Abstract
The following contribution focuses on the question whether the negotiations on the two major transatlantic free trade agreements CETA (EU-Canada) and TTIP (EU-US) have so far corresponded to the principles of democratic participation, transparency, and public accessibility. Specific attention is drawn to the citizen’s democratic participation through forms of participatory or direct democracy.
The author would like to thank Theresa Krampe for her extraordinary help in translating the original text into English. The text goes back to a presentation held in Berlin on 6 March 2015 during the conference “The EU’s Common Commercial Policy five Years after Lisbon – Quo Vadis?”. It was first published in German in Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds), Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union fünf Jahre nach Lissabon – Quo Vadis?, 2016, p. 92 et seqq.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
CETA negotiations have already been concluded. The agreement was signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016. The consolidated version is available under http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 3.
TTIP negotiations are still ongoing.
- 4.
With regard to the likewise emotionally charged European constitutional debate cf. Craig (2001), p. 125.
- 5.
For a discussion from the perspective of legal studies see Mayer and Ermes (2014), p. 237 et seqq.; Mayer F, Stellt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Kanada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA) ein gemischtes Abkommen dar?, legal opinion for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 28 August 2014, https://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/C-D/ceta-gutachten-einstufung-als-gemischtes-abkommen,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017); Cremona (2015), p. 351 et seqq.; Treier and Wernicke (2015), p. 334 et seqq.; Hoffmeister (2015), p. 35 et seqq.
- 6.
On this point of view see Streinz (2016).
- 7.
Participatory Democracy is here used as an umbrella term under which forms of direct democracy can be subsumed.
- 8.
Cf. Article 207(3), third subparagraph TFEU. Commission internally, this falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade). Until November 2014, Karel de Gucht acted as EU Trade Commissioner, since then the position is filled by Cecilia Malmström.
- 9.
Article 207(3) second subparagraph TFEU. The TTIP mandate is available under http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/S-T/ttip-mandat,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 10.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final.
- 11.
The individual action was brought to the General Court on 19 November 2014. The lawsuit was pending for two and a half years as case T-754/14, Efler and others v Commission. The GC finally decided on 10 May 2017 - after the final version of this contribution has been submitted. The judgment, which could only be taken into account during the process of proof reading, is in line with the argument developped here. As suggested here, the GC concluded that the Commission infringed EU law by refusing to register the ECI proposal. The plaintiff’s application can be accessed online (in German), https://stip-ttip.org/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/EuGH-Klageschrift_Kempen_EBI.pdf, and in English, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=162026&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1435962 (both last accessed 21 July 2017).
- 12.
Ruffert (2016a), para. 11 et seq.
- 13.
Following Article 1(2) TEU.
- 14.
Cf. Huber (2012a), para. 42 et seq.
- 15.
More on this see Wendel (2014), p. 81 et seqq.
- 16.
Article 14(3) TEU, Articles 22 and 223 TFEU, Articles 39 and 40 CFR.
- 17.
Articles 24, second subparagraph and Article 227 TFEU, Article 44 CFR.
- 18.
Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24, first subparagraph TFEU.
- 19.
Article 41 CFR.
- 20.
Article 24, fourth subparagraph TFEU, Article 41(4) CFR.
- 21.
Article 15 TFEU, Article 42 CFR.
- 22.
Article 228 TFEU, Article 43 CFR.
- 23.
For an overview over the various theories on democratic participation see, from a political scientific perspective, Schmidt (2010), p. 236 et seqq.
- 24.
For the latter cf. the classification of Ruffert (2016b), paras. 3–5.
- 25.
- 26.
See also von Bogdandy (2009), p. 13.
- 27.
On terminology cf. the respective classification of Article 10(3) TEU and Article 11(4)TEU in Huber (2012a), para. 42: “Grundsatz der partizipativen Demokratie”; Huber (2012b), para. 33: “direktdemokratische Komponente”; Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 24: “partizipative Demokratie”, with reference to Article 10(3) TEU and p. 119: “direkte Demokratie”, with reference toArticle 1(4) TEU; Ruffert (2016a), para. 10: “Teilhabe”; Ruffert (2016b), para. 14: “Element direkter Demokratie”. Additionally, the citizen’s initiative can be subsumed under participatory democracy, see for instance Kadelbach (2009), p. 611.
- 28.
Specified in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, according to which the signatories of a citizens’ initiative must come from at least a quarter of the Member States. Additionally, according to Article 7(2), the signatories must in at least a quarter of the Member States reach a minimum number that differs from one Member State to the other as it is determined by multiplying the number of Members of the European Parliament “EP” elected in the respective Member State by 750 (sic).
- 29.
- 30.
Cf. Mayer (2013), p. 80 et seqq.
- 31.
For a general overview see Tiedemann (2012), p. 80 et seqq.
- 32.
In the meantime, the number of (registered) ECI’s has risen significantly, cf. the list of ECI’s at http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/ongoing/details/2012/000003 (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 33.
- 34.
Huber (2012b), para. 32.
- 35.
Mayer (2013), p. 147.
- 36.
Mayer (2013), p. 147.
- 37.
Franzius and Preuß (2011), p. 120.
- 38.
Cf. Article 190(1), first subparagraph TFEU: “non-legislative acts of general application”.
- 39.
See, however, the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE 123, 267 – Treaty of Lisbon, para. 290.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
Neither can the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 be considered disproportionate when taking into account the open wording in Article 11(4) TEU and the legislator’s similarly wide prerogative of evaluation.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
ECI(2012)000003, otherwise known as “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity”.
- 46.
For more details on effects of this ECI see Sule (2014), p. 727 et seqq.
- 47.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final.
- 48.
Article 4(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 additionally requires that the citizens’ committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated (lit. 1), that the proposed citizens’ initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious (lit. c) and that it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union (lit. d). However, the ECI in questions unproblematically fulfilled these requirements.
- 49.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.
- 50.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.
- 51.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.
- 52.
See now GC, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission, paras. 35 et seq. Cf. before Rathke H, Mehr Partizipation wagen!, JuWiss-Blog, 23 September 2014, https://www.juwiss.de/114-2014/ (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 53.
Mögele (2012), para. 5.
- 54.
Cf. Lorenzmeier (2011), para. 25.
- 55.
Cf. again Rathke H, Mehr Partizipation wagen!, JuWiss-Blog, 23 September 2014.
- 56.
- 57.
Cf. the second recital of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011: “The procedures and conditions required for the citizens’ initiative should be clear, simple, user-friendly and proportionate to the nature of the citizens’ initiative so as to encourage participation by citizens and to make the Union more accessible. They should strike a judicious balance between rights and obligations.”
- 58.
Cf. the TTIP-mandate, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 59.
See on that committee Weiß (2015), para. 96.
- 60.
More detail see Sect. 3.2.
- 61.
The document in question is a draft text preparing the EU’s position in its negotiations with the United States, see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/Sept./tradoc_153807.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 62.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2.
- 63.
See the written observations on behalf of the applicant, published 9 November 2014, https://stop-ttip.org/de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/11/EuGH-Klageschrift_Kempen_EBI.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017), para. 43 et seq. The GC followed this line of argument in its judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission,paras. 44 et seq.
- 64.
Regarding CETA the request for preliminary injunctions has been rejected in the meantime by the General Court and the Court of Justice, see GC, order of 23 May 2016, case T-754/14 R, Efler et al. v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2016:306, and CJEU, order of 29 September 2016, case C-400/16 P(R), Efler et al. v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2016:735.
- 65.
European Commission, C(2014) 6501 final, p. 2 et seq.
- 66.
GC, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T‑754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission. The admissibility was not problematic with a view to Article 263(4) TFEU as the Commission’s decision not to register the ECI directly addresses the organisers of the ECI.
- 67.
Cf. the Commission’s online presence regarding TTIP, which has undergone considerable expansion in recent times, including a leaflet dealing with ten TTIP-myths, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153266.pdf (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 68.
See Streinz (2016).
- 69.
Cf. Pernice (2015), p. 521.
- 70.
- 71.
See the first recital of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, OJ 2001 L 145/43.
- 72.
Appropriately Kadelbach (2015), para. 71.
- 73.
See opinion of AG Maduro to CJEU, case C-64/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:433, para. 41 et seqq.
- 74.
On the special quality of dual legal sources see Wendel (2014), para. 34 et seqq.
- 75.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents. The regulation cannot be discussed in detail here. For further information see Meltzian (2004), p. 173 et seqq.; Marsch (2005), p. 639 et seqq.; Bartelt and Zeitler (2003), p. 489 et seqq.; Kranenborg (2008), p. 1083 et seqq.
- 76.
CJEU, opinion 2/13, Accession to the ECHR II, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.
- 77.
GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para. 31. See also previously in the context of counter-terrorism CJEU, case C-266/05 P, Sison, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75, para. 63.
- 78.
GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, paras. 32–34 and 51.
- 79.
GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, paras. 73 and 108.
- 80.
GC, case T-331/11, Besselink v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para. 73.
- 81.
See http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 (last accessed 1 March 2017). As regards the significance of the documents, however, this does not allow for reliable conclusions.
- 82.
See Hoffmeister (2015), p. 38 et seq.
- 83.
Hoffmeister (2015), p. 40.
- 84.
The mandate had already been leaked by some members of the EP.
- 85.
See the text of the agreement as signed on 30 October 2016, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf(last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 86.
- 87.
European Commission, C(2014) 9052 final.
- 88.
European Commission, C(2014) 9052 final.
- 89.
Another relevant question is in how far the Commission is entitled to publish documents from which indirect conclusions about the negotiation mandate may be drawn. This is still largely a grey area in positive law so that general duties of loyalty remain pretty much the only maxim still operable.
- 90.
More details see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm#_tab_2015 and http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm#_tab_2016 (both last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 91.
Aptly put in Huber (2012b), para. 9.
- 92.
Nettesheim (2015b), para. 10.
- 93.
Ruffert (2016b), para. 8.
- 94.
As a reply to the Commission’s notification, she submitted a catalogue of no less than ten requests on the improvement of the transparency of TTIP negotiations, http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/58668/html.bookmark (last accessed 1 March 2017).
- 95.
See, as mentioned above, Article 207(3), third subparagraph, second sentence TFEU and Article 218(10) TFEU.
- 96.
European Parliament, resolution of 8 July 2015 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 2014/2228(INI).
- 97.
For a detailed discussion of manifestations, meaning, and potential for reform see Hindelang (2014), p. 39 et seqq.
- 98.
References
Bartelt S, Zeitler H (2003) Zugang zu Dokumenten in der EU. Europarecht 38(3):487–503
Biervert B (2012) Art. 11 EUV. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Bungenberg M, Hermann C (2011) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union nach Lissabon. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Craig P (2001) Constitutions, constitutionalism and the European Union. Eur Law J 7(2):125–150
Cremona M (2015) Negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). Common Mark Law Rev 52(2):351–362
Epiney A (2005) Europäische Verfassung und Legitimation durch die Unionsbürger. In: Kadelbach S (ed) Europäische Verfassung und direkte Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 33–56
Franzius C, Preuß K (2011) Die Zukunft der europäischen Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Guckelberger A (2010) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 63(18):745–754
Herrmann C (2010) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union im Lissabon-Urteil. Europarecht Beiheft 1:193–210
Hindelang S (2014) Study on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Alternatives of Dispute Resolution in International Investment Law. In: European Parliament (ed) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions in the EU’s International Investment Agreements, vol 2. Studies, pp 39–131
Hoffmeister F (2015) Wider die German Angst – Ein Plädoyer für die transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP). Archiv des Völkerrechts 53(1):35–67
Huber P (1999) Demokratie ohne Volk oder Demokratie der Völker. In: Drexl J, Kreuzer KF, Scheuing DH (eds) Europäische Demokratie. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 27–57
Huber P (2012a) Artikel 10 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München
Huber P (2012b) Artikel 11 EUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München
Kadelbach S (2009) Unionsbürgerschaft. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 611–656
Kadelbach S (2015) Unionsbürgerrechte. In: Ehlers D (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 4th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 797–838
Kaufmann B (2011) Direkte Demokratie auf transnationaler Ebene. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative. In: Feld L, Huber PM, Jung O, Welzel C, Wittreck F (eds) Jahrbuch für direkte Demokratie 2010. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 201–222
Kranenborg H (2008) Access to documents and data protection in the European Union: on the public nature of personal data. Common Mark Law Rev 45(4):1079–1114
Lorenzmeier S (2011) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf
Mader O (2013) Bürgerinitiative, Petitionsrecht, Beschwerde zum Bürgerbeauftragten. Europarecht 48(3):348–371
Marsch N (2005) Das Recht auf Zugang zu EU-Dokumenten. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 58(15):639–644
Mayer F (2013) Direkte Demokratie und die Europäische Union. In: Efler M, Mörschel T (eds) Direkte Demokratie auf Bundesebene. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 147–160
Mayer F, Ermes M (2014) Rechtsfragen zu den Freihandelsabkommen CETA und TTIP. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 47(8):237–240
Meltzian D (2004) Das Recht der Öffentlichkeit auf Zugang zu Dokumenten der Gemeinschaftsorgane. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Meyer J (2014) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 4th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Mögele R (2012) Art. 218 AEUV. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, München
Nettesheim M (2015a) Art. 10 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf
Nettesheim M (2015b) Art. 11 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck. München, loose leaf
Obwexer W, Villotti J (2010) Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative. Journal für Rechtspolitik 18(3):108–121
Pernice I (2014) Study on International Investment Protection Agreements and EU Law. In: European Parliament (ed) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions in the EU’s International Investment Agreements, vol 2. Studies, pp 132–166
Pernice I (2015) Politisierung der EU nach der Europawahl – Politik zwischen TTIP und TTU. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(14):521–522
Riemann F (2004) Die Transparenz der Europäischen Union. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Ruffert M (2016a) Art. 10 EUV. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 5th edn. Beck, München
Ruffert M (2016b) Art. 11 EUV. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 5th edn. Beck, München
Schmidt M (2010) Demokratietheorien, 5th edn. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden
Sobotta C (2001) Transparenz in den Rechtssetzungsverfahren der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Stöbener P (2015) Investitionsschutzrecht: Neue Vorschläge der Kommission zu TTIP. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 26(10):372
Streinz R (2016) Repräsentative Demokratie und parlamentarische Kontrolle. In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) Die gemeinsame Handelspolitik der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 71–92
Sule S (2014) “Recht auf Wasser” – Zur ersten der Europäischen Kommission vorgelegten Europäischen Bürgerinitiative nach dem Lissabonner Vertrag. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(19):725–729
Tiedemann M (2012) Die sekundärrechtliche Ausgestaltung der europäischen Bürgerinitiative durch die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 211/2011. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 31(2):80–85
Treier V, Wernicke S (2015) Die Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (TTIP) – Trojanisches Pferd oder steiniger Weg zum Olymp. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 25(9):334–339
von Bogdandy A (2009) Grundprinzipien. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–71
Weiß W (2015) Art. 207 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München, loose leaf
Wendel M (2014) § 18 Unionsbürgerrechte, Freizügigkeit. In: Grabenwarter C (ed) Europäischer Grundrechteschutz. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol 2. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wendel, M. (2017). International Trade Agreements and Democratic Participation. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C., Terhechte, J., Ziegler, A. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2017. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58832-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58831-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58832-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)