The Committee of the Regions: in Search of Identity

Abstract

This article sets out to explore in greater depth one of the most controversial cases of institution-building in the European Union, that of the Committee of the Regions (CoR). Within the framework of a wider debate on the nature of multi-level governance established in the EU and the role of regions therein, the research effort has been concentrated on understanding where the institutional path of the Committee lies, being flanked on one side by a strong demand of some regions for political representation, and the advisory function required by the decision-making institutions on the other.

The article argues that, in spite of some persisting difficulties that the Committee continues to face when delineating its own space in EU politics, the CoR has found an essential equilibrium between the interests it represents and the pressures from its inter-institutional environment. This has permitted the Committee to gain a more distinctive position, not only in terms of major competences in EU policy making but also, more in general, in the perspective of its entrenchment within the institutional architecture of the EU governance.

Keywords:

• Committee of the Regions
• EU institutions
• multi-level governance
• institutionalization
• subnational

Notes

Among these opinions are: ‘Memorandum on the involvement of the CoR in the structured debate on the future of the Union’ (CdR 325/2001), rapporteur Manfred Dammeyer (DE/PES), President of the Baden-Württemberg Parliament and the CoR President 1998–2000; ‘Guidelines for the application and monitoring of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles’ (CdR 220/2004), rapporteur Mr Peter Straub (DE/EPP), President of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag and the CoR President 2004–06; the opinion issued in view of the Constitutional Treaty draft (CdR 169/2003fin) rapporteurs Sir Albert Bore, Leader of Birmingham City Council (UK/PES), the CoR's President 2002–04 and Reinhold Bocklet, Bavarian Minister for Federal and European Affairs (DE/EPP), 1st Vice President of the CoR.

The ‘Second Progress report on economic and social cohesion’ by the CORTER commission of Mr Schnider (Saxony-Anhalt Land representative to the Federation, DE/EPP); the outlook report ‘The capacity of regional airports’ (CdR 393/2002) produced by the same commission with rapporteur Mr Verburg (Vice-Governor province of Nord-Holland, NL/EPP); the outlook report ‘Governance and simplification of the Structural Funds after 2006’ (CdR 389/2002), by COTER Rafael Fitto (President of the Puglia region IT/EPP) and Mr Van Cauwenberghe (Minister-President of Walloon government, BE/PES) as rapporteurs; the outlook report on the Third report on Economic and Social Cohesion (adopted on 16 June 2004), in which the CoR laid down its ideas on the future of Cohesion policy from 2007 to 2013 and the opinion on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (adopted on 17 November 2004), etc.

The opinion of Michel Delebarre (the CoR's current President, Mayor of Dunkirk (FR/PSE)) and Jan Stoiber ‘Developing a genuine culture of subsidiarity. An appeal by the Committee of the Regions’ (CdR 302/98fin); the opinion on the Commission report to the European Council ‘Better lawmaking 1998 a shared responsibility’ (CdR 50/99fin) by Mercedes Bresso (I/PSE); the opinions ‘The implementation of EU law by the regions and local authorities’ (CdR 51/99fin) by L. Nordström (S/ELDR); ‘Guidelines for the application and monitoring of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles’ by Peter Straub (DE/EPP), President of the Parliament of the Land Baden-Württemberg and President of the CdR 2004-2006 (CdR 220/2004fin).

The main problem with the principle of subsidiarity consists in the absence of any clear definition of “who ought to get what” (see Christiansen, 1997). In the text of the Constitution the ultimate decision is left to the Court of Justice, which “makes the domestic distribution of powers between territorial levels subject to the scrutiny and interpretation of the Luxembourg judges”. Such a scenario is in potential conflict with the EU's obligation to respect domestic arrangements.

See, for example, the draft and the final version of the Resolution on ‘Delimitation of competencies between the EU and the member states’ by Alain Lamassour (PR\ 443686IT.doc).