Lisbon: and the winner is…
Christian Bulzomí
March 2, 2010
As it is already well known, the new Lisbon Treaty has brought major changes to the “European institutional architecture”. The Institutions have all experienced changes due to the entry into force of the new Treaty. While the big institutional changes such as the creation of the posts of President of the European Council and of High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy have attracted criticism and brought anything but clarity about who should be the person in charge of ensuring the external representation of the European Union, the winners of the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty appear to be the European Parliament and the National Parliaments.
On the one hand, the European Parliament has definitely gained its place as co-legislator as it “shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions”. The Lisbon Treaty has brought over 40 new fields under the co-decision procedure. Consequently, most of the EU legislation will be adopted under this procedure which is now called “ordinary legislative procedure”. Thus, the European Parliament’s powers have been, once again, extended through the reform of the Treaties. (more…)
La limitación de los mandatos en la Comisión
Christian Bulzomí
Isabel Yglesias Julià
15 de octubre de 2009
Hace poco mantuvimos una interesante conversación sobre la oportunidad de limitar la renovación de los mandatos en la CE. Christian expuso sus tesis e Isabel le contradijo constantemente, como hace siempre… Ninguno de los dos convenció al otro, pero nos preguntamos qué pensarían otros sobre el tema, por lo que hemos decidido compartir con Ustedes este debate:
Christian:
El reciente nombramiento de Barroso a la presidencia de la Comisión Europea me ha llevado a pensar en la oportunidad de limitar los mandatos del Presidente de la Comisión. De hecho, considerando la originalidad del sistema institucional europeo, he llegado a la conclusión que idealmente el mandato del presidente de la Comisión Europea no debería ser renovable.
El sistema de designación del Presidente de la Comisión por el Consejo por mayoría cualificada puede condicionar las tomas de decisiones del propio Presidente, que necesita el apoyo de determinados Jefes de Gobierno (y, sobre todo, de los de los grandes países) para conseguir un segundo mandato. Por lo tanto, en el último año de su mandato, el Presidente de la Comisión podría verse “obligado” a retrasar las conversaciones sobre determinados asuntos, los procedimientos de infracción más delicados, etc., para asegurarse el apoyo de los gobiernos para su reelección.
Isabel:
De entrada, te confieso que tu idea no me convence mucho. En principio, la mera posibilidad de poder ser reelegidos constituye la base de todo juego democrático, o como mínimo el estímulo para esforzarse al máximo durante un primer mandato. Además, y sobre todo, si el mandato no fuera renovable, el único riesgo en el que podría incurrir el Presidente de la Comisión por su mala gestión sería una improbable moción de censura, ¿no? ¿Qué motivación para un verdadero esfuerzo tendría un Presidente de la Comisión que no pudiera ser reelegido? ¿Cuánto se esforzaría en llevar hasta sus últimas consecuencias los procedimientos de infracción, por ejemplo? (more…)
Italian Anomalies
Christian Bulzomi
July 31st, 2008
On July 21, 2008 the Italian Parliament adopted the so called “Lodo Alfano”, which takes its name from the Italian Minister of Justice Mr. Angelino Alfano, and put an end to 14 years of discussions. The law, which shields the four most important offices of state from prosecution, will favour Mr. Berlusconi by freezing a corruption trial in which he is a defendant together with David Mills and a trial related to Berlusconi’s company “Mediaset” in which he is accused of financial misstatement, money laundering, embezzlement and bribery.
Berlusconi has persistently claimed the need of such a law. From his point of view, “a part of the judiciary has set as its objective to overturn the vote of the Italian people”. Therefore, he thinks that the adoption of the mentioned law “is the least one can do to protect his own freedom”. Mr. Berlusconi describes his problems with the Italian judiciary as a “persecution which is inacceptable in democracy”.
Since 1993 almost every year new charges have been filed against Italy’s richest man. In 1993 he was charged with illegally financing a political party, in 1994 with corruption, in 1994, 1995 and 1999 (twice) with financial misstatement, in 1995, 1997 and 2003 with fiscal fraud, in 1998 with commissioning the murders of two anti-Mafia judges, in 1998 and 1999 with bribery, in 2004 with financial misstatement, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery and finally in 2004 with corruption of a witness.
In many cases the judges were faced with the prescription of the offence – in 1993 and 1994 (financial misstatement), in 1998 (bribery), in 1999 (financial misstatement and bribery), and in 2003 (fiscal fraud). In almost as many cases the country’s longest-serving post-war leader was found not guilty – in 1994 (corruption), in 1995 (financial misstatement and fiscal fraud), in 1997 (fiscal fraud), in 1999 (financial misstatement). The charges filed in 1998 of commissioning the murders of two anti-Mafia judges, based on the testimony of a Mafia informant did not lead to Berlusconi’s official indictment and the case was closed. (more…)
Corporate Sanctions and Individual Penalties
Christian Bulzomí
April 24, 2008
The discussion about the enforcement of EC competition law in Europe has been revitalized by the publication of the Commission White Paper on Damages actions for breach of EC antitrust rules (on which you can find our previous post here).
In my personal view, private enforcement of competition law is part of a complex policy which aims first and foremost at avoiding infringements of competition law and secondly to correct anti-competitive behaviour through the compensation of the losses caused, whereas the sanctioning of the companies infringing the rules on competition constitutes an instrument for the obtainment of the two mentioned goals. (more…)
What a celebration
Christian Bulzomi
April 5, 2007
The celebration of the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the Rome Treaties and the announcement of the therewith connected Berlin Declaration reminded me of the immense distance between our beloved European Union and the European citizens. There are many ways to try to involve the European citizens into a celebration of this unique organization whose activity pervades their daily life; the celebration of March 25 is not one of them.
Enthusiastic meetings ending with inspired declarations are definitely not an appropriate way to close the gap between Europe and its citizens. Indeed, although, we are profiting day by day from the farsightedness of a few European leaders and their persistence in pursuing a dream for more than fifty years, most of us ignore that these rights, freedoms, the peace and prosperity we enjoy are, at least partially, an achievement of the so distant European institutions.
I would have suggested Ms. Wallström to propose the celebration of a non EU-day thereby allowing Member States just for one day to:
- reintroduce the original checks at their borders;
- prohibit foreign engineers, architects, medical doctors, nurses, translators,… to work on that day as they are not in possession of a diploma expedited by a national university;
- take foreign products from the shelves;
- allow the discrimination of Europeans working in another Member State and discriminate women independently from their nationality with regard to working conditions;
- close the infrastructures constructed with cohesion funds;
- revoke every aid or subsidy which origins from the budget of the European Community;
- increase prizes in the air transport market and in the telecom sector as if national monopolies still existed
- permit banks to charge extremely high fees for an intra-community bank transfer
- disrespect the legal personality of companies not incorporated under its national laws;
- oblige non Italian-EU-citizens to pay during their visit to the Sistine Chapel while Italians have not to, and apply the same mutatis mutandis to the Louvre, the British Museum, Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Warszawy, … (more…)
CNE vs. Comisión Europea
Christian Bulzomí
27 de Julio de 2006
La propuesta de resolución elaborada por Jorge Fabras, ponente en el expediente E.ON-Endesa en la Comisión Nacional de Energía, subraya una vez mas las diferencias entre el ejecutivo español y la Comisión Europea respecto a la OPA de la empresa presidida por Bernotat.
Al gobierno liderado por José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero no le gusta nada la idea de ver los alemanes al mando de la mayor empresa eléctrica española. Sin embargo José Manuel Durão Barroso y su equipo quieren que se respeten las reglas establecidas a nivel comunitario.
Quizás ambas partes tengan parte de razón sobre todo si se tiene en cuenta que la fusión de E.ON con Ruhrgas fue una decisión política que poco tuvo que ver con el respeto de las reglas de competencia. Desde este punto de vista la concentración autorizada por el gobierno alemán es comparable con la OPA de Gas Natural sobre Endesa respaldada por el ejecutivo español por razones que están por encima de la protección de una competencia efectiva en el mercado.