Posts

Albania passes electoral reforms in effort to start negotiations with EU

/in /by

Albania’s Parliament voted on Monday to enact electoral reforms to prevent vote manipulation. In recent years, Albania’s elections have been surrounded by allegations of vote-buying and manipulation of ballot counts. These new reforms will apply to Albania’s elections coming on April 25, 2021.

The reforms most notably lowered the electoral threshold from 5 percent to 1 percent. The electoral threshold change will allow political parties to obtain representation in the legislature even if they only receive a small amount of the vote. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recommended the changes and is responsible for monitoring elections in Albania.

In July, the EU set out the framework for Albania to negotiate into the EU. These electoral changes are a key part of starting those negotiations.

Albania agreed with the US and EU in June that any further changes should be done in consultation with out-of-parliament opposition. The US Embassy stated that, while it was within Parliament’s power to enact these reforms and it was not in violation of the June agreement, “it is regrettable that the majority failed to honor its own stated commitment to seek common ground in the Political Council.”

Switzerland voters uphold free movement agreement with EU

/in /by

wiss voters upheld an accord with the EU that allows people to travel freely through Switzerland in a referendum on Sunday. While 62 percent voted in favor of keeping the accord, 38 percent voted to end it.

The referendum on the accord was proposed by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). A conservative group, the SVP has frequently proposed and backed anti-immigration measures. The SVP and its supporters claimed that ending the accord would permit Switzerland to police its borders and determine who could and could not immigrate. They also insisted that immigration was straining public services and the environment.

Opponents to the proposal argued that it would result in an economic recession. The EU, to which all of Switzerland’s neighboring countries belong, is Switzerland’s primary trading partner. Voters also raised concerns over the status of hurt Swiss citizens living and working in EU countries. Further, opponents voiced concerns about how ending the accord would impact relations with the EU. A 2014 referendum introducing quotas, which narrowly passed, strained Swiss-EU relations. Additionally, given the fundamental nature of the free movement accord, voters worried about the status of other agreements with the EU, such as trade and research.

The SVP insisted that the EU would renegotiate the agreements if the proposal ending free movement passed. More evidence, such as the EU handling of Brexit, supported the opposite conclusion.

How Will Plans to End Free Movement Affect EU Workforce?

/in /by

The Home Office has recently issued a factsheet indicating that freedom of movement as it currently stands will end on 31 October 2019 and that arrangements for people coming to the UK for longer periods for work or study will change. What does this mean in practice and how should employers prepare?

A draft Immigration Bill drafted published by Theresa May’s government had already envisaged an end to free movement following a no-deal exit. However, to avoid a “cliff-edge” until a new immigration system could be put in place, the Home Office planned to introduce transitional arrangements for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members arriving in the UK between exit date and 31 December 2020. Those coming to the UK for short visits for any reason would be able to enter as they can now and stay for up to three months for each entry. Those wishing to stay in the UK for longer would need to apply to the Home Office for EU temporary leave to remain within three months of arrival (giving 36 months’ permission to live, work and study) after which they would need to apply under the UK’s future immigration system (expected to be introduced from January 2021).

The Home Office announcement and further reports now indicate the shelving of these transitional arrangements to be replaced by a new immigration system immediately applicable to new arrivals following a no-deal exit. There is very unlikely to be the time and resource to put in place such a system or the legislation which will underpin it. The Home Office is already stretched and the UK’s current Points Based System took nearly four years to design and implement. We may, therefore, still end up with some form of transitional registration system but the Government’s current direction of travel suggests this is likely to be more onerous than the EU temporary leave envisaged under Theresa May. Employers who had good reason to believe that they would be able to continue to recruit from the EU with relative ease until the end of 2020 (even in a no-deal scenario), should prepare for the possibility of new hires arriving the EU from 31 October 2019 needing some form of immigration permission prior to starting work. Exactly what this will entail, including the qualifying criteria, cost and application process, remains to be seen and we will providing updates as matters develop.

In any event, the Government has made clear that an immediate end to free movement following a no-deal exit will not affect the ability of EU, EEA and Swiss citizens and their families already resident in the UK by 31 October 2019 to continue living and working here, as long as they apply for status under the EU Settlement Scheme before 31 December 2020. Nonetheless, as a precaution, employers should support their affected employees to obtain (or apply for) pre-settled or settled status under the Scheme before 31 October 2019 (or at least prior to their next trip outside the UK) to reduce difficulties on re-entry by having to prove their prior UK residence by some other means. Current average processing times under the Scheme are reasonably quick – between one and four days. Those travelling outside the UK after 31 October and before they have been granted status would be well-advised to take with them some proof that they are already resident in the UK (ideally in line with the documentary evidence recommended by the Home Office when applying under the Scheme such as recent UK payslips, an employer letter or utility bill).

Setting up a Company in the EU to become easier

/in /by

EU company law is being updated to reflect the digital age. The Council today adopted a directive that facilitates and promotes the use of online tools in the contacts between companies and public authorities throughout their lifecycle.

The directive will provide improved online procedures, creating a modern and safe way for businesses to dismantle the obstacles involving setting up companies, registering their branches or filing documents, especially in cross border operations.

Ana Birchall, Minister of Justice, Vice Prime Minister for the implementation of Romania’s strategic partnerships, interim

The new rules ensure that:

  • companies are able to register limited liability companies, set up new branches and file documents in the business register fully online;
  • national model templates and information on national requirements are made available online and in a language broadly understood by the majority of cross-border users;
  • rules on fees for online formalities are transparent and applied in a non-discriminatory manner;
  • fees charged for the online registration of companies do not exceed the overall costs incurred by the member state concerned;
  • the ‘once-only’ principle applies, meaning that a company will only need to submit the same information to public authorities once;
  • documents submitted by companies are stored and exchanged by national registers in machine-readable and searchable formats;
  • more information about companies is made available to all interested parties free of charge in the business registers.

At the same time, the directive sets out the necessary safeguards against fraud and abuse in online procedures, including control of the identity and legal capacity of persons setting up the company and the possibility of requiring physical presence before a competent authority. It maintains the involvement of notaries or lawyers in company law procedures as long as these procedures can be completed fully online. It also foresees exchange of information between member states on disqualified directors in order to prevent fraudulent behaviour.

The directive does not harmonise substantive requirements for setting up companies or doing business across the EU.

ECJ rules EU and Canada trade agreement follows EU laws

/in /by

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Tuesday that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU follows EU laws. The court decision was requested by Belgium and was focused on the section of CETA that concerns resolution of investment disputes between investors and states.

CETA will establish a Investment Court System (ICS) to handle disputes between investors and states. The system will include a Tribunal, an Appellate Tribunal, and a multilateral investment tribunal. The Tribunal will include 15 members: five from Canada, five from EU member states and five from third countries.

Belgium filed the request for a decision from the ECJ because the ECJ has exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law. The ECJ found that CETA did not violate this principle as long as the CETA Tribunals do not attempt to interpret EU laws.

Belgium was also concerned that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism would violate the EU’s principle of equal treatment in regards to treatment of a suit raised by a Canadian investor against an EU enterprise. The ECJ found that the equal treatment provision is not violated for a non-EU investor making a suit against an EU member state. The ECJ also found that EU law permits annulment of a fine by an EU member state if the CETA Tribunal finds a defect.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights also gives the right of access to an independent tribunal, which Belgium believed may be violated by the establishment of the CETA Tribunal. The concern was based on the fees and costs associated with the Tribunal which may make it difficult for small enterprises to bring a claim. The Commission has committed to providing co-financing for small and medium-sized entities before the Tribunal. The ECJ found these commitments to be sufficient to meet EU law.