Brussels, 29/05/2006 (Agence Europe) - On Monday afternoon, the Competitiveness Council tried to find a political agreement on the draft directive on services in the internal market. At the time of going to press, the chances of an agreement had increased though no one wished to bank on it. The Austrian Presidency was due to present a new draft compromise at the end of the afternoon. Arrangements on services of general economic interest (SGEI) and on the link between the legislative proposal and international private law on the one hand and criminal law on the other featured among the most hotly debated points. The exclusion of social services from the scope of the directive appeared to be well on the way. Several experts highlighted the very positive attitude of Germany to reach a political agreement on the day.
The Netherlands, Luxemburg and several new Member States, including the Czech Republic, presented a joint proposal on arrangements on cross-border service provision. This proposal picked up the idea of setting up a public European register which would compile national restrictions on services provided by a firm established in another EU country. Member States would submit to the Commission the national restrictions introduced on the grounds of security and public health, protection of the environment, but not on social law grounds. At the end of the afternoon, the setting up of such a register was welcomed by most delegations. There remained, however, questions over terminology to grade Member States' obligations and the role of the Commission, itself favourable to this measure.
Negotiations hit a snag too on what was to happen to SGEIs, such as electricity, sewage and postal services. Under the Commission's amended proposal, these services would not be covered by the arrangements on the free provision of services (Article 16). A Community source indicated that there were wide differences between Member States on whether the list of SGEIs excluded from Article 16 should be indicative or exhaustive. Additionally, the draft directive makes provision for Member States assessing certain national requirements on freedom of establishment. France has always opposed this assessment being applied to SGEI. There seemed nonetheless to be the possibility of a compromise on a formula allowing this assessment be made of SGEI insofar as the assessment did not prevent them from doing what they were supposed to do, said a Community source.