10 the Relations Between the EU and Andorra, San Marino and Monaco

10 The relations between the EU and Andorra, San Marino and Monaco marc maresceau 10.1 Introduction Writing on the relations between the EU and Andorra, San Marino and Monaco is not an easy exercise.1 Various aspects make these relationships very complex. An important one has to do with history, whether or not in combination with geography. It is simply impossible to examine the relationships between the EU and, for example, Andorra, without explaining why Andorra is where it is and how it comes that this piece of land in the heart of the Pyrenees is neither France nor Spain and not part of the EU. But entering into the unique and often fascinating history of micro-States in a contribution like this is an almost impossible venture. Constraints of various natures impose all kinds of limitations and the reality is such that only a very fragmented picture of the relevant historical facts can be provided. Nevertheless, the very short historical background to each of the three micro-States should help to elucidate their specificity in their present relations with the EU. One of the characteristics common to all of the European micro-States is the very special relationship with their immediate neighbour or neighbours; this very often also explains why their neighbours did not absorb them. But this common feature is at the same time the characteristic which makes The author had the opportunity to discuss with H.E. the Ambassador of Andorra, Mrs Carme Sala; H.E. the Ambassador of San Marino, Mr Gian Nicola Fillipi Balestra; and H.E. the Ambassador of Monaco, Mr Jean Pastorelli, various aspects covered in this paper. He would like to express his gratitude for these very useful discussions. All views and opinions expressed in the paper are the responsibility of the author alone. 1 A first attempt was ‘Les micro-e´tats europeéns et l’Union europeénne: une relation de proximite´ sous tension?’, in Les dynamiques du droit europeén en de´but du sie`cle. Etudes en l’honneur de Jean- Claude Gautron (Paris: Pe´done, 2004), pp. 751–75. The present contribution is a more elaborated and updated study. 270 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 19 Apr 2018 at 10:37:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494925.011Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009 THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EU AND ANDORRA 271 it very difficult to make generalisations. While it seems to a large extent correct to say that ‘the level of independence of a micro-State depends on the will of the larger neighbouring State’,2 it is also a fact that the history of each micro-State is quite different and very closely intertwined with the political, economic and legal background of the region in which it is located. Consequently, the overall picture of each of the micro-States’ relationships with the EU is a diversified one. Each has gradually developed its own bilateral framework with the EU, sometimes at the initiative of the EU, sometimes at its own initiative. There seems to have been little or no concertation among the micro-States themselves on their possible relations with the EU, except perhaps regarding some developments related to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. But a lack of concerted action by Andorra, San Marino and Monaco (and also Liechtenstein) in developing their own relations with the EU does not prevent these coun- tries from having formal or/and informal contacts with each other, for example, through their official representations accredited to the EU in Brussels. The EU too, for its part, has never had a well-defined global policy approach towards these small grey spots which have remained outside the enlarged EU. The EU has other priorities, and most of its initiatives towards micro-States have been developed on a purely ad hoc basis. This is, of course, in the light of what has just been mentioned, perfectly understandable. However, one important exception to this state of affairs is the EU initiative in the field of taxation of savings income which will be examined in more detail later in this contribution. All micro-States, in one way or another, are known for their low level of taxation and/or accommodating fiscal laws. For the first time in the history of the external relations of the EU, the micro-States were subjected equally to a well- conceived EU political strategy in this respect. This contribution first examines each of the three European micro- States’ specific relationships with the EU. As was already mentioned, because of their different histories, the individual legal frameworks show a great diversity. Therefore, the analysis of the relationships of each micro- State with the EU starts with a short introduction to the historical and political background of the micro-State in question in which the relations 2 See J. Duursma, Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-States. Self-determination and Statehood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 433. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 19 Apr 2018 at 10:37:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494925.011Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009 272 MARC MARESCEAU with the neighbouring State or States, in all cases EU Member States, occupy a prominent place. Not all legal instruments governing the relations between the EU and the micro-States are included in this part. Sections 10.3 and 10.4 deal with a number of important bilateral agree- ments with the micro-States or other initiatives, involving the EU and/or its Member States and affecting the micro-States. Section 10.3 concerns, more specifically, the monetary dimension of the relationships and the various initiatives taken in this respect, while in Section 10.4 the position of the micro-States in the EU’s fiscal policy is briefly examined. However, the separation between the different parts in this contribution should not be taken too strictly. The ‘micro-States’ specificity’ remains very much a determining factor for what is covered in all the different parts, but in Section 10.3 and Section 10.4 the focus is more on global EU policies. For example, when the EU approached Andorra for the conclusion of an agreement on taxation of savings income, Andorra insisted on a ‘package’- strategy allowing also for negotiations on other subjects of interest for the Principality. In other words, negotiation and acceptance of certain specific arrangements falling under the global EU approach, including also their timing, are not always disconnected from other initiatives. 10.2 The micro-States’ specificity as a determining factor in their relations with the EU Among the European micro-States, one in particular occupies a sub- stantially different position to the others. While the three micro-States examined in this contribution have gradually developed or are developing their own bilateral relations with the EU, Liechtenstein, for its part, is a participant in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) framework and is the only micro-State which is a full member of the European Economic Area (EEA). Certainly, this does not necessarily exclude the conclusion of specific bilateral arrangements, but on the whole the picture of Liechtenstein’s relations with the EU is considerably different from that of the other micro-States. This, together with reasons related to available space in this volume, explains why the relations with Liechtenstein are not included in this contribution. They form part of a separate study which will be published elsewhere. The relations between Andorra and San Marino and the EU probably have the most in common but nevertheless vary in various important aspects. Monaco, Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 19 Apr 2018 at 10:37:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494925.011Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2009 THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EU AND ANDORRA 273 because of its extremely small size and above all because of its very close relationship to France, is in itself a special case in the peculiar world of micro-States. 10.2.1 Andorra Background The principality of Andorra with a territory of 468 km2 is no doubt the giant of the European micro-States. In terms of geographical extent, it is more than 200 times the size of Monaco, and it is greater than Malta,3 which is now an EU Member State.4 Also, as far as population is con- cerned, Andorra is the largest European micro-State with more than 70,000 inhabitants5 but it remains far behind Malta, which has around 400,000 inhabitants. Andorra’s history is particularly complex and goes back well into the Middle Ages. Its existence, as independent territory, finds its origin in the continuous struggle between the Count of Foix (South of France) and the Bishop of Urgell (a city in the North of Catalonia). In 1278 and 1288 arbitrations led to a compromise between the civil and religious powers involved in the dispute and the system of Pareatges (‘Pareáges’) was introduced. The Pareatges established co-sovereignty by the Bishop and the Count and granted certain rights to the co-sovereigns in a number of areas, including the military and the administration of justice. Andorrans paid tribute – the que`stia – to the Count and the Bishop, although the most important thing was that the two powers renounced to conquer or incorporate in their own respective territories, the territory that is now Andorra.

Load more