Preliminary Programme

In the past the European Union has adopted a hands-off approach towards the regulation and governance of charitable organizations. Charities have tended to fall into one of two categories at EU level: either entirely ignored by the Commission and Council in the context of legislative proposals where harmonization of national laws might be appropriate, or caught by legislative provisions that were enacted without consideration of their adverse effects on charities. In the former case, one might think of a charitable organization that wishes to operate itself in another member state. Legal difficulties abound, forcing that body to incur the expense of establishing itself in its new jurisdiction; problems not encountered by for-profit counterparts thanks to European harmonisation efforts. In the latter case, one might point to the classification of charities as exempt organizations under EU VAT legislation. This classification, which prevents charities from reclaiming VAT paid to suppliers in the provision of their services, is stated to relate back to an oversight by the drafting Committee of the 6th VAT Directive, who simply never turned their attention to the likely effects for charities of such exemption. The interaction between civil society and the state at a European level might thus best be described in the past as discordant.

This civil society/EU relationship, however, is currently being renegotiated. The introduction by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) of the UN of Special Recommendation VIII in 2004 has changed the complacent attitude of the European Commission towards charity regulation. Issued in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the objective of Special Recommendation VIII is to ensure that nonprofit organizations are not misused by terrorist organisations: (i) to pose as legitimate entities; (ii) to exploit legitimate entities as conduits for terrorist financing, including for the purpose of escaping asset freezing measures; or (iii) to conceal or obscure the clandestine diversion of funds intended for legitimate purposes but diverted for terrorist purposes. The Commission is poised to become a fledgling charity regulator.

Against the backdrop of the European Commission’s evolving attitude towards the regulation of charities and its efforts to increase transparency and accountability amongst nonprofit bodies that operate across the EU’s member states, this paper will explore the changing nature of legal regulation and governance of charities as part of civil society. Many member states are in the midst of reforming their charity laws with an emphasis on increased accountability and transparency. Thus, general questions arise – both in a national and EU context -- as to the most appropriate forms of governance (whether soft or hard law) for encouraging philanthropic endeavours while guarding against fraud; the role of civil society actors in European society and the lessons that the EU (which has not regulated charities in the past) might learn from its member states with regard to how pre-existing institutional patterns of governance can shape ideas about best practice. (Show less)

The concept of European Union Citizenship has been given meaning beyond a symbolic one especially in case law. In recent years, the European Court of Justice has declared the status of EU citizens to be a fundamental one, and free movement for EU citizens to be one of the fundamental freedoms. This had its repercussion on the right to social benefits for non-nationals: nationality requirements very often became residence requirements.
Social benefit systems, such as maintenance grants for students, benefits for war victims and social assistance, are based on the concept of solidarity between nationals. They also form the expression of a degree of connection to a certain society, the link between the State and its nationals. The case law of the ECJ seems to replace solidarity between nationals by solidarity between residents and the link between the State and its nationals by the link between the State and its residents. This development raises questions on the type of solidarity that exists within the EU, whether it is presumed or imposed (bottom up or top down) and how solidarity can serve both as a means and as a hindrance to the construction of supranational citizenship.
On the basis of several case studies, the proposed paper intends to show how case law on EU citizenship forms part of the process of ‘Europeanization’ of national systems of redistribution. The paper deals with the process along three elements of regulation: design, enforcement and impact. The relevant Treaty articles and EC directives form part of the design of EU citizenship law. The way these are interpreted by the European Court of Justice in particular cases can be seen as their enforcement. Under the heading of impact, the response of national legislative authorities to rulings of the ECJ are studied. In this way, this paper tries to give some clarification on the question if EU citizenship can contribute in any way to the construction of a European idendity. (Show less)

European civil society has no legal basis in the European Treaties. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has been designed by the Commission to coordinate and stimulate civil society and give shape to a European civil society. Civil society is considered to be the place between the state and market. In this sense European civil society deals with European citizenship.
Civil society is involved in different aspects of European policy, for instance the EU sustainable development strategy, culture, education. In Brussels, most of the civil society groups work as lobbying groups. This means that they represent certain interests in society and form part of the bottom up learning processes. By the use of networks rather than hierarchies civil society has been accepted as an important new actor in the European process of integration. However, not only the institutional position of the EESC promotes the interests of civil society. The Commission has turned the Committee into a privileged intermediary between the Union’s institutions and organised civil society. That is why the Committee is allowed to issue the so-called “explanatory opinions” on behalf of the Commission, who takes advantages of and uses the information from civil society. On the other hand, civil society has organised itself. Nowadays, this is an area with European citizens consisting of trans-national networks and distinct interest groupings which cooperate and share information.
The cooperation between civil society and EU agencies is outside the European institutional framework. In the Lisbon European Council it became clear that the European Union uses the so-called open method of coordination (OMC) for communicating outside the ways of hard law. This is a new form of governance that comes from the Commission. The choice of instruments thereto should be made on a strong factual base with consultation of the public and stakeholders”. The idea is that Europe needs a wider choice and more flexible tools within traditional legislation. This paper will examine how the Open Method of Coordination
differs from the traditional ways of consulting organisations and European citizens. It
will also take care of the legal consequences for the independence of civil society actors involved in Europe’s political views. (Show less)