El sí irlandés
José M. de Areilza
4 de Octubre, 2009
Irlanda ha dicho sí al nuevo Tratado de Lisboa en su segundo referéndum sobre esta reforma europea. Los habitantes de la isla de Eire han votado con la cartera. También han ayudado las garantías dadas de que se respetarán aspectos importantes de la identidad irlandesa y de que se mantendrá un comisario por Estado. Esto último es un apaño poco europeista y puede dañar a la Comisión como motor de la integración. Pero la Unión todavía no ha salido de su laberinto, en el que se metió una vez descarriló la Constitución europea en 2005: queda por completar la ratificación de Polonia y de la República Checa del nuevo pacto. El presidente Vaclav Klaus se ampara para no fimar en un segundo recurso de inconstitucionalidad contra Lisboa presentado en Praga esta semana. Este euroescéptico recalcitrante espera a que David Cameron gane las elecciones en el Reino Unido en primavera y promueva un referéndum sobre el Tratado.
Si británicos y checos lo permiten, las nuevas reglas del juego europeo mejorarán algunos aspectos del funcionamiento de las instituciones y fortalecerán la política exterior y la cooperación en asuntos de justicia e interior. No obstante, este Tratado contiene aspectos criticables como la poca claridad deliberada con la que está redactado y la proliferación de nuevos puestos unipersonales en un sistema institucional ya muy complejo. En conjunto Lisboa no supone un salto cualitativo en la integración económica y política, sino un paso adelante más y un reconocimiento expreso del papel preponderante de Alemania, no sólo en el Parlamento Europeo sino también en el Consejo de Ministros, como si en la Unión hubiese dos Cámaras bajas. (more…)
Antitrust damages actions: recent developments
Charlotte Leskinen
May 13, 2009
On March 26, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules. In general, the Parliament is favorable to the Commission’s proposals on enhancing private enforcement of EC competition law, but stresses that any Community measure “must not lead to arbitrary or unnecessary fragmentation of procedural national laws” and that the Commission should examine the possibilities of proceeding in a horizontal or integrated way. It also requests the Commission to identify a legal basis for the adoption of the proposed measures. (more…)
La Unión ante la crisis
Jose M. de Areilza
6 de marzo, 2009
Entre las distintas propuestas para hacer frente a la crisis económica, el fortalecimiento del proyecto europeo es una de las que tienen más sentido. Las decisiones del reciente Consejo Europeo dando los primeros pasos para que exista una supervisión financiera común apuntan en esta dirección esperanzadora. Sin embargo, en general la crisis está llevando sobre todo hacia un repliegue de emergencia hacia lo estatal, como si no nos gobernásemos en buena medida desde Bruselas. La negativa a aprovechar a fondo el sistema comunitario está sin duda relacionada con el hecho de que la Unión no atraviesa su mejor momento político y está saliendo de unos años difíciles.
Conviene recordar que las instituciones, normas y principios europeos han contribuido seriamente a la prosperidad compartida del continente durante más de medio siglo. Las autoridades de Bruselas gestionan junto con los gobiernos nacionales una combinación hasta ahora exitosa de libertad económica y protección social. Los principios de libre competencia, no discriminación y eliminación de barreras a la libre circulación de factores de producción conforman una verdadera «constitución económica» que ha dado resultados muy positivos y ha hecho más transparente y racional cualquier intervención pública en la economía. La Unión Europea es un límite permanente y eficaz contra el proteccionismo, esa «filosofía de guerra» en palabras de Ludwig von Mises.
Además la Unión posee una notable capacidad de aprendizaje e innovación en el diseño de políticas comunes en el mercado interior, y goza de una visión de conjunto privilegiada sobre el espacio económico comunitario. También posee un potencial aún no utilizado a fondo para proyectar los intereses comunes europeos en el mundo. (more…)
Class actions in Europe – the fear of the unknown?
Charlotte Leskinen
December 12, 2008
Recently the European Commission published a Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress which provides options for how to facilitate redress in situations where large numbers of consumers have been harmed by a single trader’s practice which is in breach of consumer law. A survey requested by Directorate-General for Health and Consumers suggests that 76% of consumers in the EU would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could bring an action together with other consumers.
Breaches of the EC antitrust rules fall outside the scope of the Green Paper, but the recent White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules also proposes the introduction of collective antitrust damages actions, namely representative actions, which would be brought by qualified entities on behalf of some or all of their members, and opt-in actions in which victims expressly decide to combine their individual claims into one single action. However, similar to the field of consumer law, it seems that there is a certain degree of hostility in Europe towards introducing class actions for damages that would be based on an opt-out mechanism, i.e. the possibility of bringing claims also on behalf of unidentified class members. It is a common fear that the introduction of class actions would lead to the adoption of a US-style litigation culture. For instance, the EU Consumer Affairs Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has expressly ruled out the US-style system of class actions for damages.
But also many antitrust practitioners and academics are strongly opposed to class actions. They fear that frivolous class actions might be brought and that defendants will be forced to settle in order to avoid paying large damages awards. Other features of the US civil procedure, such as jury-trials and treble damages, which can but do not always accompany a class action, are also often perceived as an inherent part of the class action. In fact, in the US, treble damages may not only be sought in antitrust class actions, but are also the result of a successful individual action seeking damages for an antitrust violation. In addition, it is often conveniently forgotten that abuses of the class action device mainly occur in other fields of law, while the complexity and uncertainty in the outcome of antitrust class actions tend to limit the abuses.
Privacy law and street views
José M. de Areilza
November 17, 2008
I have just read a very interesting article in the International Herald Tribune about the problems Google is having in different European countries to introduce its new mapping service, called Street View. This new product offers all kinds of photographs of buildings and addresses. The problem is of course the use of personal images or property without prior authorization. Privacy laws in Germany and Switzerland do not allow this new new thing, but more relaxed standards in France, Italy and Spain so far have allowed it.
Here are some questions for data protection experts, public lawyers and informed citizens who read this blog (being only one of the three is OK): Isn’t this a matter for an European common Standard? Why are so different the sensitivities in the North and South of Europe? Is strict protection of privacy a disincentive for technological innovation and investment in the our continent, like the above mentioned multinational company has hinted?
Solving the crisis without the European Union?
José M. de Areilza
October 23, 2008
It is too early to know if the measures taken by governments everywhere will be enough to create confidence and solve the credit crisis. But what is already clear is that the EU has not been an important actor so far in the global attempt to rescue the system. Moreover, these past weeks national governments have used the EU to back national measures already taken by them, often in rivalry with each other. They have ignored largely EU institutions, EU procedures and norms and EU principles governing EMU and the internal market. Intergovermentalism and improvised directorates have prevailed over the “Community method”.
With Sarkozy at the helm and reconnecting with the worst French “dirigisme”, there is even talk in Europe about creating national Sovereign Wealth Funds to compete with the SWF’s from China, South East Asia, Russia or other oil countries, even though normally these funds are opaque, politicized and unaccountable structures, and do not meet very basic corporate governance standards. Sarkozy’s suggestion to stay as super-president of the Eurogroup -why not life tenure as Préfet of G-4?- is also a way to contest the legitimate right of the Czech Republic to hold the rotating presidency of the Council from January 1, 2009.
The worst of all is that the EU system of economic governance needs to be strengthened at least to offer common financial supervision and to speak with one voice on international monetary issues. But future transfers of power to the EU seems to be out of the question, after we have seen who and how we decide on the exceptional moment.