TNAG-2951-FCO40-4228-Hong-Kong-visa-free-travel-for-British-Nationals-(Overseas)--1993 — Page 42

25-AUG-1993

09:04

UKREP EC BRUSSELS

RESTRICTED

32 2 287 8310

P.03

to reach agreement within the Commission about where the dividing line between the EFC and any directive under Article 100c should be drawn.

3. As to timing, Fortescue said that the plan had been that both initiatives should arrive on the Council's desk at the same time - immediately upon entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. The Secretariat-General were more or less on time with their work, but DG XV's exercise was taking rather longer than had been anticipated. Meanwhile, at the the last meeting of the Immigration Working Group, Presidency had asked the Commission to put forward a draft directive under Article 100c. The Commission were not prepared to take such a step until the Maastricht Treaty was in force, but Fortescue thought it would be very useful to have a general orientation discussion at the next meeting of so that the Commission the Visa Subgroup (on 7 September) so that

idea of (especially DG XV, said Fortescue) could have an

of what

some kind

informal was expected of them. So Commission statement will be made at the next Visa Subgroup meeting.

4.

In conclusion, Fortescue threw in two other points, both arising from the Secretariat-General's revision of the EFC:

X is right & this raises

the whole

question of

Selle

the ECT тве

allowed any role under

Title VI

5.

(a) the Commission were unsure

unsure about whether to put forward, with the new text of the EFC Convention, all the declarations made by the Member States in respect of the current EFC text. Fortescue thought they would want to leave it to the Member States to resubmit any declarations which the latter felt to be necessary: the Commission would propose a text without declarations.

(b) the Commission were also wondering whether to give the ECJ a role in the interpretation and application of the EFC (under Article K.3.2. (c) of Maastricht). He felt it would be difficult for the Commission not to suggest a role for the ECJ. I said we would be firmly opposed to such an amendment.

Copies of this letter go to Mr Gillespie (ECU, Home Perhaps Office), Mr Vaux (T Sols) and Mr Eaton (FCO Legal). they could copy it further if they think that necessary.

Astak

Yours since

(Ete Trenty pemits Aubur

does not

require

* 26

sincenly

&

Iain MacLeod

て