22/11/2010 • Issue 7

Belgian EU Presidency Business Newsletter

Brussels calling
CONTENTS

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 In the spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Economic and Financial Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Events & meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Economic and Financial Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Team presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
G20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Daily updated info on http://eupresidency.vbo-feb.be

Editorial
Collective redress : US-style class actions collective redress may say, Europe is not immune to such
should be avoided in Europe! excesses: ‘success fees’ and ‘punitive damages’ are
already a matter of fact in the European Union.
The possible introduction of a collective redress mecha- Collective litigation is expensive and the problem of fund-
nism is currently being discussed, particularly in the area ing has to be addressed very carefully. The American
of consumer policy and antitrust law. The European experience has sufficiently shown that litigation financing
Commission will launch a new consultation on the topic in rules can make it a profitable business to file non-meritori-
the coming weeks. The recently published ‘Single Market ous class actions.
Act’, although promoting alternative dispute resolution
systems (ADR), also refers to collective Combined with the absence of the ‘loser pays’ rule, con-
redress. Furthermore, group actions tingency fees and third-party funding arrangements
were at the heart of a conference (allowing outsiders to a lawsuit to provide venture capital
organised on November 15 by BEUC to fund the litigation in exchange for a share of the reco-
and Test-Achats (the European and very) make litigation a costless exercise for American
Belgian consumers’ organization plaintiffs. Moreover, US-style class actions give plaintiff
respectively), with the support of the lawyers the opportunity to set the stakes for the defen-
Belgian Presidency. dants so high that enterprises are pressured by the eco-
nomic risk to simply settle and are forced to pay, even for
Diane Struyven,
Director of the European Like any other dispute, consumer dis- meritless lawsuits.
Department of the FEB putes should be settled in an appropri-
ate way. However, the FEB considers that the introduction Nor is it a good idea to introduce collective redress for
of judicial collective redress mechanisms is not the right damages resulting from infringements of antitrust law.
way to boost consumer confidence nor to provide com- Such a move would lead to a radical change of the com-
pensation to those who suffered harm. American-style petition policy regarding the current legal practice in
class actions should absolutely be avoided in Europe. One member states. Compliance with competition rules
should be aware of the devastating effects of class actions – which is currently guaranteed by public authorities –
in the United States, where they led to the bankruptcy of would be transferred to private entities (e.g. consumer
a significant number of companies as well as to job losses, organisations), as it is the case in the United States.
not to speak about the costs on the national economy.
Therefore, the FEB asks that priority should be given to
With the exception of lawyers, nobody benefits from this the effective enforcement of existing legislation, to con-
kind of procedure, as American consumers in general sumer information and to the promotion of ADR mecha-
receive little compensation. Whatever the advocates of nisms such as mediation and arbitration. The latter offer

Brussels calling - 1 -
the advantage of providing a solution which is acceptable
to all parties whilst avoiding risk of abuses.
However, should the European legislator opt for the intro-
duction of collective redress, the FEB requests that certain
conditions are fulfilled. For example, the ‘loser pays’ prin-
ciple should be fully applied. The possibility of claiming
punitive damages should be avoided and any system pro-
viding for a ‘contingency fee’ for lawyers should be
banned. Furthermore, uniform rules should be established
by the EU regarding the right of consumer organisations
to go to court. Last but not least, an ‘opt-in’ system
(which implies that the plaintiff explicitly indicates his wish
to take part in the action) is essential to avoid contraven-
ing the European Convention on Human Rights.

Competitiveness
Extraordinary Competitiveness Council to improve the climate for innovation in Europe. An EU
(November 10, 2010) patent which is affordable and offers legal certainty is of
paramount importance for innovative products as well as
On November 10, an extraordinary Competitiveness for a well functioning internal market.
Council was held in Brussels. The meeting was chaired by
Vincent Van Quickenborne, Belgian Minister of Economy. Political discussions on an EU patent are not new, but have
After two previous Competitiveness Council meetings on been dragging on since the year 2000. Over the past
September 29 and October 11-12, this extraordinary decade, progress has been made step by step, but two
meeting constituted a new important issues remained
attempt to find a political on the negotiating table:
agreement among the 27 the need for a unified
member states on transla- patent litigation regime,
tion arrangements for a and translation arrange-
future EU patent system. ments. The latter item is
Notwithstanding the consi- the largest stumbling block
derable efforts made by the in the EU patent discussion.
Presidency, it was disap- It relates to the question
pointing that a consensus which language version(s)
could not be found on the of a granted patent would
new compromise proposal, be legally binding.
as a very small minority of member states was still Currently, parties that seek patent protection in several
opposed to it, whilst unanimity is required on this issue. member states or even in the EU as a whole can only sub-
mit a ‘European patent application’ to the European
“We left no stones unturned. However, in spite of progress Patent Office (EPO) in München in either English, German
made, we have fallen short of unanimity by a small margin. or French. The EPO examines the validity of the patent
The Presidency will now reflect on how to capitalise on the application (based on novelty) and can grant the European
momentum that delegations have given us,” read the patent, but the latter must still be validated in each of the
Council’s conclusions. In the past months, the Belgian designated member states. However, most member states
Presidency has gone to any lengths to secure a deal require a translation of the European patent in one of their
regarding this very important dossier, and will continue official languages before they validate it. It goes without
to do so. saying that the current procedure to obtain patent pro-
tection in several member states or throughout the
Research and develop- whole EU is very cumbersome and extremely costly
ment as well as innova- (mainly due to translation requirements). Studies have indi-
tion are generally con- cated that European companies have to pay at least more
sidered cornerstones of than 10 times as much as in the United States or Japan to
the Europe 2020 strate- obtain protection. Moreover, because of national valida-
gy for smart, sustainable tion procedures, patent holders can face legal actions in
and inclusive growth. A several EU countries at the same time. There is also the
single EU patent sys- risk that courts in two different member states then come
tem is viewed as the to conflicting conclusions relating to the same patent. This
most important factor leads to legal uncertainty.

Brussels calling - 2 -
 EVENTS&MEETINGS
On July 1, 2010, anticipating the priorities of the Belgian
21-22/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
Presidency, the European Commission published a pro- support of the Belgian Presidency):
posal with translation arrangements for a future EU “Second conference of the
Ministers for Labour and
patent. In its proposal, the Commission suggested a Employment of the Union for the
three-language regime. The latter would allow compa- Mediterranean (UfM) – Euromed”
nies to submit their patent application in either English,
22/11/2010 General Affairs Council Brussels
German or French. Claims (i.e. the part of a patent (appli-
cation) defining the scope and protection granted by the 22/11/2010 Foreign Affairs Council Brussels

patent) would be translated into the two other official lan- 22-23/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
guages, and related costs would be fully reimbursed up support of the Belgian Presidency):
“Implementation of European
to fixed ceilings. After that, no further translations would directives”
be required, and the patent – in the language in which
the application was filed – would be legally binding 22-23/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency):
throughout the EU. The proposal also provided for cost- “Committee meeting for senior
less machine translations, which would have no legal labour inspectorate officials (SLIC)”

value but would serve information purposes only. 22-24/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency):
“Investing in well being at work:
addressing psychosocial risks in
times of change”

22-25/11/2010 Plenary session of the European Strasbourg,

Parliament France

24/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels

support of the Belgian Presidency):
A small coalition of member states, led by Spain and “10th NEEL conference environ-
mental law in the EU 2020”
Italy, resisted the Commission’s proposal. They essen-
tially claim that the proposal would not create a level 24-25/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency):
playing field between companies in different EU member “27th SOLVIT network workshop”
states. Therefore, they have been pushing for alternative
25/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
regimes, such as ‘English-only’. They argued that a three- support of the Belgian Presidency):
language regime including French and German as official “Occupational hazards – difficulties
in relation to exchanging informa-
languages implied discrimination towards other EU lan-
tion”
guages.
25/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency):
In response to the above concerns, the Belgian Presiden- “International Conference on EMAS
cy tabled a first compromise text which was discussed and BE-SMARTER. Towards a
resource-efficient economy
at the Competitiveness Council of October 11-12. A first Innovative approaches for small
important aspect of the compromise was the timely avai- businesses: from simplification to e-
learning”
lability of high-quality machine translations from the three
official working languages (i.e. English, German and 25-26/11/2010 Competitiveness Council Brussels
French) into all other EU languages in order to improve
25-26/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
access to technical information on patents in local lan- support of the Belgian Presidency):
guages. A second element provided for additional com- “Towards a genuine 7th
Environment Action Programme”
pensation of costs relating to the translation of a patent
application filed in a language different from the official 26/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency):
working languages into either English, German or French. “Ten years of public policies for
This would ensure equal opportunities for applications employee ownership in Europe –
past, present, future”
coming from member states which don’t have one of the
official working languages as their national language. A 29/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency):
third concession in the text was the provision of a transi-
“Sharing environmental informa-
tion period during which English would be the only offi- tion”
cial language for the EU patent. This transition period
29-30/11/2010 Agriculture and Fisheries Council Brussels
would end once machine translations would be sufficient-
ly high quality. The latter translations would however only
serve information purposes, without having legal effect.

Brussels calling - 3 -
 EVENTS&MEETINGS
Nevertheless, the
29-30/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
Presidency’s proposal support of the Belgian Presidency):
turned out to be unac- “Infrastructures for energy research
(ENERI 2010)”
ceptable for a small
minority of member 29-30/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
states. However, the support of the Belgian Presidency):
“Conference on sustainable bio-
Council did agree on the mass for European energy”
importance of an
29-30/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
enhanced patent system support of the Belgian Presidency):
in Europe to boost the competitiveness of innovative “9th ETAP Forum - Financing eco-
innovation”
industries and in particular of small and medium enter-
prises (SMEs). As a very large majority of delegations did 29/10 - United Nations Climate Change Cancún, Mexico
support the compromise put forward by the Presidency, 10/12/2010 Conference

the latter considered it received sufficient encourage- 30/11/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
ment to intensify and accelerate work on a compromise support of the Belgian Presidency):
“Towards a more effective criminal
acceptable to all member states. However, any compro- enforcement of intellectual property
mise would have to respect two important ‘red lines’, rights”

i.e. lower costs and improved legal certainty. To give the 1/12/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
EU patent another chance, an extraordinary Competiti- support of the Belgian Presidency):
“SynerJob conference – the vision
veness Council was scheduled for November 10, while for public employment services for
bilateral contacts continued behind the scenes. 2020”

2-3/12/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels

During the latter extraordinary Competitiveness Coun- support of the Belgian Presidency):
cil, the Presidency put forward a second compromise “27th Meeting of Heads of Public
Employment Services (HoPES) in
text with some additional concessions. First of all, for the EU/EEA area and EURES High
EU patents granted in English, a translation into one Level Strategy Group”

other official EU language – to be chosen by the patent 2-3/12/2010 Transport, Telecommunication and Brussels
holder – would have to be provided. The translation Energy Council – Transport
would be for information purposes only, and would be 3/12/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
required for as long as high-quality machine translations support of the Belgian Presidency):
“European contract law: toward an
remain unavailable. Second, in order to provide the
optional tool for practitioners?”
additional translation in a language of choice, appli-
cants who have filed their application in a language dif- 3/12/2010 BUSINESSEUROPE Council of Brussels
Presidents
ferent from the three official working languages, would
be allowed to reutilize their application to minimize 3-4/12/2010 Justice and Home Affairs Council Brussels

translation costs. Third, the compromise text provided 6-7/12/2010 Employment and Social Affairs Brussels
for legal certainty Council
and protection of 6-7/12/2010 Eurogroup and Economic and Brussels
bona fide third Financial Affairs Council
parties, i.e. com-
6-7/12/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
panies which may support of the Belgian Presidency): Egmont Palace,
– in the absence “10th European corporate gover-
nance conference”
of a translation in
their own local 10/12/2010 EU-India Business Summit Brussels

language – inad-
vertently infringe
existing patent rights. This safeguard clause would be
permanent and is deemed necessary to protect bona
fide companies from being held liable for damages
although they have acted in good faith. Despite these
additional elements to convince the remaining oppos-
ing member states, the Presidency’s second compro-
mise text did not receive the Council’s unanimous
approval.
The United Kingdom – with the support of the Nether-
lands, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden – has sent a letter to
Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier with the
suggestion to now switch to the alternative track of
‘enhanced cooperation’. This means that at least 9 mem-
ber states can move forward on their own in particular
policy fields, leaving behind other countries. Italy has
already reacted negatively to this initiative.

Brussels calling - 4 -
 Economic and Financial Affairs
Economic and Financial Affairs Council
(November 11-15, 2010)
On November 11-15, the Council and the European
Parliament met in the Conciliation Committee – composed
of 27 members of the Council and an equal number of
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) – to discuss
the EU’s budget for 2011. Both parties in principle
agreed to increase the EU budget to 126,5 billion EUR.
This represents a 2,91% rise compared to 2010 and it
corresponds to 1,01% of the EU’s gross national income.
However, since the European Parliament insisted on lin-
king the budget discussions to other issues such as the
flexibility of the multiannual financial framework and extra
powers for MEPs in future negotiations on this framework,
the talks collapsed after 4 days on November 15. The
MEPs’ demands for extra powers – provided for under
the Lisbon Treaty – were rejected by the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden as they insisted
that the 2011 budget was the only issue on the table.
Both the Dutch and the Brits argued flexibility of the mul-
tiannual framework could result in member states having
to pay more for the EU budget. In times in which many
member states are taking austerity measures, this would
be unacceptable, they added.
As the 21-day conciliation period as provided for by the
Lisbon Treaty expired on November 15, the Commission
now has to come up with a new draft budget. In case a
G20
G20 Leaders Summit
(November 11-12, 2010)
On November 11-12, a G20 Leaders Summit took place in
Seoul, South Korea, the country which assumed the G20
Presidency in 2010. Present were the Heads of State and
Government of the world’s 19 biggest economies, as well
as European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso on
behalf of the EU. The G20 is considered as the most
important and representative global
forum for international economic
cooperation (see boxed text).
In a joint letter of Herman Van
Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso
of November 5, addressed to the
new budget would not be adopted at the beginning of
2011, the so-called ‘provisional twelfths scenario’ would
materialise. Concretely, this would mean that no more
than one twelfth of the budget appropriations for 2010
may be spent each month. EU Budget Commissioner
Janusz Lewandowski said he “deeply regretted the fiasco”
and that a budget frozen
at 2010 levels may have
serious consequences for
a wide range of EU poli-
cies and projects. First of
all, it could affect the
funding of the European
External Action Service
and the three new finan-
cial supervision authori-
ties expected to be
launched respectively on
December 1, 2010 and
January 1, 2011. It might
also represent a setback
for the ITER project, which is aimed at building an experi-
mental fusion reactor for energy generation. Finally, it
would also put a question mark behind planned spending
increases in areas such as cohesion policy, youth mobility
and education and the Common Agricultural Policy.
On November 18, Belgian Foreign Minister Steven
Vanackere announced the Belgian Presidency will try what-
ever possible to find a solution before the year ends.

other 19 members of the G20, the EU set out its agenda
and position for the Leaders Summit in Seoul. The letter
stated that the G20 is currently at a turning point, as it
now has to shift its focus from immediate crisis response
to longer-term global economic coordination. It then put
forward the priorities of the EU for the Leaders Summit.
A first priority was the implementation of the G20 frame-
work for strong, balanced and sustainable growth. All
major economies were called upon to contribute to the
rebalancing of the world economy.
With regard to macroeconomic
imbalances (e.g. current account),
the EU proposed the use of indica-
tors to trigger an assessment and
the identification of root causes.
Concerning currency markets, the
Brussels calling - 5 -
 The Group of 20 (G20)
EU argued that exchange rates
should be determined in line The so-called ‘Group of 20’ (G20) was established in 1999 to bring together the
with market fundamentals and world’s biggest industrialized and developing economies around key issues in the
competitive devaluation should global economy. It was specifically created in response to the financial crises of the
be refrained from. It called upon late 1990s as well as to the growing recognition that major emerging countries were
all G20 members to consider the not sufficiently included in existing global economic fora.
possible effects of their respective
economic policies on their G20
partners and avoid actions that
may have negative spillovers (the
so-called ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’
policies).

A second EU priority was the

completion of the reform of
international financial institutions
(IFIs). On October 23 at a meeting
of the G20 Finance Ministers and
Central Bank Governors in
Gyeongju (South Korea), an
agreement was reached on a go-
vernance and quota reform of the
International Monetary Fund The member countries of the G20 include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
(IMF). The reform implied a shift China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
of power from underrepresented South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
emerging countries to overrepre- EU is also a G20 member. The G20 is officially composed of the respective 20
sented members, notably the EU Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the members mentioned above.
(see ‘In the spotlight’ article in the A G20 Leaders Summit also regularly takes place in the country holding the rotating
6th edition of this newsletter, pub- G20 Presidency (i.e. South Korea in 2010, France in 2011). Moreover, high represen-
lished on November 8, 2010). tatives of international economic fora and institutions, such as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, participate in G20 meetings.
Third, the EU warned for the loss The G20’s broad membership and economic weight gives it a high degree of legiti-
of momentum regarding the macy. The G20 is generally considered to have been quite effective in formulating
financial regulatory reform agen- policy responses to the financial and economic crisis which erupted in 2007.
da. It underlined the need to
endorse the Basel III agreement
(on new capital and liquidity stan-
dards for banks), and the policy recommendations of the strong political impulse in view of a rapid conclusion of
Financial Stability Board (FSB) on credit rating agencies, the Doha Round in the framework of the World Trade
systemically important financial institutions, compensation Organization (WTO), the G20’s work on development and
standards, global accoun- the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
ting standards. The G20 (MDGs), a successful outcome of the United Nations
should also continue its Climate Change Conference in Cancún, energy-related
work on effective cross- issues and the fight against corruption.
border crisis manage-
ment, commodity deriva- The G20 Leaders Summit started on November 11 with a
tives, market integrity and dinner discussion on the global economic outlook and the
shadow banking. The G20 framework for strong, balanced and sustainable
development and estab- growth. In the morning of November 12, IFI reform, the
lishment of a global tax G20 development agenda and global safety nets were on
on financial transactions the agenda. During lunch, G20 leaders debated on trade
should also be explored. (the Doha Round inter alia) and climate change. In the
afternoon, financial regulatory reform and the future G20
Other EU priorities agenda were discussed.
included the need for

Brussels calling - 6 -
Despite this broad agenda, tensions over currency devel-
opments and related imbalances in current accounts
dominated the summit. The United States and the EU
have been criticizing China for years already for keeping
the value of its currency, the yuan, artificially low vis-à-vis
the euro and the dollar in order to boost its export. The
result has been a large surplus on the Chinese current
account, a steep build-up of
foreign exchange reserves in
China, and alleged losses of
competitiveness in the EU
and the United States as
the latter’s exports to China
became more expensive
due to the cheap yuan. This
could impair economic
recovery and growth.
More recently however, the
United States have been strongly criticized themselves for
their so-called ‘quantitative easing’ (QE) policy, a type of
expansionary monetary policy whereby the Federal
Reserve (FED) buys United States government bonds and
as such increases money supply. On November 3, the FED
announced a second round of QE worth 600 billion USD
to mitigate the risk of deflation and further stimulate
domestic economic activity. This led to an immediate
appreciation of the euro against the dollar, eroding EU
export competitiveness compared to the United States.
The EU, and especially Germany, have expressed strong
disapproval of the FED’s policy, arguing that it was wea-
kening the dollar as a tool to gain an artificial competitive
advantage and grow the American economy. But also
other countries, including many emerging markets such as
China, Brazil or Russia, have
been saying that countries
should refrain from ‘beggar-
thy-neighbour’ policies, i.e.
domestic actions that may
have negative spillovers in
third countries. Emerging
countries fear that policies like
QE in the United States might
imply large capital inflows into
their economies, which could
lead to inflation and new bub-
bles. This month, China repor-
ted an inflation rate of 4,4%,
the highest level in 2 years.
Moreover, in the run-up to the G20 Leaders Summit, the
United States have been calling to set a target limiting
current account imbalances (both deficits and surpluses)
in the future to 4%. Both China and German, two of the
world’s strongest exporters, opposed the call. The EU’s
position was that the United States’ idea was too narrow,
and that a broader set of indicators was needed. The pro-
posal of the United States underlined existing tensions
over foreign exchange rates generated by imbalances
between exporting nations rich in reserves on the one
hand and debt-burdened importers on the other hand.
Despite the broad agreement that excessive global imba-
lances should be addressed
to avoid future economic
crises, fears over a global
currency war and resulting
protectionism (e.g. capital
controls) remain.
In the end, G20 leaders in
Seoul agreed on a joint
declaration with a ‘Seoul
Action Plan’. This plan
includes a commitment of
all G20 countries to “undertake macroeconomic policies,
including fiscal consolidation where necessary, to ensure
ongoing recovery and sustainable growth and enhance the
stability of financial markets, in particular moving toward
more market-determined exchange rate systems,
enhancing exchange rate flexibility to reflect underlying
economic fundamentals, and refraining from competitive
devaluation of currencies.” The plan also calls for the rein-
forcement of the ‘Mutual Assessment Process’ (MAP) to
promote external sustainability and pursue policies con-
ducive to reducing excessive imbalances and maintaining
current account imbalances at sustainable levels. Indicative
guidelines will be developed in the coming months by a
G20 technical working group, the IMF and other interna-
tional organizations in order to assess persistently large
imbalances in time and identify root causes. The IMF is
also called to provide an assessment on the progress
towards external sustainability and the overall consistency
of fiscal, monetary, financial sector, structural, exchange
rate and other policies.
The declaration contains some other elements of impor-
tance as well. The IMF quota and governance reform
agreed in Gyeongju is welcomed, instruments to strength-
en global financial safety nets are being developed, and
progress is made on core elements of a new financial re-
gulatory framework (including stronger bank capital and
liquidity standards). The declaration also mentions a
strong commitment to promptly bring the Doha Deve-
lopment Round to a successful, ambitious, comprehen-
sive and balanced conclusion. In this regard, 2011 is seen
as critical window of opportunity. Finally, in the coming
months and years, the G20 agreed to continue work on
inter alia macro-prudential policy frameworks, regulation
and supervision of commodity derivative markets, out-
standing governance reform issues at the IMF and the
Brussels calling - 7 -

World Bank and the development of a more stable and
resilient international monetary system. Other priorities of
the future include the fight against corruption, the phase-
out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and the mitigation of
excessive fossil fuel price volatility. Regarding climate
change, G20 leaders say in their declaration in vague
terms that they “will spare no effort to reach a
balanced and successful outcome in Cancún”.
In a statement after the G20 Leaders Summit, Herman
Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso said they were
satisfied with the outcome of the summit. “All major
economies have agreed to do their part to achieve reba-
lancing to tackle imbalances. Our method to use indica-
tors to trigger an assessment of macro-economic imba-
lances and their root causes was backed by the G20
leaders.” The EU representatives also welcome the
conclusions of the G20 summit regarding Cancún.
In the margin of the G20 Leaders Summit, a Seoul G20
Business Summit took place as well. This conference
brought together the heads of around 120 of the world’s
leading companies from both developed and developing
countries. They engaged in debates organized in 12
working groups, with each group focusing on a particular
topic. At the end of the Business Summit, a joint state-
ment was published with recommendations of the busi-
ness community to G20 leaders regarding inter alia
world trade, foreign direct investment, SMEs, the phasing
out of monetary and fiscal stimulus, economic growth and
financial sector reform, infrastructure and natural resource
funding, energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy
sources, and green jobs.
Thomas Leysen, President of the Federation of
Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), participated in the G20
Business Summit in his capacity as Chairman of Umicore,
a Belgian materials technology group. He participated in
the working group on the
withdrawal of monetary and
fiscal stimulus packages. In an
interview in the Belgian news-
paper L’Echo, Thomas Leysen
commented that the business
community fears a gradual


return to protectionism.
Thomas Leysen
In the spotlight
Market Access Seminar (November 18, 2010)
On November 18, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium
(FEB) organized, in cooperation with the Belgian Presidency, a
seminar on market access for European business. More than
150 representatives of the business community and the public
sector took part in the seminar. The opening address was given
by Rudi Thomaes (CEO of the FEB). Keynote speakers included
European Commissioner for Trade Karel De Gucht, and Belgian
Minister of Foreign Affairs Steven Vanackere. Three panel dis-
cussions were held, one on intellectual property rights in
China, a second on raw materials in Russia and China, and a
third on public procurement in China and Japan. Closing
statements were given inter alia by Philippe De Buck (Director
General of BUSINESSEUROPE), who reiterated the position of
the business community concerning current hot topics in trade.
From left to right: Karel De Gucht, Rudi Thomaes and Steven Vanackere
In his opening speech, Rudi Thomaes welcomed the new EU
trade strategy which was announced by the European
Commission on November 9. Fair market access for European
companies is key in the context of the current export-driven
recovery of the European economy. He urged the business
community to inform the Commission and national embassies
abroad of any market access problems encountered in third
countries.
Minister Steven Vanackere underlined that the recent crisis
marked a shift in power and economic influence to emerging
markets. Increasing market access to these economies is of para-
mount importance, given that 90% of the global economic
growth that will be generated by 2015 will be realized out-
side Europe. He also stressed the need to strengthen the capa-
city to trade of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Currently
only a minority of European SMEs are active outside the EU.
Trade Commissioner De Gucht outlined the main elements of
the EU’s new trade strategy for the coming years. These
include the conclusion of ongoing free trade negotiations, the
further development of strategic partnerships and the more effi-
cient use of existing instruments in this context, better market
access (e.g. in public procurement), and reinforced implementa-
tion and enforcement of commitments assumed by the EU’s
trading partners. Reciprocity will be the key principle of the
Commission’s future trade policy to ensure that the benefits of
market opening are fairly distributed.
Brussels calling - 8 -
 Economic and Financial Affairs
Eurogroup & Economic and Financial Affairs
Council (November 16-17, 2010)
On November 16-17, the Economic and Financial Affairs
Council (ECOFIN) met in Brussels under the presidency of
the Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders. In the mar-
gin of the Council, on November 16, the EU Finance
Ministers had a breakfast
meeting with their Swiss,
Icelandic, Norwegian and
Liechtensteiner colleagues
from the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) to discuss
the consolidation of govern-
ment budgets and financial
market regulation and supervi-
sion. On the same day, the
Belgian Presidency held the
twice-yearly macroeconomic
dialogue with employer and trade union representatives
from the EU.
Also on November 16, the members of the Eurogroup
assembled to discuss the situation in Ireland, Greece and
Portugal. Regarding Ireland, the Eurogroup hailed the
government for taking significant action to deal with
budgetary, competitiveness and financial sector chal-
lenges. Notably Ireland’s announcement to consolidate 15
billion EUR – of which 6 billion in 2011 – over the next 4
years received positive comments from the euro zone
Finance Ministers. Regarding these measures, the
Eurogroup stated: “Together with the structural reforms
that will be announced in a soon to be announced strate-
gy aimed at reducing the deficit, this budgetary adjust-
ment should allow Ireland to return to a strong and sus-
tainable growth path while safeguarding the economic
and social position of its citizens.” Nonetheless, the
Eurogroup acknowledged that the financial markets still
have not normalised. Henceforth, the pressure remains
to undertake further action. In the light of a possible
bailout operation, the Eurogroup stated that it is ready
take all measures
necessary to safe-
guard the stability of
the euro zone.
As for Portugal, the
Eurogroup, the Eu-
ropean Commission
and the European
Central Bank
praised the
Portuguese government’s commitment to reduce the
public deficit from 9,4% in 2010 to 4,6% in 2011.
Nevertheless, Portugal was urged to step up its struc-
tural reform agenda and to focus more on removing
rigidities in the product and labour markets.
Concerning Greece, the Eurogroup welcomed the go-
vernment’s efforts to comply
with the agreed structural
adjustment programme and
stated that the country is
broadly on track with the
required adjustments due to
draconic measures taken in
the past months. In particular,
efforts of the Greek authori-
ties to correct deficiencies
in the administrative and
accounting systems to comply
with European standards, received positive comments.
Even though the Greek government is strongly committed
to undertake additional measures for the 2011 budget,
the Finance Ministers stressed the need for further
expenditure reductions and deeper structural reforms.
Especially in the area of taxation, labour markets, business
environment and healthcare, more work remains to be
done.
A day later, on November 17, the ECOFIN Council gave
the go-ahead for the reform of the EU framework for
financial supervision. The Council adopted regulations
for the establishment of the European Systemic Risk
Board (ESRB), the European Banking Authority (EBA), the
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
(EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets
Authority (ESMA) to eliminate deficiencies that were
exposed during the financial crisis. Together with the
supervisory authorities of the member states, the ESRB
and the three financial supervision authorities will be part
of a European system of financial supervisors which is
expected to be operational as from January 1, 2011.
The Council also held a debate on a proposed directive
aimed at clarifying the VAT rules for insurance and
other financial services. At the moment, financial services
are exempt from VAT under EU rules. Since member
states have diverging interpretations on the application
of these rules, this has led to severe distortions of com-
petition across the EU. As a result, the implementation of
VAT exemption rules causes administrative burdens and
high compliance costs. Therefore, the Council agreed to
redefine exempt services. The Council also asked the
Brussels calling - 9 -
Commission to examine the possibility of changing the
current VAT exemption framework.
Furthermore, the
Belgian Presidency
briefed the Council
on a draft directive
on administrative
cooperation regar-
ding direct taxation
in order to combat
tax fraud. In the
light of increased
taxpayer mobility
and a growing number of cross-border transactions, the
draft directive should enable member states to better
combat tax evasion and tax fraud by fulfilling their
growing need for mutual assistance.
With regard to the October European Council, the
Council and the Presidency held an exchange of views on
the endorsement of the final report of the Task Force Van
Rompuy on economic governance and on levies and taxes
in the financial sector. With regard to economic gover-
nance, the Presidency specifically called on the Council
and the European Parliament to reach an agreement on
the necessary legislation by the summer of 2011 so that
the Task Force’s recommendations can be implemented
effectively and rapidly. In addition, Herman van Rompuy,
the President of the European Council was asked to
undertake a consultation round on a limited treaty
change required to establish a permanent crisis resolu-
tion mechanism. As for levies and taxes in the financial
sector, the Council presented a report to the European
Council indicating the possible risk of competitive distor-
tions arising from the uncoordinated introduction of levies
by the member states.
Another issue on the agenda was the presentation of the
Court of Auditors’ annual report on the management of
the EU’s general budget. The report, which covers the
2009 budget, showed progress in several areas of the
LINKS
• Website of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union
http://www.eutrio.be
• Website of the Belgian EU Presidency of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB)
http://eupresidency.vbo-feb.be
budgetary management. Still, in the Court’s opinion the
legality and regularity of underlying transactions remain
unfavourable as in previous years. The Council therefore
asked the Permanent Representatives Committee to
examine the report in greater detail and urged the
management of the EU budget to persist in their efforts
to improve controls and to reduce margins of error in
budgetary payments.
Finally, the ECOFIN Council adopted conclusions on the
financial aspect of actions to be taken to combat cli-
mate change. Firstly, as agreed under the Copenhagen
Accord, the Council reaffirmed the collective commit-
ment by developed countries to provide new and addi-
tional resources amounting to 30 billion USD – 7,2 billion
should come from EU member states – for the period
2010-2012. The Council also confirmed it will present a
fast-start finance report at the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Cancún. In this context, the
Council stated that the EU and its member states have
made considerable progress in the implementation of
their fast-start commitments for 2010. The Commission
was also asked to integrate fast-start finance in its annual
accountability and development finance report.
Furthermore, the EU’s commitment to the establishment
of a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund at the Cancun
summit was reaffirmed, and it was underlined that finan-
cial experts from both the public and the private sector
should play a role in it. The Council also confirmed that
the role of the private sector in green investments
should be
strengthened
and that public
finance is nee-
ded to achieve
this.

Brussels calling- 10 -
TEAM PRESENTATION

Presentation of the European Department of the FEB

Diane Struyven
Director of the European Department of the FEB – Permanent Delegate to BUSINESSEUROPE
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 08 34
ds@vbo-feb.be

Michael Voordeckers
Advisor at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 82
mv@vbo-feb.be

Arnaud Thysen
Deputy Advisor at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 31
at@vbo-feb.be

Michiel Humblet
Intern at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 08 04
guesteurop@vbo-feb.be

Pieter-Jan Van Steenkiste

Intern at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 84
guesteurop2@vbo-feb.be

FEB – Federation of Enterprises in Belgium

Ravensteinstraat 4 – 1000 Brussels – Tel. 02 515 08 11 – Fax. 02 515 09 15

PUBLISHER: Olivier Joris – Wolvenbergstraat 17 – 1180 Brussels

PUBLICATION MANAGER: Stefan Maes – Tel. 02 515 08 43 – sm@vbo-feb.be
GRAPHIC DESIGN: Vanessa Solymosi, Landmarks – sm@vbo-feb.be
COPYRIGHT: Reproduction with acknowledgement of source is permitted

FEB – member of

Brussels calling - 11 -