Finland and EU on historic collision course over farm subsidy directive
Parliament set to defy directive and Commission
|
|
The Finnish Parliament and the European Commission face a confrontation of historic proportions. For the first time, Parliament could pass a law in which rights guaranteed by the Finnish constitution would take precedence over an EU directive.
The reason is that the Parliament's Constitutional Law Committee felt that a law that would have followed the lines of the directive would have been at odds with the Finnish constitution.
Under EU principles, EU legislation trumps the laws of the member states. The Commission could take Finland to court over the matter.
The exceptional situation arose over the application of a directive on farm supports.
One of the ideas of the direct farm support system that came into effect in 2005 was that the rights to the subsidy money was given to active farmers. On rented land, the farmer who actually tilled the soil became entitled to the subsidy, not the landlord. However, it was possible to stipulate in the rental agreement that the right to subsidies would be restored to the owner once the agreement concludes.
A problem seen in Finland involves land leases that were in force when the farm support began, for which no agreement was made on the transfer of rights.
The Constitutional Law Committee felt that it is problematic from the point of view of protection of property, for the right to support under the directive to be left with the former tenant.
Under the proposal of the committee it was decided in 2005 that in cases such as these, the right to subsidies would revert to the owner.
The European Commission soon declared that the paragraph in the law was in violation of a directive, and that Finland is not entitled to transfer the rights to subsidies in such a way. Officials have refrained from paying out subsidies according to the paragraph, but at least one court case has been decided according to the law, and it is estimated that there are dozens of unresolved disputes.
The new government has proposed that the paragraph should be overturned. In late February the Constitutional Law Committee led by Kimmo Sasi (Nat. Coalition Party) was reluctantly ready to swallow this, as long as the rights of landowners are protected through other legislation. Currently a solution is being sought for Finnish legislation that the Commission might accept.
The key question in the dispute is in the government's proposal according to which the paragraph, which is soon to be overturned, but which has been in force for close to three years, should not be applied even when it is in force.
The Constitutional Law Committee was averse to the idea that legislation that had been in force should be overturned retroactively, especially as it has already been applied.
The committee felt that a retroactive cancellation would require procedure applied to constitutional amendments. However, getting the required five sixths majority behind such a move is not considered realistic.
The matter is now being considered by the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, which is chaired by Jari Leppä (Centre). The committee is not seen to have any choice but to propose the rejection of the idea of retroactive cancellation.
This could lead to a clash with the Commission, although there are hopes that the Commission might consider the matter to be too minor to be worthy of a court case.
The Agriculture and Forestry Committee will make its decision in the spring, once it is agreed what kind of legislation will be applied to secure the rights of land owners.
Helsingin Sanomat
|
| 17.3.2008 - TODAY |
 Finland and EU on historic collision course over farm subsidy directive |
|
