Framework decisions are normally related to the 'third pillar' (police and justice) rather than the original 'European Community', which is the 'first pillar' and has the more familiar directives, regulations and recommendations. As far as I understand it, you need unanimity for a framework decision, although there was a major case last month that leaned towards allowing direct criminal sanctions for environmental law, which adds confusion...
Data retention was an example of a proposed framework decision. The 'advantage' for some promoters is that the European Parliament is sidelined (in favour of the Council of Ministers)
The scrutiny committee typically just looks at the matter and decides if it's routine or not, and discusses it briefly, sending it off (for info or for debate) to another committee. I'd presume that, given that there are two departments involved here to begin with (Entemp and Justice), they need all the info before trying to go any further with it.
For the moment, it's still very much wait and see.
Daithí
On 19 Oct 2005, at 22:50, teresahackett@eircom.net wrote:
It just means that they've postponed discussion on IPRED2.
The reason is because there are two parts to IPRED2: a Council framework decision and a proposal for a Directive. A "framework decision" and a "directive" represent two separate legislative and political processes. We usually just come across directives in our field of work.
For IPRED2, however, they need also a framework decision. This is because they want to introduce criminal sanctions for copyright and patent infringements. Criminal sanctions are normally only a matter for Member States (under the principle of subsidiarity). The Council framework decision is necessary to override the principle of subsidiarity in this instance, so that there can be European legislation on this issue. Otherwise, the Directive could be challenged in the ECJ and would be likely deemed illegal. There is case law on this. This is why criminal sanctions were removed from IPRED1, as it was likely the Directive would have been struck down by the ECJ.
The Scrutiny Committee usually get an information note from the responsible department on any draft European legislation. In this case, they have only received an information note on one part, the framework decision. They haven't got a note on the directive, the part of substance for us. So they postponed their discussion until they get do.
Does this make sense?
Teresa
Ian Clarke wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005, at 14:49, Daithí Mac Síthigh wrote:
Here's what little was said in the Dáil committee:
"On the matter of deferred documents there is one proposal for deferral. Proposal 4.1, COM (2005) 276, is for a Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the other Department with an interest is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There are two parts to this proposal and the secretariat has, to date, received a note that concerns only the proposed framework decision. The Department has indicated that an additional note would be provided in regard to the proposed directive concerning criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is proposed to defer consideration of this proposal until the additional information note is received by the Department. Is that agreed? Agreed."
Can anyone translate that into English? What are the implications of this, if any? Ian._______________________________________________ fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie