The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 7 EIPASCOPE 2005/1 EIPASCOPE anniversary provides an oppor- th The Committee’s 10 institution that was established by the . However, it has established itself as a fixture in the institutional setting of the , and as such has made its mark on the political life of the continent. tunity to assess its performance so far, evaluate its current status and consider its future challenges and opportunities. This paper starts this overview by briefly looking at the way in which the CoR has organised itself internally, and in particular how it has managed to deal with the diversity of different interests that it has to bring together. A second section looks at the relations between the CoR and the other European institutions and actors, while also discussing its relationship with civil society in the EU. The subsequent section contains a brief assessment of the effectiveness of the Committee’s work, both in terms of the opinions given on EU policies and in terms of its place in the constitutional politics of the Union. Finally, we look at the more long-term effect of the CoR’s presence in the institutional architecture of the Union, beyond the impact of individual opinions and decisions. By way of conclusion, the implications for the Committee of the dual processes of constitutionalisation and of enlargement are discussed, providing the framework of opportunities and constraints in the coming years.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ , , , resp. Senior Lecturer and Research Assistant – EIPA Maastricht Lecturer and Research Assistant resp. Senior , , , Pamela Lintner Pamela Lintner Pamela Lintner** Pamela Lintner Pamela Lintner and

This article reviews the past, present and future challenges facing the Committee of the This article reviews the past, present It looks first at the way in which politics inside the Regions, 10 years after its creation. particular how internal divisions have been managed, Committee have developed, in between the Committee, the EU institutions and other prior to examining the relations on these observations, the article then briefly assesses actors on the national level. Based work, taking not only account of the opinions it has the effectiveness of the Committee’s impact its activity has had on the role of regions in the delivered, but also the wider the article then identifies some long-term trends in European Union. By way of conclusion of the Regions, and against this background looks the institutional life of the Committee Committee faces after the enlargement of the European ahead towards the challenges the Constitutional Treaty. Union and the adoption of the

Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen Thomas Christiansen The actual development of the CoR has been more Challenges for the Future* for the Challenges Lessons from the Past and Past from the Lessons Regions after 10 Years: Regions The Committee of the Committee The By modest, and some of the great expectations have not been met. Ten years on, the CoR is essentially still the same The creation of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) in 1994, following the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, was a milestone for the representation of local and regional interests in the European Union (EU). On the one hand, almost a decade after the agreement on the (SEA), it constituted the culmination of efforts by regional and local actors to be taken more seriously in the EU policy process. It was the SEA, with its economic and regulatory impact on regional and local authorities, that demonstrated the extent to which mattered to subnational levels of government. On the other hand, it was a high-point in this long-standing quest by regions for direct access to the summit of EU decision-making. There were some expectations that this achievement would soon be followed by even bolder steps towards an institutio- nalisation of the ‘third level’, with the more utopian scenarios going as far as speculating that the CoR would eventually be transformed into a new legislative chamber, alongside the (EP) and the Council. 1. Introduction EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 8 The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years return totheissues arisingfromthisinthefollowing section. other divisions thatcutacrossitsmembership. Wewill the CoRhasturnedouttobe moresignificantthanthemany session. Atleastprocedurally thepartypoliticaldivisionof decision tochangetheseating arrangementsintheplenary also reflectedintherecent opinions, somethingthatis ces andpreparationof work, allocationofresour- internal organisationof significant intermsofthe the CoRhavebecomemore rally, thepoliticalgroupsin of EUaffairsmoregene- the growingpoliticisation ingly significant.Reflecting that isbecomingincreas- and thisisinfactadivision along partypoliticallines, membership alsodivides based differences,theCoR national- orcompetence- that precededitscreation. of a‘EuropetheRegions’ from it,giventhediscourse that wasinitiallyexpected the kindofconsensualism sub-divisions withintheCoR,preventingitfromdeveloping Union. Butevensuchtransnationalgroupingsstillconstitute entities withsimilarinterestsfromacrosstheEuropean in ordertocreatetransnationalalliances,bringingtogether localities havesoughttoovercomenationallinesofconflict national interestsofMemberStates.However,regionsand national divisions,withgroupsofregionsechoingthe within eachMemberState,thisdiversitycreatesasetof local authoritiesdependontheconstitutionalarrangements To thedegreetowhichcompetencesofregionaland varying degreestowhichthesearefelthaveanimpact. posals fromtheEuropeanCommissiondependon the CoR:adiversemembershipwhoseresponsestopro- This isinfactoneofthecentralandpersistentdilemmas dividing themembersofCoRaroundaparticularissue. that competenceratherthansizeisakeyissueinunitingor considered legislative.Thelatterdistinctionalreadyindicates of themoreadministrativeregionsandthosethatcanbe are significantdifferences,suchasbetweenrepresentatives representatives. Butevenamongtheregionalactorsthere most obviousdistinctionisthatbetweenregionalandlocal Committee, therearedifferentcategoriesofmembers.The their originandactualparticipationintheworkof and intermediatelevelsofgovernment.Bothinterms together amultitudeofdifferentactorsfromregional,local The CoRrepresentsadiversityofinterests,andbrings TheInternalPoliticsoftheCommittee 2. Union. effectiveness oftheCoRwithinpoliticsEuropean what challengesremaintoenhancingthelegitimacyand been accomplished,wheremorecouldbeachieved,and juncture, seekingtodevelopanunderstandingofwhathas issues andcriticalquestionsabouttheCoRatthisparticular Throughout thepaperemphasiswillbeonraising www.eipa.nl Finally, onecanalso discusstherelationship between In additiontosizeand thepoliticalgroupsin the internalorganisation preparation of opinions. CoR havebecomemore affairs moregenerally, Reflecting thegrowing significant intermsof of work,allocation politicisation ofEU

of resourcesand

○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○ subjects itcovers). decision toembarkonanexpansivestrategygiventhe which raisesquestionsaboutthewisdomofCoR’s from thatoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee(something taken earlyontodisengagetheadministrationofCoR situation thatinturnraisesquestionsaboutthedecision clear limitstowhatisonofferfortheCommittee–a CoR. Intermsofoveralladministrativesupport,thereare this hasalsobeenanareathatcauseddifficultiesforthe surrounded theappointmentofseniorstaffinSecretariat, However,giventhefrequentcontroversiesthathave working fortheSecretariat-General. effective representationrestsontheshouldersofofficials Ministers, muchoftheresponsibilityforcontinuityand Secretariats oftheEuropeanParliamentandCouncil support andthedraftingofopinions.Justaswith and plenarymeetings,butalsointermsoftheresearch resource, notonlyintermsofthelogisticsCommission The Secretariat-GeneraloftheCommitteeisavaluable of theEUbudgetandservinginterestsitsmembers. the creationofapermanentstaffCoR,financedout Part ofthebenefitinstitutionalisationhascoursebeen elected membersandtheSecretariat-GeneralofCoR. .TheCommittee’sRelationshipwithother 3. cation and cooperation couldstill beimproved. Suchan Commission and theCoR,formalchannels ofcommuni- advice. Despite thisinformationexchange betweenthe Commission tocomeupwith proposals,reportsandpolicy statements, butisalso actively encouragedbythe appeals totheCommission withitsopinionsandother emphasised itsdesiretofurtherpromotedialoguebetween between theCoRandCommission,Committeehas CoR plenarysessions.Basedonacooperationprotocol CoR. Fromthebeginning,Commissionwaspresentin the Commissionwasstrengthenedwithcreationof process, andthisstronglinkbetweentheregionallevel of regionsandlocalitieshavingaroleintheEUpolicy The EuropeanCommissionhasbeenalong-standingally and CivilSociety European Institutions,theMemberStates of Commissionproposals.” ratory reportsinadvance the preparationofexplo- policy, forexamplethrough proactive roleinexamining ges theCoRto“playamore the Commissionencoura- on EuropeanGovernance, its ideas.InWhitePaper information andtospread policies, togainfirst-hand better applicationofits from itsdesiretoachieve cal representativesarises interest inregionalandlo- meetings. mission memberstoCoR vely involveandinviteCom- Commission, andtoacti- sentatives andthoseofthe its ownhigh-levelrepre- Thus theCoRnotonly The Commission’s The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 9 EIPASCOPE 2005/1 EIPASCOPE In the context of EU enlargement, the CoR has taken an Generally, the CoR also sees itself as a channel for the that it is the only body to officially represent regional that it is the only body to officially addition, while the interests at the European level. In single regions to conclusion of tripartite contracts with and programmes better ensure implementation of legislation welcomed by the with strong territorial impact is generally own involvement. A CoR, it also strongly advocates its by hori- vertical decentralisation, probably supplemented partnerships with zontal interregional cooperation and would allow for a other local authorities and civil society, to protect regional more flexible and efficient approach of the central interests – but it might come at the expense position that the CoR currently holds. In such a scenario, the CoR could end up serving as a platform for a variety of different actors, rather than being seen as an actor in its own right. important initiative by serving as a forum for discussions and cooperation between the regional and local authorities of the EU and the regional and local authorities of the new Member States and the Candidate Countries. To give one example, at the moment the CoR cooperates with national regions of , via the specially set up Joint Consultative Committee, discussing regional issues in the context of EU accession. flow of information to the wider public and seeks to maintain direct contact with citizens and civil society. However, the CoR itself remains a -based body and – along with the other European institutions – suffers from the problems associated with being distant from the Union’s citizens. A broader, more structured and more systematic engagement of the CoR with individual regional and local authorities as well as with civil society organisations and the CoR itself might enhance participation of the wider public – something that could help to strengthen the legitimacy of the CoR in the policy process.

○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ EC-CE © CoR, 2000-2004 Recently the CoR has made greater efforts to involve The CoR’s relationship with the Council is clearly the The relationship be- other institutions and relevant associations in its seminars and events – in particular the leading European local and regional associations... In response to the Commission’s Working Paper on “ongoing and systematic dialogue with local-government associations”, the regions themselves generally thought that the CoR should (only) have a complementary and auxiliary function to such associations, rather than the principal role that had been proposed by the Commission. In this sensitive field of inter-regional coope- ration, a greater systematisation of the permanent dialogues between the Commission and the single associations could lead to the rather paradoxical outcome of competition between the regions and the CoR, with the latter claiming weakest one. As an advisory body the CoR already gives its opinion on Commission proposals and there seems to be little purpose in the Council consulting the CoR again subsequently. Neither does the Council issue official reports on whether or not it has taken CoR opinions into account. And even according to the Constitutional Treaty, the presence of regions with legislative capacities in the Council will continue to depend on individual Member States and their internal structure. tween the CoR and Par- liament has always been a rather ambiguous one: being potential allies and rivals at the same time. It is only in the last few years and their that better interaction between CoR Commissions In March 2002, respective EP Committees has taken place. was opened up by the for the first time since this possibility use of its right to , Parliament made of cooperation can consult the CoR. A further strengthening order reflecting the be expected due to the new seating On the one party political affiliation of CoR members. better lobbying with hand, this change may facilitate (MEPs) through the Members of the European Parliament hand such a seating political party groups, but on the other being taken less order also carries the risk of CoR opinions seriously by the Commission and Council who may come to regard the CoR as a pale imitation of the EP. improvement would not improvement CoR less make the only on the goodwill dependent but of the Commission, perhaps mainly also – and transparency – improve its work more and make to the open and accessible a more public. To provide Com- fruitful input, the itself mission and the CoR need continue to stress the formal for a better, more invol- and more effective vement of the Committee in preliminary consul- tations, the pre-proposal of phase and in the design long-term policy strategies which have an impact at the local or regional level. 10 EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years the environment and thegeneralarea ofculture. Theseare knowledge in themoretechnicalfieldsof agricultureand core areas, while havingdifficultyproviding special do drawupbetterandmore substantivereportsintheir follow-up. Butitcanbeassumed thattheCoRCommissions quality also attachesimportanceto theCoR’sopinion. setting upTerritorialEmployment Pacts,theCommission with theinvolvementoflocalandregionalauthorities in started programmeswithregionalimpact,forexample authorities. InotherareaswheretheCommission has undertakings, andtransportaffectinglocalregional with theStructuralFunds,smallandmedium-sized possess additionalandsubstantiveexpertise–asisthecase CoR inareaswhereonecanexpectthetoactually Generally itseemsthattheCommissiondoesfollow the is alsoattributedtoopinionsoneconomyandemployment. expertise: regionalpolicyandtheStructuralFunds.Impact account ofare–unsurprisinglyintheCoR’smainfield changes, theoneswhichCommissiontakesmost initiative. whether theseweremandatory,voluntaryortheCoR’sown mission reportcoversallopinionsdeliveredbytheCoR, follow them.TheCom- itself inapositionto why itdoesnotfeel commendations or to followtheCoR’sre- reasons whyitintends plies, settingoutthe giving substantivere- report twiceayear Commission adoptsa For thetimebeing, quests fromelsewhere. wording duetore- changed theoriginal mission, CouncilorEP or whethertheCom- to theCoR’sopinion, amendment wasdue be certainwhetheran even thenonecannot legislative act.And original proposalagainsttheamendmentscontainedin CoR wasconsultedandthencheckingretrospectivelythe would requirelookingintoeachsinglecaseinwhichthe implementation shouldbeobvious. consulting theCoRtoensurecoherentandbetter by regionalandlocalauthorities,theUnion’sinterestin 70 and80percentofEUpoliciesrequireimplementation interest. Consideringthataccordingtoestimatesbetween for whichtheydeemitsopinionandexpertisetobeof and thethreemaininstitutionscanconsultitonanymatter own-initiative opiniononanymatteritconsidersappropriate health, educationandculture.TheCoRitselfmayadoptan and socialcohesion,trans-Europeaninfrastructurenetworks, that itsresponsibilitieswerelimitedtofiveareas:economic repercussions atlocalorregionallevel.Thatinitiallymeant The CoRhastobeconsultedonallareaslikelyhave TheEffectivenessoftheCommittee’sWork 4. www.eipa.nl One canonlyspeculateabout thedegreetowhich Even iffewoftheopinionsactuallyleadtosubstantive To assesstheimpactofCoRopinionssystematically of theCoR’sopinionsinfluences theCommission’s Brussels,17 November2004–10 © CoR,2000-2004 th

AnniversaryoftheCommitteeRegions.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ might useitsrighttoissueanopinionasa action ofannulmentagainstalegislativeactwhichhad requirement. TheCoRwouldhavetherighttobringinan for it,willbecomeadirectlyenforceableformalandlegal consultation oftheCoR,inareaswhereTreatyprovides when theConstitutionalTreatycomesintoforce,however, ECJ wouldallowtheCoRtoprotectitsprerogatives.Ifand European CourtofJustice(ECJ).Sucharighttoaccessthe does not(yet)possessaprivilegedstandingbeforethe repeated requeststochangethissituation–theCommittee reaction toCoRopinions,thefactremainsthat–despite they represent. attention totheissuesaffectingregionsandlocalities preferences ofCoRmembers,whomightpaygreater in theprevioussection.However,itmayalsoreflect administrative andscientificsupport,whichwasdiscussed weaknesses tothelimitedaccessCoRmembershave result inamendments.Inpart,onemayattributethese also thefieldswhereCoR’sopinionsdonotveryoften EU. It would alsobe contraryto theveryaims ofthe process, and thus implysignificantefficiency costsforthe a morecomplicated andcumbersome decision-making the CoRasasortof‘second chamber’wouldalsoleadto process onecouldalsoexpect thatthefullparticipationof enhance thedemocraticlegitimacy ofthedecision-making involvement ofaseconddirect representativebodymight had beendemandedbythe RegLeggroup.Whilesuchan an activeinvolvementinthe legislativeprocedureitself,as round ofTreatyreform.Inparticular,theCoRwasnotgiven far-reaching demandsadvancedinthecourseof last These gains,however,fellsomewayshortofthemore review). an announcementtomakeuseofitsrightclaimjudicial but areregardedasimportantbecausetheymaycontain comitology procedures:EPresolutionsarenotatallbinding, regarding theadoptionofdraftimplementingmeasures in state ofaffairsiscomparabletotheEP’srightscrutiny opinions inareaswhereconsultationisobligatory.(This post intoaccount.InthiswaytheCoR’sfuture should theactbeadoptedwithoutamendmentandtaking the textofopiniontobringanactionannulment warning’. TheCommitteecoulddothatbythreateningin In termsofpossiblejudicialreviewtheinstitutional controlpowerscouldboostthe‘legalweight’ofits ciple ofsubsidiarity,it application oftheprin- dure’ toprotectthe ‘early warningproce- volved intheso-called formally notbeenin- though theCoRhas count ornot:Even been takenintoac- of subsidiaritytohave considers theprinciple its opinionswhetherit CoR couldindicatein the futureisthat what mighthappenin nions binding.But make theCoR’sopi- changes donotatall it beingconsulted. been adoptedwithout These prospective de facto ‘early ex- The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 11 and the Council of Council and the EIPASCOPE 2005/1 EIPASCOPE European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), it has also since its establishment facilitated further net- working among the various actors: either directly through meetings in the chamber or more generally through the focus it has provided for discussions among regional and local representatives about the institutional arrangements in the EU. In the same vein, the idea of horizontal networking also implies that the CoR has been a meeting A third long-term effect of the CoR can be seen in the The symbolic strengthening of regions at the European A second effect, related to these observations, is the A second effect, related place for regions to share ideas, experiences and problems, and to engage in a long-term process of policy-learning. symbolic strengthening of the regional idea. To a large extent, the establishment of the Committee was a symbolic act, placing regions and localities on the map of an institutionalised Europe, even if its powers did not at all match the discourse about a ‘Europe of the Regions’ which was so powerful in the early to mid-1990s. This symbolic empowerment of regions and sub-national government was no small thing: it did indicate a departure in the thinking about Europe from a monolithic institutional structure in Brussels, towards a more decentralised, multi- level governance system. level in turn has had an impact on the domestic standing of regions. In most Member States, the existence of the CoR has legitimated the European aspirations of regions and localities, and has further accelerated the trend towards establishing dedicated representative offices in Brussels. But also within domestic systems, which witness continuous struggles about the allocation of powers across different levels, the CoR has, on the whole, strengthened the case of those who have wanted to see more powers given to the debate and deliberations can have long-term benefits in benefits long-term can have and deliberations debate these among better understanding for of the search terms perspectives of common the development different actors, problems, for solutions to issues and the search on policy To be sure, the agenda or not. are already on whether these there are forum in the EU, but not the only such the CoR is from the elected politicians many fora in which also not that are forced to confront the different domestic domain and perspectives of other Member cultures, traditions effect to be expected from this regular States. The long-term perspective on EU matters, which interaction is a shared to policy problems in the future, might help to find solutions in the present. even if there is disagreement for to act as a generator or catalyst potential for the CoR among regional and local actors. horizontal networking bring together representatives from The Committee does of domains who – without the presence different national or even see the need, the CoR – might not have the chance, While the CoR was to discuss EU policies with one another. committee to founded on the back of an existing advisory part to the foun- the Commission, and thanks in a large such as the dations laid by transnational associations Assembly of European Regions (AER)

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○ ○ into are apparent. The constitutionalisation expectations of what the expectations of what process also demonstrates its members, and divergent its members, and CoR should do and develop CoR should do and the internal divisions among the internal divisions Long-term trends and developments The ultimate outcome The most recent instance of Treaty change was novel in The most recent instance Thus, discussion shows that the CoR not only seeks to the CoR not only shows that Thus, discussion Beyond the issue of an immediate and direct impact of the CoR on the legislative process and on Treaty revision, the CoR can claim to have contributed to the integration process more generally. It can be argued that it does make a valuable contribution in a number of ways. First, independent of what subsequently happens to the opinions it issues, the CoR provides an open and public forum for deliberation among a variety of actors. Such regular 5. The Committee after 10 Years: of these efforts by the CoR to play a role in the consti- tutional politics of the Union is difficult to assess, not only for the reasons de- scribed above. There is also disagreement among CoR members about the best way of interpreting the result: for some the achieve- ment of the long-standing aspiration of a right of access to the ECJ is a successful outcome of CoR lobbying on this issue, and this also seems to be the official line from the CoR. For others, though, the failure to be recognised as an EU institution and to achieve an active legislative role is a sign of the continuing weakness of the CoR. The group of regions with legislative powers (the so-called RegLeg Group) is in this camp, and they have been explicit in their frustration with the limitations of the CoR. Thus, the constitu- tionalisation process also demonstrates the internal divisions among its members, and divergent expectations of what the CoR should do and develop into are apparent. the sense that the Convention method invited other actors the sense that the civil society more beyond national governments, and about the ‘future of generally, to participate in the debate at the Europe’. The CoR, which also had representatives to participate in Convention, did respond to the invitation was crucial for the this debate. Here, as elsewhere, it other actors, be they Committee to rely on alliances with regional and local govern- ment associations, the European Parliament or, through the Contact Group, leading members of the Convention. influence the normal policy process through its opinions, process through the normal policy influence reform to effect the Treaty has also had ambitions but that it its to change the legal foundations of process, in order normally issue opinions in the run-up work. The CoR does is Conferences, but here the impact to Intergovernmental the (and difficult to measure) than in even more doubtful Insofar as region-friendly changes legislative procedure. has the course of Treaty revisions, this are introduced in to the domestic power of regions generally been attributed States, where their support is required from certain Member for ratification. Constitutional Convention and the subsequent Inter- the subsequent and Convention Constitutional and simplify to clarify, (IGC) Conference governmental institutional and the the policy process rationalise arrangements. 12 EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years and influencingtheEuropeandecision-makingprocess. regions tolookforotherwaysofrepresentingtheirinterests members. Inresponse,thereisagrowingtendencyofthese the minorityofregionswithlegislativepowersamongits local, regional,oranyotherdivisions,therebyfrustrating sub-divide itselfinto that itdoesnotwantto expressed itsposition has alsoseveraltimes cular interests.TheCoR represent theirparti- look forotherwaysto members, asthesewill support ofitsstrongest that itmaylosethe further, thereisadanger is notstrengthened bership. Thus,iftheCoR with suchbroadmem- vanguard thatcomes high ambitionsofits inevitable dilutionofthe authorities, withthe local andregional to representallformsof ders. TheCoRisbound themselves asitsfoun- have foughthardestforitsestablishmentandliketosee perhaps ironically–preciselythosepoliticalactorsthat work ofCoRamongthe‘stronger’regionswhoare– strengthen theirstandingwithinthenationalsystem. bargaining, andthusultimatelyweakenratherthan expertise andotherresourcestothedetrimentofdomestic domestic roleofthestrongerregions,useupvaluabletime, concern thatsuch‘company’mightcompromisethe consultative status alongside the ESC.Nor does the EU institution andthusremainsmerely abodywith failed initsattempt tobeelevatedtheformal statusofan In thepresentcontextitneeds toberecognizedthattheCoR than aconstitutioninthetraditional senseoftheconcept. European Unionfundamentally: itisarevisedTreatyrather Treaty inRomeon29October 2004. Straub, alsoattendedtheofficial signingoftheConstitutional strengthened statusoftheCoR,itscurrentPresident,Peter of itslegislativeproposalsintoaccount.Demonstrating the and obligestheCommissiontotakeregionaldimension the Uniontorespectregionalandlocalself-government the ConstitutionalTreaty.ThenewTreatyexplicitlycalls for Treaty thelocalandregionallevelisexplicitlyrecognised in Ten yearsafterthecreationofCoRbyMaastricht Future P 6. of thebiggerGerman representatives canbefortheauthorityofPrimeMinisters how usefulanassociationwithlocalgovernment impact oftheCoRdomestically–clearlythereisalimitto members areconcerned,thereissomeconcernaboutthe the MemberStates.AtleastasfarRegLeggroup members andofdomesticconstitutionalarrangementsin structures isatrickyone,giventhediversenatureofCoR regional level. www.eipa.nl In fact,therehasbeensomedisappointmentwiththe The ConstitutionalTreatydoes notalterthenatureof However, theissueofimpactCoRondomestic erspectives andChallenges Länder Brussels,17 November2004–10 © CoR,2000-2004 . Atworst,therecouldbethe th

AnniversaryoftheCommitteeRegions.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Commission proposal( subsidiarity principleduringthedraftingstageofa parliaments canusetoensuretheapplicationof to beinvolvedintheearlywarningsystemwhichnational allocation oflegislativepowers.Bycontrast,theCoRisnot level), maketheregionallevelinitselfanactor subject oflegislationattheEuropeanornational (i.e. inassessingwhetheracertainpolicyareashouldbethe involvement ofthesub-nationallevelinsubsidiaritytest mounting. Atthesame time,thenew membersshould also comes topassing opinionspersistand mayevenbe such asinternal divisionsandthelackof cohesion whenit and agrowingmembership. Butlong-standingproblems agreed (thoughnotyetratified) intheConstitutionalTreaty, a gradualincreaseinpowers, culminatingintheprovisions has comeaverylongwaysince itsinception:therehasbeen for protectingtheirinterests. stronger regionsfromseeingtheCommitteeasaninstrument existing majorityintheCoR,andmightdiscourage the rather centralisedsystemscouldalsofurtherstrengthen the fact thatmostcountriesinCentralandEasternEuropehave with theassociatedlogisticalandpoliticalproblems... The that theCoRitselfhastoadaptagreatermembership, for memberstoreachagreement.Enlargementalsomeans membership oftheCoRislikelytomakeityetmoredifficult weaker ones.Inotherwords,thegreaterandmorediverse new, andtheeconomicallyricherregionsagainst the financial settlement.Thesemaypitchtheoldagainst. conflicts thatareloomingoverthenextmulti-annual there arelikelytobeproblemsgiventhedistributional policies, andforitsownidentity.Withrespecttotheformer, of enlargement,bothintermswhatthatmeansforEU consultation ofregionalandlocalauthorityassociations action againsttherelevantCommunitybodies. protected, theCoRwillbegivenexplicitrighttotake subsidiarity isrespectedanditsownprerogativesarebeing level. Furthermore,inordertoensurethattheprincipleof for thefirsttime,definedtotakeintoaccountregional principle ofsubsidiarity.ThisisintheTreatyand, Treaty wouldbeitsroleinmonitoringtheapplicationof By wayofconclusion,wecan thereforenotethattheCoR Recent proposalsfromtheCommissionon The significantgainfortheCoRunderConstitutional ex ante politicalscrutiny). confront theimpact the EU,willhaveto like otherbodiesin the CoR. new Europeoutside their interestsinthe and moretoprotect regions aimmore clear thattheRegLeg tive powers.Itseems regions withlegisla- stitutional regions,or organisation ofcon- associations isthe regard toregional development with institutions. Thekey associations andEU diary betweenthese position ofinterme- place theCoRin Finally, theCoR, The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years EIPASCOPE Bulletin 2005/1 13 700 700 850 650 850 € € € € € EIPASCOPE 2005/1 EIPASCOPE the Committee of the Regions at Maastricht, 2 December of the Regions the Committee 2004. Vara Engel and Gracia Edward Best, Christian draft from lies with content of the paper responsibility for the Arribas. The the authors. :: NOTES NOTES NOTES * Commission of meeting of the CONST presented at the Paper **received on an earlier comments We are grateful for valuable NOTES NOTES

○○○○○○○○○○ ○ ○ ○ Communauté européenne 0510003 anniversary decisionali 0510601 th politique de la I meccanismi of Financial Services 0510005 RELATED ACTIVITIES RELATED ACTIVITIES AT EIPA AT EIPA For further information and registration forms, please contact: For further information and registration Mrs Belinda Vetter, Tel.: +31 43 3296 382 Fax: +31 43 3296 296 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.eipa.nl 22-23 November 2005, Maastricht Seminar: Comitology in the Area 26-28 September 2005, Milan L’Unione Europea: Le Istituzioni e 17-18 October 2005, Maastricht Advanced Seminar on Comitology 0510004 Ausschüsse und Komitologie im Entscheidungsprozess der Europäischen GemeinschaftAusschüsse und Komitologie im Entscheidungsprozess 0510002 13-15 June 2005, Maastricht Comités et comitologie dans le processus RELATED ACTIVITIES AT EIPA RELATED ACTIVITIES RELATED ACTIVITIES AT EIPA AT EIPA ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○ ○ be expected to inject new ideas and fresh momentum into momentum and fresh ideas inject new to be expected it is still point at this However, debates. the Committee’s on the impact of enlargement to speculate on premature from of representatives that the participation the CoR, given quite a recent phenomenon. States is still the new Member paper, will issues raised in this many of the other This, like and will for some time to come, the CoR agenda remain on discussions beyond the 10 provide material for of the Committee.