Brussels, 04/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - German Green member Heide Rühle and German Liberal Alexander Lambsdorff are to present their draft reports on intra-Community transfers of defence-related products and public procurement in defence and security to the Parliament's internal market committee on Monday 7 July in Strasbourg. The deadline for putting amendments forward is 15 July and the vote on amendments is scheduled for 7 October. The plenary vote is to be held during the week of 17-20 November on these two draft directives aimed at consolidating the European Defence Technology and Industrial Base.
In Council, after a lengthy debate on the proposal relating to intra-Community transfers, fueled by French objections, an opinion from the legal service on 30 May clarified several major points such as the justification for the legal base adopted by the Commission and the lack of any risk of a shift towards an external competence in a field where that authority already exists (on details, see our specialised publication Europe Diplomacy & Defence). In its capacity as new holder of the EU Council Presidency, France now states it wants to reach a political agreement on both texts in December this year. If the Presidency keeps its promise, the whole of the package could be finally adopted in 2009, just before the end of the current legislature.
Ahead of the parliamentary procedure, it might be appropriate to take another look at these two texts proposed by the European Commission on 5 December 2007. The first directive aims to authorise, at European level, the various ways market contracts are currently awarded in the defence sector, ensuring greater transparency and a certain amount of market opening. Debates, both in Council and Parliament, have shown that this proposal has very broad support. The proposal for a directive on intra-Community transfers of defence-related goods aims to facilitate the circulation of defence products, and especially of equipment parts. Conceived along the lines of the British model, the directive, which provides for two kinds of licenses (see EUROPE 9556 and 9558) generally has the backing of industry, but comes up against objections on the part of certain member states which fear the intervention of Community institutions (Commission and above all Parliament and Court of Justice) in a sector generally perceived as coming under national sovereignty.
Debates held to date in the various hearings organised at the European Parliament have covered a provision ensuring the practice of offsets - parts of a main contract that go to companies of the country that awards the deal. In this context, some MEPs do not hesitate to evoke a European preference with reference to the difficulties encountered by European companies on the American market. There are slight differences between groups when it comes to the scope of the text on public procurement: - must it apply to all defence and security products or only to defence products? Some MEPs, like Jaques Toubon (UMP, France), were hoping for the adoption of amendments relating in particular to research financing and the protection of classified information.
In German Christian Democrat Karl von Wogau's opinion, presented on behalf of the sub-committee on security and defence, he suggests replacing the Council 1958 list, which identifies equipment to which Article 296 of the Treaty applies, by the common list of military equipment covered by the EU code of conduct on arms exports, adopted by the Council on 7 July 2000. Mr von Wogau feels this list has the merit of being regularly updated whereas the other had not been updated for 50 years. The Commission seems, however, to be keeping to its initial proposal for reasons of equivalence between the scope of Article 296 and that of the directive on public procurement.
In a separate opinion on transfers, German Green member Angelika Beer calls for the code of conduct on arms transfers to be transformed into a legally binding instrument, before the directive is adopted. Exports must be strictly controlled, Ms Beer asserts, in order to prevent the EU's ESDP mission being attacked by weapons made in the EU. She hopes the state of origin may give its agreement for re-exportation and that transfers are recorded in detail. (O.J./transl.jl)