Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:03:20.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Union Decision-Making, Third States and Comitology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Andrew Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historically and conceptually, EU law originates in the idea that member States have approved restrictions of national sovereignty in the interests of establishing a common market. In accordance with this idea, significant elaboration or extension of these restrictions must also be approved by the member States or at least by a majority of their representatives in the Council of the Union. The implication is not only that the development of the rules of the common market is dependent on the will of the member States. The further implication is that the rules of the common market and the rules of Union decision-making are separable, in the sense that the latter rules are not affected by the former rules. While such implications are ill-adapted to the pluralist tendencies of integration processes, particularly the participation of third States (that is, non-member States) in these processes, they are confirmed by the formal structure of the EC Treaty.

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 257 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Infra Part II.

2. See, generally, Evans, A., Textbook on EU Law (1998).Google Scholar

3. See e.g. the references to the Art.189c procedure in Art.130w(1) and to the Art.189b procedure in Art.130i(1) EC.

4. I.e. the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.

5. Case 26/61, N.V.Algemene Transport–en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administrate der Bclastingen [1963] E.C.R. 1, 12.Google Scholar

6. MacCormick, N. and Weinberger, O., An Institutional Theory of Law (1986), p.10.Google Scholar

7. Cf. the distinction between the “decisional” and the “normative” in Weiler, J. H. H., “Community, Member States and European Integration: Is the Law Relevant?” (1982–1983) J.C.M.S. 39, 41.Google Scholar

8. Such representation derives from performance by the State of what Habermas, J., Communication and the Evolution of Society (1979), pp.178et seq. calls “legitimation” functions.Google Scholar

9. See the examples studied in Sun, J.-M. and Pelkmans, J., “Regulatory Competition in the Single Market” (1995) J.C.M.S. 567–589.Google Scholar

10. See, regarding their real “complementarity”, Habermas, op. cit. supra n.8.

11. See, generally, Bradley, K. St Clair, “Comitology and the Law: Through a Glass Darkly” (1992) 29 C.M.L.Rev. 693–721.Google Scholar

12. See e.g. Case 53/80, Offider van Justitie v. Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV [1981] E.C.R. 409.Google Scholar

13. Advocate General Dutheillet de Lamothe in Case 13/70, Francesco Cinzano & Cia GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken [1970] E.C.R. 1089, 1103.Google Scholar

14. “If the Community were to be recognized as having exclusive competence to enter into agreements with non-member countries to harmonize the protection of intellectual property and, at the same time, to achieve harmonization at Community level, the Community institutions would be able to escape the internal constraints to which they are subject in relation to procedures and to rules as to voting” (Opinion 1/94, International Agreements on Services and the Protection of Industrial Property [1994] E.C.R. I–5267, 5406).Google Scholar

15. Evans, A., The Integration of the European Community and Third States in Europe: A Legal Analysis (1996).Google Scholar

16. European Free Trade Association.

17. (1994) O.J. L1/3.Google ScholarSee, generally, Evans, A., Law of the European Community, Including the EEA Agreement (1994).Google Scholar

18. To imagine otherwise would, according to Advocate General Warner in Case 51/75, EMI Records Ltd v. CBS United Kingdom Ltd [1976] E.C.R. 811, 861Google Scholar, be “heretical”. Though differentiated operation is not inevitable. See e.g., regarding the concept of social security, Case C–18/90, Office National de l'Emploi (ONEM) v. Bahia Kziber [1991] E.C.R. I–199, 227.Google Scholar

19. Case 26/62, van Gend en Loos, loc. cit. supra n.5.

20. Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] E.C.R. 585, 593.Google Scholar

21. This conceptualisation is consistent with the “classical” idea of treaty-making as an exercise of sovereignty (Customs Regime between Germany and Austria (1931) P.C.I.J. Ser A/B, No.41).Google Scholar Cf. the distinction between “derivative” and “original” personality in Hay, P., Federalism and Supranational Organisations (1966), pp.23–26.Google Scholar

22. I.e. the EEC (now EC) Treaty, ECSC Treaty, Euratom Treaty, and Treaty on European Union (TEU).

23. See now Art.N TEU.

24. Art.146 EC.

25. Art.148(2) EC.

26. Commission President Delors(EP Debs No.3–385, 111, 17 Jan. 1990). According to an earlier formulation of the principle, only member States could “exert an effective influence on the life of the Community”. See Opinion on Problems Raised by Applications for Membership from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, Bull, E. C., Supp. 4/68, p.9.Google Scholar

27. Cf. Opinion 1/76, European Laying-lip Fund for Inland Waterway Vessels [1977] E.C.R. 741, 759.Google Scholar

28. At the same time, “unity in the international representation of the Community” is sought. See Opinion 2/91, ILO Convention 170 concerning safety in the use of chemicals at work [1993] E.C.R. I–1061.Google Scholar

29. Relations Between the Community and EFTA, House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, HL (1989–1990) 55–2, p.144.Google ScholarAccording to Case 208/80, Rt Hon. Lord Bruce of Donington v. Eric Gordon Aspden [1981] E.C.R. 2205, 2219, Art.5 entails for member States a “duty not to take measures which are likely to interfere with the internal functioning of the institutions of the Community”.Google Scholar

30. Opinion 1/76, supra n.28, at p.758.Google Scholar

31. See e.g. Arts.3(b) and 113 EC, in connection with the common commercial policy.

32. See e.g. Arts.104 and 106(2) of the Europe Agreement with Poland (1993) O.J. L348/2Google Scholar and Arts.90(2) and 93(2) EEA (1994) O.J. L1/3.Google Scholar

33. Reply by Mr Delors, to WQ E–260/93 ((1994) O.J. C352/1) by Anita, Pollack.Google Scholar

34. Case C–192/89, S.Z. Sevince v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1990] E.C.R. I–3461, 3502Google Scholar; and Case 285/95, Suat Kol v. Land Berlin [1997] E.C.R. I–3069.Google Scholar

35. Art.7 EEA (1994) O.J. L1/3.Google Scholar

36. Kennedy, D. and Webb, D. E., “The Limits of Integration: Eastern Europe and the European Communities” (1993) 30 C.M.L.Rev. 1095–1117.Google Scholar

37. A Strategy to Prepare for the Accession of the Associated CCEE, E.U.Bull 12–1994, I.39.Google Scholar

38. Art.102(1) EEA.

39. Arts.102, 105 and 106 EEA.

40. The policies on agriculture (Arts.38–47 EEC) and transport (Arts.74–84 EEC) were exceptionally deah with in Part Two.

41. Cf., regarding the formal relationship between Arts. 30 and 100 EC, Case 193/80, EC Commission v. Italy [1981] E.C.R. 3019, 3033.Google Scholar

42. See e.g., regarding the relationship between hannonisation under Art.100a EC and under Art.130r EC, Case C–300/89, EC Commission v. EC Council [1991] E.C.R. I–2867.Google Scholar

43. 6th recital. See also Art.3(f) EC.

44. Art.73b EC goes further. It seeks, in principle, the same liberalisation of capital movement between member States and third States as that applying within the Union. Cf. Art.7 of Dir.88/361 ((1988) O.J. L178/5)Google Scholar for the implementation of Art.67 EC. To the extent that investment rules are liberal, regional agreements are regarded as more likely to be compatible with a liberal multilateral system. See Fishlow, A. and Haggard, S., The United States and the Regionalitation of the World Economy (1992). However, other provisions of the Treaty permit special restrictions on capital movements between the Union and third States. See Arts.73c, 73f and 73g EC.Google Scholar

45. See, generally, Opinion 1/91, Draft Agreement between the Community and the EFTA States relating to the Creation of the EEA [1991] E.C.R. I–6079.Google Scholar

46. See e.g. Arts.9 and 10 of the Europe Agreement with Poland.

47. Dec.96/413 (1996) O.J. L167/55 on the implementation of a Community action programme to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry.Google Scholar

48. Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

49. Cf. Siebert, H. and Koop, M. J., “Institutional Competition: a Concept for Europe” (1990) Aussenwirtschaft 439–462, regarding the opening up of regulation within member States consequent upon judgments such as that in Rewe-Zentral (ibid).Google Scholar

50. The approach of the ECJ may be viewed in terms of a “pairing” or “matching” of “substance” (i.e. trade liberalisation requirements) and “structure” (i.e. institutional participation). See Cottier, T., “Constitutional Trade Regulation in National and International Law: Structure-Substance Pairings in the EFTA Experience”, in Hilf, M. and Petersmann, E.–U. (Eds), National Constitutions and International Economic Law (1993), p.409 at p.423.Google Scholar

51. See e.g. Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. C.A. Kupferberg & Cie K.G. [1982] E.C.R. 3641, 3669.Google Scholar

52. See e.g. Case 270/80, Polydor Ltd and RSO Records Inc. v. Harlequin Record Shops Ltd and Simon Records Ltd [1982] E.C.R. 329.Google Scholar Cf., regarding fiscal regulations. Advocate General Rozes in Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz, idem, p.3676.

53. Report from the Council to the Essen European Council on a strategy to prepare for the accession of the associated CCEE, E.U. BulL 12–1994, I.39.Google Scholar

54. Conversely, “associating the Commission on a voluntary basis with decision shaping” by authorities of Central and Eastern European countries is envisaged. See Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for Integration into the Internal Market of the Union COM(95)163, Annex, p.51.Google Scholar

55. See e.g. Art.68 of the Europe Agreement with Poland.

56. Art.102 EEA.

57. Kennedy and Webb, op. cit. supra n.36.

58. Evans, A., “Voluntary Harmonization in Integration between the European Community and Eastern Europe” (1997) E.L.R. 201–220.Google Scholar

59. See, generally, Harlow, C., “A Community of Interests? Making the Most of European Law” (1992) M.L.R. 331–350.Google Scholar

60. Sun and Pelkmans, op. cit. supra n.9.

61. See e.g. Schiessl, M., EG-kartellrechtliche Anforderungcn an die europäischen Normungsorganiationen (1995), pp.19–22. However, where third States are full members of such bodies, the voting rights of their experts may only be limited in the sense that a failure by the membership as a whole to agree on a standard may allow experts from member States to agree a standard amongst themselves. Such arrangements may, therefore, offer a possible model for general application to decision making pursuant to agreements between the Union and third States.Google Scholar

62. Opportunities for participation by non-European States are limited, though contacts between European bodies and international bodies, such as ISO and IEC, are developing. See House of Representatives Committee on Small Business, European Community Approach to Testing and Certification: Should the US Government Play a Role? (Serial No. 101–56, Washington, 1990).Google Scholar

63. Technical harmonization and standards: a new approach (COM(85)19) and the Council Res. of 7 May 1985 (1985) O.J. C136/1 on a new approach to technical harmonisation and standards.Google Scholar

64. See, generally, Hayder, R., “Neue Wege der europäischen Rechtsangleichung?” (1989) Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 622–698.Google Scholar

65. On the approximation of the laws of the member States concerning the safety of toys (1988) O.J. L187/1.Google Scholar

66. Dir.83/189 ((1983) O.J. L109/8)Google Scholar laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations. The legality of such an approach was accepted in Case 815/79, Pretura Penale di Domo v. G. Cremonini and M.L. Vrankovich [1980] E.C.R. 3583.Google Scholar

67. (1969) O.J. C76/1.Google Scholar

68. On the hannonisation of the laws of member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1973) O.J. L77/29.Google Scholar

69. UN Conference on Trade and Development, Common European Economic Space (1991), p.5.Google Scholar Cf. the agreements between the “social partners” envisaged in Art.118b EC.

70. Though financial aid is provided by the Union. See Council Res. of 18 June 1992 (1992) O.J. C173/1Google Scholar on the role of European standardisation in the European economy. See also the Commission Communication on standardisation in the European economy (1992) O.J.C96/2.Google Scholar

71. Andrieu, M., “La Normalisation européenne instrument du cohésion” (1992) R.M.C. 627–630.Google Scholar

72. The Commission Communication on the development of European standardisation (1991) O.J. C20/1 highlighted the strategic importance of standardisation for the European market.Google Scholar

73. Ladeur, K. H., “European Community Institutional Reforms: Extra-National Management as an Alternative Model to Federalism” (1990/1992) Legal Issues of European Integration 1, 10.Google Scholar

74. Cf. Koopman, G. and Scharrer, H.-E., Scenarios of a Common External Trade Policy for the EC after 1992 (1990), p.30.Google Scholar

75. Wallace, W., The Transformation of Western Europe (1990), p.89.Google Scholar

76. See e.g. Art.74 of the Europe Agreement witb Poland (1993) O.J. L348/2.Google ScholarSee also COM(95)163, supra n.54, Annex, at p.13.Google Scholar

77. Commission Communication, supra n.72.

78. See e.g. the Supplementary Agreement between National Bureaux ((1973) O.J. L87/ 15) regarding car insurance.Google Scholar

79. Case 152/83, Marcel Demouche v.Fonds de Garantie Automobile and Bureaux Central Français [1987] E.C.R. 3833, 3852–3853.Google Scholar Cf. Joined Cases 87 and 130/77, 22/83, 9 and 10/84, Vittorio Salerno v. EC Commission and EC Council [1985] E.C.R. 2523, 2538, regarding the European Association for Cooperation.Google Scholar

80. See e.g. Standardiseringens roll i EFTA/EG-samarbetet, SOU 1989:45, 60.Google Scholar

81. See e.g. the position of the Swedish Environment Party (Sverige och den västeuropeiska integrations, prop. 1988/1989: 19, 28).Google Scholar

82. Commission Communication, supra n.72.

83. Cf. in the insurance field Dec.74/166 (1974) O.J. L87/13Google Scholar, First Commission Decision relating to the application of Dir.72/166 on the approximation of the laws of the member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Dec.74/167 (1974) O.J. L87/15, Second Commission Decision relating to the application of Dir.72/166.Google Scholar

84. European Report 1485 (5 Apr. 1989).Google Scholar

85. See e.g. Svenska Dagbladet, 21 July 1991.Google Scholar

86. Europe and the Challenge of Enlargement, E.C. Bull., Supp. 3/92, pp.18–19.Google Scholar

87. Financial Times, 23 Nov. 1989 and 23 Mar. 1990.Google Scholar

88. Resolution of 14 Dec. 1989 (1990) O.J. C15/336 on relations between the EC and the EFTA States.Google Scholar

89. Relations between the Community and the Council of Europe, COM(89)124, p.3.Google Scholar

90. Committee of Permanent Representatives.

91. Cf. the suggestions made in the Swedish government memorandum of 6 Sept. 1971 presented to the Commission during negotiation of a free trade agreement (1972) O.J. L300/96.Google Scholar The memorandum is reproduced in Annex 3 to Viklund, D., Spelet om Frihandelsavtalet (1977).Google Scholar

92. Art.151(1) EC.

93. Ibid.

94. Case C–25/94, EC Commission v. EC Council: FAO Agreement [1996] E.C.R. I–1469, 1505.Google Scholar

95. Agreed Minute ad Art.91 EEA (1994) O.J. L1/3.Google Scholar

96. A Strategy to Prepare, supra n.37.

97. Mutual Information Procedures and Comitology concerning Community Decisions (Europe 5356, 24 Oct. 1990).Google Scholar

98. Europe 5221, 24 Mar. 1990.Google Scholar

99. Res. of 5 Apr. 1990 (1990) O.J. C113/172Google Scholar on relations between the EEC and EFTA, para.5 and Res. of 12 June 1990 (1990) O.J. C175/51 on economic and trade relations between the EC and the EFTA countries, para.10.Google Scholar

100. See e.g. Redovlsning av det svenska integrationsarbetet våren 1988—mars 1989 (Stockholm, 1989), p.37.Google Scholar

101. Sverige–EFTA–EG 1987 (Stockholm, 1988), p.24.Google Scholar

102. Idem, p.35.

103. Cf. Opinion 1/91, supra n.45.

104. Follow Up to ‘The Europe Agreements and beyond: a strategy to prepare the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for accession”, COM(94)361, p.5.Google Scholar

103. (1993) O.J. L347/2.Google Scholar

106. Annex II to the Hungarian–EC Association Council Dec.1/94 ((1994) O.J. L242/23) on its Rules of Procedure.Google Scholar

107. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 25 Jan. 1995 ((1995) O.J. C102/40) on relations between the EU and Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, para.3.25.Google Scholar

108. In addition, part XXI of Annex II, on Technical Regulations, Standards, Testing, and Certification, provides that Art.100 EEA shall apply to the participation of EFTA States in the work of the European Organisation of Technical Approval.

109. Dec.87/373 (1987) O.J. L197/33 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.Google Scholar

110. An exchange of letters, attached to the EEA Agreement, deals, more particularly, with the Banking Advisory Committee.

111. Para.2.1 of the Communication de la Commission au Conseil portant recommendation de décision du Conseil visant à autoriser la Commission à négocier un accord avec les pays AELE, portant sur la création de l'EEE.

112. Home of Lords Select Committee, op. cit. supra n.29, at p.26.Google Scholar

113. (1964) O.J. 368.Google Scholar

114. Art.1 of Dec.5/95 (1996) O.J. L35/49 of the EC–Turkey Aasociation Council on the arrangements for involving Turkish experts in certain technical committees.Google Scholar

115. Annex to Dec.1/95 (1996) O.J. L35/1 of the EC–Turkey Association Council implementing the final phase of the customs union.Google Scholar

116. Art.3 of Dec.5/95 (1996) O.J. L35/49.Google Scholar

117. Art.3(1) of Prot.31 also provides for the adoption of the necessary decisions to ensure the participation of EFT A States in the European Environmental Agency.

118. Dec.94/1110 (1994) O.J. L126/4Google Scholar concerning the fourth framework programme of the EC activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994–1998).Google Scholar

119. Specific programmes are adopted by way of implementation of the framework programme.

120. Joint Declaration on Applicable Procedures in Cases where, by virtue of Art.76 and part VI of the Agreement and Corresponding Protocols, EFTA States participate Fully in EC Committees.

121. Opinion of the Committee on Budgets in the Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Security on the conclusion of the EEA Agreement, EP Doc.3–0316/92, Annex I, p.10.Google Scholar

122. Annex VI, on Social Security.

123. I.e. the Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

124. See e.g. Art.6 of Prot.23, concerning the co-operation between the surveillance authorities.

125. See, regarding problems of constitutionality, Evans, A., “Institutions of the European Communities Other than the Court of Justice”, in Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland, Vol.10 (1990), p.132 at pp.168–169.Google Scholar

126. See e.g. Dec.96/339 (1996) O.J. L129/24Google Scholar adopting a raultiannual Community programme to stimulate the development of a European multimedia content industry and to encourage the use of multimedia content in the emerging information society (INFO 2000). See also Dec.96/413 (1996) O.J. L167/55 on the implementation of a Community action programme to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry.Google Scholar

127. Note the 3rd and 4th recitals in the preamble to the Europe Agreement with Poland.

128. Cf., regarding the political context in which the Van Gend en Loos ruling was delivered, Evans, op. cit. supra n.125, at p.144, n.3.Google Scholar

129. Opinion 1/94, International Agreements on Services and the Protection of International Property [1994] E.C.R. I–5267, 5406.Google Scholar

130. See e.g. the Res. of the Parliament (1986) O.J. C227/54Google Scholar, proposing amendments to what became Dec.87/373 (1987) O.J. L197/33Google Scholar; and regarding the need for transparency, the Res. of the European Parliament of 10 Dec. 1996 (1997) O.J. C20/31 on participation of citizens and social players in the EU's institutional system and the IGC, para.19.Google Scholar

131. It provides no basis for the stable balance in positive law between centrifugal and centripetal tendencies sought by some writers. See e.g. Rivello, R., “Il Ruolo delle regioni nel diritto comunitario e nel diritto internazionale: considerazioni sulla normative vigente e sui progetti di revisione costituzionale” (1995) Diritto Comunitario e degli Scambi Internazionali 255–308.Google Scholar

132. Visscher, C. De, Theory and Reality in Public International Law (1957), p.105.Google Scholar

133. See, regarding these assumptions and their invalidation, Harrison, R. J., Europe in Question: Theories of Regional International Integration (1974), p.34.Google Scholar

134. Integration can be measured not by the strength of the centre but by the whole framework (Cappelletti, M. et al. , Integration Through Law (1986), Vol.1, bk.1, p.14).Google Scholar

135. Annex II to the Conclusions of the Presidency (E.C Bull 6–1993, I.26) at the June 1993 meetings of the European Council.Google Scholar

136. Europe Agreements and beyond: a strategy to prepare the countries of Central and Eastem Europe for accession, COM(94)320, p.2.Google Scholar

137. Kennedy, and Webb, , op. cit. supra n 36, at p.1109.Google Scholar

138. Weiler, J., “The Transformation of Europe” (1991) 100 Yale L.J. 2403, 2473.Google Scholar

139. Supra n.5.

140. See, generally, Evans, op. cit. supra n.2.