After a fourth trilogue lasting just a few hours on the morning of 1 February, negotiators from the EU Council and European Parliament reached agreement on the regulation introducing the Single Market Emergency Instrument (‘SMEI’), and on a package of several accompanying legislative proposals (‘SMEI omnibus’).
The aim of this legislation is to remedy internal disruptions to the single market during crises, as was the case during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Both Parliament and the EU Council amended the Commission’s initial proposal to a large extent: the former by tightening up protection of the principle of free movement when the emergency instrument is activated (see EUROPE 13225/11), the latter by removing the obligation on the EU27 to set up strategic reserves and to notify the Commission of any restrictions introduced at their borders (see EUROPE 13196/3).
The third trilogue, which took place last December, failed mainly because of the issue of ‘fast lanes’ at borders, to “facilitate the free movement of goods, services and workers, in particular those linked to the current crisis” (see EUROPE 13311/18).
The agreement finally settled the question of these ‘fast lanes’: the establishment of these lanes will remain at the discretion of the Member States on a “voluntary basis”. This decision goes against what the MEPs wanted.
In addition, the text approved by both parties strengthens the conditions for triggering the emergency instrument by combining several definitions for the cases in which it can be implemented. In the event of a crisis, the EU27 are no longer obliged to notify the Commission before implementing restrictive measures, and this obligation remains a posteriori and only in the rare areas that are not already covered by European regulations on reporting obligations.
The agreement also strengthens the role of the ‘Advisory Group’, which will become the ‘Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Board’. It will be responsible for assisting and advising the Commission on emergency, vigilance and intervention procedures.
Parliament is concerned that the possibility of applying the text will be reduced to a minimum with the multiple safeguards put in place to prevent its activation. (Original version in French by Isalia Stieffatre)