Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BDI/BDA BRUSSELS UPDATETHE GERMAN BUSINESS REPRESENTATION
February 2016
»More science in politics«
The theme of »innovation« was the focusof the speech by Marijn Dekkers, Chair-man of Bayer AG’s Board of Manage-ment, at BDI’s 37th Brussels BusinessDebate. Under the title, »A practical vi-sion for innovation: the case for morescience in politics« he called for techno-logical progress to be promoted withgreater courage and resolve.
>> page 2
Refugee policy
Joint statement on asylumand refugee policy
BDA, BDI and ZDH support a coordina-ted procedure and a fair sharing of theburdens of absorbing and integratingrefugees.
>> page 3
Tax policy
Combatingtax avoidance
On 28 January 2016 the EuropeanCommission presented its package ofmeasures on combating tax avoidance.
>> page 4
EU Council Presidency
Netherlands takes over EUCouncil Presidency
The Netherlands took over the EU Coun-cil Presidency on 1 January 2016. ThePresidency is taking place in a difficultpolitical context.
>> page 2
Data protection
EU general data protectionregulation
On 15 December 2015 agreement wasreached on the final version of a futureEU general data protection regulation.
>> page 4
Further issues
Better regulation agenda>> page 5Better regulation agenda>> page 5
Trade secrets>> page 6Trade secrets>> page 6
EU pension fund directive>> page 7EU pension fund directive>> page 7
Further issues>> page 7Further issues>> page 7
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 02
»More science in politics« »More science in politics«
The theme of »innovation« was the focus of the speech by Ma-rijn Dekkers, Chairman of Bayer AG’s Board of Management, atBDI’s 37th Brussels Business Debate. Under the title, »A practi-cal vision for innovation: the case for more science in politics«he called for technological progress to be promoted with greatercourage and resolve.
From the ageing population through to climate change: accor-ding to Dekkers, innovations are urgently needed in order to ad-dress the current most important challenges. Innovation alsoplays a decisive role for international competitiveness. As anexample, he cited China: since 2000, China has increased itsshare in scientific publications in the field of chemicals from 7percent to 28 percent. He warned that Europe must not rest onits laurels: »We cannot allow ever more technologies to be lostto other regions«.
In addition, Dekkers underlined that public scepticism vis-à-visnew technologies is growing in Europe. Companies must workto counter this scepticism: »We in industry have a duty to takepublic fears seriously and convince people of the advantages ofinnovations«.
Dekkers believes that policy-makers also have a duty. Even ifinnovation was ultimately generated in laboratories and compa-nies, the key to success was still above all an innovation-fri-endly environment: »Scientific progress and technological inno-vation must go hand in hand with an appropriate degree of re-gulation.« To make innovation the top priority, an »innovation
principle« must be integrated in the European legislative pro-cess: it must in future be verified whether new regulation hasthe effect of inhibiting innovation. »The precautionary principleshould be complemented with the innovation principle. Thatwould enable better regulation and more innovation.«
Contact:Louisa Plasberg (BDI), [email protected]
Netherlands takes over EU Council Presidency Netherlands takes over EU Council Presidency
The Netherlands took over the EU Council Presidency on1 January 2016. The Presidency is taking place in a difficult po-litical context. BDI and BDA hold discussions with representati-ves of the Dutch government in The Hague.
The Netherlands holds the Presidency of the EU Council of Mi-nisters from 1 January to 30 June 2016. The country takes overthe Presidency in difficult times: in the refugee crisis, PremierRutte’s government is under domestic political pressure and theEU faces a challenge; the outcome of the UK referendum is un-certain and the Netherlands is holding a referendum on the EU-Ukraine association agreement on 6 April 2016.
The Netherlands wants to use the Council Presidency to drivethe European Commission’s growth-relevant work programme.Top priority is tackling the refugee crisis. Monthly meetings of
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 03
EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers should contribute to theimplementation of existing Council decisions and to move for-ward discussions in the Council on the European Commission’sproposals – in particular on a fair sharing of the burdens of ab-sorbing and integrating refugees among EU Member States aswell as on the protection of EU coasts and borders. In the Com-petitiveness Council comprising EU Economics Ministers thefocus is on strengthening the Single Market in particular for ser-vices, digitalisation of industry and the circular economy. In theCouncil for Employment, Social Policy, Health and ConsumerProtection, the priority will be on the »Labour Mobility Package«which contains several legislative measures. At the start of thePresidency, BDI travelled to The Hague. Supported by its Dutch
partner organisation VNO-NCW, it opened an exchange with re-presentatives of the Council Presidency on the respective priori-ties. BDA will set out employers’ expectations in greater detail inan upcoming delegation visit in the Netherlands.
You can find the Dutch Council Presidency’s work pro-gramme here.
Contacts:Séverine Féraud (BDA), [email protected] Plasberg (BDI), [email protected]
Joint statement by BDA, BDI and ZDH on asylum and refugee policy Joint statement by BDA, BDI and ZDH on asylum and refugee policy
In their joint statement, the Presidents of the Association of Ger-man Employers’ Confederations (BDA), the Federation of Ger-man Industries (BDI) and the German Confederation of SkilledCrafts (ZDH) support the German Federal Government’s com-mitment to a coordinated procedure and a fair sharing of theburdens of absorbing and integrating refugees across EU Mem-ber States. Only a pan-European solution is possible accordingto Ingo Kramer (BDA), Ulrich Grillo (BDI) and Hans Peter Woll-seifer (ZDH). Furthermore, Schengen must not be jeopardised,otherwise this would be »a severe setback for the EuropeanUnion and its citizens, for whom freedom of travel and unimpe-ded cross-border business activity are of primordial importan-ce.«
Germany will continue to perform the humanitarian task of wel-coming refugees. Nevertheless, the forces of only some coun-tries must not be overstretched. The Presidents therefore speakout in favour of a »consistent return of rejected asylumseekers.« The ongoing inflow of refugees also needs to decrea-se. To this end, Kramer, Grillo and Wollseifer support efforts for»effective control of the EU’s borders, the fight against the cau-ses of flight, bilateral agreements with the most important transitcountries, in particular Turkey, and financial support for Statesin the regions from which a very large majority of refugees arefleeing.«
The joint statement also sets out proposals for rapid and consis-tent integration in training and work. Among other things, thePresidents call for asylum seekers and tolerated residents with
good prospects of being allowed to stay in Germany to be giventraining courses, a national training residence permit which isuniform and dependable from the outset as well as access to allvocational education capacities.
The joint statement can be found here.
Contacts:Séverine Féraud (BDA), [email protected] Nikolay (BDI), [email protected]
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 04
European Commission presents package of measures on combating tax avoidance European Commission presents package of measures on combating tax avoidance
On 28 January 2016 the European Commission presented itspackage of measures on combating tax avoidance. This is partof its agenda for more efficient corporate taxation in the EU.The package comprises an anti-base erosion and profit shif-ting/BEPS directive, a revision of the administrative cooperationdirective (»country-by-country reporting«), a recommendationon implementation of measures to combat abuse of tax treatiesas well as a communication on an external strategy for effectivetaxation between the EU and third countries.
BDI and BDA broadly welcome the European Commission’s in-itiative for uniform minimum standards in corporate taxation.Consistent definitions and a coordinated procedure for imple-mentation of the OECD BEPS action plan within the EU could
limit the danger of Europe-wide double taxation of companies.Nevertheless, the European Commission must secure the com-petitiveness of Europe as a location for business. Investmentsand cross-border business activity must not be impededthrough new tax standards. It is therefore all the more importantto have binding dispute settlement mechanisms. An appropriateproposal is currently missing and needs to be added urgently bythe European Commission.
Even if many of the European Commission’s proposals are veryclose to German legislation on anti-abuse rules to deter taxavoidance by companies, some points still need to be fine-tu-ned. These are for instance the definitions in the general abuseclause or tax adjustments in the area of restrictions on interestdeductibility. In these fields, the European Commission propo-ses provisions which are sometimes in conflict with successfullypracticed national legislation.
In the upcoming deliberations with the European Commission,German business will act to ensure that clarifications are madeon these points. In addition, it is important that the EuropeanCommission does not go beyond the requirements set out byOECD.
Contacts:Ralph Brügelmann (BDI), [email protected]éverine Féraud (BDA), [email protected]
Breakthrough on EU general data protection regulationBreakthrough on EU general data protection regulation
On 15 December 2015 negotiating partners from Commissionand European Parliament as well as the Luxembourg CouncilPresidency reached agreement in trilogue on the final version ofa future EU general data protection regulation. The final textversions still have to be formally adopted by European Parlia-ment and Council during the first quarter of 2016. The new re-quirements should be applicable from 2018.
BDI and BDA welcome the conclusion of the trilogue negotiati-ons. As a regulation, the reform package will supersede thepatchwork of different data protection rules that still exists withinthe EU and largely harmonise data protection in the EU from2018. This and the application of the principle: lex loci solutio-nis are of great advantage for German business.
In addition, particularly important for business are above all thefollowing provisions: as a general rule, consent of the data sub-ject must be given by a clear affirmative action but not »ex-
pressly«. This means that conclusive consent can be given, forinstance in general terms and conditions. However, in the caseof particularly sensitive data (e.g. health data), consent must begiven »expressly«. This provision – in particular the possibilityto give conclusive consent as a general rule – is extremely wel-come since this enables companies to manage statements ofconsent relatively workably in day-to-day practice.
In principle, a change in the purpose of data use should be pos-sible. It should thus be possible to process data for purposesother than as originally foreseen if these are »compatible« withthe original purpose. For this assessment, the conditions in ar-ticle 6 paragraph 3 a) in particular have to be taken into ac-count. According to point e), a change of purpose is permissibleinter alia if certain security mechanisms such as encryption orpseudonymisation are applied. According to article 76 para-graph 1 of the regulation, collective redress should always bepossible insofar as the individuals affected mandate an
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 05
appropriate association to lodge a complaint on his or her be-half.
Collective actions for damages by an association should bepossible if the individuals affected so mandate and if this is pro-vided for in the law of the Member State. According to article 76paragraph 2 of the regulation, such a group action can bebrought without a mandate only if this is provided for in the lawof the Member State.
The level of possible sanctions for infringements of the regula-tion is now set at a maximum of four percent of worldwideturnover.
It is welcome that no data controller liability without fault is to beintroduced and that article 7 enshrines as express linkage ban.This means that conclusion of a contract cannot be made de-pendent on consent to processing insofar as these data are notnecessary for execution of the contract.
In article 82 as well as in recital 124 it is now provided that morespecific rules for the processing of personal data in the employ-ment context can be agreed in collective agreements. On the in-itiative of Germany, it is clarified in recital 124 that company-le-vel agreements also fall within the concept of »collective agree-ments«.
According to article 7 in conjunction with recital 124 on article82, it is clear that the possibility to give consent in the employ-ment relationship continues to obtain. The conditions underwhich personal data can be processed in the employment con-text on the basis of the employee’s consent can be establishedin the Member State’s law or collective agreements.
Regarding group data protection, it will be specified in recital38a that a justified interest can exist in transferring personaldata within a corporate group or institution to a central point forinternal administrative purposes, including the processing ofpersonal data of customers and employees.
Article 82 regulates that Member States can enact more specificprovisions for protection of employee data. As a result, require-ments for protection of employee data will not be uniform acrossthe EU. However, BDA had deployed efforts for wide-rangingharmonisation, also of employee data protection.
BDI and BDA will also continue to flank actively the process oftransposing and implementing the general data protection regu-lation in the Member States.
Contacts:Carolina Müller (BDI), [email protected] De Vita (BDA), [email protected]
Better regulation agenda: interinstitutional agreement and REFIT platform Better regulation agenda: interinstitutional agreement and REFIT platform
The European Commission is implementing its better regulationagenda presented on 19 May 2015. On the one hand, in mid-December an agreement was reached between representativesof the European Parliament, the Council and the Commissionon the draft interinstitutional agreement on better regulation. Inaddition, the REFIT platform started its work on29 January 2016.
The interinstitutional agreement (IIA) on better regulation is apolitical commitment by Council, Parliament and Commission tocomply with the principles of better regulation set out therein.The document had been under discussion between the three in-stitutions since summer 2015. Commission and Council havealready endorsed the agreements, the Parliament still has toconfirm the IIA formally. From the viewpoint of stakeholders, afew important elements have been deleted or watered down.
Nevertheless, it is welcome that overall it has been possible toagree solid rules on compliance with the principles of better re-gulation. However, the institutions and the Member States nowhave the task of applying the content consistently and imple-menting it within their own structures.
It has been agreed that there should in future be stronger coor-dination of the Commission with the Council and the Parliamenton the annual work programme and on the interinstitutional pro-gramme planning. Precise timetables for legislative acts as wellas their legal basis should also be a component of the work pro-gramme in order to enable stakeholders to plan better andcreate a clearer overview. It will be clarified that impact assess-ments should be an instrument on the basis of which substan-tiated policy decisions can be reached. Council and Parliamentundertake to carry out impact assessments on substantive
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 06
amendments at their own discretion. What is meant by »sub-stantive« is determined by the institution in question itself. Onits own initiative, the Commission can supplement its impact as-sessments to take account of the stage reached in the legisla-tive procedure. But impact assessments should not lead to anydelay in the legislative procedure or be a precondition foramendment proposals.
It is positive that express reference is made to the conse-quences for competitiveness and that digital aspects will in fu-ture be taken into consideration. It is also positive that the spe-cial nature of social partner agreements at EU level is recogni-sed. However, one point of criticism is that the relationship ofpublic consultations or stakeholder consultations on the oneside and social partner consultations regulated under Europeanlaw on the other side should be differentiated more clearly. It isconsiderably to be regretted that the proposal for establishmentof an independent body for all three institutions tasked with qua-lity control of changes to legislative proposals in the legislativeprocedure has been deleted. Furthermore there is no externalverification of impact assessments by the institutions and there-fore the coherence of a legislative act in the legislative proce-dure cannot be ensured.
The agreement also regulates a comprehensive involvement ofstakeholders in consultations. Even if this obligation is broadlywelcome, practice since summer 2015 already reveals a nega-tive trend. There is still no clear reference to the 2002 minimumstandards for consultations. Consequently, a greater weightingof input from representative organisations as compared with in-dividual opinions is not guaranteed. Accordingly, it is increasin-gly the case that there is high participation in consultations with
the submission of identically worded standard responses whichdo not add any perceptible value.
The issue of gold-plating is also addressed for the first time. Wi-thout the term being used, Member States are only expected toreport to the Commission everything that is to be added at na-tional level in the framework of transposing EU law. As a result,the incentive for Member States to avoid gold-plating is not verystrong (this often happens at regional and local level).
The REFIT platform decided on May 2015 has also met for thefirst time, on 29 January. Representatives from 28 MemberStates and a total of 20 stakeholders are supposed to supportthe Commission in the analysis of proposals for cutting red tapewith their expertise. The results of the work then flow into theCommission’s work programme for the coming year. The viewsof business are represented by BUSINESSEUROPE.
BDI and BDA also continue to contribute actively on the themeof better regulation. If the instruments available in the better re-gulation package are applied consistently and are implementedin the EU institutions and Member States, they will help tocreate streamlined and efficient provisions for the European sin-gle market. Nevertheless, the agreements reached must not re-main lip service.
Contacts:Carolina Müller (BDI), [email protected] Veillerobe (BDA), [email protected]
Trade secrets: design of informant protection unduly strong Trade secrets: design of informant protection unduly strong
On 28 January 2016 the European Parliament’s Legal AffairsCommittee confirmed the compromise on the proposal for a di-rective on protection of trade secrets. On mid-December 2015Commission, EP and Council had agreed a common position inthe framework of the informal trilogue. The design of informantprotection is unduly strong.
Article 5 of the directive addresses aspects of informant protec-tion. In this regard, it should be established when action cannotbe taken via legal remedies against the supposed acquisition,the supposed use or disclosure of trade secrets, etc. Accordingto article 5b, this should be the case if the disclosure, etc., ofthe trade secret has occurred for the purpose of exposing irre-gular behaviour, a criminal act or an illegal activity under the
condition that the defendant has acted to protect the generalpublic interest. Thus, it should then also not be possible to takeaction against the supposed acquisition, the supposed use ordisclosure of trade secrets via legal remedies, etc., if this hasoccurred in exercise of the right of freedom of expression andfreedom of information in accordance with the Charter of Fun-damental Rights. The same applies if protection of a legitimateinterest recognised by national or EU law is involved. In addi-tion, it should be possible for employees to disclose a trade se-cret to their representatives as part of the legitimate exercise oftheir representation functions in accordance with national law orEU law. Substantive improvements could also be made in ar-ticle 5 of the proposal for a directive.
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 07
For instance, the Commission’s original call for the disclosure,etc., of trade secrets to be allowed to meet a non-contractualobligation has not been retained. By contrast, the dubious fun-damental orientation of article 5 of the proposal for a directiveremains in place. The compromise reached still has to be con-firmed by the European Parliament voting in plenary, the Coun-cil and the Commission. Nevertheless, major changes can nolonger be expected. BDA and BDI will also continue to followimplementation of the directive in the Member States actively.
The directive has to be implemented by Member States twoyears after publication in the Official Journal and entry into for-ce.
Contacts:Carolina Müller (BDI), [email protected] Veillerobe (BDA), [email protected]
Vote in the EP’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on the EU pension funddirective Vote in the EP’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on the EU pension funddirective
On 25 January 2016 members of the EP’s Economic and Mone-tary Affairs Committee (ECON) reached agreement on the clearimprovements to the Commission’s proposal for a revision ofthe EU pension fund directive sought predominantly by rappor-teur Brian Hayes (EPP group, Ireland). BDA jointly with theConfederation of German Trade Unions (DGB) and the GermanAssociation for Occupational Pensions (aba) has worked to-wards this outcome.
It is particularly welcome that the ECON Committee rejectsenabling provisions which could smooth the way to applicationof Solvency II capital adequacy requirements to institutions foroccupational retirement provision (IORP). The clarification in therecitals that IORP must not be equated with financial servicesundertakings is also very welcome. In addition, it has been pos-sible to reduce the additional bureaucratic burdens on IORPthrough information obligations which are now better adapted tooccupational retirement provision practice.
Nevertheless, the ECON position still contains burdens forIORP. Thus, transfers of pension schemes of IORP now require
the agreement of a majority of members or their representati-ves. This requirement makes transfers of pension schemesconsiderably more difficult for practical reasons, and is hardlyappropriate for securing and safeguarding the interests of mem-bers. Moreover, the introduced obligation in the directive reviewto consider quantitative requirements (including capital ade-quacy requirements) applicable to IORPs runs counter to theirlegal certainty.
At the same time as the vote on the draft EU pension fund di-rective, a mandate for the opening of negotiations with theCouncil and European Commission was decided in the ECONCommittee. As deliberations continue, BDA will endeavour toensure that the improvements to the proposal for a directiveachieved to date by Council and EP are maintained and seekfurther necessary clarifications.
Contact:Séverine Féraud (BDA), [email protected]
Discussion on the future of Economic and Monetary Union Discussion on the future of Economic and Monetary Union
Under the title »How to strengthen the Economic and MonetaryUnion?« BDI jointly with the Konrad- Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS)organised a high-level panel debate at the end of January.
BDI Director General Markus Kerber discussed with ThomasWieser, President of the Euro Group Working Group, and MEPSiegfried Mureşan on the future of the Economic and MonetaryUnion (EMU). Kerber opened with a reference to the special na-ture of the current political situation: refugee crisis and Brexitnegotiations would also have effects on the room to manoeuvrefor political actors in EMU. He clarified BDI’s position as set outin its paper published in September 2015: structural reforms,fiscal consolidation, completion of the Banking and Capital Mar-ket Union, and a more uniform European economic policy mustbe at the heart of an EMU reform. Thomas Wieser also agreedwith the need for far-reaching reforms. The President of theEuro Group Working Group stressed: »There can be no fiscal
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 08
union without a political union.« According to Wieser, it is parti-cularly important to strike the right balance between the capa-city for political action and democratic accountability. Wieserpointed out that there is often too little ownership of reforms ne-gotiated in the European context at national level. MEP Sieg-fried Mureşan referred to the decisive role of public opinion: theEuropean population takes a very negative stance on structuralreforms. Kerber countered that it is the duty of political leadersto better explain the role of Europe: Europe’s main task is to
provide European public goods – a stable EMU is one suchgood.
You can find the publication here.
Contacts:Dr Wolfgang Eichert (BDI), [email protected] Plasberg (BDI), [email protected]
Event of BDI and KAS
Legislative framework 4.0 and digital working world: opportunities and challenges forcompanies and personnel in the »fourth industrial revolution« Legislative framework 4.0 and digital working world: opportunities and challenges forcompanies and personnel in the »fourth industrial revolution«
Economy, society and working world are going digital and facegreat challenges in this regard. BDI and BDA are devotingthemselves intensively to the opportunities and risks of »Indus-try 4.0« and »Work 4.0«, and in January 2016 shed further lighton these two themes in the framework of events.
BDI made a start on 13 January 2016 in Brussels in the frame-work of a joint event with the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in orderto present the results of a study commissioned by BDI on thelegal challenges of digitalisation.
For this purpose, BDI asked the law firm Noerr LLP to cataloguecentral legal problems of the digitalised economy in the frame-work of a survey among the legal affairs departments of nume-rous German companies.
The results were presented by Professor Bräutigam (NoerrLLP), one of the authors of the report. He came to the final con-clusion that European action is necessary in the areas of dataprotection, confidentiality, cloud computing, data ownership andbig data. Only in a few partial areas such as labour law wouldnational rules be more sensible. Michael Hager, Head of Cabi-net to European Commissioner Günther Oettinger, welcomedthe report as an important contribution for greater legal clarityand ultimately also legal certainty. In the subsequent panel dis-cussion before an audience of ninety guests, representatives ofindustry (Dr Martin Ahlfeld, Weidmüller Gruppe, as well as RalfDiemer, German Association of the Automotive Industry/VDA)with Mr Hager, Professor Klindt from Noerr and Mr Axel Voss,
Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Com-mittee, debated how policy-makers can set the right course fora successful digital transformation.
BDA applied itself to the opportunities and challenges of the di-gital working world for companies and work force in a confe-rence organised jointly with Daimler on 27 January 2016 inBrussels.
European Commissioner Günther Oettinger opened the eventand focused in his address on education and the need
BDI/BDA Brussels Update February 2016 09
Publisher: BDI - Federation of German IndustriesBreite Str. 29; 10178 Berlin; www.bdi.eu
Event of BDA and Daimler AG
for greater flexibility in the new working world. He called formore IT education on all educational levels starting at an earlyage. In addition, companies and their personnel would have toswitch to more flexible work models reflecting changed market
requirements. The subsequent panel discussion featured, MEPJutta Steinruck, Michel Servoz, Director General of DG Employ-ment, Social Affairs and Integration, European Commission,Stefan Kapferer, Deputy Secretary General of OECD, with thePresident of the German Employers’ Confederation Ingo Kra-mer as well as Wilfried Porth, Daimler AG’s Board of Manage-ment Member for Human Resources and Director of Labour Re-lations. All panel participants agreed on the need to include so-cial partners in the structuring of digital change. Employer Presi-dent Kramer stated: »Our common goal must be to exploit thepotential of education to the full. If we manage to do this, flexibi-lity is not a threat for us Europeans but an opportunity for ever-yone – the opportunity to determine how to lead our own livesand participate in our society through education and work.«
The results of the BDI study and the detailed legal report can befound here.
Contacts:Anne Meister (BDA), [email protected] Müller (BDI), [email protected] Stündel (BDI), [email protected]
Poland: European Commission starts Rule of Law framework Poland: European Commission starts Rule of Law framework
The European Commission has entered into a dialogue withPoland on strengthening the principle of the rule of law – out-come uncertain.
On 13 January 2016 the European Commission held an orienta-tion debate on the most recent political developments in Poland.First Vice-President Frans Timmermans was tasked with ente-ring into an exchange with Poland in order to clarify whetherthere are signs of a systematic threat to the rule of law inPoland. The background is constituted by controversial reformsto the constitutional court and public broadcasters which the Po-lish government of Prime Minister Szydło initiated immediatelyafter coming into office.
In so doing, the European Commission is making use for thefirst time of the new framework for strengthening the principle ofrule of law. The new instrument was introduced in March 2014 –inter alia in response to difficult discussions with Hungary on thecontentious media law enacted by the Orban government – inorder to prevent infringements of the rule of law as stipulated inarticle 2 TEU. It is a three-stage procedure followed by what istermed the »procedure in accordance with article 7«, at the end
of which the Council can impose sanctions (e.g. suspension ofvoting rights, suspension of structural funds).
The dialogue between the European Commission and Poland isstill at a very early stage. The Council of Europe’s Venice Com-mission is expected to present a report on the matter in mid-March 2016, on the basis of which the European Commissionwill decide how to move forward. If the European Commissionestablishes a systematic threat to the rule of law, a position anda recommendation from the European Commission to Polandwill follow before the procedure in accordance with article 7 istriggered. At the present juncture, it is completely unclear howfar the politically sensitive procedure will have to go so thatPoland – if at all necessary – makes corrections. Beyond this, aCouncil decision on sanctions against Poland is unlikely. TheCouncil would first have to determine unanimously that a se-rious and persistent infringement of the rule of law obtains. Hun-gary has already made clear that it would vote against.
Contacts:Séverine Féraud (BDA), [email protected] Ritz (BDI), [email protected]
Photo credits: BDI/ Veldeman (1, 2), © European Union 2016 - Source: EP (1, 2) URL-Link, Fotolia/ Jakub Janele (1, 3),Fotolia/ hd-design (1, 4), Fotolia/ kubais (1, 5), Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (7, 8), Erik Luntang-Jensen (9)
Editors: Joscha Ritz (Responsible in terms of German Press Law), Leonie DackThe responsibility for the content of external contributions rests with the respectiveauthor.
