Fiscal Barriers.
Within the single market, differences in national taxation systems of Member States can often cause price distortions. The single market has seen the abolition of customs and fiscal frontiers, as checks on goods at internal borders have ended, customs officers, tax inspectors and vetinary inspectors have also disappeared from internal border posts, (although random checks are still carried out at some border crossings so not to encourage illegal practices).
Intra-tariffs at internal borders has been abolished and a common-external tariff, (on goods entering the EU from non-Member States), was established.
The destination principle, in the form of Value Added Tax (VAT) legislation has been adopted. This means that importers now pay the rate imposed by a country of export, i.e. the country of origin, which they then reclaim from national taxation authorities. Hence, that once VAT has been paid on goods in one country, they can move within the community without further controls or tax liabilities. However, VAT can still be levied in the Member State's destination.
There are a number of areas in this field that have specifications and some which are yet to be resolved:
Distance Sales - i.e. mail order or similar companies, where their sales are over a certain threshold, to any Member States, must levy VAT at the rate applied to the country of destination.
Tax-exempt legal persons - i.e. hospitals, banks, public authorities, etc. These groups buy goods over a specified threshold from another Member State and are required to pay VAT on these goods at their domestic rate, (as it is the consumer not the seller that benefits from the product/ service).
New means of transport - under EU legislation, boats, aircraft and cars that are under the age of six months are subject to a tax charge in the purchaser's country even if the good is bought in another Member States.
Nevertheless, there still remains a number of unresolved VAT issues in areas such as SMEs, passenger transport and non-food agricultural products, (wool, etc.). Directives have been passed regarding information technology, telecommunications services and e-commerce.
In relation to personal imports, specifying limits control ‘cross-border shopping’:
Tobacco = 800 cigarettes.
Alcohol = 90 litres wine;
110 litres beer and
10 litres of spirits.
Fuel is also subject to monitored levels. If limits are exceeded then justification is required.
Due to the abolition of customs clearance procedures, delays and uncertainties should no longer impede on the free movement of goods. Therefore, changes to fiscal and statistical compliance procedures have reduced the outlay penalty that was previously attached to cross-border trade.
The Single Currency.
Economic and monetary union is the ideals of Europe's complete single market. The beneficiaries of a single currency to industry and businesses alike are abundant and therefore it is not surprising that these bodies warmly support the Euro's function in Europe. However, not all EU governments support this opinion and this is reflected in both the Danish and British government's decision not to adopt the single currency of the Euro.
The Euro has become a fundamental part of European integration. Transaction costs of changing one currency to another often became a deterrent for companies to pursue markets in other Member States. Therefore, with the removal of other barriers to trade, the single currency principle must be advocated in each Member State to ensure that the single market functions at its utmost.
The Community Customs Code.
First drawn up in 1992, the main aim of this policy was to codify all customs laws, which up until that time, had been spread over a vast range of EC Regulations and Directives. Amendment to existing legislation was also to be applied, in order of simplifying laws. Consequently, legislation became more consistent, whilst closing existing loopholes.
By 2000, most if the Code had been implemented by most member States. The Code lays down general provisions on people's rights and obligations with regards to custom's legislation, (decisions, right of representation, information, etc.). The factors enlisted by the Code are based on imports and export duties and other measures, which are prescribed in respect of trade in goods that are applied. These are: custom's tariffs of the EU and the tariff of the classification of goods, their origin and their customs value.
Part 2.
How has the standardisation of fiscal policy helped to establish the single market?
Fiscal policy has been re-designed and continually developed during the growth of the single market. Ideal fiscal conditions are enabling companies to conduct their affaires on a community-wide basis, without inhibitions or discriminations. During developments of fiscal policy, it has assisted mergers: when a company from one Member State acquired a company in another Member State, before there lay areas of discrimination, as fiscal authorities demanded immediate payment of capital-gains tax, at the time of transaction. Amalgamation costs could therefore be prohibitive if tax liability was of a substantial amount. Directives contained in the Single European Act of 1986, subsequently amended these prohibitions.
Presently, goods are now exported free of VAT and in the country of destination; the local VAT rate is applied to the total price of the good. Exports are free of tax, with VAT being imposed on imports.
Legal Basis.
Article 9:
States that the Community shall base itself upon a Customs Union, covering all trade regarding goods. This involves the prohibition between Member States of customs duties in imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect. In relation to third countries, a common customs tariff shall be adopted.
This means that Member States must adopt a Common External Tariff, chargeable to third countries, which will face the same tariff level, whether the importer is from the UK or Germany.
Article 12:
This provides prevention to Member States, of any new custom duties on intra-community trade, or to increase existing duties. Thus, prohibiting any national levies. Therefore, fiscal measures that are enforced by Member States: either customs duties or charges having equivalent effect will be defined as being unlawful charges.
Article 12 therefore relates to goods that incur increased prices due to an imposition of tax, caused by simply crossing a border.
* See Appendices 3 & 4.
As a complement to Article 12, a consequent Article was formed. Article 95 demands that all National taxation systems shall be applied equally without any form of discrimination on the basis of origin. A measure forming part of the Member State's internal taxation system will only be deemed unlawful if it discriminates against goods on the grounds of their Nationality.
Indirect Tax.
As previously stated, VAT has been applied on a destination basis. However, if this was reversed and the charge was applied on an origin basis, this would probably cause distortation within the single market.
For example:
There are two countries: A & B. Country A has a VAT charge of 25%, whereas country B has a charge of 10% taxable to car manufacturers. The final manufacturing cost in both countries is £10,000. From this we can calculate the cost of both cars:
Country A = £12,000 (£10,000 + 25%).
Country B = £11,000 (£10,000 + 10%).
At these prices, the cars will sell in both countries A & B. As a result, country B has a clear price advantage over its competitor in both external and home markets, due to tax differentiations and not production or manufacturing costs. Therefore this would be a clear breach of Articles 12 and 95.
(Adapted from The Economics of the New Europe: From Community to Union: Nigel M. Healey.)
However, the European Union does not practice this system as it has assumed the 'destination' system for Value Added Tax. For example, in Spain the VAT rate is 11% of GDP, whilst in Denmark the rate is 19%. The EU average lies at 13.8%. This means that goods are exported free of VAT and when the goods reach their destination country, the local VAT rate is applied to the total price of the good. This is a much fairer system of taxation as all products of the same nature, (I refer back to my example of cars here), will carry the same rate of tax regardless of the manufacturing country.
Consequently, both cars would sell for £12,5000 in country A and £11,000 in country B. Therefore for this system to be exercised effectively; VAT is imposed on imports and not exports.
Direct Taxes.
The largest source of tax revenue, in most countries, is often in the form of personal income tax. Under Social Policy legislation, workers can move from one country to another. Therefore large differences, between Member States, of income tax could result in interference within the 'free working' concept of the labour market. If a worker considers their earnings are taxed too much, this may prompt their decision to move to a country where income tax is at a more favourable level.
Article 95 (1).
Prevents Member States from imposing discriminatory taxation upon goods that are identical or similar to goods, which are nationally produced.
Rules against Internal Taxation.
Imported good which have an internal taxation charge placed on them cannot constitute either a customs duty or a charge having equivalent effect. This is because the duty is not the result of the goods crossing a border. However, it does have the same effect of protecting the national production of the goods. Therefore, it would be utterly pointless to outlaw customs duties at borders if member states could then impose their own internal tax rate as a means of prejudice against imported goods.
The meaning of similar, under Article 95 (1), is that a car is a car, milk is milk and sugar is sugar, for that reason, the Member State must show equality in its taxes. Otherwise, discrimination would be held as an indirect contravene of legislation.
Article 95 (2) was further adopted to prevent indirect protection to National products by internal taxation of imported goods, which are potentially in competition for the same national consumer. In such a situation, where products are competing with each other, then the protective effect alone must be removed. Although here, equalisation may not be possible.
The purpose of this part of Article 95 is to ensure that Member States do not indirectly protect their own products. Theses products are not similar but are however in competition with the product of import. For example: wine, spirits and beer. Taxation of alcohol, by Member States has come under scrutiny a number of times by the Commission. Often they infringe Article 95 (2). France favoured Home produced Cognac over Whiskey; Italy favoured Grappa over Rum and the UK favoured Beer over Win.
In all cases, the Member State in question had different levels of tax for different types of alcohol, which tended to always have more favourable rates to the traditional domestically produced product.
* See Appendix 5 - The Commission V. The United Kingdom.
Common External tariff.
This tariff was implemented in 1968, to ensure the equal treatment in all Member States for goods that are imported from third countries. There are a number of advantages of this tariff, as it encourages trade with other countries giving more choice available to the single market, it gives prevention to other countries outside the EU who might otherwise sell goods to Member States with a lower tariff on the understanding that the Member could sell these goods onto other EU members.
Common Customs Tariff.
This is a list of taxes laid out by the classification of products. All Tariffs are applicable to Member States and the tariffs have to apply to all imported products from outside the EU. The Commission regularly up-dates and publishes customs tariffs.
Whereas before excise duties had several forms, minimum rates for all products have been decided. A unified taxation system does not eliminate all potential sources of market distortion, but it does however facilitate it greatly.
Part 3.
Explain how the European Social Policy has attempted to ensure citizens can work and provide services in a Member State within the European Union.
Having developed Europe on an economic level, there was a need for development on a social level: whilst at the same time, giving Members European Citizenship through the permission of the mobility of labour. For without ample social provisions, economic integration is not possible. With regard to workers and job seekers, they can take up residence in any of the 15 Member States and still have equal rights to the access of employment in both the public and private sectors.
The measures of Social Policy were designed to guarantee the free movement of workers and ensure that the single market would have effective translation into improvements for workers.
To work and provide services in another Member State is an essential standard of social integration. Where there once was a multitude of barriers to this standard now stands a gateway to improved working conditions, increased benefits and greater provisions of state aid.
Total harmonisation of every Member State's policies was neither a possibility nor an objective of the Union. However, the intention was to create a framework from which to base social provisions for an economic and socially integrated Europe. This structure came from the Community's 1989 Social Action Programme.
This document highlighted basic minimum standards:
- Health & safety at work
- Freedom of residence
- Mutual recognition of diplomas
- Exchange of students
- Co-ordination of social security standards.
Although the initial legalities for Social Policy are based on the original Articles of the Treaty Of Rome, 1957: Articles 117 - 128 - The Social Chapter. This is a legally binding agreement, which was further developed by the Single European Act, 1987. A solemn declaration was later adopted in 1989, by the Council of Ministers: 'The Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers', adopted by 11 of the then 12 Member States, (UK were not in agreement).
The Charter underlies the European Model of Labour Law, proclaiming rights to the following policy areas:
- Freedom of movement
- Employment & remuneration
- Improvement of living and working conditions
- Social Protection
- Freedom of association and collective bargaining
- Vocational training
- Equal treatment for men & women
- Information, consultation and participation of workers
- Health protection and safety at the workplace
- Protection of children & adolescents
- The rights of elderly persons
- The rights of disabled people
The legal basis for Social Policy:
- Article 39 - The Free Movement of Workers
- Article 43 - Freedom Of Establishment
- Article 49 - Freedom to provide Services
A number of directives have also been passed in view of amplifying the above Articles.
*See Appendix 6 for the Laws Governing the Free Movement of Workers.
Rules against discrimination.
The stipulation on Rights of Establishment and Freedom to Provide Services are both there to prevent discrimination on the grounds of Nationality.
- Self - employed persons wishing to establish themselves in another Member State.
- Individuals wanting equal access to markets for services in the host Member State.
- Protection of companies from discrimination in a host Member State.
Rights of Establishment - Article 43.
If residence is PERMANENT then the rights will be covered by the terms under this Article. By permanent, what is meant is that the providers of a service actually settle in to a Member State.
E.g. a lawyer from the UK may move to France to set up a law firm. This lawyer may specialise in giving advice to French firms on how to interpret UK law.
N.B.
- People, such as those who are self - employed, companies or firms can establish themselves in another Member State.
- Any person has the right to more than one business in any particular community.
- They also have the right to carry out business under the same laws and conditions as the Nationals of the Member State that person is in.
Rights to Provide Services - Article 49.
If residence is TEMPORARY then the rights will be provided for by the terms under this Article.
By temporary what is meant is that the residence is not long term or that the person or company is not residing in the country that they are providing particular services to.
E.g. A UK lawyer may offer the same services to French firms that he could provide if he was actually staying there, but this time he may provide them from his/her own offices in the UK, and perhaps have to make the odd flight to France to offer briefings and advice there and then.
Harmonisation of Professional Qualifications.
Any profession has the right to establish and to practise throughout the European Union. Although health professions are at the top of these professions, as their qualifications and training have already been harmonised and recognised throughout the E.U already. However, gradual progress has also been made in other work fields, such as; Agriculture, Catering, and Architecture, to mention a few.
Directive 77/249 was brought about to enable lawyers to provide their services, but not to establish themselves in other Member States.
Nevertheless, as a result of Directive 89/48, further progress of lawyers rights of establishment are now being sought after.
This is a good progression as in contrast to health professions, (doctors, nurses, etc.); the range of practice over the E.U has been more limiting for lawyers.
Recognition of Higher & Further Education.
Directive 89/48, mentioned on page 19, also provides the mutual acknowledgement throughout the E.U of Higher Education Diplomas of which require three or more years of studying.
. A lot of negotiation under went in order to persuade each Member State to accept the qualifications of other Member States as an equivalent to their own.
A turn around came in 1989, when a directive, which provided for:
“A general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration.”
Although qualifications that are less than three years of duration were not recognised, until Directive 92/51. This increased the range of recognition to these qualifications
This is an essential part of the European Union as it contributes wholly to the ability of people to either establish or provide services in the long run. Thus, again contributing to the prosperity of the economy of the European Union.
Social Security.
It is worth pointing out when looking at European focus on Social Policy that Member States in the EU spend a considerably larger sum on social security, 22% GDP, in comparison to that of the United States; 15% of GDP or Japan; 12% GDP.
Although social standards in the current fifteen Member States are allied through the Single Market, there are laws of each country, which make standards vary form one State to another. Until recently, the UK had no guaranteed minimum income, (UK minimum wage now- £4.10). Greece, Spain and Italy do not yet at present have a national income.
This is just one international difference of opinion that EU Social Policy stood under questioning about. International differences between Member States in regards to any EU legislation have always been a point of controversy. Laws can conflict Member States home laws and Member States could argue that it is possible for a policy to have noticeable effects in one State but completely not benefit another.
A number of initiatives have been established within Europe to assist citizens in the pursue to work and provide services in another Member State. These include:
- The European Employment Services (EURES) - Is a clear example of community action, established in 1989 it promotes the free movement of workers and acts as an aid to identify any obstacles that may exist to mobility within the single market.
- The European Mobility Program (EMFO) - is a similar body to EURES. They research any barriers that are found to hinder trade within the EU.
What can be concluded is that Citizenship of the European Union allows each individual to move freely and reside in any of the 15 Member States, whilst still retaining their rights and conditions, as they would hold as nationals in their country of residence. The single market, through the implementation of Social Policy legislation, therefore facilitates this conduct to a high degree.
Part 4.
What restrictions do exist within the European Union with regard to the free movement concept of the Single European Market?
The elimination of frontier controls would not of been able, without the removal of Quantative Restrictions at the same time. Opportunities in both the transport and distributive trades would not of occurred. As now, for example: airlines have flexibility to adjust capacity levels, which in turn allowed them to meet demands whilst offering discounts; contributing to increased revenue.
Measures Having Equivalent Effect to a Quantative Restriction (MEQRs) have no definition within the Treaty and therefore case law provides its concept. Whereas Quantative Restrictions are clear obvious bans, MEQRs are not so obvious.
MEQRs are measures, which subject an imported good to a condition that is not required to a domestically produced good. Therefore case law comes in the form of the Cassis de Dijon judgement by the ECJ in 1979. This was where a blackcurrant liqueur, (: Cassis de Dijon), which is commonly drunk with white wine and lawfully produced in France containing 15 – 20% alcohol.
An importer expressed interest in this liqueur but who was subsequently advised by German authorities that although there would be no objection to its importation, Cassis could not be marketed in Germany. This was because German law prohibited the sale of any spirit, of the category of which liqueur comes under, unless it were of at least 25% alcohol.
The importer therefore initiated proceedings before German Courts claiming that the German rule was indeed an MEQR, under Article 28. However, the rule was not discriminatory as it applied to all fruit liqueurs marketed in Germany, regardless of origin. The rule did however restrict free trade across national frontiers within the common market.
There were no set community rules with regards to the alcohol strength of fruit liqueurs and as a result, it was up to the German authorities to show grounds that their national rule could be substained on these grounds.
The case came before the ECJ, where German authorities argued that their measure was in effect as part of a strategy for combating alcoholism. They suggested that if there were great availability of ‘weak drinks’ then this would lure drinkers towards addiction.
The ECJ observed that the German rules lacked any coherent basis as an effective control on alcohol abuse. They indicated that the alleged objective of combating alcoholism, could be achieved by a rule that carried less weight: for example: a labelling requirement that showed the alcoholic strength contained in the bottle.
The prohibition of Articles 28 and 29 is said to be twofold: as falling foul of these laws can amount to either a quantative restriction or a measure of having equivalent effect.
The Commission issued Directive 70/50 to guide Member States by providing a thorough list of Measures Equivalent To Quantitative Restrictions.
Directive 70/50 was adopted with a view of elaborating the meaning of Article 28. The Directive gives recognition to the fact that there are two types of measures that are capable of violating Article 28.
The Directive is consequently separated into two parts; these are Articles 2 and 3.
Article 2.
Covers rules that have come to be known as DISCRIMINATORY.
These are rules, which make a distinction between imports and domestic goods.
Measures that subject a condition, which differs from that required for domestic products and which is more difficult to meet, i.e. measures that make importation more difficult or costly.
Again the case of Dassonville applies here, see Appendix 2.
Article 3.
Covers rules that have come to be known as NON - DISCRIMINATORY.
These are rules where on the surface they apply equally to all goods, irrespective of origin, but nevertheless, are capable of restricting imports.
Non - Discriminatory measures are technical hindrances that hold back imports. These can be National Rules, Acts of Parliament, etc.
These are rules that make no distinction between home produced and imported goods, but nevertheless, impede trade.
A measure should be appropriate to domestic and imported goods thought there many subtle ways of imposing extra liability on the producer to ultimately hinder trade.
Escape Routes - Article 30 and Mandatory Requirements.
Article 30.
DISCRIMINATORY measures can be justified under Article 30.
Rather than breach Article 28, Member States can attempt to justify its measure under Article 30.
Justifications include:
- Public Morality
- Public Policy
- Security
- Protection and Health.
Beyond these, the ECJ is very unwilling to broaden this scope of justifications under Article 30.
It is up to the National Authority of each Member State to demonstrate in each case that there is a need for the particular measure. The State is heavily scrutinised to establish the lawfulness of their measure and that the chosen measure was the least restrictive. Therefore there is a heavy burden of proof on the State to justify their actions and satisfy the court with their reason.
Mandatory Requirements.
NON - DISCRIMINATORY measures can be justified under Mandatory Requirements.
Mandatory Requirements, (MRs), share common features with Article 28 and were developed, again by the ECJ. Consequently, this is another line of defence to Article 28. MRs are only available as an extension to Non - Discriminatory measures. Technical rules usually fall under this category, i.e. a rule relating to the marketing of a product, (shape, size, or National Rules), certain restrictions will be justifiable by the state if it appears in the list that the ECJ has identified:
- Fiscal Supervision
- Tax System
- Public Health
- Commercial Transaction
- Consumer Protection
- Securing Fair competition and The Environment.
(See case - Walter Rau, Appendix 1).
MRs act as another scope of conditions for a Member State to justify an infringement that might otherwise be held as a MEQR.
Conclusion.
From this collation of information, what can be deduced is that harmonisation of legislation within each Member State is compulsory to the continuous development of the European Single Market.
There are several key elements to ensure that goods and services move freely within a single market. These include: mutual recognition of national standards, certification and testing of goods/ services and the harmonisation of all legislation.
The free movement concept gives consumers the increased freedom and mobility to shop, work and live in another EU country than their own. The concept also gives consumers an increased choice of goods and services, as well as the more competitively low prices that have been brought to them.
Although, there is still work needed to complete consolidate the single market so that Goods, Services People & Capital can continue to move freely with this vast trading bloc.
Goods and people are however still subject to identitiy checks at some internal borders: namely at airports. This is due to the governments of Member States who obviously do not want international terrorism; illegal immigration and the drugs trade to again beneficiaries form the free movement of goods.
Appendix 1.
Walter Rau v. De Smedt.
Another requirement of Belgium law was that margarine should be produced in cub-shaped packages.
This legislation applied to all margarine producers on the face of things, however, it had the effect of excluding margarine made in other Member States from the Belgium market.
Belgium authorities argued that this rule was to inform the consumer of the nature of the product.
This legislation was to protect the Belgium producer from external competition as not all other producers could comply with these regulations.
The ECJ held that the Belgium rule violated Article 28.
Appendix 2.
Procureur Du Roi v. Dassonville.
In this case, the ECJ set out what has now been termed ‘The Dassonville Formulae’
Whiskey had reached Belgium form France. In France, no certificate of authenticity was needed, so as a result on entry to Belgium, this documentation was not present.
The litigation originated from Belgium legislation, as they required an importer of Scotch whiskey had to hold a certificate of authenticity, which had been issued by the British Customs Authorities.
The argument was that Belgium law had contravened Article 28 as the lack of certificate closed the Belgium market to the whiskey importers.
The ECJ said that this clearly put a restrictive effect on free trade, a breach of Article 28; therefore Belgium rules were unreasonably restrictive.
‘Dassonville Formulae’.
“All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially intra - community trade are to be considered as Measures Equivalent To Quantitative Restrictions”.
Appendix 3.
Social Fonds V. Brachfeld Chougol Diamond Co.
This case concerned Belgium's importation of diamonds. A levy was imposed on this importation and the Belgian government were sought to justify this charge. The government argued that the collected funds were used to provide social security benefits for workers in the National Diamond industry. Belgium was not a producer of diamonds and therefore its benefits claim could not be in breach of Articles 9 & 12.
This claim did not impress the European Court of Justice as they highlighted the point that any levy, no matter how small, that was placed on a good because it crossed a border, was indeed a breach of Article 12.
The ECJ reminded the Belgium government that the stipulations contained in Article 12 were absolute and not conditional.
Appendix 4.
Commission V. Italy.
This case arose from a tax that was imposed on the export of art treasures by Italy.
Firstly, the ECJ dismissed the Italian government's argument that the items at issue were not actual 'goods' for the purpose of Article 12. The Italian government's second argument: that the tax was required to give insurance that national Treasures remained in their country, was also dismissed.
The ECJ therefore held that the tax was a tax placed on goods that were crossing an internal community border, which has the effect of impeding intra-community trade. Thus, the Italian government's levying was indeed contrary to Article 12.
Appendix 5.
The Commission V. The United Kingdom.
Here the issue was concerning beer and wine. Although both alcohol products, they are not similar as their production involves different methods and as a result, wine is stronger. Therefore, due to the lack of similarity, Article 95 (1) was not applicable to this situation.
In order for Article 95 (2) to come into play, the Commission had to prove that both products were in competition with each other and that a higher taxation charge on wine benefited the domestic beer producers.
The ECJ held that wine and beer were interchangeable, particularly at the cheaper end of the market and the practises of the UK were infact contravening Article 95 (2).
Appendix 6.
Law governing the Free Movement Of Workers
- Articles 39, 39(2), 39(3), 39(4).
Article 39.
Confers on workers the right of Free Movement between Member States and the right to earn a wage or salary.
Article 39(2).
Abolishes any discrimination based on Nationality between workers of another Member State, as regards to employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
Article 39(3).
Insists that a worker shall have the right to:
- Accept offers of employment.
- To move freely within the European Union for this purpose.
- To stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment, in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of Nationals of that Member.
- To remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed there.
However, Article 39 has two sets of exceptions to the basic principle of free movement, they are both limitations and are also ‘Escape Routes’.
Article 39(3).
Limitations justified on the grounds of:
- Public Policy
- Public Security
- Public Health, etc.
Article 39(4).
Excludes employment in the public sector.
This Article is an escape route that is available to the State.
Bibliography.
Books.
- The Economics of the New Europe, From Community to Union.
Routledge: 1995.
Nigel M. Healey
- The Single European Market & Beyond:
- a study of the wider implications of the SEA.
Routledge: 1992.
Dennis Swann.
Luxembourg: 1996.
European Commission.
Websites.
- Europa: www.europa.eu.int
- European Parliament: www.europarl.eu.int
Other Sources.
- All college notes and handouts.
