The European Commission decided to pursue infringement procedures against Romania -already second stage - for the energy sector.
The main reason is that the Romanian Parliament failed to pass an emergency government ordinance, that was supposed to assure the compliance of Romanian legislation to the EU Directives 2005/89 and 2003/54. The deadline was in February 2008, the Finance Ministry did sent for deliberation a draft legislation in this regard and also urged the Parliament to pass the governmental emergency ordinance, but Romanian Parliament failed to approve it in due time.
Romania can still avoid a trial, if the required legislation would be adopted.
Unfortunately, the campaign already started, so there is a risk of overlooking what’s really important.

EU regulators will drag again Microsoft into court. Reason:monopolistic practices, again.
This time the focus is on two essential areas for Microsoft: Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office suite.
Having in mind the result of last EU vs Microsoft case in European court, it is quite possible the concern will have to pay a significant amount (significant even for them) and “make substantial changes”.

(.. continued)

EU is not a federation

The main characteristics of a federation are as follows:
- Power is divided between central decision – making institutions and regional decision – making institutions.
- The nature of this division of power is specified in and is protected by constitutional documents. Disputes over the division are settled by a supreme judicial authority.
- The division of power between the central and regional levels is balanced: both have responsibilities – although not necessarily wholly exclusive responsibilities – for important spheres of public policy.
- some policy areas are primarily the responsibility of the central level because they are concerned with the identity, coherence, and protection of the system as a whole: foreign affairs, security and defense, management of the (single) currency, and specification and protection of citizens’ rights – or al least the more important of these rights.

Consequently, we can see that the EU does have several federal characteristics:
- Power is divided between central decision – making institutions (the Commission, The council, the EP etc.), and regional decision – making institutions (the governments in the member states).
- The nature of the division is specified in the treaties and there is a supreme judicial authority (the ECJ) with the authority to adjudicate in the event of disputes over the division.
- Both levels do have important powers and responsibilities for public policy, mainly but not exclusively, to the economic sphere.
At the same time, however, in some respects the EU falls short of the federal model:
- Although power is divided between the central level and the regional level, some of the responsibilities that lie at the centre are heavily dependent on regional acquiescence if they are to be exercised. This is most obviously the case where the unanimity rule (still) applies in the Council, for example for decisions on constitutional reform, enlargement, and fiscal measures.
- The policy balance is still titled towards the member states. The degree of this is much less than it was before the ‘relaunch’ of the Community in the mid 1980s, but the member states are still mostly in control of public decision – making. This is reflected in the fact that policy areas that involve heavy public expenditure – such as education, health, social welfare, and defense – are still essentially national policies, and the control of financial resources still lies overwhelmingly with the member states
- Those policy spheres which in federal systems are normally though of as being the responsibility of the central authorities, in the EU are primarily national responsibilities. Foreign affairs, security and defense, and citizenship rights are being developed at the EU level, but so far only to a limited degree and on a largely intergovernmental basis. Currency control is the most obvious exception to this, though not all member states are members of the single currency system.

Monsieur Valéry Giscard d’Estaing is making in his blog (yes, he had started a blog at the age of 81, and, as you can see, the venerable is very active) a detailed comparison between former (or should I say ‘the late’?) Constitutional Treaty and the present Lisbon/Reform Treaty.

(I really like how it sounds in French: ‘billet’, it reminds me somehow of Arghezi’s ‘Bilete de papagal’)

(… continued)

The European Union is not an intergovernmental organization

Intergovernmental organizations are bodies that promote voluntary cooperation and coordination between or among its members. Intergovernmental organizations have very little (if any) decision-making autonomy and cannot enforce their will on member states. Examples of intergovernmental organizations: the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe.
The differences between the EU and intergovernmental organizations are:
- The EU has more developed and complex institutional structure than intergovernmental organizations. The model of Intergovernmental organizations’ secretariats and delegations can be recognized, in a much more elaborated form, in the EU Commission and the Permanent Representations, but there are many other characteristics, such as: the regular and frequent meetings at the highest political levels between representatives of the member states; the constant and varied forms of contact between national representatives; the Court of Justice; and the European Parliament – the only directly elected multi-state assembly in the world.
- No intergovernmental organization has anything like the policy responsibilities of the EU. In terms of breath, few significant policy areas have completely escaped the EU’s attention. In terms of depth, the pattern varies, but in many important areas, such as external trade, agriculture, and competition policy, key initiating and decision – making powers have been transferred from the member states to the EU authorities.
- The EU has progressed far beyond the intergovernmental nature of intergovernmental organizations to incorporate many supranational characteristics into its structure and operation.

*The EU may thus be thought of as being, in many important respects, less than a state but much more than an intergovernmental organization.

The EU is not a supranational organization

… even there are several supranational EU bodies and policies.

There is a conflict between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism regarding the EU future . Despite broad acceptance of the supranational principle, national governments have been reluctant to cede control over all policy areas to EU institutions. A supranational organization is different because member states surrender power in specific areas to the higher organization. Decisions taken by a supranational organization must be obeyed by the member states. Often there are courts to determine when violations have occurred, although frequently enforcement mechanisms are not as effective as they are within nation states
Because countries were hesitant to surrender any control over national affairs, most of the practical proposals for supranational organizations assumed that economic integration would precede political unification.
The development of three distinct EU pillars reflects this conflict: Member states have declined to yield national control to supranational institutions over politically sensitive areas such as foreign policy and judicial affairs.
The three pillars are
1. The first or ‘Community’ pillar concerns economic, social and environmental policies.
2. The second or ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’ (CFSP) pillar concerns foreign policy and military matters.
3. The third or ‘Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters’ (PJCC) pillar concerns co-operation in the fight against crime. This pillar was originally named ‘Justice and Home Affairs’.

In the first pillar we find the supranational elements of the EU. Initially, these mainly involved economic policy, but since have expanded to include aspects of social policy, immigration policy, and education. The first pillar contains aspects of both economic and political integration.
In the second and third pillar we find the intergovernmental elements of the EU. The member states of the EU cooperate to formulate common foreign policy and security policy. They also cooperate in justice and home-affairs. In these areas, the members of the European Union retain their authority and autonomy. In other words, if only 26 of 27 member states agree on a foreign policy, the remaining state can choose to pursue its own policy.

*In economic and other areas, the EU is supranational and in most other areas, such as the military and foreign policy the EU is intergovernmental, both of these elements exist in the European Union.

(to be continued)

(..continued)

As I was previously saying, there are lively debated regarding the type of political organization the EU is, one of the reasons being that the EU is in constant transition. It is a highly complex, multi-faceted organization and in many respects the EU is unique, it is not of any (established) type: EU is a sui generis organization – the only one of its kind.

The EU is lacking some of the essential features which are necessary for a complete system of governance and which characterize Nation States. The EU is not a State; it derives its authority from its Member States.

The most important key characteristics of a State are:
1. territoriality - the state is geographically based and bound
2. sovereignty – the state stands above all other associations and groups within its geographical area and its jurisdiction extends to the whole population of the area
3. legitimacy – the authority of the state is widely recognized, both internally and externally
4. monopoly of governance – the institutions of the stat monopolize public decision-making and enforcement

These four feature do not all need to be present in a pure form for a state to exist, but they do need to feature prominently and to constitute the essential foundation of the system. With the EU, all four above mentioned features are present. Nevertheless, with the exception of territoriality, they are only partly and limited present.

1. Territoriality:
Geographically, the continent of Europe is more or less a distinct entity, forming a peninsula with its extensive sea-coasts in the North, the West and the South. As far as a land frontier in the East is concerned, the Ural Mountains form natural landmarks separating Europe from Asia, but one has to admit that it is not always obvious to decide, on purely geographical grounds, exactly where the limits are. Anyway, European Union’s territory does not coincide with the geographical continent of Europe, but it has its boundaries clearly established.

2. Sovereignty
EU does enjoy some sovereignty – as proven by the primacy of EU law and the fact that EU jurisdiction applies to the whole EU population- but the reach of that sovereignty is confined to the policy areas where the EU’s remit is established. Since sovereignty may be defined as the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived, we may say that a Nation State enjoys sovereignty and power as a matter of right, over all fields of government except for those which are specifically removed. Very clearly, the EU does not have such “independent sovereignty”. On the contrary, the EU is governed by the principle of the attribution of powers, which is enshrined in the EC Treaty : “The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein”. This means that, in contrast to Nation States, which are sovereign by definition, the EU has no power, except for those powers which have been specifically attributed to it by the Treaties. Each time the EU acts, it must do so on the basis of a specific Treaty provision which gives it the corresponding power.

3. Legitimacy
The EU does command legitimacy , but surveys show that its internal authority is somewhat thinly based, whilst its external authority is generally weak beyond the Common Commercial Policy. The EU does not derive its authority directly from its citizens but rather from its Member States (this is why I constantly say that we need referendum in all important European matters - at least for Treaties).

4. Monopoly of governance
As for monopoly of governance, although the EU has the power to regulate many sectors of the economy, far from being is such a position of dominance, the EU monopolizes governance in only a very few policy areas, and even then it is highly dependent on the Member States for policy enforcement. In addition, the EU citizenship is still limited developed. EU does not actually have control over all persons and things, as a Nation State has. It has to rely on the Member States to use the administrative and coercive machinery which is at their disposal alone, in order to ensure the proper application of EU law.

After having reviewed these different features of a State, one can reach the conclusion: the EU is not a State, but does display some of the traditional characteristics of a state, and the continuing development of the integration process inevitably means that these characteristics will strengthen (see Constitution , Reform Treaty etc.).
However the concept of the traditional statehood is braking down in the modern world, most particularly under the pressures of international interdependence and globalization. So, for example, no modern state can now be regarded as being fully sovereign in a de facto sense, and the EU Member States cannot even claim that they are fully sovereign in a de jure sense, because its Member States have not retained their full sovereignty and complete freedom to act; they have accepted to give up or to share some of their powers to the EU.

(to be continued)

On Tuesday, the European Court of Justice ruled against a 47-year-old German law that protected Volkswagen against hostile takeovers. After the court announced its decision, Volkswagen shares fell nearly 6 per cent to 169.73 euro.
This opens the door for a takeover by Porsche, which has already amassed a 31% stake in Volkswagen in last two years, Porsche being interested in acquiring a controlling stake of VW.

Since more and more Romanians are fighting for their rights in European Courts, after losing any hope in the black hole called ‘Romanian Justice’, I think these links might be useful:

European Court of Human Rights - ECHU (CEDO - for Romanians).

Good luck!

Note: at this hour, Gabriel Stefanescu, who recently won a trial at ECHR, is invited at Victor Ciutacu’s talk show. (Who knows, maybe this is the way to recover the money for the “lost” Romanian fleet :D)

(N.B. ECHR is not an EU institution, it belongs to the Council of Europe - international organization, independent of EU)

After losing antitrust case in September, Microsoft agrees changes to comply with EU regulations. A Microsoft spokesman announced that the company will not appeal again the decision, ending thus the long legal battle.
In consequence, software developers will have permission to access and use the interoperability information, and the royalties for a worldwide license, including patents, will be reduced from 5.95 percent to 0.4 percent, according to Commission.
Georg Greve, president of the Free Software Foundation-Europe, a group that had challenged Microsoft’s practice of using confidential server protocols, said for New York Times:

This is a huge breakthrough, Microsoft is finally doing what the commission ordered it to do. This will level the playing field.

Considered as one of the biggest EU court trials ever, the verdict gives an interesting image about EU’s ability to challenge giant corporations, even from USA.

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and Business Europe, representing employers in the 27-nation block - at a meeting with EU leaders in Lisbon, reached the agreement upon the “flexicurity”

Flexicurity (from flexibility and security) is a welfare state model with a pro-active labour market policy, first implemented in Denmark, in the 1990s. It is a combination of easy hiring and firing (flexibility for employers) and high benefits for the unemployed (security for the employees).

The agreement states, besides the need to make it easier for employers to hire and fire people, that there must be also measures regarding working conditions and quality of jobs, such as:
- ensuring career and employment security;
- maintaining and promoting the health and well-being of workers;
- developing skills and competencies;
- reconciling working and non-working life.

During the meeting, Portugal’s main trade union organized a demonstration opposing the labour market reforms, with about 150,000 - 200,000 people, and banners such as “Jobs with rights — Against Flexicurity” and “Portugal won’t move forward with Flexicurity”.