PROGRESS TOWARDS ACCESSION BY THE THIRTEEN
APPLICANT STATES
(a)
(18442)
9985/97
COM(97) 2001
|
Commission Opinion on the application for membership of the EU by Hungary.
|
(b)
(18443)
9986/97
COM(97) 2002
|
Commission Opinion on the application for membership of the EU by Poland.
|
(c)
(18444)
9987/97
COM(97) 2003
|
Commission Opinion on the application for the membership of the EU by Romania.
|
(d)
(18445)
9988/97
COM(97) 2004
|
Commission Opinion on the application for the membership of the EU by Slovakia.
|
(e)
(18446)
9989/97
COM(97) 2005
|
Commission Opinion on the application for the membership of the EU by Latvia.
|
(f)
(18447)
9990/97
COM(97) 2006
|
Commission Opinion on the application for the membership of the EU by Estonia.
|
(g)
(18448)
9991/97
COM(97) 2007
|
Commission Opinion on the application for membership of the EU by Lithuania.
|
(h)
(18449)
9992/97
COM(97) 2008
|
Commission Opinion on the application for membership of the EU by Bulgaria.
|
(i)
(18450)
9993/97
COM(97) 2009
|
Commission Opinion on the application for membership of the EU by Czech Republic.
|
(j)
(18451)
9994/97
COM(97) 2010
|
Commission Opinion on the application for membership of the EU by Slovenia.
|
(k)
(20599)
12053/99
COM(99) 500
|
Composite Paper — Reports on progress towards accession of each of the candidate countries.
|
(l)
(20592)
12062/99
COM(99) 503
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by the Czech Republic.
|
(m)
(20593)
12064/99
COM(99) 505
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Hungary.
|
(n)
(20594)
12067/99
COM(99) 508
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Malta.
|
(o)
(20595)
12069/99
COM(99) 510
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Romania.
|
(p)
(20596)
12079/99
COM(99) 512
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Slovenia.
|
(q)
(20597)
12068/99
COM(99) 509
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Poland.
|
(r)
(20598)
12066/99
COM(99) 507
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Lithuania.
|
(s)
(20600)
12065/99
COM(99) 506
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Latvia.
|
(t)
(20628)
12060/99
COM(99) 501
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Bulgaria.
|
(u)
(20629)
12061/99
COM(99) 502
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Cyprus.
|
(v)
(20630)
12063/99
COM(99) 504
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Estonia.
|
(w)
(20631)
12154/99
COM(99) 513
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Turkey.
|
(x)
(20724)
12070/99
COM(99) 511
|
1999 Commission report on progress towards accession by Slovakia.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 15 November 1999 |
| Department: |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 29 November 1999
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) to (j) HC 155-xix (1997-98), paragraph 5 (4 March 1998)
(k) to (x) none
|
| Discussed in Council:
| 6 December 1999 General Affairs Council and Helsinki
European Council
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| (all) Cleared |
Introduction
8.1 In July 1997 the Commission initiated
the current enlargement process by publishing its Agenda 2000
proposals, which included Opinions on the ten Central and Eastern
European candidate countries (documents (a) to (j)). We did not
clear these documents, pending further information on the enlargement
process. On 24 February, we cleared[34]
the first of the Commission's regular reports on the progress
made towards accession by the eleven candidate countries, including
Cyprus, plus Turkey. There is now a second set of reports (documents
(l) to (x)) on those twelve applicants, plus Malta, on which the
Commission issued an updated Opinion which we cleared on 28 April
1999[35].
The Commission reports
8.2 This second set of reports formed the
basis of the decisions on enlargement taken by the Helsinki European
Council, following extensive discussions amongst the Member States.
The composite report which accompanies them (document (k)) sets
out the Commission's proposals for the EU's future strategy on
enlargement.
8.3 The Commission found that all of the
candidates had made progress, and in some cases very good progress,
towards meeting the criteria for EU membership. The Commission's
main recommendations to the Council are that the EU should:
- open negotiations with all the five remaining
Central and Eastern European (CEEC) candidates, Bulgaria, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia, and with Malta;
- confirm Turkey's status as a candidate for membership;
and
- confirm that each country will make progress
in negotiations according to its own state of preparedness.
Political criteria
8.4 The reports conclude that all ten Central
and East European applicants, together with Cyprus and Malta,
fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria, but there are a number
of problems. Most countries need to do more to combat corruption,
to improve the functioning of their judicial systems and to protect
the interest of their minorities (the Roma in particular). Estonia
and Latvia are also urged to reconsider their respective Language
Laws. Romania must do more to deal with the crisis in its childcare
institutions.
8.5 The Commission finds that Turkey does
not fulfil the Copenhagen criteria. The report identifies serious
shortcomings on human rights and the treatment of minorities,
and comments adversely on the rôle played by the army in
the political life of the country.
Economic criteria
8.6 According to the Commission, none of
the ten Central and East European applicants yet fulfils the Copenhagen
economic criteria. However, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Poland and Slovenia are all considered to be functioning
market economies which could cope with competitive pressures and
market forces within the EU in the medium term, provided they
continue to make progress on structural reform. Slovakia and Lithuania
are close to having functioning market economies and should fulfil
the criteria next year if progress is maintained. Bulgaria has
made good progress, but is still some way off. Romania's economy
continues to give cause for concern. Malta and Cyprus both fully
meet the Copenhagen economic criteria and are judged to be capable
of coping with the competitive pressures and market forces of
membership. Turkey needs to implement a consistent reform of underdeveloped
sectors and regions, in order to ensure that the whole of the
economy has the ability to cope with competitive pressures and
market forces within the Union.
Ability to assume membership obligations
8.7 Progress on the adoption of the acquis
communautaire (the corpus of EC law) varies significantly
between candidate countries. All have made an effort, with Hungary,
Latvia and Bulgaria maintaining a good pace. Slovenia and Slovakia
have stepped up their efforts significantly, while Estonia, Lithuania
and Romania have "a mixed record, with good progress in certain
areas offset by delays in others". The pace of transposition
remains sluggish in Poland and the Czech Republic and the Commission
comments that the slow pace and piecemeal approach to alignment
in these two countries is not consistent with their political
aspirations for rapid accession. Cyprus still has to transpose
a substantial amount of legislation and Malta's progress is limited,
with little or no progress having been made in areas other than
free movement of services. It needs to strengthen its administrative
capacity in all areas and to set up a number of key institutions.
Turkey continues to comply with its obligations under the Customs
Union but has to make a continued effort in the areas of competition
policy and customs. It needs to modernise its administrative structures.
8.8 All the candidates have continued to
align themselves with the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
8.9 The Commission concludes that most of
the applicant countries should be ready to participate in Economic
and Monetary Union (EMU), which is compulsory for all new
Member States. However, new Member States are not expected to
adopt the single currency immediately upon accession and will
be granted a derogation under Article 122 of the Amsterdam Treaty
in their Accession Treaties. With the exception of Romania, the
CEECs should be in a position, in the medium term, to participate
in EMU as non-participants in the euro area, provided that they
continue to pursue both macroeconomic stabilisation and structural
reform, and further align their legislation to the acquis
in this area. Cyprus and Malta should also be in a position to
participate in EMU as non-participants in the euro area, but still
need to make substantial efforts to align with the acquis.
Turkey needs to make a similar effort to align with the acquis
and to make progress towards macroeconomic stabilisation. The
Commission says that the participation of Romania in the third
stage of EMU as non-participant to the euro area could pose serious
problems, because of its precarious economic situation.
8.10 The Commission considers that the candidates
are making good progress in adopting the acquis on internal
market legislation, which is essential for membership. The
detailed areas on which they still need to make progress are listed
in the progress reports. In particular, no candidate country yet
has a fully functioning system of state aid control. Progress
is quite limited in all countries in the areas of environment,
financial control, agricultural structural reform, the social
and health sector and audio-visual legislation.
8.11 In Justice and Home Affairs,
Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia and Bulgaria have made particularly
strong efforts. Other countries need to speed up. It has been
difficult to assess progress in Turkey and Malta at this stage.
8.12 Ensuring high standards of nuclear
safety throughout Europe is a top priority for the EU, with
particular emphasis on the closure, as early as possible, of the
oldest Soviet designed reactors which cannot be upgraded to European
safety levels. The Commission says that it has examined this issue
with particular care in this year's Regular Reports, at the behest
of the European Council in Cologne. It notes that there are non-upgradeable
reactors in three candidate countries:
- Units 1 and 2 at Ignalina in Lithuania;
- Units 1- 2VI at Bohunice in Slovakia; and
- Units 1- 4 at Kozloduy in Bulgaria.
8.13 The Commission adds that it has been
involved in an intensive dialogue with each of these countries
with the aim of securing agreement on closure dates for these
reactors. It has stressed the willingness of the EU and the wider
international community to provide financial and technical help
to decommission these units. Lithuania and Slovakia have since
taken "farsighted and courageous" decisions on closure
dates. The Bulgarian Government has not, however, been prepared
to commit itself to closing Units 1- 4 at Kozloduy.
Summary country-by country
8.14 A snapshot summary of the findings
on each applicant shows the following:
Some progress on political
criteria, but problems remain on civil and minority rights. Good
progress on economic criteria but some way to go yet. Good progress
on approximation of legislation, but more attention needs to be
paid to implementation and enforcement;
Cyprus fulfils the Copenhagen
political and economic criteria;
Some progress, but limited
by uneven quality of draft legislation, length of parliamentary
procedures, and minority status of government;
Language Law is a major step
backwards. Good progress on economic criteria. Steady progress
on alignment of legislation to the acquis. Administrative
capacity needs building up;
Need to address concerns
about Roma rights and about corruption. Good progress on economic
criteria and on alignment of legislation with the acquis.
Steady progress in developing the administrative capacity to implement
the acquis;
Good progress, particularly
on economic criteria. Concerns over the Language Law. Some way
off being able to assume membership obligations but making important
progress;
Some progress made across-the-board.
The economic criteria, and slow and uneven pace of economic restructuring
need to be addressed. Some way off being able to assume membership
obligations. Commitment to closure of Ignalina a positive sign;
Malta fulfils the Copenhagen
political criteria. It is a functioning market economy and should
be able to cope with competitive pressures if industrial restructuring
continues. The main challenge is to bring down Government deficit.
Progress needed on alignment with Single Market;
Some further progress made.
But more needs to be done to improve judiciary and to eradicate
corruption. Must press ahead with privatisation and restructuring.
Limited progress in aligning legislation to the acquis
and in developing the capacity to implement it;
Little progress made. Determined
efforts needed on child protection and on corruption. Failure
to tackle macroeconomic imbalances. Economic restructuring too
slow;
Political criteria now met.
Good progress on economic criteria - must now press ahead with
restructuring process. Must step up efforts to align legislation
with acquis and develop necessary administrative capacity
to implement and enforce it;
Serious efforts made to address
weaknesses highlighted in last progress report. Significant progress
on approximation of legislation, but institutional capacity needs
further attention;
Turkey does not meet the
political criteria. Serious shortcomings on human rights, minorities
and the rôle the army plays in political life. Commission
hopes Oçalan death sentence will not be carried out. Some
action curbing human rights abuses by police. Turkey has many
characteristics of a market economy. Has made progress in achieving
macro-economic stability, but needs to bring down inflation and
fiscal deficit, continue structural reforms and implement reforms
for underdeveloped sectors and regions. Able to implement obligations
of membership for Customs Union, but work needed in competition
and customs fields.
The Commission's formal conclusions
8.15 The Commission says that in the light
of its findings it recommends the European Council to conclude
that:
"— accession
negotiations will be opened in 2000 with all candidate countries
that have fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria and have
proved to be ready to take the necessary measures to comply with
the economic criteria, i.e. Bulgaria, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania and Slovakia;
"— the opening of negotiations with
Bulgaria will be conditional upon a decision by the Bulgarian
authorities, before the end of 1999, on acceptable closure dates
for Units 1- 4 in Kozloduy nuclear power plant, and upon a confirmation
of the significant progress accomplished in the economic reform
process;
"— for Romania, the opening of negotiations
will be conditional on the confirmation of effective action announced
by the Romanian authorities to provide adequate budgetary resources
and to implement structural reform of child care institutions
before the end of 1999; it is also conditional upon a further
assessment of the economic situation before negotiations are formally
opened, in the expectation that appropriate measures will have
been taken to address the macro-economic situation;
"— the nature and the number of negotiating
chapters to be successively opened with each candidate country
will be determined by the EU applying the principle of differentiation,
i.e. taking full account of each candidate's progress in preparing
for membership under the Copenhagen criteria;
"— on this basis, the Commission will
recommend, during the successive phases of the negotiations, the
chapters to be opened with each of the candidates. A limited number
of chapters will be opened for all candidates entering into the
negotiations in 2000. The number of chapters will vary according
to the state of preparation of each individual candidate;
"— the chapters already provisionally
closed in the ongoing negotiations will be reviewed, as agreed,
in order to allow due account to be taken of newly adopted acquis.
Provisional closure of chapters will henceforth be decided taking
full account of the result of negotiations and the degree to which
candidates have fulfilled their commitments to make progress in
their preparations for membership;
"— the process of institutional reform
must be oriented in such a way that the very substantial changes
that are necessary as a condition for enlargement will be in force
in 2002, and to commit itself to being able to decide from 2002
on the accession of candidates that fulfil all the necessary criteria;
"— to progressively reduce current
restrictions on trade in agriculture with the candidate countries
so as to liberalise this trade, on condition of reciprocity, taking
into account the latest CAP reform (Agenda 2000), the diverse
agricultural structures of the candidates, and the WTO context;
the issue of EU export subsidies on goods going to candidate countries
needs to be re-examined;
"— to review the situation in each
candidate country, during 2000, from the point of view of the
application of the competition and internal market rules with
a view to refraining from using commercial defence instruments
in industrial goods, if sufficient progress has been made;
"— Turkey should now be considered
as a candidate country, although there is no question of opening
negotiations at this stage. In order to enable it to benefit from
that status the following actions should be undertaken:
"— enhancing political dialogue, with
particular reference to the issue of human rights, and providing
the option of association with the common positions and actions
taken under the CFSP;
"— co-ordinating all sources of EU
financial assistance for pre-accession within a single framework;
"— the possibility for full participation
in all Community programmes and agencies;
"— adopting an Accession Partnership
combined with a National Programme for the adoption of the acquis;
"— establishing mechanisms similar
to those which operate under the Europe Agreements to monitor
implementation of the Accession Partnership; and
"— with a view to harmonising Turkey's
legislation and practice, beginning a process of analytical examination
of the acquis."
The Government's view
8.16 Mr Battle, in the absence of Mr Vaz,
the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
says in an EM of 29 November that the progress reports represent
an important assessment of each candidate's readiness to join
the EU. He comments:
"The Commission has
in each case provided a thorough and balanced report, which measures
each candidate's achievements against the requirements of EU membership.
The composite report is a valuable contribution to debate within
the EU on the next steps in the enlargement process. Its support
for extending negotiations to a further six candidates is in line
with UK policy, as announced by the Prime Minister in his speeches
in Romania and Bulgaria in May this year. The UK also strongly
supports the proposal to confirm Turkey's candidate status at
Helsinki.
"The Government believes that the Commission
proposal for institutional readiness from 2002 is a good one,
and will help to focus the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference
on the necessary reforms."
Conclusion
| 8.17 | Although not intended to foster a spirit of competition amongst the applicants, there is no doubt that all are conscious that this time round some, such as Hungary, have been shown to be making greater progress than others, for example Poland and the Czech Republic. We believe that the reports make an important contribution to transparency, providing national governments and the public with an opportunity to assess the readiness of the applicants to comply with the obligations of membership of the Union and to see in which areas the applicants should make more effort or where assistance is needed to enable them to do so.
|
| |
| 8.18 | The draft Council Decisions on assistance to applicant countries[36], which we also consider in this Report, take account of these progress reports. Therefore, apart from setting out the big political considerations, the reports provide a practical basis for decisions on the agendas set for each applicant. These are demanding and the Commission points to the reason in its composite paper on the reports, where it suggests that it is important that the momentum should be maintained. It recalls that in its 1998 reports it was critical of a slowing down in both Slovenia, where there has since been a "clear stepping-up of the pace", and the Czech Republic, which has not been so successful in recovering momentum.
|
| |
| 8.19 | We now clear the Commission's original Opinions (documents (a) to (j))) which have been overtaken. We regret that it was not possible for us to consider the second set of annual reports before they were submitted to the Council. However, we do not find them contentious, though they are of undoubted political importance, and we now clear them. We ask the Minister to try, in future, to provide us with Explanatory Memoranda on documents going up to European Councils at as early a date as possible, to alleviate the inevitable last minute pressures.
|
34 (19846)
14420/98 et seq; see HC 34-xi (1998-99), paragraph 11 (24 February
1999). Back
35 (19957)
6247/99; see HC 34-xvii (1998-99), paragraph 18 (28 April 1999). Back
36 See
(20632) - ; and (200643) -; paragraph 10 below. Back
|
