----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU and national administration practices and linkages

(2006/C 325/03)

On 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on EU and national administration practices and linkages

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 November 2006. The rapporteur was Mr van Iersel.

At its 431st plenary session held on 13 and 14 December 2006 (meeting of 14 December 2006), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes to 5 with 48 abstentions.

1.   Executive summary

2.   Introduction

3.   General context

4.   Coordination at national level

5.   Current developments

6.   Conclusions and recommendations

6.1   Conclusions

6.2   Recommendations

Brussels, 14 December 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

----

(1)OJ C 24, 31.1.2006.

(2)  White paper on European Governance, COM(2001) 428 final.

(3)  Commission Recommendation of 12 July 2004 on the transposition into national law of Directives affecting the internal market, (2005/309/EC).

(4)Coordinating European Union Affairs: How do different actors manage multilevel complexity?, Adriaan Schout and Andrew Jordan, 29 May 2006. The study analyses practices of coordination within the Commission, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. It reveals a wide range literature on sectoral aspects of this general theme, which shows at the same time that an overall analysis of practices in 25 Member States is still lacking.

(5)  See the Informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting, Tampere 20-22 September 2006 on the issue of ‘Improvement of decision-making in justice and home-affairs’.

(6)‘De Omzetting van Europese richtlijnen: Instrumenten, technieken en processen in zes lidstaten vergeleken’ (the transposition of European directives: a comparative study of instruments, techniques and processes in six Member States), Prof. Dr. B. Steunenberg and Prof. Dr. W. Voermans, University of Leyden, the Netherlands, 2006. Besides an in-depth analysis and recommendations regarding the Dutch situation the comparative study discusses Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

(7)  See Steunenberg en Voermans, Leyden, 2006.

(8)  See conclusions European Council, June 2006.

(9)  It is noteworthy that the initial reaction of public opinion in Denmark regarding the Constitutional Treaty was rather positive, just because more democratic and transparent procedures were foreseen in the Treaty. By contrast, the Comité de dialogue, a platform of the government and the social partners in France to discuss European affairs, has no longer practical significance.

(10)OJ C 24 of 31.01.2006. In this Opinion the EESC argues that, although Member States ‘should continue to enjoy discretion in determining their own implementation and procedures’, the next step ‘in the cooperation between EU Institutions and national authorities is strengthening or streamlining of national administrative capacity for policy application’, par. 4.2.1 and 4.2.4. In chapter 4 proposals are made to that end.

(11)  The ‘Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law’ (IMPEL), established in 1992, is an informal network of European regulators concerned with the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation. 30 countries — all Member States of the European Union, the two acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania, the two candidate countries Croatia and Turkey as well as Norway — and the European Commission now participate in the network.

----

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following Section Opinion text was rejected in favour of amendments adopted by the assembly but obtained at least one-quarter of the votes cast:

Outcome: 74 votes for amending the paragraph, 59 against and 16 abstentions.

----