DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Obstacles in Member States to Single Market Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legal Obstacles in Member States to Single Market Rules STUDY Requested by the IMCO committee Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies Authors: Erik DAHLBERG et al. EN PE 658.189 - November 2020 Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules Abstract This study analyses the current state of national obstacles to free movement in the EU Single Market. It focuses on various aspects of obstacles related to free movement of goods and services, the right to establishment, the Digital Single Market, consumer protection and public procurement. This document was provided by the Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies at the request of the committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). This document was requested by the European Parliament's committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. AUTHORS Erik DAHLBERG, Sigurd NÆSS-SCHMIDT and Laura VIRTANEN, Copenhagen Economics Scott MARCUS, Bruegel Mattia DI SALVO and Jacques PELKMANS, CEPS Virginia DALLA POZZA and Katarina KUBOVICOVA, VVA ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBLE Christina RATCLIFF and Mariusz MACIEJEWSKI EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS Roberto BIANCHINI and Irene VERNACOTOLA LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU internal policies. To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe for email alert updates, please write to: Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies European Parliament L-2929 - Luxembourg Email: [email protected] Manuscript completed: November 2020 Date of publication: November 2020 Republished with some corrections (including the deletion of three case studies on pages 85, 88 and 90 of the previous version): February 2021 © European Union, 2020 This document is available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. For citation purposes, the publication should be referenced as: Dahlberg, E. et al., Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules, Publication for the committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg, 2020. © Cover image used under licence from Adobe Stock. Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6 LIST OF BOXES 9 LIST OF FIGURES 9 LIST OF TABLES 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 INTRODUCTION 15 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE SINGLE MARKET 21 2.1. The legal basis of the Single Market 21 2.2. The principles of the Single Market 23 2.3. The freedoms 25 2.3.1. Free movement of goods 25 2.3.2. Free movement of services 28 2.3.3. Posting of workers 30 FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS 31 3.1. Difficulties in meeting requirements to sell goods 32 3.1.1. What are the current problems? 35 3.1.2. Concluding remark: Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 43 3.1.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 44 3.2. Insufficient information about applicable rules 47 3.2.1. What are the current problems? 47 3.2.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 49 3.2.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 49 3.3. Problems with mutual recognition affecting the free movement of goods 50 3.3.1. What are the current problems? 52 3.3.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 55 3.3.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 56 3.4. A note on the impact of COVID-19 on intra-EU trade in goods 57 3.5. How can these obstacles be removed and prevented? 59 FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES AND RIGHT TO ESTABLISHMENT 62 4.1. Difficulties in meeting requirements to sell services 64 4.1.1. What are the current problems? 64 4.1.2. Restrictions on retail and wholesale 74 4.1.3. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 79 3 PE 658.189 IPOL | Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies 4.1.4. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 79 4.2. Insufficient information about applicable rules 80 4.2.1. What are the current problems? 80 4.2.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 83 4.2.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 83 4.3. Difficulties with accessing a regulated profession 84 4.3.1. What are the current problems? 84 4.3.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 88 4.3.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 88 4.4. Restrictions on corporate ownership 89 4.4.1. What are the current problems? 89 4.4.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 90 4.4.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 92 4.5. Burdens and obstacles in the context of posting workers to other Member States 93 4.5.1. What are the current problems? 93 4.5.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 98 4.5.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 99 4.6. Franchising in the EU 99 4.7. A note on the impact of COVID-19 on intra-EU trade in services 101 4.8. How can these problems be removed and prevented? 103 DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET 106 5.1. Overall fragmentation of rules for cross-border e-commerce 112 5.1.1. What are the current problems? 112 5.1.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 116 5.1.3. What tools exist, or could exist, at EU and national level? 117 5.2. Burdensome issues related to Value Added Tax 117 5.2.1. What are the current problems? 117 5.2.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 119 5.2.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 120 5.3. Copyright and Geo-blocking: Obstacles to cross-border sales 120 5.3.1. What are the current problems? 122 5.3.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 125 5.3.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 126 5.4. Insufficient information about applicable rules 126 5.4.1. What are the current problems? 126 5.4.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 127 PE 658.189 4 Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules 5.4.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 127 5.5. COVID-19 and digital services 127 5.6. How can these problems be addressed and prevented? 129 CONSUMER PROTECTION 133 6.1. Differences in consumer protection 134 6.1.1. What are the current problems? 134 6.1.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 138 6.2. Insufficient information about applicable rules 139 6.2.1. What are the current problems? 139 6.2.2. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 140 6.2.3. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 140 6.3. COVID-19 and consumer protection 141 6.4. How can these problems be addressed and prevented? 142 PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 143 7.1. Uneven access to public procurement 143 7.1.1. The importance of EU rules-based public procurement 143 7.1.2. The EU regulatory framework for public procurement 145 7.1.3. What are the problems and shortcomings? 147 7.1.4. Is there a growing trend of these problems in the EU? 151 7.1.5. What tools exist at EU and national level to address these problems? 151 7.2. How can these problems be removed and prevented? 152 REFERENCES 154 5 PE 658.189 IPOL | Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS B2B Business-to-Business B2C Business-to-Consumer CEN European Committee for Standardisation CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CMO Collective Management Organisation CPB Central Procurement Body CPR Construction Products Regulation CRD Consumer Rights Directive CSGD Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive DG Directorate-General DSA Digital Services Act DSM Digital Single Market EC European Communities EEA European Economic Area EEC European Economic Community ELA European Labour Authority EP European Parliament EPE European Parliament of Enterprises EPO European Patent Office EPR Extended Producer Responsibility ESPD European Single Procurement Document ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute PE 658.189 6 Legal obstacles in Member States to Single Market rules EU European Union FCM Food Contact Materials FDI Foreign Direct Investment GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services GBR Geo-blocking Regulation GDP Gross Domestic Product GMP Good Manufacturing Practices GS Geprüfte Sicherheit (Tested Safety) ICT Information and Communications Technology IMCO European Parliament's committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMI Internal Market Information [system] IOT Internet of Things LVCR Low Value Consignment Relief MEAT Most Economically Advantageous Tender MFN Most Favoured Nation MS Member State/Member States NOC Negotiated Procedure without prior publication OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OJEU Official
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Success Story Or a Failure? : Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries
    I Inari Sakki A Success Story or a Failure? Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries II Social psychological studies 25 Publisher: Social Psychology, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki Editorial Board: Klaus Helkama, Chair Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Editor Karmela Liebkind Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman Kari Mikko Vesala Maaret Wager Jukka Lipponen Copyright: Inari Sakki and Unit of Social Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki I wish to thank the many publishers who have kindly given the permission to use visual material from their textbooks as illustrations of the analysis. All efforts were made to find the copyright holders, but sometimes without success. Thus, I want to apologise for any omissions. ISBN 978-952-10-6423-4 (Print) ISBN 978-952-10-6424-1 (PDF) ISSN 1457-0475 Cover design: Mari Soini Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 2010 III ABSTRAKTI Euroopan yhdentymisprosessin edetessä ja syventyessä kasvavat myös vaatimukset sen oikeutuksesta. Tästä osoituksena ovat muun muassa viimeaikaiset mediassa käydyt keskustelut EU:n perustuslakiäänestysten seurauksista, kansalaisten EU:ta ja euroa kohtaan osoittamasta ja tuntemasta epäluottamuksesta ja Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset argumentit tiiviimmän yhteistyön puolesta eivät aina riitä kansalaisten tuen saamiseen ja yhdeksi ratkaisuksi on esitetty yhteisen identiteetin etsimistä. Eurooppalaisen identiteetin sanotaan voivan parhaiten muodostua silloin, kun perheen, koulutuksen
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Professional Services in EU Member States
    SERVICEGAP Discussion Paper No. XXX Regulation of Professional Services in EU Member States Classification, Measurement and Evaluation November 2012 Iain Paterson, Bianca Brandl* and Richard Sellner* * Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, Austria Corresponding Author: Iain Paterson ([email protected]) This paper was developed as part of Deliverable 2.3 of SERVICEGAP “Papers on linkages between manufacturing and services, regulation in professional services and banks” SERVICEGAP project is funded by the European Commission, Research Directorate General as part of the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 8: Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities. Grant Agreement no: 244 552 1 Regulation of Professional Services in EU Member States: Classification, Measurement and Evaluation Iain Paterson Bianca Brandl, and Richard Sellner November 2012 Abstract This paper has a two-fold purpose: on the one hand of presenting methods and results from studies (mainly involving the authors) that have fed into ongoing efforts at European Union level to classify regulatory systems in Member States, to find ways to measure the extent of regulation, and to evaluate whether state-legislated or self-regulation is anti-competitive as distinct from quality- enhancing regulation for consumers’, rather than producers’, benefit. On the other hand, the paper presents results from a partial update of regulatory knowledge (regulation indices) and further develops a new measure of regulatory effect of professional services throughout the Member States’ economies based on newly developed empirical measures of interlinkage (Cf. Paterson and Sellner 2012). The results of the updated indicator show some modest decrease in anti-competitive regulation in professional services, mainly with respect to market conduct behaviour: more openness to new forms of businesses, price setting, fees and advertising.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Market Integration in the EU: a Practical Inventory of Benefits and Hurdles in the Single Market
    Financial market integration in the EU: A practical inventory of benefits and hurdles in the Single Market Financial market integration in the EU: A practical inventory of benefits and hurdles in the Single Market Imprint: © 2019 Bertelsmann Stiftung/ ESMT European School of Management ESMT Berlin (Hrsg.) and Technology Schlossplatz 1 Authors: 10178 Berlin Katharina Gnath, Bertelsmann Stiftung Germany Benjamin Große-Rüschkamp, ESMT Berlin Christian Kastrop, Bertelsmann Stiftung Editing: Dominic Ponattu, Bertelsmann Stiftung David Gow Jörg Rocholl, ESMT Berlin Marcus Wortmann, Bertelsmann Stiftung Title image: Andrew Malone/Networking/flickr.com – CC BY 2.0, Bertelsmann Stiftung https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Programme Europe’s Future Carl-Bertelsmann-Str. 256 33311 Gütersloh Germany Financial market integration in the EU | Page 3 Contents 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................ 5 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 3 On the benefits of a single market for capital and finance in Europe: A review of effects and channels .................................................... 7 3.1 Definition and history of financial integration in Europe .............................................................. 7 3.2 Theoretical benefits and channels of financial integration .......................................................... 8 3.3 Potential caveats of financial integration
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit Jargon Buster
    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Recognition of Food Information
    August 8, 2019 MSc Thesis LAW-80436, Law and Governance group, 36 ECTS Mutual Recognition of Food Information How does mutual recognition work and is it a suitable concept for the area of food information? Carmen Lok – 950805526060 Mutual Recognition of Food Information How does mutual recognition work and is it a suitable concept for the area of food information? Carmen Lok – 950805526060 Master Food Safety Specialisation Food Law and Regulatory Affairs Chair Group: Law and Governance group Course code: LAW-80436 – 36 ECTS Supervisor and First Examiner: dr. Kai P. Purnhagen LL.M. Second Examiner: dr. Hanna Schebesta August 8, 2019 Image frontpage: (Micromax Design and Consulting Inc., 2019). 2 Acknowledgements I would hereby like to thank my supervisor Kai Purnhagen and examiner Hanna Schebesta for providing helpful feedback that aided me to improve the content of this thesis. During the courses they taught they have sparked my interest for the field of food information as well as for the principle of mutual recognition. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has supported me and listened to me during this challenging period. Because of them, I was able to persevere and can now proudly present the outcome of my research in this thesis. Carmen Lok August, 2019 3 Abstract Due to the eagerness of Member States to regulate the area of food information, national differences exist that hinder the free movement of goods and deprive businesses and consumers of the benefits a Single Market can provide. The purpose of this thesis is to determine how the principle of mutual recognition works and whether it is a suitable concept for the area of food information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomics of Regulation
    International Finance 18:3, 2015: pp. 343–360 DOI: 10.1111/infi.12077 BOOK REVIEW The Macroeconomics of Market Regulation y z Matteo Cacciatore and Giuseppe Fiori y z HEC Montreal, and North Carolina State University. Boeri,T.,M.Castanheira,R. Faini and V. Galasso, eds., Structural Reforms Without Prejudices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. Schindler, M., H. Berger, B. B. Bakker and A. Spilimbergo, eds., Jobs and Growth: Supporting the European Recovery. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. 2014. Solow, R., ed., Structural Reform and Economic Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. I. Introduction In each country, a complex set of laws and institutions regulates the functioning of product and labour markets. Broadly defined, the regulation of labour directly affects hiring and firing decisions, the number of working hours, the intensity of job search and wage dynamics. Examples include employment protection legislation, the generosity and duration of unemployment benefits, restrictions on the length of contracts, the level of centralization in wage bargaining, labour unions and © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 344 Matteo Cacciatore and Giuseppe Fiori minimum wages. Product market regulation affects producer entry and exit in a given market or industry, the incentives to create and commercialize goods and services, and the behaviour of prices. Examples include the procedures governing market entry (e.g. the legal requirements to be met for a business to start operating), the laws and institutions that limit the market supply of goods and services, and price controls. The rationale for the emergence and consolidation of such laws and institutions has been related to various factors, including the promotion of social equity goals, the correction of market imperfections (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Europe 2020 Strategy
    THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY CAN IT MAINTAIN THE EU’S COMPETITIVENESS IN THE WORLD? DANIEL GROS AND FELIX ROTH CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated. Daniel Gros is Director of CEPS and Felix Roth is Research Fellow at CEPS. This study has been made possible by a grant from the Austrian Federal Chancellery. We are grateful to Laura Felfelli, Lin Li and Raf van Gestel for valuable research assistance. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this report are attributable only to the authors in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated. ISBN 978-94-6138-124-8 © Copyright 2012, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 Fax: (32.2) 219.41.51 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ceps.eu CONTENTS Prologue............................................................................................................... i Introduction........................................................................................................ 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Single Market Scoreboard, 2004 and 2007
    Policy Area: Doing Business in Europe European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings, March 2008 The removal of all barriers to the free movement of goods, people and capital – to the extent necessary to ensure the smooth operation of the European Common Market – was the central objective of the 1957 Treaty of Rome (articles 3a to 3c), while the removal of barriers to the provision of services was considered to be an implicit objective of the Treaty. Collectively, these form the four freedoms of what is today labeled the Single European Market (SEM) or “the Internal Market”. Market integration – linked to the improved competitiveness of European economies and firms and economic growth – has been the central objective of the European Economic Community. The first stage in the construction of the European Common Market involved a ten-year program, starting in 1958, to eliminate all tariff barriers on industrial products and proved to be a resounding success. However, given national obstacles, there were delays on the removal of non- tariff barriers to trade (NTBTs) which can be defined broadly as any national policies that in effect discriminate against products entering the national market from other countries. Examples of such barriers include: • Different national regulations on product standards that may block imports otherwise perfectly safe for consumers. • Rules on establishment which require companies (such as banks) to go through lengthy and expensive application procedures to set up operations in another member state. • Government procurement programs, whereby governments discriminate in favor of national companies in the purchase of items. From the perspective of competition, the official aim of EU market integration – and, more specifically, of the EU’s Competition Policy which is discussed below – is to create a “level playing field” whereby companies from one European member state are not placed at a competitive disadvantage because of the market distorting practices of governments and firms in either their own member state or in any other.
    [Show full text]
  • How Is the European Union Progressing Towards Its Europe 2020 Targets? Employment, Education and Climate Change Targets Are Achievable
    153/2019 - 7 October 2019 Smarter, greener, more inclusive? How is the European Union progressing towards its Europe 2020 targets? Employment, education and climate change targets are achievable. R&D and poverty alleviation still at a distance. The Europe 2020 strategy - EU’s agenda for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth - was adopted by the European Council in June 2010 with the aim to overcome structural weaknesses in Europe’s economy, improve its competitiveness and productivity and underpin a sustainable social market economy. The EU targets are set in the five thematic areas: employment – research & development (R&D) and innovation – climate change and energy – education – poverty and social exclusion. EU Member States have translated these objectives into their national targets in order to reflect their situation and possibilities to contribute to the common goals. The end of the Europe 2020 life cycle is approaching, which makes monitoring as important as ever. Today Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, issues the 2019 edition of the publication ‘Smarter, greener, more inclusive?’, which analyses the progress of the EU and its Member States towards the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. A complete picture of trends in the Europe 2020 headline indicators Eurostat monitors progress towards the Europe 2020 targets using nine headline indicators; the indicators’ breakdowns focus on specific subgroups of society or the economy presenting a more detailed picture. The analysis in the five thematic areas shows trends in the headline indicators over the past years, up to 2017 or 2018, depending on data availability. The radar chart illustrates the current situation of the progress made by the EU since 2008 and the remaining distance towards the Europe 2020 key targets.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.5.2018 COM(2018
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.5.2018 COM(2018) 379 final 2018/0204 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) {SEC(2018) 272 final} - {SWD(2018) 286 final} - {SWD(2018) 287 final} EN EN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL • Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Among the EU’s tasks is that of developing a European area of justice in civil matters based on the principles of mutual trust and the mutual recognition of judgments. The area of justice requires judicial cooperation across borders. For this purpose, and to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market, the EU has adopted legislation on the cross-border service of judicial documents1 and on cooperation in the taking of evidence2. These instruments are crucial in the regulation of judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters between the Member States. Their common purpose is to provide an efficient framework for cross-border judicial cooperation. They have replaced the earlier international, more cumbersome system of the Hague Conventions3 between the Member States4. This legislation on judicial cooperation has a real impact on the everyday lives of EU citizens, be it as private individuals or business operators. It is applied in judicial proceedings with cross-border implications, where its proper functioning is indispensable to ensuring access to justice and fair trials (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union: Questions and Answers
    The European Union: Questions and Answers Updated October 27, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS21372 SUMMARY RS21372 The European Union: Questions and Answers October 27, 2020 The European Union (EU) is a political and economic partnership that represents a unique form of cooperation among sovereign countries. The EU is the latest stage in a process of integration Kristin Archick begun after World War II, initially by six Western European countries, to foster interdependence Specialist in European and make another war in Europe unthinkable. The EU currently consists of 27 member states, Affairs including most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and has helped to promote peace, stability, and economic prosperity throughout the European continent. How the EU Works The EU has been built through a series of binding treaties. Over the years, EU member states have sought to harmonize laws and adopt common policies on an increasing number of economic, social, and political issues. EU member states share a customs union; a single market in which capital, goods, services, and people move freely; a common trade policy; and a common agricultural policy. Nineteen EU member states use a common currency (the euro), and 22 member states participate in the Schengen area of free movement in which internal border controls have been eliminated. In addition, the EU has been developing a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which includes a Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), and pursuing cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) to forge common internal security measures. Member states work together through several EU institutions to set policy and to promote their collective interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe 2020« – Proposals for the Post-Lisbon Strategy Progressive Policy Proposals for Europe’S Economic, Social and Environmental Renewal
    International Policy Analysis Internationale Politikanalyse International Policy Analysis Severin Fischer, Stefan Gran, Björn Hacker, Anja P. Jakobi, Sebastian Petzold, Toralf Pusch and Philipp Steinberg »Europe 2020« – Proposals for the Post-Lisbon Strategy Progressive policy proposals for Europe’s economic, social and environmental renewal The Lisbon Strategy, with its predominantly supply-side and market- liberal orientation, has failed because it did not recognise the need for a European policy-mix. In the »Europe 2020« successor strategy, there should be a change of focus, expanding its aims beyond growth to include qualitative and sustainable economic development. Only if social and environmental goals are put on an equal footing with economic integration will it be possible to increase social producti- vity in Europe. Against this background, the authors offer a number of proposals for a coordination strategy for the next ten years and present key elements of new economic and employment policy guidelines. MAY 2010 International Policy Analysis 1 Content 1 Results of the Lisbon Strategy So Far .......................................................................................3 1.1 One-sided Orientation of the Lisbon Strategy............................................................................3 1.2 Failure of the Lisbon Strategy in Key Policy Areas .......................................................................4 1.3 Fundamental Need for a Broader Approach ...............................................................................7
    [Show full text]