COMMISSION STILL AT ODDS OVER COUNTRY OF ORIGIN PRINCIPLE (Diana Wallis MEP)

Diana Wallis MEP <info@dianawallismep.org.uk>

COMMISSION STILL AT ODDS OVER COUNTRY OF ORIGIN PRINCIPLE

March 29, 2005 7:49 PM

ALDE Legal Affairs Spokesman Diana Wallis MEP has today slammed the Commission over its inability to provide a coherent definition of the "country of origin principle".

Speaking today at a seminar organised by the Academy of European Law (ERA) in Brussels on the Services Directive, Liberal Democrat MEP Diana Wallis said that she had received an "extraordinary" written answer from the European Commission revealing that it is still at odds internally over the principle.

The country of origin principle as expressed in the Services Directive, in which service providers are to be subject only to their home state legislation, contrasts with the position taken in the Commission's proposal on Rome II (the law applicable to non-contractual obligations). Ms Wallis, who is the Rapporteur on Rome II, asked Commissioners McCreevey and Frattini - whose services put forward the two separate proposals (Rome II and Services Directive) - to give a joint definition of the principle explaining in particular the relationship with private international law.

She said,

"The problem is that at the moment we have two separate Commission proposals on the table which go in different directions. As they came from the same European Commission, one would have expected some coherence. This is what everyone - especially European enterprises - is waiting for: a clear and coherent legislative approach that shows the Commission working together".

She continued,

"I asked the question well before Christmas, hoping to show that the new Commission was more together on this issue and making a new start. It should have been a great opportunity to get things straight. I know there was inter-service consultation on the question as it has taken well over three months to get an answer".

"However, the answer just attempts to describe the two approaches - country of origin and private international law - and then says it is a legislative or political choice. This is extraordinary. Not only is the content simplistic, even preposterous legally, but it is no answer to the question. Obviously the Commission does not have a united view and is still unable to set out a clear and unified approach, so it looks like the Parliament will have to do that job for them."