MODEL EUROPEAN UNION

Preparation Guide2013

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Welcome Letter

How to read this guide?

I. LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

1. The EU institutions

A. The European Commission

B. The European Parliament

C. The Council of the European Union

2. Types of legislative act in EU law

3. The EU legislative procedures

A. The ordinary legislative procedure

B. The consent procedure in the context of accession

4. The EU’s Enlargement Policy

II. LAW-MAKING IN MEU 2013

1. The EU institutions as simulated in MEU 2013

A. The European Commission at MEU

B. The European Parliament at MEU

C. The Council of the European Union at MEU

2. The EU legislative procedures as simulated in MEU 2013

A. The ordinary legislative procedure at MEU

B. The consent procedure and the accession process at MEU

III. THE TIMETABLE OF MEU 2013

Model European Union 2013Strasbourg

MODEL EUROPEAN UNION 2013 PREPARATION GUIDECOPYRIGHT© 2013

BRINGING EUROPEANS TOGETHER ASSOCIATION (BETA) E.V.

Hintere Bleiche 49a

55116 Mainz

Germany

LÉO WILKINSON

GUILHERME GOMES

CONTENT TEAM: MARTIN DEDERKE, IVANA DIMITROVA, KARIM MOUSHARAFA,

FLAVIA POPESCU-RICHARDSON, JANIS RUSIS, AND CONOR SLOWEY.

MARTINA DRAHOSOVA (CHAIRS’ COORDINATOR), BEATA FEJESOVÁ (HEAD OF DELEGATE COORDINATION),

JOSH HENWOOD (JOURNALISTS’ COORDINATOR), DANIEL KECK (LOBBYISTS’ COORDINATOR),

MAŁGORZATA PACHOŁ (INTERPRETERS’ COORDINATOR)

EDITOR

DESIGN & LAYOUT

CONTRIBUTIONS

7

8

11

11

11

12

13

14

15

15

16

17

20

20

20

21

22

23

23

24

25

4 5

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. How will the Croatia negotiations be simulated in MEU 2013?

6. Further reading

VIII. LANGUAGE COVERAGE INFORMATION

1. Interpreting for the European Parliament

2. Interpreting for the Council

3. Tips on public speaking and dealing with interpretation for participants

IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

X. ANNEX

1. The Ordinary Legislative Procedure step-by-step

2. Sample Position Papers

IV. ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

1. Members of the European Parliament

2. Members of the Council of the European Union

3. Lobbyists

4. Journalists

5. Interpreters

6. Role and functions of Chairs

V. PREPARING FOR MEU 2013

1. How to prepare for Model European Union 2013

A. How Members of the European Parliament should prepare

B. How Ministers of the Council of the European Union should prepare

C. How Journalists, Lobbyists, and Interpreters should prepare

2. How to write a Position Paper

VI. PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS AND MULTI-TERRITORIAL LICENSING OF RIGHTS IN MUSICAL WORKS FOR ONLINE USES IN THE INTERNAL MARKET.

1. Background to the proposed Directive

2. Content of the proposed Directive

3. Positions of different stakeholders on the Proposal

4. Further reading

VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

1. General overview of how the Croatia negotiations unfolded in reality

2. Overview of the Competition Policy negotiations

3. Overview of the Judiciary and Fundamental Rights negotiations

4. Overview of the Environment negotiations

53

54

58

59

60

61

26

27

27

28

29

30

30

32

32

32

34

36

36

39

39

39

40

43

45

45

46

50

52

63

86

86

92

7

WELCOME LETTER

DEAR PARTICIPANTS OF MEU 2013

A very warm welcome to MEU 2013 and congratulations on having been chosen to par-ticipate in what we trust is going to be a life-changing experience for you! You will very soon understand why Model European Union is an academically and socially challenging simulation that will both enrich and inspire you.

Being selected to participate in MEU 2013 means that you are qualified and show enough potential to take part in a highly professional conference. Your essay, your background and your motivation have demonstrated to us that you have a good grasp of EU law and politics or excellent skills and potential in interpreting and that you can greatly contribute to the success of the simulation.

That being said, it is essential that you arrive well-prepared to the conference in Stras-bourg. This Preparation Guide is designed to provide you with all the basic information about the content of the simulation. It is absolutely jam-packed with things you need to be aware of: from the different institutions of the EU’s political system and how EU law is made, to Music Copyright, Croatia’s accession negotiations, but also explanations of the interpreting services at MEU and role descriptions for categories of participants. Part V How to Prepare for MEU is undoubtedly one of the most important of this Guide, so make sure you read it carefully.

The content of this Guide is relevant for all participants of MEU 2013: whether you are a Minister, an MEP, a lobbyist, a journalist or an interpreter you must thorough-ly study the parts of the Preparation Guide that concern your role and go further by doing your own research in order to ensure your successful participation in the simula-tion.

We recommend that you bring this Guide with you to Strasbourg to facilitate your work. It is also very important that you bring a printed copy of the Rules of Procedure, and of the Music Copyright proposal document.

Should you have any queries regarding the procedure and content of the simulation or how to prepare for the conference, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.

Your MEU 2013 Content Team wishes you the best of luck in your preparation for the con-ference, and we are all looking forward to meeting you in Strasbourg!

LÉO WILKINSON

HEAD OF THE CONTENT TEAM

MARTIN DEDERKE, IVANA DIMITROVA, KARIM MOUSHARAFA, FLAVIA POPESCU-RICHARDSON, JANIS RUSIS, AND CONOR SLOWEY.

MEMBERS OF THE CONTENT TEAM

8 9

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE HOW TO READ THIS GUIDE?

official documents and resources for you to look at in your preparation.

The proposal document itself is accessible to everyone, regardless of your academic background. You only need to make sure that you have sufficiently understood the con-tent of the legislative proposal, the purpose of your role in the conference and the posi-tions/interests you represent.

In Part VIII of the Guide (Language Coverage Information), you will be provided with extremely useful information on the language coverage of MEU 2013, which is one of the unique features of MEU. Do not forget to pay particular attention to the tips on public speaking and how to make the interpreters’ work easier!

In Part IX, you will find the Rules of Procedure of the simulation. Please, read them care-fully and bring a printed version of them with you to Strasbourg.

In the ANNEX, you will find a detailed, step-by-step description of the ordinary legisla-tive procedure, and three sample position papers to facilitate the writing of your own po-sition papers.

INTRODUCTION: HOW TO READ THIS PREPARATION GUIDE?

Before trying to calculate how long it is going to take you to read the remaining 26 694 words of this document, please keep in mind that this guide is not meant to be read from cover to cover! Depending on how much you know about EU law and politics, and which role you will be taking on in Strasbourg, some parts will be more relevant for you than oth-ers.

The Preparation Guide begins with some general materials on the EU institutions in-volved in EU law-making and decision-making, the legislative acts that you will encoun-ter in the simulation (Directives and Regulations) and the legislative procedures that will be simulated (Part I: Law-making in the EU). You will then be directly introduced to how the foregoing is simulated in MEU 2013 (Part II: Law-making in MEU 2013) and right af-terwards you will be familiarized with the timetable of MEU 2013 (Part III: The timetable of the conference).

We will then provide you with some brief descriptions of the roles featured in MEU 2013 (Part IV: Role descriptions) so that you can achieve a better understanding both of your own role and of the roles of the people that will surround you during the conference. How-ever, it is highly recommended that you do some further research on your role in the simu-lation in order to achieve an in-depth understanding of it and thus to enhance your per-formance during the conference.

Furthermore, you will find an important briefing on how to properly prepare for MEU 2013, which includes checklists listing what you should do before arriving in Strasbourg (Part V: Preparing for MEU 2013).

Next, you will be introduced to the Music Copyright legislative proposal, and the Cro-atian Accession topic, whose negotiations will be simulated in MEU 2013 (Parts VI and VII). It must be pointed out that the proposal in question was drafted and introduced by the European Commission in reality; therefore a significant amount of relevant informa-tion is available in articles and online sources. It is important that you read the actual text of the proposal very carefully (including the explanatory memoranda and preambles) and that you then study the relevant analysis that can be found in this Guide and in oth-er sources. The same thing applies to Croatian accession: there is a significant amount of information available online which can help you understand the process of the accession negotiations. Only in this way will you be able to successfully negotiate and for example propose amendments to the Music Copyright proposal and set conditions for Croatian ac-cession.

Therefore extensive research on the topics is indispensable, as is research on the posi-tions adopted by Member States, political groupings of the European Parliament and lob-by groups (depending on the role assigned to you), as well as on the amendments proposed by them. At the end of both of parts VI & VII, we have included many important links to

10 11

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE I. LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

B. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The European Parliament (EP) is the only directly elected institution of the European Un-ion. Along with the Council of the European Union, it exercises legislative functions in the EU. According to the applicable legislative procedure, the EP adopts EU legislation joint-ly with the Council or is consulted by the Council or it gives its assent to the latter for the adoption of an EU act. Moreover, jointly with the Council, it debates and adopts the EU budget, while it also exercises powers of parliamentary control by scrutinizing the ac-tivity of other EU institutions. In particular, it holds the European Commission accountable through the mechanism of questions addressed to the Commissioners and – most impor-tantly – through the motion of censure. The relationship of the EP with the Council is one of the most important ones in the institutional framework of the EU. Both under the legisla-tive procedures and under the budget procedure, the EP has to closely collaborate with the Council and it does so under inter-institutional agreements which stipulate the details of their cooperation. Trilogue meetings, comprising representatives from the European Com-mission, the EP and the Council are particularly important in this respect.

Since its first direct election in 1979, the EU has had a tremendous increase in its pow-ers, as it has successfully argued that it is the EU’s only democratically elected institution and therefore it has to be given enhanced powers in order to compensate for the so-called ‘democratic deficit’ of the EU. The EP represents European citizens (the people), as opposed to national governments, which are represented by the European Council and the Council of the EU.

The seat distribution in the EP is done roughly according to the size of the population of each Member State. For example, the United Kingdom currently has 72 seats, Germa-ny has 99 seats and Poland has 50 seats, whereas Luxembourg and Cyprus each have 6 seats. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) form political groupings, in which they are organised by political affiliation and not by nationality. Currently, there are 7 political groupings in the EP: EPP, S&D, ALDE, ECR, Greens-EFA, EUL-NGL and EFD (C.f. table below for details). There are also ‘Non-Inscrits’ or ‘Non-Attached Members’, who, as their name sug-gests, do not belong to any political grouping.

Currently there are 736 MEPs in the EP, elected for a renewable mandate of five years. By serving about 375 million eligible voters (2009 figures), it is the largest transnational demo-cratically elected assembly in the world. There is no other international organisation in the world where Member States (or national governments) have to share their role in the deci-sion-making process with a directly elected institution. What is also interesting about the EP as an EU institution is that it also includes elected representatives whose political affil-iation is not always in favour and even strongly against EU integration.

FURTHER READING

For more insight into what the EP does and how it works, you are encouraged to watch the following videos:

PART I

LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

1. THE EU INSTITUTIONS

A. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), the role of the European Com-mission is to ‘promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end’. The European Commission has a variety of functions and competences with-in the EU and is primarily responsible for preparing legislative proposals, for drafting and executing the EU budget and for managing the various EU programmes. It therefore de fac-to acts as the agenda setter in the EU institutional framework and has an almost exclu-sive power of legislative initiative. In addition, the Commission monitors the application of the Treaties and of secondary EU legislation, although it has to largely rely on national administrations to that end due to the lack of Commission agencies which could carry out the relevant supervisory duty within the Member States. Lastly, the Commission also plays a role in the external relations of the EU, as it operates delegations (EU embassies) around the world and it acts as the main negotiator for the EU in international trade and coopera-tion negotiations. The European Commission also acts as the mediator between the Mem-ber States and the European Parliament, in particular within the context of the production of EU law.

In essence, the European Commission has both political and administrative functions. Its political functions are performed by the College of Commissioners which at present comprises one Commissioner from every Member State and also the President of the Com-mission. Commissioners have political responsibilities with regard to the portfolio that has been assigned to them (e.g. Competition, Environment, Transport, Trade, Internal Market and Services etc.). A Commissioner’s portfolio is supported by the departments of the Com-mission, which are known as Directorates-General and form part of the European Com-mission administration. Commissioners also have a Cabinet of their own, which is their private office and ensures the communication of the Commissioners with the various de-partments and services of the European Commission. Cabinets are also particularly im-portant to actors such as national governments and lobbyists, who want to influence the Commission with regard to specific policies. Finally, the European Commission has its own administrative civil service, the Secretariat-General of the European Commission, which is headed by a Secretary-General and is responsible for the smooth and effective day-to-day running of the Commission.

12 13

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE I. LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE POLITICAL FACTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

C. THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Council of the European Union exercises legislative and budgetary functions joint-ly with the European Parliament. It carries out policy-making and coordinating functions, as laid down in the Treaties. It is composed of 27 representatives of the EU Member States (one representative per Member State) at a ministerial level, who are responsible for spe-cific portfolios in their national governments and who have the power to legally bind the latter.

The specific composition of the Council varies according to the issues that are dealt with. At present, the Council convenes in 10 different configurations, covering the whole range of EU policies and depending on the nature of the matters on the agenda. For example, fi-nance matters are dealt with by the ECOFIN configuration of the Council (Economic and Fi-nancial Affairs Council), while justice and home affairs are dealt with by the Justice and Home Affairs Council. However, despite the 10 different configurations of the Council, there

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgAV9HdAEvg&feature=relmfu

• http://www.youtube.com/user/EuropeanParliament#p/u/37/rbedERh3H60

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11721139

And just to get a taste of what the debate in the EP can be like…

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdAynVBCsmo

THE POWERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

NAME ACRONYM PHILOSOPHYSEATS IN EP

NUMBER PERCENTAGE EUROPEAN UNITED LEFT-NORDIC GREEN LEFT

WWW.GUENGL.EU

GUE-NGL LEFT 35 ~ 5%

PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE OF SOCIALISTS AND DEMOCRATS

WWW.SOCIALISTSANDDEMOCRATS.EU

PASD / S&D SOCIAL DEMOCRAT 184 ~ 25%

THE GREENS-EUROPEAN FREE ALLIANCE

WWW.GREENS-EFA.EU

GREENS-EFA GREEN/REGIONALIST 55 ~ 7.5%

ALLIANCE OF LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS FOR EUROPE

WWW.ALDE.EU

ALDE CENTRE-LEFT 84 ~ 11.5%

EUROPEAN’S PEOPLE’S PARTY

WWW.EPP.EU

EPP CENTRE-RIGHT 265 ~ 36%

EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES AND REFORMISTS

WWW.ECRGROUP.EU

ECR CONSERVATIVE 56 ~ 7.5%

EUROPE OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

WWW.EFDGROUP.EU

EFD EUROSCEPTIC 27 ~ 3.5%

NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS 29 ~ 4%

•ELECTS THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION.•APPROVES THE APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.•SCRUTINISES THE ACTIVITY OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE COMMISION.• CAN CENSURE AND DISMISS THE ENTIRE COMMISSION.

•ADOPTS LEGISLATION JOINTLY WITH THE COUNCIL (ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE).•DELIVERS OPINIONS ON COMMISSION PROPOSALS (CONSULTATION PROCEDURE).

• EP ASSENT REQUIRED FOR EU ENLARGEMENT AND AGREEMENTS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES.

•THE BUDGETARY CONTROL COMMITTEE OF THE EP SCRUTINISES THE EU BUDGET AS DRAFTED BY THE COMMISSION.•EP APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE EU.

POLITICAL

LEGISLATIVE

BUDGETARY

14 15

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE I. LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

A regulation is of general application, meaning that as soon as they are passed on EU level, they are binding upon all Member States and directly applicable within them. More-over, the particular feature of a regulation is that it is directly (immediately) applicable in all Member States and there is no need for national measures to be adopted in order to im-plement a regulation.

By contrast, a directive is binding upon the Member States only with regard to the result to be achieved. Member States are thus free to choose the way in which the directive will be implemented in their national territories: they may pass new laws or amend existing ones or even do nothing, where they consider that their legal systems already satisfy the re-quirements of the directive. Furthermore, Member States are given a certain amount of time during which they can adopt the necessary measures to implement the directive at nation-al level. Directives are by their very nature more general than regulations. Moreover, they are considered to be more consistent with the principle of proportionality than regulations, as the latter are binding in their entirety and thus interfere more with national sovereignty.

3. THE EU LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (December 2009), the EU legislative procedures have been

reduced down to basically the ones set out in Article 289 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Un-

ion (TFEU): (A) the ordinary legislative procedure; (B) the consultation procedure (as a special legislative pro-

cedure); and (C) the consent procedure (as a special legislative procedure). In MEU 2013, we will simulate the

ordinary legislative procedure as well as the consent procedure.

A. THE ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE (OLP)

According to Article 289 TFEU, the ordinary legislative procedure, previously referred to as the ‘co-decision procedure’, consists in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal by the European Commis-sion. In essence, the ordinary legislative procedure is a development of the so-called ‘Com-munity method’ of decision-making, which combines technocratic proposals emanating from the European Commission and legislative acts taken in co-decision by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, acting by qualified majority. The ordi-nary legislative procedure involves a maximum of two readings by both the European Par-liament and the Council of the EU. In the event that the Council disagrees with the Europe-an Parliament at second reading, a Conciliation Committee is established in order to reach a compromise.

For detailed, step-by-step information on how the ordinary legislative procedure happens in reality, please read the relevant document that can be found in the Annex of this Guide.

See also the detailed timetable of the conference and the Rules of Procedure.

is just one Council of the European Union. This is particularly evident in the rule, accord-ing to which, even where a Minister is not responsible in their national governments for the specific matter on the agenda of a specific Council configuration, they may vote and law-fully bind their national governments.

The presidency of the Council is exercised by one Member State for a period of six months, in a rotary fashion. In order to ensure the coherence of EU policies, however, the presidency is essentially exercised by groups of three Member States, known as ‘troikas’. Each troika consists of the Member State that exercised the presidency of the Council in the preceding 6 months, the Member State that currently exercises the presidency and the Member State that will exercise the presidency in the 6 months to come. The troika proposes a common programme, which shall be implemented by all three presidencies. Each six-month presi-dency adopts and implements its own policy programme, proposes a schedule of Council meetings, chairs meetings in all bodies operating within the Council and actively seeks to achieve compromise for the adoption of EU acts.

The Council votes either by simple majority or by qualified majority or by unanimity. Ac-cording to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the rule is that the Council votes by qualified majority unless the Treaties provide otherwise. Every Member State in the Council is assigned a certain number of votes, which largely reflects the size of their population. Pursuant to the Treaty of Nice, which is currently applicable, 255 votes out of a total of 345 votes are needed for a decision to be made in the Council. These votes must correspond to at least 14 Member States (or 18 Member States if no proposal was made by the European Commission). The practice in the Council, nevertheless, suggests that the goal is achieving consensus and avoiding a vote.

The Council is the co-legislator of the European Parliament and participates in all legisla-tive procedures of the EU. Through the expansion of the ordinary legislative procedure and the enhancement of the powers of the European Parliament, the Council saw its legislative dominance being diminished by an ever stronger EP.

2. TYPES OF LEGISLATIVE ACT IN EU LAW

Regulations and Directives are two types of secondary legislation adopted by the EU in-stitutions and provided for in Article 288 TFEU. The term ‘secondary legislation’ derives from the fundamental distinction between primary and secondary law. Primary law essen-tially consists of the Treaties establishing the European Union. This is the supreme source of law in the EU which prevails over all other sources. The primacy is secured by the Eu-ropean Court of Justice (ECJ). On the basis of the Treaties, legislative acts, such as regu-lations and directives, can be passed. These types of legislative acts are concerned with converting the basic provisions of the EU Treaties (primary legislation) into specific rules adopted by the EU legislators (secondary legislation) pursuant to the applicable legislative procedures. Other types of EU secondary legislation are decisions, recommendations and opinions.

16 17

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE I. LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Parliament structure will have an absolute majority of 376 of 751 possible votes7.

4. THE EU’S ENLARGEMENT POLICY

Countries seek membership of the EU due to its pursuit of democracy, rule of law and hu-man rights. A country applying for membership to the EU needs to be a European state that is committed to the fundamental values of the EU, outlined in Art.2 of the Treaty on the Eu-ropean Union.

The accession process can broadly be divided into three stages: (1) recognition of can-didature for membership, (2) opening of formal accession negotiations, (3) ratification by the EU’s member states and adhesion to the EU.

According to Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union, states wishing to join must firstly apply to the European Council. Before an official decision is made on the country’s status, the Council must consult the Commission and the European Parliament. The opinion of these bodies is taken by an absolute majority vote of its members.

The second step relies on applicant counties’ conformity with the accession criteria of the EU, also known as the Copenhagen criteria. They correspond to four main bench-marks:

• Political criteria: stability of the institutions safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

• Economic criteria: existence of a viable market economy, the ability to respond to the pressure of competition and market forces within the EU.

• The ability to assume the obligations of a Member State stemming from the accu-mulated law and policies of the EU (or the acquis communautaire), which include sub-scribing to the Union’s political, economic and monetary aims.

• Having created conditions for integration by adapting their administrative structures.

Based on a Commission opinion and opened by a vote of unanimity in the European Coun-cil, the accession negotiations take place between ministers and representatives of the EU and the accession country in the form of an intergovernmental conference. Following a process of “screening”, whereby the Commission carries out a detailed investigation of the candidate country’s adhesion to the Community acquis in each policy area, specific “Chapters” (areas of law that do not yet conform to the acquis) are opened. Based on an-nual reports on the progress by the Commission, these “Chapters” are closed by a vote of

7 Article 14.2 TEU

B. THE CONSENT PROCEDURE

Formerly known as the Assent Procedure, the Consent Procedure was introduced by the Single European Act in 19861. At first it was a measure taken to increase institutional trans-parency, by giving power to the European Parliament to participate in EU political deci-sions. It only applied when the European Union was entering association agreements with third countries or deciding on the accession of new members2. Over time the Consent Pro-cedure developed both as a method of legislating and as a political process. The dis-tinction is rather of substance, not of form. For the purposes of the MEU 2013 simulation it is however important to understand it. As a legislative procedure, it is used when new anti-discrimination legislation is being adopted. Article 352 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) also gives the European Parliament a veto when subsidiary leg-islation is being adopted3. This is the case when a power has not been expressly granted by the TFEU but is nevertheless necessary to attain one of the objectives set out in the Trea-ties. In those situations the Commission and the Council will need the Parliament’s consent to adopt new legislative measures4.

Consent as a non-legislative procedure is required when the Council is adopting certain international treaties. This includes the ratification of agreements negotiated by the Euro-pean Union and cases of serious breach of fundamental rights5 under Article 7 of Treaty on European Union (TEU). Most importantly it is the procedure used when deciding on the ac-cession of new EU members. This is the procedure which will be simulated during MEU 2013 in the case of Croatia. Lastly, it is also adopted when a Member State wishes to withdraw-al from the EU.

Consent is a special procedure in which the European Parliament has the right to veto Council’s decision. Thus the Parliament’s role is to approve or reject a proposal, but it can-not amend it. The procedure therefore provides the European Parliament, as the EU’s only democratically elected institution, with the requisite power to safeguard the peoples’ inter-ests. It is important to know that the Council cannot overrule Parliament’s opinion, which is the great strength of this legislative procedure.

Furthermore, any decisions made under the Consent Procedure require an absolute major-ity of all members of the European Parliament, which is 378 out of 754 possible votes. The Lisbon Treaty will enable further changes to this process from 2014 onwards6; the new EU

1 Its name was changed recently by the Lisbon Treaty in 2011 to “Consent”

2 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0087a559c8/Consent.html

3 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF

4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E352:EN:NOT

5 Article 2 TEU

6 http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/decision-making/index_en.htm

18 19

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE I. LAW-MAKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20111201IPR32926/html/Croatia%E2%80%99s-EU-accession-green-light-from-Parliament

Other sources:

• http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/ongoing_enlargement/l14536_en.htm

• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/topical/1a1_en.htm

• http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:112:0005:0005:EN:PDF

unanimity by the European Council. A Chapter is said to be closed once the benchmarks set by the EU have been sufficiently met.

Once negotiations on all chapters have been closed, the Accession Treaty is drafted be-tween the member states and the applicant country. Before the Council gives the final agreement on the process, a second consultation by the Commission and the European Parliament has to be done. The Accession Treaty includes:

• The accession date.

• The results of the accession negotiations, conditions for accession and the safe-guard or transitional measures for areas which the Commission’s most recent assess-ment identifies as needing more intensive work.

• Adaptation of the institutions and treaties and the distribution of votes in the Coun-cil and European Parliament, the number of European Members of Parliament, members of the Committee of Regions, etc.

The accession procedure then enters the final phase: ratification by the EU’s member states and institutions, and then the candidate country finally joining the EU. This pro-cess is carried out through the signing of an Accession Treaty, outlining all the conditions and obligations of membership, by all the member states of the EU, the EU institutions, and the candidate country itself. Upon unanimous signature by the EU member states, followed by a positive vote of the population of the candidate country, it then becomes a member of the EU on a date specified in the Accession Treaty.

FURTHER READING

European Commission- Enlargement

• http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/

The Guardian- Interactive guide to EU enlargement

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,408196,00.html

Europa.eu website on enlargement

• http://europa.eu/pol/enlarg/index_en.htm

BBC- The next eight candidate states to the EU

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616

For the European Parliament’s vote for the EU accession of Croatia in 2011 please refer to the link below:

20 21

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE II. LAW MAKING IN MEU 2013

B. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AT MEU

In MEU 2013, political groupings (factions) are the same as in the real EP (C.f. table in part I.1.B.). The only difference is that there will be no non-inscrit members: all MEPs will belong to a specific faction. Obviously in MEU we will not have as many MEPs as in reality, due to the fact that this would involve more than 800 participants in total. However, the analogy of the repartition of MEPs per Country will be respected. We will also have Faction Lead-ers and Faction Secretaries. These roles play a very important role in MEU’s EP and in the entire conference itself, as they provide both leadership and official representation when it comes to press conferences, for example, or to negotiations with the Ministers and the Commission.

An MEP’s main debating work during the conference takes place in two EP formations: the EP plenary sessions, which are common to all MEPs, and the faction meetings, where MEPs all split up into their own respective factions. The role and function of these two meetings are very different and therefore MEPs are not expected to act in exactly the same way regarding the expression of their point of view and the way in which they negotiate. More specifically:

PLENARY SESSIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Unlike in the real EP, in MEU, MEPs only debate in daily plenary sessions, as there are no parliamentary committees. The EP plenary sessions are thus the only forum of formal de-bate for MEPs. This therefore makes each plenary session all the more important in terms of making progress in the debates, making sure that the voice of each faction is adequately heard and, finally, reaching consensus (or at least a majority!) within the Chamber. You will find that inter-faction negotiations are crucial when it comes to creating consensus. The ultimate goal of EP plenary sessions is for all MEPs across the political spectrum to shape the Parliament’s general position, as opposed to the one of the Council.

The plenary sessions of the EP will be chaired by the President of the European Parlia-ment and the Vice-President, who shall ensure the smooth and effective running of the debates in the EP. Both the President and the Vice-Presidents will be MEPs, as in reality; however, they will not participate in the debates nor in the votes that will be held in the EP.

FACTION MEETINGS

Broadly speaking, the purpose of faction meetings is to allow MEPs to debate and to form their faction’s official position without the presence of members of other factions or jour-nalists. Either the Faction Leader or the Faction Secretary shall chair these meetings. Ses-sions are private and allow MEPs to express themselves more freely regarding their person-al position – as opposed to the faction’s official position.

Faction meetings are regularly spread out during the conference so that MEPs can consult

PART II

LAW-MAKING IN MEU 2013

1. THE EU INSTITUTIONS AS SIMULATED IN MEU 2013

A. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AT MEU

In MEU 2013, the European Commission will be represented by two members of the Content Team, who will serve as the Commissioners for Enlargement and for the Internal Mar-ket and Services during the conference. One of them shall be responsible for the legisla-tive proposal on Music Copyright while the other will be responsible for the Croatian acces-sion negotiations. In their capacity as Commissioners, they shall represent the interests of the EU (not the ones of the Member States) and shall inform MEPs and Ministers about the objectives and the true meaning of the provisions of their proposal, and the Commission’s viewpoint during the accession negotiations.

The two Commissioners shall hold introductory speeches on their respective topics both before the European Parliament and before the Council, and will then answer questions from MEPs and Ministers. They shall also be available for auditions in the European Parlia-ment and in the Council whenever the members of the respective bodies so wish. The Com-missioners shall be officially invited to answer questions and make clarifications by the President of the European Parliament and the President of the Council, respectively. They may also be interviewed by the press and issue official statement should they need to ex-press their opinion or clarify certain points that might arise in the course of the negotia-tions.

The Commissioners shall also be involved in the trilogue meetings, which will be attend-ed to by the Commissioner responsible for each Proposal, 3 MEPs, who will be elected by the European Parliament, and the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the Council. The Cro-atian Ambassadors will also participate in these meetings, when Croatian accession is be-ing discussed. In this regard, the Commissioners shall work towards facilitating negotia-tions and achieving consensus.

Finally, the Commissioners shall be available for informal discussions with the partici-pants and shall also give interviews to the journalists, who are more than encouraged to approach them and ask questions on the aims and content of their proposals as well as on the progress of the negotiations.

22 23

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE II. LAW MAKING IN MEU 2013

in Strasbourg.

Each participant should be familiar not only with the policies of their Member State but also with the policies of the other Member States, as forming alliances and creating con-sensus play a crucial role in the Council. Due to the small number of the members of the Council –in comparison with the Parliament- a single vote can define the final result. De-cisions shall be made by qualified majority, according to the system and rules enshrined in the Treaties. Votes shall indeed be precise simulations of the real voting practice of the Council!

2. THE EU LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES AS SIMULATED IN MEU 2013

A. THE ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE AT MEU

The OLP has traditionally always been the main focus of Model European Union. In MEU 2013, it will maintain its central position to the simulation and will be simulated as profes-sionally and faithfully as possible.

The OLP will begin with a proposal drafted by the European Commission (the Music Copy-right Directive), which will be first considered by the European Parliament at first reading. After the European Parliament has finished debating and amending the proposal in plenary session, the competent Commissioner will address the Council and will present to the Min-isters the proposal as amended by the European Parliament.

At first reading, the Council will examine the amendments made by the European Par-liament and will determine its position towards them. It may accept amendments, reject amendments or propose new ones. In this latter case, it shall amend the original Propos-al by the Commission and it shall do so unanimously. In the end, the Council’s Position will include the amendments made by the Council and also the EP amendments that were ac-cepted by the Council.

At second reading, the European Parliament will take the Council’s Common Position as a basis in order to further discuss and amend the proposal in a Recommendation for Sec-ond Reading.

Finally, the Council, at second reading, will make the final decision with regard to the adoption or not of the legislation in question.

In the event that the Council will not vote in favour of the proposal, as amended by the Eu-ropean Parliament, a Conciliation Committee shall be deemed to be established, but it will not be simulated in MEU 2013.

In order to ensure cooperation between the European Parliament and the Council, trilogue meetings shall be organised during coffee breaks (see the timetable of the conference for details). These meetings will be attended to by the Commissioner responsible for the pro-

their respective factions and agree on or adapt the official faction line on a specific top-ic or an aspect of the proposal. If consensus cannot be reached and depending on the size of the faction, Faction Leaders and Faction Secretaries might use voting as a way of de-ciding what the faction line will be and they might even decide that the faction should not have a common policy on issue X and that it is therefore up to each MEP’s discretion to act in accordance with their personal views. Indeed, however frustrating this may be for Fac-tion Leaders and Faction Secretaries, one must keep in mind that even though a position can be adopted by a faction after discussion in faction meetings, no Member can be forced to vote in a particular way. MEPs may even decide to leave their political grouping and be-come ‘Non-Inscrits’ if they so wish. It is nonetheless important to point out that it is in the interest of the faction that MEPs appear as united as possible, especially under the watch-ful ‘headline-seeking’ eye of the press. It is recommended to only begin negotiations with other factions after consensus has been reached within the faction. Note that the press and lobbyists are not allowed to sit in during faction meetings; they are, however, allowed to be present during the non-voting plenary sessions of the EP.

C. THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AT MEU

In MEU 2013, participants acting as Ministers are going to experience the work and reality of real politicians in the Council of the European Union. In their capacity as Ministers, par-ticipants shall represent their assigned countries and defend their respective national in-terests in one of the two legislative bodies of the EU.

The Council shall comprise the following actors:

(1) 26 Ministers representing their national governments;

(2) The Permanent Representative of the Republic of Ireland to the Council of the European Union, namely the Irish ambassador who is in charge of the Irish delegation to the EU and who shall actively represent the interests of Ireland in the Council;

(3) The President of the Council of the European Union, who shall be the Minister of Ireland, but shall chair the sessions of the Council under a duty of neutrality towards his colleagues. As mentioned above, Ireland shall be represented by its Permanent Represent-ative.

(4) The Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, namely the head of the Council’s administration (General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union). The Secretary-General of the Council shall assist the President of the Council in all of his du-ties, including chairing and receiving notes and amendments, and shall generally ensure the smooth running of the Council’s sessions.

Debates on each topic shall be preceded by introductory speeches given by all Minis-ters. It is highly recommended that Ministers prepare these speeches prior to their arrival

24 25

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE III. THE TIMETABLE OF MEU 2013

PART III

THE TIMETABLE OF MEU 2013

The table below contains a rough outline of the timetable of MEU 2013. A detailed timeta-ble will be provided to you in the Conference Guide of MEU 2013, which will be sent to you prior to your arrival in Strasbourg and will include useful information on both the working schedule and the social programme of the conference.

A good overview and understanding of the legislative procedures is essential for your suc-cessful participation in the conference.

posal, 3 MEPs elected by the European Parliament, the Croatian Ambassadors and the Per-manent Representative of Ireland to the Council. With regard to the MEPs that will have to be elected in order to attend trilogue meetings, it is highly recommended – for reasons of fair representation – that 1 MEP is elected from the EPP, 1 MEP from the S&D and 1 MEP from the smaller factions of the EP.

B. THE CONSENT PROCEDURE AND THE ACCESSION PROCESS AT MEU

Unlike with the OLP procedure, the discussions about Croatia’s accession to the EU will begin in the Council of Ministers, like in reality. The Commissioner for Enlargement will first of all address the Ministers and outline the progress of the accession negotiations thus far as well as the Commission’s viewpoint. The Ministers will debate Croatia’s level of readi-ness for EU membership and, if necessary, set out a set of conditions in a Council Resolu-tion outlining what Croatia needs to complete so as to fulfil the Copenhagen Criteria.

The Commissioner for Enlargement will then summarise the Council’s accession negotia-tions to the European Parliament, as well as present Council’s Resolution on Croatian Ac-cession. Next, the Parliament will debate Croatian accession, and then draft a Resolution which might include additional conditions for Croatia to fulfil. The Resolution will be draft-ed by Faction Leaders, Faction Secretaries or other MEPs designated by their respective factions.

Once the EP’s Resolution is adopted, the Commissioner will present it to the Council. The Council will discuss and decide to what extent it will take the EP’s Resolution into account. Council will then hold a final vote on whether to close the three remaining chapters, thus voting on Croatia’s accession to the EU.

Once Council has voted, the Commissioner will present to the Parliament the Council’s fi-nal vote and which conditions the Council have agreed to. The Parliament will then give, or not, it’s official assent to Croatian accession to the European Union.

Note that the Council may agree with the EP’s Resolution, reject it entirely or only adopt some of the Resolution’s clauses. Council must keep in mind though that the European Par-liament has a veto right which it can use if MEPs feel that Council has not properly taken the Parliament’s opinion (which is reflected in the Resolution) into consideration.

DAY COUNCIL PARLIAMENT

SATURDAY ARRIVAL AND CHECK-IN

WELCOME MEETING

SUNDAY DAY OF WORKSHOPS

MONDAY DEBATE ON CROATIAN ACCESSION EP 1ST READING OF MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

TUESDAY DRAFTING CONDITIONS OF CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU

AMENDMENTS TO MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

WEDNESDAY COUNCIL 1ST READING OF

MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL DEBATE ON CROATIAN ACCESSION

THURSDAY AMENDMENTS TO MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

DRAFTING CONDITIONS OF CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU

FRIDAY

DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE EP

ON THE CROATIAN ACCESSION AND FINAL VOTE

COUNCIL 2ND READING OF MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL AND FINAL VOTE

EP 2ND READING OF MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

FINAL VOTE ON CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU

PARTNER’S FAIR

CLOSING CEREMONY

SATURDAY DEPARTURE DAY

26 27

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IV. ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

(B) FACTION LEADER

Faction Leaders shall be elected by their respective factions on the very first day of the simulation in the EP. Every MEP may stand for nomination. Alongside Faction Secretaries, Faction Leaders shall organise and coordinate the work of their faction. They shall chair the meetings of their factions and organise the drafting of amendments to the legislative proposals. At the beginning of the debate on each topic in the EP, they shall hold a short in-troductory speech, in which they shall present their faction’s position on the topic which is going to be debated.

(C) FACTION SECRETARY

Faction Secretaries are highly recommended, in particular for the bigger factions of the EP; their election, however, is not compulsory. They shall be elected during the first meet-ing of each faction. Every faction member may stand in the election. Their role shall be to assist Faction Leaders in their work by carrying out administrative tasks within the factions, such as the drafting and management of amendments and also the writing of speeches for the Faction Leaders (due to significant time constraints). Moreover, they shall replace Faction Leaders, should they be absent.

2. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Council of the European Union brings together the Ministers of the 27 national gov-ernments in the EU. Depending on the topic being discussed, national Ministers convene in 10 different Council configurations, such as the General Affairs Council, the Foreign Affairs Council, the Agriculture and Fisheries Council etc. The Ministers of MEU 2013 shall discuss legislative matters in the Competitiveness Council for the Music Copyright proposal, and in the General Affairs Council for the Croatia negotiations. More specifically, they shall de-bate, amend and vote on a legislative proposal introduced by the European Commission in reality and shall do so under the OLP. The European Parliament will act as an equal co-leg-islator under the OLP, whereas it will deliver an Opinion under the consent procedure and then vote yes or no in a final vote on Croatian accession (thus giving it’s “assent” or not).

It is therefore crucial that the Ministers of the Council maintain close contacts with MEPs in order to take their position into consideration and to collectively try to reach compromis-es on the legislation under examination. This is particularly important in MEU, as the simu-lation does not include a Conciliation Committee.

In order to facilitate cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament, tri-logue meetings will regularly take place, like in reality. During these meetings, the rep-resentative of the Member State holding the presidency of the Council, namely the Per-manent Representative of the Republic of Ireland, shall meet with 3 MEPs and the

PART IV

ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

1. MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Members of the European Parliament are directly elected to represent the citizens of the 27 EU Member States. As in national parliaments, these representatives work together in political groupings at EU level. With support from their respective factions, MEPs debate and discuss proposals drafted by the European Commission, reports delivered by other EU institutions and general developments in EU life.

Yet, as they are composed of MEPs emanating from many different national parties, polit-ical factions in the EP are not homogenous. Such diversity may generate some difficulty in forming a common faction position. During debates, MEPs are often expected to align them-selves to the common position of their faction, but this is not mandatory. MEPs may leave the political grouping to which they belong and become independent MEPs (Non-Inscrits or Non-Attached Members).

In MEU 2013, participants assigned the role of an MEP shall work together with their col-leagues in order to reach a common position within their respective factions and then try to create consensus in the EP and with the Council. In order to facilitate cooperation between the two co-legislators, 3 MEPs shall be elected to attend trilogue meetings, which will also involve the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Ireland to the Council (note: Ire-land shall hold the presidency of the Council during the first semester of 2013) and the Com-missioner responsible for each topic.

ADDITIONAL ROLES

(A) PRE-CONFERENCE FACTION SECRETARY

This is an optional additional role for MEPs. Pre-conference Faction Secretaries shall act as coordinators of their respective factions in the pre-conference period. They shall over-see the preparation of common Faction Position papers based on the Individual Position Papers. Once in Strasbourg, they shall coordinate the very first faction meeting, where the conference Faction Secretary will be elected and will replace the pre-conference Faction Secretary. Pre-conference Faction Secretaries may stand in both Faction Leader and Fac-tion Secretary elections.

28 29

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IV. ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

order to be informed about the current developments. The access to the Council, however, will be much more limited. Lobbyists shall inform the delegates on the potential substan-tive and political impact of the various policy choices. They shall also provide the dele-gates with written reports, graphs and other statistical data related to the proposed poli-cies. They shall compete to get the Ministers and parliamentary groups on their side.

For this purpose, lobbyists shall have to develop individual and collective intervention strategies and be able to communicate their message efficiently. In particular, they should make an effort to establish contacts with the politicians and are free to do so at all times and in any environment, including during the social programme. They shall also interact with the journalists with the purpose of attracting media attention and keeping it focused on their cause. By making their position public and commenting on the views and state-ments of the delegates, they shall try to heat up the debate and thus influence the outcome of the legislative process.

4. JOURNALISTS

This year, fifteen Journalists will be closely analysing your every move, during the EP ple-nary sessions, at the lunch breaks, and during the social programme. They will be looking for anything interesting to report on – and they will not let up!

Ten of the press team will be in charge of producing a daily newspaper, a tabloid and a broadsheet alternatively, where you will find the latest updates on both the official and unofficial parts of the conference. They will ask you for interview, statements and pretty much any information that they can. They will welcome press releases by individuals or factions and will try and throw you off and get some more information from you during the daily afternoon press conferences. Help make the paper as great as it can be – a real mem-ory of the week!

Two photographers will be taking care of covering the conference through high-quality photographs as well as official pictures of the conference. They will spend the week cap-turing the conference and every big moment during the week.

Three videographers will be dabbing their hand at producing a daily newscast along-side the journalists – so they will also be recording interviews and events going on in Stras-bourg. Another way to get yourself in the media and your opinions across during the week!

Journalists’ role is also to add some realistic peer pressure on the simulation’s politi-cians. Prepare to be scrutinised and quoted in both the good and the bad way. Their job is to point out your lapses and to slam the lesser-informed.

Have no fear, though! They are only there to provide you with some informative reading and laughs during breaks. Do not hesitate to give us quoting permissions – at the end of the day, it is fun when you find yourself on the front page and to help create a better me-dia experience to look back on!

Commissioner responsible for each Proposal in order to exchange views and reach compro-mises on the legislation at issue. The Croatian Ambassadors will also participate in these meetings, when Croatian accession is being discussed.

In essence, the task of the Ministers of the Council shall be to represent their national gov-ernments and, therefore, their national interests and sensitivities. Furthermore, in order to achieve a qualified majority in favour of their positions, Ministers shall have to form alli-ances with Ministers from other Member States. This can be best achieved by way of for-mal and informal discussions, clever negotiating tactics and close cooperation with lob-by groups.

3. LOBBYISTS

Lobbyists are professional advocates who try to influence legislation in favour of a spe-cific interest or cause. They play an important role in politics at all levels and are a legiti-mate part of the democratic process. Lobbying being a channel for influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes, it is widely exploited by a number of different actors: businesses, labour, NGOs, think tanks, groups representing specific populations or issues, and so on.

As the European Union has grown and evolved, the role and number of lobbies has also expanded dramatically. Current estimates indicate that there are approximately 15,000 lob-byists and 2,500 lobbying organisations in Brussels, performing their activities with the EU institutions. This makes the city a global capital of lobbying, second only to Washing-ton D.C.

The importance of the EU institutions as lobbying arenas is probably self-evident. But why is the presence of lobbyists important to EU institutions? Although the practice of lobby-ing has raised legitimate concerns over the openness and transparency of policy-making, lobbies are acknowledged to be useful in many respects. First of all their involvement en-sures that a broad spectrum of interests is taken into account in the decision-making pro-cess, thus increasing legitimacy. Moreover, they provide specific expertise from a variety of sectors, thus helping policy-makers take decisions on sometimes very complex issues. Lobbyists can either be in-house lobbyists who work for a single organisation or cause, or contract lobbyists who are employed by a lobbying or PR firm to work on behalf of multiple organisations represented by a single firm.

In MEU 2013, ten lobbyists shall work as contract lobbyists for the duration of the simu-lation. Each lobbyist shall represent two interests, one for each topic.

As a representative of a specific organisation, every lobbyist shall write position papers on behalf of their organisations, providing arguments in support of or in opposition to the legislative proposals or topic.

During the conference, lobbyists shall ensure that the interests of their organisation are upheld in the decision-making process. They shall attend the debates in the Parliament in

30 31

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IV. ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

Rules of Procedure.

As the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers differ significantly in their size, the chairing styles in both houses will be adjusted to such a difference. In the European Parliament, since it is a large body with a great number of MEPs, the President and the Vice President of the Parliament will need to be very time-conscious and will not hesitate to strictly but respectfully enforce the Rules of Procedure. Whereas the Council being a small-er and closer-knit configuration compared to the EP, chairs might be more lenient when it comes to speaking times and time-keeping. Nonetheless, the President and Vice President will need to ensure that the Rules of Procedure are upheld so as to ensure that the condi-tions for debate are equal and fair.

5. INTERPRETERS

The task of interpreters is to simultaneously interpret faithfully what is being said during parliamentary sessions as well as during the daily press conferences. As in the real Euro-pean Parliament, they will be interpreting almost exclusively from English into their native languages.

To be well prepared for your task, please read all the information provided in this guide carefully, as it contains important terms and phrases that will be used in parliamentary discussions. After the parliamentary groups will have agreed on and uploaded their posi-tion papers, you will be able to download and prepare these texts as well. Please also famil-iarise yourself with the real-life counterparts of our simulation parliamentary groups to get a general idea of the political point of view they represent. During the preparation phase, you will receive further information and preparation materials via email.

Since you will be working in pairs, as in most real-life conference settings, you should get in touch with your booth partner to coordinate and help each other in your preparation ef-forts. For this purpose, we will provide you with the email address of your booth partner.

6. CHAIRS, THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

At MEU Strasbourg 2013 both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will be presided over by a team of two chairs. The titles themselves – President and Vice President of the Parliament/Council imply a great level of importance and responsibility that chairs hold at MEU. It is the chairs that are responsible for the smooth running of the debates in both chambers, a role that is not the most visible one when things are going well, however an absolutely vital one at all times.

THE MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIRS ARE:

• To keep order in the Parliament and in the Council,

• To ensure that the Rules of Procedure are followed and respected,

• Ensure that every single Member of the Parliament and Minister of the Council have the same right to speak,

• Guarantee that the debates are run in an atmosphere of mutual respect and no one’s rights are being infringed upon.

Unlike in reality when they are affiliated to a political party, at the MEU Strasbourg simu-lation the President and Vice President of both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers remain neutral, thus not stating their political opinion or pushing forward any po-litical agenda. The chairs’ responsibility is to facilitate the debates, to guide and help the MEPs and Ministers to come to an agreement thanks their expertise and knowledge of the

32 33

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE V. PREPARING FOR MEU 2013

You must, of course, look up your country’s profile generally and pay particular attention to its role in the EU, how the proposals would impact the country and the national political situation. You then also have to research the faction you belong to: its core principles and values, how it situates itself relative to the other factions and within the Parliament’s po-litical spectrum, and finally its views on both topics.

As a final point, previous participants and all the organisers will all tell you that the more you put into Model European Union, the more you will get out of it. This starts with how much you prepare before the conference, given that during the conference itself you will not have time to do any research. So, on your keyboards… get set… Google!

PART V

PREPARING FOR MEU 2013

1. HOW TO PREPARE FOR MODEL EUROPEAN UNION 2013

It is of vital importance that all delegates prepare adequately for Model European Union 2013. The better prepared you are when arriving in Strasbourg, the more you will enjoy the conference and the more successful the conference will be as a whole.

Written by former participants, you will find below advice and various tips on how to suc-cessfully prepare for MEU!

A. HOW MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SHOULD PREPARE

Start your research by simply looking up the composition of the European Parliament, why it was founded, what powers it can exercise, how voting works, its different political groups and generally its role within the EU’s political system. This will give you an idea of the Parliament’s role in relation to the one of the Council of Ministers and also of the role of the factions that are represented in the Parliament.

The type of preparation for Members of the European Parliament is quite similar to the one of the preparation for Ministers. It is very important to research your faction’s position, the impact that each of the proposals would have on your constituents and generally the points which you think are most important or controversial to you as an MEP and to your faction as a whole.

Depending on the topic, the legislative procedure will change and particularly the role of the European Parliament. You must therefore be well aware of both legislative proce-dures that are going to be applied during MEU 2013: the ordinary legislative procedure, and the consent procedure. The scope of the Parliament’s role and the type of influence that MEPs can have varies greatly between both procedures, so make sure you arrive prepared.

MEPs, unlike Ministers, have two different aspects of representation to take into con-sideration: both their assigned country of origin and their political beliefs. It is crucial that MEPs keep both of these aspects in mind at all times, during debates in the Parliament, faction meetings and negotiations with other MEPs and with the Ministers of the Council. Both these aspects therefore involve two separate areas of research which you then need to combine when writing your position paper and then apply to your role throughout the conference.

THE MEP’S PREPARATION CHECK-LIST

FIRST OF ALL:

READ ALL THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THIS PREPARATION GUIDE.

MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IS STRUCTURED.

MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES THAT APPLY FOR EACH OF THE TOPICS.

TAKE A BREAK, HAVE A KIT-KAT!

SECONDLY:

RESEARCH THE CORE BELIEFS, VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE FACTION YOU ARE PART OF.

READ THROUGH THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL CAREFULLY.

RESEARCH FOR ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE FACTION’S POSITION ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL.

RESEARCH FOR ANY INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FACTION’S POSITION ON CROATIAN ACCESSION, BUT ALSO MORE SPECIFICALLY ON THE THREE CHAPTERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEBATED.

TAKE ANOTHER BREAK, AND HAVE ANOTHER KIT-KAT!

34 35

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE V. PREPARING FOR MEU 2013

B. HOW MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL SHOULD PREPARE

As a Minister of the Council you are a member of one of the most influential actors in the European Union. The atmosphere in the Council is somewhat more intimate than in the Eu-ropean Parliament and thus there is more potential time to make your country’s position known. This is therefore a demanding role and there are no back-benches to hide. Conse-quently, a substantial degree of preparation is needed so that the level of the debate is high and the overall experience of the simulation is maximised.

Once you have read both pieces of legislation, the first port of call is to look at what the government of your respective country was made up of at the time when the legisla-tion was going through the EU institutions. This will give you general knowledge of the country’s political orientation with regard to the legislation under discussion. If there were changes of government, it would be recommended to stick to one position. No extensive reading is needed here, but it can serve as a good way of putting yourself in the shoes of the country at that particular period.

More detailed knowledge about the legislation can now start to be taken in. Europa.eu and eur-lex.europa.eu are both useful links for finding background information on the leg-islation and its real path through the EU legislative process. By now, your country’s posi-tion will have begun to amalgamate and opinions on the legislation will follow. From this point, one could take note of actual amendments proposed and take some inspiration from them. As a Minister, you may wish to propose the exact same amendment or craft one your-self. There is a great deal of political freedom in this respect.

WRITE AND SUBMIT YOUR POSITION PAPER.

ONCE THEY ARE AVAILABLE, READ THROUGH THE POSITION PAPERS OF OTHER MEPS WITHIN YOUR FACTION AND FROM OTHER FACTIONS IN THE PARLIAMENT.

READ THE POSITION PAPERS OF THE MINISTERS, AND OF THE LOBBYISTS.

READ THE MEU RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

FINALLY:

DURING YOUR TRIP TO STRASBOURG:

A position paper must be written from this information. The sooner position papers are uploaded, the better. Debate can start virtually almost instantaneously, permitting the cre-ation of amendment ‘alliances’. Only thing here is that one should not be too strict or inflex-ible; you should leave some room for manoeuvre and allow yourself to find compromises when the conference comes about. One also does not need to research the technical details of the legislation – that is the role of lobbyists. Some background knowledge should suffice.

THE MINISTER’S PREPARATION CHECK-LIST

FIRST OF ALL:

READ ALL THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THIS PREPARATION GUIDE.

MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE COMPOSITION AND VOTING MODALITIES IN THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES THAT APPLY FOR EACH OF THE TOPICS.

TAKE A BREAK, HAVE A KIT-KAT!

SECONDLY:

READ THROUGH THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL CAREFULLY.

RESEARCH FOR ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL.

RESEARCH FOR ANY INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FACTION’S POSITION ON CROATIAN ACCESSION, BUT ALSO MORE SPECIFICALLY ON THE THREE CHAPTERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEBATED.

RESEARCH SOME BACKGROUND ON YOUR COUNTRY’S POLITICAL ORIENTATION.

THINK ABOUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUR COUNTRY’S NATIONAL INTEREST FOR EACH TOPIC.

TAKE ANOTHER BREAK, AND HAVE ANOTHER KIT-KAT!

36 37

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE V. PREPARING FOR MEU 2013

It is also recommended to search on official Government and Faction websites (press re-leases, official statements, reports, etc.), so as to find their official position in the real de-bates. This process will also give you a feeling as to the style of the position papers.

If you have participated in Model United Nations conferences, then you will be famil-iar with this and writing a position paper for MEU is very similar. For Ministers, even though you still will be defending your country’s national interest, keep in mind however that a Country’s position or its political discourse might vary a little in negotiations in the Euro-pean Union compared to in the United Nations. If you are an MEP, the one thing you must be careful of, is to make sure that you are stating the position of your country relative to the faction you are a member of and not the official position of the country’s government. In most cases, a faction’s position will indeed have many differences from a country’s po-sition.

HOW LONG SHOULD POSITION PAPERS BE?

For Ministers and MEPs, position papers should not be more than 650 words in total for both topics (which should correspond to about 1 side of A4).

For faction position papers, they should be no more than 1300 words (which should correspond to about 2 sides of A4 at most).

One of the important things to remember when writing your position paper is to be con-cise, to the point and accurate. Make sure you have done all the necessary research be-forehand. The word-limit is very important, because position papers are supposed to be as concise as possible so that they are easily readable by the other delegates. A position pa-per which is too long and bogged down with too much detail is of little value: delegates are much less likely to read it, thus making it useless.

C. HOW JOURNALISTS LOBBYISTS, AND INTERPRETERS SHOULD PREPARE

These three roles being more specific, your respective Coordinators will be in contact with you directly prior to the conference. They will give you instructions on how to successfully prepare for the conference, and answer any questions you may have. However, completing the above MEP/Minister preparation checklists will be an excellent starting point for your preparation.

2. HOW TO WRITE A POSITION PAPER

WHAT ARE POSITION PAPERS AND WHAT PURPOSE DO THEY SERVE?

A position paper is a short official statement published prior to the conference by an MEP or a faction or a Minister, outlining their position on both topics that are going to be dis-cussed. The purpose of a position paper is not only to allow other delegates to see your po-sition on both topics, but also to allow you to organise your research so as to determine your official position.

You must keep in mind that a key function of position papers is to allow other partici-pants to quickly identify your position, so that they can then maybe find possible alliance points you can agree upon. As an MEP, this will also allow your Faction Leader to write the Faction’s position paper.

FINALLY: POSITION PAPERS SHOULD INCLUDE:

WRITE AND SUBMIT YOUR POSITION PAPER.

ONCE THEY ARE AVAILABLE, HAVE A QUICK READ THROUGH THE POSITION PAPERS OF THE OTHER MINISTERS, THE LOBBYISTS AND THOSE OF ALL THE FACTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

WHY YOUR FACTION HAS SUPPORTED OR NOT THE PROPOSAL/TOPIC (MEPS/FACTIONS), OR WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS SUPPORTED OR NOT THE PROPOSAL/TOPIC (MINISTERS).

THE KEY POINTS THAT THE DELEGATE THINKS ARE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

WHAT YOU ARE HOPING TO ACHIEVE DURING THE DISCUSSIONS AND WHAT OUTCOMES OR SOLUTIONS YOU ARE HOPING TO FIND.

DURING YOUR TRIP TO STRASBOURG:

READ THE MEU RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

38 39

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VI. PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT...

PART VI

PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON COLLECTIVE

MANAGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS AND MULTI-TERRITORIAL LICENSING OF RIGHTS IN MUSICAL WORKS FOR ONLINE USES IN THE INTERNAL MARKET.

1. BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED DIRECTIVE

The internet has revolutionised communication and the way we produce and consume media in today’s digital world. The impact of the internet in popular culture can be seen, for example, by the prominence of YouTube, where videos can be uploaded by users, and by various social media such as Facebook and Twitter, through which content can be shared. The economic opportunity for selling content through the internet, the ability to share con-tent, and the spread of online piracy has led to competing claims on how we should em-brace the digital age. On one hand, copyright holders deserve to benefit from their crea-tivity and ensuring that they can encourages people to compose, write and make art and entertainment. On the other hand, copyright law can conflict with free speech and some-times potentially hamper creativity. But how should the EU’s single market reflect this new digital world?

The Digital Agenda for Europe and the Commission’s Single Market Act form the basis of the Commission’s approach: that measures need to be introduced to further the single mar-ket online, particularly when it comes to intellectual property. So far there has only been a non-binding recommendation at the EU level inviting Member States to promote legiti-mate online music services and the transparency of collecting societies. Now the Commis-sion considers binding measures to be necessary to create an effective single market in this area.

2. CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED DIRECTIVE

The “Music Copyright Directive”, introduced on the 11th July 2012,8 has two key aims. First, the proposal aims to regulate the collective management of music copyright. This means that proposal would regulate the “middle men” of music management: the collecting soci-eties that collect royalties and then distribute these royalties to the relevant artists after taking a percentage of the income. These collecting societies provide benefits to the mu-sic industry as they permit the rights of several rightholders in a work to be licensed easi-

8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0372:FIN:EN:PDF.

FACTION POSITION PAPERS (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT)

Faction position papers are written by the Faction Leader of each faction. As the name suggests, this position paper should include the position of the faction as a whole and should not mention the positions of individual MEPs or groups of MEPs. Their purpose is to outline the faction’s position on the proposals as a whole, but also to highlight points which the faction is or is not willing to compromise upon. It should give the faction’s stand-ing point relative to the other factions and the Parliament’s political spectrum and should be no longer than 2 pages for both topics.

EXAMPLES OF POSITION PAPERS

Lastly, make sure you have had a look at examples of good position papers that are in-cluded in the ANNEX. You will find one example of a position paper from a Minister of the Council, an MEP and a Faction position paper.

NB: PLEASE RESPECT THE EXACT SAME FORMATTING AND LAYOUT FOR THE POSITION PAPERS.

40 41

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VI. PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT...

most probably find positions that could not be included into the guide. Similarly, some stakeholders’ positions might have been slightly modified. This is why it is extremely im-portant for you to check and verify all important stakeholders’ positions during your prepa-ration for the conference. It is highly recommended, especially for MEPs, to regularly check the website of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee10, the committee respon-sible for the proposal, for any updates. It is supposed to publish a working document / an opinion on the proposal, however at the time of writing this was still in progress.

ARTISTS

When discussing music copyright, the most obvious stakeholders are the rightholders themselves, i.e. the artists, authors, performers and the like. In order to gage the opinion of such a huge and heterogeneous group of artists (ranging from pop stars to less well-known local artists) it is sensible to look at the position of interest groups such as the art-ists’ lobbies. One of the most influential, “Younison”, sharply criticised the proposal argu-ing that it completely failed to provide protection for the rightholders and, on the contrary, would rather favour collecting societies, editors and record labels. Rather than creating a new, progressive framework for music copyright the proposal would institutionalise “the archaic and opaque redistributions systems”11. This is very similar to the reaction of some prominent music groups, among them Pink Floyd and Radiohead, that co-signed a letter by Younison claiming the proposal would “defend the interests of a minority of managers and stakeholders”, adding it would “encourage the management of collecting societies to keep the fruits of our creativity.”12 This criticism is quite surprising insofar as the Commission, in its official press release, claims that “rightholders, service providers and consumers would be the main beneficiaries of the proposal”.13

The Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) criticises the possible retention of revenues for the ex-ploitation of works (with the exception of online music) by collecting societies (CS) for up to 24 months, and the possibility for CS to keep non-allocated royalties if not claimed with-in five years.

POLITICAL GROUPS (EP)

At the time of writing, the Parliament has not even held its first reading of the proposal and the factions’ positions are thus not clearly formulated yet. However, a good indication for the potential views and positions of the respective factions can be accessed by looking at the work of the Legal Affairs Committee which is responsible for drafting the EP’s opin-

10 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/home.html

11 Kelvin Smits, Director of Younison, see http://dottedmusic.com/2012/news/artists-lobby-attacks-new-

eu-music-copyright-directive/

12 http://euobserver.com/creative/116961

13 See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-545_en.htm?locale=en

ly, and licences can be granted to the users. The lower costs of collective negotiation and management mean that individual artists and niche musical styles can more easily enter the market. However there are concerns that collecting societies are not transparent and efficient enough in their collection and distribution of royalties, and that there is a lack of accountability to rightholders. The Commission aims to remedy this in the Music Copy-right Directive.

The provisions for regulating collecting societies can be found under Title II of the Music Copyright Directive. The proposal covers a wide range of requirements for collecting socie-ties and their duties to the artists (also referred to as “members”). Chapter one governs the membership of collecting societies and the powers of their members, while Chapters two to four detail the duties of the collecting societies in carrying out their financial and nego-tiating work. Finally, Chapter four sets out transparency and reporting duties for the col-lecting societies, which are important if members are to be properly informed so that they can hold their collecting society to account.

Secondly, the Commission aims to break down the barriers of the single market in online music. Licensing laws mean that the rights for music are dealt with on a territory-by-ter-ritory basis, so that the online music market effectively faces national barriers within the EU. The Music Copyright Directive is designed to facilitate multi-territorial licensing by collecting societies online.

Title III of the Music Copyright Directive sets out the provisions relating to multi-terri-torial licensing. Collecting societies are not obliged to use multi-territorial licences; rath-er, they are an option in addition to national licensing. However, the proposal provides for rightholders granting licences for their own online rights either directly or through anoth-er intermediary, by-passing their collecting society under certain circumstances (Article 30). Title IV contains provisions on enforcement where there are disputes between mem-bers and collecting societies, and between users and collecting societies. There must be enforcement mechanisms in place both internally for collecting societies, and on the level of Member State authorities.

3. POSITIONS OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS ON THE PROPOSAL

The following part of the guide will be focused on an overview of some of the most rele-vant stakeholders’ opinions on the proposal. According to the European Commission, the proposal ‘builds on an extensive round of dialogue and consultation with interested par-ties, including authors, publishers, performers, producers, collecting societies, commercial users, consumers and public bodies’9.

Since the directive was recently introduced in July 2012, the negotiations were still on-going at the time this Preparation Guide was written. Hence, during your research you will

9 Cf. the “Explanatory Memorandum” of the Proposal, chapter 2.1 (“Public consultation”), European

Commission (COM (2012) 372 final), p. 5

42 43

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VI. PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT...

ments. Firstly, he proposes a drastic reduction of the time that collecting societies have to pay artists (article 12.1) and suggests a limit of 90 days. Secondly, article 12.2 should be amended, since it states that collecting societies that are not able to find the author to whom they have to pay can keep the money after five years. Non-attributable money could be used for all kinds of useful purposes, but by no means should the collecting societies be allowed to keep it.19

COLLECTING SOCIETIES

Collecting societies (CS), or representing organisations, generally welcome the proposal.20

Buma/Stemra, a Dutch CS, welcomes the initiative of the “long-awaited proposal”, saying that it would be a good base for the development of an improved legal framework providing for more clarity in the market.21 Furthermore, they welcome a harmonised European frame-work as well as high standards, transparency and good governance of CS. However, these standards should apply to all the organisations that manage and license rights on behalf of content creators, implicitly pointing to the desire of fair treatment for CS compared to oth-er organisations providing similar services. They demand for example equal treatment for local, niche and specialist music repertoires in the EU. The current system would place Eu-ropean repertoire in a disadvantaged position vis-à-vis the Anglo-American repertoire and the proposal would not provide adequate relief, thus threatening the cultural diversity of the industry.

FURTHER READING

• http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/management/index_en.htm

• http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/video-channel/online_music_en.htm

• http://libraryeuroparl.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/collective-rights-manage-ment-of-online-music/

USEFUL LINKS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ON THE PROPOSAL.

• http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-545_en.htm?locale=en

• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0180%28COD%29&l=en#keyPlayers

19 http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/the-proposed-directive-on-collective-rights-

management/

20 http://libraryeuroparl.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/collective-rights-management-of-online-music/

21 http://eppgroup.eu/press/peve12/docs/121001presentation-baruch.pdf

ion on the matter. The main rapporteur for the proposal is Marielle Gallo from the EPP fac-tion, while all other factions have appointed so-called shadow rapporteurs.14

The EPP seems to clearly favour the directive, since Ms Gallo defends the proposal us-ing similar arguments as the Commission, for instance: the significant economic and so-cial importance of copyright (potential increase of employment in creative industries), the fragmentation of legal frameworks and the multitude of collecting societies at a nation-al level (more than 250 in the EU) that require harmonisation, and the necessity of adapt-ing the EU’s copyright standards to the demands of a modern ‘digital single market’. Ac-cording to Ms Gallo, copyright would be “both an incentive and a reward for creativity”15. In her view, the two main objectives of the proposal are ensuring the artists’ remuneration and the strengthening of the digital single market. This would require the improvement of governance and increasing the transparency of collecting societies as well as the develop-ment of new digital services in order to facilitate the online consumption of music.16

During a conference held at the European Parliament on the 18th of October 2012, the S&D faction agreed that national copyright laws have to be harmonised and simplified in order to strengthen the rights of authors and consumers alike.17 The lack of a developed digital single market becomes evident in the light of the considerable disparities of music copy-right levies across the EU. Hence the S&D seems to be generally in favour of the propos-al as well. On the other hand, the group puts a very clear emphasis on consumer’s rights which needed to be “clear and equal everywhere”, compared to the EPP group which seems to be concerned first and foremost with the internal and the digital single market. Moreo-ver, S&D shadow rapporteur Françoise Castex declares: “This Proposal for a Directive does not do enough to address the real issue: how will rightholders get properly paid for the use of their online works?”18

Christian Engström, a “Pirate MEP” and the shadow rapporteur for the Greens/EFA fac-tion, points to the problem that any entrepreneur who wants to put up a pan-European ser-vice for selling music has to carry out separate negotiations with in each of the 27 mem-ber states, often with more than one collecting society in each member state. Simultaneous negotiations in 27 countries would be only feasible for the biggest companies such as Ap-ple or Google, but not for small or medium sized enterprises. Since one of the main objec-tives of the proposal is to facilitate the cross-border licensing, Mr. Engström believes that “All in all, this is a good proposal from the Commission”. Nonetheless, he suggests amend-

14 All factions’ shadow rapporteurs can be found on this useful overview website: http://www.europarl.

europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/0180%28COD%29&l=en#keyPlayers

15 Cf. http://eppgroup.eu/infocus/collective_rights_management_121001_en.asp

16 Cf. http://eppgroup.eu/press/showpr.asp?prcontroldoctypeid=1&prcontrolid=11430&prcontentid=19038&

prcontentlg=en

17 http://eppgroup.eu/press/showpr.asp?prcontroldoctypeid=1&prcontrolid=11430&prcontentid=19038&prc

ontentlg=en

18 http://eppgroup.eu/press/showpr.asp?prcontroldoctypeid=1&prcontrolid=11430&prcontentid=19038&prc

ontentlg=en

44 45

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART VII

CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

1. GENERAL OVERVIEW ON HOW THE CROATIA NEGOTIATIONS UNFOLDED IN REALITY

Croatia’s negotiation process unfolded in two phases. The first phase, referred to as “screening”, aimed at determining the differences between the EU acquis communautaire (which is divided into 35 chapters) and Croatian law. The second phase encompasses the negotiation of the terms and conditions of approximation of the national law with a specif-ic chapter, including negotiations on the possible transitional periods for certain relevant issues. Following the closing of all 35 Chapters on the 30th of June June 2011, Croatia offi-cially completed the accession talks, and the Treaty of Accession was signed on the 9th of December 2011. However, in practice, this process proved far from being straightforward due to mediating factors such as Croatia’s wartime past and opposition coming from sev-eral EU Member States.

The Republic of Croatia was granted official candidate status at the session of the Euro-pean Council in Brussels on the 18th of June 2004, with the negotiations being officially scheduled for 17th of March 2005. However right at the outset, accession talks were post-poned in light of the claims from the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) – Carla del Ponte – that Zagreb was unwilling to cooperate in the capture of the former general Ante Godovina. Negotiations finally took off on the 3rd of October 2005 after the country was confirmed to be ‘fully co-operating’ with the Hague war crimes tribunal.

Croatia’s accession momentum was also interrupted during the 2009 French presidency when Slovenia refused to open new chapters of the acquis over disputed territories on the Adriatic coast, thus thwarting Zagreb’s hopes of wrapping up accession talks by the end of the year (so as to be ready to join the bloc in 2010). It was only in September 2009 that the Slovenian parliament unblocked negotiations with a vote in its committee on EU affairs.

Not long after the signing of the Arbitration Agreement with Slovenia, however, Zagreb’s old troubles reappeared. The UK, the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium and Denmark blocked the opening of chapters on the judiciary and fundamental rights, citing as a main rea-son Croatia’s delays in supplying the ICTY with documents on the use of artillery by Croa-tian forces during the Balkan war in the 1990s.

Once international anxieties over the wartime files were eased, accession talks were ad-ditionally jeopardised by a domestic public confidence crisis. Anti-EU sentiment among

• http: //ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/management/index_en.htm#maincontentSec1

• http://dottedmusic.com/2012/news/artists-lobby-attacks-new-eu-music-cop-yright-directive/

• http://eppgroup.eu/infocus/collective_rights_management_121001_en.asp

• http://eppgroup.eu/press/peve12/eve030_en.asp

• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/juri/dv/wdcopyright_/wdcopyright_en.pdf

• h t t p : / / w w w . s o c i a l i s t s a n d d e m o c r a t s . e u / g p e s / p u b l i c /d e t a i l .htm?id=137432&request_locale=EN&section=NER&category=NEWS

• http://euobserver.com/creative/116961

46 47

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

A. STATE AID

Prior to the start of Screening, no comprehensive legal framework existed in the field of state aid. In 2003 the European Commission provided a negative Opinion on the alignment of Croatian law with the acquis and urged for the amendment of the Croatian State Aid Act.23. To this end, in its 2004 Opinion, the Commission advocated the creation of an Agen-cy for the Protection of Market Competition.

In the light of recent state intervention due to the crisis, critics have found the Commis-sion’s approach inconsistent since it failed to intervene when significant state aids were

23 The State Aid Act left room for state aid for the development of certain economic activities

Croats increased when in April 2011 Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac (both considered heroes of the ‘Homeland War’) were sentenced to 24 and 18 years of imprisonment respec-tively. With only 23% of Croatians still supporting the country’s accession, its EU future seemed far from certain.

Furthermore, despite the initial opposition of the Enlargement Commissioner Stephan Füle, the EU also shifted the goalposts at the last minute. At the insistence of the British, the French, and the Dutch, it demanded a new process of monitoring Croatia’s compliance with its EU commitments over the next two years. Nevertheless in an atmosphere of uncer-tainty over the fate of the European Union, two-thirds of Croatians voted in favour of join-ing the European Union in a January 2012 referendum. Croatia will become the 28th Union member on 1 July 2013.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE COMPETITION POLICY NEGOTIATIONS

Chronologically, the Compe-tition Chapter has been nego-tiated against the backdrop of the dispute between Slo-venia and Croatia concerning the Nova Ljubljanska Banka22, with Slovenia threatening once again to block progress on the Free Movement of Cap-ital and Competition chapters. More importantly, however, all parties’ negotiating posi-tions were heavily influenced by the on-going financial and economic crisis. The Chapter was closed on 30th June 2011 – shortly before signing the Accession Treaty.

22 After the collapse of former Yugoslavia, the Slovenian bank had refused to compensate holders of

foreign exchange deposits at its branches in Zagreb, Sarajevo and Skopje. In response, the Croatian Central

Bank had denied Slovenia’s Ljubljanska bank access to the Croatian market as long as Croatian savers

had not been refunded – a move interpreted by the other party as a barrier to competition and the free

movement of capital.

TOTAL STATE AID AS % OF GDP; 2009

ESTONIASLOVAKIA

ITALYROMANIA

CZECH REPUBLICLITHUANIA

POLANDPORTUGAL

EU-12FINLAND

SPAINSLOVENIAHUNGARY

MALTANETHERLANDS

BULGARIAFRANCECYPRUS

LUXEMBOURGEU-27

SWEDENEU-15

AUSTRIADENMARKGERMANY

LATVIAGREECE

IRELANDUK

BELGIUM

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

INDUSTRY AND SERVICES AS % OF GDP

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND TRANSPORT AS % OF GDP

SOURCE: EUROPEAN COMISSION - FACT AND FIGURES ON STATE AID IN THE MEMBER STATES, COMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT COM(2010)701 FINAL, P.08

48 49

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

C. THE CROATIAN POSITION

The restructuring of the shipbuilding industry is a sensitive issue due to the symbol-ic significance of the sector, which has influenced Croatian identity and self-determina-tion for 4000 years. It is also important to note the economic and social significance of the sector. Croatia ranks 5th among European maritime countries in terms of employees direct-ly engaged in ship building, maintenance and repair, with the sector having 2.5% share in employment. It also makes up for 1.4% of GDP and constitutes 15% of total Croatian exports.

Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to privatise the shipyards. Since unem-ployment has already increased significantly, the Croatian government will avoid making

granted for restructuring of endangered industries in older Member States. With respect to the Treaty, this policy may be excused on the basis of exceptional occurrences and serious economic disturbances. However, this justification could also be used by the Croatia gov-ernment.

The criticism is supported by the fact that Croatian state aid expenditure (as % of GDP) is exceeded in the following Member States: Belgium even amounted to 10%, followed by the United Kingdom, Ireland, Latvia, Greece, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Luxem-bourg.

B. THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Shipbuilding has been identified by the Commission as the most problematic sector. A lot of states have a vested interested in the outcome of the negotiations. The largest shares of the shipbuilding market belong to Germany, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands and Spain, which account for over 70% of total deliveries by the European shipyards. Croatia belongs to the same group as Denmark and Poland, each participating with an average of 3.9% of total deliveries.

Therefore, participants representing countries with a sizeable shipbuilding sector might advocate stricter conditionality and enforcement of the EU’s restrictions on state aid.

On a more fundamental level, MEPs belonging to groups opposed to market liberalisation and free market policies might choose to oppose the general directions taken by the Com-mission.

The EU has noted the necessity to carry out the restructuring of the shipbuilding compa-nies in Croatia through their privatisation on the basis of a competitive tendering process. If the yards are not privatised by 1st of July 2013, they will be forced to repay upwards of €2bn of government funding received since 2006, or else go bankrupt; which essentially amount to the same thing.

RELATIVE POSITION OF 30 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES REGARDING SHIPBUILDING (ORDERBOOK IN CGT, 2007)

20%

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

GERM

ANY

ITAL

Y

NETH

ERLA

NDS

TURK

EY

ROM

ANIA

POLA

ND

CROA

TIA

SPAI

N

FRAN

CE

FINL

AND

UKRA

INE

DENM

ARK

RUSS

IA

NORW

AY

BULG

ARIA

PORT

UGAL

SLOV

AKIA

LITH

UANI

A

GREE

CE

SWED

EN

CZEC

H

LATV

IA

SERB

IA UK

BELG

IUM

ESTL

AND

HUNG

ARY

MAL

TA

SOURCE: LLOYD’S REGISTER-FAIRPLAY

NEW ORDERS 2004-2008 BY COUNTRY IN 1.000 CGT

2004

GERMANY

TURKEY*

ROMANIA

NETHERLANDS

ITALY

ALL OTHER

COUNTRIES

EUROPE TOTAL

1.540

628

437

536

1.285

6.389

7.674 8.837 8.781 7.926 2.558

8.511 7.714 6.787

2.509

2.406

844

717

974

326

1.414

720

210

991

1.067

1.253

924

938

1.445

1.239

589

409

249

245

49

2005 2006 2007 2008

50 51

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

work is still pending in its pursuit of domestic war cases and the implementation of a new chamber system.

Access to the judiciary has also been improved by the passing of an Act on Administrative Disputes, whereby Croatia has transposed the European standards of access to court and fair trial outlined in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION

By ensuring political support at the highest level, Croatia has been able to establish an Anti-Corruption Committee that coordinates and determines priorities in the fights against corruption. It has also introduced specialised police, as well as prosecution and judicial departments aimed at fighting corruption. Judicial penalties have been severed with the introduction of a “zero tolerance” towards corruption.

A Central Procurement Office has been established in order to ensure transparency of pub-lic procurement procedures and the spending of public money.

However, even though measures have been introduced, there are still many corruption cases that still have not reached the judiciary – thus showing an inefficient handling of the problem. Corruption scandals still appear at the highest level, including Croatian public of-ficials attempt to defraud the Croatian State through its shareholding in the food industry, as was evident in the recent ‘Podravka” affair.

Croatia is ranked 62nd in the Corruption Perception Index, which is evidence that consid-erable work still needs to be carried out in the area.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Croatia has implemented an Action Plan for the adoption of a Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities in its pursuit of giving minorities’ equal social and political protection. However, despite the fact that social tolerance towards minorities is strength-ened, little has been done in the spheres of employment and education of such minorities, where discrimination remains evident. The lack of a long term plan for minorities can be seen in the under-representation of minorities in politics and the public sphere.

On the other hand, between 2007 and 2009 Croatia has implemented an effective housing program, providing housing to 4900 holders of tenancy rights.

Finally, in order to reduce the overcrowding of its prisons, Croatia has initiated a process of establishing a probation system. Through its Probation Act 2009, the use of alternative sanctions for lesser offences is under way and in compliance with the Community acquis.

any decisions that would lead to mass redundancies in this sector. To this end, Zagreb has presented the European Commission with a new plan for restructuring the shipyards which states that they should remain state-owned (an approach directly opposed to EU’s recom-mendations). The government drew attention to the economic crisis in the hope that the EU would relax its position on this issue. Another reason for greater protection demanded by Croatian negotiators is the sharpening competition from Asian shipbuilders.

For a concise introduction, please consult the following video.

http://prod-euronews.euronews.net/2011/06/02/croatia-s-shipyards-on-sale/

3. OVERVIEW OF THE JUDICIARY AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS NEGOTIATIONS

The task of the Republic of Croatia during the negotiations on the Judiciary and Funda-mental Rights was to adjust its legal system to the EU standards in relation to the inde-pendence, impartiality and efficiency of the judiciary, an effective fight against corruption and the protection of fundamental rights. Croatia’s accession obligations can be divided in the following categories: (1) judiciary, (2) fighting against corruption, and (3) fundamen-tal rights.

In December 2007 the EU informed Croatia of the benchmarks required for a completion of the Chapter 23 negotiations. In June 2008, in order to open the Chapter, the Croatian Par-liament adopted four Action Plans targeting key aspects of its judicial system. In February 2010, the EU reached an agreement to open the Chapter 23 negotiations with Croatia.

JUDICIARY

In terms of improving the independence and professionalism of the judiciary, Croatia has introduced a new system of selection and promotion of judges. However, Croatia has not yet shown a convincing and consistent track record in doing so, as the new system lacks uniformity throughout the country.

In order to increase the efficiency of its judicial system, nearly all court procedural laws have been rewritten, resulting in a reduction of unresolved cases by 51.5% between 2004 and 2009. Moreover, through a “rationalisation” of its court system, thereby reducing the court network by 35% and municipal offices by 23%, efficiency has been increased in terms of better organisation and rationalisation of the workload.

Furthermore, even though Croatia has made progress towards establishing a track record of impartial dealing in cases concerning minorities and persons of differing ethnic origins,

52 53

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

5. HOW WILL THE CROATIA NEGOTIATIONS BE SIMULATED IN MEU 2013?

Since the entire Croatian accession negotiations lasted for more than 5 years, at MEU we will not be simulating them in their entirety. The debates and negotiations will therefore be on three chapters of the Copenhagen Criteria:

• CHAPTER 8: Competition Policy

• CHAPTER 23: Judiciary and Fundamental Rights

• CHAPTER 27: Environment

These chapters proved to be very controversial in reality, yet at the same time are not too technical which allows all participants to fully engage with the topics.

At MEU 2013 we will be simulating the final stages of the accession negotiations, mean-ing that all the other chapters of the Copenhagen Criteria will be deemed to be closed. Therefore, in order for Croatian accession to the EU to go ahead, these 3 chapters still need to be discussed and then formally closed by the Council.

4. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT NEGOTIATIONS

The Chapter 27 on the Environment consists of over 200 major legal acts covering eight broad categories: horizontal legislation, water and air quality, waste management, nature protection, industrial pollution control, chemicals and noise. In its Screening Report (2007), the Commission pointed out that the Environment is the sector where legislative alignment would be most challenging. Since the content and adoption of the acquis is non-negotia-ble, the participants who represent the Croatian delegation have two main instruments of manoeuvre at their disposal: transitional periods and pre-accession funding.

Therefore, research into the different pre-accession funding mechanisms would give more flexibility to those representing the Croatian position. For example, the Phare programme supports the implementation of the acquis communautaire in the form of institution build-ing and investments in cross-border cooperation, while ISPA deals with environment and transport infrastructure. Lobbyists (but also Croatian officials) might find the CARDS (Com-munity Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation) programme of inter-est since it funds civil society initiatives and is dedicated exclusively to the Western Bal-kans.

Returning to the actual course of events, the Croatian Delegation came to the negotiat-ing table with a request for 14 transitional periods and 2 requirements for technical adjust-ments: for both the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and for the Directive on the conservation of wild birds.

The longest transitional period requested by Croatia was within the water sector. Croa-tia asked for a transitional period until 31st of December 2030 for the construction of sew-erage and wastewater treatment systems in line with the Council Directive on Urban Waste Water. The next longest transitional periods (until 2020) were asked for the Directives on the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste and on the quality of water intended for hu-man consumption.

For an overview of the starting positions of the negotiating parties, please consult the ta-ble below.

EU’S INITIAL POSITION

CLIMATE CHANGE AND AIR POLLUTION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

WATER MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

POSITION OF CROATIA’S MINISTRY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION, PHYSICAL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION

EU’S INITIAL POSITION

IN ITS INITIAL SCREENING REPORT, THE COMMISSION STRESSED THAT A SIGNIFICANT FURTHER EFFORTS WERE NEEDED TO MAKE UP FOR THE DELAYS WHICH HAD OCCURRED IN TRANSPOSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION, IN PARTICULAR WITH RESPECT TO THE EU EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM (ETS).

IT ALSO EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR CROATIA TO RATIFY KYOTO PROTOCOL, AND URGED FOR THE INTEGRATION OF AIR QUALITY IN OTHER SECTORS - ESPECIALLY IN ENERGY PRODUCTION, TRANSPORT, INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE.

THE AREA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT WAS SINGLED OUT AS THE ONE WHERE LEGISLATIVE ALIGNMENT WAS MOST PROBLEMATIC. THE FOLLOWING DIFFICULTIES HAD BEEN NOTED: AN EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF UNCONTROLLED AND ENVIRONMENTALLY DANGEROUS LANDFILL SITES. NON-EXISTENCE OF LANDFILLS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE. WEAK RESTRICTIONS OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT. POOR APPLICATION OF MARKET BASED PRINCIPLES AND INSUFFICIENT USE OF THE ‘POLLUTER PAYS’ PRINCIPLE.

TOWARDS THE END OF THE NEGOTIATIONS (2009), THE WATER SECTOR HAD ONLY 15% COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACQUIS. THERE WERE PENDING PROBLEMS LINKED TO INSUFFICIENT QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES FOR WATER PROJECTS. EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AND ADOPT RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS (RBMPS) ALSO NEEDED TO BE STEPPED UP.

THE GOVERNMENT INSISTED ON THE NEED FOR TRANSITIONAL MEASURES FOR INVESTMENT-HEAVY DIRECTIVES. THEY WERE MAINLY CONNECTED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED ETS AND AVIATION DIRECTIVES, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE AREAS OF FREE ALLOCATION, REGISTRIES, AND AUCTIONING.

AS A RESULT, SEVERAL TRANSITIONAL MEASURES WERE AGREED UPON AMONG THE PARTIES: NAMELY, THAT CROATIA WILL JOIN THE ETS NO SOONER THAN 1 JANUARY 2013, (WHEN THE THIRD TRADING PERIOD OF THE ETS STARTS), AND THAT THE COUNTRY WILL BECOME PART OF THE ETS FOR AVIATION ACTIVITIES AS OF 1ST OF JANUARY 2014.

THE CROATIAN DELEGATION MAINLY EMPHASISED THE NEED FOR FUNDING. IT ESTIMATED THAT A TOTAL OF €3.250 BILLION WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACQUIS.

SEE ABOVE FOR TRANSITIONAL PERIODS; THE GOVERNMENT PLEDGED THAT THE FOUR RBMPS (RIVER BASINS OF THE: SAVA, DRAVA AND DANUBE, PRIMORJE-ISTRIA RIVERS, AND DALMATIAN RIVERS) SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY 2009.

THE FORMAL NEGOTIATING POSITION WAS A PLEDGE FOR 5% REDUCTION IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR 2013-2020. THE NGOS, ON THE OTHER HAND, REQUESTED THAT CROATIA ACCEPT A 25% REDUCTION TARGET. THEY ALSO ADVOCATED IMMEDIATE RATIFICATION OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, AND BROADER USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGIES (GREEN ACTION).

THE DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY GREEN ACTION EXPRESSED CONCERNS ON SEVERAL ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: THE VISION NEEDS TO BE ONE OF ‘ZERO WASTE’, ENCOMPASSING THE PREVENTION AND REUSE OF WASTE, NOT ONLY A REDUCTION IN THE VOLUME FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. IT RECOMMENDED THE CREATION OF REGULATORY STIMULI FOR CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES WHEN IT COMES TO PRODUCTION PROCESSES, PACKAGING ECO-DESIGNS, AND MORE ECO-EFFICIENT CONSUMPTION PATTERNS.

REGARDING WATER MANAGEMENT, WWF AND GREEN ACTION CRITICISED A PACKAGE OF EIGHT PROJECTS FROM MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE RIVERS PART OF THE RBMP. CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES WARNED THAT THE REGULATORY INITIATIVES DO NOT COMPLY WITH EU LEGISLATION AND ENDANGER MORE THAN 500 KILOMETRES OF EXTREMELY VALUABLE CROATIAN RIVERS AND THEIR ECOSYSTEMS.

54 55

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

European Commission, Directorate-General for Enlargement, Report on Croatia Accession

• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CEgQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fenlargement%2Fpdf%2Fhp%2Fresults_of_th_eu_accession_negotiations_with_croatia.pdf&ei=KjmBUKDAGdKZhQejiIDQDw&usg=AFQjCNHOrvcrwi7ncrEJNecj2ZcUfIT5tQ&sig2=LDfxr8hgEGDb3hE3h0gT6g&cad=rja

Stefan Fule, European Commissioner for Enlargement – Speech for the Foreign Affairs Com-mittee (AFET) at the European Parliament

• http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-138_en.htm

European Commission, Interim Report on Chapter 23 negotiations

• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fenlargement%2Fpdf%2Fhp%2Finterim_report_hr_ch23_en.pdf&ei=DDmBULvmG8m2hQfmzYDoCw&usg=AFQjCNGcjr6RDDwO3MF16gbMBtCRyV3YvA&sig2=rZAY4J-xA1-4TD6j67w_gA&cad=rja

Council of the European Union meeting – discussion on the Croatian Accession negotia-tions

• http: //www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consilium.europa.eu%2Fuedocs%2Fcms_data%2Fdocs%2Fpressdata%2FEN%2Fgenaff%2F123336.pdf&ei=DDmBULvmG8m2hQfmzYDoCw&usg=AFQjCNEPU9GDXwKffEghHllIWirjSBQ0HQ&sig2=ii9xQnjrYYL0dk0jRAxz_Q&cad=rja

Croatia’s Chief Negotiator with the EU – Vladimir Drobnjak’s briefing on the Accession ne-gotiations

• h t t p : / / w w w. g o o g l e . c o m /u r l ? s a = t & r c t = j & q = & e s r c = s & s o u r c e = w e b& c d = 2 9 & v e d = 0 C E k Q F j A I O B Q & u r l = h t t p % 3 A % 2 F % 2 F w w w. i i e a .com%2Fdocuments%2Fvladimir-drobnjak---post-event-report&ei=WDmBUMGGJIW0hAfL2ICQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFsSE5qB_SJu56057KSprepCnmUsw&sig2=imlNCOhVsJImulWy8XFlFA&cad=rja

Ministers and MEPs will therefore be discussing the extent to which Croatia is currently aligned with the acquis communautaire. Should they decide that this is currently not the case, they can negotiate to include some additional conditions that Croatia will need to agree to. The Croatian Government will indeed be represented by the Croatian Delegation throughout the simulation at MEU. These conditions will need to be negotiated with the Cro-atian Delegation and the Commissioner for Enlargement, and will be included in the Coun-cil’s and the Parliament’s Resolution.

The Commissioner will be responsible not only for providing the Commission’s opinion dur-ing the negotiations, but also to facilitate the discussions between Ministers, MEPs and the Croatian Delegation. Trilogue Meetings will therefore play a very important role through-out the negotiations, and will be scheduled almost daily. Should the negotiations be suc-cessful (so both the Parliament and the Council agree to Croatia’s EU membership), then these conditions will be included in the Accession Treaty.

THE ROLE OF THE CROATIAN AMBASSADORS

MEU 2013 will welcome an additional category of participants: Ambassadors from the Gov-ernment of Croatia. These participants will take on the roles diplomats, and will represent the Croatian Government throughout the accession negotiations with the Council and the Parliament. These Ambassadors will form of the Croatian Delegation at MEU.

Unlike lobbyists, the Croatian Delegation will represent the interests of their country – similar to Ministers in the Council of the European Union. MEPs and Ministers will have the opportunity to discuss Croatia’s alignment with the acquis communautaire and possibly negotiate additional conditions for membership in both formal and informal settings with the Croatian Ambassadors.

FURTHER READING

ON CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS AS A WHOLE:

Important official documents on the Croatian accession negotiations:

• http: //ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/key-documents/index_en.htm?key_document=0801262488184a4c,08012624887d384d

• http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/fule/docs/news/20120424_re-port_final.pdf

• http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/hr_rap-port_2012_en.pdf

56 57

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VII. CROATIA’S ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

• http://oliver.efri.hr/~euconf/2011/docs/Session9/4.%20Mintas-Hodak%20Anic-Antic%20Majic.pdf

• http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/maritime/files/fn97616_ecorys_final_report_on_shipbuilding_competitiveness_en.pdf

ON THE JUDICIARY AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CHAPTER NEGOTIATIONS:

State of Play for Chapters 23 and 24 in the Croatian Accession negotiations – Ministry of Justice of Croatia

• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oefz.at%2Fcms%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_view%26gid%3D268&ei=DDmBULvmG8m2hQfmzYDoCw&usg=AFQjCNE8Kbrw38p5Bnr7F1QLxnOJ9tgMVQ&sig2=t0YCbwFnRZzGBw3OlOUnIQ&cad=rja

Viktoria Endrodi-Kovacs, “Actual Issues of the Croatian Accession” International Rela-tions Quarterly, Vol.2 No.1, 2011

• h t t p : / / w w w. g o o g l e . c o m /u r l ? s a = t & r c t = j & q = & e s r c = s & s o u r c e = we b & c d = 2 2 & v e d = 0 C C I Q F j A B O B Q & u r l = h t t p % 3 A % 2 F % 2 F w w w.s o u t h e a s t - e u r o p e . o r g % 2 F p d f % 2 F 0 5 % 2 F D K E _ 0 5 _ A _ E U _ E K V.pdf&ei=WDmBUMGGJIW0hAfL2ICQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFjY78kiEJhr2raDzeoggSgTZbcsQ&sig2=HJwPcy2w5MZ9d-eIh9iAZA&cad=rja

UK House of Commons Report on Croatia Accession negotiations

• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CC8QFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN06157.pdf&ei=KjmBUKDAGdKZhQejiIDQDw&usg=AFQjCNFPB3Oc-SAKtsyQb1LELzCxcgdejQ&sig2=7OzrPOI539_WL6hdLZ6LBQ&cad=rja

ON THE COMPETITION POLICY CHAPTER NEGOTIATIONS:

Art. 107, 108 TFEU

• http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF

Press Articles

• http://www.euronews.com/2011/06/02/croatia-s-shipyards-on-sale/

• http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/eu-urged-to-consider-alternatives-to-croatia-accession/#.UM5xb-RfCpY

• http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/05/02/croatias-shipyards-clock-is-ticking/#axzz2FGk3uSKs

• http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2011-02-18/croatia-accession-negotiations-eu-overshadowed-parliamentary-el

• http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/news-briefs/2010/06/11/nb-02

In-depth Studies

• http://www.ijf.hr/upload/files/file/ENG/newsletter/64.pdf

58 59

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VIII. LANGUAGE COVERAGE INFORMATION

INTERPRETING FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The official working language of MEU is English. However, participants will be provid-ed with the unique opportunity to experience European multilingualism at least once a day during special sessions known as Mother Tongue Sessions (MTS). They are debates, meetings with lobbyists and press conferences during which all participants can deliver statements or ask and answer questions in their native language as long as it is provided by the interpreting services.

MEPs wishing to take the floor during a MTS are required to state not only their name along with the political group and country they represent, but also the language they are going to use to deliver the statement. This kind of information is crucial for interpreters, as they will need to switch channels accordingly.

In such a dynamic situation, interpreters play a pivotal role in a fruitful conduct of the simulation, as statements delivered in a language that is not English will be interpreted via relay interpreting. This means that, while a speaker addresses the audience in a language other than English, e.g. Italian, interpreters in the Italian booth will interpret the statement into English, and interpreters in the other booths will listen to the interpretation in English and interpret it - in turn - into their mother tongues. The audience will be given the oppor-tunity to listen to the statement either in the source language, in English or in other target languages provided by the interpreters.

Though speaking one’s own mother tongue is natural and automatic, one should pay spe-cial attention to and prepare specific terminology. Therefore, all participants are advised to focus on proposal-related terms both in English and their mother tongues during their prep-aration efforts to achieve effective communication. Bilingual versions of the original texts of the proposals are available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.

At MEU 2013 interpreters will also have the opportunity to practise chuchotage, also known as whispered interpreting. Here, the interpreter leaves the interpreting booth and sits next to the MEP who wishes to have interpretation delivered to them in person rather than via headphones. The interpreter whispers the message to the receiver so as not to disturb the on-going session or debate. This mode of interpreting, while uncommon in the EU institu-tions, will be available upon request of MEPs as long as a given language is provided by the interpreting services and an interpreter wishes to deliver interpretation in this mode.

However, not all official EU languages will be provided by the interpreting services. All participants will be notified about the set of the interpreting languages via infomail.

PART VIII

LANGUAGE COVERAGE INFORMATION

1. INTERPRETING AT MEU 2013

Interpreters are professionals who facilitate multilingual communication in many differ-ent settings: conferences, negotiations, or multinational institutions, such as the United Nations or the European Union. During EU parliamentary sessions, interpretation is usually provided into the 23 official languages. Interpreters mostly interpret from English, French, or German (the three working languages of the EU) into their mother tongue. Occasional-ly, they may be required to interpret from their mother tongue into English.

There are several modes of interpreting. Multilingual conferences usually use simulta-neous interpreting, where the interpreter, sitting in a sound-proof booth, listens to what is being said and renders the message into the target language as quickly as he or she can formulate it from the source language, while the source-language speaker continuously speaks. The interpreter speaks into a microphone, while clearly seeing the source-language speaker and hearing him or her via headphones. Simultaneous interpretation is delivered to the audience via their headphones.

Sometimes, in heavily multilingual meetings, relay interpreting is required. At MEU 2013, this will be the case during the Mother Tongue Sessions (for further information, please see the ‘Interpreting for the European Parliament’ section).

The other widely spread mode of interpreting is the so-called consecutive interpreting. Here, the interpreter speaks after the source-language speaker has finished speaking. The speech is divided into segments, and the interpreter sits or stands beside the source-lan-guage speaker, listening and taking notes as the speaker progresses through the message. When the speaker pauses or finishes speaking, the interpreter then renders a portion of the message or the entire message into the target language. This mode of interpretation can also be used at conferences or during negotiations.

At MEU 2013, the interpreters’ task will be to simultaneously interpret the content of parlia-mentary sessions and press conferences; there will also be meetings of the Council of Min-isters which will require consecutive interpreting. Interpreters can use their laptops in the booths so that they can check vocabulary or receive digital copies of speeches to be de-livered by the speakers. It is clear that interpreters have to prepare themselves thoroughly, just as the other participants. They will need to read the Directives to be discussed, prepare subject-specific terminology, as well acquaint themselves with the rules of procedure and have a general knowledge of the EU, factions of the European Parliament and their stance.

60 61

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE VIII. LANGUAGE COVERAGE INFORMATION

3. TIPS ON PUBLIC SPEAKING AND DEALING WITH INTERPRETATION FOR PARTICIPANTS

As the Model European Union simulation is intended to be as close as possible to the re-al-life European Union decision-making process, there will be simultaneous interpretation from and into English during parliamentary sessions and press conferences.

Interpreters are there to facilitate communication and understanding. However, in order for them to be able to do their work as best as they can, there are two simple rules to be fol-lowed:

• FIRST AND FOREMOST, BE CAREFUL WHEN USING MICROPHONES. IF YOUR MICROPHONE IS OFF, THE INTERPRETERS CANNOT HEAR YOU AND THEREFORE CANNOT INTERPRET. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOUR MI-CROPHONE IS ON AND YOU SAY SOMETHING YOU ONLY WANT YOUR NEIGHBOUR/COLLEAGUE TO HEAR, THE INTERPRETERS CAN HEAR YOU AS WELL! SO IF YOU ARE ADDRESSING THE HOUSE, SWITCH YOUR MICRO-PHONE ON. ONCE YOU HAVE FINISHED, SWITCH IT OFF. ALSO, IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO TAP OR OTHERWISE

TOUCH THE MICROPHONE. YOU CAN DAMAGE THE EQUIPMENT AND IMPAIR THE INTERPRETERS’ HEARING.

• SECONDLY, SPEAKERS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IF THEY SPEAK TOO FAST OR IN A PARTICU-LARLY MONOTONOUS MANNER (FOR EXAMPLE WHEN THEY ARE READING A TEXT OUT LOUD), THEY ARE MAK-ING UNDERSTANDING DIFFICULT NOT ONLY FOR THEIR LISTENERS, BUT ALSO FOR THE INTERPRETERS. THERE-FORE, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE WAY YOU SPEAK. IF YOU PREPARE A SPEECH AND WANT TO READ IT OR YOU PREPARE NOTES WITH NUMEROUS DATA SUCH AS NAMES AND FIGURES, PLEASE PROVIDE THE INTER-PRETERS WITH A HARD OR DIGITAL COPY OF THE TEXT BEFOREHAND.

We are sure that you will appreciate the interpreters’ hard work once you see what it en-tails.

There are, of course, several other tips on public speaking, to help you battle nervousness and fear.

• PREPARE YOURSELF. TRY TO FIND AS MUCH INFORMATION ON THE TOPIC OF YOUR SPEECH AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU FIND A WRITTEN TEXT, DO NOT READ IT AS IT IS, BUT RATHER USE IT AS BASIS FOR YOUR OWN SPEECH, TRY TO VERBALIZE IT, MAKE IT SOUND AS A NATURAL DISCOURSE.

• PRACTICE. IT IS USELESS TO MEMORIZE THE WHOLE SPEECH. IT IS MUCH BETTER TO REMEMBER SOME KEY POINTS AND TRY TO BUILD YOUR SPEECH AROUND THEM NATURALLY. YOU CAN ALSO USE NOTES. TRY TO PRACTICE YOUR SPEECH USING THESE NOTES. VISUALIZE IN YOUR MIND THE THINGS AND SITUATIONS YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT; IT WILL HELP YOU SOUND MORE RELAXED AND NATURAL. AND REMEMBER: NATU-RAL SPEECH MAINLY CONSISTS OF RATHER SHORT AND SIMPLE SENTENCES. SO DO NOT FORGET ABOUT FULL STOPS!

• MAKE EYE CONTACT. PEOPLE TRUST PEOPLE WHO LOOK THEM IN THE EYE, SO LOOK AT YOUR AUDIENCE WHEN YOU SPEAK. DON’T LOOK AT THE FLOOR – THERE IS NOTHING DOWN THERE. DON’T LOOK SOLELY AT YOUR NOTES – THE AUDIENCE WILL THINK YOU HAVEN’T PREPARED. YOU APPEAR MORE CONFIDENT WHEN YOUR HEAD IS UP; THAT PUTS YOUR AUDIENCE AT EASE AND ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE COMMAND OF THE ROOM. IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMANATE CONFIDENCE, EVEN IF YOU FEEL TERRIBLY NERVOUS. SO INSTEAD OF ANNOUNCING AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SPEECH THAT YOU ARE NERVOUS AND THEN MUMBLING QUICKLY TO YOUR TA-BLE, TRY TO LOOK AT PEOPLE. BEGIN YOUR SPEECH BY ADDRESSING YOUR AUDIENCE, MAKE PAUSES, AND SPEAK AT A NORMAL (OR EVEN SLIGHTLY SLOWER) PACE WHEN YOU SPEAK PUBLICLY. REMEMBER, AUDIENCE IS IMPORTANT. YOU ARE NOT DELIVERING THE SPEECH TO YOURSELF, BUT TO THE PEOPLE LISTENING TO YOU.

THE CHART BELOW CONTAINS A ROUGH SCHEDULE OF MTS IN THE PARLIAMENT.

2.1 INTERPRETING FOR THE COUNCIL

Simultaneous interpreting will take place in the Parliament only. However, Ministers of the European Council will be offered the chance to express themselves in their mother tongues, too.

Ministers wishing to deliver remarks, statements, or speeches in their mother tongues can ask the Interpreters’ Coordinator to send an interpreter to the Council, provided that their language is covered by the interpreting services. If this is the case, interpreters will perform consecutive interpreting. However, this is a time and energy consuming process, there-fore the number of addresses in consecutive interpreting will be limited.

Almost every day a joint press conference takes place in the Parliament during which Ministers of the European Council can take the floor in their mother tongues when state-ments will be interpreted via relay interpreting (for more information about relay interpret-ing, please see the previous paragraph). Therefore, Ministers of the European Council are in-vited to focus on terminology both in English and their mother tongues.

COMMISSION PRESENTS THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL (+Q/A); OPENING STATEMENTS ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

DEBATES ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; VOTE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

COMMISSION PRESENTS STATUS OF THE CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU NEGOTIATIONS AND COUNCIL’S CONDITIONS (+Q/A); OPENING STATEMENTS ON CROATIAN ACCESSION; Q/A SESSION WITH CROATIAN DELEGATION; LOB-BYISTS’ PRESENTATIONS ON CROATIAN ACCESSION; DEBATE ON CROATIAN

ACCESSION

DEBATES ON CROATIAN ACCESSION CONDITIONS; VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE EP ON THE CROATIAN ACCESSION; COMMISSION PRESENTS THE

COUNCIL POSITION AT FIRST READING ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

DELIVERY AND PRESENTATION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; DEBATE ON FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE

MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING; DRAFTING AND PRESENTATION OF A RESOLUTION ON THE COUNCIL’S DECISION ON CROATIAN ACCESSION; FINAL VOTE ON EP’S

CONSENT TO CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU

DEBATES ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; LOBBYISTS’ PRESENTATIONS; PRESS CONFERENCE

PRESS CONFERENCE

PRESS CONFERENCE

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

THURSDAY

MTS?

MTS?

MTS?

MTS?

MTS?

COMMISSION PRESENTS THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL (+Q/A); OPENING STATEMENTS ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

DEBATES ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; VOTE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

COMMISSION PRESENTS STATUS OF THE CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU NEGOTIATIONS AND COUNCIL’S CONDITIONS (+Q/A); OPENING STATEMENTS ON CROATIAN ACCESSION; Q/A SESSION WITH CROATIAN DELEGATION; LOB-BYISTS’ PRESENTATIONS ON CROATIAN ACCESSION; DEBATE ON CROATIAN

ACCESSION

DEBATES ON CROATIAN ACCESSION CONDITIONS; VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE EP ON THE CROATIAN ACCESSION; COMMISSION PRESENTS THE

COUNCIL POSITION AT FIRST READING ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL

DELIVERY AND PRESENTATION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; DEBATE ON FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE

MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING; DRAFTING AND PRESENTATION OF A RESOLUTION ON THE COUNCIL’S DECISION ON CROATIAN ACCESSION; FINAL VOTE ON EP’S

CONSENT TO CROATIAN ACCESSION TO THE EU

DEBATES ON THE MUSIC COPYRIGHT PROPOSAL; LOBBYISTS’ PRESENTATIONS; PRESS CONFERENCE

PRESS CONFERENCE

PRESS CONFERENCE

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

THURSDAY

MTS?

MTS?

MTS?

MTS?

MTS?

62 63

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

PART IX

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE COUNCIL AND THE PARLIAMENT

Rule 1

The President

1.1. The Council or Parliament shall be chaired jointly by a Presi-dent and Vice-President(s) assisted by a Secretary. The term ‘Pres-ident‘ in these rules of procedure refers to both President and Vice-President.

1.2. The President shall open, suspend and close sittings, temporarily adjourn meetings, direct the debates of the Council or Parliament, rule on the admissibility of procedural points, motions and amendments, ensure observance of the rules, maintain order, call on speakers, close debates, limit the number of speakers permitted within a certain de-bate, close the list of speakers, ascertain whether a quorum exists, put questions to the vote, and announce the result of any vote.

1.3. The President must ensure that all Members yield to the rules of procedure at all times. Every Member should respect the decisions of the President.

1.4. If questions arise over the interpretation of these rules of proce-dure, the President shall decide on the correct interpretation.

• DON’T WORRY ABOUT YOUR MISTAKES. YOUR AUDIENCE ARE HUMAN BEINGS AS WELL, AND ALL HUMAN BEINGS MAKE MISTAKES. IF YOU MADE A PARTICULARLY GRAVE MISTAKE, APOLOGIZE, CORRECT YOURSELF AND CONTINUE. IF YOU ONLY MADE A MINOR MISTAKE, CHANCES ARE THAT NOBODY REALLY NOTICED. TAKE A BREATH AND CARRY ON WITH YOUR SPEECH.

• BE CONFIDENT. EVEN IF YOU HAVE ZERO CONFIDENCE IN YOURSELF, TRY ACTING AS IF YOU DID. YOUR AUDIENCE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO FAIL, THEY WANT YOU TO SUCCEED. AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: DON’T

WORRY. IT’S NOT A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH; IT’S JUST A SPEECH.

For some other tips on public speaking and being interpreted, please watch this short video:

• http://www.calliope-interpreters.org/en/call_movie_uk.htm

64 65

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

her from the Chamber or Parliament for the remainder of the sitting. The President may also resort to the latter measure immediately in cases of exceptional gravity.

2.4. Should disturbances threaten to obstruct the business of the House, the President shall close or suspend the sitting for a specific pe-riod of time to restore order. If he/she cannot make himself heard, he/she shall leave the Chair; this shall have the effect of suspending the sitting. The President shall reconvene the sitting at a later time.

2.5. Mobile phones should be turned off during sessions.

Rule 3

Official Language

English is both the working and official language for all organs of MEU.

Rule 4

Co-decision procedure for the Council and Parliament

4.1. The Commission proposals at MEU shall be treated under a modified co-decision procedure described hereafter.

4.2. The first Commission proposal will be submitted to the Council

1.5. No Member may speak in the plenary unless called upon to do so by the President. If a speaker departs from the subject, the President shall call him or her to order. If a speaker is called to order twice on the same item of business, the President may, on the third occasion, forbid him or her to speak again on that item.

1.6. A speaker may not be interrupted except by the President.

1.7. The President may take immediate measures against Members who disrupts the conduct of a session (see Rule 2).

1.8. The President shall not vote on any matter on the agenda.

Rule 2

Maintenance of order

2.1. Words or expressions which affront human dignity or which may prejudice orderly debate may not be used.

2.2. The President shall call to order any Member of the Council or Parliament who causes a disturbance during proceedings.

2.3. If the offence is repeated, the President shall again call the Mem-ber to order, and this shall be recorded in the report of debate. Should the disturbance continue, or if a further offence is committed, the Pres-ident may deny the offender the right to speak and/or exclude him/

66 67

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

a. Approve the proposal as amended by the other body. A qualified majority [Council] or a simple majority [Parliament] is needed. The proposed act is then deemed to be adopted.

b. Propose amendments. For each amendment, a qualified majority [Council] or a simple majority [Parliament] is needed.

4.7. When the Parliament and the Council have concluded their readings of this proposal, they will exchange the proposals as (poten-tially) amended a second time.

4.8. In the Final (Third) Reading, the Council or Parliament can:

a. Approve the act with qualified majority [Council] or a simple ma-jority [Parliament]. It is then deemed to be adopted; or

b. Reject the act by failing to render a qualified majority [Council] or a simple majority [Parliament]. It is then not adopted.

Rule 5

General Course of a Reading in the Council or Parliament

5.1. A reading consists of introductory statements, general debate on the topic, debate on specific amendments, and voting on amendments (first/second reading only).

5.2. At the beginning of a reading, there will be time for introductory statements by Council Members or a representative from each group in the Parliament as selected during group meetings. Each introducto-

and a second proposal to the Parliament. At this point, a representative of the Commission shall outline each proposal to the respective bod-ies, illuminating both the key articles of the proposals and any matters that the Commission deems it important to emphasize which may be of importance to debate. Furthermore, the Commission may be sum-moned for clarification during debate subject to a simple majority vote.

4.3. After the proposals have been submitted, both the Parliament and the Council will start the First Reading of the respective propos-als. During this reading, the Council or Parliament can adopt amend-ments with a qualified majority [Council] or a simple majority [Par-liament].

4.4. When the Council and the Parliament have concluded their readings, they exchange the proposals including any amendments passed.

4.5. Parliament and Council will elect one or two representative(s) to present the amendments to the other body and to answer ques-tions from the respective bodies‘ Members. Members who want to put themselves forward as a candidate shall raise their placards when requested to do so by the President and will be put down on a list. Af-ter that, the President can give them the opportunity to present a short speech if the President deems it necessary. Otherwise, the Par-liament/Council will vote immediately. The candidate(s) who get the most votes will be elected.

4.6. Second Reading: In the reading of the proposal that has already been amended by the other body, the Council or Parliament can:

68 69

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 6

Types of Debate and Right to Speak

6.1. There are three types of debate: the Speakers‘ List, Moderated Caucus, and Informal Discussion.

6.2. Speakers‘ List:

a. Each Member who wishes to speak during a debate within a Speak-ers‘ List must raise his or her placard after the President has made a call for speakers, or pass a note to the President.

b. The President can limit the number of speakers permitted during a certain debate before it begins. He/she may also close the list of speak-ers at any time.

c. The President will call upon the Members on the Speakers‘ List when their turn comes. The Members will hold their speech from their seat.

d. The speaking time is usually one minute. The chair can announce a change of the time limit for a set of speakers or for individual speak-ers at his/her discretion. Motions to extend or limit the speaking time are in order.

e. When a speaker has finished his speech, he or she may be asked by the President whether he or she is open to questions (a.k.a. Points of Information). The speaker has the right not to answer any question. Both the President and the speaker can limit the number of questions they want to permit. The time limit for a question is thirty seconds.

f. Members who wish to make a point of information should raise

ry statement should not exceed 3 minutes.

5.3. After the introductory statements, there will be a general debate on the topic. Every Member who wishes to speak may do so.

5.4. The general debate ends when there are no more speakers on the list of speakers for the general debate or when a motion for a closure of general debate (see Rule 7.4) has been granted.

5.5. The President can limit the number of speakers permitted during a debate beforehand; he or she can also close the list of speakers dur-ing the debate.

5.6. When the general debate on a topic has been closed, the Presi-dent will announce debate on proposed amendments.

5.7. The debate on a specific amendment ends when there are no more speakers on the list of speakers for the debate on this amendment or when a motion for closure of debate has been granted. The House moves to voting procedures on the amendments (see Rule 11).

5.8. Only amendments that have been debated can be voted on during an amendment voting session.

5.9. When voting procedures on the amendments finish, the House moves to a general debate or to voting procedures on the draft propos-al in question (third reading only).

70 71

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Ministers. A Motion for a Moderated Caucus will not be entertained in the European Parliament.

6.4 Informal Discussion:

a. An Informal Discussion can be proposed by the President or the Members of the House at any time via a ‘Motion for an Informal Dis-cussion‘, specifying the time limit of the Informal Discussion. This time limit may not exceed 20 minutes.

b. During an Informal Discussion, Members shall stay in the room.

c. The President does not moderate and the discussion is unofficial.

d. The Secretary shall project a countdown in a visible place, if pos-sible.

Rule 7 [Council]

Procedural Motions

7.1. A Member shall have a right to speak if he or she raises a proce-dural motion. Members can raise procedural motions at all times, ex-cept for during Informal Discussion, Moderated Caucus, when anoth-er Member is speaking, or during voting procedures.

7.2. To raise a procedural motion, a Member shall raise their placard and state the type of the motion.

7.3. No motion may interrupt a speaker.

their placards when they are asked to do so. They will be noted by the Presidency and called upon to speak at the appropriate time.

g. Once the Member has made his/her point of information, the President give the original speaker the opportunity to respond. The President can also decide not to give the speaker the opportunity to answer.

h. In exceptional cases, the President can allow the Member who asked the question to comment on the answer of the speaker.

i. If speakers whose names have been duly entered on the list are not able to speak due to lack of time, they have the right to hand in the text of their speech to the President in writing, in a final and legible form, provided that it does not exceed the speaking time they would have been allowed. A 1-minute speech is normally equal to 1/2 page. The President may make a summary of the speeches of those speak-ers at the close of debate.

6.3 Moderated Caucus:

a. A Moderated Caucus can be proposed by the President and the Members of the Council at all times by a ‘Motion for a Moderated Caucus‘, specifying the time limit for this discussion, the time lim-it for the speaking times, and the topic for discussion. The time limit may not exceed 20 minutes.

b. During a Moderated Caucus, members are expected to remain in the room and follow the discussions.

c. The President moderates the discussion, during which only points of personal privilege and points of order can be raised.

d. The President shall alert the Members when the Moderated Cau-cus is reaching its time limit.

e. A Motion for a Moderated Caucus is only valid in the Council of

72 73

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

simple majority is required.

7.5. There are no abstentions during votes on procedural motions.

7.6. The President is allowed to dismiss dilatory procedural motions.

Rule 7 [Parliament]

Procedural Motions

7.1. A Member shall have a right to speak if he or she raises a proce-dural motion. Members can raise procedural motions at all times, ex-cept for during Informal Discussion, when another Member is speak-ing, and during voting procedures.

7.2. To raise a procedural motion, a Member shall raise their placard and state the type of the Motion.

7.3. No motion may interrupt a speaker.

7.4. There are the following procedural motions:

a. ‘Motion for an Informal Discussion‘

A Member may make a Motion for an Informal Discussion so that disputed points can be clarified in an informal setting. The President can either approve the motion or put it to vote immediately. A sim-ple majority is required. The President also has the possibility to de-

7.4. These are the following procedural motions:

a. ‘Motion for a Moderated Caucus‘

A Member may make a Motion for a Moderated Caucus to allow for a deeper examination of a particular clause or provision under the topic for debate. The President can either approve the motion or put it to a vote. A simple majority is required to adopt the motion. Furthermore, in order for the motion to be valid, it must be made with a proposed overall time limit, a proposed limit for speaking times, and a topic.

b. ‘Motion for an Informal Discussion‘

A Member may make a Motion for an Informal Discussion so that disputed points can be clarified in an informal setting. The President can either approve the motion or put it to vote immediately. A sim-ple majority is required. The President also has the possibility to de-clare a temporary adjournment of the session without a motion from a Member.

c. ‘Motion to Close Debate‘

A Member may make a Motion to Close Debate, which can per-tain to the general debate, the debate on the amendments, or the de-bate on a specific amendment. In case there are objections to this mo-tion, it should be put to a vote. One Member may speak in favour and one Member may speak against the motion. A two-thirds majority is required. Once a motion for closure of debate has passed, the debate will be closed immediately and none of the speakers still on the list of speakers will have the possibility to deliver their remarks verbally.

d. ‘Motion to Extend/Limit Speaking Time‘

A Member may propose to change the duration of the speaking times. This motion can be raised only when the President asks for points and motions. The President may put this motion to a vote. A

74 75

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Information may be raised immediately following a speaker if there is time remaining in the former speaker‘s remarks. If the right to raise procedural points is misused, the President may forbid the offending member to speak for the remainder of the item of business.

8.2. Point of Order: A member may raise a point of order if he/she has legitimate reason to believe that a breach of the rules of procedure has occurred. The point of order should only be phrased to draw atten-tion to the concern and will be addressed accordingly by the President. A Point of Order may interrupt a speaker.

8.3. Point of Personal Privilege: A member may raise a point of per-sonal privilege when experiencing discomfort, such as not being able to hear another member‘s speech. This point can be raised without the President asking for points and motions. A Point of Personal Privilege may also interrupt a speaker.

8.4. Right of Reply: A member may raise a right of reply imme-diately following the remarks of another member if he/she feels that these remarks insulted his/her dignity or national honour. The Pres-ident shall immediately rule whether the right of reply is valid and whether the remarks could have been reasonably considered insult-ing or offensive. The remarks granted to the offended member under a right of reply must be respectful and intended to challenge any per-ceived defamation, lasting no more than thirty seconds.

8.5. Verification of Quorum: Verification of Quorum: A member may raise a verification of quorum if he/she believes that a signifi-cant portion of the Council is missing for debate. The President has the right to regard this as a dilatory point. If the point does appear to

clare a temporary adjournment of the session without a motion from a Member.

b. ‘Motion to Close Debate‘

A Member may make a Motion to Close Debate, which can per-tain to the general debate, the debate on the amendments, or the de-bate on a specific amendment. In case there are objections to this mo-tion, it should be put to a vote. One Member may speak in favour and one Member may speak against the motion. A two-thirds majority is required. Once a motion for closure of debate has passed, the debate will be closed immediately and none of the speakers still on the list of speakers will have the possibility to deliver their remarks verbally.

c. ‘Motion to Extend/Limit Speaking Time‘

A Member may propose to change the duration of the speaking times. This motion can be raised only when the President asks for points and motions. The President may put this motion to a vote. A simple majority is required.

7.5. There are no abstentions during votes on procedural motions.

7.6. The President is allowed to dismiss dilatory procedural motions.

Rule 8

Procedural Points

8.1. Point of Information: This must be confined to raising procedural questions, whether that is regarding a ruling from the Chair or a fac-tual error on the part of any of the parties to the discussion. A Point of

76 77

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 10

Amendments to a Proposal

10.1. The amendments will be debated during the amendments‘ de-bate and immediately following the general debate. They will be de-bated in the order in which they appear in the text. If two or more con-tradictory amendments relate to the same paragraph, the amendment which differs most from the text shall have priority over the others and shall be taken first. If it passes, the other amendments thereby fail; if it is rejected, the amendment which is next in priority shall be con-sidered, and similarly for each of the remaining amendments. In case of doubt as to the order, the President shall give a ruling.

10.2. Every member can propose amendments to a proposal. Amend-ments must be handed in to the President in the designated form.

10.3. An amendment which would tend to delete, replace or render inoperative the whole of a draft text is not in order. The President can dismiss dilatory amendments.

10.4. Amendments can be handed in at all times during a reading.

10.5. When a proposed amendment is to be debated, the President calls upon the member who submitted it to present it. Apart from reading out loud the text of the proposed amendment, the member should explain it in a few brief sentences. After that, the President shall open a speakers‘ list regarding the amendment. No speech on amendments may last for more than one minute.

be valid, a ‘head count‘ will be conducted to determine the new quo-rum. All future votes on procedural motions will account for this re-vised quorum.

Rule 9

Order of Precedence of Points and Motions

In case of more than one procedural point or motion at the same time, the order of precedence shall be as follows:

-Point of Personal Privilege

-Point of Order

-Point of Information

-Right of Reply

-Verification of Quorum

-Motion to Limit/Extend Speaking Time

-Motion for an Informal Discussion

-Motion for a Moderated Caucus

-Motion to Close Debate

-Motion to Close the Speakers‘ List

78 79

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 11 [Council]

Voting on Amendments

11.1. When the debate on amendments has been closed, the Presi-dent announces the beginning of the amendment voting procedure. No amendments may be submitted during the voting procedure and no member is allowed to enter or exit the room.

11.2. During voting procedures, only the Head of Content, the Chairs Coordinator, the Director General and the Deputy Director General are permitted to enter or exit the room.

11.3 During voting procedures, note passing is suspended.

11.4. The amendments that have been debated will be voted on fol-lowing their order of appearance in the text. The President will read out the text of the amendment to be voted on. The Members will vote directly afterward, without debate. A qualified majority is need-ed for the amendment to be accepted. Abstentions are permissible in the Council.

11.5. All the passed amendments become part of the amended propos-al.

10.6. An amendment can make changes to several paragraphs in the text if these changes are linked with each other and if it would make no sense to split the amendment up into several amendments. The President can dismiss an amendment on the grounds that it changes several paragraphs at a time but could be split up into several amend-ments.

10.7. The member who proposed an amendment can withdraw that amendment at all times. If he/she does so, the President will ask wheth-er another member is willing to take over the amendment. If no oth-er member immediately takes over the amendment, it is deemed void.

10.8. Sub-amendments (a.k.a. Amendments to the Amendments) shall relate to an amendment previously discussed and may not con-tradict the sense of the amendment. A sub-amendment may not be further amended.

10.9. Friendly amendment: A member who discovers a spelling, grammatical or stylistic mistake in the proposal or in an amend-ment being debated may propose a friendly amendment. The friend-ly amendment should be in a written form and can be delivered to the President at all times. The President decides on the matter. The Pres-ident also has the possibility to propose a friendly amendment.

80 81

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 12 [Council]

Quorum

12.1. Quorum is the number of Members necessary to be present in order for the Council to enter voting procedure. The presence of a ma-jority of the Member States of the European Union, represented by at least one member, is required for a quorum. When a substantive vote is to be taken, the President shall check that there is a quorum.

12.2. If there is no quorum, the vote is void unless it is a vote on a pro-cedural motion.

Rule 12 [Parliament]

Quorum

12.1. Quorum is the number of Members necessary to be present in order for the Parliament to enter voting procedure. The presence of one-third of the Members is required for a quorum. When a substan-tive vote is to be taken, the President shall check that there is a quo-rum.

12.2. If there is no quorum, the vote is void unless it is a vote on a pro-cedural motion.

Rule 11 [Parliament]

Voting on Amendments

11.1. When the debate on amendments has been closed, the Presi-dent announces the beginning of the amendment voting procedure. No amendments may be submitted during the voting procedure and no member is allowed to enter or exit the Chamber.

11.2. During voting procedures, only the Head of Content, the Chairs Coordinator, the Director General and the Deputy Director General are permitted to enter or exit the Chamber.

11.3 During voting procedures, note passing is suspended.

11.4. The amendments that have been debated will be voted on fol-lowing their order of appearance in the text. The President will read out the text of the amendment to be voted on. The members will vote directly afterward, without debate. A simple majority is needed for the amendment to be accepted. Abstentions are allowed in the Parliament.

11.5. All the passed amendments become part of the amended propos-al.

82 83

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

13.7. The Member States are afforded the following distribution of votes. A qualified majority is necessary to adopt a proposal or an amendment:

- Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom: 29 votes

- Poland, Spain: 27 votes

- Romania: 14 votes

- Netherlands: 13 votes

- Portugal, Hungary, Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece: 12 votes

- Austria, Sweden, Bulgaria: 10 votes

- Lithuania, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia: 7 votes

- Luxemburg, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia: 4 votes

- Malta: 3 votes

For a qualified majority, 255 out of these 345 votes are needed. Fur-thermore, these votes must be cast by a majority of Member States. Before a directive is deemed to be adopted, a Member of the Council may request, via a procedural motion, that the President check wheth-er the countries that voted in favour of a given directive comprise 62% of the European population. If this is not the case, the directive may not be adopted.

13.8. The President shall declare the voting closed and announce the result, which may not subsequently be modified. The numerical re-sult of a vote on a piece of legislation shall be displayed publicly in the Chamber, if possible.

Rule 13 [Council]

Voting procedures

13.1. No Member shall enter or leave the room during voting proce-dure, nor speak or raise a motion except for points of information con-cerning the voting procedure.

13.2. During voting procedures, only the Head of Content, the Chairs Coordinator, the Director General and the Deputy Director General are permitted to enter or exit the room.

13.3. Nobody may be called to speak during a vote.

13.4. During voting procedures, note passing is suspended.

13.5. There is the possibility to vote in favour, to vote against, or to abstain. When voting on procedural motions, however, there is no possibility to abstain.

13.6. The Council shall vote on procedural motions by raising plac-ards. If the President decides that the result is in question, a fresh vote shall be taken. During the vote by roll call for the adoption of amend-ments and the approval of an amended proposal, the President will call upon the countries represented. Voting shall be verbal and shall be ex-pressed by ‘Yes‘, ‘No‘, or ‘Abstain‘. After a vote by roll call, no fresh vote can be taken.

84 85

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE

13.8. The President shall declare the voting closed and announce the result, which may not subsequently be modified. The numerical re-sult of a vote on a piece of legislation shall be displayed publicly in the Parliament, if possible.

Rule 14

Majorities

There are three different kinds of majority:

a. A simple majority.

Every Member has one vote. A simple majority of all Members pre-sent is needed when voting on procedural matters in the Council and for most votes in the Parliament.

b. A two-thirds majority.

Every Member has one vote. Two-thirds of the votes of all Members present are needed. This majority is only needed for a motion to close debate for both the Council and Parliament.

c. A qualified majority [Council].

The number of votes for each Member State is outlined in Rule 13 [Council]. The total number of votes for a qualified majority is 255 out of a possible 345. This majority is needed for adoption of amendments and directives/regulations in the Council only.

Rule 13 [Parliament]

Voting procedures

13.1. No Member shall enter or leave the Chamber during voting procedure, nor speak or raise a motion except for points of information concerning the voting procedure.

13.2. During voting procedures, only the Head of Content, the Chairs Coordinator, the Director General and the Deputy Director General are permitted to enter or exit the Chamber.

13.3. No Member may be called to speak during a vote.

13.4. During voting procedures, note passing is suspended.

13.5. There is the possibility to vote in favour, to vote against, or to abstain. When voting on procedural motions, however, there is no possibility to abstain.

13.6. The Parliament shall vote by either a show of hands or the rais-ing of placards. If the President decides that the result is doubtful, a fresh vote shall be taken via a roll-call vote. During the roll-call, the President will call upon the MEPs present to state their voting intent.

13.7. Every Member has one vote. A simple majority of votes of all Members present is needed, if no other provisions are made.

86 87

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE X. ANNEX

resenting political groups) entrust the drafting of a report to a Rapporteur chosen by a weighting system representative of the political groupings within the committee. Other po-litical groups may also appoint a ‘shadow Rapporteur’, who will be responsible for prepar-ing the group’s position and monitoring the work of the Rapporteur. The Rapporteur and the members or substitutes of both the parliamentary committee responsible and any other EP committee may propose amendments to the Commission’s proposal. These amendments, together with those proposed by the parliamentary committees asked for an opinion, are put to the vote in the parliamentary committee responsible, on the basis of a simple ma-jority. Voting on a report is concluded by a vote on the Commission’s proposal as amended and on a legislative resolution.

(II) DEBATE IN PLENARY SESSION

Once the report is adopted in the parliamentary committee, it is placed on the agenda of the plenary session. Additional amendments to the report, including amendments adopted in parliamentary committee, may be tabled by political groups or at least 40 Members and put to the plenary’s vote. In the course of the plenary debate ahead of the vote, the Com-missioner announces and explains the Commission’s position on the amendments tabled. The Commission’s position on the EP’s amendments is prepared by the Directorate-General in charge of the dossier and approved by the College of Commissioners. A simple majority is required for adopting amendments, the Commission’s proposal as amended and the leg-islative resolution. If the legislative resolution accompanying the report has been adopted in parliamentary committee virtually unanimously (with fewer than 10% of votes against), the report may be adopted by the plenary without further amendment or debate.

Although the Treaty does not explicitly allow the European Parliament to reject the Com-mission’s proposal at first reading, Rule 56 of the EP’s Rules of Procedure foresees the sit-uation in which the Commission’s proposal, as amended, fails to secure a majority of the final votes cast. In this case, the President of the European Parliament will suspend the vote on the legislative resolution (normally taken following the final vote on the proposal as amended) and will request the Commission to withdraw its proposal. If the Commission does so, the legislative procedure is stopped. If the Commission refuses to withdraw its pro-posal, the matter is referred back to the parliamentary committee.

However, there is nothing to prevent the European Parliament from adopting a position containing amendments which completely nullify the Commission’s proposal. Such a step will not necessarily stop the legislative procedure and the Commission can always submit an amended proposal, while the Council can adopt a common position.

C. AMENDED COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Article 293(2) authorises the Commission to alter its legislative proposal, enabling it to in-corporate European Parliament amendments which, in its view, improve the initial propos-

ANNEX

1. THE ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE STEP-BY-STEP

For your information, here is a detailed step-by-step analysis of the ordinary legislative procedure, as it is applied in reality in the institutional framework of the EU.

Note that MEU features a simplified version of the ordinary legislative procedure.

A. COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Under the ordinary legislative procedure, the European Commission enjoys an exclusive right of initiative, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The Commission also has the right to alter its Proposals at any time during the procedure leading to the adoption of a Union act, as long as the Council has not acted [Article 293(2) TFEU]. It must be point-ed out that the legal basis adopted by the Commission will determine the legislative proce-dure applicable. The Commission’s Proposal is the result of an extensive consultation pro-cess, including the consultation of the different Commission departments (Inter-service Consultation). The Proposal is adopted by the College of Commissioners on the basis of ei-ther a written or an oral procedure and is published in the Official Journal of the Europe-an Union (‘C’ Series). The Proposal is then forwarded simultaneously to the European Par-liament and to the Council and also to all National Parliaments and, where applicable, to the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. Following the re-form brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, National Parliaments shall have 8 weeks to send their reasoned opinions on compliance of the draft Proposal with the principle of subsidi-arity to the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. Far as the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee are concerned, these are consulted by the Commission and the Council where the Treaty provides so or in cases in which the lat-ter consider it appropriate.

B. PARLIAMENT FIRST READING

According to Article 294(3) TFEU, the European Parliament adopts a position on a Propos-al at first reading and not simply an opinion. The Proposal is first discussed within the rel-evant parliamentary committee and then debated in plenary session, where it is adopted by simple majority.

(I) DISCUSSION WITHIN THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

RESPONSIBLE

More specifically, within the parliamentary committee responsible, coordinators (rep-

88 89

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE X. ANNEX

(II) THE COUNCIL CAN ADOPT THE ACT AS AMENDED

The legislative act is submitted directly for the signature of the Presidents and Secretar-ies-General of the European Parliament and of the Council and is published in the Official Journal. The procedure is ended.

(III) COUNCIL COMMON POSITION

When the Council does not share the views expressed by the Parliament, it adopts a com-mon position, which is forwarded to the European Parliament together with a statement of reasons. Where the European Parliament has approved the Commission’s proposal with-out amendment, but the Council wishes to make changes to it, the Council will again adopt a common position. The Council’s decision requires a qualified majority (see Article 16(3) TEU), except in cases specified in the Treaty. The European Parliament is generally notified of the common position at the plenary session following its formal adoption.

(IV) COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ON THE COMMON POSITION

In this document, which is forwarded to the European Parliament in tandem with the com-mon position, the Commission explains why it has decided to support or oppose the com-mon position. The Commission also comments on the Council’s reaction to the EP amend-ments which it had supported in plenary at first reading. Only if the Commission amends its proposal in line with the common position, the Council can act by qualified majority.

E. PARLIAMENT SECOND READING

The Parliament must take action on the basis of the Council’s common position at first reading within a time limit of three months. The second reading of the Proposal by the Eu-ropean Parliament starts with its President making an announcement, in plenary session, acknowledging receipt of the Council position at first reading and the Commission’s com-munication thereon.

(I) WORK IN PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

The procedure generally follows the rules and practice of the first reading, with the differ-ence that the text to be amended is the Council position at first reading and not the Com-mission’s proposal. The amendments adopted in parliamentary committee constitute ‘the recommendation for second reading’, which is normally defended by the same Rapporteur as at first reading. It includes proposed amendments, where appropriate. Amendments may also be tabled personally by other Members of the European Parliament. Pursuant to Rule 66

al and/or are likely to facilitate an agreement. n accordance with § 13 of the Joint Decla-ration on practical arrangements for the new codecision procedure , the Commission must exercise its right of initiative in a constructive manner with a view to making it easier to reconcile the positions of the Council and the European Parliament. To this end, the Com-mission may incorporate into its amended proposal the European Parliament amendments which it supports, either unaltered or suitably reworded.

D. COUNCIL FIRST READING

The Council makes its position known after preparatory work has taken place within work-ing parties made up of experts from the Member States and chaired by the Member State holding the six-monthly Presidency of the Council. This preparatory work runs concurrent-ly with the European Parliament’s activity but the Council may only adopt a position after the European Parliament has acted. The institutions are encouraged to exchange informa-tion on progress and timetables of the co-decision negotiations. The Council finalises its position on the basis of the Commission’s proposal, amended where necessary, in the light of the European Parliament’s first reading and resultant amendments. The Council’s deci-sions are prepared within specific working parties made up of representatives of the Mem-ber States and chaired by the representative of the Member State holding the six-monthly Presidency, assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers. The Commission has a role to play in providing expertise. The working parties report to the Committee of Per-manent Representatives (Coreper, Part I or II), which prepares every Council decision taken at Ministerial level. In accordance with Article 16(3) TEU, the Council will act by a qualified majority with the agreement of the Commission. However, if its position differs from that of the Commission, unanimity will be required (Article 293(1) TFEU). Thus, in order to allow the Council to vote by qualified majority, the Commission often amends its original propos-al just before the adoption of the Council common position.

There are three possible scenarios: (i) the Council accepts without alteration the Com-mission’s proposal, which the European Parliament has not amended, and the act can be adopted; (ii) the Council accepts all the European Parliament’s amendments which the Commission has incorporated into its amended proposal and the act can be adopted; and (iii) in all other cases, the Council adopts a common position. More specifically:

(I) THE EP HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSAL WITHOUT AMENDMENT

If the European Parliament has not adopted any amendments and if the Council does not wish to alter the Commission’s proposal either, it can approve the act on that basis by a qualified majority (with exceptions). The act is then adopted in the wording which corre-sponds to the position of the European Parliament which, in this particular case, is identi-cal with the wording of the Commission proposal.

90 91

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE X. ANNEX

Council and the Commission. More specifically, once adopted in parliamentary commit-tee, the recommendation for second reading is placed on the agenda of the plenary ses-sion. As with the first reading, at this stage, any new amendment must be tabled by a polit-ical group or by at least 40 Members of Parliament. Voting is based on an absolute majority of the component Members of the European Parliament. During the plenary debate preced-ing the vote, the Commissioner announces and explains the Commission’s position on the amendments tabled.

F. COMMISSION OPINION ON EP AMENDMENTS

The Treaty specifically requires the Commission to deliver an opinion on the European Par-liament’s amendments. The Commission’s position on the European Parliament’s amend-ments will determine the type of vote necessary in the Council: if the Commission has given a negative opinion on at least one amendment, the Council will have to act unanimously as regards acceptance of the European Parliament’s position overall. In practice, the Commis-sion’s opinion is a written reflection of the position expressed by the Commissioner in ple-nary on the amendments adopted by the European Parliament, accompanied where neces-sary by texts reformulating the EP amendments accepted partially, in principle or subject to redrafting by the Commission.

G. COUNCIL SECOND READING

The Council has a period of three months (which may be extended by a further month), following receipt of the European Parliament’s amendments, in which to approve them by a qualified majority or unanimously if the Commission has delivered a negative opinion. The Council’s internal workings are broadly similar to the preparation of the common position: the competent working party prepares a position which is submitted to Coreper and adopt-ed by the Council.

The possible scenarios are the following:

(i) The Council approves the amended common position

If the Council agrees to accept all the amendments adopted by the European Parliament, the act will be deemed to have been adopted in the form of the common position thus amended (wording corresponds to the EP second reading). The legislative act is submitted directly for the signature of the Presidents and Secretaries-General of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council and is published in the Official Journal. The procedure is then end-ed.

(ii) The Council does not approve the amendments to the common position

If, within a three-month period (which may be extended by one month), the Council does

of the EP’s Rules of Procedure, the amendments must either include amendments adopted at first reading and not accepted by the Council or be concerned with a part of the common position that did not appear in or is substantially different from the Commission’s initial proposal or introduce a compromise between the positions of the co-legislators. The pro-posed amendments are put to the vote in the parliamentary committee responsible, which takes a decision by simple majority.

(II) ADOPTION IN PLENARY SESSION

The plenary makes its position known on the basis of the amendments included in the rec-ommendation adopted by the parliamentary committee and any amendments tabled in ple-nary by political groups or by a minimum of 40 Members. The plenary adopts amendments by absolute majority. When a legislative act is deemed to have been adopted, the legisla-tive act is submitted directly for the signature of the Presidents and Secretaries–General of the European Parliament and of the Council and is published in the Official Journal. In the opposite case, the procedure is ended.

The following three scenarios are possible:

(a) The Parliament approves the Council’s common position or does not make a decision

If the European Parliament endorses the common position as it stands, fails to adopt amendments as a result of not obtaining an absolute majority of its Members or does not take a decision within the stipulated time limit, the President of the Parliament will declare that the common position is approved and that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position. This is also the case when trilogue meetings have taken place after the EP first reading and before the Council adopts its common position. Such an agreement is called ‘negotiated common position’ or ‘early second reading’.

(b) The Parliament rejects the common position

Rejection of the common position requires the votes of an absolute majority of the com-ponent Members of the European Parliament. The act is deemed not to have been adopted. In contrast to the first reading, the Treaty explicitly confers on the European Parliament the right to reject the Council position at second reading. Up until now, the European Parlia-ment has never exercised this prerogative.

(c) The Parliament proposes amendments to the common position

The European Parliament may propose amendments to the common position, by an ab-solute majority of its component Members and the text thus amended is forwarded to the

92 93

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE X. ANNEX

be made - countries should have greater freedom when demanding prior authorisation for treatment, particularly for “specialised and cost-intensive” care.

PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON WORKING CONDITIONS FOR TEMPORARY WORKERS

I welcome and fully support this proposal of the Commission regarding the working condi-tions for temporary workers. It is fully in accordance with the Czech Labour Code where it is made a reference to a general principle of equal treatment in working conditions. The pro-posed Directive is also in accordance with the principles for equal pay for equal work and the non-discrimination one which are in the heart of making a more social Europe reality.

The Trade Agency Work (hereafter TAW) is not viewed as a separate economic sector in the Czech Republic, but rather as a specific service to other sectors. There are also no rules for TAW concerning social security and social benefits so the proposed Directive can be seen in this sense as a good starting point for developing and providing such rules concerning the temporary workers’ working conditions and guarantees for their effective implementa-tion at national as well as at European Union level.

The agency employment in the Czech Republic is still in its early days compared to West-ern Europe but recently it can be seen rise. It is expected that the existing upward trend in the use of agency work will continue and I think the Proposal for a Directive in this sense is a very positive idea which I fully support.

B. FACTION POSITION PAPER (EPP)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on working conditions for temporary workers

The European People’s Party believes that the protection and equal treatment of tempo-rary agency workers is crucial for an economically vibrant and socially fair European Un-ion. The free movement of temporary workers between Member States allows businesses to cover staff absences and respond to seasonal fluctuations in demand. Whilst a number of Member States have gone some way in extending the rights of these temporary migrants in others these rights are relatively unclear. The Directive extends the protection of temporary agency workers by applying the principle of equal treatment. In recognising temporary-work agencies as employers the proposal stipulates that atypical workers should be given equal pay, maternity rights, standards of training and the same level of social protection as is afforded to permanent workers. Our Party believes that the Directive establishes a suita-ble framework for the development of flexible forms of work, the creation of jobs and safe-guards the rights of the workers themselves.

The Directive attempts to reconcile to requirement of businesses for flexible labour and a need for employment security on the part of temporary workers. The EPP Group stands

not approve all the amendments of the European Parliament, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, will convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee within six weeks, which may be extended by two weeks. In partic-ular, should the Council fail to approve all the amendments adopted by the European Par-liament, then the conciliation procedure will be set in motion. The Commission’s opinion on the European Parliament’s amendments is therefore particularly important, since the Coun-cil will have to act unanimously in order to adopt a parliamentary amendment on which the Commission has given a negative opinion.

2. SAMPLE POSITION PAPERS

A. INDIVIDUAL POSITION PAPER WRITTEN BY AN MEP (S&D CZECH REPUBLIC)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare

After the last two enlargements of the European Union (hereafter the EU) the number of its member states grew (from 15 to 27) as well as the number of the “European citizens”. As long as those, possessing EU citizenship are being recognized the right to move and re-side freely within the territory of the Member States another significant right – the right to health and quality health service, should also be safeguarded within the EU. This is in ac-cordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice establishing the right of patients to benefit from medical treatment in a Member State other than their own. For these rea-sons, I welcome the Proposal for a Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare.

The reimbursement issue is very important one, especially when taking into account the different standards in the different EU Member States and also having in mind the differ-ence in the development of the health systems as well as the problems of the health sys-tems that some of the newly joined Members still experience. The Czech Republic is on its way solving the main issues (having in mind the fact that a lot of reforms in the health care policy were recently introduced) like the financial instability and deficits of the statuto-ry health insurance system and hospitals. In my opinion, here it comes the difficulty and careful consideration should be given to the so called “health tourism”. Attention should be paid on the possibility countries with cheaper and at the same time medical service of high quality to be overflowed with patients – as the latter can have a negative impact on the “weak and reforming” anyway healthcare organization at national level.

Having in mind everything said above, as generally I support the proposed Directive for the introduction of general framework with the idea of guaranteeing the safety, quality and efficiency of cross-border healthcare provision. However, I suggest some amendments to

94 95

MEU 2012 PREPARATION GUIDE X. ANNEX

fill vacancies by absent employees; filling temporary vacancies; coping with temporary or exceptional increases in workload; and in short lived seasonal work4, as well as no unions existing for Temporary Agency workers.

The government sees certain restrictions on TAW as necessary in order to maintain do-mestic social and economic harmony and keep the workforce flexible. It is important to reach a fair balance between the protections of temporary agency workers and enhancing the positive role that agency employment may play in the European labour market. Hav-ing more regulation for TAW will increase costs of production for businesses and ultimately may lead to the economy becoming increasingly uncompetitive due to firms having to pay more for the same quality of labour.

DIRECTIVE ON THE APPLICATION OF PATIENTS’ RIGHTS IN CROSS-BORDER HEALTHCARE

Portugal understands both the social need and legal obligation of a directive to deal with cross-border healthcare due to increased citizen mobility and diversification and spe-cialization of healthcare systems in the European Union Member states. A cross-border healthcare would increase the living standards of patients with certain conditions who find treatment as less acceptable in quality in their country of citizenship. The creation of healthcare tourism is eminent if left unregulated by the governments individually, or col-lectively.

The issue at hand is of great national importance for all parties involved – be it the recip-ient of patients, or the donor. The perception of citizens going abroad to seek medical as-sistance in a certain field where a higher quality of treatment is offered can possibly trig-ger wide perception of the nation’s healthcare system being of unacceptable quality, and needlessly spark unemployment in the health sector, not to mention the opposite problem of queues and also a decreased quality of healthcare in recipient countries. Taxpayers’ funds allocated abroad, thus financially depriving citizens of the quality of services they have been adequately been receiving. A decreased demand can have adverse effects on the patients remaining despite shorter queues there would be less revenue for large scale purchases such as building hospitals or the purchase of multi-functional equipment which is expensive, but is designed to treat a large group of patients.

Patients should only be granted financial aid or full reimbursement of the costs carried out abroad if the domestic healthcare system has been ruled as inferior to another in a cer-tain field, or in a certain case depending on the patient at hand. It must be stressed that the Directive is to increase the living standards of citizens of the European Union, and not turn healthcare into a branch of industry that should compete with fellow states, and fuelled by governments themselves.

for a balance between flexibility and security. The Party supports the principle of ‘flexi-curity’ which recognises that security and flexibility can be mutually beneficial and rein-force one another. Collective agreements based on modern labour laws and effective la-bour market policies ensure the employability of workers whilst maintaining the appeal of part-time and fixed-contract employment as a popular means of entry into the labour mar-ket. Increasing employment security for temporary agency workers to the level of perma-nent residents will enhance the attractiveness of this type of work. In turn, businesses are able to draw from larger pools of recruitment. Thus, the Directive will increase transparen-cy and confidence of the sector whilst bolstering the requirements of European business-es for flexible labour.

The rights of temporary workers must be protected in order to tackle exploitation and un-fair treatment. The EPP Group believes that these aims can only be achieved if the Directive is adopted by all Member States. The harmonisation of temporary workers’ rights across the European Union will prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ in which certain countries are able to attract businesses based on their relatively lower standards of regulation. However, the concerns of some countries regarding loss of competitiveness should be balanced with the fact that adjustments can be made to the Directive to better serve the particularities of in-dividual States.

In sum: the Directive provides much needed progress on extending the rights of temporary workers. It seeks to improve social justice, enhance quality of life and boost equality- aims which advance the founding principles of the European Union.

C. POSITION PAPER WRITTEN BY A MINISTER OF THE COUNCIL (PORTUGAL)

DIRECTIVE ON WORKING CONDITIONS FOR TEMPORARY WORKERS

In 1999 Temporary Agency Workers (TAW) constituted for 1%, or 45 000 people, of the to-tal employment. Since 2006 Temporary Agency Workers as a percentage has doubled and is now at 2%, or 103,400 people.

The Portuguese government has defined minimum standards for administrative TAW work-ers and has enforced Equal Treatment regulations such as Law n.º 19/2007) which provides the legal framework for the sector. A collective agreement on Temporary Agency Work was also signed in 1989 by the Portuguese Association of Temporary Work Companies (today EPESPE). Bodies such as the The Public Institute for Employment and Vocational Training (Instituto de Emprego e Formação Profissional -IEFP) is the regulatory body for Temporary Workers Agencies and controls and enforces TAW regulation. Companies disobeying TAW regulations face sanctions according to articles 44.º and 45.º of Law 19/2007.

TA workers are in many respects equal to any other – for example having the right to not be substituted if gone on strike, as set by The Labour Code (Law 99/2003, Article 596). In con-trast TAW also face restrictions and regulation by the government such as not being able to