Hello, welcome back and nice to see you again. Today, we will start a number of lectures about what happens after the European legislators have adopted a policy. Let's take the resident's directive as an example, which regulates the conditions under which a EU citizen may stay with another E country and is eligible fora resident's permit. The legislative process took almost three years of negotiation before an agreement was reached. The directive was adopted on the 29th of April 2004 by the European Parliament and the Council. And it was published a day later in the Official Journal on the 30th of April. Article 40 of this directive requires that within a two-year period member states must adopt laws, regulationsand administrative provisions to comply with the directive. So member states' legal framework must be adopted at the end of 2006. Of the 25 member states at the time, only 6 managed to prevent a infringement procedure for a lack of properties position by the deadline. The commission started infringement proceedings against the other 19. Why are for example, France, Belgium and Greece too late? Denmark and the Netherlands manage to transposed the investment directive on time. From a legal point of view, European law makers may use one of two types of legal instruments. These two types are regulations and directives. Regulations are immediately applicable in the member states, once adopted and published in the official journal. They are binding on member states and the entities regulated. As we saw in the example of the residence directive, directives are not merely applicable. And member states must first adapt their legal frameworks. Directives need to be transposed. They are binding on member states, which need to take all possible measures to achieve the goal specified in a directive. This obligation is of course, the intention and not necessarily reality. In other words, their application depends on how and when member states have adopted the national measures to give effect to European policy. From a policy point of view, it's important that national measures specify a way in which domestic policymakers intend to achieve the goals that's formulated in the directive. The underlying normative ideas that the policy-as-transposed at the national level remains the same as the policy-as-formulated at the European level. As indicated in our discussion on policy in the first week, several reasons exist why this may not be the case. We will get back on that. Transposition is not the only step needed after policy adoption. Next to transposition, there are several other steps required before a policy will lead to some outcome. See the figure. Implementation is the bringing about of specific outputs with the aim of realizing desired outcomes. In the case of the investors directive, the outputs may be decisions on applications from EU citizens who live in another country. The desired outcome may be that these decisions are made without significant delay. Implementation often involves administrative actors, like the officials who process applications. Such actors may make use of standard operating procedures and other tools to coordinated actions or decisions. These operating rules also shape policy and may, again, lead to some shift. The policy is implemented. They differ from both, the policy- as-transposed, as include any formal national policy and a policy as formulated at European level. The possible differences and extension between these policies is the essence of multilevel policymaking. Monitoring refers to the oversight of this process, in which one or more actors check whether a policy is handled according to previous agreements. For example, if a residence permit is not or only very slowly issued by the implementing authority, it may be noticed in an audit of the authority's policy. Monitoring, in this case, involves direct means of checking on the way in which an actor implements a policy. Alternatively, the persons or person who made the application may issue a complaint, which may trigger a response from yet another actor, like an ombudsman. In that case, monitoring makes use of fire alarms as an indirect way of detecting unwanted behavior. Giving its multilevel nature, monitoring may include actors from several levels, following our division between three levels. National policymakers will check the implementing actors to verify whether they keep to the policy-as-transposed. European policymakers, and especially the European Commission, will check national policymakers, as well as implementing actors to verify whether they keep to the policy-as-formulated. Of course, with more layers, more actors will be involved focusing on their stake in this process. The last element is enforcement, which we first do imposing penalties on lower level implementors. Here, a broad array of possibilities exist, varying from naming and shaming, social pressure, to budget cuts. And the replacement of key administrators responsible for unsuccessful policy. For the European authorities infringement procedure is an important hard instrument of enforcements, in contrast to softer means like an exchange for best practices and regular scoreboards. As provided by the treaties, European Commission, but also the member states can start a case at the Court of Justice. If they are convinced that all the member states or another member state is not keeping up to its commitments. In infringement cases, the commission, but also the courts assess whether a member state indeed has achieved the results as specified in European policy. In the next lecture, we will focus on transposition and then move in the next week to implementation. On transposition, we will explore how it works, what challenges exist and what role is of the Commission.
