6 International Organisation for Vine
and Wine
| Committee's assessment
| Legally important |
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared from scrutiny (decision reported on 5 November 2014) (b) Cleared from scrutiny (decision reported on 15 October 2014)
|
| 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
6.1 The International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)[18]
is an intergovernmental organisation which sets standards for
viticulture, oenological practices, definitions, labelling and
methods of analysis. There are 21 Member States who are also members
of the OIV in their own right; the UK and the EU are not.
6.2 Resolutions adopted by the OIV (by consensus
of its participating members) are not legally binding. However,
since Regulation 1308/2013[19]
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.
6.3 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.[20]
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.
6.4 After document (a), a similar Council Decision,
prepared for the OIV's Annual General Assembly meeting in November
2014, was agreed by Member States on 28 October (with the UK abstaining)
and after receiving the Government's initial view on the ECJ's
judgment of 7 October rejecting Germany's challenge, we cleared
that document from scrutiny on 5 November.
6.5 In our Report of 5 November, we said that we
would be interested to learn from the Minister, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary for Farming, Food and Marine Environment (George
Eustice), in due course, whether the Government had identified
which other international organisations might fall within the
scope of the ECJ judgment, particularly those of which the UK
was a member. The Minister now writes in response.
6.6 We thank the Minister for his letter and have
no further questions in relation to these documents.
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 (OIV): (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 (OIV): (34878),
8743/13, COM(13) 243.
Background and previous scrutiny
6.7 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 specifically considered in our
Thirteenth Report of 2014-15.
The Minister's letter of 3 February 2015
6.8 The Minister says the following in response to
the Committee's request set out in paragraph 6.5 above:
"I would like to give the Committee some
background to this case first, and the position that the Government
adopted. The Government supported all the resolutions being considered
for adoption by the OIV, but had concerns over the use of Article
218(9) as a legal base for the Council Decision. Whitehall lawyers
took the view that the article referred to legal effects at the
international level only. Since OIV resolutions do not have effect
in international law, the use of this legal base in this instance
would create an unhelpful precedent and have significant implications
for EU external representation.
"The Government considered that the correct
approach would be for a coordinated EU position to be set out
in position papers agreed by consensus at Working Party level.
The UK therefore focused on this issue in its support of Germany's
challenge to the Council Decision during the CJEU oral hearing
last year. Germany also argued that a 218(9) decision was inappropriate
in circumstances where the EU was not a member of the relevant
organisation. The UK did not run this second argument because
the practice of using such Decisions was well established in those
cases e.g. the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, which
the Court had already had cause to consider and not opposed (Case
C-370/07).
"The Court concluded in its judgment of
7 October 2014 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. This was not unexpected, but the Court also held, contrary
to the UK's arguments, that article 218(9) does apply in circumstances
where the decisions being taken by an international body, despite
not having legal effects at the international level, may 'decisively
influence the content of EU legislation'. We are still looking
closely at the potential implications this ruling has for the
UK.
"Despite our concerns, a mandate was agreed
at the Environment Council on 28 October 2014 as an 'A' point.
The UK abstained but the decision was carried on the basis of
a qualified majority in favour.
"It is not yet clear how the Commission
will respond to the OIV judgment and whether they are likely to
propose decisions based on article 218(9) in other cases. That
is likely to depend on the individual circumstances of particular
international negotiations.
"It would also be very difficult to identify
a list of international organisation and arrangements which could
clearly be said to be affected by this ruling. The status of the
EU and what it is able to do in different parts of the international
system varies a great deal. The Government would prefer to consider
this issue on an individual case by case basis, looking at any
proposed Decisions critically and opposing them where necessary.
"In some cases, the Commission is looking
to enhance EU status in certain organisations. For example, in
the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Commission has proposed
a revision of the internal EU arrangements for EU representation
in that organisation, and with the UN High Commission for Refugees
the EU is seeking more formal participation.
"Given the range of circumstances which
might apply to the many international organisations across Government
in which the UK has an interest, attempting to set out a definitive
list at this point might well be misleading. Officials across
Government will be tracking this carefully and we will, of course,
keep you informed of any further developments and ensure that
the Committee has the opportunity to consider fully any cases
where this issues arises when proposals come before them for scrutiny."
Previous Committee Reports
(a) and (b) Eighteenth Report HC 219-xvii (2014-15),
chapter 7 (5 November 2014); 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).
18 From the French acronym for Organisation Internationale
de la Vigne et du Vin. Back
19
This has now repealed the Regulation we have referred to in our
Third Report of 2013-14: Regulation No. 1234/2007. Back
20
Case C-399/12 Germany v Council. Back
|
