Introduction to EU law

1
Introduction to EU law

1. Structure EU institutions
2. EU legislation principles
3. Influence
4. Accession
5. Capacity to implement acquis
6. Partnerships

2

• 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

3

• Decision-making (legislation) - 1
• Involved institutions
• - Council of Ministers
• - European Parliament
• - European Commission

4

• 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)

5

• 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)

6

• 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

7

• 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)

8

• 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) (Costa-ENEL, 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)

9

• 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)

10

• 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)

11

• 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!)

12

• 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

13

• 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

14

• Influence 1
• Political Parties from non-member states are
  members of European parties and can influence
  policies of those parties -gt 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

15

• 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

16

• 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

17

• 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)

18

• 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)

19

• SAp since Thessaloniki
• European Partnerships
• Political Cooperation CFSP
• Assistance institution building
• Promoting economic development
• Opening Community programmes, incl environment

20

• 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

21
(No Transcript)
22

• 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?

23

• (Nicolaides)
• Empowered and accountable institutions
• Decision making independence
• Performance obligations and control
• Execution of a task requires
• Knowledge
• Ability
• Willingness

24

• 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

25

• 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!

26

• 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

27

• Willingness
• How does the EU deal with incorrect and
  incomplete implementation internally?
• No direct judgement of administrative capacity
  but indirectly

28

• 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

29

• Quality of results, not just transposition
• All methods together
• Diverse systems in place in EU extract basic
  elements

30

• 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

31

• 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!

32

• 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)

33

• Trust!
• EU is asking more detailed information...
• Expectations about future behaviour
• Track record
• Impossible to act in another way
• (evaluation adjusting)
• (willingness!)

34

• Elaborate rules
• Educate and guide target groups

35
(No Transcript)
36

• Partnerships
• What is a partnership?
• What are reasons to develop a partnership?

37

• 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.

38

• 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

39

• 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

40

• 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?

41

• 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?