Til underretning for Folketingets Europaudvalg vedlægges dokument CIG 1/03, CIG 2/03, CIG 3/03, CIG 7/03 og CIG 9/03
UDENRIGSMINISTERIET
113
Medlemmerne af Folketingets Europaudvalg og deres stedfortrædere
Asiatisk Plads 2 DK-1448 København K Tel. +45 33 92 00 00 Fax +45 32 54 05 33 E-mail: um@um.dk Telex 31292 ETR DK Telegr. adr. Etrangeres Girokonto 30p 180
31. oktober 2003
Til underretning for Folketingets Europaudvalg vedlægges dokument CIG 1/03, CIG 2/03, CIG 3/03, CIG 7/03 og CIG 9/03.
Officielle dokumenter til regeringskonferencen offentliggøres på regeringskonferencens hjemmeside, hvor også danske oversættelser løbende bringes. Regeringskonferencens hjemmeside er http://ue.eu.int/igc.
CONFERENCE Brussels, 3 October 2003 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
CIG 1/03
NOTE
from: The Presidency
Date: 2 October 2003
Subject: IGC 2003
- The Council Presidency
General
I. The Presidency has now received replies from all delegations to the questionnaire which it circulated on the subject of the Council. These have proved very useful in assisting the Presidency to carry out an assessment of the subject with a view to taking forward the debate. The following is a summary of the responses from delegations on the three main issues.
I Legislative Function
2. On the issue of the Council's legislative function, the responses to the questionnaire show overwhelming support for:
- separating out the Council's public legislative function within each Council formation, rather than concentrating it in one single formation;
- defining the legislative function as encompassing all laws and framework laws. II The Formations of the Council
3. On the subject of Council formations, almost all delegations are in favour of:
- establishing the number of Council formations by a decision of the European Council, to be agreed as part of the outcome of the Conference;
- limiting the number of formations in line with the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Seville.
4. There are differences of view over how the European Council should decide on this. Similar numbers propose either unanimity or qualified majority. Very few suggest simple majority.
III The Presidency of the Council Timing
5. Almost all delegations have confirmed that they would like the basic principles and modus operandi of the Council Presidency to be part of the outcome of the Conference, although not set out in the treaty text itself. A small number would however like to have at least the basic elements included in the treaty.
Different models of the Presidency
6. The responses to the questionnaire on the Council Presidency fall into three broad categories:
- maintenance of the six-monthly Presidency rotation system (either in its current form or, as some suggest, in a "team" format designed to ensure effective coordination between a group of successive Presidencies);
- Presidency by election within each Council formation;
- 'Team' Presidency system by which the chairmanship of individual Council formations is shared out amongst a group of Member States within a set period.
These options are not necessarily exclusive. Some delegations have for example suggested including some element of elected Presidency within an overall team framework. The first two options have very limited backing, whereas a large majority of delegations either support, or are open to, the idea of a 'Team' Presidency. Many of these delegations underline the importance of ensuring that any 'team' system provide for equality of access by all Member States, as well as guarantee adequate coordination.
Variants of the 'Team' Presidency
7. Delegations have proposed a variety of options on the duration of the 'Team' Presidency, as well as on the numbers of Member States within each team. These details can only settled once the model of the 'Team' Presidency has been decided. Amongst those delegations who support a 'Team' Presidency, some have suggested a particular model. Others have not. The models which have been put forward fall into two main categories:
a) each Member State making up the 'Team' chairs a set number of Council formations for the entire period of the team;
b) each Member State making up the 'Team' chairs a set number of Council formations which rotate on a six-monthly basis, which means that over the full period of the team, each team member ends up chairing every formation.
It does appear that the first category of models has greater support than the second one, bearing in mind that not all delegations have clearly taken position at this stage.
The special case of the General Affairs Council
8. Some consider that the General Affairs Council should be included in the team arrangements on the same basis as the other Council formations. Many however propose that specific arrangements should apply. Some consider for example that, whatever the general rule, the GAC should be chaired by each Member of the team on a six-monthly basis. Others consider that it deserves a more permanent presidency (such as by the President of the European Council).
9. Most delegations consider that giving the Presidency of the General Affairs Council and COREPER to the same Member State would be an important factor in ensuring proper coordination (see below).
The special case of the Foreign Affairs Council
10. A large number of delegations consider that Foreign Affairs Council should not form part of the 'team' Presidency and endorse the proposal from the Convention that it should be chaired by the Union Foreign Affairs Minister. A few delegations are however opposed to a permanent Presidency of the FAC, and consider that, whatever the Presidency system, the FAC should be treated on the same basis as the other Council formations.
Coordination
11. Many delegations attach importance to ensuring that the 'Team' Presidency is accompanied by adequate provisions for effective coordination. A large majority consider in particular that committees and working parties subordinate to a particular Council should automatically be chaired by the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council in question, thereby assuring an effective vertical channel of communication. A small number consider that the chairmanship of these subordinate bodies should be attributed on a separate basis from the Council. Some delegations, whilst supporting the need for vertical structures, do not exclude that, in a number of specific cases, the Presidency of committees and working parties could be assured by the General Secretariat of the Council.
12. Many delegations also support the idea of an informal structure for coordination between the different Member States making up a 'Team' Presidency (possibly with the participation of the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council). A small number are opposed to this. Some underline that coordination is, in any case, primarily the role of the General Affairs Council.
IV. Orientations of the Presidency
13. In this framework, the Presidency proposes to go along the following path: As for the Council's legislative function:
- separating out the Council's public legislative function within each Council formation, rather than concentrating it in one single formation;
- defining the legislative function as encompassing all laws and framework laws.
As for the Council formations:
- establishing their number, taking into account the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Seville, by a qualified majority decision of the European Council, which shall not be part of the Constitutional Treaty, but will be adopted at the same time.
As for the Presidency of the Councils:
- Moving forward a two years Team Presidency system of four or five member States. The basic criteria for the formation of the teams are to be an integral part of the Constitution, while the teams will be fixed by an unanimous decision of the European Council at an appropriately early stage before the entry into force of the Constitution. The basic criteria should be: parity, equal rotation, political and geographical balance and diversity of member States. According to the Presidency, each Member making up the Team should chair a set number of Council formations for the entire period of the Team. The other possibility (i.e. an equal rotation of members States on a fixed basis in the framework of the team) is actually a kind of a rotation system and should be avoided. The allocation of the different Council formations within the Team should be left to the discretion of the Member States in the Team.
- Member States are split on the Presidency of the FAC by the FM. But the majority is in favour. The Presidency believes the Convention text should be kept.
- The coordination would be assured by the GAC, whose Presidency entails the Presidency of Coreper I and II.
- The Presidency of a particular Council entails the Presidency of the related working groups and committees.
- In the framework of the multi-annual programme, informal coordination meetings between the different member States of the Team, with the participation of the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, should not be ruled out.
CONFERENCE Brussels, 2 October 2003 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
CIG 2/03
NOTE
from: Presidency
date : 2 October 2003
Subject: IGC 2003
- The Union Ministerfor Foreign Affairs: main points The concept of the Foreign Minister
1. The creation of a Union Minister of Foreign Affairs, according to the formula of the "doublehat", combines in one post the responsibilities currently falling to the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations. It is widely considered to be one of the main achievements of the Convention. The concept of the double-hatted Foreign Minister has not been called into question by any delegation.
2. The primary purpose of the post of Foreign Minister is to improve coherence in both the formulation and expression of the Union's external relations policy. Its effectiveness depends on the concept of "double-hatting". In practice this means that the minister combines:
a. being a member of the Commission, with specific responsibility there for external relations;
b. having an autonomous role within the area of CFSP within the structure of the Council.
3. This combination is the key to the success of the Foreign Minister.
4. There is a general and wide political support for the broad concept of the post of Foreign Minister. Some details are more difficult to be agreed upon.
5. There is a number of specific provisions in the text of the draft Constitutional Treaty on which delegations seek clarification or have different interpretations. These concern some aspects of the Minister's status, the Minister's role within the CFSP and his responsibilities for other (non-CFSP) aspects of external relations.
The Minister's status
6. Delegations are split on the interpretation of Art. 1 25.3, 26.2, 27.3. According to some of them, the Foreign Minister is part of the College and is therefore included in the system of equal rotation for the selection of Commissioners. Consequently, he will always be able to
vote in the Commission, regardless of the kind of the issue which is at stake. On the other hand, other delegations consider that the FM is not part of the college and is therefore able to vote on external relations matters only.
7. Some delegations consider that the Foreign Minister, as a Commissioner, is included in the provision under which the Commission must resign if subject to a censure motion passed by the Parliament (Article 1-25.5). Others do not accept this, pointing to the separate rules for ending the tenure of the Foreign Minister set out in Article I-27.1. This also raises the question as to whether the rule whereby any Commissioner is obliged to resign at the request of the Commission President (Article 1-26.3) should apply to the Minister.
The role of the Minister: Common Foreign and Security Policy (including CSDP)
8. On CFSP, the draft Constitutional Treaty includes a comprehensive and fairly clear set of provisions covering the Minister's responsibilities. These build on the existing responsibilities of the High Representative, but also include several important new provisions such as the formal (and, excepting the Member States, exclusive) power of initiative and the fact that the Minister will chair the Foreign Affairs Council. In this area the Minister acts independently of the Commission since the text is clear that he is not bound by Commission procedures for CFSP (Article 1-27.2). Whilst there are some delegations which do not accept that the Minister chair the Foreign Affairs Council, the remainder of the CFSP provisions are considered to be clear and seem to be broadly acceptable to delegations.
9. The provisions on CFSP, stating that the Minister is not bound by Commission procedures, apply a fortiori to the Common Security and Defence policy (which is considered to be an integral part of the CFSP).
The role of the Foreign Minister: Other aspects of external relations
10. The text states that the Minister has responsibility for coordinating "other aspects of the Union's external action" (Article 1-27.3). There has to be clarity over the way the Minister could carry out this coordinating function.
CONFERENCE Brussels, 6 October 2003 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
CIG 3/03
DECLARATION OF ROME
Together in Rome on the occasion of the opening of the Inter - Governmental Conference (IGC) to revise the Treaties, the Heads of State and of Government of Member Countries, of acceding countries and candidates to the European Union, the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission:
- reaffirm that the process of European integration is our continent's essential calling as the instrument for a more efficacious international role for the Union in supporting peace, democracy, prosperity and solidarity in all member States;
- highlight the fact that the imminent enlargement constitutes a historical moment which renders the Union richer in terms of identity and culture and extends the possibility of promoting shared values and of conferring weight and authority to Europe's role in world;
confirm the importance of the commitment to endow the European Union with a constitutional text based on the equality of its States, people and citizens that assures the efficacy, consistency and efficiency of Europe's role in the world and take up the Convention's Draft Treaty as a good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference;
renew the expectation of a conclusion of the constitutional negotiations in advance of the European Parliament elections in June 2004 in order to allow European citizens to cast their vote in full awareness of the future architecture of the Union;
stress that the adoption of a Constitutional Treaty represents a vital step in the process aimed at making Europe more cohesive, more transparent and democratic, more efficient and closer to its citizens, inspired by the will to promote universal values above all through cooperation with international multilateral organisations and confirming a strong and balanced transatlantic relationship;
give homage, in the light of this imminent and significant passage, to those who with great foresight, from the end of the Second World War to the present, invested their energy in the process of European integration: from the Founders of the initial Community to the political leaders of the member states who continued and carried forward their work, to the citizens and above all to Europe's youth who are called upon to define the image and identity of tomorrow's Europe.
CONFERENCE
OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
GOVERNMENTS
OF THE MEMBER STATES
NOTE
Brussels, 10 October 2003 (13.10) (OR. fr)
CIG 7/03
from : Working Party of IGC Legal Experts
to : Delegations
Subject : IGC 2003
- Working Party of IGC Legal Experts (9 and 10 October 2003)
Further to the Working Party's discussions, delegations will find below the text which could be incorporated into the Preamble of the Constitution as the penultimate recital:
"Determined to continue in a new Union the process of European integration begun by the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis. "
CONFERENCE
OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE
GOVERNMENTS
OF THE MEMBER STATES
TRANSMISSION NOTE from: the Presidency
to: Delegations
Brussels, 15 October 2003
CIG 9/03
PRESID 1
Subject: IGC 2003
- Questionnaire on the Legislative Function, the Formations of the Council and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers
Delegations will find attached the questionnaire on the Legislative Function, the Formations of the Council and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers that was circulated on 19 September 2003.
THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION/
THE FORMATIONS OF THE
COUNCIL/
THE PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
ANNEX
(questionnaire)
During bilateral discussions organised by the Presidency, the need emerged: - for the Council's legislative function to be more clearly defined;
- for the list of Council formations to be fixed;
- for the arrangements for rotation of the Presidencies of the Council formations to be clarified.
I. THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
1. Should exercise of the legislative function be conferred on a single Council formation or
should a legislative function (public) and a part dedicated to other activities be determined for each Council formation?
2. Should the public legislative part be concerned only with laws and framework laws adopted under the normal legislative procedure (i.e. joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council)
or
with all laws and framework laws?
II. THE FORMATIONS OF THE COUNCIL
3. Should the European Council's decision on the list of Council formations - as envisaged by the Convention - be taken unanimously as stipulated in the draft Convention? by a qualified majority? or by a simple majority? Should the list be confined to a small number of formations in line with the decision taken in Seville?
III. THE PRESIDENCY OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
4. Should other Council formations apart from the Foreign Affairs Council have a fixed Presidency (i.e. not applying the rotation system provided for in Article 23(4))? which formations?
of what duration?
using what procedure (election by the members of the Council formation concerned)?
5. Should there be a Team Presidency system for the Council formations that continue to use the rotation system?
6. If it is decided to opt for a Team Presidency system
(a) how many Member States should there be in the "team"? three? four? five?
(b) what should be the duration of its term? a year? 18 months? longer?
(c) should the composition of the teams be fixed in advance 2 left open on the basis of criteria to be determined, with due regard for the principle of equal rotation (which would take into account political and geographical balance and the diversity of Member States as defined in Article 23(4) of the draft Convention)?
(d) should the allocation of the different Council formations within the team be fixed in advance or left to the discretion of the Member States in the team?
7. Given the need for increased coordination under a Team Presidency system, should a "chain of command" be maintained, at least partially, with the Member State chairing the General Affairs Council also chairing Coreper [I and II?]?
8. Should committees/ working parties subordinate to a particular Council automatically be chaired by the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council in question (vertical structure)?
9. By the same token, if the Foreign Affairs Minister chaired the Foreign Affairs Council, should the PSC and other external relations working parties be chaired by a representative of the Foreign Affairs Minister?
10. In order to achieve greater coherence in the Council's proceedings, should there be an informal structure for coordination between the representatives of the Member States holding the Presidency, in which the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission and the Minister for Foreign Affairs could participate?
11. Should the detailed arrangements for the rotation of the Presidency of the Council be the subject of a decision to be taken unanimously * by the European Council? If so:
- should it be adopted at the same time as the Treaty establishing the Constitution?
- could it be adopted later if the essential elements of the future arrangements were agreed at the same time as the Treaty establishing the Constitution?
*At present, the list setting out the order in which Member States assume the Presidency is adopted by the Council unanimously.