On 22 November 2005, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee at the European Parliament voted at first reading on the report tabled by Ms. Evelyne GEBHARDT MEP (PES, DE).
Over 1600 amendments were tabled for this controversial piece of legislation. Lots of amendments were approved or rejected by a very narrow majority, whereas compromised and consolidated amendments were jointly supported by the major political groups.
MEPs agreed over a number of points:
The need for a framework directive rather than sectoral interventions, with safeguards and exceptions for sensitive areas such as healthcare [see below].
The need to clarify the relation between the Services Directive and other pieces of EU legislation, such as the Directive on Posting of Workers. The other legislation should always prevail over the services directive according to the revised text.
The member state of destination (rather than that of origin) should be responsible for supervising the activity of a foreign service provider in its territory.
However, there was no agreement whatsoever on two key issues: the scope of the Directive and the Country of Origin Principle (COO).
As far as the scope of the Directive is concerned, MEPs decided not to follow Ms. Gebhardt’s approach. While she had called for a general exclusion of Services of General Interest and Services of General Economic Interest, MEPs adopted a sectoral approach: the directive should not apply to certain services including gambling and lotteries, audio visual services including the cinema, professions and activities connected with the exercise of official authority (such as notaries), lawyers and above all health care.
Healthcare services will not fall within the remit of the Services Directive if the IMCO text is approved by the European Parliament’s plenary session and by the European Council later on.
On the other hand, a number of controversial issues for the health community are still on the table, the bigger one being the Country of Origin Principle (COO).
Ms. Gebhardt had proposed distinguishing the right to provide cross-border services from the practical exercise of this right. The right to exercise a service activity would be acquired by the provider in his country of origin, i.e. his country of establishment. But the provision of a service in another Member State - the host country - would be subject to the legislation of that State. This vision was supported by the Socialist and Green groups. However, the IMCO Committee finally voted (by 21 votes to 16, with 3 abstentions) in favour of a solution closer to the Commission’s initial proposal. The amendment in question was jointly submitted by members of the EPP-ED, ALDE and UEN groups.
The final version of the report is not yet available. MEPs will vote the text in Plenary Session in January or February 2006.
