Changes between two versions
What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report
From · draft committee report· 25 Sept 2018
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context
To · plenary report· 29 Nov 2018
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context
AI:What changed, in short
Extends the mechanism to all border regions, including maritime and external borders, and clarifies voluntary use.127 Adds provisions on coordination points, preliminary reactions, and procedures for handling legal obstacles.381011 Adds definitions and extends legal protection to persons in cross-border regions.56 Adds requirements for the Commission's report and public consultation.18 The other changes are formal: updates to recitals and signature copies.491516
16 changes of substance · 3 formal · 0 of wording only
Written by AI from the two texts only · read the changes before relying on it · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
+37 added · −11 removed · 12 changed paragraphs, packaging included.
Part 4 of 4: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
11 unchanged paragraphs
Introduction
In the European Union, cross-border regions make up approximately 40% of the Union’s territory, while harbouring almost a third of its 512 million citizens. At the same time, border regions in Europe generally perform less well economically, have higher unemployment rates and have relatively underdeveloped infrastructure compared to regions that are more centrally located in the Member States. It has been estimated that if 20% of existing border obstacles would be removed, border regions would gain 2% in GDP, amounting to approximately 91 billion EUR per year in GDP. In their past, many border regions in Europe have been stages of war and conflict between countries.
For those reasons, The Lisbon Treaty in article 174 not only lists economic and social cohesion as its explicit objectives, but also territorial cohesion (with particular attention to cross-border regions). From that perspective, the proposal for a European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) should be seen as complementary to Interreg and European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation, EGTCs. The proposed ECBM aims to resolve cross-border obstacles of a legal or administrative nature, by applying for a common cross-border region, in a given Member State, the legal provisions from the neighbouring Member State for a specific joint project.
The European cross-border mechanism
Your rapporteur supports and welcomes the intention of the European Commission’s “proposal on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context” (European Cross-Border Mechanism, ECBM). The ECBM could become a tool in a general toolbox to promote effective cross-border cooperation and, as a result, improve the wealth and wellbeing of the inhabitants and their quality of life in the EU’s border regions.
Clarification is needed on a few issues, especially with regards to voluntariness and the scope of the ECBM, as well as the subsidiarity and proportionality of the proposal.
The proposal should aim to add a voluntary tool to the toolbox that Member States have at their disposal to boost cross-border cooperation. Member States should, always have the final say on whether or not to use the mechanism.
In conjunction with this emphasis, it is necessary that Member States are able to choose whether to use the ECBM or an existing mechanism for each individual joint project, on a case-by-case basis. If Member States would have to make such a choice for a total border at once, those that do not currently have existing mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles in a cross-border context, would virtually be obliged to use the ECBM. This undermines the voluntary nature of the proposal.
With the proposed changes, any issues related to proportionality, and subsidiarity are appropriately dealt with. The ECBM becomes a voluntary tool and can be used in an ‘à-la-carte fashion’, where Member States choose every time they have identified a legal obstacle in a cross-border context, whether to use an existing mechanism, set up a new mechanism, or use the ECBM. Member States may also decline to trigger any mechanism to resolve a legal or administrative obstacle, for justified reasons. Triggering the ECBM and allowing one Member State to apply their legal provisions in another Member State asks for serious scrutiny by all parties involved so the deadlines proposed by the Commission might have been too tight, so certain deadlines have been amended.
Finally, the thematic scope of the proposal is kept intact as much as possible. After having strengthened the voluntary basis of the proposal in combination with changing the way Member States choose between the mechanism and existing mechanisms, the scope can remain broad so as to ensure the practical application of the ECBM, for all potential future projects that could be hampered by legal or administrative obstacles in a cross-border region.
Your rapporteur believes that an effective application of the European Cross-border Mechanism can only be feasible if all Member States and all the competent authorities within the Member States embrace the opportunity to resolve legal and administrative obstacles by working together in the spirit of good cooperation and good neighbourship. The voluntary character of the ECBM will contribute to fully unleash the potential of the European border regions.
Change 19
Added:26.10.2018