Abstract
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon radically altered the landscape of the common commercial policy of the European Union (EU). The changes have set in place a significant evolution of that policy. It is submitted that this evolution will take time to materialise. Some of the potential manifestations of that evolution may not even be identifiable at the time of writing (Summer 2012). This contribution seeks to provide a specific and personal perspective on the first three years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Inevitably, it might focus on some issues to the detriment of others, and may lack the objectivity of a more neutral analyst, at a further distance from the goings-on in Brussels (and now, from time-to-time, Strasbourg). It is hoped, nevertheless, that this contribution offers an insight that may be of interest to those charged professionally with objective analysis.
The views expressed in this contribution are personal and should not be attributed to the European Commission. This contribution is up to date as of August 2012.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, as an example, Council Regulation (EC) No. 673/2005 of 25 April 2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (OJ L 110, 30.4.2005 p.1).
- 2.
The free trade agreement between the European Union and its member States, of the one part, and the republic of Korea, of the other part (OJ L. 127 14.5.2011 p. 1 et seq, hereinafter the “EU-Korea FTA”). For an overview of EU-Korea relations, and in particular the EU-Korea FTA, see Harrison (ed.) The European Union and South Korea: The Legal Framework for Strengthening Trade, Economic and Political Relations, forthcoming 2013. Chapter 2, written by Justyna Lasik and the current author, provides an overview of the political and institutional context in the EU of the EU-Korea FTA.
- 3.
It was likely that the Parliament’s consent would have been required even had the Treaty of Lisbon not entered into force. Article 300 of the Treaty establishing the European Community provided that the consent (the term used is “assent”) was required for “agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures”. It is likely that the powers granted to the bodies established by the EU–Korea FTA would have meant that the FTA would have qualified under that heading, for the consent of the Parliament.
- 4.
Commission Proposal for a Council Decision authorising the signature and provisional application of the FreeTrade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea, Document COM(2010)136 final, 9 April 2010, p. 4.
- 5.
The full text of the Commissioner’s comments are available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu.
- 6.
Council Decision of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (2011/265/EU) OJ L127 14.5.2011 p.1.
- 7.
See the Notice concerning the provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part OJ L168 28.6.2011 p.1.
- 8.
Safeguard Regulation, pp. 26–7.
- 9.
As an example, see the US Statement of Administrative Action on the WTO Agreement, H.Doc. 103-316 (1994), p. 659.
- 10.
The Council does not, as an institution, have a role either. The implementation of EU law is entrusted either to the member States, or to the Commission under the control of the Member States. See Article 291 TFEU.
- 11.
Council Decision of 14 December 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union and the Protocol between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on technical modalities pursuant to that Agreement (2012/105/EU) OJ L 57 29.2.2012 p. 1.
- 12.
It should be noted that a similar provision is found in Article 7 of the Council Decision on the signature of the EU-Korea FTA.
- 13.
See also recitals 7 and 8 and Article 5 thereof. A Commission Implementing Regulation was subsequently adopted. See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 498/2012 of 12 June 2012 on the allocation of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union OJ L 152 13.6.2012 p. 29.
- 14.
At the time of writing reference not available.
- 15.
For a discussion of the shortcomings of the pre-existing text and comparisons to Antiquity see, Herrmann, “Common Commercial Policy and Nice: Sisyphus would have done a better job” CML Rev 39 (2002) 1, p. 7.
- 16.
For transport services, see ECJ, Opinion 1/08, General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) – Schedules of specific commitments – Conclusion of agreements on the grant of compensation for modification and withdrawal of certain commitments following the accession of new Member States to the European Union, [2009] E.C.R. I, 11129.
- 17.
Commission Proposal for a Council Decision authorising the signature and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea, p. 4.
- 18.
The relevant decisions have yet to be published in the Official Journal of European Union at the time of preparation of this contribution.
- 19.
Council Decision of 13 May 2011 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the accession of the Republic of Vanuatu to the World Trade Organization (2011/287/EU), OJ L 132, 19.5.2011, p. 14, Council Decision of 14 December 2011 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization on the accession of Samoa to the WTO (2012/18/EU) OJ L 6, 10.1.2012, p. 7 and Council Decision of 14 December 2011 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the relevant instances of the World Trade Organization on the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO (2012/17/EU) OJ L 6, 10.1.2012, p. 6.
- 20.
The Decision of the Member States and the Statement of the Commission re Vanuatu is available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st08/st08715.en11.pdf. The similar document for Samoa is available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st16/st16786-re02.en11.pdf.
- 21.
- 22.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party COM (2012) 335 final, 21 June 2012.
- 23.
OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23 (hereinafter the 1999 comitology decision).
- 24.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers COM(2010) 83 final 9.3.2010.
- 25.
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers OJ L 55 28.2.2011 p. 13 (hereinafter the “comitology regulation”).
- 26.
In fact the senior official for the Commission was David O'Sullivan, then Director General of the Directorate General for Trade, but who, in his previous role as Secretary General of the Commission had overseen earlier comitology reforms.
- 27.
This is, in all EU policy-making, the only exception to the qualified majority requirement to reject draft Commission implementing measures.
- 28.
The transitional period would only be valid to the extent that the Trade Omnibus I proposal was adopted and had entered into force before 1 September 2012.
- 29.
See Article 8(5) of the Comitology Regulation.
- 30.
Statement by the Commission, OJ L 55 28.2.2011 p. 19.
- 31.
Regulation (EU) No 511/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Korea OJ L 145 31.5.2011 p. 19.
- 32.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures. COM(2011) 82 final 7.3.2011 (“Trade Omnibus I”).
- 33.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures. COM(2011) 349 final, 15.6.2011 (“Trade Omnibus II”).
- 34.
Statement by the Commission, OJ L 55 28.2.2011 p. 19.
- 35.
The regulatory procedure with scrutiny is a procedure under the 1999 comitology decision which gives the Parliament the power to veto to draft implementing acts under certain circumstances.
- 36.
See pages 4–8 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Trade Omnibus II proposal for an analysis of the 14 regulations.
- 37.
It can be noted that Trade Omnibus I was adopted by the Commission only 7 days after the publication and 19 days after the adoption of the comitology regulation. Indeed, it leaves blank the references to the comitology regulation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, C.M. (2013). Changes in the Common Commercial Policy of the European Union After the Entry into Force of the Treaty of Lisbon: A Practitioner’s Perspective. In: Bungenberg, M., Herrmann, C. (eds) Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34255-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34255-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34254-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34255-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)