European Single Market - Essay Example

? European Single Market Part One Were Ultra and Media en d to ban the Infran Produce? One of the important characteristics of the market of the European Union (EU) countries is the free movement of goods between economies. This movement has facilitated to develop the internal market of the EU which in turn has encouraged the European businesses to grow and flourish. The EU has formulated laws to ensure that no quantitative restrictions are placed on the import and export of goods between the member countries. There can, of course be exceptions to such cases. This paper attempts to analyze the pros and cons of such an exceptional case, where two member countries impose a restriction on the import of two goods produced by a member nation. Whether such a prohibition was justified under the given circumstances and if not, then what would be the conditions under which the former member states would have to compensate the latter state forms the basis of our discussion in the first part. (The European Commission 2010 p8) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is an international treaty between the European Union member states that forms the basis of the EU’s constitutional base. This treaty describes at length the policies, role and functioning of the EU. Chapter 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union enumerates the “Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions between Member States”. The Article 34 under this chapter states that “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between the Member States.” (Similarly Article 35 prevents the member states from placing similar quantitative restrictions on export of goods). According to the rules of this Article, the member states Ultra and Media were not entitled to place any sort of restriction on Infran’s production of tomatoes and cucumbers. In a counter argument, the authorities of Ultra and Media could have declared that both of them were justified in prohibiting Infran’s products into their markets, under Article 36 of the Treaty. Article 36 states that “The provisions of Article 34 and Article 35 (regarding quantitative restrictions on export) shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants;…………Such Prohibition or restriction shall not, however constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States”. (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010, p. 61) This implied that if the member states Ultra and Media were able to prove that the fatal outbreak of E.coli in Europe was caused by the agricultural goods (tomatoes and cucumbers) produced by Infran, then they would be justified in prohibiting the import of Infran’s goods into their respective markets. This restriction would then have held good on account of public security of the protection of health and life of the citizens of these two countries. However, facts of the case that were unearthed presented a different truth. The outbreak of E.coli was found to be related to bean sprouts produced by Ultra. Thus, the restrictions placed by Ultra and Media on Infran’s products were no longer justified as stated in Article 34. Under the conditions stated in Article 36, it could then be proved that the restrictions imposed by Ultra and Media were a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010, p. 61). Again Article 37 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that “Member States shall refrain from introducing any new measure...which restricts the scope of the articles dealing with the prohibition of custom duties and quantitative restrictions between member States.” (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010 p. 61) The ban placed by Ultra and Media on the two agricultural goods produced by Infran could be shown to be such a measure which in effect had restricted the scope of the Articles 34, 35 and 36 which deals with the prohibition of quantitative restrictions between the EU members states. In that case also, the two member states would not be allowed to place a restriction on the import of the two agricultural commodities (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010 p. 61). The details of the case are quite clear. The EU legislation clearly prevents the member countries from placing any quantitative restrictions on the exchange of goods with the other member states. Under such a scenario, the two member nations Ultra and Media were freely importing the two agricultural commodities (tomatoes and cucumbers) produced by the other member state Infran. Then a fatal epidemic of E.coli broke out in the European Union. Initially, there was a general notion that the epidemic was caused by tomatoes and cucumbers which were two important agricultural goods produced by Infran and freely exported by the state. The EU Law stated that in certain exceptional cases, member states could impose quantitative restrictions on the free exchange of goods. This could be enforced in the case of an emergency (like an epidemic) when the nations want to protect the life and health of their respective inhabitants. Therefore, Ultra and Media placed a ban on the import of tomatoes and cucumbers from Infran. They were allowed by the EU Law to do so. However, after this the circumstances of the case changed. The E.coli epidemic was found to be caused by sprouted beans (produced by Ultra) instead of Infran’s agricultural goods. Thus, Ultra and Media were no longer justified in prohibiting the import of agricultural goods produced by Infran. The EU Law did not allow for it. Instead the legislation now viewed such a restriction as a unnecessary barrier to international trade and seemed to be a form of arbitrary discrimination. Thus under an ‘EU Harmonisation Directive’, Ultra and Media were asked to abolish the trade restriction. Ultra complied with the Directive while Media preferred to maintain the prohibition. Media stated that it wanted to ensure complete protection of its citizens and did not want to take any chances in this regard. Under what conditions and which courts would Andrew be entitled to sue Ultra and Media seeking compensation for his loss of sales In this case, Ultra and Media had placed a ban on two of Infran’s agricultural goods (tomatoes and cucumbers) thinking them to be the cause of the outbreak of the E.coli epidemic in Europe. Subsequently, it was found that this allegation was untrue as the cause of the epidemic was found to be sprouted beans produced in Ultra. This was followed by a European Harmonisation Directive ordering Ultra and Media to lift the ban from Infran’s products. Ultra followed this order, but Media did not as it wanted to protect its population in all possible ways. Andrew, the tomato and cucumber producer in Infra can first approach his own State Infra for justice appealing to sue Ultra and Media for placing such a prohibition and seeking a compensation for the loss of his sales caused by the ban. It can be argued that the two member states: Ultra and Media has failed to abide by an obligation under Article 34 and 37 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as enumerated earlier). Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: “If a Member State which considers that another Member State has failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaties, may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Before a Member State brings an action against another Member State for an alleged infringement of an obligation under the Treaties, it shall bring the matter before the European Commission. The Commission shall deliver a seasoned opinion after each of the States concerned has been given the opportunity to submit its own case and its observations on the other party’s case both orally and in writing. If the commission has not delivered an opinion within three months of the date on which the matter was brought before it, the absence of such opinion shall not prevent the matter from being brought before the Court of Justice.” (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010 p161) Thus abiding by this law, Infran must first approach the European Commission with the case against Ultra and Media. If the European Commission is not able to pronounce a decision in time, Infran can then approach the Court of Justice for a decision. The European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) is the highest court in the European Union to settle matter of dispute regarding the European Union Law. It is responsible for interpreting the EU law ensuring its uniform application across all the EU member states. Article 260 of the Treaty states: “(1) If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court. (2) If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the Court, it may bring the case before the Court after giving the State the opportunity to submit its observations. It shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. If the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgement it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.” (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010 p161) Therefore, if the Court of Justice finds that the two member states Ultra and Media have failed to fulfill the obligations under Article 34 and 36 of the Treaties, the Court shall pronounce a judgment and the member states have to abide by the judgment. Earlier, a European Union Harmonious Directive on the case had ordered Ultra and Media to lift their ban on Infran;s specific agricultural goods. This was because, the E coli epidemic was found to be realted to an agricultural product of Ultra (sprouted beans) and not those of Infran. Following this Directive, Ultra lifted its ban on Infran’s agricultural produce, but Media did not comply with it. It maintained a prohibition on Infran’s produces declaring that it wanted to ensure the absolute protection of its citizens. Following these development, if the European Commission finds that both Ultra and Media have violated the judgment of the Court of Justice, it will direct the Court to pay compensation to Andrew (in Infran). Alternatively, if the Commission finds that only Media has failed to comply with the rulings of the court, it would direct the Court of Justice to order Media to pay compensation to Andrew. References European Union, (2010), Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF (accessed on August 27, 2011) European Commission Enterprise and Industry, (2010), Free Movement of Goods: Guide to the application of Treaty provisions governing the free movement of goods, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/files/goods/docs/art34-36/new_guide_en.pdf (accessed on August 27, 2011) Part Two When a student undertakes a paid membership in another EU Member State, is he a student or a worker Article 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states: “(1) The Union shall implement a vocational training policy which shall support and implement the action of the Member States, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content and organization of vocational training. (2) The Union action shall aim to…-facilitate access to vocational training and encourage mobility of instructors and trainees and particularly young people….” (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010, p 121) Following this legislation it can be inferred that, when a student undertakes a paid membership in another EU Member State, he/she will be considered a student. Luc is supposed to undertake a one year paid internship programme at the Mayor’s office in London from September 2011 and his work responsibilities will include functions related to Information technology. This will be considered as a vocational training programme for Luc and accordingly, the EU laws regarding Vocational Training will be applicable here. Under the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the EU has made provisions for vocational training which includes placement opportunities for young workers and trainers in business organizations outside their own countries. The EU has also arranged cooperation projects which relate the vocational training institutions to business organizations. Apart from these developments, thirty-two countries including the EU Member States convened a discussion on issues regarding vocational education and training (VET). This forum was called the Copenhagen Process. The forum proposes to formulate a standard of eight educational qualification levels by 2012. These will be known as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). According to the strategy of the forum, every new qualification given by any University in any of the EU Member State will have a reference to one of those eight qualification levels. This would create uniformity in the degrees awarded by the European Universities. This would also help the business organizations of the European Union to easily recognize these qualifications and offer gainful employment opportunities to the holder of these degrees. (Europa, 2011) What rights do students have to live and attend University in another EU Member State Title XII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union deals with Education, Vocational Training, Youth and Sport. Article 165 under this Article states: “(1)The Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States, and if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. (2) The Union action shall be aimed at -… encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study” (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010, p. 120) Following this law, students who are the natives of a particular EU Member State have the right to live and attend a University in another Member State. The European Union has formulated numerous programmes which had made provisions for the European citizens to study, rain and undertake voluntary work in other Member States of the EU. The Union has declared an allotment of about EUR 7 billion for funding the different education-related programme during the period 2007-2013. The EU has initiated the Erasmus programme to encourage student mobility among the different Member States and for promoting cooperation between the various universities. It was started in 1987 and since then the programme has recorded 1.5 million students. A more recent version of this programme was the Erasmus Mundus programme which made provisions for post-doctorate students and academicians from all over the world to obtain a Masters degree from a group of at least three European Universities. Similarly, the Grundtvig programme has been formulated to fund adult education across different Member States of the EU. The programme also monitors the development of adult education networks and ensures the mobility of students and teachers among the EU Member nations. The EU has also allocated funds to foster the cooperation of education policies, learning of languages, development and dissemination of e-learning and the exchange of best practices among the Member States. (Europa, 2011) If a student falls short of money while studying in the University, will he be sent home The European Commission of 20 April, 2005 addresses a host of issues related to the EU higher education system prevalent in the Universities. The Commission presents its recommendations regarding the tuition fees of the students in the Universities which would be supported by a strong student aid system for students coming from lower income groups of the society. The Commission highlighted that the system of higher education generated both private returns for a particular individual and social returns for the society. This in turn increases the importance of higher education as an investment option for the individual. In the past, there have been suggestions of implementing a system of free higher education which would not charge any tuition fees from the students. This would endear the system of higher education to students from all income groups and ensure the maximum student enrollments. In that case, the Universities would be funded by the EU and the business organizations. However, it was duly shown that such a system of free higher education does not generate the desired results. Some analysts have exhibited that the system of charging tuition fees from the students can be worked into forming a beneficial model. If the Universities charge tuition fees from the students, in that case the extra funds can be contributed to forming a strong Student Aid System. Therefore, the European Commission recommended that each Member State needed to select an approach to the issue of tuition fees, which best suited the higher education practices prevalent in that State. Since the national education systems of the EU Member States were different from each other, there was no common solution to the issue. (Eur-Lex, Access to European Law n.d) A student pursuing higher education in a foreign University in a EU Member State other than his own State may fall short of monetary funds during the course of education. In that case, if the University has a strong Student Aid System in place, then it may decide to provide the additional funds required for the further education of the student. Then the student is not required to return home, but can stay on in the foreign University and pursue his education. However, if the specific University does not have the provision of a Student Aid System, in that case it will not be able to fund the education of the student any further and the student might have to return home. What rights does a new graduate from the University of Orcadia have, to search for work in another EU Member State Title IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relates to the Free Movement of Persons, Services and Capital. Under this, Article 45 states: “(1) Freedom of movement of workers shall be secured within the Union. (2) Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment (3) It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:… …b. to move freely within the territory of the Member States for this purpose c. to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action” (The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010, p 65,66) According to the provisions of the law, a new graduate from the University of Orcadia is free to search for employment in any organization belonging to any of the EU Member States. He is permitted to work in any of the Member States; in any place where he can find gainful employment. If the person gets employed in a State other than his own, he will be required to reside in that State (where he is working) and abide by rules and regulations governing the employment of the nationals of the Member State. In order to facilitate the mobility of workers across the Member States, the European Union has formulated a set of standard documents called the “Europass Documents” which are required to be possessed by every person wanting to work in the EU. The Documents include the Europass Curriculum Vitae, the Europass Language Passport and Europass Mobility which reports the duration spent in pursuing education abroad. The Europass Documents present the qualifications of the EU citizens in a standard manner. Thus, it easier for the employers of business organizations to recognize qualifications gained from educational institutions in other EU Member States and they offer gainful employment to the possessors of these qualifications. (Europa, 2011) Will the qualification of a Graduate from the University of Orcadia be recognized in another EU Member State Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Part 2 states that “Union action shall be aimed at …encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study.” (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010, p.120) Following this legislation, the qualification of a graduate from the University of Orcadia will have his/her degree recognized in all other Member EU States. The EU is trying to make the national educational systems prevalent in the different Member States comparable among each other. The Union is in the process of formulating a set of eight standard qualification levels known as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) by 2012. This is being done to facilitate the working careers of the EU citizens throughout their working lives. After 2010, every new qualification issued by any educational institution belonging to any of the Member States, would be related to any one of the eight qualification levels of the EQF. In this “Copenhagen Process”, thirty-two countries including the EU Member States discussed issues related to vocational education and training (VET). The Copenhagen Process resulted in the formation of the EQF. In another development, the EU was in the process of creating the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010 through the “Bologna Process”. On this forum, the EU interacted with nineteen other countries. Through the EHEA, the EU wants to ensure that the various higher educational institutions of the EU Member States mutually recognize one another’s comparable qualifications and study periods. The EHEA will also be aimed at maintaining a uniform standard of higher education among the various educational institutes (Europa 2011). The Europass Documents present the qualifications from the different educational institutions of the EU Member States, in a standard format. These Documents include the Europass C.V, the Europass Language Passport and the Europass Mobility. The employers from the business organizations of the EU are able to recognize the qualifications of their applicants easily from the Europass Documents. The applicants are then offered gainful employment in these business organizations if they are found to satisfy the criteria set by the employers. References European Union (2010) Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Official Journal of the European Union retrieved on August 25, 2011 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF Europa,(2011) Gateway to the European Union, retrieved on August 26, 2011 from http://europa.eu/pol/educ/index_en.htm Europa,(2011) Summaries of EU Legislation, retrieved on August 26, 2011 from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11107_en.htm Eur-Lex,(n.d.) Access to European Law retrieved on August 26, 2011 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=152 Read More