Debate: The Council's lack of will to move the European cross-border mechanism forward
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Anže Logar
Language: EN

Let me just refresh the memory. Examination of the ECBM Regulation by the Working Party on Structural Measures started with an orientation debate in October 2018 and due to the complexity of the nature of the file, the Austrian Presidency requested the Council Legal Service to further scrutinise the dossier. The Council Legal Service opinion was delivered under the Croatian Presidency in March 2020 and the legal opinion was critical towards the Commission proposal. Then the German Presidency organised the follow up discussion on the legal opinion of the Council Legal Service, where the delegation was asked for clarification and questions of the various issues touched upon in the opinion.  The German Presidency also held an in-depth and inconclusive discussion on possible ways forward on the ECBM proposal. During the Portuguese Presidency an assessment of the possible way forward was presented to the delegation, including whether the legislative work on the Commission proposal should continue and, on 10 May, the Structural Measures Working Party decided that the Council would not continue to work on ECBM proposals. So, discussion took place during six consecutive presidencies and the final decision was taken, so the Slovenian Presidency inherited this decision.  There was a statement that the legal service of the council issued an opinion that is debatable. Since the legal service opinion is publicly available on the Council’s public register I will not go into the technical details and only highlight the key elements, but allow me as well to remind you that the Legal Service of the Parliament also adopted its opinion and the opinion tackles the same points as the Council’s legal service opinion.  Let me just outline several important issues of the Council legal service opinion. First, the mechanism, as proposed by the Commission, would confer bilateral agreements concluded among certain authorities of the Member States, the legal effects which are specific to European law. This would place the autonomy of the EU legal order in jeopardy, since those agreements would be taken away from the control of the EU legislator or the Court of Justice.  Second, the material scope of the proposal is not defined in a sufficiently precise manner and, as a consequence, risks undermining the exercise of other competences and policies of the Union. This would affect the institutional balance as laid down in the Treaties. Then the scope of application of the proposal also generated problems regarding cross-border cooperation with third countries since it would impinge on the way Member States negotiate and conclude agreements with third countries in matters that are not of exclusive EU content.  Last, but not least, the possibility of voluntary participation in the way it is currently laid down in the proposal, is not compatible with the Treaties. No opt-outs are allowed from cohesion policy under the Treaties. Any instrument based on the third subparagraph of Article 175 should apply uniformly to all Member States. This is from the legal opinion.  The Interreg community is a very active community, always exchanging best practices and common challenges to find the best solution. In that sense, I can reassure you that Member States are very aware of the analyses and studies available on cross-border obstacles. And yes, the Slovenian Presidency is fully aware of the importance of cross-border cooperation. Therefore, we are carefully analysing the special reports of the European Court of Auditors. We are currently examining and preparing Council conclusions on ECA Special Report 14/2021 on Interreg cooperation. The potential of the European Union cross border regions has not yet been fully unlocked. The Council conclusions should be available by the end of this month.  – Gospod predsednik. Spoštovane poslanke, spoštovani poslanci. Najlepša hvala za vaše pripombe in enotno stališče Evropskega parlamenta v zvezi z interregionalnim sodelovanjem.  Dotaknili ste se zelo pomembnih vprašanj. Teritorialno sodelovanje je eden od najbolj prepoznavnih rezultatov evropskega povezovanja in morali bi ga nadgrajevati. Ključno je poiskati pravo ravnotežje med pristopi od spodaj navzgor in spoštovanjem nacionalne suverenosti.  Vso pozornost in podporo moramo nameniti lajšanju vsakodnevnega življenja državljanov in državljank Evropske unije na obmejnih območjih. Prav tako se globoko strinjam, da je med pandemijo covid-19 postalo očitno, kako soodvisne so države članice in regije Evropske unije. Dejansko je pandemija nesorazmerno prizadela ravno obmejna območja.  V celoti gledano pa me veseli, da imamo skupen cilj – okrepiti potencial obmejnih regij Evropske unije. To bo lažje že zaradi regulativnega okvira za programsko obdobje 2021–2027, saj je posebni cilj v okviru programa Interreg za boljše upravljanje sodelovanja izboljšanje možnosti, da bodo v okviru programov Interreg za čezmejno sodelovanje dejavno obravnavane posebne obmejne ovire. Prav tako ne smemo pozabiti, da je skupna zavzetost najmočnejše orodje za premagovanje ovir. Kadar lokalni organi na obeh straneh meje delijo politično voljo za premagovanje upravnih in pravnih ovir, je vedno mogoče najti rešitev. Že brez evropskega čezmejnega mehanizma so bili pripravljeni zelo zanimivi projekti, ki ste jih sami v današnji razpravi večkrat omenili.  Uporabimo torej vse naše izkušnje in poskušajmo na podlagi dela, ki so ga opravile institucije, ugotoviti, kako lahko prispevamo k izboljšanju razmer v obmejnih regijah in umaknemo administrativne ovire, s katerimi se tovrstni projekti srečujejo. Hvala za pozornost.