Appunti Eu Institutions, Appunti di Istituzioni dell'Unione Europea

Scarica Appunti Eu Institutions e più Appunti in PDF di Istituzioni dell'Unione Europea solo su Docsity!

EU INSTITUTIONS AND CRISES

A. A. 2024/

Institutions

1. The European Commission Outline
   1. Hybrid institution
   2. Origins and main developments
   3. Spitzenkandidaten procedure
   4. Structure: che college of commissioners
   5. Independence
   6. Structure: the services
   7. European agencies
   8. Responsibilities
   9. Recent decline
   10. Academic debate

1. Hybrid institution Duality

Legally, the commission is a single entity, bit in practice it’s an unique hybrid: it is composed of 2 branches The political branch The amministrative branch Political arm of 2 commissioners+ president Apolitical administration This is something similar to the ministries of member states

2. Origins and main developments

The origins trace back to the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, where member states delegated decision-making power to a higher authority. A key point to remember is the presence of national representation within a supranational institution, which creates tensions regarding sovereignty. The High Authority's primary role was to promote the general interest as a supranational body. Main development: the EU commission of the EEC is balanced by a more powerful council of ministers. 3 main functions:

1. Proposing new policies: exclusive legislative initiative right
2. Representing Europe in external trade negotiations: this function has been very important for the European commission, it has become a foreign policy actor
3. Overseeing the implementation of policies: act as a guardian of the treaty alongside the court of justice

Committee Hearings: Before the plenary vote, the EP held hearings with each Commissioner-designate in the appropriate parliamentary committee. This reflected the EP's committee-based structure, where committees specialize in specific policy areas (e.g., Foreign Affairs, Economic Policy). The Logic Behind These Changes These reforms aimed to reduce the EU’s democratic deficit by strengthening the role of the Parliament in the selection and appointment of the Commission. While this did not directly increase the Parliament’s legislative power, it ensured its involvement in the creation of key EU institutions, enhancing their democratic legitimacy. Other Institutional Changes Introduced by Maastricht Alignment of Terms: The terms of office for the European Parliament and the European Commission were brought into closer alignment. Five-Year Term for the Commission: The College’s term was extended from four to five years and began six months after the EP elections. Election Cycle: European Parliament elections were scheduled for late spring of years ending in 4 and 9. Transitional Phase: A temporary two-year College was in place from January 1993 to January 1995 to facilitate the transition to the new system. Overall, these reforms enhanced the European Parliament’s influence in shaping the Commission, reinforcing its role as the world's largest supranational democratic body. Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 Confirms the de facto confirmatory power the EP has assigned to itself on the appointment of the Commission President Gives the President-designate a potential veto over the national nominees for appointment to the College (under the Maastricht Treaty the President had to be consulted) President designate his potential veto over the national nomination of committee. The nice treaty 2001 Decisions in the European Council on the nomination of the President and on the other Commissioners, and the decision on the appointment of the whole College can be made by QMV (qualified majority vote) rather than consensus. The Lisbon Treaty (2007): Addressing the EU’s Democratic Deficit The Lisbon Treaty aimed to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the European Union by increasing the role of the European Parliament (EP) in the selection of the European Commission and introducing institutional reforms. Key Changes Strengthening the Role of the EP Linking Commission Presidency to EP Elections: The European Council is now required to take into account the results of the most recent European Parliament elections when nominating a candidate for the President of the European Commission. Previously, this requirement did not exist, and the Commission was seen as a technocratic, non-political body.

Election of the Commission President: The proposed Commission President must now be elected by the EP, rather than simply being approved as in the past. This change makes the President of the Commission more accountable to the European Parliament. Reorganization of EU Foreign Policy Leadership Creation of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP): One of the Commissioners must now hold this new post, which merges two previously separate roles:

1. The EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (linked to the Council).
2. The European Commissioner for External Relations (linked to the Commission). Before the Lisbon Treaty, these two roles led to incoherent foreign policy, as the Council focused on national interests, while the Commission emphasized broader EU policies. The new High Representative bridges this divide by working in both institutions. Changes to the Size and Structure of the Commission Attempted Reduction in the Number of Commissioners (Failed Proposal):

• The original version of the Lisbon Treaty proposed reducing the Commission to two-thirds of the number of Member States, meaning that some countries would not have a Commissioner. -This proposal was unpopular among Member States, leading to a compromise: each Member State retains the right to nominate a Commissioner. Overall Purpose of the Reforms The changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty had two main objectives:

1. Strengthening the power of the European Parliament in selecting the Commission, making the process more democratic.
2. Strengthening the role of the Commission President and improving foreign policy coordination by merging leadership roles. Through these reforms, the Lisbon Treaty sought to address the democratic deficit of the EU while making its institutions more efficient and politically accountable.

Oftreaty on

european union

The Commissioners

• One Commissioner per MS, including the President and the HR
• 5-year term, which may be renewed
• Each Commisioner is nominated by his/her MS, but must be acceptable to the President- designate
• The College as a whole must be approved by the EP after individual hearings The purpose is to understand if the commissioners are committed
• Commissioners must be independent and not act as national representatives
• Each Commissioner has a portfolio (they are asked what they plan to do with their portfolio)

5. Independence

President of the college: the president has become the more influential figure when it came to the commission

• Most prominent and best known of the Commissioners
• Principal representative of the Commission in its dealing with other EU institutions and with outside bodies
• Expected to give a sense of direction to the Commission as a whole
• Allocates Commissioners’ portfolios (areas of responsibiity)
• May require Commissioners to resign
• Directly responsible for overseeing some of the Commission’s most important administrative services
• May take on specific responsibilities of his own Arlaty on^

the functioning

of the^ European^ Union

· penciple

indipendente

6. The structure: the Services

• The Services are the Commission permanent administration
• While Commissioners and cabinet come and go, the services hold the fort
• Recruitment of officials: a merit basis with a view to an appropriate geographical balance among MSs
• Size: smaller than national administration
• Several Directorates-General (DGs)
• From 15 in 1958 to 44 in 2016
• DGs are formally headed by Directors General, who are responsible to the appropriate Commissioner. They are very qualified and merit chosen.
• General or special services

7. European agencies

European agencies: we have to talk about these because member states didn’t want the commission to become too powerful which means enlarge too much, so they decided to establish these agencies.

• EU level public authorities with a legal personality and a certain degree of organizational and financial autonomy that are created by acts of secondary legislation in order to perform clearly speciifed tasks’ (Kelemen 2005, 175) member states didn’t want to give administration tasks to the commission
• More than 40 agencies
• In a variety of policy areas
• Spread across the MSs
• Expand the Union’s regulatory capacity without increasing the size of the Commission they didn’t want to enlarge the tasks of the commission
• It Is through this institutional device it has been able to expand the union regulatory capacity without increasing the size of the commission.
• Some are regulatory, some others can also have executive functions (they can vary in what they do) REGULATORY AGENCIES:
• Advise the Commission on technical/scientific aspects of regulatory problems
• Lack of authority to take binding regulatory decisions
• Ex.: European Food Safety Authority EXECUTIVE AGENCIES:
• Perform managerial tasks on behalf of the Commission â € “
• Ex.: European Research Council FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY:
• EU Institute for Security Studies
• European Defence Agency JUSTICE AND POLICING:
• EU Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust)
• European Asylum Support Office (EASO) -Frontex European agencies

Implementing policies

• It manages the EU’s budget and allocates funding
• It implements competition policy (decide on state aid, mergers…)
• It ensures that EU law is complied with together with the Court of Justice (guardian of the legal framework)
• It conducts external trade relations
• It negotiates and manages external agreements
• It has important responsibilities with regard to applications for EU membership

9. Recent decline

Some scholars say that in the last decades there has been a decline in the role of eu commission it has become too reactive in exercising responsibilities (reactive to pressure of many interests, immediacy of events and increasing number of instructions from the eu council and the council).

10. Academic debate

• Is the commission an agent operating on the basis of guidelines given by its principals? (Intergovernmentalist view)
• Is the commission able to escape control by its principals? (Supranationalist view)

2. The council of Ministers/Council of the EU Outline
3. Or Council of the EU
4. Intergovernmental institution
5. Origins and main developments (from the ECSC to Lisbon Treaty)
6. Council hierarchy
7. Ministerial Council and Eurogroup
8. COREPER
9. Working parties
10. Presidency and General Secretariat
11. An example: the FA Council and its substructure
12. Powers
13. Voting
14. Accountability and transparency
15. Intergovernmental institution Different in terms of composition from the eu council (this one is composed by MSs) In order to understand what are the interests that are promoted, we have to start from the composition. The composition tells us if the institution is supranational or intergovernmental. The Council of the EU is, next to the EUCO, the main institution which represents the interests of member state governments in EU decision-making 3 · · ·

3. Origins and main developments (from the ECSC to Lisbon Treaty) ECSC special council composition: representatives of the MSs, one for each. ECSC special council powers: exchange information with and consult the High authority. EEC Council of ministers role and composition:
4. it plays an enhanced role, the difference is to have power to take decisions
5. composition: 1 representative from each MS

The Lisbon Treaty: a new system of qualified majority voting in the Council

• The Lisbon Treaty introduces a new system of qualified majority voting in the Council
• It abandons the system of weighted votes
• A qualified majority is defined as a double majority of 55% of states (15) representing 65% of the EU population
• Blocking minority: composed of at least 4 MS representing more than 35% of the EU population
  4. Council hierarchy

5. Ministerial Council and Eurogroup Ministerial Council

The Eurogroup

• Brings together the finance ministers of the eurozone (+ Vice-President of the Commission responsible for the euro + President ECB)
• Meets before the full Ecofin Council
• Task: ensure close coordination of economic policies among the euro area MSs
• Informal ministerial gathering
• Created in 1997 by a European Council decision
• Recognized in the Lisbon Treaty Council of ministers agenda
  • Issues on which the ministers have to decide when they meet
  • Divided in 2 parts:
    • A points: ministers adopt them without discussion, the agreement has already been reached
    • B points: issues that require deliberation, discussions and agreements.

6. COREPER Structure Division of labor

General Secretariat

• Body of staff responsible for assisting 2 institutions: European Council and Council of the EU, including its presidencies, the Coreper and the other Council committees and working parties
• Small (about 3000 staff) and politically neutral
• Headed by a Secretary-General and divided into seven DGs Main tasks:

1. assist, advise and help coordinate the work of the Council and the European Council
2. support the Council presidency
   9. An example: the FA Council and its substructure Structure and Functions of the Foreign Affairs Council The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is the main decision-making body for the European Union's foreign policy. It is composed of the foreign ministers of the Member States (MSs) and is chaired by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP). Decision-Making in the Foreign Affairs Council EU foreign policy decision-making follows a complex, multi-level structure that involves different committees and preparatory bodies. The dual nature of EU foreign policy- combining supranational and intergovernmental elements-results in distinct procedures depending on the policy area. At the beginning of each session, the FAC adopts two types of points: A-points ("Agreed Points"): These have been pre-approved at the level of COREPER II (Committee of Permanent Representatives) or the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and are adopted without discussion. B-points ("Not Agreed Points"): These require further discussion and negotiation. Most foreign policy decisions are prepared and refined in the FAC’s substructures, which include: COREPER II: Strengthens the coordination of foreign policy at the EU level. PSC (Political and Security Committee): Plays a key role in CFSP and CSDP policy-making and monitors the international situation. The Political and Security Committee (PSC) The Political and Security Committee (PSC), also known as COPS, is a crucial preparatory body for CFSP and CSDP within the Council of the EU. It is composed of: One ambassador per Member State A representative of the European Commission Representatives from the EU Military Committee (EUMC) and the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management (CIVCOM) Its main tasks include: Meeting twice a week to assess and discuss security developments. Monitoring the international situation in areas covered by CFSP and CSDP. Contributing to policy definition by advising the Council. Overseeing the implementation of agreed policies. Exercising ‘political control and strategic direction’ over the EU’s military and civilian crisis management operations (Article 38 TEU). Due to the complexity of EU foreign policy, competence disputes ("turf battles") occasionally arise between COREPER II and PSC, as both play significant roles in shaping the EU’s external action.

10. Powers Simple majority (14/27) Qualified majority (standard voting rule: 55% MSs (15) +65% population) Unanimity (indirect taxation, foreign policy, citizenship, social security, enlargement) See the Council voting calculator: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/ votingcalculator/ Most decisions subject to QMV are actually taken by consensus
11. Voting
12. Accountability and transparency Unlike the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union (Council) cannot be dismissed. Its members-the ministers from each Member State (MS)-are democratically accountable only to their respective national citizens and parliaments. This means that political responsibility for Council decisions lies at the national level, rather than at the EU level. Transparency Measures While the Council has taken steps to improve transparency, certain limitations remain: Public Voting: The Council is now obliged to deliberate and vote in public when adopting draft legislative acts. Votes are published and accessible on the Council's official website. Limited Public Access to Meetings: While ministerial-level decisions are subject to public scrutiny, meetings below the ministerial level remain closed to the public. This includes preparatory discussions in working groups and committees. This approach differentiates the Council of the EU from the European Council, which sets the EU’s political direction and priorities but does not engage in the adoption of legislative acts. Da ricordare: origins and main developments, council hierarchy is very important, very important role played by the presidency and secretariat, powers, voting and accountability and transparency. The Appointment of the European Commission: Political Dynamics and the Spitzenkandidaten Process The appointment of a new European Commission is a major political event in the EU, marking the beginning of a new institutional cycle. This process unfolds over several months and involves multiple actors, including the European Parliament (EP), the European Council, and the Member States (MSs).

• The allocation of portfolios is crucial to the internal organization of the Commission.

• Jean-Claude Juncker first introduced the role of Vice Presidents to improve efficiency within the College of Commissioners. The formation of the new Commission is a key political event, shaping EU policymaking for the next five years. The second von der leyen commission Outline

1. Re-nomination (27 June)
2. Re-election (18 July)
3. Nomination of Commissioners-designate
4. Organisation and allocation of portfolios (17 September)
5. EP confirmation hearings and approval vote (27 November)
6. Appointment of the new Commission (28 November)
7. Re-nomination (27 June) The appointment of the new European Commission began with the election of the European Parliament (EP). As part of the process, Ursula von der Leyen was nominated as the Spitzenkandidat for the European People's Party (EPP). However, the selection of the Commission President is characterized by an ongoing struggle between the European Parliament and the European Council (EUCO), as both institutions seek to exert influence over the decision. Institutional Struggle: Parliament vs. European Council The European Parliament asserts that the Commission President should reflect the results of the EP elections, reinforcing the Spitzenkandidaten process introduced in 2014. On the other hand, the European Council maintains its treaty-based power to nominate the candidate, often prioritizing broader political considerations over the Spitzenkandidaten principle. This struggle defines the negotiation process leading to the nomination. Informal Politics and Power Bargaining A key aspect of the re-nomination process is the role of informal politics. The informal dinner held by EU leaders played a crucial role in shaping the outcome, although not all leaders were involved. These informal discussions allowed a political package deal to take shape, balancing national interests, party affiliations, and gender representation in top EU positions.

The June 27 Agreement: A Political Package On June 27, 2024, the European Council reached an agreement on the distribution of top EU positions: António Costa (S&D) was elected as the new President of the European Council. Ursula von der Leyen (EPP) was proposed for a second term as President of the European Commission. Kaja Kallas (Renew Europe) was considered the most appropriate candidate for High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP). Additionally, the European Council adopted the Strategic Agenda for the upcoming political cycle, setting the priorities and guidelines for EU action in the next five years. The Balance of Power: Who Really Won? On one hand, the European Parliament secured a symbolic victory by ensuring that the next Commission President was chosen based on the EP elections. However, the European Council maintained significant influence by determining the policy priorities that the Commission President must follow. While the Commission President plays a central role in shaping EU policies, they are still constrained by the Strategic Agenda set by the European Council. This means that von der Leyen, despite her re-election, cannot freely determine the Commission's priorities but must work within the framework established by EU leaders. The appointment process highlights the interplay between formal procedures and informal negotiations, showing how power dynamics between EU institutions continue to shape the governance of the European Union

2. Re-election (18 July)
3. Nomination of Commissioners-designate