Articol (analiza) despre dosarele cu risc ale Presedintiei franceze a UE

sau, cum s-ar exprima unii, despre “provocarile” Presedintiei respective…

Cititi aici.

Republica ceha. Guvernul pentru Curtea Constitutionala despre Tratatul de la Lisabona

Precum se stie, instanta constitutionala din aceasta tara urmeaza a se pronunta asupra compatibilitatii tratatului in cauza cu dreptul constitutional… Guvernul ceh si-a prezentat punctul de vedere. Cititi aici, din EUObserver.

Si poate doriti sa cititi si punctul de vedere al Presedintelui Cehiei, Vaclav Klaus, trimis Curtii Constitutionale.

Italia. Curtea de Casatie despre discriminare fata de “tiganii hoti”

Din The Guardian. Si nu, in speta materialul nu este romanesc.

Italy’s highest appeal court has ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves.

(…)

The ruling by the court of cassation, which appears to provide judicial backing for the government’s policies, was handed down in March, but reported only yesterday. The judges overthrew the conviction of six defendants who signed a leaflet demanding the expulsion of Verona’s Gypsies in 2001.

Among those convicted of racially discriminatory propaganda was Flavio Tosi, an official of the anti-immigrant Northern League, who has since become Verona’s mayor. He was quoted by a witness at his trial as having said afterwards: “The Gypsies must be ordered out because, wherever they arrive, there are robberies.”

The court of cassation decided this did not show Tosi was a racist, but that he had “a deep aversion [to Roma] that was not determined by the Gypsy nature of the people discriminated against, but by the fact that all the Gypsies were thieves”. His dislike of them was “not therefore based on a notion of superiority or racial hatred, but on racial prejudice”. The judges scrapped the two-month jail sentences and ordered that the case be reheard.

Their ruling was published hours before police in Verona arrested eight Roma of Croatian origin accused of having induced minors to carry out burglaries in northern Italy. The arrests were co-ordinated by the prosecutor who charged Tosi and the others seven years ago.

Franco Frattini, the foreign minister, who until earlier this year was the European commissioner for justice and human rights, applauded the fingerprinting initiative, saying: “These things are done in many other European countries.” He and other government supporters said the main beneficiaries would be Roma children at risk of being forced to break the law.

But an opposition MP, Gian Claudio Bressa, said the government was enacting measures “that increasingly resemble those of an authoritarian regime”. On Sunday Maroni’s top aide was reported to have imposed a vow of silence on three special commissioners appointed to deal with what the Italian media calls “the Roma emergency”.

Planuri franceze privind armonizarea fiscala…(baza comuna de impozitare)

Din Financial Times.

France has dropped plans to push forward with tax harmonisation under its European Union presidency, following Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon treaty.

Christine Lagarde, French finance minister, told the Financial Times that while the proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base had not been abandoned altogether, Paris would no longer press other governments to back it over the next six months.

“It is on the agenda, but we are not pushing it,” said Ms Lagarde in an interview. “It is alive, but not kicking very much.”

The relegation of the tax base proposal – a long-standing French objective – is the first sign the Irish No vote is having a knock-on effect on the EU’s policy agenda, particularly on those issues deemed to encroach on national sovereignty.

“The landscape has slightly modified because of good old Ireland,” Ms Lagarde said, while insisting that “the imperatives are the same”.

Until now, Paris had insisted its presidency programme was unchanged.

Ms Lagarde was drawn into the Irish referendum campaign in April when she said France would put tax base harmonisation on its agenda for later this year when the European Commission was expected to unveil concrete proposals.

Ireland has been a strong opponent of plans to harmonise the way corporate tax is calculated, fearing, like Britain, that it would be a precursor to harmonised rates.

Ms Lagarde said France still wanted agreement on other tax questions, particularly agreement to cut rates of VAT on labour-intensive services, including restaurants and hotels, and on energy-efficient products.

In spite of scepticism in other member states, France will next month table firm proposals for a mechanism to reduce VAT on fuel when oil price rises change consumer behaviour and risk triggering “social unrest and political difficulties”.

Given recent “sensitivities” over the subject, any discussion on tax matters would carry “a big statement that any modification has to be agreed by unanimous consent”, she said.

Ms Lagarde, who will present her presidency plans to financiers in the City of London on Thursday, said her priority was a trio of regulatory measures intended to help restore stability to financial markets or at least prevent future turmoil.

During the next six months, France would try to ensure that ratings agencies were subjected to EU scrutiny, that the Basel II capital requirements for banks were supplemented with liquidity requirements and enshrined in EU legislation and that there was better co-ordination between European market supervisors.

On supervision, Ms Lagarde wanted to establish an informal college of supervisors: “We don’t believe it is realistic at all to have a single European supervisor.”

The minister also wanted to see the International Accounting Standards Board draw up amendments to mark-to-market accounting rules so they had a “better dose of European interests and considerations”. The rules needed to take account of assets that could not be valued because of market turbulence, she said.

France would push for a European small business act to earmark a slice of public procurement for smaller com­panies.

Hans-Gert Pöttering - Articol despre urmarile votului din Irlanda

Din Malta Business Weekly.

After the vote in Ireland: Quo vadis Europa?
by by Hans-Gert Pöttering

On 12 June 2008 the citizens of Ireland voted ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty. A detailed analysis will be needed of how this result came about and what caused the Irish, who have benefited from the European Union more than almost any other country, to vote this way. At first glance it seems that many of those who voted No did so from a particular angle – and indeed from often contradictory angles.

Some business people favoured a ‘No’ because they saw economic freedom as under threat; others, such as some trade unionists, because the treaty was not socially-minded enough. Yet others even believed that abortion would be made easier by the treaty or that the Irish tax system would be put in question.

As General de Gaulle once said, in a referendum answers are given to questions that were not asked. I would not go as far as that, but there is a kernel of truth in that statement. What really motivated the Irish people, why they did not believe the European Union was going into the future on the right path with this treaty, remains to be analysed in detail.

What is certain today is that the outcome of this vote confronts the EU with one of the most difficult challenges in its history – albeit not the first one. The Lisbon Reform Treaty, derived from the Constitutional Treaty, which itself was drafted by a Convention meeting in public and comprising members of national parliaments and the European Parliament, grants the EU more democracy, greater ability to act and greater transparency.

It strengthens the European Parliament, gives national parliaments more responsibility in determining the course of European policy, allows citizens of the European Union a power of initiative in relation to the European Institutions, and guarantees local self-government.

The Lisbon Treaty is the answer to criticisms that citizens have made of the European Union’s shortcomings. This Treaty brings the European Union closer to its citizens. We must make it perfectly clear that the adoption of the Reform Treaty is an absolute necessity, to enable the European Union to defend its values and interests in the 21st century.

Without the reforms made possible by the Lisbon Treaty, the accession of further countries to the European Union is hardly conceivable. We call upon the EU summit on Thursday and Friday in Brussels to take all appropriate steps to make the Reform Treaty a reality.

What next? First, the ratification process must continue without reservation, since 18 countries have already approved the treaty. Ratification by other countries of the European Union is just as valid and must be respected just as much as the vote in Ireland.

We expect that at the EU summit in Brussels, which will be held between today and tomorrow, the Irish Government will give an initial assessment of the outcome of the vote in Ireland and put forward proposals as to how we can jointly progress beyond this difficult phase in European politics. The Irish Government must have the first say in this matter. Not just because this is the custom but out of respect for the Irish vote. Therefore any speculation or conjecture as to possible solutions ahead of the summit would be inappropriate.

The European Parliament will devote all its energies and display maximum commitment to overcoming these challenges. We expect the same of the European Commission and of the governments of all European Union Member States. We equally expect the European Parliament to be fully involved in the process. It remains our goal to see the Lisbon Treaty enter into force before the elections of June 2009 to the European Parliament.

Marea Britanie. Ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona ulterior pronuntarii justitiei

Asta e, intr-adevar, o stire interesanta. Scriam anterior despre ea, cum ca un milionar “eurosceptic” a sesizat High Court. Bine, Gordon Brown face respectiva afirmatie referitoare la ratificarea ulterioara a tratatului in cauza.

Cititi in The Guardian.

Actualizand informatiile, trebuie sa stiti ca instanta a respins actiunea; gasiti textul hotararii R (Wheeler) v Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary (pronuntata la 25 iunie a.c., insa publicata ulterior) aici.

Despre consecintele in plan fiscal ale votului negativ din Irlanda asupra Tratatului de la Lisabona. Baza comuna de impozitare

O stire interesanta, pe care o redam in continuare:

Ireland’s no vote could affect common tax base fight

Ireland may find it harder to fight the proposed common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) after the country voted no in last week’s Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The country has been the most vehement member state against a CCCTB. The government and many businesses fear the common tax base is a forerunner to a harmonised corporate tax rate throughout the EU that would be higher than Ireland’s 12.5% charge. They argue that Ireland would lose substantial tax revenues because many Irish-based subsidiaries would leave if they had to pay more tax.

“Ireland has said no again,” said James Somerville, a partner at A&L Goodbody, an Irish law firm. “It would be easier to say no to the CCCTB as good Europeans,” he said. “Ireland has lost any goodwill it had in Europe and is not popular already among a lot of member states for opposing a CCCTB.”

Corporate tax was a key issue during the referendum campaign, says Fintan Clancy, a partner at Irish law firm Arthur Cox. “Campaigners against the Lisbon Treaty put up posters all over Dublin opposing tax harmonisation,” he said.

Under Ireland’s constitution, the country must hold a referendum on any decision to give away tax sovereignty. Clancy argues that if the country had voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty the Irish government could have given away the country’s veto on direct tax policy without another vote. “This could have paved the way for a CCCTB,” he said.

But the EU’s tax commissioner Laszlo Kovacs told Reuters that the Lisbon Treaty would not affect the plans for a CCCTB. “All those that campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty with slogans that Ireland will lose tax sovereignty were simply telling lies,” Kovacs said.

Regatul Unit. Modificare a regimului fiscal al “societatilor straine controlate” (CFC)

Da, ne amintim de povestea cu Cadbury Schweppes la CJCE. Acum regimul national se modifica pentru combaterea fraudelor & a evaziunii fiscale…

Din The Guardian.

The government is outlawing a number of offshore corporation tax avoidance schemes, one of which has been operated by Tesco, the supermarket giant has confirmed.

The elaborate scheme uses Tesco subsidiaries registered in Luxembourg, the tiny EU state on the borders of Germany, Belgium and France, long regarded as a tax haven.

The magazine Private Eye this week published details of a collection of offshore holding companies and accompanying partnership agreements, which it said Tesco was using to pile up £50m a year free of corporation tax in the Grand Duchy.

The offshore entities created appear to have been named after Tesco office addresses. They are called Armitage, Cirrus, Delamare and Cheshunt.

Tesco buildings include Armitage House and Cirrus House, and its headquarters is located on Delamare Road, Cheshunt.

The tax loophole is being outlawed in this year’s budget. Treasury minister Jane Kennedy described such a scheme to a House of Commons committee earlier this month, and said it was one of a number of “highly artificial tax avoidance schemes”.

Regimul olandez al pariurilor online spre CJCE

Din Financial Times.

Ladbrokes claimed a significant moment in betting companies’ long battle to open up restrictive European markets when the Dutch Supreme Court referred its appeal against a ban on taking online bets from Dutch citizens to the European Court of Justice.

The UK’s biggest bookmaker claimed victory in a six-year case that ended on Friday when the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the country’s gaming laws but asked for guidance in the context of European law. Ladbrokes’s shares rose 8p, closing at 291¾p.

Dutch gaming law prevents Ladbrokes and others from taking sports bets online from any resident, even though Ladbrokes has no Dutch-facing website and does not advertise in the country. De Lotto is the only permitted operator of sports betting in the country and three years ago asked a lower court to stop Ladbrokes from taking bets from Dutch citizens.

The ruling comes ahead of a critical decision due in the next two weeks from the European Commission on whether to issue proceedings at the ECJ against countries it believes are unfairly restricting their gambling markets to competition. The Netherlands is one of 10 the EC may take action against.

John O’Reilly, head of Ladbrokes e-gaming division, said: “We have fought for six years against Dutch protectionism and finally we have won the referral to the ECJ. At last the Dutch courts have recognised that its laws on betting must be viewed in the context of European law.

“Under the Treaty of Rome we should be able to provide our services across borders in competition with the Dutch monopoly, but at the moment we are unfairly prevented from doing so.”

The ECJ is unlikely to rule on the Ladbrokes case for at least a year but some gaming operators hope the referral will strengthen the EC’s case against member states and put pressure on them to liberalise their laws.

Semnificatia votului irlandez

Despre acest subiect se va scrie, probabil, enorm. Asa cum s-a scris si despre votul francez, respectiv olandez anterior, asupra “Constitutiei”.

Ei bine, aici trimitem la doua analize de presa:

1. Irlanda & neoliberalismul (*)

Jack O’Connor, the union’s president, suggested that while EU social legislation has benefited Irish workers, there is a deep-rooted unease over how the interests of capital seem to be taken more seriously by the Brussels elite than social issues. “People are not comfortable with this ruthless neo-liberal Europe that seems to be emerging,” he said.

Although the treaty includes a bill of rights — including the right to strike — fears have been voiced that its provisions on social issues would have less legal weight than many of those relating to macro-economic policy. For example, the treaty says that competition must not be “distorted”. In some controversial recent verdicts, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has found that laws setting minimum wages flout competition rules.

Joe Higgins, leader of the Socialist Party and a former member of the Dáil, said many activists regarded the treaty’s rejection as “an opportunity to start a campaign against the neo-liberal juggernaut that’s being pushed down their throats.”

2. Instituirea cadrului institutional in asteptarea votului (*), articol din The Telegraph.

First, they will push through as much as they can under the existing dispensation. To a large degree this has already happened. Many of the institutions that would have been created by the constitution have already been established in anticipation of a “Yes” vote: the Human Rights Agency, the External Borders Agency, the Defence Agency.

CJCE si angajatii de peste 65 de ani; Cauza Heyday.

Din The Guardian.

A test case on age discrimination which goes to the European court of justice in Luxembourg early next month could open the way for employees in Britain to insist on working past 65.

If Heyday, the membership arm of Age Concern, wins the case it could also allow hundreds of workers forced into retirement to claim compensation from their former employers. The July 2 hearing date is months earlier than expected and a final decision could come by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Anna Johns, 72, who was made to retire at 70 in March 2007, scored a victory at the court of appeal last week for the hundreds already forcibly retired who hope a win for Heyday will pave the way to redress for them.

Her employers, Solent SD, argued that Johns had no chance of success because a Spanish worker who had challenged a similar retirement rule in his own country lost his case at the Luxembourg court. An employment tribunal struck out her claim on the basis of a preliminary ruling in the Spanish case.

But the employment appeals tribunal (EAT) ruled that Johns’s case should be put on hold because the outcome of the Heyday case could not be predicted, and there were clear differences between it and the Spanish case. Solent appealed but last week the appeal court ruled in Johns’s favour.

After she won at the EAT, the employment tribunals service agreed to bank all similar claims. Lawyers say hundreds have been filed. If Heyday wins in Europe and the case comes back to the UK courts these claims will be able to go ahead.

Heyday argues that the UK failed to implement the European directive on age discrimination properly when it brought in regulations in October 2006 banning discrimination on the grounds of age but kept 65 as a “default” retirement age.

Johns, from Southampton, worked in the customer service department of Solent, a newspaper and magazine wholesaler, until she retired at 65. She took a job at B&Q but then her former bosses asked her to go back, offering pay and hours she “couldn’t refuse”. When the age regulations came into force she was given six months’ notice that she had to retire at 70. She now works as a dogsitter and housesitter. “I was good at my job. I’m not being big-headed … I loved my job and I was good at it,” she said. “And I loved all the people I worked with. I still see them.”

Ailsa Ogilvie, director of Heyday, said: “The 1.2 million people in the UK working beyond retirement age do so only at the grace of their employer.

“It is absurd to think that as soon as you turn 65, the knowledge and skills that you’ve built up over the years are no longer valued and needed. Our right to work should not be based on our birth certificates, but on skills and motivation.

“The Government’s decision to allow employers to sack people at 65 completely contradicts its stated aim of encouraging longer working lives. We are hopeful that the European court of justice will find parts of the regulations relating to mandatory retirement age unlawful.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission supported Johns in taking her case to the court of appeal. John Wadham, its legal director, said: “This is a fantastic outcome for Ms Johns and the many others like her who are challenging mandatory retirement ages in the courts.

“We are all awaiting the results of the Heyday case with great anticipation, and the commission hopes it will deliver real change for people who want to work past 65.”

Sorin Lavric despre Dan Puric

Un articol excelent, foarte expresiv si totodata de substanta, aparut in “Romania literara”: “Mogaldeata“.

Citam un fragment:

“În al cincilea rînd, cu Dan Puric avem cazul rarisim al unui actor care devine mare numai atunci cînd încetează să joace teatru. Căci pe scenă, Dan Puric e simpatic şi nimic mai mult. Dar în afara scenei, e tulburător. Vorbeşte repezit şi sacadat, cu o viteză ce parcă vrea să ţină pasul cu ritmul asociaţilor care îi trec prin minte, şi are o spontaneitate ce nu este afectată de imprevizibilitatea întrebărilor puse. Dan Puric contrazice clişeul actorului care se pierde de îndată ce e scos din făgaşul repertoriului ştiut. În plus, Dan Puric e un medium prin excelenţă, ştiind să se încarce cu o dispoziţie pe care o transmite apoi altora. De aceea, nu e analitic, ci catalitic. Nu face analize, ci emite intuiţii, motivîndu-şi ascultătorii. Nu e reflexiv, ci confesiv. Nu meditează asupra unei teme, ci o pune în vibraţie înfăţişînd-o ca o mărturisire venită dinlăuntru. Nu despică firul în patru, ci îl face să zbîrnîie. La el, toate descrierile sunt participări nemijlocite. Nu vorbeşte decît de idei la care a luat parte trăindu-le, iar nu examinîndu-le conceptual. De aici şi succesul lui. Elocvenţa sa, deşi nu e savantă în expresie, e remarcabil de sugestivă. Dacă ar fi fost erudit, sfîrşea prin a fi prolix. Aşa însă, e direct şi expresiv. Iar expresivitatea lui ţine de emoţie, şi nu de forma pe care o dă emoţiei. De aceea, indiferent despre ce vorbeşte, Dan Puric transmite ceva. Ceva se propagă de la tine la el, de aici efectul de fecundare pe care îl obţine asupra minţii altora.
Temele cărţii sunt cele ale reacţiunii româneşti: tradiţie, credinţă, biserică. Iată cîteva idei spicuite din volum: fără credinţă, totul se duce de rîpă; nu există cultură autentică fără dimensiunea ei spirituală; criza României vine din faptul că propaganda a preschimbat adevăratele noastre modele în contra-modele ilicite; intelectualii de astăzi sunt terminaţi, şi nu e nimic de sperat de la ei, rupţi cum sunt de tradiţia creştină. În schimb, numele invocate ca modele de Dan Puric sînt Mircea Vulcănescu, Iustin Pârvu, Tuţea, Noica, Valeriu Gafencu, prinţul Alexandru Ghica, părinţii bisericii. Ei sunt, în opinia autorului, reperele noastre. Iar episodul la care revine cu predilecţie în paginile volumului e cel din închisoarea de la Tîrgu Ocna, avîndu-l ca protagonist pe Valeriu Gafencu: “Cînd Sfîntul închisorilor, Valeriu Gafencu, bolnav de tuberculoză, într-o stare terminală, a spus în celulă: ŤFraţilor, eu mîine mă ducť, atunci a intrat plutonierul şi-a spus: ŤUnde te duci, mă nenorocitule, că eu sunt hristosul tău, unde te duci?ť Iar el, care stătea cu faţa spre veşnicie şi nu spre istorie, a spus: ŤDomnule plutonier, o să mă duc acolo unde o să veniţi şi dumneavoastrăť. Şi din clipa aceea nu a mai spus nimic, nici nu l-a condamnat; lucrul acesta l-a făcut firesc marele Gafencu, pentru că este putere dumnezeiască. ş…ţ Dacă neamul acesta a rezistat, a rezistat datorită celor care au părăsit plutonul şi s-au întors la Dumnezeu în genunchi, să-i mulţumească, pentru că ceilalţi au fost oameni care şi-au pierdut credinţa. Poporul român n-a rezistat datorită oportuniştilor, ci datorită martirilor şi sfinţilor. ş…ţ Au spart zidul închisorii prin rugăciune. Şi astfel e posibil ca eu, în anul 2008, să aflu şi să vorbesc despre Valeriu Gafencu, care a fost un tînăr de 33 de ani, student la drept, şi care a murit pentru că şi-a iubit prea mult ţara. Aţi fost vreodată la Aiud să vedeţi cum se înalţă blocurile socialiste peste oasele martirilor noştri? Ce forţă a fost din partea părintelui Iustin Pârvu şi a foştilor deţinuţi politici, să facă un monument! Monumentul e mic, e o capelă. În capelă este un monah de la Petru Vodă, nu este cineva de la guvernul României. Acolo este o cruce mică, de lemn, a lui Mircea Vulcănescu. Unde sunt ceilalţi, amintirea acestora?” (pp. 137-138 )
Cu astfel de gînduri, nu-i văd lui Dan Puric un viitor liniştit. O să-şi ducă crucea cît va putea, supraveghetorii ideologici ai sănătăţii noastre mentale avînd grijă să-l compromită parţial sau total, în funcţie de cît de rezistent se va dovedi insurgentul. Dar, vorba autorului, să dea Dumnezeu să ne compromitem cu toţii ca Tuţea.
Dane, ce bine că ai apărut. Trunchiul meu de malac se înclină în faţa umbrei tale de mogîldeaţă”.

Finlanda & Estonia au ratificat Tratatul de la Lisabona

EUObserver.

Cate bordeie, atatea obiceiuri. Sau despre reactii amestecate asupra propunerilor comunitare in materia timpului de lucru, respectiv statutului lucratorilor temporari

Cititi in EUObserver.

Din nou Irlanda. Sindicatele, Lisabona & neo-liberalismul

Evident, problema sindicatelor de acolo si din alte parti este abordarea CJCE in “cele trei hotarari“, dar si a Cartei drepturilor fundamentale a UE si, mai nou, problema lucrarilor temporari… De aici.

Private and public sector workers have today been urged to reject the “neo liberal” bias of the Lisbon Treaty and to ensure that Europe is as much about social as economic well being.

Speaking at a Dublin press conference attended by representatives of six trade unions, several of whom were appearing in a personal capacity, Jimmy Kelly, Irish regional secretary of the Unite union said it had advised its own membership to vote against the treaty from the outset.

He highlighted the impact of three recent judgments of the European Court of Justice which he said would have a serious impact on workers, and said there was a need for a “social progress” clause to be inserted to protect their rights.

He noted that the outcome of these judgments, known as the Laval, Viking and Ruffert cases, was not known when the treaty was being drawn up.

“Equal recognition of the rights of working people is essential if Europe is to deliver a sound, fair future for its citizens,” he said.

“Lisbon does nothing to recognise this…..we now appeal to all workers to stand up for their rights by rejecting Lisbon and sending a clear message that Europe should be as much about social as economic well being.”

Several contributors to today’s press conference argued that the treaty served to promote the “neo liberal” agenda and privatisation of services in areas such as health and education.

Eddie Conlon, a former national secretary of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI), said the Charter of Fundamental Rights “will not give workers the rights” which those on the “Yes” side had claimed.

He said it was noteworthy that a deal on the rights of agency workers had been agreed, after being opposed by the Government “all along”, just days before the polls opened here.

Dai un ban da’ stai in fata. Astazi: o noua prelevare fiscala franceza in contul IMM-uri

Titlul este ludic, evidemment. Pe scurt, se doreste instituirea unei noi taxe (i.e. prelevare procentuala din masa salariala a IMM-urilor) pentru sustinerea dialogului social. Frapant este ca s-ar putea s-o vedem si pe asta invalidata de CJCE, daca tinem cont de ce s-a mai intamplat pana acum in materia detasarii (transnationale) de lucratori in cadrul unei prestari de servicii (Comisia/Germania, Laval etc. etc.). Ba chiar si CEDO a spus-o recent, referindu-se la situatia din aceeasi Suedie…

Din La Tribune.

Un nouveau prélèvement, qui pourrait atteindre 0,15% de la masse salariale des entreprises de moins de dix salariés, servirait à soutenir le dialogue social. Il s’inscrirait dans le projet de loi sur la représentativité et le temps de travail.

Eric Woerth, ministre du Budget, a confirmé ce mardi matin, sur BFM, le principe d’une nouvelle taxe frappant les entreprises de moins de dix salariés. Alors que l’exécutif avait promis de de pas intaurer de prélèvement supplémentaire et qu’il vient, dans cette logique, de supprimer l’IFA (impôt forfaitaire annuel) qui frappait les entreprises, cette nouvelle contribution est censée servir à soutenir le dialogue social.

Selon le quotidien Les Echos, ce nouveau prélèvement serait fixé à 0,15% de la masse salariale et servirait à financer deux choses: “le détachement des négociateurs syndicaux lorsque ces derniers doivent interrompre leur activité salariée en entreprise, et les missions d’expertise et de sensibilisation auprès des chefs d’entreprise”.

En fait, le gouvernement, pour imposer cette nouvelle taxe, s’appuie sur un accord du 12 décembre… 2001, signé par l’UPA (artisans) et les cinq confédérations syndicales, prévoyant le financement du dialogue social dans les entreprises artisanales, et qui n’est appliqué que dans le secteur alimentaire. Selon Les Echos, cette reconnaissance nationale de cet accord ancien et son extension à tous les secteurs d’activité s’inscriraient dans le cadre du projet de loi sur la représentativité et le temps de travail.

Si les syndicats ne peuvent que se réjouir de ce projet, le Medef et les “petits patrons” de la CGPME y sont tout à fait opposés. Selon Les Echos, après l’échec de plusieurs procédures judiciaires nationales contre l’accord de 2001, les deux organisations patronales envisagent de saisir la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.

Bernard Kouchner, Daniel Cohn-Bendit & poporul irlandez

Din EUObserver. Ce se intampla daca…? nomen odiosa. O noua CIG? sau mergem si fara ei…?

Si aici.

Suedia. Cauza Laval & pozitia patronatului

Da, nu ne mai saturam in a invedera diversele pozitii & aprecieri ale partilor… Acum e vorba despre “Confederatia intreprinderii suedeze“, adica despre cea mai mare organizatie a patronatului (ori angajatorilor) din respectivul stat. Hotararea CJCE in cauza Laval a lovit frontal, dupa cum se pare. Asa ca, acum apare problema ce e de facut… Cititi ce au afirmat dansii.

Opinions were split when the effects of the Laval case on the labour market were debated at a Europe Day conference in Stockholm. Unions claim the ruling disturbs the balance between freedom of movement and the right to take labour market action. Employers claim the opposite.

At the Europe Day conference on 9 May, the best ticket was a seminar on the ramifications for the Swedish labour market of the so-called Laval case.

(The case concerned Latvian labour imported to Sweden to help Latvian construction company Laval un Partneri Ltd.renovate a school near Stockholm. Swedish unionists, concerned that the wages were lower than Swedish standard, blockaded the site. When the case went to the European Court of Justice, the court ruled that the right to workplace action was fundamental but not as fundamental as the right of businesses to supply cross-border services.)

Union representatives at the seminar said that the Laval ruling has affected the balance between freedom of movement and the right to take workplace action. This, they said, threatened the traditional labour market consensus on rules known in Sweden as the Swedish Model. Swedish Enterprise’s Lars Gellner took the opposite position: that the ruling has restored balance.

“We don’t have a Swedish template for foreign labour. This is a new situation. I think that the ruling was just about right.”

The debatemainly concerned minimum-wage legislation and the risk for wage dumping. Moderator Svante Nycander, former editor of Sweden’s biggest daily, Dagens Nyheter, suggested three possible routes to workable rules for temporary foreign labour in Sweden:

• making the Swedish labour market collective agreement generally applicable,
• legislating minimum wages,
• customising wage agreements for out-stationed companies.

Lena Maier Söderberg from Saco (Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations)said that Sacodid not believe in legislating a minimum wage. The TCO (Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees) representative, Ingemar Hamskär,wanted neither minimum wage legislation nor customised wage agreements for foreigners.ButClaes-Mikael Jonsson of LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation) thought that customising might just work.

Swedish Enterprise has not yet decided which method to back but Lars Gellner saidin the debate that there’s reason to believe the government will somehow want to put minimum wages into law. A Swedish parliamentary study on the issue and the to-be-or-not-to-be of Lex Britannia is due by 15 December.

Spre o propunere de reglementare a “termenului de gratie” pentru plata redusa a lucratorului temporar?

Un fragment din EUObserver:

Rights for ‘temp’ workers

On agency workers, the biggest differences have revolved around the so-called “grace period.” This refers to the period during which temping workers employed by agencies and sent to work in various companies are paid less than workers employed directly by those firms.

The European Commission’s blueprint originally suggested a six-week period, while employers as well as countries such as the UK, Germany, Denmark and Ireland called for 12 months or more. Trade unions, on the other hand, backed by states such as France and Italy were pressing for a much shorter period or none at all.

A Slovenian compromise text, seen by EUobserver, suggests that “the principle of equal treatment from day one would be the general rule,” while it would be possible for governments to reach agreement between unions and employers for exceptions to the rule.

The European Trades Union Congress (ETUC) has welcomed the move, and one diplomat commented: “Reaching a compromise on temporary workers should not be a major problem.”

Irlanda. Sindicatele & UE. Sau despre protectia drepturilor lucratorilor

Stirea:

The right of unions to engage in collective bargaining with employers will only come about through Europe, the leaders of Ireland’s two largest trade union organisations have said.

The Alliance for Europe’s Trade Union Campaign Group, which includes several former and current leaders of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and Siptu, said the Lisbon Treaty will make the right to take collective action and to bargain collectively with employers, a European-wide right for the first time.

In a joint statement calling for a Yes vote, the union leaders said: “Trade unions in Ireland are currently fighting for a legal right to collective bargaining and have met strong resistance from employers, Government and a Supreme Court that has taken an extremely narrow interpretation of workers representational rights.”

They said the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will be enshrined in law by the treaty’s ratification, guaranteed the right to collective bargaining when EU law is being implemented.

“This is a big advance on the current situation though it does not automatically guarantee it will apply in domestic law,” they claimed.

The group, which included the current Ictu general secretary David Begg and former Siptu president Des Geraghty, said it had obtained legal advice that the Supreme Court could not ignore the dharter and in practice where there is an overlap between EU law and domestic law European law takes precedence since we joined in 1973.

“One thing is clear, a fully fledged trade union right to collective bargaining can only come about through Europe,” it said.

Last week Siptu, the State’s largest union, said its support for the treaty would depend on whether the Government agreed to introduce legal measures giving unions the right to engage in collective bargaining with employers.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, however, has voted to support the treaty.

Speaking under the umbrella of the Alliance for Europe today, union leaders said the European Union has been of enormous benefit to Irish workers.

“All of the social legislation which has improved working conditions for Irish workers including: equal pay, better holidays, health and safety in the workplace, limits on working time, parental leave and anti-discrimination provisions all came from Europe,” the statement said.

“The Lisbon Treaty is a significant advancement for workers because it contains new social values which improves workers rights and gives an increased role to the European Parliament which has traditionally been a pro worker parliament and most importantly enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into law.

The Trade Union Campaign Group said some union members have raised concerns about recent decisions by the European Court of Justice and their impact on workers’ rights.

“It requires the Lisbon Treaty to be passed and the Charter of Fundamental rights to become primary law so that in all circumstances it has at least equal status to the four freedoms in the Treaty. This is the position the European Trade Union Confederation has adopted,” it said.

Irlanda. Tratatul de la Lisabona & pastrarea dreptului de veto in materia avortului & in privinta OMC

Despre regimul avortului in statul respectiv am mai scris recent. Acum si despre OMC (Organizatia Mondiala a Comertului, nu?!). Stirea suna astfel, iar comunicatul aici:

Ireland will retain its right to veto World Trade Organisation talks and maintain its position on abortion if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, the Referendum Commission said today.

The Commission had decided to offer “clarification” to voters given the “confusion” that has surrounded some of the debate, the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Judge Iarfhlaith O’Neill.

World trade talks can be blocked because all such deals include elements that require unanimity, even if the agricultural chapter does not.

In his statement, Judge O’Neill said Protocol 35 to the Lisbon Treaty makes it clear that nothing shall affect Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution.

“Protocols have full legal force – they have the same legal status as an Article of the Treaties. This Protocol is EU law and it explicitly excludes Article 40.3.3. of the Irish Constitution from any other EU law. This mean’s Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion would not be affected by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

Judge O’Neill said it was the Commission’s role to explain what is in the treaty and not to supervise the debate in the referendum campaign.

He said the Commission had listened to the debate in recent weeks and “we believe there may be some confusion on a number of issues”.

One area that needed further clarification, Judge O’Neill said, was how qualified majority voting would work under the new treaty and in which areas it would apply.

He explained the proposed voting system was not directly comparable to the existing system. Under the Lisbon Treay, decisions would require 55 per cent of member states to agree and that those states must support at least 65 per cent of the population.

“In addition, at least four member states must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just three of the larger member states acting together, even if the population criterion is met.”

Ratification of the treaty would also mean some policy areas where unanimity is currently required would in future be decided by qualified majority voting, he said.

Member states will no longer have a veto in areas such as the election of the President of the European Council, measures concerning an immigration policy and the immplemetation of the solidarity clause in the event of a member state suffering a terrorist attack or a disaster.

However, unanimity will persist in agreements in the field of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, Judge O’Neill said.

But anti-treay group Cóir today accused the Commission of breaching its mandate by not providing “impartial information” and actively campaigning in the referendum on Lisbon.

Cóir spokeswoman Niamh Uí Bhriain claimed the Commission was engaged in giving its opinion rather than presenting the facts. She said the Commission was trying “to fudge the issue” on abortion by saying that it will not affect the Irish Constitution.

“If the Judge O’Neill had listened closely, as he claims he and the Commission had done, he would have heard Cóir position on the issue”.

“The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Court of Justice the right to make a future ruling on Ireland’s abortion laws - and on other areas of importance such as family law and children’s rights,” she said

“In doing so it allows the EU Court to overrule the wishes of the Irish people, “ she claimed.

Despre noua propunere de directiva in materia imigratiei

Din La Croix. Si apoi EUObserver.

Les Européens veulent harmoniser le renvoi des clandestins

Les ministres de l’intérieur européens doivent se prononcer d’ici à vendredi 6 juin sur un projet de directive sensible sur l’immigration

On l’appelle à Bruxelles la « directive retour ». Mais ses détracteurs la stigmatisent comme « la directive de la honte ». Proposée par la Commission européenne en septembre 2005, ce projet législatif vise à encadrer les procédures de retour des immigrants en séjour irrégulier dans les pays n’appartenant pas à l’Union européenne.La discussion du texte entre dans des jours décisifs. Un conseil des ministres se tiendra à ce sujet à Luxembourg jeudi 5 et vendredi 6 juin avant un prochain débat au Parlement européen. Mercredi, les représentants permanents à Bruxelles des 27 États de l’Union ont négocié un compromis sur l’aide juridique gratuite aux immigrés illégaux, que la directive rendrait obligatoire.

Ce point a mobilisé toute l’attention politique. S’inquiétant des sommes importantes qu’impliquerait cette assistance, l’Allemagne s’oppose à la financer, tout comme l’Autriche, mais aussi la Grèce, Malte et Chypre, trois pays par où transitent d’importants flux d’immigration.

La droite a besoin des voix centristes

Or les députés européens du groupe centriste (ADLE) conditionnent leur soutien au texte à cette disposition, que d’aucuns considèrent comme un élément de progrès pour éviter les expulsions arbitraires ou collectives.

« La droite, au Parlement européen, aura besoin des voix centristes pour dégager une majorité simple dès la première lecture », commente un observateur de l’hémicycle européen. « Les Vingt-Sept doivent se montrer conciliants pour espérer que le Parlement européen ensuite suive », confirme-t-on de source diplomatique à Bruxelles.

Selon la formule sibylline dégagée mercredi 4 juin, l’aide légale resterait obligatoire mais devra respecter la législation nationale de chacun. Étoffer le fonds européen pour le retour existant serait une autre piste.

Un compromis fragile
Si les ministres européens endossent ce compromis, un vote en séance plénière prévu le 18 juin à Strasbourg n’est pas pour autant acquis. Les députés s’intéressent à la durée maximale de rétention dans un centre fermé d’un immigré irrégulier.

Un compromis se dessine pour six mois, extensible sous conditions à un total de dix-huit mois. Mais le groupe des socialistes européens voudrait plafonner cette durée à douze mois.

En l’état actuel, ces durées sont très variables dans l’UE, de trente-deux jours au plus en France à des détentions illimitées en Suède ou aux Pays-Bas. « La détention n’est pour nous qu’une étape avant l’expulsion, alors que pour d’autres pays elle constitue une sanction », distingue un diplomate français.

Limiter davantage encore la durée maximale de détention serait très difficile à admettre par ceux des États qui n’ont jusqu’ici aucun plafond. À l’inverse, introduire un plafond pourrait inciter les pays en deçà à l’atteindre, redoutent les opposants à cette directive.

“Un texte perfectible”

D’autres éléments de compromis restent fragiles. La directive introduit l’interdiction, pour une personne expulsée, de séjourner sur tout le territoire de l’UE pendant cinq ans. Les socialistes voudraient ramener ce « bannissement » à deux ans. Ils souhaitent également allonger la durée accordée au retour volontaire, que le texte fixe à trente jours.

La France s’est en outre inquiétée que la directive rende difficile l’expulsion de mineurs scolarisés, selon un observateur. « Le texte est perfectible, reconnaît le député UMP européen Patrick Gaubert, interrogé par La Croix, mais il serait dommage de rejeter les avancées obtenues par le compromis. »

En l’absence de majorité simple au Parlement européen, une deuxième lecture exigerait une majorité qualifiée, jugée impossible à dégager.

CJCE. Irlanda & sotul (dintr-un stat tert) al unui cetatean al UE (resortisant al unui alt stat membru, rezident in cel dintai stat)

Stirea din Irish Times suna astfel; solutia la care va ajunge Curtea pare relativ simpla, nu? Si probabil va lua in considerare & dreptul la viata familiala si va face trimitere la CEDO & la Carta…

EU court to rule on Irish ban on non-EU spouses

EUROPE’S HIGHEST court will hear a landmark case today that will decide whether spouses of European Union citizens who are not themselves citizens of the EU can continue to live in Ireland.

The case involves four couples who are appealing a decision by the Government to deport them because the husband in each case is not an EU citizen and has never lived lawfully in another EU state.

None of the spouses issued with “notice of intent to deport” orders are married to Irish citizens but are married to citizens of other EU states. In each case the couples were married in the Republic and the non-EU national husbands had all unsuccessfully applied for asylum, according to pre-hearing documents.

The four couples lodged an appeal with the High Court against the “notice of intent to deport” orders, arguing they breach EU law, and particularly their right to live and work in any EU state.

The High Court recently referred several legal questions on this issue to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which will issue a recommendation to the High Court in the months following the hearing.

It is widely anticipated that the ECJ case will set a precedent for thousands of other couples residing in Ireland and, more widely, better define the rights of EU states to manage their own immigration policies.

Several EU states, including Britain, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, have intervened in the case in support of the Government.

The Department of Justice argues that a previous ECJ judgement in 2003 in the case of Hacene Akrich provides the legal basis to deport non-EU spouses of EU citizens.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said the Akrich case stated that to avail of the freedom of movement of EU workers and family members a “non-EU citizen must be lawfully resident in a member state when he moves to another member state to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated”.

But the European Commission and immigrant rights groups have lined up in support of the four applicants, arguing that deporting the spouses of EU citizens is discriminatory and contrary to one of the four basic European freedoms: the freedom to live and work in all EU member states.

“Our view is that freedom of movement for EU citizens within the union is a fundamental right and should not be curtailed simply due to the nationality of a spouse,” said Hilkka Becker, senior solicitor with the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

The four applicants are expected to argue that the European Free Movement Directive passed in 2004 provides the necessary legal right for non-EU spouses of EU citizens to move freely within the Union.

This will be contested by the Government, which argues that this directive deals only with movement within the Union and not entry to it.

Last year, the Government issued thousands of non-EU spouses with “notices of intent to deport” orders after a separate High Court ruling that found it was within its rights to insist that non-EU spouses of EU citizens must live in another EU state before residing here.

The Government said it was correctly implementing an immigration law it passed in April 2007, which lays down that non-EU relatives of an EU citizen must reside lawfully in another EU state before being permitted to work and live here.

This was introduced to prevent “marriages of convenience”, whereby non-EU citizens may persuade EU citizens to marry them just to gain entry to the Union.

Brian Burns, a solicitor with the Dublin-based law firm Burns, Kelly, Corrigan, that is representing one of the applicants, said the case would set a precedent for the whole of Europe. “My client is suffering severe hardship because he is unable to work in Ireland and his wife is pregnant and cannot work at the moment,” he added.