Brussels, 24/05/2016 (Agence Europe) - The launch of the legislative initiative report on a directive to protect whistle-blowers has been postponed until the next meeting of the coordinators of the European Parliament's legal affairs (JURI) committee on 13 or 14 June. The reason for the delay is a disagreement between the Liberals and the Greens over the legal basis for the legislative text, several Parliamentary sources report on Tuesday 24 May.
Given that this is not an own initiative report but a legislative initiative report so that the Commission brings forward a legislative proposal, under the terms of Article 225 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU (TFEU), the question of the legal basis is no mean matter since, on it, will depend the legal validity of the legislative act as well as the room for manoeuvre for the legislators.
The Greens, who were behind the proposal (see EUROPE 11546), have suggested the legal basis should be Articles 151 and 152 of the TFEU which are devoted to social policy, while the Liberals preferred Article 114 which relates to the EU internal market, a number of Parliamentary sources have told us. Each of the two proposals has its own advantages and disadvantages.
In the Greens proposal, based on Article 153, point b, on working conditions, the EU “may adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States”, which would extend the scope of the directive but reduce its binding effect. If this is the path chosen, the Commission could propose a directive containing “minimal prescriptions”, according to one source.
Under the option favoured by ALDE, Article 114 TFEU provides for the adoption of “EU rules harmonising national legislation, whenever necessary for the smooth functioning of the internal market”. This would limit the scope of the directive to private sector activities alone and would “exclude wrongdoing and corruption taking place, for example, in a municipality”, said the same source who says that the only possible cases involving a public service would be in the context of public procurement. On the other hand, the EU would have real powers to strengthen the internal market and could, therefore, adopt a more ambitious directive.
It is this latter legal basis that was used for the particularly controversial “trade secrets directive” (see EUROPE 11532), which is currently deadlocked in the Council awaiting legal-linguistic clarification with regard to the Article relating to whistle-blowers (see EUROPE 11552).
At the request of Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, France), the decision on the launch was put back until 13 or 14 June to allow the Parliament's legal department time to examine the two proposals. The Greens would like to see a combination of the two legal bases, two Parliamentary sources have told us. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)