Die Verträge zur EU-Osterweiterung: Slovak Republic

Veröffentlichung in Deutschland: ISBN 978-3-8305-

0894-6 Veröffentlichung in Österreich: ISBN 978-3-7083-

0524-0

Franz Merli, Stefan Huster (Hrsg.)

Die Verträge zur EU-Osterweiterung

Kommentar mit systematischen Erläuterungen

BWV • BERLINER WISSENSCHAFTS-VERLAG

Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag GmbH

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

ISBN 978-3-8305-0894-6

Veröffentlichung in Österreich: ISBN 978-3-7083-0524-0 Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag GmbH Argentinierstr. 42/6, A-1040 Wien

© 2008 BWV • BERLINER WISSENSCHAFTS-VERLAG GmbH, Axel-Springer-Str. 54 a, 10117 Berlin E-Mail: [email protected], Internet: http://www.bwv-verlag.de Printed in Germany. Alle Rechte, auch die des Nachdrucks von Auszügen, der photomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, vorbehalten.

Inhaltsverzeichnis 5

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Vorwort der Herausgeber ................................................................................. 7

Vorwort von Günter Verheugen ...................................................................... 9

Teil A: Einführung (F. Merli) ........................................................................... 15

Teil B: Kommentar zum Beitrittsvertrag und zu den Grundsätzen der

Beitrittsakte (F. Merli) .......................................................................... 59

Teil C: Erläuterungen zu einzelnen Politikbereichen

I. Grundfreiheiten (A. Ott) ....................................................... 129

II. Gewerbliche Eigentumsrechte (B. Knudsen) ....................... 179

III. Wettbewerb (G. von Wallenberg) ........................................ 195

IV. Landwirtschaft (R. Mögele) ................................................. 231

V. Veterinary and Phytosanitary Legislation (H. Bendixen) ..... 261

VI. Fisheries (A. Malczewska) ................................................... 277

VII. Transport Policy (V. Kronenberger) .................................... 297

VIII. Steuern (H.-M. Wolffgang) .................................................. 323

IX. Beschäftigung und Sozialpolitik (S. Huster / B. Waas) ........ 333

X. Energie (M. Będkowski-KoŜioł) .......................................... 365

XI. Kohäsions- und Regionalpolitik (A. Puttler) ........................ 385

XII. Umwelt (R. Arnold / P. Tschäpe) ......................................... 403

XIII. Zusammenarbeit in Zivilsachen (W. Lüke) .......................... 425

XIV. Visapolitik, Außengrenzen und Schengen (R. Weinzierl) .... 443

XV. Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen (M. Böse) .......................... 461

XVI. Zollunion (H.-M. Wolffgang) .............................................. 489

XVII. Trade Relations with New Neighbour States (N. Natov) ..... 507

Teil D: Der Beitritt und die neuen Mitgliedstaaten

I. Estland (J. Laffranque) ......................................................... 521

II. Latvia (S. Harbaceviča) ........................................................ 549

III. Lithuania (S. Katuoka / P. Ravluševičius) ............................ 569

IV. Malta (P. G. Xuereb) ............................................................ 585

V. Polen (S. Biernat) ................................................................. 597

VI. Slovak Republic (E. Láštic) ................................................. 617

VII. Slovenia (P. Vehar) .............................................................. 631

VIII. Czech Republic (J. Zemánek) .............................................. 639

IX. Ungarn (K. Balázs) ............................................................... 647

X. Cyprus (L. Koursoumba-Nicolaides) ................................... 671

XI. Beitritt und nationales Verfassungsrecht (R. Arnold) .......... 691

Autorenverzeichnis ........................................................................................... 705

Abkürzungsverzeichnis / List of Abbreviations ............................................... 711

Slovak Republic (Láštic) 617

VI. Slovak Republic

Erik Láštic

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

2. Opening of Negotiations: Catching Up Strategy Revealed ................................. 5

3. The Accession Negotiations ................................................................................ 8

a) Political Background .................................................................................... 9

b) The Results of Accession Negotiations ...................................................... 11

c) Evaluation of Negotiations......................................................................... 19

4. Ratification Procedure and Referendum on EU Membership ........................... 20

a) Constitutional Provisions ........................................................................... 22

b) Referendum on Slovakia’s Accession to the EU........................................ 24

c) Public Opinion and the EU......................................................................... 28

5. Conclusion......................................................................................................... 31

According to the political criteria for accession laid down by the Copenhagen Euro-

pean Council in June 1993, candidate countries must have achieved “stability of in-

stitutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and

protection of minorities.” Fulfilling these criteria will be a major obstacle in Slova-

kia’s quest for EU membership.

This chapter examines the most important problems of Slovakia’s accession to the

EU and presents the main results of the negotiations from a Slovak perspective. It

also offers an overview of the legal instruments and procedures necessary for the

ratification of the Treaty of Accession as well as an overview of public opinion con-

cerning accession to the EU.1

1 For further information about the Slovak accession to the EU see Juraj Čorba (ed.), Európske

právo na Slovensku (European Law in Slovakia), Nadácia Kalligram 2003, pp. 556; Csaba Csaki

(ed.), Food and Agriculture in the Slovak Republic: The Challenges of EU Accession, World Bank

Study, Bratislava 2002; Ján Figeľ / Miroslav Adamiš, Slovensko na ceste do Európskej únie. Kapi-

toly a súvislosti, (Slovakia on the Path to the European Union. Chapters and Context), Slovak Gov-

ernment Office, SFPA-CEP, Bratislava 2003, pp. 204; Karen Henderson, Euroscepticism or Euro-

phobia: Opposition Attitudes to the EU in the Slovak Republic, Sussex European Institute, Brighton

1

2

618 Slovak Republic (Láštic)

1. Introduction

In July 1997 the European Commission published its first views on the applicant

countries to assess how individual countries were progressing towards fulfilling the

Copenhagen conditions. With the exception of Slovakia, all applicant countries were

judged to have met these criteria. The Commission concluded that “the position of

Slovakia raises a number of problems from the point of view of the conditions set by

the Copenhagen European Council.”2 According to the Commission’s opinion, the

Slovak Government did not sufficiently respect the powers given to it by the Consti-

tution in that it frequently disregarded the rights of the Opposition or ignored deci-

sions of the Constitutional Court. Concerns were also expressed for the way in

which the Government was using the police and secret services and for the lack of

improvements in the treatment of the Hungarian minority. By way of conclusion, the

European Commission stated that although “the institutional framework defined by

the Slovak Constitution corresponds to that of a parliamentary democracy with free

and fair elections, the situation with regard to the stability of the institutions and

their integration into political life is unsatisfactory”.3 The Luxembourg European

Council in 1997 confirmed the views of the Commission. It decided that although

formal accession talks would involve all the candidate countries, individual negotia-

tions would start with only those which fulfil both the political and the economic cri-

teria. Slovakia was not one of them.4

Just two years later, in 1999, Slovakia was judged by the Commission to fulfil the

Copenhagen political criteria.5 The main cause of such a rapid re-evaluation was a

change of government as a result of the 1998 parliamentary elections. The electoral

victory of the reform-minded democratic opposition ended the 1994-1998 era of se-

2001, pp. 30; Karen Henderson, EU Accession and the New Slovak Consensus, West European

Politics, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2004, pp. 476-494; Anton Marcinčin / Martina Lubyová, EU

Monitoring I.: Monitoring integrácie Slovenska do Európskej únie (The Monitoring of Slovakia’s

Integration into the EU), FES 2002, pp. 156; Grigorij Mesežnikov (ed.), Slovakia 2003: A Global

Report on the State of Society, Institute for Public Affairs, Bratislava 2004, pp. 699; Richard

Outrata (ed.), Economic and Social Contexts of Slovakia’s Accession to the EU - Benefits and

Risks, Institute of Slovak and World Economy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava

2002; Marek Rybář, Slovak Political Parties before Parliamentary Elections 2002, FES, Bratislava

2002, pp. 34; Marek Rybář / Darina Malová, The European Union and Change in Slovakia, in:

Antoaneta L. Dimitrova (ed.), Driven to Change: The European Union’s Enlargement viewed from

the East, Manchester University Press, Manchester 2004, pp. 38-59. 2 European Commission, Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress Towards Accession, European

Commission, Brussels 1997, pp. 40-41. 3 European Commission, Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress Towards Accession, European

Commission, Brussels 1997, pp. 40-41. 4 Luxembourg European Council 12th and 13th December 1997, Conclusions of the Presidency, Bull.

EU 12-1997, points I.5.25-27. 5 European Commission, Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress Towards Accession, 13.10.1999,

COM/99/0511 final.

3

4


rious political backsliding in the reform of democratic institutions and procedures.6

Following a proposal by the Commission, a special body was established between

the European Commission and the Slovak Republic - the High Level Working

Group. The establishing of this Group played an important part in fulfilling the Ac-

cession Partnership7 priorities and in stepping up the progress of the country in the

direction required for EU membership. In its 2001 Regular Report, the Commission

stressed that “the country has made considerable progress in further consolidating

and deepening the stability of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of

law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.”8 The rapid change

during the years following 1998 can be illustrated by the progress made in the acces-

sion negotiations. By 1999, Slovakia had failed to close a single negotiating chapter,

yet just one year later it was able to close 10 of them, before increasing that number

to 22 in 2001 and being able to close all remaining chapters by the end of 2002.

2. Opening of Negotiations: Catching Up Strategy Revealed

In accordance with the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit of December 1999,9 the

representatives of the 15 Member States opened the Intergovernmental Conference

on the Accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union on 15th

January

2000. The Slovak side, represented by the Foreign Minister of the Slovak Republic

Eduard Kukan, presented the General Position of the Slovak Republic on the Acces-

6 For more on the period 1994-1998 and the role played by the conditions laid down by the EU see

Marek Rybář / Darina Malová, The European Union and Change in Slovakia, in: Antoaneta L.

Dimitrova (ed.), Driven to Change: The European Union’s enlargement viewed from the East,

Manchester University Press, Manchester 2004, pp. 38-59. The authors argue that the political con-

ditions laid down by the EU had a major impact on the domestic political development of Slovakia

due to the existence of viable political alternatives to the Government of that time, the mobilisation

of the population and the use of the Government’s foreign policy failure as a political weapon. 7 Council Decision 98/262/EC of 30.3.1998 on the principles, priorities, immediate objectives and

conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Slovak Republic, OJ L 121, 23.4.1998,

p. 16; amended by Council Decision 1999/853/EC of 6.12.1999 on the principles, priorities, imme-

diate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with the Slovak Republic,

OJ L 335, 28.12.1999, p. 22 and by Council Decision 2002/93/EC of 28.1.2002 on the principles,

priorities, immediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Slova-

kia, OJ L 44, 14.2.2002, p. 92. The Accession Partnership followed the Europe Agreement estab-

lishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,

and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, OJ L 359, 31.12.1994, p. 2, which was signed on

4.10.1993 and entered into force on 1.2.1995. 8 European Commission, Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress Towards Accession, 13.11.2001,

SEC(2001) 1754, p. 24. 9 Helsinki European Council 10th and 11th December 1999, Conclusions of the Presidency, Bull. EU

12-1999, point I.4.15.

5


sion Negotiations.10

In this document, Slovakia declared that it would not request

any derogations from the implementation of the acquis communautaire. However,

Slovakia requested transitional periods in a limited number of areas, “mainly where

it is necessary to improve the performance of the Slovak economy or to make large

capital investments.”11

In this document, key areas were outlined which Slovakia

considered to be significant for the substantive negotiations.

In the context of the negotiating chapter on the internal market, Slovakia indicated

that a request for transitional periods would be made in “those areas where the cur-

rent performance of the Slovak economy does not permit to adequately fulfil the

European Union legislation”. This included areas such as deposit guarantee

schemes, investor compensation schemes, release of short-term capital and opera-

tions using money market instruments. Another sensitive area in the internal market

was the acquisition of agricultural and forest land as well as the purchase of property

by non-residents. The General Position also reflected an intention to request transi-

tional periods in certain tax-related fields.

Slovakia adopted a less specific approach in its position on the chapter relating to

agriculture. It pointed out the fact that the percentage of GDP contributed by the ag-

ricultural sector, as well as the percentage of Slovakians employed in this sector, is

comparable with the EU average. Slovakia emphasised that its agricultural sector is

not export-oriented and that integration into the CAP will not present a heavy bur-

den for the EU.12

With regard to the negotiating chapter on transport, the most sensi-

tive point in the harmonisation of legislation, the fulfilment of the requirement for

financial standing of domestic carriers was presented. The chapter concerning the

environment was considered to be among the most demanding and Slovakia re-

quested several transition periods due to high investment needs and the complex

technical solutions involved. As far as the chapter on energy is concerned, the Slo-

vak Government, following its negotiations with the Commission, adopted a deci-

sion to close down two units of the V1 nuclear power plant at Jaslovské Bohunice in

2006 and 2008, i.e. before the end of their designated lifespan. This decision, made

10 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, General Position of the Slovak Republic on the Accession Negotia-

tions, Bratislava 2000, http://www.foreign.gov.sk/files/eu_kalend4.html. 11 http://www.foreign.gov.sk/files/eu_kalend4.html An overall evaluation of the economic and social

context of Slovakia’s accession to the EU can be found in Richard Outrata (ed.), Economic and

Social Contexts of Slovakia’s Accession to the EU – Benefits and Risks, Institute of Slovak and

World Economy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava 2002. This extensive study pre-

pared for the Slovak Government recommends an increase in the inflow of direct investments, the

elimination of the remaining price deformations, socially acceptable price increases and overcom-

ing the instability of regional policy institutions. 12 For more on Slovak agriculture and EU accession see Csaba Csaki (ed.), Food and Agriculture in

the Slovak Republic: The Challenges of EU Accession, World Bank Study, Bratislava 2002.

6

7


before the commencement of official accession negotiations, sparked a heated dis-

cussion in Slovakian politics.13

3. The Accession Negotiations

According to the final paragraphs of the General Position, Slovakia was prepared to

accept and implement the acquis communautaire by 1st January 2004, the date set by

the Slovak Government as the point of possible accession to the Union. Further-

more, it also stated its intention to open and conclude negotiations in more chapters,

the aim being to have gradually opened all negotiating chapters by the end of 2001.

This approach was compatible with the decisions of the Helsinki Summit and of-

fered a real possibility of catching up, within a reasonable period of time, with the

countries already negotiating. The notion of catching up with those countries further

ahead in accession negotiations was to become the dominant rhetoric during the

coming months.

a) Political Background

Whilst the relevant authorities were busy opening accession negotiations, Slovak

politicians were remarkably silent on their positions towards Slovakia’s future posi-

tion in the EU. Indeed, all the relevant political parties declared their support for the

process of integration in the EU. Even the negotiations with the EU did not succeed

in provoking any substantial exchange of views between the parties. The only ex-

ception was the disagreement expressed by the political party SMER. Its leader, the

very popular Slovak politician Róbert Fico, warned that accession talks were being

conducted at such a high speed that the conditions being agreed upon may not al-

ways be advantageous for Slovakia. He also accused the Government of being too

weak in the accession talks and suggested that if he and his party were to form the

new Government after the election, the reopening of some negotiation chapters

might be considered.14

However, the SMER party remained on the opposition

benches following the parliamentary elections in 2002. With a few minor alterations,

the ruling coalition continued to govern the country.

13 In mid-2000 the political party SMER organised a conference on nuclear development in Slovakia,

after which its leader Róbert Fico began to advocate the completion of two reactor blocs of the

Mochovce nuclear power plant and accused the Government of striking a disadvantageous deal

with the EU on the closure of another Slovak power plant. For more on the positions of political

parties in relation to EU integration see Marek Rybář, Slovak Political Parties before Parliamentary

Elections 2002, FES, Bratislava 2002, p. 34. 14 Marek Rybář, Slovak Political Parties Before Parliamentary Elections 2002, http://www.fes.sk/arch_

en/2002_elections.pdf.

8

9


A notable exception to the overall lack of discussion on issues related to accession

can be seen in the passing of a parliamentary Declaration on Cultural and Ethical

Sovereignty of Member and Candidate States15

. The Declaration was submitted to

the National Council by the Christian Democrats and was approved by the Parlia-

ment in January 2002. It calls for decision-making on culture, ethical matters (for

example euthanasia and abortion), family protection and other related issues to re-

main within the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU Member States. The Declaration

was supported across the Government-Opposition divide and its effect was a chiefly

symbolic one as the issues mentioned in it were, and indeed still are, within the ex-

clusive competence of Member States. However, it can be argued that the parlia-

mentary debate on the Declaration was the first comprehensive debate on the EU

among political parties in Slovakia.

b) The Results of Accession Negotiations

During the first six months of 2000, the period of the Portuguese Presidency, Slova-

kia opened the first eight negotiating chapters and was able to close six of them,

namely Small and Medium-Sized Undertakings; Science and Research; Education

and Training; External Relations; Common Foreign and Security Policy; and

Statistics.16

Later that year, during the French Presidency, Slovakia was able to open

a further eight chapters and closed those on Fisheries; Consumers and Health Protec-

tion; Industrial Policy; and Culture and Audio-Visual Policy. In none of these chapters

were requests for transitional periods made.

In the first half of 2001, during the Swedish Presidency, Slovakia opened all the re-

maining negotiation chapters, with the exception of two, and was able to conclude a

further nine. No transitional periods were requested in the chapters on Customs Union;

Telecommunications and Information Technologies; Social Policy and Employment;

Economic and Monetary Union; Company Law; and Free Movement of Goods. Dur-

ing the negotiations on Chapter 3, Freedom to Provide Services, Slovakia demanded

and was subsequently granted a transitional arrangement until the end of 2006 in order

to reach the minimum level of compensation.17

In this chapter Germany and Austria

may, after notifying the Commission, limit the provision of services, for example in

the construction and industrial cleaning sectors, by companies established in Slovakia.

In Chapter 4, Free Movement of Capital, Slovakia and a number of the other new

Member States have been granted a seven year transitional period during which they

15 Resolution of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, No. 1853, http://www.nrsr.sk/sub/

language_free/deklar_kandidati.doc. 16 For an extensive evaluation, review and the nature of the negotiated terms see Ján Figel / Miroslav

Adamiš, Slovensko na ceste do Európskej únie. Kapitoly a súvislosti. (Slovakia on the Path to the

European Union: Chapters and Context), Slovak Government Office- SFPA-CEP, Bratislava 2003,

pp. 204. 17 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 2, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 917.

10

11

12

13


may maintain their national legislation regarding the purchase of agricultural land

and forests.18

The Commission can decide to extend this transitional period by a fur-

ther three years in the event of serious disturbances on the national market for agri-

cultural land. In Chapter 2, Free Movement of Persons, Slovakia unwillingly ac-

cepted the so-called 2 + 3 + 2 year scheme which limits the free movement of Slo-

vak workers into some old Member States. A few months later, in October 2001, a

more generous rule was granted to Slovakia by which it may maintain equivalent

measures with regard to the nationals of the old States in question.19

Under the Belgian Presidency, the Slovak Republic closed three more chapters,

namely Energy; Environment; and Financial Control. In the chapter on energy, a

transitional arrangement for the implementation of the obligation to maintain 90

days of oil stocks was granted until 31st December 2008.

20 Attached to this chapter is

Protocol No. 9 on unit 1 and unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slo-

vakia which serves to consolidate Slovakia’s commitment to close Unit 1 of the Bo-

hunice V1 Nuclear Power Plant by 31st December 2006 and Unit 2 of the Plant by

31st December 2008.

21 Slovakia was able to successfully negotiate a €30 million in-

crease in the €150 million financial assistance which had already been promised to it

until 2006. Moreover, the EU also acknowledged a possible continuation of this fi-

nancial assistance beyond the end of 2006.

Within the chapter on the environment, Slovakia put in requests for a total of 10

transitional arrangements of which seven were granted. In the other three cases Slo-

vakia will use the transitional periods as provided for in directives. In the section of

the chapter on air quality, the requirements for the storage of petrol and its distribu-

tion from terminals to service stations must be complied with in Slovakia by the end

of 2007.22

Where waste management is concerned, Slovakia received a transitional

period to reach the recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste which lasts

until the end of 2007.23

In the section on water quality, Slovakia was granted addi-

tional time to build canalisation and treatment facilities for urban waste waters,

namely until the end of 2015, although the date applicable varies depending on the

sensitivity of the area and the size of the agglomeration.24

Furthermore, the dis-

charge of certain dangerous substances into the aquatic environment is to be toler-

ated until the end of 2006.25

As regards industrial pollution and risk management,

the emissions of a limited number of specifically named large combustion plants

18 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 3, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 917. 19 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 1, para. 10, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 916. 20 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 8, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 921. 21 OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 954. 22 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection A, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, pp. 921-922. 23 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection B, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 922. 24 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection C, para. 3, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 922. 25 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection C, para. 2, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 922.

14

15


must comply with the requirements of the acquis by the end of 2007.26

The inte-

grated pollution prevention and control of specifically listed installations must com-

ply with the requirements of the acquis by the end of 2011.27

In addition, the listed

waste incinerators must comply with Directive 2000/76/EC28

by the end of 2006.29

The Spanish Presidency during the first half of 2002 saw both the opening and the

closure of the chapter on institutions as well as the conclusion of three other chap-

ters, namely Taxation, Transport Policy and Co-operation in the Field of Justice and

Home Affairs. Slovakia also managed to close the part of the agriculture chapter

concerned with veterinary and phytosanitary legislation. Slovakia’s main concern dur-

ing the Spanish Presidency was to negotiate as many transitional arrangements as pos-

sible within the taxation chapter. As a result, Slovakia has been allowed to maintain

its reduced VAT rate on construction until the end of 2007 and on heating until the

end of 2008.30

A reduced rate of VAT of not less than 5% may be maintained on the

supply of natural gas and electricity until one year after the date of accession.31

Slo-

vakia is permitted, along with the other acceding countries, to maintain a higher

turnover threshold than the level provided for in the acquis to exempt SMEs from

VAT and can also exempt international passenger transport from VAT.32

With re-

gard to excise duties, Slovakia has been granted a transitional arrangement which

postpones the necessity of compliance with EC legislation on the level of excise

duty on cigarettes until the end of 2008.33

It has also been granted a derogation to

apply a reduced rate of excise duty to the production of fruit spirit for personal con-

sumption for a maximum production of 50 litres of fruit spirit per producing fruit

grower’s household per year.34

It must however be added that the majority of these

transitional arrangements have now become obsolete because the Slovak Govern-

ment has since replaced the system of dual VAT rates on goods (14%) and services

(20%) with a single rate of 19% with effect from 1st January 2004. Following a re-

quest by the EU, a transitional arrangement in the transport policy chapter could also

be agreed upon whereby the old Member States are permitted to apply safeguard

measures and to restrict the access of non-resident haulers to the national road trans-

port market for a period of up to five years. By way of reciprocity, the agreement al-

lows Slovakia to restrict access to its transport market for the same period.35

26 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection D, para. 3, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 923. 27 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection D, para. 2, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 923. 28 Directive of 4.12.2000 on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91. 29 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 9, subsection D, para. 1, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 923. 30 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 7, para. 1, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 920. 31 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 7, para. 1, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 920. 32 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 7, para. 1, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 921. 33 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 7, para. 2, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 921. 34 Annex II to the Act of Accession, section 9, para. 9, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 560. 35 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 6, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 920.

16


During the Danish Presidency, Slovakia was able to open the final chapter, Other,

and closed the remaining five chapters, two of which (Agriculture and Competition

Policy) were considered to be the most important of all the chapters. Within the ru-

bric of competition policy, Slovakia successfully negotiated two transitional ar-

rangements regarding incompatible fiscal state aid. Firstly, Slovakia may apply the

corporate income tax exemption granted on the basis of Government Regulation

No. 192/1998 Coll. to a specific beneficiary in the motor vehicle industry, namely

Volkswagen Bratislava, until the end of the fiscal year 2008. However, the total aid

under this tax exemption may not exceed 30% of the eligible investment costs of the

relevant project that have been incurred since 1998.36

Secondly, Slovakia may apply

the corporate income tax exemption on the basis of Act No. 366/1999 Coll. on In-

come Tax to a named beneficiary in the steel industry, U.S. Steel Košice, until the

end of the fiscal year 2009. Certain listed conditions must however be fulfilled, for

example the beneficiary may not extend its range of groups of finished products as

in existence on 13th

December 2002 and the total aid granted to the beneficiary may

not exceed a total of US $500 million.37

In the agriculture chapter Slovakia proposed, and was subsequently granted, a three

year transitional arrangement for State aid with respect to its warehouse receipt and

goods receipt system.38

A transitional arrangement in the public health sector has

also been agreed for one meat and one fish establishment until 2006.39

Slovakia also

managed to negotiate an increase in the production quotas of isoglucose, milk, sheep

and cows40

. In the chapter on financial and budgetary provisions Slovakia negotiated

a €22.7 million increase in one-off compensation from undistributed funds from the

compromise of the 1999 Berlin Summit, also known as the Berlin cap41

. In the re-

siduary category simply named “Other”, a temporary fund was created to help new

Member States to finance measures required for the implementation of the Schengen

acquis and external border control for the period 2004-2006.42

A total amount of

€858.3 million was agreed of which Slovakia is entitled to receive €47.8 million.43

Furthermore, Slovakian contributions to the EIB were adjusted in Slovakia’s fa-

vour.44

36 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 4, para. 1a, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 918. 37 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 4, para. 2a, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, pp. 918-919. 38 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 5, subsection A, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 919. 39 Annex XIV to the Act of Accession, section 5, subsection B, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 919. 40 http://www.foreign.gov.sk/En/add.php3?text=Slovakia%20and%20EU&file=eu_poz7e.html 41 http://www.foreign.gov.sk/En/add.php3?text=Slovakia%20and%20EU&file=eu_poz29e.html 42 Art. 35(1) Act of Accession, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 44. 43 Art. 35(2) Act of Accession, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 44. 44 Protocol No. 1 on amendments to the statute of the European Investment Bank. Art. 1 of this Proto-

col amends Art. 4(1), first subparagraph of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment

Bank.

17

18


c) Evaluation of Negotiations

By way of conclusion, it can be said that from a budgetary perspective, Slovakia has

been able to put itself into a positive position for the period 2004-2006. According

to the terms agreed, the country will pay approximately €934 million into the com-

mon budget but will be entitled to draw €1.765 billion from this fund45

. However,

some authors46

argue that Slovakia’s budgetary position will be dependent on its

ability to prepare high-quality projects that are eligible for EU funds, as well as on

the ability of the Government to help finance the approved projects. Furthermore, as

Bilčík argues, it is necessary to highlight three points when evaluating the overall re-

sults of the accession negotiations. Firstly, the financial adjustments made in Slova-

kia’s favour were not so great as to exceed the long-term position envisaged by the

EU. Secondly, the final agreement on financial issues is dependent on the ability of

the Slovak institutions to draw on and allocate funds for individual projects. Finally,

although future revenue and expenditure played an essential part in the accession

negotiations, Slovakia’s ability to benefit from integration in the long-term depends

on whether or not it can adapt to the terms negotiated in the other non-financial

chapters.

4. Ratification Procedure and Referendum on EU Membership

The signing of the Treaty of Accession was preceded by a declaration by the Com-

mission on 19th

February 2003 which officially recommended the accession of 10

candidate countries to the EU.47

On 9th

April 2003, Slovakia’s accession was sup-

ported by 521 Members of the European Parliament with 21 voting against and 25

abstaining.48

The Council, in the formation of the Foreign Ministers, approved the

accession of the new Member States on 14th

April 200349

which allowed the Treaty

45 See Vladimír Bilčík, Slovakia’s Integration to the European Union, in: Grigorij Mesežnikov (ed.),

Slovakia 2003: A Global Report on the State of Society, Institute for Public Affairs, Bratislava

2004, pp. 303-321. 46 For example Vladimír Bilčík, Slovakia’s Integration to the European Union, in: Grigorij

Mesežnikov (ed.), Slovakia 2003: A Global Report on the State of Society, Institute for Public Af-

fairs, Bratislava 2004, pp. 303-321. 47 Commission Opinion of 19.2.2003 on the applications for accession to the European Union by the

Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Re-

public of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the

Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, COM(2003) 79 final, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 3. 48 European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the application by the Slovak Republic to become a

member of the European Union, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 14. 49 Decision of the Council of the European Union of 14.4.2003 on the admission of the Czech Repub-

lic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of

Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of

Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 15.

19

20


on the Accession to the European Union to be signed at the European Council meet-

ing in Athens, Greece two days later.50

The Slovak Constitution provides that the President of Slovakia is to conclude and

ratify international treaties.51

However, he or she may delegate the power to con-

clude international treaties to the Government or, with the Government’s consent, to

individual members of the Government. Slovak constitutional practice shows that it

is indeed usual for the President to delegate the conclusion of international treaties

to the Government. Although the Slovak Constitution provides a clear legal basis for

empowering the Government to ratify international treaties, the situation with regard

to the Treaty of Accession was politically unclear. Officials of the Ministry of For-

eign Affairs stated in April 2003 that the President had transferred his power to sign

the Treaty of Accession to the Prime Minister. However, this turned out not to be the

case, as it was deemed that a delegation of power to conclude an international treaty

does not extend to the power to ratify it. A solution was found in that the Treaty was

signed by President Rudolf Schuster as well as by Prime Minister Mikuláš Dzurinda,

Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan and the chief negotiator Ján Figel.

a) Constitutional Provisions

An amendment was made to the Slovak Constitution in 200152

in order to stipulate

and clarify the procedures for the ratification and promulgation of international trea-

ties, such as the Treaty of Accession, in the event that Slovakia should accede to the

European Union. Art. 7(2) of the Slovak Constitution now provides that “the Slovak

Republic may, by an international treaty ratified and promulgated as stipulated by

law, or on the basis of such a treaty, transfer the execution of a part of its powers to

the European Communities and European Union.” A three-fifths majority of all

deputies of the National Council is required for the adoption of any international

treaty.

The legal obligations arising from an international treaty will be fulfilled by its rati-

fication by the National Council of the Slovak Republic and subsequent publication

in the Collection of Laws. However, and this was not unique to Slovakia among the

new Member States, a political decision was made to also hold a nationwide refer-

endum on accession to the EU, the purpose of which was to maximize the legiti-

macy of EU membership.

50 Bull. EU 4-2003, point I.1. 51 Art. 102 a) of the Slovak Constitution. 52 Amendment to the Slovak Constitution, No. 90/2001 Coll.

21

22

23


b) Referendum on Slovakia’s Accession to the EU

On 21st January 2003, 147 members of the Slovak National Assembly approved a

resolution requesting the President to call a referendum on Slovakia’s accession to

the European Union53

. The Slovak Constitution recognises two different types of

referendum: A mandatory referendum is to be used to confirm a constitutional law

on entering into an alliance with other states or on withdrawing from that alliance54

whilst a facultative referendum on other important issues of public interest can be

requested by a petition signed by a minimum of 350 000 citizens or on the basis of a

resolution of the National Council.55

After reviewing a resolution of parliament,

President Rudolf Schuster called a referendum which was to take place on 16th

and

17th

May 2003 and which consisted of a single question: Do you agree with Slovakia

becoming a Member State of the European Union?56

As already mentioned, the de-

cision to hold a referendum on EU accession was a purely political one and was

based on agreement between the main political parties. Yet despite this level of

agreement, the decision to call a referendum was still politically risky.

Firstly, the constitution provides that the outcome of a referendum is only valid if

more than half of all eligible voters participate in it and if the decision is endorsed

by more than 50% of those participating.57

Secondly, previous referenda in Slovakia

have always generated a situation of political and legal turmoil. Referenda have

been used as political instruments by political parties and so have tended to result in

destabilisation of the country. As regards the legal aspect of referenda, there contin-

ues to be no sufficient constitutional answer to the question whether or not referenda

on important issues of public interest are binding in character58

. Therefore, three

main outcomes to the referendum on accession to the EU were possible. Firstly,

more than 50% of eligible voters take part and a majority of them vote “yes”; sec-

ondly, more than 50% of eligible voters take part but a majority of them vote “no”;

or thirdly, the referendum is invalid because the turnout is below 50%. In the first

and third cases the National Assembly would still be permitted to ratify the Treaty of

Accession but it was not clear whether a negative referendum outcome (second case)

would bind the National Assembly to reject the Treaty or not.

The referendum on accession to the EU took place on 16th

and 17th

May 2003. Ac-

cording to the Central Referendum Committee, 52.15% of eligible voters took part

of which 92.46% voted in favour of and 6.2% against the accession of Slovakia to

53 Resolution of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, No. 133 54 Art. 93(1) of the Slovak Constitution. 55 Art. 93(2) and Art. 95 of the Slovak Constitution. 56 Decision of the President of the Slovak Republic, No. 49/2003 Coll. 57 Art. 98(1) of the Slovak Constitution. 58 For further details, see Erik Láštic, Referendum v ústavnom systéme SR. In Demokracia a právny

štát (Referendums in the Constitutional System of Slovakia. Democracy and the Rule of Law),

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Bratislava 2001.

24

25

26


the EU. In six of eight regions, the turnout exceeded the required 50%, the highest

turnout of all being in the region incorporating Bratislava (59.45%). On 19th

May

2003 the result of the referendum was published in the Collection of Laws59

, making

the referendum on EU membership the first valid referendum in the history of Slo-

vakia.60

On 1st July 2003, the Slovak Parliament voted on the ratification of the Agreement

on Accession to the European Union. Of the 140 Members of Parliament present,

129 voted in favour of the proposal and 10, all members of the Communist Party of

Slovakia, voted against it; there was one abstention.61

The President signed a docu-

ment of ratification on the Agreement on Accession to the European Union and Slo-

vakia deposited the signed Treaty with the Italian Government on 8th

October 2003.

c) Public Opinion and the EU

At the beginning of 1998 Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar used his temporary presi-

dential powers to grant amnesty not only to those associated with the fixing of the

1997 referendum but also to persons involved in the kidnapping of a Slovak citizen.

This resulted in the EU Presidency issuing a statement in which it was clearly stated

that the current Slovak administration was not to be regarded as a reliable and com-

mitted partner: “The EU regrets that such steps might represent a set-back to the le-

gitimate aspirations of Slovak people to international respect and progressive inte-

gration into European structures.”62

By distinguishing between the Slovak popula-

tion and its Government, EU representatives were endeavouring to support the

opposition forces that would be able to carry out domestic political change.

In the long term, public support for Slovakia’s accession to the EU exceeded 70%

and the share of integration opponents has always been largely irrelevant.63

The high

level of support for EU membership can be attributed to two main factors. Firstly,

the above mentioned period 1994-1998 during which the country became an out-

sider in the processes of EU and NATO integration generated much frustration and

dissatisfaction in the general public. Secondly, the debate on EU membership took

place without conflict. This, combined with the constantly high level of consensus

59 Decision of the President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, No. 175/2003 Coll. 60 For more on the EU referendum in Slovakia see Karen Henderson, EU Accession and the New

Slovak Consensus, in: West European Politics, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2004, pp. 476-494. 61 http://www.nrsr.sk/appbin/hpo.asp?wci=hpo_wiposl&wce=12149. 62 Presidency Statement of Behalf of the European Union, Bull. EU 9-1998. 63 See Zora Bútorová / Oľga Gyarfášová / Marián Velšic, Public Opinion, in: Grigorij Mesežnikov

(ed.), Slovakia 2003: A Global Report on the State of Society, Institute for Public Affairs, Brati-

slava 2004, pp. 185-219.

27

28

29


between political parties and within other segments of the country’s elite, helped to

predetermine the clear public support for Slovakia’s integration in the EU.64

From the point of view of substantive issues, support for EU membership was to a

great extent related to economic considerations. A poll conducted by the Slovak Sta-

tistical Office in February 2000 showed that when asked about the advantages of

Slovak membership of the EU, four of the five most commonly mentioned advan-

tages were economic factors. Furthermore, economic considerations such as price

increases and greater financial demands were stressed by respondents when asked

about possible disadvantages of EU membership. When compared with survey data

from June 1995, it is notable that belief in the economic advantages of membership

had increased substantially by 2000. The only frequently cited non-economic benefit

– strengthening Slovakia’s international position – was mentioned by more respon-

dents (32%) in 1995 than in 2000.65

5. Conclusion

The 1999 Accession Partnership drafted by the Commission reiterated the three Co-

penhagen criteria for the accession of Slovakia to the EU: the stability of institu-

tions, a functioning market economy and the ability to take on the obligations of

membership. By the end of 2002 Slovakia had successfully closed all negotiations,

completed its “catching up” strategy and was thus able to become one of the ten new

acceding countries. The influence of the EU has resulted in the establishing of a set

of wholly new institutions, rules and obligations in Slovakia. However, it remains to

be seen exactly what impact the enlargement will have on the Union as a whole and

in particular on its capacity to act.

64 See Zora Bútorová / Oľga Gyarfášová / Marián Velšic, Public Opinion, in: Grigorij Mesežnikov

(ed.), Slovakia 2003: A Global Report on the State of Society, Institute for Public Affairs, Brati-

slava 2004, pp. 185-219. 65 See Karen Henderson, Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Opposition Attitudes to the EU in the Slovak

Republic, Sussex European Institute, Brighton 2001, p. 30.

30

31

Die Verträge zur EU-Osterweiterung: Slovak Republic

Documents