Posts Tagged ‘Europarl’

The European Council seeks a backroom deal with the European Parliament on the controversial copyright extension plans. A meeting is scheduled at the April 29.

Attachés will examine the possibility of a first reading agreement with the European Parliament on the Term Directive (8898/09). The meeting will take place in Presidency Room No 1, floor 50. N.B. Participation is limited to Attachés only

The short phrase “Term Directive (8898/09)” stands for the very controversial

Term of protection of copyright and related rights (amending Directive 2006/116/EC) (Directive) 2008/0157 COD 24/07/2008, 12217/08 COM(2008) 464.

Of course no one ever used the phrase “term directive” before. In the European Parliament:

Parl. Ctee: JURI – LEHNE, Klaus-Heiner
Rapp.: Brian CROWLEY (UEN-IE)

A document adopted in Parliament one year ago and then put to coma was registered at the Council under the document number 8898/09. For more obfuscation the document is available only in French from the Council register:

Proposition de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil modifiant la directive 2006/116/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative à la durée de protection du droit d’auteur et de certains droits voisins – Résultats de la première lecture du Parlement européen (Strasbourg, du 21 au 24 avril 2009) PDF 30-04-2009

Why the clandestine approach on the Council side? Why don’t they reference the correct dossier name and procedure? I assume you may find the answer in the delicate substance of the proposal. I remember I met an economist in Parliament who tried to get the results of his research to the attention of MEPs, and basically saw the dossier as a great scam.

The dossier became widely known informally as the “Cliff Richard pension fund” because it was promoted by aging UK rock musicians, a kind of special gift to the music industry by the outgoing Commissioner. I haven’t monitored the dossier any further. In any case, outrageous policy making.

Here the OEIL file on COD/2008/0157, Prelex interinstitutional overview,


Read Full Post »

A list of European Parliament Intergroups, that is non-partisan groups of MEPs, like an official committee.

  • SMEs
  • Ways of Saint James/Camino de Santiago
  • Family, the right of the child and bioethics
  • Sky and space
  • Youth issues
  • Urban
  • Mountainous, island and sparsely populated regions and very remote regions
  • Social economy
  • Sustainable hunting, biodiversity, countryside activities and forests
  • Extreme poverty and human rights, Fourth World European Committee
  • Disability
  • Tibet
  • Climate change and biodiversity and sustainable development
  • Water
  • Baltic Europe
  • Media
  • Ageing and intergenerational solidarity
  • Seas and coastal affairs
  • Welfare and conservation of animals
  • Trade union coordination group
  • New media, free software, open information Society
  • Traditional national minorities, constitutional regions and regional languages
  • Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights
  • Public services
  • Western Sahara
  • Anti-racism and diversity (Roma included)
  • Wine, fruits and vegetables, tradition and quality food

Read Full Post »

The Korea FTA legislative provisions are a kind of bilateral model for the ACTA agreement and challenges competences of the parliament. So it is interesting that the issue was raised recently:

ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure by Daniel Caspary, Peter Šťastný and Paweł Zalewski, on behalf of the PPE Group, David Martin, Gianluca Susta and Kader Arif, on behalf of the S&D Group, Michael Theurer, Niccolò Rinaldi, Metin Kazak and Marielle De Sarnez, on behalf of the ALDE Group, Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group to the Commission

The EU has initialled the EU-FTA with South Korea which will have an impact on various industries.

Can the Commission indicate the foreseen economic savings for our exporters due to the tariff reduction or elimination? Has the Commission carried out an impact assessment on the consequences of granting duty drawback on individual sectors, in particular the car industry that will be affected by this? When will the Commission provide an early insight into the results of the impact assessment to MEPs?

The FTA refers to a general safeguard clause, in case of increased imports from South Korea. Can the Commission explain how it will be activated?

The agreement makes provision for a dispute settlement mechanism. What are the principles and rules agreed on and how quickly will it be put in place? Does it include specific investor-state dispute settlement provisions?

The regulations on duty drawback contain a safety clause for suspension on the basis of certain criteria. How does the Commission plan to gather the data in order to possibly trigger such a safety clause? How does the Commission intend to prove there has been a 10% increase in imported goods into the South Korean market?

Can the Commission explain what will be the implications of the cultural cooperation protocol and how it will impact the European cultural sector? Can it also provide explanations regarding the provisions on rules of origin and entry prices and their consequences?

Does the Commission envisage proposing to the Council the provisional application of the agreement before its official entry into force? How does it plan to involve Parliament in this? Would the Commission propose provisional application even before the entry into force of the regulation on safeguard clauses?

Can the Commission explain how the ‘acquis communautaire’ has been taken into account in the IP chapter?

Can the Commission indicate what will be the consequences for employment in the different sectors affected by the agreement?

Is the Commission considering the application of rebalancing measures and policies for the sectors which are the most affected by FTA Korea? If so, what form would they take?

What safeguards does the FTA contain in relation to environmental and trade union rights?

It is very fruitful to find out what was answered by the Commission to the oral question. The FFII calls to remove the chapter.

Read Full Post »

Gestern hatte ich schon was geschrieben über die vom Spiegel nur konstruierte Unstimmigkeit. Der Ralf Bendrath ergänzt im Blog von Markus:

“Das am 30.11. beschlossene SWIFT-Abkommen erlaubt keine “systematische anlassunabhängige Recherche”. Insofern trifft die BKA-Aussage treffsicher daneben. “

Genau das hatte ich mir gedacht, war aber auch nicht in der Stimmung die SWIFT-Abkommen-Dokumente zu recherchieren, und daher gab es nur meine Vermutung, dass der Spiegel die Aussage des BKA-Berichtes fehl- und überinterpretiert. Die BKA-Aussage trifft deshalb auch nicht “sicher daneben”, sondern wird vom Spiegel in einen ganz falschen Kontext gestellt.

Das genau könnten sie ja nicht mehr, wenn die Intra-EU-Überweisungen nicht mehr in Virginia gespiegelt werden.

Wenn ein Staat wie die USA extralegal Datenzugriff haben will, dann bekommt er den auch innerhalb der Europäischen Staaten. Sofern es einen offiziellen Weg gibt, bleibt das irgendwie unter Kontrolle und nachvollziehbar. Eine Überprüfung des Abkommens durch das Europaparlament wäre ein Garant für einen guten Kompromiss. Verdächtig ist, dass diese Abkommen nun erst einmal nur für sehr wenige Monate gilt. Die erforderlichen Monate für den Datenklau?

Die Frage nach einer Gegenleistung bleibt übrigens noch unbeantwortet. Zum Teil geht es bei transatlantischen Zugeständnissen um den Ergeiz von Offiziellen auf unserer Seite sich als verlässlicher Ansprechpartner durch Erfüllungspolitik zu etablieren. Es gibt einen gewissen wirkmächtigen Sermon, der diesen Staatsdienern einredet, die Bestimmung Europas sei die Telefonzentrale Europa für die Anfragen des werten alten Herrn Henry Kissinger zu sein.

Übrigens sollen die Daten von SWIFT in die Schweiz migriert werden, wo sie auch vom Zugriff der EU-Europäer abgeschirmt sind. Es ist schier unglaublich, wie dieses Konsortium Brüssel und Straßburg auf der Nase herum tanzt. Wäre Belgien ein handlungsfähiger Staat, hätte man längst bei SWIFT eine Durchsuchung durchführen müssen. Verdunklungsgefahr.

Read Full Post »

Who did expect that for the second reading in the European Parliament? 2:0 for the internet community. The Trautmann report was carried with the famous amendment know as “138” which had been retabled to plenary by Greens, ALDE,… which is the following:

(fb) applying the principle that no restriction maybe imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users without a prior ruling of the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened, in which case the ruling may be subsequent.

A slap in the face of the French government and their attacks on the mere conduit principle of electronic communications. Additionally the “compromise” recital 12 was carried on top:

3a) Recognising that the internet is essential for education and for the practical exercise of freedom of expression and access to information, any restriction imposed on the exercise of these fundamental rights should be in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Concerning these issues, the Commission should start a wide public consultation.

The discussion in Council is not anymore at the level of Coreper but it should be on the agenda of the next Telecom Council after it is translated by the jurists-lingusts. However the Presidency is unable to say when the next Telecom council would take place because they await the designation of the new industry & telecom Minister.

As you will read in the diagramme here : the ball is now in the camp of the Council which can decide to accept all EP amendments, including 138 thus, or to open conciliation. If a conciliation procedure is open, then it is a total new procedure.

Read Full Post »