5 The EU and Ukraine |
Draft Council Decision on the signing and provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, and Ukraine, with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party
Draft Council Decision on the signing of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, and Ukraine, as regards the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party
Draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, and Ukraine, with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party
Draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, and Ukraine, as regards the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party
|Legal base||(a) Articles 31(1) and 37 TEU in conjunction with Articles 217 and 218(5), (7) and (8) TFEU; unanimity
(b) Articles 217 and 218(6)(a), (7) and (8) TFEU; QMV
(c) Article 79(2)(b) TFEU in conjunction with Article 218(5) TFEU; unanimity
(d) Article 79(2)(b) TFEU in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and (8) TFEU; QMV
|Department||Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|Basis of consideration||EM and Minister's letters of 9 and 17 October 2013
|Previous Committee Report||None; but see (34969) 9706/13: HC 83-xvi (2013-14), chapter 7 (9 October 2013) and HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 7 (17 July 2013)
|Discussion in Council||To be determined
|Committee's assessment||Legally and politically important
|Committee's decision||Not cleared; for debate in European Committee B prior to 19 November 2013
5.1 The full background to these Council Decisions
is set out in our earlier Reports under reference.
5.2 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 14 June 2013,
the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) explained that:
· relations between the EU and Ukraine are
currently based on a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement that
entered into force in 1998;
· in 2007, the EU and Ukraine began negotiations
on an Association Agreement that would deepen and broaden the
political and economic relationship;
· in 2008, following Ukraine's accession
to the WTO, negotiations were widened to include a Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Area;
· the Agreement process supports and encourages
reform in Ukraine to bring it closer to EU norms, as well giving
Ukraine gradual access to parts of the EU Internal Market;
· this Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Area, is the first of its kind; and
· similar Agreements are being negotiated
with Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The previous draft Council Decisions
5.3 The first proposal was the legal instrument for
authorising the signature and provisional application of the Agreement;
the second, the legal instrument for authorising the conclusion
of the Agreement.
5.4 In December 2012, the Foreign Affairs Council
adopted Conclusions expressing the EU's commitment to signing
the Association Agreement as soon as Ukraine demonstrated progress
on electoral reform; addressing selective justice; and implementing
the reforms in the Association Agenda.
5.5 The Conclusions indicated that, were the conditions
met, signature might be possible by the time of the Eastern Partnership
Summit in Vilnius in late November 2013. The Council also said
that signature might be accompanied by provisional application
of parts of the Agreement (see the annex to our first earlier
Report for the text of the Council Conclusions).
The Minister said that "provisional application would be
a balance of economic and values issues of mutual benefit, and
be designed to encourage early reform", and that the exact
composition of the scope of provisional application had yet to
Legal and Procedural Issues
5.6 The Minister said:
"The Commission's Proposal cites Article
217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
in conjunction with Article 218(5), the second subparagraph of
Article 218(8) and Article 218(7). The Government is currently
considering the appropriateness of these legal bases and whether
Protocol 21 to the Treaties (the JHA Opt-in) will apply.
"The preamble of the Association Agreement confirms
that provisions of the Agreement that fall within the scope of
Part III, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union bind the UK and Ireland as separate Contracting Parties.
The proposed Council Decision on signature and provisional application
provides for the provisional application, as between the EU and
Ukraine, of a large part of the Agreement including matters relating
to CFSP, JHA, Intellectual Property, Maritime Transport and Energy.
The Government is now considering its position in relation to
the division of competences; however the provisional application
appears to go further than in other similar contexts such as the
EU-Central America Association Agreement. These issues are of
concern, and we are lobbying within working groups in Brussels
to ensure that the final scope of provisional application is consistent
with HMG policy to avoid competence creep."
5.7 There was plainly much to be determined between
July and the autumn. We therefore asked the Minister to ensure
that the Committee was not presented with a fait accompli
on the eve of the Council that would decide what to do next.
In the meantime, we retained the documents under scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 2 September 2013
5.8 The Minister divided his letter between the legal
issues outlined above and the political situation. On the legal
issues, the Minister said:
"My officials are continuing to press hard to
ensure that UK interests are protected in the matter of the signature
and provisional application of the Agreement. Departments across
Whitehall have analysed carefully the articles proposed for provisional
application after signature but before ratification by all Member
States, and we are seeking exclusion of all articles that do not
fall within EU competence; we will be mindful that occasionally
this approach may not be in the UK's best interests. Because
of our tough position, negotiations have not yet concluded and
will resume in September with a view to reaching a solution before
the end of the month.
"I highlighted in my original Explanatory Memorandum
of 14 June that this agreement contained JHA content, but that
the Government had not at that time been able to reach a view
on whether the UK opt-in was engaged. The timetable for consideration
of this long and complex document has been driven by the Commission's
desire to have the documents ready for signature at the Vilnius
Eastern Partnership Summit on 28-29 November, should Ukraine meet
the EU's conditions. I can now confirm to your Committee that
we consider that the opt-in is engaged and give an indication
of the Government's intentions as to whether to exercise its opt-in
relation to the various JHA aspects of this agreement.
"Given that the UK's opt-in window closes on
3 September, and in the light of the timings of Parliamentary
recess, I regret that the Parliamentary scrutiny committees will
not have the opportunity to consider the UK opt-in before that
"We initiated the process for government clearance
of our approach in mid-August and it will conclude shortly. We
have proposed that the UK should opt-in to the provisions in the
Agreement that relate to Mode 4 trade in services; Ministers are
still considering other articles. The government's position is
that the Mode 4 provisions on the temporary movement of skilled
personnel (which concern the admission of third country nationals
onto the territory of the United Kingdom) in the agreement
fall within the scope of the United Kingdom's Title V opt-in.
"Officials will be pressing in September for
the relevant JHA legal bases to be cited and for the Council Decisions
to be split between (i) non-JHA articles, (ii) JHA articles where
we are opting-in, (iii) any JHA articles where we are not opting-in.
Where we cannot secure our primary objectives, we will seek to
make clear through explicit recitals the extent to which we recognise
that the EU has competence to act, and the scope of our Opt-in.
Officials are also pressing for all JHA issues, apart from Mode
4, to be excluded from provisional application following signature
of the Agreement; we are arguing that they should only be applied
following ratification by Member States and conclusion of the
5.9 Looking ahead, the Minister concluded by saying:
"The situation will continue to evolve and I
will provide further information to your Committee as soon as
it is available."
5.10 Subsequent to the Minister's letter, political
developments appeared to have taken a further turn for the worse,
with the news that Armenia was apparently wishing to follow Belarus
and Kazakhstan in joining a customs union with Russia
a customs union that was widely seen as a direct challenge to
the EU's "Eastern Partnership", with its association
agreements that go beyond measures to ease trade and entail commitments
to respect democratic standards and carry out institutional reforms
that are not part of Russia's customs union.
5.11 We also cited BBC reports that "Moldova
and Ukraine are on course to sign association agreements with
the EU in November. But both have come under Russian pressure
to remain in Moscow's sphere of influence and their heavy
reliance on Russian gas puts them in a vulnerable position";
and that EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle was seeking
clarification of Armenia's intentions and was describing the use
of threats against ex-Soviet states which are seeking closer ties
with the EU as "unacceptable".
5.12 We noted that the Government considered that
the opt-in Protocol applied; that it would opt into the Mode 4
provisions; that it had yet to reach a decision on the others;
and that Government officials would be pressing in September for
the relevant JHA legal bases to be cited and for the Council Decisions
to be split between (i) non-JHA Articles, (ii) JHA Articles where
the UK was opting -in, and (iii) any JHA Articles where the UK
was not opting-in.
5.13 We also reminded the Minister that he knew that,
whilst we supported the Government's attempts to ensure that a
Title V legal base is cited where necessary, we took the orthodox
view that the UK's opt-in does not apply in the absence of such
a legal base. We therefore looked forward to hearing how his officials
got on in adding Title V legal bases and splitting the Council
Decisions. We also said that we expected the opt-in period of
three months to run from the addition of those legal bases, should
the Government be successful.
5.14 This plainly being a very important and controversial
agreement, with major ramifications vis à vis enlargement
policy and EU-Russia relations, we also reminded the Minister
of the need to ensure that the Committee was not presented with
a fait accompli, on the eve of the Council that would decide
what to do next; and that we continued to look to him to provide
the Committee with a further assessment in time for this precedent-setting
agreement to be debated, if it should then so decide.
5.15 In the meantime, the documents remained under
The further draft Council Decisions
5.16 The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
says that his Explanatory Memorandum of 9 October 2013 brings
up to date the version submitted to the Committees on 14 June
"The chief update is to the Legal and Procedural
Issues section, where I have outlined the result of recent detailed
negotiations over the Council Decisions on signature, provisional
application and conclusion of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.
"My Explanatory Memorandum of 14 June 2013 covered
two proposed Council Decisions. The Council has now agreed to
split each of these original draft Decisions into two new separate
Council Decisions. This EM therefore covers four draft Council
Decisions. The first proposal is the legal instrument for authorising
the signature and provisional application of the Association Agreement
between the European Union and its Members, of the one part, and
Ukraine of the other part, with the exception of the provisions
relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed
as workers in the territory of the other party. The second is
the legal instrument for authorising signature of the Association
Agreement, as regards the provisions relating to the treatment
of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the
territory of the other party.
"The third is the legal instrument for authorising
the conclusion of the same Agreement, with the exception of the
provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals
legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party.
The fourth is the legal instrument for authorising the conclusion
of the Association Agreement as regards the provisions relating
to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as
workers in the territory of the other party. I have also included
a fifth proposal: a draft Council, Commission and High Representative
Declaration that defines the limits of the EU's scope to act."
5.17 With regard to the Legal and Procedural Issues,
the Minister says:
"In my letter of 2 September, I confirmed that
the UK Government considered that the Justice and Home Affairs
opt-in was engaged. Given that the UK's opt-in window closed
on 3 September, and in the light of the timings of Parliamentary
recess, I regret that the Parliamentary scrutiny committees did
not have the opportunity to consider the UK opt-in before that
date. The UK informed the Presidency on 3 September that the UK
would opt-in to the original proposed Council Decisions insofar
as they related to Mode 4 trade in services and readmission.
The government's position is that the Mode 4 provisions on
the temporary movement of skilled personnel (which concern the
admission of third country nationals onto the territory of the
United Kingdom) in the agreement fall within the scope of
the United Kingdom's Title V opt-in. The UK also opted-in to
the readmission provision: this related to an existing 2007 EU-Ukraine
readmission agreement and required the parties to commit to implementing
it. The UK has not opted into the new Council Decision with JHA
content as regards the provisions relating to the treatment of
third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory
of the other party."
5.18 The Minister confirms that the content of the
Agreement is as previously reported, viz:
· the section on Political Dialogue includes
dialogue and cooperation on domestic reform, and dialogue on foreign
and security policy including Common Security and Defence Policy;
· the Justice, Freedom and Security section
has a strong focus on rule of law and the reinforcement of judicial
institutions and practices;
· it also covers migration, treatment and
mobility of workers, and cooperation on crime;
· the Free Trade Area part of the Agreement
covers a wide range of issues aimed at stimulating growth in Ukraine
and creating business opportunities for all parties;
· the Economic and Sector Cooperation section
of the Agreement focuses on supporting core reforms to aid economic
recovery and growth in areas such as governance, energy, transport,
environmental protection, social development, equal rights, consumer
protection, education, training, youth and cultural cooperation;
· the Agreement also includes sections on
financial cooperation and institutional issues.
The Government's view
5.19 With regard to the political situation in Ukraine,
the Minister notes that the High Representative and the Commission
are monitoring developments in Ukraine, and keeping the Council
informed about progress achieved by Ukraine to meet the criteria
set out in the December Conclusions; and that he expects an assessment
to inform the Council's final decision in November on whether
signature by the time of the Vilnius Summit is appropriate.
5.20 Recalling that it was democratic back-sliding
in 2012 that led to the conditions laid down by the December European
Council, the Minister says:
"Our policy has been to support a closer relationship
between the EU and Ukraine, while continuing to make clear to
Ukraine that they need to deliver demonstrable improvements.
The Foreign Secretary underlined this when he met his counterpart
on 13 May, as did I when I visited Kyiv last month. The European
Neighbourhood Policy's report on Ukraine's progress in 2012 was
disappointing, but we believe that isolating Ukraine could slow
"The EU has much to gain from a closer relationship
with its eastern neighbours, but this has to be on the right terms.
The Foreign Secretary and I made clear to the Ukrainian Foreign
Minister that the decision on whether or not to sign the Association
Agreement this year could go either way, and they needed to demonstrate
a sustainable momentum for reform.
"Several Member States are concerned that if
the EU does not sign the Association Agreement, Ukraine will move
closer to Russia. Ukraine recently signed a Memorandum on observer
status in the Eurasian Economic Commission, but it is unclear
what this means in practice. All of Ukraine's public rhetoric
remains firmly committed to an EU future. We judge that if Ukraine
were to integrate more closely with the EU and adapt to EU norms
and principles, it could send a very strong signal to Russia;
we continue to see Ukraine as the swing state in the region that
could have an exemplary effect on the governance related change
we would like to see in Russia.
"The incarceration of former Prime Minister
Tymoshenko remains a factor in relations between the EU and Ukraine.
For some Member States her release may be a deciding factor in
their approach to signature of the Association Agreement. We
continue to call on Ukraine to reform its judicial system and
ensure equal and fair access to justice for all. Although they
have released some opposition politicians, the Ukrainians continue
to pursue a number of charges against Ms Tymoshenko."
The Minister's letters of 9 October 2012
5.21 Both letters explain that the Minister's further
Explanatory Memorandum follows detailed negotiations on the text
of the proposed Council Decisions; and that these negotiations
have led to a narrowing of the scope of provisional application,
a change to the legal base, and a split of each of the original
draft Decisions into two new separate Council Decisions.
5.22 The Minister says, with regard to the decision
to opt into the original proposed Council Decisions insofar as
they related to Mode 4 trade in services and readmission:
"The Government's position is that the
Mode 4 provisions on the temporary movement of skilled personnel
(which concern the admission of third country nationals onto the
territory of the United Kingdom) in the agreement fall within
the scope of the United Kingdom's Title V opt-in. The UK also
opted-in to the readmission provision: this related to an existing
2007 EU-Ukraine readmission agreement and required the parties
to commit to implementing it.
"The UK has not opted into the new Council Decision
with JHA content as regards the provisions relating to the treatment
of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the
territory of the other party.
5.23 Regarding political developments, the Minister
"On Ukraine's progress on reform, the British
Embassy in Kyiv have updated their informal assessment. The overall
picture remains unchanged; reform is still patchy. By-elections
arising from cancellation of October 2012 results have now been
scheduled for 15 December 2013. However, by-elections arising
from court rulings to strip elected MPs of their mandates have
not yet been organised. We judge it unlikely that a single Electoral
Code will be introduced before the Vilnius Summit on 28/29 November.
It is encouraging that no further extra-mural sessions of the
Ukrainian parliament have been held to bypass the opposition,
and the ruling party and opposition have demonstrated unity over
the approval of EU related bills. But a number of bills adopted
at the extra-mural session on 04 April have not been re-endorsed
by parliament, and there is a low probability that this will happen.
"In broad definition, selective justice is a
problem that continues to affect the lives of numerous Ukrainians.
There remain regularly reported instances of court decisions
driven by pressure and influence rather than guided by law, and
of individuals and businesses (including British investors) who
struggle to get a fair hearing in the courts. There is anecdotal
evidence that the business climate may be deteriorating.
"The development by parliamentary committee
of a draft law on Transparency of Use of Public Funds is a step
forward; if adopted, it should allow for greater public scrutiny
of public finances, budgeting and procurement processes.
"The Government will continue to follow Ukraine's
progress closely over the coming weeks as a decision-point is
now becoming imminent around whether to agree to signature of
the Council Decisions on the Association Agreement, We expect
to receive an update from the EU institutions at the Foreign Affairs
Council meeting on 21 October. Once we have that and can compare
it to our own analysis we will be in a better position to reach
a recommendation on whether or not the EU should sign an Association
Agreement with Ukraine.
"The Council Decisions are likely to be brought
forward at the November Foreign Affairs Council. The Government
has not yet reached a decision on whether to agree signature and
the FCO continues to analyse Ukraine's progress against the EU's
The Minister's letter of 17 October 2013
5.24 In his letter, the Minister notes the Committee's
reference to reports of increased Russian pressure across the
Eastern Partnership region and the possibility of Armenia joining
the Customs Union, and its desire "to have full sight of
the Government's position on whether to support the signing of
the Association Agreement with Ukraine before taking its own view",
and continues as follows:
"FACTORS IN OUR DECISION ON WHETHER TO SIGN
"On the overarching question of whether we will
sign this or not, the Government has not yet reached a decision
on whether Ukraine has made sufficient progress against the benchmarks
set out in the Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions of December
2012 to allow for signature of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement
at the Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit on 28 / 29 November.
"We continue to believe that the closer integration
of the EU and Ukraine, of which the Association Agreement and
Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area agreement (DCFTA) is a
concrete manifestation, will be good for the UK and good for Ukraine.
It will contribute to security and prosperity on Europe's eastern
border, with enhanced cooperation on non-proliferation and conflict
prevention. The DCFTA will bring a mutual opening of markets
for goods and services, creating increased opportunities for UK
"However there is still work to be done and
we, and European partners, are keen to give Ukraine as much time
as possible to demonstrate determined action and tangible progress
on (i) improving conduct of elections; (ii) addressing selective
justice; and (iii) carrying out reforms agreed in the Association
Agenda, as demanded by the December 2012 Foreign Affairs Council.
We welcome the fact that the pace of reform has increased in
recent weeks, particularly since the start of the current sitting
of the Ukrainian Rada on 3 September.
"The Government has continued to express concern
about systematic flaws in Ukraine's judicial process and selective
justice. For several Member States the specific case of Yuliya
Tymoshenko is key and it is possible that we shall not know until
very close to the Summit itself whether or not she will be freed.
A determining factor in their assessment of whether Ukraine has
made sufficient progress against the selective justice benchmark
will therefore be whether an outcome that is satisfactory to both
Mrs Tymoshenko and the Ukrainian authorities can be reached.
"Geopolitical considerations are clearly an
issue that will play a part in UK, and partners', considerations.
There is a delicate balance of interests at play. Our overall
Eastern Neighbourhood Policy is based on conditionality and maintaining
a European perspective, at least for Ukraine. However, the intensity
of Russian pressure on Eastern partners to dissuade them from
taking further steps towards economic and political partnership
with the EU have made Vilnius into a key geopolitical moment.
Some partners are, therefore, concerned that at this particular
moment, we should not play conditionality so hard that it prevents
Ukraine from being able make the strategic choice to opt for Europe.
Armenia has already indicated her intention to join Russia's
"On the position taken by Russia, I would echo
Commissioner Füle's recent statement. Countries have a sovereign
choice to determine their own course, including whether to sign
association agreements with the EU. Any threats and pressure
linked to the signing of agreements from the Russian side are
unacceptable. The Government feels strongly that the Eastern Partnership
and Association Agreements and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade
Areas are not a threat to Russia. They are an opportunity. Prosperous,
stable neighbours are in Russia's interests, which is what Association
Agreements and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas help to
"VIEWS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES
"We are maintaining close contact with our European
partners and sharing assessments of Ukraine's progress. We will
clearly take into consideration the assessments of other Member
States when making our own judgements. In practical terms, the
position we take will be guided by Ukraine's performance against
the criteria and to some extent by what is feasible. That will
depend, in part, on the positions that certain other Member States
take in the run up to and at the 18 November FAC. Overall we
would need to think hard about how we would justify a UK Government
decision that was not in line with that of the majority of our
European partners; it is important that the EU and its Member
States continue to demonstrate a common position towards Ukraine
and send clear messages to the Ukrainian authorities that, independent
of whether signature takes place at Vilnius, the momentum for
reform must be maintained.
"I appreciate that your Committee wished for
full sight of the Government's approach to signing this Association
Agreement before considering referring this item for debate. I
am conscious that your Committee, understandably, wishes to have
as much information as possible before deciding whether to clear
all outstanding documents from scrutiny, or to refer them for
debate. As set out most recently in ESC Report 34969 / 35029
of 9 October 2013, you did not wish to be 'presented with a fait
accompli on the eve of the summit' indicating the Government's
"As I explained in my letter of 9 October, we
expect to receive an update from the EU institutions at the October
Foreign Affairs Council on 21 October, but I thought it important
to share with you now, to enable your Committee's early consideration,
the main factors that the UK Government will take into account
in our decision making.
"I want to be fully clear with your Committee:
the Government wishes to make our own decision as late as possible
so that we can take full account of both Ukraine's progress. The
Government believes it is right to take the final decision on
whether finally to support signing of the Association Agreement
close to the Summit itself, for all the reasons around conditionality
and coordination with other Member States outlined above.
"If your Committee would consider a debate useful
for a wider discussion of these issues, I know you will appreciate
that timing is becoming urgent in terms of the approaching 18
November FAC and the parliamentary recess that falls from 12-18
"I trust that this information helps you in
your further consideration. I and my officials stand ready to
provide any further information your Committee would find helpful."
5.25 It is now plain that, if the House is to
have an opportunity to express a view on the best approach in
all the circumstances, then a debate in European Committee B,
before the 19 November FAC that will decide whether or not to
adopt the Council Decisions, is now required. We so recommend.
5.26 On process, we welcome the decision to split
the Decisions to sign and conclude the Agreement into two Council
Decisions, one concerning JHA measures to which the UK's opt-in
applies; the other concerning non-JHA measures. This approach
provides for greater legal certainty on the UK's participation
in JHA measures, something for which this Committee has called
since early in this Parliament.
5.27 It also follows the approach taken by the
Council in the conclusion of the Framework Agreement on the Comprehensive
Partnership and Cooperation between the EU and Indonesia,
save in that instance the Title V legal base was added in relation
to a readmission provision. We note, however, that for the Ukraine
Agreement the Title V legal base has been added in relation to
the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers
in the territory of the other party, but not, it seems, to the
readmission provision. This appears to be a striking inconsistency
of approach on the application of the opt-in Protocol to international
agreements, which concerns us. We ask the Minister to say why
the precedent of the EU-Indonesia Agreement was not followed in
this instance and whether he shares our concern.
5.28 As for timing, we refer the Minister to the
conclusion of our Report on the EU-Kosovo Framework Agreement,
in which we commented that:
"we are aware that the Legal Service of the
Council Secretariat has advised in relation to the draft Directive
on the fight against fraud on the EU's financial interests by
means of criminal law,
that the UK's JHA opt-in period will run from the date of the
general approach in Council agreeing to substitute the proposed
legal base with a Title V base. This approach we think conforms
to the language and logic of Protocol (No) 21. Should, in the
current situation, the Government be successful in achieving the
citation of the Title V legal bases, we ask the Minister to say
whether the Government will hold to its view that the pre-adoption
opt-in period has already been triggered. For the sake of consistency
on an important procedural clarification and the need for predictability
and certainty of scrutiny, we trust that it will not."
5.29 Accordingly, we think the three-month period
for the opt-in decision on the two Title V Council Decisions should
run from the date on which it was agreed in Council to add the
Title V legal bases. We do not accept the deadline has passed,
and ask the Minister to provide an analysis of why the Government
intends to opt into Article 17 of the Agreement on the treatment
of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the
territory of the other party in accordance with the enhanced scrutiny
procedures for opt-ins.
5.30 We ask for this information so that we can
report it in time for the debate in European Committee.
8 See headnote: (34969) 9706/13: HC 83-xvi (2013-14),
chapter 7 (9 October 2013) and HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 7
(17 July 2013). Back
See headnote. The Council Conclusions are also available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/134136.pdf. Back
See headnote: HC 83-xii (2012-13), chapter 7 (17 July 2013). Back
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24061556. Back
This is reproduced at the Annex to this chapter of our Report. Back
See our Report: HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 21 (17 July 2013). Back
HC 83-xvii (2013-14), chapter 4 (16 October 2013). Back
See (34091) 12683/12: HC 86-xii (2012-13) chapter 10 (12 September