| Author (Person) | Chapman, Peter |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.9, No.40, 27.11.03, p31 |
| Publication Date | 27/11/2003 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Peter Chapman Date: 27/11/03 ROMANO Prodi, the president of the European Commission, is quietly plotting a legal challenge to the governments who cocked a snook at his institution's efforts to police the EU's Stability and Growth Pact. The confirmation followed a meeting of fellow commissioners which resulted in an anodyne statement expressing "regret" at the "à la carte" application of the rules that let France and Germany off the hook and a promise of reforms to economic governance in the EU. Officials said that, behind the scenes, Prodi has handed his in-house legal service the mission of finding a way to sue the Council of Ministers for their "illegal" rejection of the EU's budget rules. The prospect of a legal challenge was hinted at in a declaration bolted on to the finance ministers' conclusions, which said EU executive "reserves the right to. . .decide on possible subsequent actions". Commission spokesman Gerassimos Thomas told European Voice: "Of course this is still being examined by the legal service. Prodi's statement does not replace the declaration yesterday. Our lawyers have to make the case," he added. The decision exposed deep divisions among the EU's 15 member states. Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and Spain attacked the budget fudge, arguing that the move was unfair on countries that followed the rules. Dutch government sources told this paper that veteran Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm would support any Commission court case on the issue - although they said the Netherlands would not launch any action alone. But ultimately the voting power of EU big boys, France, Germany and Italy, won the day. Italian Finance and Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti rejected claims that the Council acted illegally. "Even political decisions are legal. The Commission has done its duty and the Council of Ministers has done its," he told reporters. German Finance Minister Hans Eichel was equally dismissive about the way his country was "allowed" to stick by the terms of his recent budget - instead of heeding the Commission's demand for further cuts to ensure his country meets the terms of the stability pact. "I can only advise the Commission to come out of its corner and stop sulking as quickly as possible," he told his parliament. However, Ecofin's move is also likely to bolster the resolve of Spain and new member state, Poland, against a reduction in their voting power in the enlarged Union next year. The Commission's legal service must now decide whether the Council of Ministers broke the terms of the EU Treaty, but not by rejecting the Commission's own recommendations for France and Germany to bring their budgets into line. Instead, they completely bypassed the Commission by "holding in abeyance" the threat of fines against France and Germany issuing their own recipe for budget policies in the meeting's conclusions. This is a direct breach of Article 104. Thomas said: "It is just a political statement. It cannot be enforced. [It is not legal to say] "You cannot have sanctions [if the targets are missed]. You cannot be taken to court"." Despite the legal threat, Commission lawyers admitted it would be difficult for the EU executive to win a victory with short-term benefits. Cases at the European Court of Justice can take years to conclude. And even though the legal tribunal is allowed to issue so-called interim measures suspending the ministers' action pending a final decision, lawyers say this is unusual. In the meantime, Prodi said he wants to ensure the Commission does not lose the ground it gained on economic issues in the recent Convention on the future of Europe during the next stage, the intergovernmental conference. The EU executive wants to be allowed to issue formal "proposals" on budgetary matters to the Ecofin rather than the "recommendations", such as the ones concerning France and Germany. The difference is important because proposals would only be vetoed following a unanimous vote of countries. |
|
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Economic and Financial Affairs |
