APPENDIX 1: SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM FROM
GERMAN AMBASSADOR
Berlin Declaration
Allow me to say a few words about the "Berlin
declaration" in general before answering your question:
The 50th
anniversary of the Treaty of Rome should be the highlight of our
Presidency.
25th March is a good opportunity to look
back on the amazing success story of the EU. At the same time
Europe must look forward. We are doing our best to make the anniversary
a turnaround in the public perception of the EU. We hope Europeans
will be more optimistic and look more towards the future.
The heads of states and governments of the EU, together
with the Presidents of the European Commission and of the European
Parliament, will meet in Berlin on 25th
March. They will adopt a joint declaration, the so-called "Berlin
declaration". To me, Berlin, which for so long symbolised
the division of Europe, seems the perfect location to adopt such
a declaration.
The declaration should deliver the message of the
anniversary: recall the success story of European Integration,
reaffirm our shared values, and give orientation towards the future.
How will the Berlin Declaration be prepared? How
will transparency and accountability to national parliaments be
ensured in that process?
The Presidency has initiated a process of consultations
with the Member States mainly consisting of bilateral talks with
the so-called "sherpas" or "focal points"—high-ranking
officials designated by the leaders to prepare a draft Declaration.
The Declaration will then be considered by the EU leaders themselves.
To be published on 25 March, and given the need to
translate it into all EU languages and print it, the declaration
has to be finalised by mid-March.
Most Member States have rather precise rules on the
participation of their national parliaments in European decision-making.
In Germany—following the ratification of the constitutional
treaty by the German Bundestag—federal government and the
Bundestag have agreed on a new set of rules ensuring that the
EU Committee will be regularly informed of the state of play and
that the views of the Bundestag are taken into account.
What political status, or legal force if any,
is the Declaration intended to have?
The Declaration will be a political declaration,
given by the leaders of the European Union.
It will not have legally binding force.
How far will the Declaration provide an opportunity
to take forward the Presidency's stated commitment to diversity
defined by tolerance?
In her speech given in Strasburg before the European
Parliament, Chancellor Merkel has made some remarks concerning
the principles of diversity and tolerance. In our view those are
key principles behind the success of the European Union. Considering
that the Declaration will be about Europe's values, there will
certainly be an opportunity to embrace those principles in the
Declaration.
Better regulation, better legislation
The Committee has noted with approval the sections
of the Commission's 2007 Annual Work Programme that deal with
better regulation and better legislation. How will the Presidency
align its priorities with those of the Commission? What concrete
results does the Presidency hope to see in this area during its
term?
Germany's EU Presidency supports the Commission's
"Better Regulation and Legislation" initiative. Chancellor
Merkel is personally committed to dismantling bureaucracy. As
the report presented by the Commission in November shows, there
has already been some achievement, e.g. with respect to the
withdrawal of some draft legislation, impact assessment for
each Commission initiative, etc.
Now the priority is simplification of existing EU
law. In the Work Programme you mention, the Commission has submitted
further proposals which need to be implemented quickly. As holders
of the Presidency, we will support this in the Council of Ministers
and also discuss possible coordination of working processes with
the EP.
Further, we would like the Council to agree a concrete
target for the reduction of bureaucratic burdens and immediate
measures to achieve this. This is a key element of the Action
Plan for reducing bureaucracy submitted by the Commission on 24
January. Using the standard costs model developed in the UK, the
Commission intends to begin assessment of bureaucracy costs in
the key areas of EU law identified by the end of June. We support
this aim.
A further aim is the development of the impact assessment
tool. The evaluation report on the Commission's impact assessments
to be published in the spring can provide a basis for this. The
Council can also draw on experience in individual member states
for ideas.
These are examples of how Germany's EU Presidency
intends to encourage better regulation in the Council and beyond.
The UK is very advanced in this area. We Germans are trying to
catch up. But Britain has also certainly experienced, during its
Presidencies, what anxieties and resistance have to be overcome.
So we need to remain realistic.
In the context of better regulation, Chancellor Merkel
has initiated a debate about the discontinuity principle. Any
EU bills which have not yet passed their third reading would be
discarded at the end of the European Parliament's legislative
period. This is a difficult subject. But it is good democratic
practice in most member states including Germany and the UK. So
why should it not be introduced in Europe? When a new Commission
and Parliament are formed, a fresh political start could be made.
Such a democratic cut-off point could lend the elections to the
EP even greater importance.
Parliamentary scrutiny of the EU
The Committee has noted with interest the recent
agreement by the German government to enhance the role of Germany's
Parliament in EU scrutiny. What are the key strengths of the new
system and what within your government was the driver for change?
In Germany, the Federal Government and the Bundestag
agreed in September 2006 on a new set of rules that ensures that
the Bundestag's EU Committee will be regularly informed on the
state of play of European legislation and that the views of the
Bundestag are taken into account. The agreement was planned in
the context of the debate on the Constitutional Treaty.
Thus, the Bundestag will be informed roughly in the
same way as the Bundesrat and the Länder have already been
for many years. The Bundestag now regularly receives reports from
Germany's Permanent Representation to the EU in Brussels on meetings
at various levels, e.g. working groups, COREPER, and Council.
This continuous flow of information enables Parliament
to give its opinion on European legislation from the earliest
stages. As a result, the principle of subsidiarity should be strengthened.
There is increased transparency in the legislative process. Early
information of the national Parliament should also lead to better
regulation.
The Prüm convention
Negotiations have been proceeding in the Council
for two years on the exchange of information for law enforcement,
and the data protection issues involved. The Prüm Convention
has different provisions on these issues. Why is the Presidency
seeking to incorporate the Convention into EU law and will this
have the effect of bypassing Council negotiations?
The Presidency seeks to incorporate the Convention
in order to have all member states benefit from the exchange of
information held by police authorities. The special value of the
treaty lies in the substantially improved and efficiently organised
procedures for the exchange of information held by police authorities.
The contracting states have agreed to link their existing national
databases, rather than set up a complex central data system. This
is crucial to fight terrorism effectively. Incorporating the Prüm
Convention will not bypass Council negotiations but rather make
sure that all member states are being included instead of a group
of like minded states leaving the rest of the Union behind.
Let me explain how the Prüm Treaty works: the
contracting parties give one another access to their DNA analysis,
fingerprint databases and motor vehicle registries in what is
called a hit/no hit system. Police services may launch a query
in the data system of a contracting partner to find out whether
it contains data concerning a specific DNA or fingerprint profile
and are automatically informed about the results within a matter
of minutes. To ensure a high data protection level the communication
of further information such as personal data does not fall within
the scope of the treaty. However, if a match is found, this information
may be obtained by means of a request of mutual legal assistance.
Let me give you an example: under the treaty, Austria
and Germany have been able to check the contents of their national
DNA databases against each other since early December 2006. This
is the first time that two countries have granted each other access
to their national databases using a hit/no hit method. In just
six weeks, when German untraceables were checked against the Austrian
database, 1500 matches were found, and when Austrian untraceables
were checked against the German database, 1400 matches were found.
On the basis of these results where an untraceable could be matched
with a person in the database, police investigators are now able
to match hits with unsolved crimes. These figures are proof that
the idea behind the Prüm Treaty to create a network of existing
national databases is a simple, yet very effective means to fight
cross-border crimes and international terrorism.
| 
