Approaches to harmonisation
In the development of EU law “old” and “new” ap-
proaches to the harmonization of legislation can be dis-
Sagidan Anar,
Leading research fellow at the Department of International
and Comparative Law of the Institute of the legislation
of The Republic of Kazakhstan, PhD
THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION
OF HARMONISATION LEGISLATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
1
Peterson, J. &Shackleton, M. (2002) The Institutions of European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.2
2
Art. 14 TEU (EP); Art.16 TEU (Council); Art.17 TEU (Commission). See also: http://europa.eu/institutions - bodies/ index.
en.htm
3
Ruiter R. & Neuhold C. ‘Why Is Fast Track the Way to Go? Justifications for Early Agreement in the Co-decision Procedure
and Their Effects’, European Law Journal, Vol.18, №4: pp.536-554
87
Международное право и сравнительное правоведение
tinguished. A change from the “traditional” approach
to harmonisation legislation in EU and the develop-
ment of the “new” approaches was long overdue in the
early 1980s. The process of elimination of technical
barriers to trade in the EU had been very slow, which
prevented the achievement of a common free market
in the Community. In a seminal article on the transition
from the old to the new approach to harmonization,
Jacques Pelkmansexamined the constituent elements
of the new approach bymeans of a systematic compari-
son with the drawbacks of the old approach. He identi-
fied nine considerable disadvantages of the “old” ap-
proach, including: time-consuming and cumbersome
procedures; excessive uniformity; unanimity (ex. Art.
100-, EEC); the failure to develop a linkage between
the harmonization of technical regulations and Euro-
pean standardization, leading to wasteful duplication,
useless inconsistencies and time lost; the slowness of
European harmonization and standardization relative
tonational regulation and standardization; a neglect of
the problems of certification and testing; the incapac-
ity to solve the third country problem; implementation
problems in Member States; a lack of political interest
by the Ministers
4
.
Initiated in 1985, the“new approach” to harmoniza-
tion and standardization was an effort to accelerate the
process at both the Council and the European stand-
ardization process at industry level. Also, it provides
easier access to the market. The “new approach” con-
sists of three main elements: preventing new techni-
cal barriers on the basis of the‘mutual information di-
rective’ then (83/189/EEC), recourse to the principle
of ‘reference to standards’ in directives, ex Art. 100,
EEC (now Art.114 TFEU); a general promotion of
European standardization in various ways, as well as
specific promotion of the activities of CEN (European
Committee of Standartisation), CENELEC (European
Standardization Committeefor Electrical Products) and
CEPT (the European Committee of PTTs).How is this
accomplished? The Single European Actclarifies four
principles which have applied since the adoption of the
‘new approach’ (in May 1985):
- harmonization of legislation is restricted to the
adoption the directives based on Art.100 EEC (now
Art.114 TFEU)of the essential safety requirements
with which the products on the market must satisfy
in order to qualify for free movement in the EU;
- the competent standardization organisations have
to formulate the technical specifications which indus-
try needs to produce and market productscomplying
with the basic requirements of the directives;
- the technical specification is not compulsory,
but isexpressed in voluntary (European) standards;
- Governments have to presume that the prod-
ucts manufactured in accordance with the European
standards comply with the ‘fundamental require-
ments’ provided by the directive. This presumption
is a guarantee for business free market access.
Therefore the foremost benefits of the ‘new ap-
proach’ are large-scale coherence between the legal
and policy systems to exclude technical problems, and
additionally the enhanced communication between Eu-
ropean standardization and European harmonization of
technical rules. This new approach should be consid-
ered as an important effort to attain consistency by dint
of merging complete harmonization on issues (safety,
etc.) with a versatile approach the towards respective
means (standardization). Moreover, it develops the fa-
cilities of information interchange so as to reform the
technical draft-laws and national draft-standards into
European norms before officially coming into force.
Time has proved that new approach really
worked. After 1992, years 95% of internal market
harmonization had been completed
5
. In a way, the
new approach had two main consequences: it raised
the prominence of standardization bodies and opened
the door to “soft law” approaches to harmonization.
Harmonisation and the role of soft law
The “soft law” is a very general term, and reflects
a variety of processes which do not have formally
binding normative content. For instance, they lack
features such as obligation, uniformity, justiciabil-
ity, sanctions, and/or an enforcement staff.
In the past few years, a lot of research has been con-
ducted in the field of soft law. According to the latest
research, objections to the use of soft law include:
- It lacks the clarity and precision needed to provide
predictability and a reliableframe work for action;
-The EU treaties include hard provisions that en-
shrine market principles and the secan only be offset
if equally hard provisions are added to promote so-
cial objectives;
- Soft law cannot forestall races to the bottom in
social policy within the EU;
- Soft law cannot really have any effect but it is a
covert tactic to enlarge the Union’s legislative hard
law competence;
- Soft law is a device that is used to have an effect
but it by-passes normal systems of accountability;
-Soft law undermines EU legitimacy because it
creates expectations but cannotbring about change
6
.
Despite these weaknesses, “soft law” also has
advantages over “hard law” such as: hard law tends
toward uniformity of treatment while many cur-
rent issues demand tolerance for significant diver-
sity among Member States/ Hard law presupposes
4
Pelkmans, J. (1987) ‘The new approach to technical harmonization and standartisation’, Journal of Common Market Studies,
Vol. XXV, №3: pp.252-253
5
Chalmers, D. (2010) European Union Law: cases and materials, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, p.21
6
For these and other critiques, see, e.g: Klabbers (1998); Joerges and Rödl (2004); Chalmers and Lodge (2003); and S
Smismans, “EU Employment Policy: Decentralisation or Centralisation through the Open Method of Coordination?” (2004) EUI
Working Paper LAW No. 204/01
№ 4 (28) 2012 г. Вестник Института законодательства Республики Казахстан
88
a fixed condition based on prior knowledge while
situations of uncertainty may demand constant ex-
perimentation and adjustment. Hard law is very dif-
ficult to change yet in many cases frequent change
of norms may be essential to achieve optimal results.
In a way, “soft law” has always played a role in Eu-
ropean integration.
It is clear the overview above that soft law has both
important advantages and disadvantages compared to
hard law. The best solution, therefore, probably does not
the choice of one of the other, but in the development
of an approach that effecting combines hard and soft
law elements. In this mode, David M. Trubek, Patrick
Cottrell, and Mark Nance examine “hybrid” constella-
tions in which both hard and soft processes operate in
the same domain and affect the same actors
7
.
In addition, each member-state has to decide how
it will harmonise the legislation, ranging from direct
references to EU standards in national law and regu-
lation to much more tailored approaches to adopting
harmonised requirements.
Reception of harmonisation legislation in the
EU member-states
There are the different available mechanisms to
give effect to EU harmonized provisions in national
law, such as direct effect, indirect effect, and central-
ized enforcement.
The principles governing the reception of EU law
in in the Member States evidence the uniqueness of
the EU as a legal regime. Harmonisation provisions
in Regulations are directly applicable, which means
that they become national law upon their entry into
force. Harmonisation provisions in directives need to
be implemented. Directivesestablish a common aim
for all member states, but leave it to national authori-
ties to decide on the form and method of achieving it.
Normally, member states are given one-to-two years
to implement a directive. However, unimplemented
Directives can still have legal effect if their provisions
are directly effective (which allows parties to rely on
them in Court proceedings vis-a-vis the State)
8
or
when they steer the interpretation of national laws on
the same topic (indirect effect)
9
. Under Centralised
en for cement the Commission may startinfringement
proceeding which can result in fines imposed on the
infringing MS
10
by the European Court of Justice
11
.
Conclusion
The study of long-term experiences with harmo-
nization in the EU legislation is a great opportunity
to apply the positive aspects of this experience and
avoid mistakes.
Therefore, we should emphasize three positive points
that make the EU law making effective and can be use-
ful for other countries that face the prospect of legal inte-
gration, such as the Republic of the Kazakhstan.
1. Advanced institutional design. Each institution
carries its own special role in the development and
adoption of harmonization legislation in the EU.In
this context, it is especially important to recall the
plan to create a Parliament of EurAsEC by 2015.
Serious attention must be paid to the role this Par-
liament will play in EurAsEC, and its impact on
harmonisation. For example, in EU the European
Parliament is not just an advisory body to the law-
making processes, and it plays a significantrole in
the legislative process in the EU.
2. The EU flexible approach relies on input from a
broad range of expertise and scope for combining hard
and soft laws. The new approach is a serious attempt to
achieve coherence by combining total harmonisation
of the objectives at issue (safety, etc.) with flexibility
towards the means (standartisation, soft law). It is an
instructive model for harmonisation in EurAsEC and
the CU. It would be expedient to solve common seri-
ous issues (such as issues of employment) in EurAsEC
by using the soft law. The EU has created the Europe-
an Employment Strategy (EES), a set of non-binding
guidelines designed to govern the reform of national
laws, policies, and institutions. The EES includes a
complex system of periodic reporting, indicators, and
multilateral surveillance, as well as mechanisms for
benchmarking, peer review, and exchange of best prac-
tices. The EES has been a model for similar systems
which now are all denominated the “Open Method of
Coordination” or OMC
12
. The EES itself is soft law,
in that the guidelines are general, they are not binding,
and there is no way to mount a court challenge to any
failure to follow the guidelines.
3. The range of mechanisms that increase the
chance that harmonised provisions will be effec-
tively implemented. Sometimes the process of de-
velopment and adoption of laws in EurAsEC is so
slow that by the time of adoption, they have become
outdated. In this connection it is necessary to adopt
mechanisms to speed up the reception of harmonisa-
tion legislation EU mechanisms such as direct effect,
indirect effect, and centralized enforcement offer in-
teresting examples on how this can be achieved.
So the uniqueness of the European approach to har-
monization legislation in EU could be combination by
European authority institutions of different competen-
cies in law-making, executive and judicial fields.
7
David M. Trubek, Patrick Cottrell, and Mark Nance (2005) , ‘Soft law’, ‘Hard law’, and European Integration: Toward a
Theory of Hybridity, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper №1002, November, p.3
8
Case 41/74 Van Duyn Home Office (1974) EC 1337
9
Case 14/83 Von Colson (1984) ECR 1891
10
Chalmers, №4 above, pp. 332-349
11
Article 258 & 260 TFEU
12
David M. Trubek, №6 above
89
Международное право и сравнительное правоведение
References
1. Peterson, J. &Shackleton, M. (2002) The Institutions of European Union, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, p.2
2. Ruiter R. & Neuhold C. ‘Why Is Fast Track the Way to Go? Justifications for Early Agreement in the
Co-decision Procedure and Their Effects’, European Law Journal, Vol.18, № 4: pp.536-554
3. Pelkmans, J. (1987)‘The new approach to technical harmonization and standartisation’, Journal of
Common Market Studies, Vol. XXV, №3: pp.252-253
4. Klabbers (1998); Joerges and Rödl (2004); Chalmers and Lodge(2003); and S Smismans, “EU Em-
ployment Policy: Decentralisation or Centralisation through the OpenMethod of Coordination?” (2004)
EUI Working Paper LAW No. 204/01.
5. David M.Trubek, Patrick Cottrell, and Mark Nance (2005) ‘Soft law’, ‘Hard law’, and European In-
tegration: Toward a Theory of Hybridity, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper №1002, p.3
6. Chalmers, D. (2010)European Union Law: cases and materials, 2nd edition, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 285-300, pp. 332-349
7. Senden, L.(2004) Soft law in European Community law, Oxford; Portland
8. Trubek D.&Trubek L.(2005), ‘Hard and Soft Law in the Construction of Social Europe: the Role of
the Open Method of Coordination’, European Law Journal, vol.11
9. Raymund Werle (2001): Institutional aspects of standardization - jurisdictional conflicts and the
choice of standardization organizations, Journal of European Public Policy, 8:3, pp. 392-410
10. David M. Trubek, Patrick Cottrell, and Mark Nance (2005) “Soft law,” “Hard law,” and European
Integration: toward a theory of hybridity”, University of Wisconsin-Madison legal studies research paper
series, Paper no. 1002
11. Kaeding M. (2008) The Transposition of EU Transport Directives across Member States, EUP,
pp.115–143.
Мақалада Еуропалық Одақтағы (ЕО) заң шығару процесінің дайындалу және үйлестірілу
ерекшелігі қарастырылады. Атап айтқанда, автор Еуропалық Экономикалық Қауымдастық пен
Кеден Одағының заң шығару жүйесін үйлестіру мәселелерін шешу кезінде негізге алуға болатын
ЕО-ның басты үш қағидасына тоқталады: кең көлемді институционалдық дизайн, ЕО-ның заң
шығару жүйесіндегі үйлестіруге бейімделген шарттар («қатал» және «жеңіл» заңдар), келісілген
ережелердің тиімді іске асырылу мүмкіндігінің деңгейін көтеретін бірқатар тетіктер (тікелей
әсер ету, жанамалы түрде әсер ету, органдарды орталықтандыру).
Түйін сөздер: үйлестіру, заңнама, Еуропалық Одақ, жеңіл құқық.
В данной статье рассматриваются особенности процесса разработки и гармонизации
законодательства в Европейском Союзе (ЕС). В частности, автор останавливается на трех
основных положениях, которые можно позаимствовать у ЕС при гармонизации законодательства
Евразийского Экономического Сообщества (ЕврАзЭС) и Таможенного Союза (ТС): расширенный
институциональный дизайн; гибкие подходы к гармонизации законодательства ЕС («жесткие»
и «мягкие» законы); ряд механизмов, которые повышают вероятность эффективной реализации
согласованных положений (прямое воздействие, косвенное воздействие, централизация органов).
Ключевые слова: гармонизация, законодательство, Европейский Союз, мягкое право.
This article examines particular processes of development and adoption of harmonisation legislation
in the European Union. In particular, the author suggests three main points that we can borrow from the
EU for the harmonization of legislation of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) and the Customs
Union (CU): advanced institutional design, a flexible approach to the harmonization of EU legislation
(“hard” and “soft” law), a Range of mechanisms that increase the chance that harmonised provisions will
be effectively implemented (direct effects, indirect effects, centralized bodies).
Keywords: harmonisation, legislation, European Union, soft law.
№ 4 (28) 2012 г. Вестник Института законодательства Республики Казахстан
90
Анар Жарылқасынқызы Сағидан,
ҚР Заң шығару институты халықаралық заңнама және салыстырмалы құқықтану бөлімінің
жетекші ғылыми қызметкері, PhD докторы
Еуропалық Одақтағы заңнаманы әзірлеу және үйлестіруді қабылдау
Сагидан Анар Жарылкасынкызы,
ведущий научный сотрудник отдела международного законодательства и сравнительного право-
ведения Института законодательства РК, доктор PhD
Разработка и принятие гармонизации законодательства в Европейском Союзе
Sagidan Anar,
Leading research fellow at the Department of International and Comparative Law of the Institute of the
legislation of The Republic of Kazakhstan, PhD
The development and adoption of harmonisation legislation in the European Union
91
Из практики законотворчества на государственном языке
Республика Казахстан объявила себя демо-
кратическим, светским, правовым и социальным
государством, высшими ценностями которого
являются человек, его жизнь, права и свободы.
Для достижения данных целей усилия всех вет-
вей власти были объединены стратегическим
направлением – Стратегия 2030. Одним из при-
оритетных направлений развития нашей страны
стало создание правового фундамента. Посколь-
ку любой шаг, любая реформа в правовом госу-
дарстве возможны лишь на основе норм права,
в Казахстане центральный и местные предста-
вительные органы стали в экстренном порядке
формировать правовую базу дальнейшего раз-
вития.
Пришлось смириться с многочисленными
нормативными недостатками с целью решения
приоритетных на тот момент вопросов.
После объявления казахского языка государ-
ственным появилась необходимость обеспечения
аутентичности текстов проектов нормативных
правовых актов на русском и казахском языках.
вследствие срочности в нормотворческой ра-
боте появились и усилились определенные не-
соответствия, которые в настоящее время пред-
ставляют сдерживающий фактор в социально-
экономическом развитии страны.
На наш взгляд, такие несоответствия можно
условно разделить на следующие группы: линг-
вистические и организационно-правовые.
К лингвистическим проблемам обеспечения
аутентичности можно отнести следующие:
1) отсутствие единой терминологии на казах-
ском языке, позволяющей единообразно подхо-
дить к вопросам подготовки, обсуждения, при-
нятия и применения нормативных правовых ак-
тов;
2) в случае подготовки и обсуждения про-
ектов нормативных правовых актов о внесении
изменений и дополнений наблюдается несоот-
ветствие между терминологиями действующего
закона и проекта закона, вносящего изменения;
3) наблюдается несоответствие, а порой про-
тиворечие между основными и производными
нормативными правовыми актами, а также акта-
ми разных уровней (нижестоящих и вышестоя-
щих).
Указанные проблемы касаются содержатель-
ной части работы по обеспечению аутентично-
сти текстов в нормотворческой деятельности Ре-
спублики Казахстан.
К организационно-правовым проблемам мож-
но отнести следующие:
1) на сегодняшний день правовой статус Ин-
ститута законодательства Республики Казахстан
имеет возможности для совершенствования. Со-
гласно Уставу Института его предметом является
обеспечение государственной политики в обла-
сти правового обеспечения деятельности госу-
дарства, повышение эффективности правотвор-
ческой деятельности и усиление роли правовой
науки в обеспечении социально-экономического
и общественно-политического развития респу-
блики. таким образом, речь идет об универ-
сальном статусе Института в качестве профес-
сионального Центра по правовому обеспечению
деятельности государства. в п.п. 3.2.3 Устава
отмечается, что Институт законодательства
осуществляет повышение качества подготовки
проектов законов на государственном языке и
аутентичности текстов законопроектов на госу-
дарственном и русском языках.
Проблемой является тот факт, что сотрудники
Института осуществляют проверку аутентично-
сти текстов не только проектов законов Респу-
блики Казахстан, но и проектов международных
договоров и международных договоров, а также
проектов иных видов нормативных правовых
Мырзаева Шолпан Рысбаевна,
ведущий научный сотрудник сектора научно-лингвистической
экспертизы проектов НПА и международных договоров
Института законодательства РК
вОпРОСы ОбЕСпЕЧЕНИя АутЕНтИЧНОСтИ тЕкСтОв
в НОРмОтвОРЧЕСкОй ДЕятЕлЬНОСтИ
РЕСпублИкИ кАзАхСтАН
№ 4 (28) 2012 г. Вестник Института законодательства Республики Казахстан
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |