Ceci est une version HTML d'une pièce jointe de la demande d'accès à l'information 'Trilogue documents of Directive 2006/123/EC'.

Permanent Representation of Ireland to the European Union
To:
Tony Joyce, Michael Clarke, DETE
c.c.
D/ETE: Seamus O’Morain, Sean Smith, Lorraine Benson, Tommy
Murray;
PRB: Ken Thompson, DPR, Deirdre Ni Fhalluin, D/ETE Group,
Jennifer Mangan, Brussels PR Bordereau.
DFA: Eamon Hickey, Gearoid McNamara, Sean Murphy

From:
Phil Lynch, PRB
Meeting:
Coreper I
Item:
Amended Draft Directive on Services in the Internal Market.
Date:
12 May, 2006
Summary
This was the first substantive discussion of the proposal at Coreper and lasted for
about four hours. Pres had circulated a doc (8973/06) the previous day listing various
points that would be discussed relating to articles 1-3 (subject matter, scope and
relationship with other Community law) and 16-17 (freedom to provide services and
derogations from it) but in the event only about half of them were discussed in any
detail. Pres tabled six compromise texts in the meeting and UK and DK also tabled
texts. There were calls for advance circulation of texts for future discussions.
While progress was made on some points it is hard to assess how much as Pres did
not really conclude formally on anything pending further reflection and will produce a
new doc on Tuesday for discussion at Coreper on Wednesday (17th). There was some
contention about the lack of clarity and conclusion by Pres on what had been
discussed in both Coreper and in the two working group meetings on 5 and 11 May.
Furthermore, the Pres apparent conclusion to retain part of article 3 also caused
contention and challenge on the basis that the majority of delegations that had
intervened had called for the provision to be amended or deleted.
Otherwise the exchanges were on predictable enough lines with two ‘camps’ by and
large identifiable – DE, FR and others who wanted to stick as close as possible to the
EP text and warned of the political and other consequences of not doing so and those
notably NL, Lux, UK and the new eastern MS who wished to make the text less
restrictive, less political and more legally sound even if that meant ‘upsetting’ the EP
(a sentiment particularly expressed by NL but supported by others). It was confirmed
that the working group would meet again on 16th and 19th of May to discuss any
outstanding issues outside of articles 1-3 and 16-19 and that a doc would be prepared
for the 19th containing all the relevant amendments to be discussed. (It is not clear
what will happen after the 19th. There will then be just one more Coreper opportunity
i.e. 24 May, which is effectively the last Brussels working day before the Council on
29 May at which Pres still aims to reach political agreement (25 and 26 May are
holidays). There are some suggestions that certain texts may be put directly to
Ministers (only) for agreement at the Council e.g. on article 16). [end summary]
--------------------------------------

Pres introduced the document (8973/06) on which the debate would be based.
Referring to Section A of the doc, Pres said that reference to the Working Group on 5
May agreeing on a number of points was not to be taken as signifying formal
agreement. The principle that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed still
applied. (Delegations had raised questions at the working group the previous day
about the statement in the Coreper doc given that the Pres had neither drawn any
conclusions from the discussion on 5 May nor presented an account of the
proceedings and delegations enquired as to which points the Pres considered to have
been agreed and which were not).
Moving to Section B of the doc containing what it identified as the main outstanding
issues, Pres said it was not an exhaustive list but more a work in progress which could
be expanded where necessary. Pres asked delegations not to reiterate well known
positions which were already set out in papers submitted by MS and which were
available to all (the combined initial submissions run to about 120 pages although
many of the comments raised by the respective ‘camps’ are to a large extent repetitive
of each other on a number of issues). Pres said it would be tabling certain texts and
proposed compromises in the course of the discussion.
In a general opening comment Cion said that the text in the revised proposal would
not win any prizes in a competition for a perfect legal Act – in fact it would not even
get on the podium – but this reflected the reality of the situation with the dossier and
there was nonetheless a responsibility on all to make progress.
Pres opened discussion on the issues in the order they were listed in the Coreper doc.
Article 1 – Subject Matter
Criminal Law - Article 1.5, Recital 6(e)
Cion 
(Berardis) said it was not the intention of the directive to harmonise criminal
law or deal with penalties so article 1.5 meant that general rules of criminal law as
they applied to all citizens were not affected. However, some criminal measures
related to services and these did not have general application but were specific to the
service/sector in question. Cion accepted that the article was vague enough but that
the recital (6(e)) was clear. The potential use of criminal law to circumvent the
services directive was unacceptable.
Pres circulated a text which would add the word ‘general’ into the article also
reworded the recital.
LUX agreed that the article was vague. It could support the new wording for the
recital but thought more was needed in the article and suggesting moving the last
sentence of the recital to the article. HU called for the Cion explanation to be made
explicit i.e. service providers could not be obstructed by the application of general
criminal law rules. The recital should be moved to the article. DK shared the Cion
understanding of what was intended. UK said it was a difficult issue and the WG had
taken a long time trying to find a solution. The Pres compromise looked promising
2

but would have to studied and it entered a reservation. Spain took same position as
UK.
DE could not accept the Pres compromise. The current recital should be retained with
the added clarification “excluding rules of financial penalties”. It could accept an
interpretative statement as to what was meant by criminal law. FR said the addition of
‘general’ was unacceptable and reopened the whole debate. Much of its consumer
legislation is part of its criminal law. What were general rules and what were specific?
It had a similar problem with labour law. Ministers in Graz said they wanted to avoid
conflict with the EP but the Pres was moving into murky waters with this proposal
and it would lead to trouble with the EP. Malta and GR supported FR and DE. SW
wanted to clarify that it included ‘criminal procedure law’ and that it related to
national laws. Agreed with FR that the proposed compromise did not seem to help.
NL said there had to be a qualification to the article to ensure that criminal law could
not be wrongly used to block services. It did not care if it was the word ‘general’ or
some other word but it had to be made clear. It did not care either if the EP flipped
over it. Czech Rep said the approach should be to get a common agreement on the
purpose of the provision and then try to find words to express it. IT, however,
preferred the existing text and felt the addition of ‘general’ did not help.
Cion expressed surprise at the debate and felt the issue was clear – it related to law
that affected all citizens, if ‘general’ was added in the article and it was explained in
the recital that it did not affect services, that would in fact be in line with what the EP,
which had understood the difference, wanted. As regards the DE point on penalties,
there were provisions in criminal law which related to different types of services and
we must be careful not to broaden it too much. DE responded that breaking transport
laws was not criminal. DK supported. FR intervened again to say that adding the
word ‘general’ affects the criminal law of MS. We should stick with the amended
proposal. There was confusion between ‘general’ and ‘generally’ – the latter meant
‘in principle’ and FR suggested adding ‘in principle’ to the current text.
Pres said it had to be understood that the freedom to provide services could not be
affected by criminal law. There might be a solution in the suggestions about moving
some of the text of the recital into the article. It would ponder the point and Coreper
would return to it next week.
Labour Law, Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 1.6 and 1.7
On 1.6, Pres said it was hard to get the balance right and to find a compromise
acceptable to all, including in the recitals. As regards Article 1.7, it was clear that the
Charter was not yet legally binding. Pres circulated a text which replaced reference
to the Charter with a reference to ‘in Community Law’. Cion said the text solved the
UK problem. UK thought it was helpful but circulated a paper of its own which
proposed the deletion of article 1.7 and a redrafting of recital 6(h) including the
addition of the phrase “in accordance with Community law and national laws and
practices” which was a tried and tested formula used in numerous Community labour
law instruments. UK said the latter should also be added to 1.6 on labour law. FR was
unhappy about dropping reference to the Charter and said that while it was not a legal
instrument, it did exist and citizens would ask why it was dropped from the proposal.
3

also unhappy to delete the reference. Estonia and Slovakia supported UK on the
Charter. DK and SW felt they could live with the UK proposal. Czech Rep was
positive and would examine the text. Lith said the reference to collective agreements
in 1.7 was unacceptable and supported deletion of the subparagraph. Pres commented
that it did not think the trade unions in the EU (including ETUC) would be happy with
such an outcome. SW disagreed fundamentally with the Lith comment.
On labour law in 1.6, SW wanted to ensure that the ref to health and safety at work
covered the self-employed and also proposed deletion of ‘including’. In addition SW
wanted to add ref to the ‘general public’ in the context of health and safety. DE said it
was important that collective agreements were covered in 1.6 and also had some
difficulty with the social security reference (and Reg 1408/71) which appeared to be
at least in part a linguistic problem but in any event it preferred the EP text on the
matter. FR supported DE on use of EP text. also had a problem with this point. Pres
said it would look at it from a legal/linguistic point of view. UK wanted its additional
text on 1.7 added to 1.6 and also to recital 6(g) and said the SW health and safety
concern could be covered in a recital. Cion had a problem with the UK text because
‘self-employed’ was not a ‘worker’ under EU labour law. HU said it had many
problems with the labour law references and while it was not opposed to the wording
in 1.6, it suggested that maybe article 16.3 was a better place to deal with labour law.
Pres did not draw any particular conclusions.
Article 2 – Scope
Services of General Interest 2.2(-a)
Cion 
referred to the reference to services of general economic interests (SGEIs) in
article 16 of the Treaty and said that the debate in the EP had become ideological.
However, services of general interest were excluded from the scope while SGEIs
were included subject to Article 17. NL expressed annoyance with all the references
being made to the EP in the Coreper exchanges. The EP was a political body which
had produced a political text as well as a legal one. Coreper should remove the
political texts and tell the EP that the Council was making a legal text. PL supported
the NL comments and suggested adding to 2.2(-a) “which are not covered by the
definition in article 16 of the Treaty”. Czech Rep said it was up to the Council to
make the text readable and usable. It recalled that the SEC Conclusions said the
proposal should be “largely based” on the EP text but this did not mean it should be
simply “copied and pasted”. Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia supported NL and
Czech Rep.
FR said the reference should be kept in the text. wanted the ref to SGIs retained and
expanded to read “non-economic SGIs as defined by MS in accordance with EU law”.
DK said if it was deleted it would cause problems and questions from the EP and
others. Supported the B proposal. Cion commented that legal experts would agree
with the NL but argued that the recital made the position crystal clear. The Council
Legal Service 
said it was legally impossible to put something in a directive that was
not covered by the Treaty. Cion responded to the effect of ‘yes, but….’. Lith said it
felt a lot of political pressure in the room and felt alone in trying to get into the
debate. The proposal as it was shaped was not of benefit to the EU’s competitiveness.
4

Czech Rep intervened again to say that if the reference had to be kept, the term ‘non-
economic’ must be added but it was opposed to the exclusion of SGEIs.
Pres moved on to the next point without drawing any conclusion.
Transport – article 2.2(c)
Pres 
tabled a compromise text: “services in the field of transport, including port
services, falling within the scope of title V of the EC Treaty”. Cion said it could
accept the Pres text. Spain agreed. DE entered a scrutiny reserve. SW asked for
clarification as to how the exclusion and the ref to Title V linked with the relationship
to international level harmonisation of rules (e.g. UN instruments) which govern some
matters in this area at EU level. Cion said it was a total exclusion, including the
international aspects and the ref to Title V was simply to define what was being
excluded.
Audiovisual – article 2.2 (cd)
Pres 
compromise text tabled as follows: “audiovisual services, whatever their mode
of production, distribution and transmission, including radio broadcasting”.
Cion said the text covered audiovisual services as such e.g. transmission, but that
cinema was not an audiovisual service. FR argued that audiovisual had to include
cinema. It supported the EP and Cion text and pointed out that the same text had been
included in the IMCO report. Pres queried what it meant to include cinema in the
exclusion – did it mean that an operator could not open a cinema in another MS or sell
refreshments in a cinema? FR said it was happy to discuss the matter bilaterally with
the Pres. DE was not quite happy with the compromise and felt the text should stick
closer to the EP version. IPR collection services should also be excluded. Spain
entered a scrutiny reservation.
Irl asked for clarification as to whether the phrase “whatever their mode of
production, distribution and transmission” was intended only to ‘future proof’
developments in this area. Irl would also welcome confirmation that the exclusion did
not extend to related services such as graphics, material for presentations or activities
of collecting societies. It appeared to have the potential to be a very broad exclusion.
NL supported Irl comments and said that while it had some sympathy for certain
cultural protections, the current text was not just future proofing, it covered
everything under the sun and was far too wide. UK supported NL and Irl. Clarity was
needed and neither the article nor recital provided it. The exclusion should be
restricted to culturally sensitive aspects. Czech Rep called for as wide a scope as
possible. HU supported the views of NL etc. and questioned Cion’s intentions on
exclusions in areas such as temporary employment agencies and audiovisual. Cion
had declared that it would be bringing forward specific measures for excluded
services. Slovakia and Estonia supported those calling for a wide scope.
entered a scrutiny reserve. PT was happy with Cion text and wanted as broad a
definition as possible. IT said the cultural aspects were important and it needed to
reflect further.
5

FR said the inclusion of cinema in the exclusion was not a restriction, it was a cultural
point. All MS were open to establishment. The directive must preserve cultural
diversity. It did not matter whether something was broadcast over the airwaves or
transmitted in a cinema. Article 151 (4) of the Treaty dealing with culture was
relevant. Pres said it would await a definition of ‘cinema’ from FR and maybe discuss
the matter bilaterally.
Cion said the exclusion covered all transmission services, whatever the mode.
Projection in a cinema was an audiovisual transmission. The cinema as such was not.
There had to be a provider and a recipient for an activity to constitute a service.
Upstream activities such as the production of the film and related matters could not be
excluded. Cion had no intention of harmonising the audiovisual sector. The Treaty
would apply.
Having covered only three out of the nine points listed under Article 2, Pres suddenly
announced that it was moving on to Article 3 and would deal with the rest of Article 2
as best as possible at some stage. However, following a questioning of the Pres
intentions by the UK the former said it would come back to Article 2 at Coreper on
Wednesday next.
Article 3 – relationship with other provisions of Community law.
Pres distributed a compromise text with a new para 1 which read: MS shall apply the
provisions of this directive in compliance with the rules of the Treaty on the right of
establishment and the free movement of services. Other Community instruments, in
particular those governing specific service activities fully apply and are
complemented by this directive.
Cion welcomed the Pres text and said the services proposal did not affect the existing
acquis but was an accompaniment to it. It was a matter of complementarity.
wished to clarify that the provision covered not just the instruments listed but all
current and future instruments. As regards the second sentence of the subpara on
private international law (PIL) which referred to consumer protection, Rome I and II
offered other options and perhaps the words ‘in principle’ should be added. FR said
lex specialis came before the general law rule. The phrase at the end of the new text
“and are complemented by this Directive” raised an element of doubt i.e. did it mean
that all sectoral directives would have to be developed through the services directive?
Pres pointed out that the text in para 2 (former para 1) covered the issue of which
prevailed in the event of conflict.
LUX felt there was no need for the test on PIL. It was a throwback to the country of
origin principle and also duplicated article 17 (20). It agreed with B that the second
sentence referring to consumer protection was wrong. Estonia supported Lux and
questioned the impact of the Article on future legislative acts. Lith also supported
Lux. PL called for more clarification so as to ensure that it was not limiting the scope
of the directive. DK could not agree to the deletion of the text on PIL. It shared the
doubts of FR on what ‘complemented by’ meant. What were the implications for
sectoral directives that only provided for minimum harmonisation – would the
6

services directive overlay such sectoral directives. The EP had addressed the issue in
its recital 8 (b) but Cion had not taken it up. DK would provide a better wording. SW
supported DK on the point about minimum harmonisation directives.
Czech Rep said there was no need to list the particular directives in para 2. Agreed
with FR that lex specialis applied. The ref to PIL in 3.2 conflicted with that in 17 (20)
and should be moved to the latter para. There were problems also with the ref to
consumer protection in 3.2. DE said the debate showed that the new para 1 text
proposed by Pres raised more questions than answers. The EP text should be used for
both parts of the old 3.2. PT had doubts but would study the new text and agreed with
DE on using the EP text for the old 3.2. FIN liked the Pres text including the para on
PIL. UK needed to study the new text but agreed with Lux on the old 3.2, the second
sentence of which confused things. It was trying to interpret a consequence and was
inaccurate. Something along the lines of the text could be put in the recitals if needs
be. GR wanted the package travel directive added to the list in the article. HU liked
the new text. Slovenia thought the new para 1 went in the right direction but
supported Lux on the old 3.2. The list of directives in the article was unnecessary.
NL suggested the whole article should be deleted though the new para 1 was not too
bad. Para 2 (listing of directive) was just political correctness and being nice to the
EP. NL agreed that the ref to PIL was covered in 17 (20) and should be deleted from
article 3 although it hated to see the last remnants of the country of origin principle
disappearing. Slovakia shared the view that the listing of directives was unnecessary
e.g. the TV Without Frontiers directive was already excluded in article 2. The old 3.2
should also be deleted. Irl shared the doubts of others about the listing of directives. If
labour law, social security and audiovisual services were excluded, why was it
necessary to list the PoW and TVWF directives and Reg 1408/71 in this article? We
would study the new Pres text for para 1. Latvia, Malta (?) and IT shared the doubts
of others about aspects of the old paras 3.1 and 3.2. IT would like to hear more about
the meaning of ‘complemented’ in the new Pres text and agreed with UK on the use
of a recital for the second sentence of the old 3.2.
DK intervened again and said the ref to consumer protection in the old 3.2/new 3.3
was very important and arose from the debate in the EP about including consumer
protection in article 16.3. It would be a big problem to leave it out. DE said the EP
should not be alienated by changing the text of the old 3.2. FR agreed.
Pres concluded that it felt the old 3.2/new 3.3 should be kept as was currently drafted.
Cion explained ‘complementarity’ by saying that no Community act totally
harmonises and the services directive would be in addition to other sectoral directives.
The Professional Qualifications Directive (PQD) covered professional qualifications
but there were aspects related to the provision of services by professionals that were
not covered by the PQD. The services directive would supplement it and fill in the
gaps. In the energy area, directives required the granting of authorisations but they did
not specify how such authorisations were to be processed. The services directive
would apply to the granting of such authorisations. As regards future Community
legislation – laws were evolving and certain sectors might be legislated for in the
future or existing legislation extended by further laws e.g if it was decided to
introduce specific provisions governing authorisations in the energy sector it would
7

then be the sectoral directive in question that would apply. There was nothing in the
services directive that froze the development of future legislation.
On the issue of minimum harmonisation instruments raised by DK, Cion said that the
case-law in the goods area applied in the same way to services. Minimum
harmonisation enabled MS to do more, or to do worse, depending on ones point of
view but MS could not simply do what they liked i.e. they could not breach the
provisions of the Treaty. There was no conflict between minimum harmonisation
measures and the services proposal – the latter was a supplement which applied in
areas that were not harmonised. In minimum harmonisation measures there was
usually an internal market legal base and also a free circulation clause. It was a false
problem and should be looked at from the point of view of complementarity.
Concerning the listing of certain  directives in article 3, Cion said it was a “belt and
braces” approach. The particular measures were especially sensitive so the EP wished
to repeat them in this article. Legally speaking it was not very elegant but was
intended to avoid future problems (with the EP).
Cion gave a justification for the inclusion of the text on PIL in the old 3.2 and said
that 3.2 and 17 (20) covered two different situations – the latter being an exception to
article 16. (Some of the Cion explanation was not fully captured and will need to be
verified bilaterally).
DK reacted sharply to the Cion intervention and said that to describe its concern as a
misunderstanding was to underestimate the seriousness of the DK point. Most article
95 measures were not minimum harmonisation directives but there were minimum
harmonisation directives in other areas and the services directive should not affect
them. DK circulated a text for a proposed new recital relating to article 3 to the effect
that in the case of conflict between the services directive and other Community
legislation, the other Community legislation, including more stringent national
measures implementing such legislation in accordance with Community law, would
take precedence.
FR said that ‘supplemented’ was the word that caused confusion. It had noted what
Cion said about the energy sector and would check it out.
Article 16 and Article 41
Pres tabled a compromise text for a new article 41 (5) which would provide for
screening of national requirements whose application could fall under article 16 (1)
and 16 (3). MS would be required to present a report to the Cion by the date of
transposition and by one year from the transposition date Cion would provide
guidance on the application of the provisions in question in the context of the services
directive.
Cion said it now agreed with the EP that the country of origin principle was not the
right way to go. In explaining the new article 16, Cion said that the main difference in
the new article 16 was that the applicable law was no longer pre-determined and this
led to interpretation doubts. MS could only restrict freedom of movement of services
8

on certain grounds as outlined in the third subpara of 16.1 while 16.2 listed prohibited
requirements. The first part of 16.3 was a reminder of what was in 16.1 and the
second part of 16.3 was about employment rules. Article 17 enabled MS to go further
but subject to the provisions of the Treaty. The texts described the current situation as
to what MS could do and could not do and 16.3 set out the restrictions that could be
imposed subject to the criteria in 16.1. The EP had voted not to include consumer
protection and social policy in 16.3. The text was in conformity with the Treaty. It
dealt with free movement and the barriers to free movement. MS were not obliged to
impose the barriers but each could do as it wished in this respect subject to conformity
with Community law. Limiting the number of restrictions was not an obligation - it
was a political choice. The EP had taken that step and Cion agreed with it.
NL commented that the EP text on article 16 was not the one it would have preferred.
It would look positively at the Pres screening proposal and would also like to see it
extended to cover the notification of future national measures. DE disagreed and said
there was no need to strike a balance in article 41 – it existed already in article 16.
HU saw the Pres proposal as a step in the right direction but 16.3 still also needed to
be addressed as a number of interpretations were possible. The criteria should apply to
all national provisions including employment. UK agreed that 16.3 was not the most
elegant. The Pres screening proposal was a step in the right direction but needed to
cover future measures also. As regards the DE opposition, UK said it was not a
burdensome requirement – MS should know what national laws they had and be
easily able to notify them. It was done already for technical regulations. DK, PL, Fin,
Czech Rep, Slovakia, Latvia, Lith and Estonia 
supported NL, UK and HU in
welcoming the Pres proposal and calling for it to be extended to cover future
measures. Slovenia was less enthusiastic but could live with it. CYP supported the
DE line and Spain said it was closer to DE and CYP on the matter. Fin, supported by
Estonia, asked for clarification on the relationship between 16.2 and 16.3 – did the
16.3 restrictions override the prohibitions in 16.2? GR asked for clarification of what
was meant by the second part of the Pres text on guidance to be provided by Cion.
FR picked up on the Cion explanation that 16.3 was the most limiting option as
regards maintaining restrictions and asked why it should be necessary to introduce
more bureaucratic proposals. Its interpretation was that the Pres proposal would
require screening of labour law and would lead to Cion producing guidelines on
labour law. This was precisely what everyone had tried to avoid. FR warned that if
this went ahead it would lead to front page headlines and demonstrations in the
streets. PT supported DE and was concerned by what FR had said. entered a
substantive reservation on the whole matter.
Pres said the proposal related to national requirements under the first part of 16.3 i.e.
the four policy areas listed but it did not apply to labour law.
Czech Rep agreed with the Pres clarification but said that in trying to reach
compromise things were being put together that did not fit well together. Czech Rep
went on to call for any further compromise proposals to be circulated in advance in
future. Pres needed to be clear also about which articles would be discussed and the
order in which they would be discussed. It was not sure what exactly had been agreed
in this debate or what conclusions the Pres was drawing. For example, Pres had
9

concluded on keeping the text of article 3 even though many had opposed its
retention. Referring to the discussions in the working group, it said no conclusions
had been drawn at the first meeting (5 May) and while some had been drawn at the
second meeting (11 May) there had not been agreement on everything. How was this
work to be taken forward and how were other outstanding issues to be discussed?
UK, agreeing indirectly with FR, said there should be no question of MS having to
notify their labour laws. The last sentence in article 16.3 was unnecessary if labour
law was fully excluded from the directive. There was too much duplication in the text.
The last part of 16.3 should be deleted, even if it created a political problem.
Lux pointed out that the definition of ‘requirement’ in article 4 excluded collective
agreements and that therefore they would also be excluded from the scope of the new
41.5 which used the term ‘requirements’. Lux agreed with Czech rep about Pres
conclusion on article 3 – a majority of the interventions (mentioned 13 out of 18) had
called for something to be done about it.
HU, Latvia and Lith supported the comments of Czech Rep and UK and also called
for the deletion of the last part of 16.3. Lith said the text was attempting to do things
that were legally impossible – para 3 should be deleted.
SW agreed that deleting para 3 was logical but politically unacceptable. It also agreed
that the concerns of FR about the new 41.5 were important.
Cion said that, like others, it would be concerned about the potential administrative
burdens but nonetheless it favoured the Pres proposal for 41.5. It was sometimes
necessary to invest in order to make savings. Cion was sure that the intention was not
to require screening of labour laws and it would try to find an acceptable solution in
that regard.
Pres said it would conclude on article 3 and other articles discussed but it would have
to think about it first. It had listened carefully to all delegations and taken note of their
positions. On 41.5, for example, it had noted that many could accept the proposal and
wanted it extended to cover future measures but that some were afraid of introducing
more red tape. There was also a need for clarification as to exactly what needed to be
screened. The working group had looked at articles 4-15 and 20-27 in its two
meetings. There had been agreement on some points but not on others. Pres confirmed
that the group would meet again on 16 and 19 May. On the 19th there would be a doc
with all the amendments to be discussed and Pres hoped it could be approved. Any
other points that needed to be discussed by the group including articles 28 to 47,
article 13.4 etc could also be discussed on the 16th and 19th. Some MS had not yet
given their final views on the compromise text. Pres accepted that it had been difficult
for delegations to comment on texts that had only been tabled in the meeting. Over the
weekend and into Monday Pres would evaluate the discussion in Coreper and would
adapt/improve its proposals and issue them in a doc on Tuesday for discussion in
Coreper on Wednesday next (17th). It would also come back to the other aspects of the
various articles that were not discussed at this session.
Ends
10