European Union

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.

After months out of the limelight, Greece has crept back up financial traders’ worry list.

Read more

Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU

Comparative advertising based on prices as between shops having different formats and sizes is unlawful in certain circumstances

New rules allowing EU citizens with subscriptions for online music, games, films and TV shows to access this content while staying temporarily in another EU country, were informally agreed by Parliament and Council negotiators on Tuesday.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

New rules allowing EU citizens with subscriptions for online music, games, films and TV shows to access this content while staying temporarily in another EU country, were informally agreed by Parliament and Council negotiators on Tuesday.
Committee on Legal Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/20d45ba4-ed1c-11e6-84f8-bc764e092fac_11.41_thumb_169_1486461956_1486461956_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The relations between the EU and the Republic of Moldova are based on the Association Agreement which was signed on the margins of the EU summit held on 27 June 2014. 

Download this video here.

RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Canada, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Charles Tannock

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

ERRATUM to the report containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Mongolia, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Helmut Scholz

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 8 February 2017 member states' ambassadors endorsed the deal on wholesale caps that will put an end to retail mobile roaming charges in the EU on 15 June this year. The presidency reached a provisional agreement on the wholesale rules with the European Parliament on 31 January. 

As the culmination of a 10-year process to push down roaming fees, people will finally be able to travel across Europe and stay connected just as they do at home, without paying extra.

The successive decisions that the EU has taken, first to reduce retail roaming charges, and now to abolish them, are underpinned by a set of rules governing operators when they do business with each other. In particular, these rules cap how much operators may charge each other when consumers call, text or surf in another EU country. 

The new, significantly lower caps are designed to allow mobile phone operators to offer surcharge-free roaming to their customers without increasing domestic prices. Together with the retail fair use policy, the wholesale rules help ensure that the abolition of roaming charges is sustainable throughout the EU. 

Dr Emmanuel Mallia, the Maltese Minister for Competitiveness and Digital, Maritime and Services Economy, said: "Ending roaming fees is very good news for all Europeans. I am pleased that the Maltese presidency has brought this file to a successful close. It is key to making further progress towards achieving a European Digital Single Market. Malta will be celebrating this achievement with its fellow EU member states on the 15th and 16th of June during the Digital Assembly 2017 event, which will be held in Malta." 

What next? 

The agreed text will now undergo technical finalisation. It must then be formally approved first by the Parliament and then by the Council (agreement at first reading). 

It is envisaged that the Parliament will adopt the regulation in April and the Council at the latest in May. Adoption by the Council does not need to take place in the Telecom Council: any Council configuration has the power to adopt the legal act. 

The adopted regulation will be signed by both institutions. This could take place at the Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg in May. The signed text will be published in the EU Official Journal and will enter into force three days later. 

The new wholesale regulation must be in effect by 15 June 2017 so that retail roaming fees can be abolished as laid down in the roaming regulation adopted in 2015.

For more information and the agreed caps, see our press release from 31 January 2017 (link below)

General : Amid temperatures of -20°C people in Eastern Ukraine were cut off from electricity, heating and water after pro-Russian rebels broke the ceasefire and started shelling the area last week. Another sign that managing EU-Russia relations remains a challenge especially in view of the country's assertiveness and uncertainty surrounding the future of US foreign policy. The security and defence subcommittee discussed on Monday Russia's influence in Ukraine and Southern Caucasus and how to react to it.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

General : Amid temperatures of -20°C people in Eastern Ukraine were cut off from electricity, heating and water after pro-Russian rebels broke the ceasefire and started shelling the area last week. Another sign that managing EU-Russia relations remains a challenge especially in view of the country's assertiveness and uncertainty surrounding the future of US foreign policy. The security and defence subcommittee discussed on Monday Russia's influence in Ukraine and Southern Caucasus and how to react to it.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

This post first appeared at The Academic Research Network on Agencification of EU Executive Governance (TARN)

 

As a result of the migratory crisis, the transformation of Frontex into a European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG) became a political priority for both the EU and the Member States (MS). Regulation 2016/1624 aims to strengthen the position and independence of the EBCG from the MS, which have not always fully cooperated with Frontex. Frontex was established in 2004 to coordinate and provide operational assistance to the MS in the management of their external borders. The powers initially delegated to Frontex to enhance a uniform and effective implementation of EU border management gradually expanded with the adoption of Regulations 863/2007 and 1168/2011.

Regulation 863/2007 introduced the rapid intervention teams and a Central Record of Available Technical Equipment (CRATE). While this equipment was intended to be used on a bilateral basis between MS, it provided a limited inventory of equipment that could also be used in joint operations. Regulation 1168/2011 reinforced the operational capacity of Frontex and its autonomy. Article 7 ordered that “the Agency may acquire (…) technical equipment for external border control to be deployed during joint operations, pilot projects, rapid interventions, joint return operations or technical assistance project (…)”. Moreover, Regulation 1168/2011 created the European Border Guard Teams. Particularly, article 3b(3) established that Frontex “shall also contribute to the European Border Guard Teams with competent border guards seconded by the Member State as national experts”. For a period of up to six months, Frontex was competent to decide where and for how long the seconded guest officers were going to be deployed (see, Commitments of MS to the European Border Guard Teams and the Technical Equipment Pool).

Despite these developments towards a more independent and effective support to the MS when implementing EU border management rules and policies, the Commission argued that Regulation 2016/1624 would provide the EBCG “the additional competences needed for it to effectively implement integrated border management at Union level (…)”. The Commission stressed that notwithstanding the fact that the EU designed a policy enabling MS to build and maintain sound external borders, the discrepancies in implementation at the national level still remained. However, while the European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos referred to the new agency as “a fully-fledged European Border and Coast Guard system”, Regulation 2016/1624 has not created an agency with exclusive powers in the management and surveillance of the European borders. Rather, it expands the supervisory and operational functions originally delegated to Frontex, which may enhance a uniform and efficient implementation of EU laws and policies.

Source: http://frontex.europa.eu/pressroom/

First, article 3(2) of Regulation 2016/1624 grants the EBCG a supervisory role to ensure a common integrated management of the EU’s external borders. If certain weaknesses were identified at the national external borders, the executive director of the EBCG shall recommend the adoption of specific measures by the concerned MS. Supposing these measures were not implemented in an effective or timely matter, the management board of the agency would adopt a binding decision setting out the necessary measures that the MS must implement (article 13(8)).

Secondly, Regulation 2016/1624 delegates the EBCG greater technical and operational competences (article 18(2)). In order to effectively assist the MS, the EBCG may acquire its own technical equipment (article 38) and it will have at least 1,500 border guards at its disposal to be immediately deployed in joint operations or rapid border interventions (article 20(5)). This new possibility delegated to the EBCG to acquire its own equipment may pose legal and fundamental rights challenges, for instance if the EBCG decides to conduct border surveillance using its own aerostats (blimps), un­manned drones or optionally-piloted aircrafts.

The most contentious competence is what has been referred as the EBCG’s intervention capacity. The new agency is empowered to monitor the effective functioning of the external borders of the MS, carry out vulnerability assessments, verify whether a MS is able to effectively enforce EU law and detect deficiencies in the management of its borders. If a MS either fails to take the measures recommended in its vulnerability assessment or does not request or fails to take the necessary action in the face of disproportionate migratory pressure, the EBCG shall adopt a unified and effective EU approach, since the functioning of the Schengen area might otherwise be jeopardized.

How will this new intervention power delegated to the EBCG work in practice? Article 19(1) of the Regulation 2016/1624 states that “the Council (…) may adopt (…) a decision (…) identifying measures to mitigate those risks to be implemented by the Agency and requiring the Member State concerned to cooperate with the Agency in the implementation of those measures (…)”. Subsequently, the director of the EBCG must, after reaching an agreement with the MS concerned, “determine the actions to be taken for the practical execution of the measures identified in that decision (…)” (article 19(4)). That is, the MS must consent and agree to the operational plan before the EBCG implements it. If the MS neither implements the decision taken by the Council, nor agrees with the director of the EBCG on an operational plan within 30 days, the European Commission may authorize the other MS to reestablish border controls at the Schengen area (article 19(10)). Hence, it is debatable to what extent the new agency will be capable of imposing the execution of certain measures to a MS that completely resists such measures. In this case, the only feasible solution seems to be the exclusion of the non-complying MS from the Schengen area.

Therefore, the implementation powers delegated to the EBCG are still very limited since border management is a distinctive competence related to state-centered matters such as sovereignty, fundamental rights or trade. The EBCG constitutes another necessary and timid step towards an effective and uniform implementation of an integrated management system for external borders. The deliberately ambiguous text of the Regulation 2016/1624 aims to find a balance between the increasing need for an effective and uniform European strategy at the external borders and the resistance of the MS to further delegate sensitive competences closely linked to their national sovereignty. Yet, the emerging shared implementation powers between the EBCG and the MS may lead to important accountability and fundamental rights issues that must be assessed as they arise.

The post The European Border and Coast Guard: Towards the Centralization of the External Border Management appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 7 February the Maltese presidency reached a provisional agreement with European Parliament representatives to remove barriers to cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market.

The agreement, which still needs to be confirmed by both the Council and the European Parliament, will allow consumers who have subscribed or bought online content services in their home country to access it when temporarily present in another country within the EU. 

"Europeans travelling within the EU will no longer be cut off from online services such as films, sporting broadcasts, music, e-books or games they have paid for back home. Together with the ending of roaming charges, this is important progress in creating a digital single market which benefits everyone."

Chris Cardona, Minister for the Economy, Investment and Small Business of Malta.

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_c96321.r21.cf3.rackcdn.com/15285_169_full_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The EU seeks to develop particular close relationship with Morocco, its geographical neighbour, and to support Morocco's economic and political reforms. The relationship emphasizes close cooperation on democratic reform, economic modernization, and migration issues.

Download this video here.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 325 - Draft report Report on the 2016 Commission Report on Serbia
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 55 - Draft opinion Towards a new trade framework between the EU and Turkey and the modernisation of the Customs Union
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

X and X
DFON
According to Advocate General Mengozzi, Members States must issue a visa on humanitarian grounds where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that a refusal would place persons seeking international protection at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment

Length of video : 226'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

On 7 February 2017, the Council adopted an implementing decision setting out a recommendation to prolong temporary internal border controls in exceptional circumstances. 

Starting from 11 February 2017, when the previous decision expires, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway should prolong proportionate temporary border controls for a maximum period of three months at the following internal borders:  

• Austria at the Austrian-Hungarian land border and Austrian-Slovenian land border
• Germany at the German-Austrian land border
• Denmark in the Danish ports with ferry connections to Germany and at the Danish-German land border
• Sweden in the Swedish harbours in the Police Region South and West and at the Öresund bridge
• Norway in the Norwegian ports with ferry connections to Denmark, Germany and Sweden

 Before prolonging such controls, those member states concerned should exchange views with the relevant member states to ensure that internal border controls are carried out only where it is considered necessary and proportionate. They should also ensure that internal border controls are only carried out as a last resort when other alternative measures cannot achieve the same effect. 

Border controls should be targeted and limited in scope, frequency, location and time, to what is strictly necessary to respond to the serious threat and to safeguard public policy and internal security resulting from the continued risk of secondary movements of irregular migrants. 

The member states that carry out these controls should review each week whether they are still necessary and adjust them to the level of the threat, phasing them out wherever appropriate. They should report to the Commission and the Council every month.

Background  

Under article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code, the Commission may propose a recommendation, to be adopted by the Council by qualified majority, to reintroduce controls at all or specific parts of the border of one or more member states as a matter of last resort. They may be introduced for a period of up to six months. Controls can be prolonged for additional six month periods up to a maximum duration of two years.  

On 4 May 2016, in the context of the migratory crisis, the Commission considered that the conditions for applying Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code were fulfilled and submitted a recommendation to the Council. This was due to serious deficiencies in ensuring efficient controls at parts of the EU's external borders, which put the functioning  of the entire Schengen area at risk. 

On 12 May 2016, the Council recommended to the five Schengen state most affected (Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) that they maintain proportionate temporary border controls for a maximum period of six months to respond to the serious threat and to safeguard public policy and internal security, as a result of the secondary movements of irregular migrants.  

Given the fragile situation and the residue of pressure remaining in the members states most affected by these movements, on 11 November 2016 the Council recommended that these member states prolong proportionate temporary border controls for a maximum period of three months. 

On 25 January 2017, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council implementing decision recommending to the five Schengen states that they prolong the temporary internal border controls for a further maximum period of three months. 

On 7 February 2017, the Council registered the absence of unanimity in support of the proposal for a regulation creating a European Public Prosecutor's office (EPPO). This opens the way for a group of at least nine member states to refer the text for discussion to the European Council for a final attempt at securing consensus on the proposal. If this does not prove possible, enhanced cooperation can be considered. 

"EPPO has been part of the Treaties since 2009. However, as the last six and a half years have shown its establishment has been elusive. I am positive that the Maltese presidency will achieve concrete results by continuing to act as an honest broker so that those member states who wish to launch enhanced cooperation do so under this presidency”, said Owen Bonnici, Minister for Justice of Malta. 

Next steps & procedure 

Article 86 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU foresees that, in case of absence of unanimity on the regulation creating the EPPO, a group composed of a minimum of nine member states may request that the text be referred to the European Council for discussion. The European Council then has  a period of up to four months to try to reach a consensus. 

If it still proves impossible to secure a consensus, a group of at least nine member states can express the wish to establish enhanced cooperation. 

Background 

The aim of the EPPO regulation is to create a European Public Prosecutor's Office. The EPPO would be an independent Union body with the authority, under certain conditions, to investigate and prosecute EU-fraud and other crimes affecting the Union's financial interests. It would bring together European and national law-enforcement efforts to counter EU-fraud.