17 EU-Turkmenistan
relations
| Committee's assessment
| Legally and politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny; further information requested
|
| Document details | Draft Council and Commission Decision on the Conclusion of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA)
|
| Legal base | Articles 91, 100(2), 207, 209 and Article 218(6)(a) TFEU; Article 101 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; QMV
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Document number | (36553), —
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
17.1 Partnership and Co-operation Agreements (PCAs) were introduced
as an instrument for developing the EU's relationship with third
countries in the early 1990s. They were primarily targeted at
the countries of the former Soviet Union, though more recently
their geographical scope has widened. These agreements provide
a broad framework for developing the EU's political and economic
relations with the countries in question, and establish an institutional
basis within which these relations can be discussed regularly.
17.2 Turkmenistan is the only one of the five Central
Asian States that does not have a PCA with the EU. An EU-Turkmenistan
PCA was signed on 25 May 1998, and ratified by Turkmenistan in
2004. It will come into force when ratified by each Member State
and concluded (ratified) by the EU. The purpose of this Decision
is to enable the EU to do this, once the European Parliament has
signified its consent.
17.3 In the absence of a full PCA, an Interim Trade
Agreement (ITA), dating back to 2009, currently exists between
Turkmenistan and the European Union.
17.4 Our first Report of 17 December 2014 sets out
the background in more detail. In our second, of 14 January 2015,
we expressed our disagreement with the Government that the UK
opt-in was engaged in respect of the provisions of the PCA on
Mode IV services,[66]
but noted that this disagreement had little practical effect in
this case.
17.5 We also expressed the view that it was unacceptable
for the text of this Decision to retain its limité
classification, and thus of only limited use for scrutiny by this
House, once it was made available to the European Parliament.
17.6 Finally we sought further clarification on the
issue of EU competence.
17.7 We are pleased that the Government has now
secured the removal of the limité classification
of this text. In our view the Council was not justified to retain
this classification for as long as it did.
17.8 Whilst the PCA does not raise any substantive
issues of policy, it does raise legal issues. That which is outstanding
is one which arises frequently in relation to external agreements
which are entered into by both the EU and the Member States. This
draft Decision lacks clarity as to the exercise of competence.
It does not identify the provisions of the PCA in respect of which
the EU (as opposed to the Member States) is acting; nor does it
make it clear the extent to which the EU is acting in respect
of matters for which it has exclusive competence, where
competence shared with the Member States, or for which
the EU and Member States have parallel competence.[67]
Our main concern is that the EU should not, without strong reason,
act in areas of shared competence in preference to the
Member States.
17.9 In relation to this concern, the Minister
for Europe (Mr David Lidington) indicates that the PCA principally
covers matters for which the EU has exclusive competence (under
the EU's common commercial policy and in respect of EURATOM matters)
or parallel competence (insofar as it relates to development co-operation).
It is only in respect of the relatively minor aspect of the PCA,
trade in transport services, where there is some shared competence.
17.10 Although he does not refer to this in his
letter, it is also evident from the third recital to the Decision
that, even in this area, some of the competence is exclusive to
the EU by virtue of the fact that the PCA would affect existing
EU internal legislation.[68]
This recital is also consistent with the EU acting only where
it has exclusive or parallel competence.
17.11 Additionally we have been informed by FCO
officials that the Government intend to make a minute statement
to address the residual PCA provisions on trade in transport services
that are subject to shared competence.
17.12 In the light of these factors and the extended
history of this matter we are prepared to clear this document
from scrutiny on a matter which raises no substantive policy issue.
We ask, however, to be provided with a copy of the minute statement
in the form it is lodged.
Full details of
the documents: Draft
Council and Commission Decision on the conclusion by the European
Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of the Partnership
and Cooperation Agreement establishing a Partnership between the
European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,
and Turkmenistan, of the other part: (36553), —.
The Minister's letter of 16 January 2015
17.13 In respect of making the proposed Decision
publicly available the Minister informs the Committee:
"I am pleased to say that, subsequent to
the Committee's most recent correspondence, our repeated requests
to EU interlocutors seeking a publicly releasable text of the
draft Council and Commission Decision have finally borne fruit.
We received confirmation from the Secretariat on 15 January that
the draft document would be declassified, and passed a copy to
the Committee the same day. I hope that this will assist the
Committee in their further consideration of the matter."
17.14 He deals with the question of competence as
follows:
"On the question of competences, the Committee
sought additional clarity as to the respective exercise of competence
between the EU and its Member States. As I previously explained,
the Council Decision on Conclusion reflects the fact that the
EU will principally be exercising exclusive competence in respect
of its common commercial policy (as well as in relation to the
Euratom Treaty) but also shared competence in respect of trade
in transport services and parallel competence in respect of development
co-operation. Aside from that, there is no explicit statement
in respect of each Article as to whether the EU or Member States
or both will be entering into the relevant obligations. As this
is a mixed agreement and on the basis that the Council Decision
on conclusion does not authorise the EU to enter into any remaining
shared competences, we are proceeding on the basis that these
will be for the Member States to assume. We are satisfied that
the content of the Agreement and the Council Decision authorising
the EU to conclude it are generally consistent with similar Partnership
and Co-operation Agreements. In any event, as stated in previous
correspondence, officials will scrutinise how the agreement is
implemented, including in relation to issues of competence and
will seek to ensure that the EU acts only in relation to competences
authorised by the Council Decision."
17.15 On the question of whether the UK opt-in is
engaged, on which we expressed our view in our Report of 14 January,
he states:
"I note the Committee's views in relation
to the Opt-in, but can only reiterate that given that the UK is
already compliant with the Mode IV provisions of the PCA and the
fact that the Commission would be very unlikely to accept such
an application, we have taken the decision not to seek a post-adoption
opt-in."
Previous Committee Reports
Twenty-ninth Report HC 219-xxviii (2014-15) chapter
6 (14 January 2015), Twenty-seventh Report HC 219-xxvi (2014-15)
chapter 5 (17 December 2014).
66 ie., services provided by the movement of the service
provider across borders and which therefore interact with immigration
law. Back
67
Where the EU has exclusive competence only it can act. Where competence
is shared with Member States, either can act, although Government
policy is that normally the choice should be in favour of the
Member States. Where competence between the EU and the Member
States is parallel, either can act, but EU action does not prevent
Member States exercising their competence, as is the case where
competence is shared. Back
68
Article 3(2) TFEU. Back
| 
