They say that a vast majority of legislation adopted by parliaments in the Member States today is nothing but pure transposition and that, in these cases, national parliaments are reduced to “formal voting machines” and pass legislation “without thinking and without having a discussion”.
Given this, one can understand the frustration of the President of the Czech Republic who, using the expressions quoted above, vetoed a legislative proposal aiming at the transposition of Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community.
In his opinion, issued on 14 April 2010, the President complains that the way the proposal concerned was adopted (no thinking, no discussion) “negates the meaning of parliamentary democracy and is yet another step for the Czech Republic to cease to be a sovereign state”. According to the President, the proposal should have been thoroughly discussed, as “the emission trading system is another drastic interference with the economic freedom based on very doubtful grounds, since the global warming doctrine – in particular its scientific base – is in reality dead”.
In addition, the President points out that the Directive concerned is being transposed while the Commission is still to adopt its guidelines, the key document for the application of the legislation.
There might lie something in his last point (although it seems that the guidelines were adopted in the meantime), but the other points? Truly enough, national parliaments should not be reduced (and should not reduce themselves) to “formal voting machines”. Directives, however detailed, are still directives and leave some room for consideration (Article 288 TFEU: “A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.”). Within that room, the discussion is possible and indeed desirable. But outside that room, what can you do, the train is gone, the discussion was conducted in Brussels and is over. For that reason, the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union is definitely a good thing. (dk)
Further reading:
1) text of the veto of the President (in Czech)
2) Commission: Aviation and Climate Change
3) Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting. Do you think it could be a breach of EU law if the president vetoed the implementing legislative proposal explicitly and only for the reason that he doesn`t agree with the EU legislator (not with the national legislator)? Or could it be a breach of constitution? Didn`t he lose his right to veto under such circumstances by transfer of powers from the member state to the EU.
ReplyDeleteWell, that question could indeed become interesting. If the Court of Justice imposed a financial penalty for the non-transposition of the Directive (which it could now do already in its first judgment, see Article 260.3 TFEU), who should pay the penalty? The ministry responsible for the preparation of the legislation (that did it with due diligence and well in time), or the Parliament (because it failed to think and discuss), or the President? Obviously, it will always be from the budget (or out of the pockets of the taxpayers, to be more precise), but the question from whose chapter of the budget this would be paid is not without significance.
ReplyDeleteOn the power of the President to veto legislation in general, I would say he does keep the power . After all, the Constitution (see Article 50) gives him the power to veto legislation on any grounds (the veto has to be reasoned, nothing more). And after all, the President's veto is not definitive and can be overruled by the lower house of the Parliament. It just make things more difficult.
Yes, but according to the Constitution has the Parliament power to adopt legislation and the Constitution says also that some of the powers can be transferred to the EU. And it doesn't provide concretely which powers are being transferred - this provide the treaties.
ReplyDeleteSo when the Parliament could lose his power to adopt a legislation in several areas, why couldn't we say that the President has lost his legislative power (i.e. power to veto a proposal) in such areas too.
I think it is not question of national (constitutional) law, but first of all question of the EU law. By the treaties have the member states transferred their powers, that's why we should look for the answer on question, which powers have been transferred, in the treaties.
And then we can ask whether we could talk about transferred (and lost) powers in the situation where the EU legislator adopted only a directive.