INSTITUTO AUDITORES INTERNOS DE ESPAÑA LOS NUEVOS CONCEPTOS DEL CONTROL

the speech by van der Goes van naters25 _{included two controversial points as far as coordination was concerned;}

the broader point26 _{concerned the role of the committee of permanent representatives, then referred to under}

the acronym cocor, (comité de coordination des répresentants) [committee on coordination of representatives]. this body, which had emerged over the five previous years with no legal basis in the ecSc treaty was duplicated in the eec and claimed to have a legal basis in Article 151 of the treaty on the new community.27 _{van der Goes}

van naters pointed out the uncertainty of cocor’s status: was it a community body and as such dependent on a community institution such as the council, or were its members accredited to the community? in the latter

20 _{EPA Debates - Sitting of 24 June 1958, p.175. Sassen, a member of the Euratom Commission, also shared Hallstein’s view on Article 206 of the}

Euratom Treaty, although that Treaty did not contain an article comparable to Article 232 of the EEC Treaty (ibidem, p. 176-177). However, President Hallstein declared himself ready to re-examine his position in a reply to van der Goes van Naters asking him to do so. Ibidem, p. 176.

21 _{EPA Debates - Sitting of 24 June 1958, p.162.}

22 _{EPA Committee on Political Affairs and Institutional Matters Report on the coordination of the three political Communities. cit.} 23 _{EPA Debates - Sitting of 27 June 1958, p. 450.}

24 _{EPA Debates - Sitting of 24 June 1958, p.164-166.} 25 _{Ibidem, p. 166-168.}

26 _{In another speech, Van der Goes van Naters controversially asked why the High Authority had appointed a new Ambassador to London}

without having consulted the other two executive bodies in advance. President Finet replied that in order to consult the other executive bodies it would have been necessary to wait for them to be established three months later, which was considered too long a period to leave the post vacant; he gave an assurance that in future consultations on the matter would be held (ibidem 173).

27 _{The second paragraph of that article reads as follows: ‘These [the Council’s] rules of procedure may provide for the setting up of a committee}

iV. CoorDination oF the CommunitieS

case each of them would be performing a national role and as a whole would constitute a diplomatic corps accredited to the community. he was particularly critical of the way in which one of the representatives had on at least one occasion participated in a council meeting representing his minister. the socialist group was against practices of this kind, which reminded it of ‘the drama of the council of europe’.28

finet, the president of the high Authority, refused to respond on the issue of the representatives’ role; this was an internal matter for the council, but he stressed that the high Authority had relations with the council of ministers and referred to an instance following a debate within cocor when fears emerged that there may be difficulty gaining the council’s approval for a proposal; enthusiastic approval proved that the fears were unfounded.29

the reply given by hallstein, who shared van der Goes van naters’ fears, was more specific; he did not regard Article 151 as the most fortunate of the eec treaty provisions and stated that the commission had taken great care to ensure that the Article did not disturb the balance between national and supranational aspects of responsibility in the structure of the treaty. hallstein’s analysis of the dangers of cocor was convincing:

the first danger is that the responsibilities which the treaty confers specifically on the competent ministers of the member States slip, through delegation, down to the shoulders of officials where they do not belong. As far as relations between the commission and the national ministers are concerned, the consequence of this slippage would be that in its discussions, which should generate solutions, the commission would be dealing not with the people who give instructions but with those who are given them. the structure of our treaty would be visibly distorted as a result.

the second danger is that the relationship between the purely supranational element, represented by the commission, and the federative element, as i recently noted in this very place, would undergo a shift to the detriment of the supranational content of our treaty. indeed, by dint of a new habit it could so happen that one government may take charge and busy itself with tasks which under the treaty fall entirely to the supranational body, in other words, the commission.30

during the debate, another of the four parliamentarians who spoke,31 _{Santero, broadened the discussion to include}

the council of ministers, which was not referred to in the janssen report. Santero observed how in the experience of the ecSc the composition of the council of ministers varied depending on the items on the agenda: each government sent the minister with competence in the matter concerned but that minister nonetheless was fully responsible for representing his Government. now, under the new treaties the three communities each had their own council of ministers, but the experience of the ecSc meant that they should be combined into a common institution, a move which would foster coordination.32

28 _{EPA Debates - Sitting of 24 June 1958, p.168.} 29 _{Ibidem, p. 174.}

30 _{Ibidem, p. 175.}

31 _{As well as van der Goes van Naters, discussed earlier, and Santero, whose thoughts are set out here, speakers in the debate were Schujit,}

who focused on information issues (ibidem, p. 170-171) and Roselli, who called for prudence in coordination to prevent it becoming a mere formality (Ibidem, p. 171-172).

Chapter FiVe

the Seat oF the inStitutionS