Brussels, 14/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt presented the MEPs of the Parliamentary committee on the internal market with her draft report on 13 September, ahead of the second reading of the European Parliament on the proposed directive on services in the internal market. The 11 amendments tabled in this document got a frosty reception from the Christian Democrat and Liberal groups, and by the Council and the Commission. The EPP-ED and ALDE groups, which are anxious to reposition themselves politically on this sensitive dossier ahead of second reading, spoke out against anything which might damage the fragile inter-institutional compromise which was reached before the summer (see EUROPE 9133, 9167 and 9201). All hope that the future directive can be adopted definitively before the end of 2006. The Parliamentary committee will hold a second exchange of views on this dossier on 5 October, before voting on 23 October.
"My job is to detect the little differences" between the common position of the Council and the opinion of the EP, said Ms Gebhardt. She noted that the 11 amendments she had proposed were very few in comparison to the 1100 amendments tabled at first reading, adding that these should allow the legislative proceedings to be closed in the very near future. The amendments relate mainly to employment law, services of general interest (SGI), including social services, consumer protection, controls operated by the Member States and the harmonisation of the services market in the future.
The amendment relating to employment law, Ms Gebhardt explained, respects the Council's will, as it does not wish to see a direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the body of the directive. Furthermore, she continued, it emphasises the need to respect "national practice" in this field, particularly the option for employers and employees to negotiate and conclude collective conventions. Having found the concept of non-economic SGI "nowhere", Ms Gebhardt proposes that SGI be simply excluded from the directive. On the specific exclusion for social services, she admits to having taken "a liberty" compared to the Parliamentary opinion. The rapporteur is proposing that the wording of the Council be used, as she believes that it is "better" than that of the EP, to which she adds the exclusion of "legal and complementary social protection regimes covering the fundamental risks of life", in line with the definition of social services as contained in the Commission's communication on social services of general interest (see EUROPE 9180). Ms Gebhardt is also challenging the competency conferred by the Council upon the Commission to provide annual analyses and orientations, on the basis of reports to be submitted by the Member States as part of the mechanism to assess their national restrictions on the cross-border provision of services. "The interpretation of Community law comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice", said the rapporteur, calling for the Commission and Council to explain the nature of these orientations.
Hostile to anything that might endanger the political compromise, Andreas Schwab (EPP-ED, Germany) said that he was "very sceptical" about the rapporteur's explanations for this challenge to the Commission's competency for setting orientations. "Are we prepared to take the risk of transforming [the EP's victory] into a defeat?", warned Jacques Toubon (EPP-ED, France), who also opposed the amendment removing the Commission's duty of setting orientations, and indicated his preference for the Parliament's wording for social services. According to Charlotte Cederschiöld (EPP-ED, Sweden), the very fact of having Commission orientations will help to avoid any litigation at the Court of Justice. In a press release, British Conservative member Malcolm Harbour warns that any amendment touching the heart of the proposal- the exclusion of social services, private international law, the revision mechanism- will seriously endanger the whole of the project. "We cannot go along with Ms Gebhardt" on amendments which she described as technical, and which some of them believe "fundamentally change the sense of the text and are contrary to the EP compromise", said Finnish member Anneli Jäätteenmäki on behalf of the ALDE group.
Speaking via Belgian member Pierre Jonckheer, the Greens, for their part, subscribe "to the 11 amendments in full". If the Commission sets the guidelines, will this mean that these guidelines will have a "binding nature" to the Member States, Mr Jonckheer asked. French Socialist Bernadette Vergnaud would rather return to an indicative list of social services excluded from the directive, and her compatriot and fellow Socialist, Benoît Hamon, took position in favour of amendments which get rid of "red tape" (the assessment mechanism), "legal insecurity" (employment law) and "confusion" (non-economic SGI). "The directive will become a scope of activity for the Court of Justice", said André Brie (GUE/NGL, Germany).
"Delighted" at the small number of amendments tabled, the Finnish Presidency nonetheless felt that "many of these go well beyond mere technical amendments" and "touch the very heart of the inter-institutional political compromise". Emphasising the small amount of leeway within the Council, the Presidency felt that it was "extremely difficult, if not impossible" to agree to the "sensitive" amendments referring to the scope of application of the directive, and expressed "surprise" at the proposals tabled by the rapporteur on consumer protection. Furthermore, the Presidency takes the view that the provisions on the assessment mechanism for national restrictions to the cross-border provision of services is a "key element" of the political compromise, while stating that the Council will grant "no new key roles to the Commission" on this point. The Commission is also playing the hand of extreme prudence. "The 'Gebhardt' amendments considerably reduce the legal security" and " we fear that the political compromise could open up again", its representative declared. The day before, Charlie McCreevy, the European Commission in charge of the Internal Market, had told the press that it would be "dangerous, even naive" to endanger the political compromise, adding that it may be possible to modify "a few small things".