Brussels, 18/04/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Monday German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt revealed the main thrust of the first part of her draft report on the draft directive on services that she will be presenting on Tuesday to the parliamentary committee on the internal market (EUROPE 8928). She said that she thought that the position she was defending was likely to obtain a majority at parliament and defended the idea of a framework directive on services in the internal market. Clarification of the legislative proposal's field of application is, however, indispensable: the future directive is expected to exclude services of general interest (SGI) and those covered by sector legislation at a European level. At the centre of the amendments in the first draft of the report is the principle of mutual recognition, which replaces the principle of country of origin as a basis for cross-border service providers. The principle of the country of destination is also introduced, particularly for responsibility of inspections on service providers. Asked about the discussions with, Charlie McCreevy, the Commissioner for the internal market Ms Gebhardt judged them as “positive”. She will be presenting her complete draft report at the end of May and hopes that Parliament will be able to conclude the dossier in its first reading in “September or October”.
Gephardt said that it was right to have a services directive as there were too many protectionist rules in Member States, which put a brake on the freedom of establishment for service providers to provide a service beyond their national borders. The MEP immediately sought to stress the positive elements in the Commission's initial proposal. She is particularly in favour of companies having the chance to have a single contact point within the national services to complete the formalities needed to access the activities of a service and carry them out.
Evelyne Gephardt said that it was necessary to say, without equivocation, what services were covered in the field of application for the legislative proposal. According to Gebhardt it is necessary to establish a distinction between commercial services and SGI, such as health. She pointed out that the services already covered in European level sectoral level legislation should not be covered by the draft services directive. For example, financial services are subject to a specific system and as the Commission proposed, should be excluded. There are also some services in this area, such as “pension funds, which have so far not been subject to Europe wide harmonisation. In order to prevent them “getting into the services directive by the back door”, the rapporteur therefore prefers to exclude all financial services from the field of the legislative proposal's application and leave it up to a specific system with responsibility for any other harmonisation.
Evelyne Gebhardt suggests an “alternative to the principle of country of origin”, the “philosophy” of which is not found satisfactory. According to the principle, a company would be able to provide its services according to Member State of origin rules, and this same Member State would be responsible for controlling the company and the service that the company provides. In her work, the German Social-Democrat said: ”I am supposed to provide added value to the benefit of citizens”. Application of the principle of country of origin as such would entail an unfair competition situation, she said. Evelyne Gebhardt cited the example of a German cleaning company which would be tempted to seek a location “where the lowest standards are in force” to set up business, taking advantage of its knowledge of the German market, thus enjoying a “favourable competitive position with the small and medium-sized German companies”. Nonetheless, Ms Gebhardt does not bring the principle of country of origin into question completely when it already appears in sectoral legislation such as, for example, Directive 89/552/EEC on television without borders.
Evelyne Gebhardt invites her colleagues to follow “a positive and European approach” that replaces the principle of country of origin by the “principle of mutual recognition allowing pressure to be exerted for greater harmonisation”. This principle of mutual recognition appears in the treaties, unlike the principle of country of origin, she remarked. “So why do something completely new?”, she asked. According to the mutual recognition principle, an economic operator who provides a service in a Member State in compliance with the latter's legislation may provide, without any obstacles, the same service in another Member State. According to the rapporteur, the principle would compel the economic operator to comply with the minimum standards of the country of destination principle, mainly with regards security and environmental responsibility. With this principle, she stresses, there is no opposition between the new and former Member States (see EUROPE 8913). The rapporteur spoke of the case of a Polish tour operator who, when travelling to Italy, must not be prevented from carry out his activity on the basis of his nationality.
The first part of the draft report establishes three lists. For two of them (Annex 1a for corporate services, Annex 1b for services provided in the commercial sector and to consumers), Evelyne Gebhardt suggests applying the principle of mutual recognition. For a third (Annex 1c for services intended for consumers), it is the principle of country of destination that will prevail. These lists are part of the “list used during negotiations of the generalised agreement on the trade in services” of 1994 within the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and appear in the draft report “as an indication”, Ms Gebhardt said, asserting that they are not “engraved in stone”. She went on to add that she foresees in her amendments to the proposal for a directive a “mechanism allowing them to be amended by simplified majority”.
“I have redrafted the document in a fully independent way”, Evelyne Gebhardt said, moreover. Answering questions on contacts that she has with her parliamentary colleagues, she recognised that, within the Socialist Group, “several voices were raised against” suppression of the principle of country of origin, especially from British Labour members. The large majority, however, followed the line set. She expressed confidence that French UMP members would “give more support” to her report than the shadow rapporteur, British Conservative Malcolm Harbour. “I can imagine that the UMP deputies will take a positive stance on my report”, she maintained, going on to add that her position is “likely to have a majority in Parliament”. On the subject of her relations with the European Commission, Evelyne Gebhardt pointed out that she had “regular contacts” with Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, and considered these exchanges “positive” as, she said, “the Commission is open to debate”.
When will the timetable for adoption of the legislative proposal be? Evelyne Gebhardt confirmed that she will be presenting her final draft report at the “end of May” to the EP internal market committee. The aim is to allow the Parliament to adopt its amendments at first reading during the plenary session of “September or October”. The rapporteur does not know how much time the Council will need to conclude its first reading, perhaps until “spring 2006”, as it will be a “difficult discussion”. According to Ms Gebhardt, if the timetable is confirmed, one can imagine that final adoption of the directive on services will take place “end 2006 or early 2007” to “take effect towards 2010” in the EU Member States.