Festschrift für Fritz W. Scharpf - MPIfG

Héritier · Containing Negative Integration 109
2000 Communication of the Commission testifies to service public preferences.
In this Communication, which updates the first Communication on
services of general economic interest of 1996, the Commission states that
“services of general interest” are a key element in the European model of
society. The new Article 16 in the Amsterdam Treaty now confirms their
place among the shared values of the Union and their role in “promoting social
and territorial cohesion” (CEC 2000: 3). The Commission emphasizes
that the services in question contribute to the competitiveness of the European
economy, and it makes it the responsibility of public authorities at the
appropriate local, regional or national level to define in full transparency the
mission of services of general interest and the way they are provided. It also
sees a Community obligation “to ensure that the performance of such services,
in terms of quality and prices, responds best to the needs of their users
and of citizens at large” (CEC 2000: 3). A disappearance of general interest
services would be regarded as “a telling sign of the desertification of a rural
area or the degradation of a town” (CEC 2000: 20). So far, the Commission
sees a positive impact of the Community action taken in the field of network
services on the availability, affordability and quality of services (CEC
2000: 3). The provision of general interest services is considered to be an
important element of political legitimation, and the Commission emphasizes
that “a core common concept of such general interest may be necessary to
sustain allegiance to the Union.” This is why provisions on access to services
of general economic interest are included in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights (CEC 2000: 23).
The Commission also explicitly states that Art. 86 and the implied legislative
powers of the Commission only refer to services of general economic
interest, and that internal market and competition rules do not apply to noneconomic
activities, such as national education and compulsory basic social
security schemes. Hence, the Commission sets limits for itself with respect
to possible intervention in particular policy areas, a position which has been
strongly underlined by the EP in its resolution of November 2001 (Nouvelles
Europe 2001b: 2). Thus, Fritz Scharpf’s claim that “no area of service
public is now beyond the challenge of European competition law” might not
be well founded:
Given the great institutional diversity among member states, it is always possible
to argue that existing national arrangements are discriminating against actual or
potential private competitors from abroad … Private schools and universities
could now demand to compete under equal conditions with public education
systems … [and] the same demand might be addressed by private pension funds