(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In June 2002, the Storting's EEA Committee fell victim to a scandalous treatment of an EU directive on employee participation in so-called “European companies” (SE companies). It was not the committee's fault. This was due to an extremely misleading case presentation by the government (see previous issue of Ny Tid).
The consequence must be that the Storting is completely free to reject the directive when it comes to consideration there in a few months.
In addition, this case must be used as a lesson on how democratically scandalous EEA matters are dealt with here in Norway. It is impossible to accept that proposals for new EEA rules are sent for consultation by that the Storting's EEA committee has approved them. It is impossible to accept that the government allows the Storting's EEA committee to approve new EEA rules before explaining what such rules really mean.
Denies employee influence
As discussed in last week's Ny Tid, the Storting's EEA Committee approved in June 2002 an EU directive on employee participation in so-called “European companies” (SE companies) According to a consultation letter from the Ministry of Labor and Administration dated May 2004, the directive is "Well suited as part of an action plan aimed at depriving or denying employees influence or denying them such rights". But the EEA Committee knew nothing about it.
The case on which the committee based its decision had the following main message: “The directive contains minimum provisions on information and consultation of employees in European companies. In the same way, the legal act presupposes that the employees shall have the right to co-influence. ”
More innocently, it is not possible to present an EU directive that one would like to have under Norwegian law.
Two years later, the Ministry of Labor and Administration sends out a consultation letter in which it explains in detail what the directive may mean for the co-influence of employees in Norwegian companies. The consultation letter is on sixty closely written pages, while the case presentation two years earlier was nine sentences, nine very reassuring sentences (they are quoted in the previous issue of Ny Tid.)
However, it is only in May 2004 that the directive is sent for consultation to affected organizations and bodies. It is now the legal experts in the Ministry of Labor and Administration that are reviewing the directive so closely that the consultation bodies have the chance to see what the directive entails in practice. It is now possible to see that the proceedings in the EEA Committee in June 2002 become a caricature of how EEA matters should be dealt with.
Eighty six-minute acts
The meetings of the EEA Committee take place behind closed doors. The agenda usually arrives less than a week before the meeting – and usually includes 30-40 EU legal acts. The case documents provide in a few lines the Ministry's assessment of whether the directive or regulation requires a change in Norwegian law or regulations – and whether the Ministry considers any changes to be unproblematic. It is stated in the case documents which professional bodies have assessed the legal act, but it is never quoted from their statements – only whether these professional bodies believe the legal act is "relevant and acceptable". It always has been.
The meeting of 18 June 2002 had 80 legal acts to consider – and judging by the shorthand minutes, the EEA Committee spent a maximum of six minutes accepting these legal acts. That means less than five seconds per. act.
Never rejected an EU directive
The EEA Committee is tasked with advising the government on whether to accept the relevant EU acts into the EEA agreement and thus become binding on Norway. There has never been a majority in the committee to reject any EU act.
The government has therefore had a back cover in the EEA Committee when the EU ambassadors from Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein meet a few days later representatives of the European Commission in the so-called EEA Committee, the decision-making body of the EEA Agreement.
Then it is democratically unsustainable that the government never submits such EU acts to open public debate before the Storting's EEA committee will decide whether the act should be incorporated into Norwegian law. In case of important legislative amendments, it is otherwise common practice that the bill is sent openly to a wide range of Norwegian organizations and bodies well in advance of the Storting's consideration of the bill.
When EU legislation is to become Norwegian law, everything is turned on its head. If such acts are sent out for consultation, it happens by that the EEA Committee of the Storting has adopted the directive.
Does the government bind Norway?
This order only makes sense if the consideration in the EEA Committee is to be perceived as a preliminary consideration. There are good reasons to do this – and extra good reasons when the EEA Committee deals with a case on such a failing basis as it has happened here.
But it is doubtful whether the EU will perceive it that way. For the EU Commission, Norway's EEA Ambassador meets in the so-called EEA Committee only days after the meeting of the Storting's EEA Committee. It is this EEA committee that makes the decision when a new EU act is to be included in the EEA agreement. The EU Commission probably reckons that that decision is final – and binding on Norway.
- with reservation?
It is true that the minutes of the meetings of the EEA Committee of the Storting now state that EU acts requiring amendments to Norwegian law have been approved by the committee "Subject to the consent of the Storting".
Until now, EU supporters in the Storting have acted as if such a reservation should not be taken seriously. It takes courage to assert when it comes to the treatment of a directive on employee participation which – according to the ministry – "Is well suited as part of an action plan aimed at depriving or denying employees influence".
It is therefore only now that the representatives of the Storting have a substantive basis for considering whether this EU directive defends its place in Norwegian law.
