9. We have given further
consideration to the following on the basis of additional information
from the Minister. We maintain our opinion[23]
that it raises questions of political importance, but now make
no recommendation for its further consideration:-
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
|
(17786)
12972/96
COM(96)677
|
Draft Decision on a common Community position within the EC-Turkey Association Council establishing the list of Community Instruments abolishing technical barriers to trade and the conditions and arrangements governing their implementation by Turkey.
|
|
Legal base:
|
Article 113; qualified majority voting.
|
Background
9.1 We reported on 15
January on this draft Decision, the main purpose of which was
to establish a list of legislative instruments concerned with
the internal market and, in particular, technical barriers to
trade in goods. These are instruments which Turkey would need
to incorporate into its own internal legal order in order to take
full advantage of the Customs Union.
9.2 We noted in our Report
that it was expected that the draft Decision would be considered
at a meeting of the Council on 19 and 20 December, but we had
been informed by the Department that, in the light of the emergence
of Turkish problems with the text of the proposal and in view
of Member States' complaints about the handling of the dossier
by the Commission, it was not put to the Council.
9.3 In our Report we
asked the Minister to let us know: what the problems were with
the texts; the nature of the complaints by the Member States;
and any further information he had about when the proposal was
expected to come before the Council again.
The Minister's response
9.4 We have now had a
letter, dated 3 February, from the Minister for Trade (Mr Nelson).
In it he tells us that the proposal was not put to the Council
because Turkey had raised some technical questions which the Commission
believed needed to be clarified before the draft Decision was
formally adopted by the Council. He tells us that the Commission
is now pursuing this.
9.5 The Minister also
tells us that, apart from a Greek general reserve, no Member State
had any reservations on the substance of the proposal, although
several had joined the United Kingdom in complaining about the
very late production of the draft text.
9.6 The Minister also
responds to our observation that, although he had said that the
likely legal base of the decision would be Article 113, the formal
text of the document had only a reference to Article 8.2 of Association
Council Decision No. 1/95 in the recital. The Minister says that
this was an accidental omission in the formal text, that the Commission
has confirmed that the legal base is Article 113, and that this
will be cited in the text which is placed before the Council for
adoption.
Conclusion
9.7 We thank the Minister
for his prompt and helpful reply. We see no need to recommend
a debate on this proposal, which is now cleared for Scrutiny purposes.
23 (17786) 12972/96 COM(96) 677; see HC 36-ix (1996-97), paragraph 15 (15 January 1996). Back
|
