Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Bleacher Report

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

Liver Kick

MMA Mania

Bloody Elbow

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


Sherdog Radio

Eddie Goldman

Video Corner

Fight Hub

Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index

To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site

Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback

Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Framework Agreement Switzerland Eu

By Zach Arnold | December 8, 2020

Print Friendly and PDF

In total, the framework agreement covers five key themes: the free movement of people, mutual recognition of industrial standards, agricultural products, air transport and land transport. The future of this bilateral route – key to the Swiss economy and day-to-day relations – depends on the ability of Bern and Brussels to agree on issues such as monitoring and ensuring compliance and resolving disputes between Switzerland and the EU. In its press release of 7 June 2019, the Federal Council approved the report on consultations on the institutional agreement between Switzerland and the EU, while stressing that some issues still needed to be resolved. The consultation showed that the political left and the right are opposed to the agreement, albeit for different reasons. While the left is particularly critical of the fact that wage protection would be undermined, representatives of the right complain that “foreign judges” could govern Swiss affairs. EU civil rights: Almost ten years ago, the EU informed Switzerland that the bilateral agreement on the free movement of persons (AFMP) needed to be updated in preparation for the 2004/38 EUROPEAN directive. However, the Swiss federal government objected and the EU could do little about it, as THE AFMP, in its current form, does not provide a legal obligation to update its legal achievements in the light of more recent EU law. During negotiations on an institutional agreement, the EU argued that the directive should be incorporated into legislation which, in the future, would fall under a dynamic updating system similar to that of EEA law. On the other hand, Switzerland has argued that the directive should not fall under this system. The draft institutional agreement does not explicitly mention the directive, which means that it is in principle subject to the new dynamic update system. However, THE AFMP considers that the part of this agreement, which includes the issues governed by the directive (i.e. the main body and Appendix I), cannot be updated by a simplified mechanism within the Joint Committee, but must be the subject of a formal review procedure. In the opinion of the current author, this gives way to negotiations on the real importance of the directive from the point of view of the AFMP.

Finally, certain provisions of the directive clearly embody the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, based on the notion of EU citizenship which, as such, is not part of bilateral law INTER the EU and Switzerland. This includes the equal treatment rule under Article 24 of Directive 2004/38, as it applies to social assistance. In Switzerland, there is strong concern about the principle of equal treatment in this area, beyond the framework of current bilateral law. In this context, my proposal for a joint declaration is aimed at preserving the negotiating space as part of the update procedure. It is very simple: EU Citizens` Directive: the parties indicate that an adaptation of the agreement on the free movement of persons to the relevant provisions of Directive 2004/38 is in line with the article.

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Comments are closed.