The European Services Directive has been one of the most controversial projects of European Law. Drafted by the Prodi European Commission in 2004, it became a core issue in the French debate over the European Constitution one year later despite its being juridically quite unrelated to the Treaty. The Directive, nicknamed the "Bolkestein Directive" in reference of Fritz Bolkestein, the former Commissary for the internal market, has mainly become the scapegoat of the euro-frustration many have been feeling. The main result is that both the European Constitution and the European Services Directive weren't allowed a fair trial and sentenced, by the French and Dutch population for the Treaty, by the French President Jacques Chirac in a useless attempt to save the Treaty for the Directive. In December 2006, an agreement was found between the European Parliament and the Council, and the Directive finally voted, in a surprisingly calm atmosphere considering its history.
What is the meaning of this absence of reaction to this second legislative round ? Can we assume that it is because this second Services Directive is considerably better than the first?
Or does it imply that the original Directive has been milked down to a very limited text, and therefore easier to accept? Could it simply be that the attention span of the European citizens has them overlook an issue that a few months earlier they were passionate about? Such questions will be the guideline of this paper on the European Services Directive. The first part of the paper will be devoted to the European Services Directive as it was first drafted and to the genesis of the project, its aims and its justifications. The second part will deal with the problems the Directive met, the controversy and which changes the new Directive has introduced consequently.
[...] The symbol of this fear has been the “polish plumber”, that would come in the richer member states while continuing to work for a polish wage. It seems that this fear takes also its source from the fact that the population of the 15 weren't asked if they wanted to accept the new members. This criticism is based for the better part on a incomprehension of the text. Indeed, as it has been mentioned, the “country of origin” principle doesn't apply to a group of minimal social standards : a provider will in any event be paid according to the minimal wages and will have the legal numbers of paid days of leave. [...]
[...] The Directive consolidates the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. The Court has fought against unjustified discrimatory legislation such as the one in the “Cassis de Dijon” case, 20th of february 1979 decision case 120/78[4]. Germany refused to import ”Cassis de Dijon” because of a law forbidding the sale of spirits under 32°. The problem was that this law was in practice a protectionnist measure for Germany didn't produce spirits under and so only foreign products were forbidden. By establishing the directive, the European Union confirms this trend and makes rights and duties clearer for the member states and the service providers. [...]
[...] Derogatory fields : The Directive will not apply to all fields although these derogatory fields are as suggests their name, exceptional. As it was pointed out higher, the definition of the services entails a “remuneration” so the Public Services or General Interest Services are left out, they are provided for free and are financed by national taxes. The fields in which there has already been European harmonisation such as postal services or gas and electricity distribution have been left out. [...]
[...] Betterment or diminution ? The fate of the first project of Directive was first compromised by the French President Jacques Chirac leading a front of protesting member states in march 2005. Then as the Directive was first examined by the Parliament in the beginning of 2006, as number of amendments were voted to better the Commission's project. This sent the Commission back to work and it decided to include many of the amendments in the new version. The Council agreed on the new version in May 2006, the Parliament did as well in November, and so the Directive was finally adopted on the 12th of December 2006. [...]
[...] One could criticise the politics involved for their sabotaging the project but the European Union is a political project, the actors involved in the fate of the European Services Directive are political actors and politic must be allowed its legitimate part if the European citizens are to fully understand the measure of that citizenship, and therefore understand Europe as a common project. The unfounded fears that have appeared concerning the Services Directive are proof that the European Union is still viewed by some as a threat and not a promise. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
