Mécanisme transfrontalier européen 2.0
Opinion factsheet
Sur cette page
- Politique de cohésion
- Coopération transfrontalière et territoriale
- Cohésion territoriale
Opinion number:
CDR-6083-2022
Status:
Adoptés
Objective
underlines that previous studies carried out by the European Commission show the considerable loss in potential growth in the EU's border regions that is the direct result of legal and administrative obstacles;
stresses that these border barriers are in conflict with the idea of European unity. After 70 years of integration, such barriers should not exist, and indeed, new obstacles should not be created, as it regrettably still the case. Article 174 TFEU on economic, social and territorial cohesion stipulates that particular attention should be paid to cross-border regions. The European Union and its Member States should take steps to remove or at least reduce these barriers, in order to implement the European single market, create jobs and growth and improve citizens' quality of life. Cross-border regions are at the heart of European integration and territorial cohesion priorities;
stresses that it is unacceptable that, in today's European Union, not all border regions have cross border governance tools to effectively report legal and administrative obstacles to the governments of their Member States or to the EU institutions, leaving these regions in a deadlock that limits their sustainable economic, social and territorial development, which is the basis of prosperity and well-being of the population. Each border region should have these cross border governance tools at its disposal;
acknowledges that, on the basis of the relevant remarks made by some Member States, a new approach to the Regulation should be adopted to overcome the deadlock. The CoR believes that the reservations expressed by the Member States can be resolved by means of an in-depth discussion and an amended proposal;
points out that it is essential to set up cross-border coordination points in all Member States, or in regions with legislative powers where these exist, even in Member States that will ultimately choose to apply their own tool rather than that proposed by the Regulation. These coordination points, which should be integrated into an appropriate ministry in each Member State or region with legislative powers, into existing organisations such as the Nordic Council, or established as independent bodies, should be visible and allow the relevant authorities to receive notifications from their border regions, their citizens and businesses, to process these notifications and to propose solutions.
stresses that these border barriers are in conflict with the idea of European unity. After 70 years of integration, such barriers should not exist, and indeed, new obstacles should not be created, as it regrettably still the case. Article 174 TFEU on economic, social and territorial cohesion stipulates that particular attention should be paid to cross-border regions. The European Union and its Member States should take steps to remove or at least reduce these barriers, in order to implement the European single market, create jobs and growth and improve citizens' quality of life. Cross-border regions are at the heart of European integration and territorial cohesion priorities;
stresses that it is unacceptable that, in today's European Union, not all border regions have cross border governance tools to effectively report legal and administrative obstacles to the governments of their Member States or to the EU institutions, leaving these regions in a deadlock that limits their sustainable economic, social and territorial development, which is the basis of prosperity and well-being of the population. Each border region should have these cross border governance tools at its disposal;
acknowledges that, on the basis of the relevant remarks made by some Member States, a new approach to the Regulation should be adopted to overcome the deadlock. The CoR believes that the reservations expressed by the Member States can be resolved by means of an in-depth discussion and an amended proposal;
points out that it is essential to set up cross-border coordination points in all Member States, or in regions with legislative powers where these exist, even in Member States that will ultimately choose to apply their own tool rather than that proposed by the Regulation. These coordination points, which should be integrated into an appropriate ministry in each Member State or region with legislative powers, into existing organisations such as the Nordic Council, or established as independent bodies, should be visible and allow the relevant authorities to receive notifications from their border regions, their citizens and businesses, to process these notifications and to propose solutions.
Impact
*This is the impact related to the EC proposal for an amended regulation. For the impact on the final regulation as adopted by the co-legislators, see COTER-VII/037*
The EC published the Amended version of the ECBM Regulation, which is now called the "The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool" Regulation.
Summary
The Regulation refers to infrastructure impacting a cross-border region or a public service provided in a cross-border region.
It applies to land and maritime borders of neighbouring Union states, not third countries;
This proposal only covers obstacles from national law, including where Member States transpose EU directives correctly but divertingly.
Obstacles involving a potential breach of Union law are out of the scope of this amended proposal, given that there are other specific instruments tailored to resolving these issues, such as SOLVIT.
The amended proposal requires setting up cross-border coordination points (one or more) in all Member States for reporting cross-border obstacles and assessing files submitted by “initiators”.
Member States may identify current or new bodies and set up one or several coordination points, including joint bodies with neighbouring Member States, in line with their institutional framework and preferences.
Initiators are public law, private law entities, or natural persons who prepare a cross-border file by setting out the cross-border interaction and describing the obstacles for considering coordination points.
The process for signalling border obstacles is clearly defined and simple.
The cross-border coordination point assesses the cross-border obstacle described by the initiator.
If it concludes that there is an obstacle, it looks at what cooperation structures are available to resolve the identified obstacle.
If there is no institutional structure for cross-border cooperation to resolve the obstacle or if the existing ones are insufficient to solve it, Member States may opt to use the Cross-Border Facilitation Tool set up under this Regulation.
At any procedural step, the cross-border coordination point may choose not to resolve the obstacle, even if it concludes that it exists.
After assessing a cross-border file, the cross-border coordination point must forward the conclusion of the assessment to the initiator within a reasonable timeframe.
Unlike previously, there is only one tool in the Regulation: The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool consists of a single, straightforward procedure to tackle obstacles of a legislative or administrative nature.
-For legal obstacles, the position taken by the cross-border coordination point to suggest to the national government to launch a legislative procedure is in no way binding on the competent legislative body. The decision as to whether to resolve an administrative or legal obstacle remains voluntary and rests with the competent national authorities.
-For administrative obstacles, the authority contacted by the coordination point may decide to change the provision or practice, including its interpretation.
About timelines, the analysis by the contact point must be done within 3-6 months, and an official reply must be received within eight months.
This might be one of the most impactful CoR opinions, and each point from our opinion is reflected in this draft regulation, such as the request to simplify the regulation and the procedures, to clarify the voluntary nature of the regulation and that everyone concerned including individual citizens can submit a request.
It also includes our request to look into the transposition of Directives, not only the national law, as the obstacle generators. The Regulation also included the maritime regions and clarified the geographical scope, which is also one of our requests.
Most importantly, it keeps the obligation for every Member State to have at least one border coordination point, which the European Parliament was not strongly advocating for, though finally they did request. The only point not clearly mentioned, and what the CoR requested, is that there is a share of experiences among National (or transnational) Cross-Border Coordination Points at the Union level. Still, it is an issue that does not necessarily need to be defined by the Regulation. It also opens the door to the CoR's involvement in the form of potential yearly events with the DG REGIO, allowing for the Coordination's Points to meet.
Conclusion
On 20 March, the European Commission formally responded to this opinion stating;
The Commission adopted a revised proposal for a Regulation on 12 December 20231, taking due account of the concerns, comments and recommendations from the two co-legislators, while maintaining the original focus of the European Cross-Border Mechanism (‘ECBM’) proposal on resolving the obstacles that hamper the lives of cross-border communities. The amended proposal addresses concerns about subsidiarity and proportionality. The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool is optional and should be used only if no other tools from existing cooperation structures are available or able to satisfactorily resolve the obstacle. The amended proposal requires setting up cross-border coordination points in each Member State, whose role will be pivotal in identifying cross-border obstacles and assessing the relevance of solving them. Member States can decide, after analysing the file, whether to resolve the obstacle, taking account of the assessment made by the cross-border cooperation
point
The new Regulation clarifies all the points that the Member States raised. Besides an obligation to designate a cross-border coordination point (s), everything else is left to the States to organise how they see fit. The proposed Regulation sets up a straightforward procedure. The Member States will be able to solve most of the obstacles with simple derogations and clarifications, which would, for many of these obstacles, be the quickest and most efficient way forward, not having to wait for legislative changes.
The revised proposal brings in substantial simplifications to the 2018 ‘ECBM’ proposal, including the procedures for assessing crossborder files submitted by initiators. Under the Cross-Border Facilitation Tool, one single procedure is established, with limited requirements for Member States and applicable to both legal and administrative obstacles. In addition, Member States can decide how best to organise their resources when nominating a crossborder coordination point, including by nominating an existing body or joint cross-border coordination points with neighbouring Member States. The amended proposal is fully based on the principle of subsidiarity, respecting Member States’ legislative prerogatives. The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool is optional and should be used only if no other tools from existing cooperation structures are available or able to satisfactorily resolve the obstacle.
The Commission notes that minimising adverse effects of new national legislation on border regions is a responsibility of each Member State. However, cross-border coordination points are expected to develop an expertise which could be useful in this process, notably to ensure the necessary coordination with neighbouring Member States when transposing EU directives into national laws.
The Commission acknowledges the importance of enhancing data collection and knowledge on crossborder interactions. Information gathered by crossborder coordination points can contribute significantly to the studies and analyses conducted notably by the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON), supporting evidence-based decision-making.
The Commission welcomes the Committee’s suggestions for a targeted and placed-based approach. The proposed geographical scope of the solutions should be limited to the lowest territorial level necessary for the effective resolution of the obstacle on a case-by-case basis, in full accordance with the institutional framework of
each Member State.
The revised proposal defines the coordination tasks of the Commission, including the promotion of exchanges of experiences between cross-border regions, in particular between cross-border coordination points. It also provides for an evaluation of the Regulation five years after its entry into force
The EC published the Amended version of the ECBM Regulation, which is now called the "The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool" Regulation.
Summary
The Regulation refers to infrastructure impacting a cross-border region or a public service provided in a cross-border region.
It applies to land and maritime borders of neighbouring Union states, not third countries;
This proposal only covers obstacles from national law, including where Member States transpose EU directives correctly but divertingly.
Obstacles involving a potential breach of Union law are out of the scope of this amended proposal, given that there are other specific instruments tailored to resolving these issues, such as SOLVIT.
The amended proposal requires setting up cross-border coordination points (one or more) in all Member States for reporting cross-border obstacles and assessing files submitted by “initiators”.
Member States may identify current or new bodies and set up one or several coordination points, including joint bodies with neighbouring Member States, in line with their institutional framework and preferences.
Initiators are public law, private law entities, or natural persons who prepare a cross-border file by setting out the cross-border interaction and describing the obstacles for considering coordination points.
The process for signalling border obstacles is clearly defined and simple.
The cross-border coordination point assesses the cross-border obstacle described by the initiator.
If it concludes that there is an obstacle, it looks at what cooperation structures are available to resolve the identified obstacle.
If there is no institutional structure for cross-border cooperation to resolve the obstacle or if the existing ones are insufficient to solve it, Member States may opt to use the Cross-Border Facilitation Tool set up under this Regulation.
At any procedural step, the cross-border coordination point may choose not to resolve the obstacle, even if it concludes that it exists.
After assessing a cross-border file, the cross-border coordination point must forward the conclusion of the assessment to the initiator within a reasonable timeframe.
Unlike previously, there is only one tool in the Regulation: The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool consists of a single, straightforward procedure to tackle obstacles of a legislative or administrative nature.
-For legal obstacles, the position taken by the cross-border coordination point to suggest to the national government to launch a legislative procedure is in no way binding on the competent legislative body. The decision as to whether to resolve an administrative or legal obstacle remains voluntary and rests with the competent national authorities.
-For administrative obstacles, the authority contacted by the coordination point may decide to change the provision or practice, including its interpretation.
About timelines, the analysis by the contact point must be done within 3-6 months, and an official reply must be received within eight months.
This might be one of the most impactful CoR opinions, and each point from our opinion is reflected in this draft regulation, such as the request to simplify the regulation and the procedures, to clarify the voluntary nature of the regulation and that everyone concerned including individual citizens can submit a request.
It also includes our request to look into the transposition of Directives, not only the national law, as the obstacle generators. The Regulation also included the maritime regions and clarified the geographical scope, which is also one of our requests.
Most importantly, it keeps the obligation for every Member State to have at least one border coordination point, which the European Parliament was not strongly advocating for, though finally they did request. The only point not clearly mentioned, and what the CoR requested, is that there is a share of experiences among National (or transnational) Cross-Border Coordination Points at the Union level. Still, it is an issue that does not necessarily need to be defined by the Regulation. It also opens the door to the CoR's involvement in the form of potential yearly events with the DG REGIO, allowing for the Coordination's Points to meet.
Conclusion
On 20 March, the European Commission formally responded to this opinion stating;
The Commission adopted a revised proposal for a Regulation on 12 December 20231, taking due account of the concerns, comments and recommendations from the two co-legislators, while maintaining the original focus of the European Cross-Border Mechanism (‘ECBM’) proposal on resolving the obstacles that hamper the lives of cross-border communities. The amended proposal addresses concerns about subsidiarity and proportionality. The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool is optional and should be used only if no other tools from existing cooperation structures are available or able to satisfactorily resolve the obstacle. The amended proposal requires setting up cross-border coordination points in each Member State, whose role will be pivotal in identifying cross-border obstacles and assessing the relevance of solving them. Member States can decide, after analysing the file, whether to resolve the obstacle, taking account of the assessment made by the cross-border cooperation
point
The new Regulation clarifies all the points that the Member States raised. Besides an obligation to designate a cross-border coordination point (s), everything else is left to the States to organise how they see fit. The proposed Regulation sets up a straightforward procedure. The Member States will be able to solve most of the obstacles with simple derogations and clarifications, which would, for many of these obstacles, be the quickest and most efficient way forward, not having to wait for legislative changes.
The revised proposal brings in substantial simplifications to the 2018 ‘ECBM’ proposal, including the procedures for assessing crossborder files submitted by initiators. Under the Cross-Border Facilitation Tool, one single procedure is established, with limited requirements for Member States and applicable to both legal and administrative obstacles. In addition, Member States can decide how best to organise their resources when nominating a crossborder coordination point, including by nominating an existing body or joint cross-border coordination points with neighbouring Member States. The amended proposal is fully based on the principle of subsidiarity, respecting Member States’ legislative prerogatives. The Cross-Border Facilitation Tool is optional and should be used only if no other tools from existing cooperation structures are available or able to satisfactorily resolve the obstacle.
The Commission notes that minimising adverse effects of new national legislation on border regions is a responsibility of each Member State. However, cross-border coordination points are expected to develop an expertise which could be useful in this process, notably to ensure the necessary coordination with neighbouring Member States when transposing EU directives into national laws.
The Commission acknowledges the importance of enhancing data collection and knowledge on crossborder interactions. Information gathered by crossborder coordination points can contribute significantly to the studies and analyses conducted notably by the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON), supporting evidence-based decision-making.
The Commission welcomes the Committee’s suggestions for a targeted and placed-based approach. The proposed geographical scope of the solutions should be limited to the lowest territorial level necessary for the effective resolution of the obstacle on a case-by-case basis, in full accordance with the institutional framework of
each Member State.
The revised proposal defines the coordination tasks of the Commission, including the promotion of exchanges of experiences between cross-border regions, in particular between cross-border coordination points. It also provides for an evaluation of the Regulation five years after its entry into force
Essential points
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
- underlines that previous studies carried out by the European Commission show the considerable loss in potential growth in the EU's border regions that is the direct result of legal and administrative obstacles;
- stresses that these border barriers are in conflict with the idea of European unity. After 70 years of integration, such barriers should not exist, and indeed, new obstacles should not be created, as it regrettably still the case. Article 174 TFEU on economic, social and territorial cohesion stipulates that particular attention should be paid to cross-border regions. The European Union and its Member States should take steps to remove or at least reduce these barriers, in order to implement the European single market, create jobs and growth and improve citizens' quality of life. Cross-border regions are at the heart of European integration and territorial cohesion priorities;
- stresses that it is unacceptable that, in today's European Union, not all border regions have cross border governance tools to effectively report legal and administrative obstacles to the governments of their Member States or to the EU institutions, leaving these regions in a deadlock that limits their sustainable economic, social and territorial development, which is the basis of prosperity and well-being of the population. Each border region should have these cross border governance tools at its disposal;
- acknowledges that, on the basis of the relevant remarks made by some Member States, a new approach to the Regulation should be adopted to overcome the deadlock. The CoR believes that the reservations expressed by the Member States can be resolved by means of an in-depth discussion and an amended proposal;
- points out that it is essential to set up cross-border coordination points in all Member States, or in regions with legislative powers where these exist, even in Member States that will ultimately choose to apply their own tool rather than that proposed by the Regulation. These coordination points, which should be integrated into an appropriate ministry in each Member State or region with legislative powers, into existing organisations such as the Nordic Council, or established as independent bodies, should be visible and allow the relevant authorities to receive notifications from their border regions, their citizens and businesses, to process these notifications and to propose solutions.