House of Commons - Documents considered by the Committee on 5 November 2014

Documents considered by the Committee on 5 November 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents

7 International Organisation for Vine and Wine

Committee's assessment	Legally important
Committee's decision	(a) Cleared from scrutiny (b) cleared from scrutiny (decision reported 15.10.14)

Document details (a) Draft Council Decision (as revised) establishing a common position on the EU's behalf in respect of certain resolutions of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV); (b) Draft Council Decision establishing a common position on the EU's behalf in respect of certain resolutions of the OIV

Legal base Articles 43 and 218(9) TFEU; QMV

Department Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Document numbers (a) (36293), 12679/14, + ADD 1 REV 1, COM(14) 528; (b) (34878), 8743/13, COM(13) 243

Summary and Committee's conclusions

7.1 The International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)[33] is an intergovernmental organisation which sets standards for viticulture, oenological practices, definitions, labelling and methods of analysis. There are 21 EU Member States who are also members of OIV; the UK and the EU are not.

7.2 Resolutions adopted by OIV (by the consensus of its participating members) are not legally binding. However, since Regulation 1308/2013[34] makes references to certain OIV resolutions, those resolutions can affect the EU legal framework for wine. For this reason, from 2012 onwards, the Commission has proposed draft Council Decisions, in part based on Article 218(9) TFEU, to establish common positions on OIV resolutions falling within EU competence. The Council Decisions require the EU members of the OIV to vote on resolutions at Annual General Assembly meetings in line with the Decisions.

7.3 Although document (b) was not adopted in 2013, we continued to keep that document under scrutiny because the Government had told us that legal proceedings challenging the 2012 Decision had been brought by Germany before the Court of Justice, partly supported by the UK.[35] In those proceedings, Germany sought to annul the 2012 Decision, on the grounds that the Article 218(9) TFEU legal base was incorrect where a position was being established in an international organisation to which the EU was not a party and the resolutions to be adopted by that organisation were not legally-binding.

7.4 We cleared document (b) from scrutiny in our last Report.[36] This was because it was no longer needed for our ongoing scrutiny of the issue of the legal base since a new but similar Council Decision (document (a)) had been proposed by the Commission in time for the 2014 Annual Assembly meeting in November. The original text of document (a) was superseded by a subsequent revision which set out the specific EU voting position for Member States in relation to OIV resolutions to be adopted at the November meeting. On 7 October the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the legal proceedings brought by Germany, but not in its favour. As requested in our last Report,[37] the Government now writes to tell us about the outcome of the Council meeting at which document (a) was to be adopted and how it voted. It also provides us with its initial view of the judgment.

7.5 We thank the Minister for his letters. We welcome his offer to keep us informed of the Government's further consideration of the ECJ judgment in Germany v Council.[38]

7.6 However, we do recognise that the application of the judgment may depend on the circumstances of each case. While it is now clear that the fact that the EU is not a party to an international organisation is no bar to the use of Article 218(9) TFEU, the extent to which non-legally binding acts of an organisation can be said to be "capable of decisively influencing the content" of EU legislation and of having "direct impact on the European Union's acquis" might be more open to interpretation.

7.7 Notwithstanding that uncertainty, we would be interested to learn from the Minister, in due course, whether the Government has identified which other international organisations might fall within the scope of the judgment, particularly those of which the UK is a member. We ask the Minister to note that we have already raised the question of the implications of the judgment with the responsible Minister at the Home Office during our scrutiny of the proposed Council Decision on Forced Labour Convention of the International Labour Organisation.[39]

7.8 Subject to that, we now clear document (a), having cleared document (b) on 15 October.

Full details of the documents: (a) Draft Council Decision (as revised) establishing a common position on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine: (36293), 12679/14 + ADD 1 REV 1, COM(14) 528; (b) Draft Council Decision establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine: (34878), 8743/13, COM(13) 243.

Background and previous scrutiny

7.9 The full background to document (b), an overview of its provisions and the Government's view of it, particularly concerning the proposed legal base, are set out in our Third Report of 2013-14. Document (a) (as revised) shares much of the same background and its substance was considered in our Thirteenth Report of 2014-15.

The Minister's letters of 28 October 2014

7.10 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Farming, Food and Marine Environment (George Eustice) now writes in relation to document (a):

^th

"I would note that notwithstanding the UK abstention, the vote was carried on the basis of a QMV majority in favour. The position of the EU in relation to the resolutions to be voted at the November OIV General Assembly in Mendoza is therefore confirmed.

"Moving forward, we are now looking at the detail of the ruling and will look carefully at any future use of Article 218(9) on a case by case basis."

7.11 In another letter of the same date, the Minister addresses the ECJ ruling in Germany v Council[40] in response to our letter of 11 June which we sent during the course of our scrutiny of document (b). He refers to the two grounds of Germany's challenge to the Article 218(9) TFEU legal base in the proceedings:

"Germany argued that the legal basis was incorrect as:

(1) that Article applies only where the EU is a member of the organisation; and

(2) the measures concerned (the OIV resolutions) did not have legal effects for the purpose of article 218(9).

"The UK intervened in support of Germany on the second of these issues at the hearing."

7.12 He then gives a summary of the ruling itself which was delivered on 7 October:

"The Court concluded that the wording of Article 218(9) TFEU does not prevent the EU from 'establishing a position to be adopted' on the EU's behalf in a body set up by international agreement to which it is not a party. Where the EU has competence in an area it may act through the Member States to establish a position in relation to an international agreement even if it is not a party to it.

"It also concluded that resolutions of the OIV such as those to be voted on by that body in the present case have been incorporated into EU law by virtue of certain EU Regulations. Since the Commission is required to take them into consideration when drawing up EU rules and they may decisively influence the content of EU legislation, they therefore have legal effect for the purposes of Article 218(9) TFEU, even where there are no legal effects in international law. The EU may therefore adopt a position with regard to those resolutions in view of their direct impact on the EU's acquis."

7.13 Turning to the potential implications of the ruling for the UK, he says that the Government is "still looking closely" at those. He adds:

"For instance, we may see the wider use of Council Decisions under Art 218(9) TFEU than at present which might in turn lead to greater use of QMV voting procedures to agree the EU position for an international meeting. I will keep you informed of our considerations and hope that you will as a result of this letter be able to lift the remaining scrutiny reserves on this and the latest proposal."

Previous Committee Reports

(a) and (b) Thirteenth Report HC 219-xiii (2014-15), chapter 12 (15 October 2014); (b) Third Report HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter 8 (21 May 2013).

33 From the French acronym for Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin. Back

34 This has now repealed the Regulation we have referred to in our Third Report of 2013-14: Regulation No. 1234/2007. Back