The Treaty Of Lisbon And The New Dimensions Of Eu Institutional Reformdocx

=== THE TREATY OF LISBON AND THE NEW DIMENSIONS OF EU INSTITUTIONAL REFORM ===

THE TREATY OF LISBON AND THE NEW DIMENSIONS OF EU INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Author:

Co-Author:

Abstract

Once the number of EU Members increased from 15 to 25 and then to 27, the Community institutions, procedures and mechanisms, conceived for a certain European configuration, proved to be too „narrow”, rigid and constraining for the new profile of the European construction. The Lisbon Treaty (2009), apart from its „labyrinthine” nature, represents a reference moment in simplifying and reorganizing the institutional architecture of the European Union. However, the delimitation and definition of the competences at the level of the new „rectangle” institutional structure appears to be still not enough clarified. From the perspective of the Romanian translation, the Lisbon Treaty can be, a modifying/amending treaty (in French) or an reformatory treaty (in English). Although, in reality, the two terms can be considered synonyms, in substance, the Lisbon Treaty combines them both: it modifies EU treaties and also reforms the institutions within.

In the following we will try to demonstrate , among other things , that pure theoretical finding , but with coverage within the Treaty of Lisbon.

Key words: the treaty of Lisbon, institutional reforms, European Commission, European Council, rotating presidency.

INTRODUCTION

The Lisbon Treaty addresses the need to reform the structure and functioning of the European Union. Successive EU enlargements have brought the number of EU countries to 28. Therefore it was necessary to adapt the functioning of the institutions and ways of decision-making at European level. In addition , the Lisbon Treaty reforming enabled several EU policies. It has redefined and strengthened actions taken at European level.

A first attempt at reform took place with the elaboration of the training Treaty of a Constitution for Europe. The objective was to replace the founding treaties of the European Union with a European Constitution . The Constitution was signed in Rome on 29th of October 2004. However, before being valid, it had to be ratified by all EU member states. The ratification process was unsuccessful in several of them.

On 23 July 2007 a new intergovernmental conference was convened in Lisbon to find an alternative to the Constitutional Treaty and to continue reforms . The idea of a European Constitution was therefore abandoned and further negotiations took place to develop an amending treaty . On 13 December 2007 , the 27 Heads of State or Government of the EU signed the new amending treaty in Lisbon . The Lisbon Treaty became valid on the 1st of December 2009, after being ratified by all EU countries in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. This treaty is largely inspired by the Constitutional Treaty. Most institutional and policy reforms envisaged in the Constitution are set out in the Treaty of Lisbon , but presented in a different form.

The Reform of EU institutions was necessary due to the increasing number of EU countries. The Lisbon Treaty amended the rules on the composition of the Commission, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. Plus, it also reforms the process of decision-making within the Council of Europe. This effectively eliminates the old system of weighted voting and introduces a new definition of qualified majority voting decisions. The Treaty also creates two new features in the institutional architecture of the European Union: European Council President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Politics.

THE LISBON TREATY – FROM THE „TRIANGLE” TO THE INSTITUTIONAL „RECTANGLE”

The new Treaty of Lisbon, also known as the "Reform Treaty" provides only an amendment of the Treaties considered to be fundamental (Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), as they did in their time the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. Furthermore, mainly to answer the objections coming from the members of the EU whom were worried about the federal advance of the Union, from the new Treaty were suppressed all the clues that could lead to the idea that the EU might turn into such a State (disappeared, for example, the term "constitution" and the already established section on EU symbols). However, the new Treaty has taken over most of the innovations contained in the Constitutional Treaty, the modifications brought upon the institutions will have a profound effect on their functioning. Being a treaty amending the previous ones, the new Treaty gets hard to be deciphered. Comparative reading between the new revised text and old fined texts, turns into a laborious activity, the text itself is accompanied by a significant number of additional protocols and declarations that make it quite difficult to browse.

But passing over its "labyrinthine" nature, the content itself provides a different picture, which marks the existence of substantial progress in simplifying and reorganizing the institutional architecture of the EU. In the institutional field, the Treaty of Lisbon comes with important content changes for each institution placed in the tops of the so-called "institutional triangle": the Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, marking also the shift from the classic institutional triangle to an "quadrilateral" and from the well-known "trio” to an ”quartet" or a "quintet". In such a formula, the answer to the famous question asked by H. Kissinger in connection with the telephone number at which Europe could respond, is, despite appearances, is even more difficult to offer. At the other end, from the 1st of December 2009, together with the Commission’s President and the European Parliament are the new Permanent President of the European Council and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The fifth "soloist", the Council of Ministers, has its place alongside the other partners, despite the fact that after Lisbon, its score is not as clearly drawn. Replacing the rotating presidency of the European Council with a permanent chairmanship (Article 15 TEU) for two and half years, with the possibility may of being extended once, it was one of the major institutional innovations introduced by the new Treaty.

The new president, Herman Van Rompuy, designated as such by the leaders of the 27 EU Members on the 19th of November began his mandate on the 1st of December 2009. Clues about how the permanent President intends to play its role were offered by the way the woks were carried by the first European Council, meeting attended by all the actors mentioned above. As already noted in a recent EPIN comment, Van Rompuy seems to play a facilitator rather than a leader, ability that is not of a less importance but which may prove very useful in the extremely tense current climate. In addition, the close relationship between the European Council President and President of the Commission (weekly meetings) can be regarded also as a positive development, the strengthen cooperation between the two institutions can support the process of European integration.

Another novelty brought by the Lisbon Treaty, the position of High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). Unlike Van Rompuy, Catherine Ashton has played a much more complicated role, many questions still persisting about the "job". The new position attributed to Mrs. Ashton brings together two old positions, that of Javier Solana, former High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (1999 to 2009) and that of Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and neighborhood Policy, in the first Barroso Commission. In addition, Mrs. Ashton, who is also vice president of the European Commission ,chairs the Foreign Affairs Council and also the new EU diplomatic service, the European External Action Service (EEAS). Since, in fact, within the EU, operated until now a sort of external services sui generis, on the one hand, within the European Commission, led by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and the European neighborhood policy, and on the other hand, within the EU Council, under the leadership of Javier Solana, Secretary-General and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, rightly raises the question what will be the newly created structure of the EEAS. Charles Grant, of the Centre for European Reform, brought out the attention since 2007 that the new position of High Representative, equivalent to a minister of foreign affairs, cannot function effectively without having the back of an appropriate technical support because otherwise "it would be like having an orchestra without a conductor – or rather, a conductor who tries to manage two separate orchestras at the same time." A report drafted by the European deputy Elmar Brok (Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament) and adopted by the European Parliament at the end of October 2009, show that the EEAS should be "a sui generis service from an organizational and budgetary point of view", which should be incorporated into the Commission's administrative structure. Also, to avoid creating a huge new bureaucracy , the over 120 delegations of the European Commission in third party countries, the liaison offices of the Council and the offices of the EU's Special Representative should be merged to create true "Union embassies", headed the External Action Service personnel who will respond to the High Representative. The concern of most Member States, however, is that the new EEAS could replace bilateral diplomacy and would further transform EU into a super-state, reducing the power of the Member States in this area. On the case of the Council of Ministers, the Lisbon Treaty maintains the rotating presidency of councils (each Member State continuing to chair the Council for a period of 6 months), but make changes in their structure.

Thus, if in accordance with previous rules, the national representatives met in nine separate formations, depending on the topic of public policy discussion (environment ministers within the Council of Environment, Ministers of Agriculture within the Council for Agriculture and Fishing, Ministers of Finance within the Council for Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) etcetera), according to the Reform Treaty, General Affairs and External Relations Council splits into two components: the General Affairs Council (GAC) and the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), the number of councils rising at 10. Furthermore, FAC will be chaired by the High Representative and the rotating presidency, and CAG by the Council's rotating presidency. In these circumstances, the MO of the rotating presidency of the council, with the newly introduced permanent presidency of the European Council already raises questions. While the new President and the High Representative (HR) (job equivalent to that of a foreign minister) will preside over meetings of heads of state and government and of the foreign ministers, the country holding the rotating presidency will continue to chair meetings of all other ministers. For example, with the chairmanship rotating (1st of January 2010) Spain chairs, thru the respective ministers, all councils of ministers (agriculture, environment, etc.), except the Foreign Affairs Council.

Meanwhile, Spanish Prime Minister and the Spanish Foreign Minister are members of the European Council chaired by Herman Van Rompuy, and the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, member of the Foreign Affairs Council, chaired by Catherine Ashton. In addition, the Permanent Representative Committee (COREPER), responsible for preparation of the Council's works, will be led also, thru rotation, every six months by a representative of the State Member which will also preside the CAG, but the Political and Security Committee (PSC ) – which monitors the international situation in areas covered by the CFSP – will be led by a representative of HR. Also, all other bodies designed to help organize the various Councils (working groups, committees etc.), except foreign policy, will be coordinated by the rotating Presidency. On the other hand, within the Commission, the over-lapping between the areas of foreign policy (humanitarian aid, enlargement and neighborhood policy) under the direction of commissioners with specific tasks and the domain of Mrs. Ashton – Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, member of both the Commission, and a representative of the Council of Ministers creates inevitable confusion. A CRPE report emphasized that, while the Lisbon Treaty seems to have simplified the fragmented organization of EU foreign policy between the Commission and the Council, within the Commission, on the contrary, seems to have exacerbated, "because now, paradoxically, are more commissioners dealing with external matters "and is" unclear how the extended group of Commissioners with mandates on external relations will operate and what will be their relations with the High Representative". For instance, "humanitarian aid" was separated in the new Commission's "Development" portfolio and was created a new post of Commissioner for the "Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Situations Response." Moreover, within the new Barroso Commission, the portfolio "neighborhood policy" will no longer be administered by the High Commissioner, although in the former commission it was a part of the portfolio of Benita Ferrero-Waldner. In the new formula, the neighborhood policy was not longer expanding, which was an occasion of speculations and expectations of the states covered by this policy. We left at the end of this analysis, the European Commission's President, always been an extremely important actor in the institutional architecture of the EU. Under the Lisbon Treaty, how to elect the President has changed: the European Council at the time of its nomination, should take into account the results of elections of the European Parliament and carry out the necessary consultations. The mutation produced, finds a study by the Department for European Affairs, approaches the appointing process of the President of the Commission of the procedure to appoint prime ministers in the various State Members. On the other hand, the increased involvement of the Commission in the meetings of other institutions, as can be drawn from the meetings so far with President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament can be evaluated favorably. However, the position of the President of the Commission is required to be redefined, since President Barroso it is not only one the acting in the "Union's interest". In conclusion, the picture of the main EU institutions, like a photo in full process of development, still maintains in a gray area the new characters introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, the image of European Council President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy partly overlapping over a little older shapes, belonging either to the rotating Presidency or the High Representative for Common security and Defense Policy. With a delimitation of competences insufficiently clarified, mainly for general affairs and foreign policy, the new system promoted by the Lisbon Treaty – says A. Missiroli, "is no less complex and layered than the previous one" and to make it work it will be "no easy task".

Lisbon Reform Treaty resumes, on a significant extent, the innovations brought thru the project of the Constitutional Treaty in 2004. Thus, mainly, are noteworthy: the introduction of the double majority vote (even if its implementation was delayed until 2014, with the possibility of invoking the Nice Treaty vote system until 2017 and the Ioannina mechanism); extending the sphere of application of the majority voting, both in domains currently being the subject to unanimity voting procedure (immigration, asylum, Europol, Eurojust, border control, High Representative for CFSP initiatives, structural funds and cohesion etc.), as and in domains in which the current Treaty of Nice does not include them in the sphere of Community intervention(energy, tourism, sport, the own resources of the EU, space policy, civil protection, structural co-operation in defense area, services of general interest, humanitarian aid, voluntary withdrawal of a State Member of the Union etc); maintaining the principle of 'one state, one commissioner "until 2014, after which the Commission will be reduced to two thirds of the States Member of the European Union, applying the principle of equal rotation; extending the competences of the European Court of Justice, mainly in achieving the area of freedom, security and justice; creation of the post of President of the European Council with a term of 2.5 years renewable once; investing with single legal personality for the EU, which will enable it to affirm and to increase the effectiveness of an European "modus operandi" on the international stage , and strengthen the "Community method" applied in the CFSP and JHA domains (the other "two pillars "of the community, along with the Internal Market); establishment of the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who will also qualify as a vice president of the European Commission, will chair the External Relations Council and will coordinate the European External Action Service (EEAS).

The Reform Treaty clarifies and regulates the categories and areas of competence of the European Union by introducing a new Title I (Articles 2-6). Thus, Article 2 provides that:

"When the Treaties confer the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt binding acts from a legally point of view, the states member can do so only if empowered by the Union or for applying Union acts ";

"When the Treaties confer the Union a competence shared with the States Member in an specific area, the Union and the States may legislate and adopt legally binding in this area. The States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence ";

"States Member shall coordinate their economic and employment policies under the conditions set out in this present Treaty, for which the Union shall have competence";

"The Union shall have competence …to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive defining of a common defense policy";

"In certain areas and conditions under the Treaties, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas …"

Article 3 lists the areas of exclusive jurisdiction: "The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

customs union;

establish the competition rules needed for the functioning of the internal market;

monetary policy for the States Member whose currency is the euro;

conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;

common commercial policy '.

            Article 4 fixes mixed competences:

"The Union shall have competence shared with the States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6";

"Shared competence between the Union and the States applies in the following principal areas:

internal market;

social policy;

for aspects defined in the present Treaty;

economic, social and territorial cohesion;

agriculture and fisheries, except the conservation of marine biological resources;

environment;

consumer protection;

shipments;

trans-European networks;

energy;

area of Freedom, Security and Justice;

common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in the present Treaty ";

"In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions … without being able to have the effect of preventing the States Member to exercise jurisdiction";

"In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to take action and conduct a common policy … without preventing the States Member to exercise jurisdiction".

Article 5 states that "States Member shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies … The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of employment policies labor … Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of the States' social policies ".

 Based on art. 6 The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of Member States. The areas of such action, at European level, are:

protecting and improving human health;

industry;

culture;

tourism;

education, professional training, youth and sport;

civil protection;

administrative cooperation ".

 The protocol regarding the role of national parliaments in the European Union, which was originally introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, is restated entirety by the Lisbon Treaty. It is divided into two headings: information destined for national parliaments and inter-parliamentary cooperation. Relative to the first aspect, according to art. 1, the consultation documents of the Commission (green and white papers and communications) shall be forwarded directly by the Commission to national Parliaments upon publication. The Commission also sends the national parliaments the annual legislative program and also, any other instrument of legislative planning or political strategy, simultaneously sending them as well to the European Parliament and the Council, according to art. 2, the draft laws addressed to the European Parliament and the Council, shall be forwarded to national Parliaments. .

Draft legislative acts originating from the Commission shall be forwarded directly by the Commission to national Parliaments, at the same time as to the European Parliament and the Council. The draft legislation drawn up by the European Parliament shall be forwarded directly to national parliaments to the European Parliament. Draft legislative acts originating from a group of States, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank shall be forwarded to national Parliaments by the Council. In turn, national parliaments can address, under Article 3, the President of the European Parliament, the Council and, respectively, the Commission a reasoned opinion on whether a draft legislative act is in accordance with the principle of subsidiary, and also with the procedure laid down in the Protocol regarding the application of the subsidiary principles and proportionality. It provides for a period of eight weeks between the date when a draft legislative act is made available to the national Parliaments in the official languages of the European Union and the date the project in question is included on the provisional agenda of the Council, for its adoption or the adoption of a position within a legislative procedure. Exceptions are possible in emergencies, whose reasons are stated in the act or position of the Council. Except in cases of emergency, duly motivated, it cannot reach any agreement on a draft legislative act during those eight weeks. Except in cases of duly justified urgency, are observed for ten days between the placing of a draft legislative act on the provisional agenda of the Council and the adoption of a position.

      Likewise, according to art. 5 of the Protocol, the agenda and the outcome of meetings of the Council, including the minutes of meetings where the Council is deliberating on draft legislative acts, shall be forwarded directly to the national Parliaments, at the same time as to the Governments of the Member States. Even if the European Council intends to make use of Article 48 par. (7) the first or second paragraph of the Treaty on European Union, the national Parliaments shall be informed on the initiative of the European Council at least six months before taking a decision (art. 6).

Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty maintains as law regulations as well, the directives. Maintaining the current outlook comes amid a complex process of simplification of Community legislation. If in terms of directives, which, ultimately, can only be applied after incorporation, by the will of the national legislature, in law, no amounts outstanding issues in perspective arises – still – the issue of community regulations. Declared or not, loudly or in whisper, the question remains: how far (to what extent?) the Community regulations will take us? In any case, it is said, we will not regulate the labor of the secretaries of local offices from villages. The answer was not likely to appease the spirits. From the perspective of the Treaty we can assist, in time, at the increasing Europeanization of national law. There were made some serious steps in this matter, in an area that, a few years ago, appeared that could not be affected (influenced) by Community law, such as criminal law (admitting minimum requirements for its harmonization at least in matters terrorism, organized crime and human trafficking), or creating a legal Community area (especially for tracking down the fraud on the Community funds) or in civil law area (draft European civil Code). In other words, we wonder how far we can go with the harmonization of laws? We cannot harmonize the whole community right of states because each state has its own personality and specific, and there was the view that the Community legislated too much. Since Romania is among the countries that had ratified the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, by Law no. 157/2005 of accession to the European Union, our country was interested in taking over a larger extent, of innovations brought by the Constitutional Treaty. Romania, along with other 15 States Member by one of the 64 statements accompanying the Lisbon Treaty, declare that the flag with a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem "Ode to Joy" from the Ninth Symphony of Ludwig van Beethoven, the motto 'United in diversity', the euro as the currency of the European Union and Europe day on May 9, continues to be symbols of common belonging to EU citizens and their allegiance to it.

CONCLUSION

The process of building Europe is, obviously, a constantly evolving process. Recent decades have marked the review, relatively frequent, the original treaties by the Single Act (1987), Amsterdam (1999), Maastricht (1993), Nice (2003) and, more recently, Lisbon (2009). The last review, in particular, was the result of a long and laborious process, marked by rejected referendums (Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands, the Reform Treaty in Ireland), tough negotiations, crisis. Certainly, the current Lisbon Treaty, like those that preceded it, is only a compromise between different EU States. Undoubtedly, however, in a Union with 27 members (and even more if the enlargement process will continue) such a compromise will be increasingly difficult to achieve. As observed by Gian Luigi Tosato ”Union did not reach the final destination, but its methods regarding the revision of the founding treaties probably yes." Taking into account both during the "accidental road” of the current Treaty, but also by the current political and economic climate of extreme tension, the possibility of renegotiating the treaty in the next period appears implausible. On the other hand, since many question marks are persisting about how will the Union operate in the future, especially in the two positions newly created, President of the European Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, amendments on the current Treaty, regarding the functioning of both institutions, or further specifications by various other specific normative documents, appear inevitable. With a high probability, by the end of this year, amid experience that will be accumulated from running two rotating presidents, Spanish and Belgian, will be initiated interventions towards achieving "fine-tuning" in highly complex European institutional facility.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

„L’avenir de l’Europe – une perspective juridique”, The Congress of the European Law Academy, Trier, 27-29 September 2007

„The Lisbon Treaty”, accesed on 13th of march 2016, last modified septembrie 22nd 2015

Andrei Popescu. „The Lisbon Treaty – a modifying and reformatory treaty of EU”, Legislative Newsletter, no. 1, 2008

Charles Grant. „Constitutional fudge. The EU’s foreign policy arrangements are dysfunctional, so why is Britain trying to block plans to make them more effective?”, Guardian blog, 19th of June 2007

Gabriela Drăgan . „The Lisbon Treaty – a new step in creating a United Europe?”, Political Sphere vol. XVIII, no.5, May, 2010

Gian Luigi Tosato. „The Shape of Post-Lisbon Europe”, Stefano Micossi, Gian Luigi Tosato (editors), The European Union in the 21st Century. Perspective from the Lisbon Treaty, (Brussels, Center for European Policy Studies)

I. Jinga. „ The Lisbon Treaty: solution or a phase in the institutional reform of the European Union?”, The Romanian Magazine of Community Law, no. 1, 2008

P.M. Kaczynski, D. Akule, M.Braun, P.Broin, K.Georgiou, F.Langdal, A.Lada, A.Moller, A.Primatarova, G.Ricard-Nihout, A.Schout, A.Siitonen. „Lisbon five month on: Surveying the new EU political scene” (EPIN, Commentary, no.5/29 April 2010)

Paul Ivan, Mihai Panaite, Ciprian Ciucu, Robert Uzuna. „The European Union is adapting to the Lisbon Treaty”,The Romanian Center for European Politics, Policy Memo no.6, January 2010