugal
and Greece have joined the WEU since.
There are three categories of countries linked to the WEU without being full
members (with thanks to Richard Corbett[3] for explaining the difference:
Observer status EU Member states that are either not a member of NATO
(Austria, Finland, the Republic of Ireland and Sweden)
or that voluntarily refrain from full WEU membership
(Denmark);
Associate member status
Associate members are states that are European member
states of NATO but not of the EU (Norway and Turkey
[Is Iceland also in this category? RS])
Associate partner status Associate partners are European states that are
members of the NATO Partnership for Peace Initiative without being
full-blown members of either NATO or the EU: Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary,
Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovenia
The European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area?
The European Free Trade Association or EFTA was founded in 1960 as an
intergovernmental alternative to the supranational aspirations of the EEC.
The EFTA was not intended as a customs union: member countries did not have
common custom tariffs but just abolished custom tariffs between them. There
was no common external tarriff, a number of commodities and products were
excluded from free trade.
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, Sweden
and the UK were all members of EFTA once, but many of these countries joined
or applied for the EC/EU afterwards. After the last EU enlargement of 1995,
EFTA just consists of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
To complicate matters even more, EFTA members have signed a far-reaching
agreement with the EU in 1992, to create a common European Economic Area.
This confers upon EFTA members that ratify it the four freedoms of traffic
of the EU (of products, services, persons and capital); without
decision-making power but with guaranteed consulting.
Unfortunately for the designers of this Treaty, the Swiss rejected the EEA
in a referendum. This may have been a boost for the attempts to join the EU
for other EFTA member countries. Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein did
approve of the EEA, but the remaining EFTA members seem to have chosen full
EU membership instead (as did the Norwegian government, apparently against
the will of a majority of Norwegians). For both EFTA and the EEA, it remains
to be seen what they will actually account to, in practice, over the next
couple of years.
Note: as Jozef van Brabant[4] notes, Liechtenstein got into a particularly
messy situation when the Swiss rejected the EEA Treaty that Liechtenstein
itself had already approved, since Liechtenstein was in a customs union with
Switzerland. Because of this, Liechtenstein will the EEA only on May 1st.,
1995.
The North American Free Trade Agreement?
The North American Free Trade Agreement obviously affects different
countries than the EU does, but it may be interesting to compare the two on
other points as well. NAFTA has much more in common with EFTA than with the
EU: it is a free trade agreement, not a customs union, and most certainly no
attempt to create anything more substantial in political integration than
just a free trade area. There are no common political institutions and
member states' sovereignty is left intact.
Personal note: it remains to be seen if NAFTA will not run into the same
problems that the EEC has had in the 1970s: a replacement of now forbidden
quantitative trade barriers and tariffs with non-quantitative ones. To
counter this, member states will either have to accept each other's
standards in health, safety, environmental and consumer protection, or
institute a common body which accounts for common standards. That may mean a
loss of sovereignty for the individual states however.
___________________________________
Edited by Roland Siebelink & Bart Schelfhout[5]
corrections and suggestions welcome.
[Go to Table of Contents][6]
*** References from this document ***
[1] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/general.html#pillars
[2] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/councils.html#eu-council
[3] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr
[4] http://eubasics.allmansland.com/about.html#contr