Brussels, 13/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - The EP's committee on economic and monetary affairs on Tuesday adopted the own-initiative report by the German social democrat Bernhard Rapkay on the subject of the European Commission's white paper of May 2004 on services of general interest (EUROPE 8705). It adopted almost all of the compromise amendments proposed by the two main political groups (PPE/DE, PSE). The report will be discussed in the plenary session of 25 to 28 September. The European Commission is due to comment in mid-2007 in its biannual report on SGIs, which will in any case be after the EP's adoption of an opinion on its communication on social services of general interest (EUROPE 9180). MEPs call on the Commission to launch “appropriate legislative initiatives” and recall that the right of codecision should be exercised fully by all actors implicated in SGIs and services of general economic interest (SGEIs). The text does not specify the exact nature of the legislative act (or acts) they wish to see, a somewhat convoluted route which allows for both the socialist group, which is in favour of a framework directive on SGIs, and the PPE/DE group, which wants a sectoral approach for SGEIs, to be covered.
I myself presented the wording inviting the Commission to draw up “legislative initiatives”, the rapporteur Bernhard Rapkay told EUROPE, adding: it is not in contradiction with the demands of the socialist group, and the Commission is free to make other proposals, “but this would have to mean legislative proposals”. The legal certainty required cannot be guaranteed by “communications, guidelines and interpretations on the part of the Commission: we need legislative rules of the Council and Parliament”, he insisted. Mr Rapkay, who announced that he will defend the text approved in the committee in the plenary, also stressed that “this report is a cross-cutting one”, and that it therefore “deliberately” does not mention those services for which a specific approach at EU level would be needed. “This is an important achievement”, declared Gunnar Hökmark (PPE/DE, Sweden) in a press release, who was pleased that the parliamentary committee is “not calling for a framework directive but for legal clarity and a sectoral approach”, adding: “The aim is for the European Union to proceed with sectoral directives opening up the market instead of (drawing up) a regulation safeguarding old, monopolised public services”. In the view of Sophia in´t Veld (ALDE, Netherlands), this vote is “a clear signal to the Commission not to present a framework directive”. “If the application of market rules creates problems, focussed sectoral solutions are preferable”, she said.
The parliamentary committee stressed the importance and “success” of sectoral rules, both existing and to come. Since in its view “these sectoral rules should not be brought into question”, it “recommends that the sectoral approach be extended to other sectors”, and calls for a “sectoral directive” guaranteeing “more legal certainty in the areas of social and health services of general interest”. Through the legislative initiatives which could be launched, the MEPs also demand more clarification on the part of the Commission on “two major questions: the consequences of the case-law of the Court of Justice based on a sectoral approach and the application of competition law to SGIs and SGEIs”, specifically with regard to funding these services.
MEPs reiterated several times the importance of the subsidiarity principle in the area of SGIs and SGEIs, and underlined the right of the competent authorities to choose the best way to provide a service. One of the compromise amendments adopted stipulates: “it is up to a competent authority to decide to provide a service of general interest directly though an own body or to entrust the provision to a service provider” such as a non-profit making organisation. With reference to several recent judgement of the Court of Justice (Teckal, Stadt Halle) which limit the freedom of local authorities to exempt certain service contracts from the rules of the internal market, the MEPs consider that there is an “urgent need” to act in order to guarantee increased legal certainty for the various forms of organisation at local level charged with providing SGEIs, such as “territorial cooperation, public-private partnership, granting of concessions”. On the other hand, the committee did not retain the definition of the principle of in-house management based on the draft regulation on public passenger transport services by road and rail (see EUROPE 9208). This provision will be discussed again among the PSE and PPE/DE groups with a view to the plenary session. Finally, although they call on the Commission to “clarify the distinction between SGIs and SGEIs by developing criteria”, the MEPs note that a precise definition of these services would run “counter to the Member States' freedom to define their own SGIs”. The MEPs also speak out in favour of establishing guidelines for setting methods for access to networks in place, price conditions, guarantees of competition and opportunity for new entrants onto the market and amicable solutions to disputes between supplier and user.
SGIs are excluded in the draft directive on services in the internal market. SGEIs are included in the directive's scope of application, but they are not affected by the provisions on cross-border service provision.