Along with the parliaments of 11 other EU member states, the Saeima showed a ”yellow card” to the proposal for a Council regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom to provide services. National parliaments of Latvia and 11 other states concluded that the proposal for a regulation violates the subsidiarity principle.
The European Affairs Committee of the Saeima carried out a subsidiarity check, and on 22 May it sent its reasoned opinion to the European Commission indicating that adoption of the regulation will not achieve its aim, and therefore the proposal for this legislative act should not be supported. Reasoned opinions objecting to the proposal were also submitted by the parliaments of Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Under the so-called Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission is therefore obliged to review its proposal for a regulation.
“During the subsidiarity check, we perceived that the proposed regulation that was drafted after the notorious Laval case does not attain its aims. Namely, in the context of the freedom to provide services it does not ensure equal treatment of service providers from all the member states, nor does it ensure protection of employees’ rights. Thus after consulting with the Ministry of Welfare and the Ministry of Justice, we decided to submit a reasoned opinion that objects to the proposal for a regulation,” pointed out Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, Chairperson of the European Affairs Committee.
According to Kalniņa-Lukaševica, the fact that this proposal for a regulation picked up a “yellow card” is a good example of how member states can directly affect the legislative process in the EU. “The Lisbon Treaty gives national parliaments considerable influence, and it is up to us to use the given opportunities as actively as we can. Thus we are pleased with this precedent because it illustrates how important it is for national parliaments to be active alongside governments and diplomats in defending national interests in the EU,” noted the Chairperson of the European Affairs Committee.
The reasoned opinion of the Saeima indicates that the proposal for a regulation will not attain its aim; it is not unmistakably clear and definite, and its adoption is not sufficiently justified. “As the regulation is directly applicable, its wording should be clear in order to ensure that all member states are able to apply it uniformly without any misunderstandings,” states the opinion.
The European Affairs Committee expressed concern about the legal basis of the proposal initiated by the European Commission. The Committee emphasised that despite the rulings made by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the right to strike is excluded from the range of matters that can be regulated across the European Union. Therefore, MPs were not convinced that the need to regulate this area on the EU level can be based on rulings made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases of Laval and Viking Line.
Pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments have the right to supervise the procedure of drafting EU’s legislative acts by assessing the compliance of these acts with the principle of subsidiarity. National parliaments of the EU member states decide if the objectives of the proposed legislative act can be achieved on a lower – national – level and if the EU’s legislative initiatives exceed their initial aims. If within eight weeks at least two thirds of the national parliaments (that is, nine) object to a new legislative act, this legislative initiative must be reviewed by the European Commission. So far the Saeima had not identified any proposal for EU legislative acts that violates the principle of subsidiarity.
Saeima Press Service