Along with the parliaments of 11 other EU member states, the Saeima succeeded in making the EU withdraw the proposal for a regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom to provide services, commonly referred to as the Monti II Regulation.

When the European Affairs Committee of the Saeima carried out a subsidiarity check, it identified an infringement. In May of this year, it sent its reasoned opinion to the European Commission indicating that adoption of the regulation will not achieve its aim – namely, to ensure both equal treatment of service providers from all the member states and protection of employees’ rights in the context of the freedom to provide services. Therefore, according to the reasoned opinion of the European Affairs Committee, this proposal for an EU’s legislative act should not be supported. The European Commission decided to withdraw the proposal for a regulation after considering the reasoned opinions of 12 national parliaments.

“The Lisbon Treaty gives national parliaments considerable influence upon the agenda of the European Union. It is the first time that the Saeima identified a breach of the subsidiarity principle in a proposal for an EU legislative act. The fact that the European Commission decided to withdraw the proposal illustrates how important it is for national parliaments to be active in EU issues,” noted Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, Chairperson of the European Affairs Committee.

The reasoned opinion of the Saeima also indicates that the proposal for a regulation is not unmistakably clear and definite; because the regulation is binding, its wording must be clear in order to ensure that all member states are able to apply it uniformly without any misunderstandings. These matters have become particularly topical on the EU level after the widely discussed cases of Laval and Viking Line.

The European Affairs Committee expressed concern about the legal basis of the proposal chosen by the European Commission. The MPs emphasised that despite rulings made by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the right to strike is excluded from the range of matters that can be regulated across the EU. Therefore, members of the European Affairs Committee were not convinced that the need to adopt a relevant regulation can be based on the rulings made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases of Laval and Viking Line.

Reasoned opinions objecting to the proposal were also submitted by the parliaments of Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Under the so-called Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission was therefore obliged to suspend and re-examine its proposal for a regulation.

Pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments have the right to supervise the procedure of drafting EU’s legislative acts by assessing the compliance of these acts with the principle of subsidiarity. National parliaments of the EU member states decide if the objectives of the proposed legislative act can be achieved on a lower – national – level and if the EU’s legislative initiatives exceed their initial aims. If within eight weeks at least nine national parliaments object to a proposal for a legislative act, this legislative initiative must be re-examined by the European Commission.


Saeima Press Service