A logical compromise. The European Commission declaration over the Spanish concerns on the future of structural funds constitutes a logical solution to a problems that risked, at one time, damaging the relations between a few Member States and compromising certain aspects of the negotiations with the accession candidate countries. The Spanish government had lost track at the beginning, by giving the impression that it was establishing a link between the future cohesion policy and certain chapters of the enlargement negotiations, and sought assurances, guarantees, over the financing that will only be negotiated as of 2004 to enter into force in 2007. The reactions from most of the Member States and the Commission have logically been negative, and Spain backtracked or - according to the interpretation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jose Piqué - clarified the misunderstandings.
The problem raised by Spain is real: through a purely statistical effect, at the time of enlargement, a considerable number of European regions are no longer on the list of regions lagging behind in their development, beneficiaries of Objective 1 of the EU regional policy, independently of any true improvement of their situation. Though, the Spanish government has not discovered this automatic effect of the future accessions! It was analysed in the second Commission report on economic and social cohesion and may already indicate a few paths to tackle it, and Commissioner Barnier spoke of it on several occasions by indicating that the Commission would make proposals on this issue in its third report, already being prepared. At present, the Commission declaration, of which the Council took note in its conclusions on 11 June on enlargement (see bulletin on 12 June, p.6), keeps itself to noting this "statistical effect" and indicating that the Commission "took note" (the expression of the day) of the concerns expressed by certain Member States and candidate countries and that it would make proposals at the right time. If Mr Piqué now assures us that Spain never asked nor wanted any more, all the better: the problem is resolved, we can discuss it in a few years.
We'll talk money when we know where Europe is heading. The Commission for Economic and Financial Affairs, Pedro Solbes, largely exceeded the procedural aspects of this dossier, to underline the fundamental point too often forgotten by the beneficiary countries of the structural funds, namely that the scope of the common effort would depend upon the model of Europe that we want to build. Community financing in general is linked to the content of the policies to be financed, beyond regional policy. In an interview with "Expansion", Mr Solbes stated: the budget of the EU results from the policies that are defined. Call for money by saying: I know how to use it, is not correct (…). This not only concerns the cohesion fund. We must also discuss the cost of projects such as the Rapid Reaction Force, the Common foreign policy, etc. These are all elements of the debate. Calling for money without deciding what Union we want makes no sense.
The Commissioner said using different wording what the reader was already able to read in this section, namely that it is illusionary to think that Europe that distances itself from integration, which directs itself towards simple cooperation, may retain by miracle a few elements of federal inspiration, such as the massive financing of regional and agricultural policy. We talk of money when we know towards what Europe we are heading.
The Court of Justice could give details. Good news for European sport. The Association that claims to represent professional footballers, FIFPRO, announced that will attack before the Court of Justice (through the Brussels tribunal) the agreement between the International and European Football Associations (FIFA) and (UEFA) regulating the transfers of players. This agreement, approved by the European Commissioners for competition, social affairs and sport, introduces in the regulation elements that take into account the specificity of sport, formally recognised by the Heads of Government, by limiting the ability of players to break contracts that tie them to clubs, timetables and the possibility of penalties, etc. It is against these standards that the FIFPRO intends to go before the Brussels Tribunal, in the hope of reaching the European Court of Justice.
Why is this good news? Because it will give the Court the opportunity to specify the meaning and the scope of the specificity of sport, in the spirit of the more recent rulings in this domain. It is not necessary to modify the basic principals of the Bosman ruling, as this ruling contains a few opening susceptible of being used to direct jurisprudence in the right direction, by closing a chapter in my opinion not glorious of the history of relations between European law on the one hand and the aspirations of citizens and the interest of youths, on the other. (F.R.)