The new European grouping of crossborder cooperation

1
The new European grouping of cross-border
cooperation

• Harry Ekestam
• Iq-Train workshop
• Bozen/Bolzano, 24-25 February 2005

2
Background

• Member States and regional/local authorities have
  experienced difficulties in carrying out and
  managing cross-border cooperation within
  differing national laws and procedures
• Regional/local authorities and the Committee of
  the Regions have requested the Commission to act
  in this matter
• Therefore the Commission proposes a cooperation
  instrument at the community level, which allows
  the creation of cooperative groupings in the
  community territory (EGCC)

3
The EGCC Regulation

• The EGCC Regultion is a part of the Territorial
  Cooperation legal package, but does not
  explicitly deal with the management of Structural
  Funds
• Legal basis article 159 (3) of the Treaty, which
  allows specific action to be taken outside Funds
  to achieve greater economic and social cohesion

4
Nature of the EGCC

• A cooperative grouping (EGCC) can be established
  on community territory
• It is invested with a legal personality
• Its objective is to facilitate and promote
  cross-border (transnational, inter-regional)
  cooperation between Member States, as well as
  regional and local authorities. with the aim of
  reinforcing economic, social and territorial
  cooperation

5
Composition of an EGCC

• Can be made up of Member States and/or regional
  and local authorities and/or local public bodies
  (members)
• The creation of an EGCC is decided at the
  initiative of its members (in some cases without
  any intervention of MS)
• Can be a separate legal entity, or tasks can be
  delegated to one of the members

6
Competence of the EGCC (1)

• Competence is defined by a convention passed by
  the members
• The EGCC acts on behalf of its members, with the
  legal capacity accorded to legal entities by
  national legislations (contracting etc)
• The EGCC can be given the task of implementing
• either Territorial Cooperation programmes
  co-financed by the community,
• or carrying out other cross-border cooperation
  with or without community funding

7
Competence of the EGCC (2)

• The formation of an EGCC does not affect the
  financial responsibility of its members or of
  the Member States
• Ultimate financial liability remains with the
  Member States
• A convention cannot concern the delegation of
  powers of public authority, notably police and
  regulatory powers

8
Convention

• Specifies the tasks of the EGCC, its duration and
  the conditions for its dissolution
• Defines the law applicable to its interpretation
  and enforcement
• The applicable law is from one of the Member
  States concerned

9
Statutes, organs, budget, legal capacity

• The EGCC adopts its statutes on the basis of the
  convention upon adoption of the statutes, the
  EGCC has the capacity to act
• The EGCC is represented by a director, who acts
  on its behalf, and it can equip itself with an
  assembly
• The EGCC establishes an annual provisional budget
  adopted by the members, who are financially
  liable on a pro-rata basis according to their
  contribution to the budget
• The legal capacity of the EGCC is recognised when
  it is published in the OJ

10
and remember

• It is optional!
• In accordance with the proportionality principle
  , this regulation does not exceed what is
  necessary for achieving its objectives, recourse
  to the EGCC being optional, in accordance with
  the constitutional system of each Member State
• but is it really optional for the Member States?
  We will come back to it.

11
What does it mean for Territorial Cooperation
programmes?

• According to the ERDF regulation, MSs
  participating in an TC programme may make use of
  the EGCC with a view to making it responsible for
  managing the programme by conferring on it the
  responsibilities of the managing authority and
  the joint technical secretariat
• Each MS shall continue to assume financial
  responsibility

12
So why are the Member States not satisfied?

• In the Council negotiations the Member States
  have been rather critical of the Commissions
  proposal
• Central points of criticism (problems and
  shortcomings)
• Legal basis, COMs mandate
• The role of MS
• Scope of delegation
• Value added for management of TC programmes

13
Problems and shortcomings (1)

• Legal basis, COMs mandate
• some MCs have questioned the legal basis (art
  159 of the Treaty)
• there has been some confusion on how the COMs
  proposal relates to existing international
  agreements on cross-border cooperation will it
  replace them or limit their use?

14
Problems and shortcomings (2)

• The role of Member States
• many MS have considered it problematic that the
  formation of an EGCC does not always involve the
  MS (except when it is used for managing
  Territorial Cooperation programmes)
• in some MS there are constitutional constraints
  to what local authorities (municipalities) can
  agree on
• optional for whom?

15
Problems and shortcomings (3)

• Scope of delegation
• many MS consider the proposed limitation on the
  delegation of public services (cannot concern
  powers of public authority, notably police and
  regulatory powers) too open and ambiguous
• in many MS such a wide scope of delegation is in
  conflict with national legislation

16
Problems and shortcomings (4)

• Value added for management of TC programmes
• in many parts of the EU, well-functioning and
  practical solutions for joint management of
  Interreg-programmes have already been found
• in such cases it is percieved that establishing
  an EGCC would not give much value added, but
  could delay the start-up of new programmes

17
The way forward?

• As it looks now, the COMs original proposal is
  not acceptable to MSs
• The most important amendments required to move
  ahead seem to be
• a recognition of the MSs role in the use of the
  EGCC
• a clearer limitation to the delegation of powers
  of public authority