1. Introduction to EU law Structure – EU institutions
EU legislation – principles
Influence
Accession
Capacity to implement acquis
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. Directives & Regulations (art. 249 EC)
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 -> 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. Commission initiates policies
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. Copenhagen criteria (1993)
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. Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs)
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

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. Empowered and accountable institutions +
(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

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?