INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE: FINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPROMISE IN ABEYANCE.

The Presidency presented two documents (IGC 79/04 and IGC 80/04) to the Ministerial session of the IGC. Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Estonia formally signalled their approval to the IGC 79/04 document, which reproduces an amended version of the proposals debated last May 24. The other delegations are continuing to express reservations about various items but the Presidency is hoping they will not resurface during the Summit. It is also clinging to the same hope in the case of the IGC 80/04 document, which was presented on the eve of the meeting, and mainly deals with the question of extending quality majority voting. The document resulted in further debates.

JHA.

Various issues do seem to have been agreed upon, however. One example is Article III-172 on judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Qualified majority voting continues to be taken as read, but various sides (including the United Kingdom) have made this conditional on a clause allowing an appeal to be made to the European Council by countries which have been relegated to the minority and feel the legislation adopted (contrary to their wishes) could affect their legal systems. However, thanks to pressure from Germany, France and Belgium, the Presidency reworded the article so that it now specifies that if within four to 12 months of having a matter referred to it, the European Council has not taken a decision, the Member States anxious to apply this legislation are automatically entitled to engage in enhanced cooperation without having to go through the Article III-325(1) procedure. Towards this end, the Presidency, still bowing under pressure from France, Germany and Belgium, restored Article III-328, the so-called "bridging clause", allowing Member States involved in enhanced cooperation to vote in the context of qualified majority decisions, including issues covered by unanimous decision-making. The United Kingdom has managed to ensure this bridging clause will be out of the question for "structured co-operation" impinging upon foreign and defence policy matters, against the background of the formation for which Council unanimity continues to be required (Article III-325(2)).

For their part, Poland, Slovenia and Malta still object to the "bridging clause", including for enhanced cooperation. Still, on justice and home affairs, most Member States now agree that, according to the latest wording of the text, any extension of the European Public Prosecutor's mission to cross-border...