MEU VIENNA 2015

PREPARATION
GUIDE

1/37

Congratulations!...................................................................................................................................... 2
1) Practical Information ........................................................................................................................... 4
Schedule .......................................................................................................................................... 4
How to get to Vienna ....................................................................................................................... 4
Transportation within Vienna .......................................................................................................... 5
The Hotel ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Arrival/Check-in ............................................................................................................................... 6
Opening Ceremony .......................................................................................................................... 6
Departure ........................................................................................................................................ 6
The Venue ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2) EU and MEU Decision-making.............................................................................................................. 8
The European Legislative Process..................................................................................................... 8
The Legislative Process at Model European Union ........................................................................... 9
Preparation for Model European Union Vienna................................................................................ 9
3) Background information on the proposals ......................................................................................... 11
Regulation on General Data Protection .......................................................................................... 11
Directive on Improving the Gender Balance among Company Boards ............................................ 18
4) Your role at MEU Vienna ................................................................................................................... 24
Member of the Parliament (MEP) .................................................................................................. 24
Minister of the Council .................................................................................................................. 24
Journalists ..................................................................................................................................... 24
5) The Position Papers ........................................................................................................................... 25
6) Rules of Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 26
7) Code of Conduct ................................................................................................................................ 37

Congratulations!
You have been selected as participant for the MEU Vienna 2015 conference! With this Preparation Guide
we want to introduce you to the topics, the Rules of Procedure and all necessary information you need
for MEU Vienna. Please read this guide and the two proposals carefully. It will help you to understand the
working of the MEU conference. This guide is helpful for every participant, whether you are an MEP, a
minister of the Council or a journalist. In this document you will find:
2/37

1. First off, we'd like to give you some practical information about MEU Vienna
2. This will be followed by an introduction to EU law and decision-making. Find out how EU
legislation is passed and how it works at MEU Vienna.
3. The two topics that we will discuss are:
(a) the Regulation on General Data Protection and
(b) the Directive on Improving the Gender Balance among company boards
Both proposals are sent out as separate attachments to the e-mail youve received. In this guide
we will provide you with some basic background information on both topics. Nevertheless, you should
investigate these topics and the position of the role you will be playing further. Find out what your political
party/country thinks of the proposal, what amendments they would claim and where potential allies
might be found. For the research you could contact parties, the Council, could watch debates from the
European Parliament or party events on youtube, read articles online and so on. The better you prepare,
the more you can participate in the discussions and influence the going of the conference.
4. At Point 4 you will find a more detailed explanation of the roles at MEU Vienna: minister of the
Council, MEP and journalist.
5. You are required to write a short position paper on each of the topics, stating the opinion of your
assigned role for the other participants to read. Under point 5 you will find more information on
position papers and how they work. Journalists will be contacted by their coordinator, their task
prior to MEU Vienna is a bit different.

6. Last but definitely not least, at the end of this guide you can find our Rules of Procedure. These
basic rules determine how we will debate, how the proposals and amendments will be dealt with,
and so on. Even though it might seem a bit difficult, read the rules of procedure thoroughly and
more than once. At the first day, we will have a short mock debate to show how the rules work in
practice.
If, after the consultation of this guide and our website you find any questions unanswered, please don't
hesitate to contact us: participants@meu-vienna.at
We are very much looking forward to finally meet you in person and have a great MEU Vienna 2015!

3/37

1) Practical Information
Schedule
This short timetable should give you a rough overview of our schedule during MEU Vienna and might
undergo some changes if necessary. A definite schedule will be available upon your arrival in Vienna.

Schedule
Thursday 19th

Arrival day, Check in (starting at 14:00), opening ceremony (18:00)

Friday 20th

Conference 8:30-17:00 / Social Programme 17:00-20:00 / Dinner 20:00 open end

Saturday 21st

Conference 8:30-19:00 / Dinner & recreational time 19:00 - 21:30 / Party 21:30 - open
end

Sunday 22nd

Last day, closing statements, final voting, closing ceremony, departure (end at noon,
12:00)

How to get to Vienna

By train: The Austrian national railway company is called BB (sterreichische Bundesbahnen) and can
be found online at http://www.oebb.at/en/index.jsp. Depending on the direction you arrive from, your
train will stop either at Vienna Hauptbahnhof, Vienna Westbahnhof or Vienna Meidling. All of them are
connected to a metro.
To the hotel:
From Vienna Hauptbahnhof take the red metro line U1 direction Leopoldau to the station
Schwedenplatz. There, change to the green line U4 direction Heiligenstadt and get off at
Schottenring. From there, it's only a short walk to the hotel (see page 5).
From Vienna Westbahnhof, take the orange metro line U3 direction Simmering to the station
Volkstheater. There, change to the purple line U2 direction Seestadt or Aspern and get off at
Schottenring. From there, it's only a short walk to the hotel (see page 5).
From Vienna Meidling, take the brown metro line U6 direction Floridsdorf until the station
Lngenfeldgasse. There, change to the green line U4 direction Heiligenstadt and get off at
Schottenring. From there, it's only a short walk to the hotel (see page 5).
By plane: Vienna's airport is called Wien Schwechat International Airport, its IATA Code is VIE. Another
close airport would be Bratislava Airport in Slowakia, IATA Code BTS. From there you can take a shuttle
bus to Vienna (1 hour).

4/37

To the hotel: From Vienna International Airport, you can take either a bus, a private train (CAT, green
signs), a taxi or the commuter train. We recommend you to take the commuter train S7 (Schnellbahn,
blue/red sign). Buy a ticket beforehand at the red machines and take the train S7 to Wien Mitte
Landstrae. There you can connect with the green metro line U4, direction Heiligenstadt and get off at
Schottenring. From there, it's only a short walk to the hotel (see page 5).
By bus: There are several international bus lines connecting Vienna with other European cities. Most buses
will stop at the bus terminal Erdberg.
To the hotel: Take the orange metro line U3 direction Ottakring until the station Landstrae. There
you can connect with the green metro line U4, direction Heiligenstadt and get off at Schottenring.
From there, it's only a short walk to the hotel (see page 5).
By car: We do not recommend you to arrive by car, as there are no guaranteed parking spaces next to the
hotel or the venue. You can book a parking space at your own expense at the hotel. Please contact them
directly. Also, you need a spacial permission to use parking spots within large areas of the city. If you
choose to arrive by car, please inform yourself about the parking option in the city:
http://www.wien.gv.at/english/transportation/parking/index.htm
By other means: On a tight budget? You might want to try to share a ride at one of the many car-sharing
websites out there.

Transportation within Vienna

All participants visiting Vienna (and all those from Vienna who contacted us about it) will receive a free
ticket for public transportation at the Check-in. It is valid from Thursday 19th until Sunday 22nd. Please
note that it only covers transportation within Vienna, thus only half the way back to the airport. Also you
have to get your own single ticket (2,20 ) to get to the check-in after your arrival in Vienna . Public
transport in Vienna is among the best in Europe with 5 metro lines, 30 tramway lines, 44 bus lines and 9
commuter
train
lines.
If
you
need
help
with
finding
your
way,
check
http://www.wienerlinien.at/eportal2/ep/tab.do?tabId=0
Upon your arrival you will also receive a map of Vienna, including information on the public transport.
During the night, there are night buses, which cover the most important lines from 1:00 am until 5:00 in
the morning. On Friday and Saturday night the metro runs 24 hours. Taxis and Uber are widely available
but quite expensive.

The Hotel
We are going to stay at Hotel*** Meininger - Downtown Franz. It is located at Rembrandtstrasse 21 in the
2nd district. It features rooms with 6 and 4 beds. Linnen are provided, towels are available at 1 extra, so
we recommend you bring your own towel. There is free wifi, 24h reception, an elevator, coathangers and
an electric iron at the reception. Also, the hotel's breakfast buffet is included for you! Please note that
smoking is not allowed in the whole hotel!
5/37

https://www.meininger-hotels.com/en/hotels/vienna/downtown-franz/

Arrival/Check-in
Check-in with MEU Vienna will be available in the hotel on Thursday from 14:00 until 18:00. If you arrive
earlier on Thursday, you can drop off your luggage at the hotel and come back later.
We will also have an MEU Vienna Check-in desk at the opening ceremony from 17:00 until 20:00.
If you want to arrive in the city a few days earlier or want to stay some more days, please contact the
hotel directly and book additional nights there.

Opening Ceremony
The opening ceremony is the official start of the conference and will be held at the House of the European
Union (www.eu-haus.at ,Wipplingerstrae 35) on Thursday the 19th of February at 18:00. We will depart
together from the hotel at 17:30 and go there. Please be on time! If you absolutely cannot make it until
then, please let us know, so we can figure something out.
The rest of the conference will be held at the University of Applied Sciences FH Technikum, see also
Venue below.

Departure
Our conference will end on Sunday, the 22nd of February around 12:00. This means that we have to check
out at the hotel prior to the conference.
6/37

The Venue
The MEU Vienna conference will be held at the University of Applied Sciences FH Technikum. From our
hotel it can easily be reached with tram no. 33. In the morning someone from MEU Vienna will guide you
to the venue in a group, so don't worry about getting lost. Please remember to be punctual, do not let
anybody wait and also remember our dress code is formal attire during all official sessions. You can wear
whatever you want, i.e. casual clothing during the social programme. If possible, please also wear your
formal attire to the opening ceremony.
The address is, just like the name of the tram station (trams no. 33 and no. 2) Hchstdtplatz. You can
also get to the venue with the brown metro line U6 by getting out at station Dresdner Strae and then
continuing down the Dresdner street upwards for about 200m.

7/37

2) EU and MEU Decision-making

Decision-making within the European Union is a complex process involving not only Heads of State and
Government but also democratically elected Members of the European Parliament and the powerful
European Commission charged with drafting legislation. The following paragraphs will give a brief
introduction to the ordinary legislative procedure (called the co-decision procedure pre-Lisbon), and
the types of legal documents available to policy-makers while focusing on the features of this process to
be simulated at Model European Union Vienna.
The two most important sources of secondary legislation within the EU are regulations and directives. A
regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. This means that the
whole text of the legislation will become binding law at the same time in all Members States. Directives
on the other hand are only binding as to the result to be achieved. Member States must implement all
measures set out in a directive within their respective national legal framework. In theory, therefore,
Member States have more leeway in implementing directives, although this is not always the case in
practice as directives are often drafted very tightly and leave little room for interpretation by Member
States.

The European Legislative Process

The so-called institutional triangle of the Commission, the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of
Ministers produces European law. Under the ordinary legislative procedure, the Commission introduces
a legislative proposal that is then debated, amended, and potentially passed into law if both the EP and
the Council are in favour. Hence, under this procedure, the EP and the Council have equal powers; the
Council cannot pass legislation without the approval of the EP and vice versa.
During the first reading of a draft proposal, the Council may choose to approve an unchanged or amended
text from the EP or propose a common position for reconsideration by the EP at a second reading. If, after
the second reading, the two institutions continue to disagree on a piece of legislation, a compromise can
be reached in a conciliation committee attended by an equal number of representatives from the EP and
the Council. During the European legislative process in general, however, many pieces of law are agreed
upon during informal discussions between the EP and the Council. A representative of the EP, called a
rapporteur, and the Council Presidency negotiate these so-called first-reading agreements.
Aiming at making the EU more efficient, transparent, and democratic, the Lisbon Treaty brought several
changes to the EU decision-making process. The Treaty empowers the EP by expanding the co-decision
procedure, now referred to as the ordinary legislative procedure. Accompanied by the extension of codecision is the increased usage of qualified majority voting within the Council. Hence, in contrast to
unanimity votes, this measure is intended to make Council decision-making more efficient and less prone
to political hostage taking.
For a more detailed description of the EU decision-making process and the different types of European
law, see e.g. Simon Hix (2005 or 2011) The Political System of the European Union or Neill Nugent (2006)
The Government and Politics of the European Union.

8/37

The Legislative Process at Model European Union

The table below is a sketch of the legislative procedure in the simulation. For a more detailed account of
all relevant procedures, please have a thorough look at the Rules of Procedure at the end of this
document. A deep understanding of these rules is essential in order to successfully participate in the
simulation.

Step
1
2
3
4
5
6

Proposal I
Commission introduces proposal to
EP
EP debates proposal, prepares and
adopts amendments
EP Representatives present amended
version to the Council
Council debates amended proposal,
prepares and adopts amendments
Council Representatives present
amended version to the EP
Debate and final voting in the EP:
EP either accepts or rejects version
of proposal as amended by the
Council

Proposal II
Commission introduces proposal to
Council
Council debates proposal, prepares and
adopts amendments
Council Representatives present
amended version to the EP
EP debates amended proposal, prepares
and adopts amendments
EP Representatives present amended
version to the Council
Debate and final voting in the Council:
Council either accepts or rejects version
of proposal as amended by the EP

At the core of the simulation is the idea that both legislative proposals are being discussed at the same
time. The procedure begins by the simultaneous introduction of proposal one to the EP and proposal two
to the Council. In the course of the simulation, the proposals are being exchanged several times between
the EP and the Council with both institutions having the chance to pass amendments to the texts of the
Commission proposals.

Preparation for Model European Union Vienna

Following the ordinary legislative procedure, the EP and Council at MEU Vienna will be presented with a
draft proposal for each debate topic as presented by the Commission. These texts are actual proposals
drafted by the European Commission and introduced to the EP and the Council as per the usual legislationmaking process. The proposal on conditions of temporary workers has been passed into law in 2008,
leaving member states time until December 2011 to implement the provisions mandated by the directive.
Also in recent years, the European Commission put forward the proposal for a directive on common
standards for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. The Council and EP reached an agreement
on this controversial piece of European legislation in 2008. As such, there is much information available
on the progress of the debate between the EP and the Council and the negotiation of compromises
between parties and the governments of different member states.
9/37

The following texts on the two Commission proposals are intended to introduce participants to the
general topic areas and potential points for debate within the legislation. Furthermore, some pointers
regarding country and party positions are included together with key stances by influential interest
groups. It is imperative that both Members of the Council and MEPs further investigate both general
attitudes to a given topic area for their assigned country and/or party and their actions during any past
negotiations. Personal opinions and pre-conceptions should be cast aside as participants take on their
assigned role at MEU Vienna!

10/37

3) Background information on the proposals

The two proposals we are discussing are: the Regulation on General Data Protection and the Directive
on Improving the Gender Balance among Company Boards. You will find the two proposals attached to
your mail. In the following few pages we aim to give you a short overview on the topics and its main issues
at hand. This of course does not replace the need to do some research on your own, as to the topic and
the position of your assigned role on this topic. Your research can also help you with your short position
papers (see point 5 below).

Regulation on General Data Protection1

Opening your mail account, sending text messages on your phone, taking a picture and uploading it to a
social media site, managing your finances online... Everybody has a digital fingerprint, every one of us
produces data every day. The question arises, how is this data, your data, protected? Who has control
over all the information you generate every day? The right to data protection becomes more and more
important every year and defines exactly the rights and responsibilities that come with managing it.
The right to data protection can be found in both national constitutions and the European Union's Charter
on Fundamental Rights, as well as in the Treaty of Lisbon. The later also places the competence for data
protection with the European Union (Article 16). Also, there is a data protection regulation already in
force, the directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regards to the processing of personal
data and on the free movement of such data. But with it being from the 1990ies, a lot has changed,
technologically.
The new regulation aims for a better level of protection of individuals, as, compared to a directive like
95/46/EC, it is directly applicable in all the member states, assuring a certain standard and replaces the
old directive.
The regulation is a complete reform of the EU data protection laws and aims to strengthen the individual's
rights on a broad spectrum. With unifying the norms for all service providers, the regulation can also
significantly reduce the costs of administration and maintenance.
Unlike its predecessor the new regulation would also apply to non-EU-based data controllers who offer
services within the Union. New sanction mechanisms and direct enforcement offer a strong legal tool for
EU citizens. The council would also gain the competence to amend this legislation, shifting more power to
the EC.
Another big step is the focus on transparency for individuals, data subjects have to be informed about
who uses what data why and how, as well as how long data will be stored and whether the users have a
right to be forgotten.
For EU legislation to be effective, it has to be clear, concise and consistent in its approach. The regulation
has to rise to the challenge of ever changing new technologies and the way we use and produce data
every day.

We'd like to say a big Thank You to Dijana avlovi from MEU Zagreb for providing us with the background
information for the GDPR.

11/37

Legislative background
The European Commission proposed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for the European
Parliament and the Council on January 25th 2012, aiming for its enforcement in 2016. The new data
protection package was intended as a substitute for the current Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, which
was considered outdated and inadequate, following the divergences in enforcement that caused legal
fragmentation throughout the Union. The former Directive was also heavily criticized for the sizable
administrative burdens it caused that hindered competition and business.
Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Justice at that time, stated, "17 years ago less than 1% of
Europeans used the internet. Today, vast amounts of personal data are transferred and exchanged, across
continents and around the globe in fractions of seconds. The protection of personal data is a fundamental
right for all Europeans, but citizens do not always feel in full control of their personal data. My proposals
will help build trust in online services because people will be better informed about their rights and in more
control of their information. The reform will accomplish this while making life easier and less costly for
businesses. A strong, clear and uniform legal framework at EU level will help to unleash the potential of
the Digital Single Market and foster economic growth, innovation and job creation."
With these goals in mind, the European Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) started
working on the proposed text of the Regulation. On October 25th 2013, Jan Albrecht (Greens/EFA), head
Rapporteur for the Parliament on the proposed Regulation, proposed amendments to the Regulation after
LIBE Committee had its orientation vote upon them on October 21st. You can read more on the report of
the committee at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/printsummary.pdf?id=1324830&l=en&t=D
Proposed Content
The GDPR has, since its inception, stirred much debate as it proposes controversial changes that have
seen both sides of the political spectrum of the European Union, lobbies, individuals and companies take
up their respective sides of the debate.
Single set of rules
While one of the many goals of the proposed Regulation is to reduce legal fragmentation and increase
legal certainty at EU level, some question whether a Regulation is an appropriate instrument for such task.
The Commission decided upon a Regulation, which, according to Article 288 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and extensive case law of the European Court of Justice, has a direct effect
and will produce binding rights and obligations to all Member States, national courts and EU citizens. It is
therefore understandable why EC chose the strongest, strictest and most difficult legal instrument
available to regulate this issue. It is, no doubt, a step closer to the truly single market and harmonization
of rules at European Union level.
EU law is based on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. According to the principle of
subsidiarity, Article 5(3) TEU, action at Union level will only be taken only and insofar as the objectives
envisaged cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States. The reasoning of the Commission is that
the same level of data protection throughout the Union is required in order to avoid the risk of different
levels of protection and the many flaws that necessarily follow cross-border flows of personal data
between Member States with different standards. It is believed that different levels of protection run
contrary to legal certainty and, with rapid developments intechnology, it is impossible to ensure equal
12/37

and adequate protection of personal data without legal uniformity. However, the question remains - is
the EU really a more adequate authority to regulate personal data protection? Or will there be practical
and administrational difficulties in governing such an enormous market?
Scope
Articles 2 and 3 regulate the material and territorial scope of application. The most important novelty of
the Regulation, unlike the current Directive, are the provisions of Article 3 regarding territorial scope of
application: Article 3(2) states that the Regulation applies to processing of personal data of data subjects
of the European Union by a controller NOT established in the EU. Therefore, an organization based outside
the Union but active within its borders will not escape the reach of this regulation.
The scope of application of the proposed Regulation is also defined by two key terms: data subject and
personal data. In other words, anything that does not fall within these definitions falls outside the scope
of application. Therefore, it is paramount that these definitions are carefully defined. The Commission
chose to define them as broadly as possible in order to ensure appropriate protection for individuals.
Since todays personal data is changing in volume and nature very quickly, a narrow definition (such as,
for example, an exhaustive list or a definition with strict criteria) would be outdated very soon.
Explicit Consent
The data subjects consent is one of the six grounds for the lawfulness of processing data. Described in
Article 4(8), consent must be given explicitly, for data collected and purposes used. Data controllers must
be able to prove consent, and there has to be a possibility of consent withdrawal. The biggest issue at
hand is whether consent can only be given specific, informed and explicit, or may there also be a way
of implicitly giving consent, such as when the processing of information is ancillary to other services? If
so, how would that impact the controllers obligation to be able to prove consent? In any case, consent
is considered purpose-limited and ceases to exist when the reason for its issue ceases. Also, it should be
as easy to revoke it, as it was to give it. Article 7 lays down the conditions for the validity of consent.
Particularly interesting is one in 7(4), which entails that the consent will not be valid if there is a significant
imbalance between the controller and the data subject, a provision that is not entirely clear and could
also create practical problems when proving consent.
Data Portability
Data portability is a new feature of the GDPR, which presents sort of an extension of the right to access
personal information. This feature allows data subjects to obtain a copy of their data for further use, for
example in social networks. It allows data subjects to take the data they supplied and use it in the future
with another service provider, should they be dissatisfied with their original provider. Take the example
of social networks: if a data subject were to become dissatisfied by the current service provider, by
cancelling their account they would lose all submitted content. Data portability provides an option in
which this does not need to happen. Article 18 provides that the data concerned must be in an
interoperable format. However, this feature raises a number of interesting questions. Rapporteur Jan
Albrecht, in his consolidated amended version of the Regulation, deleted this Article on the grounds that
it does not add anything to the right to access. It is also arguable that this Article could cause problems
when controllers are legally obliged to retain certain data (e.g. banks or telecommunications operators).
The debate on whether to include this Article or not is one without a clear answer. At first glance, this
Article widens the right to access information, prevents lock-ins (when customers are bound to one
company because it is too much of a hassle to change operators). But on the other, it might cause
problems for controllers, in situations of mandatory information retention for the little added value that
it has to Article 15.
13/37

Right to be forgotten
Article 17 of the proposed Regulation contains provisions on the right to be forgotten, or the right to
erasure. While already present in the current Directive, the proposed Article adds some novelties to the
right to be forgotten in response to personal data collected and processed on the Internet. Article 17(1)
contains provisions regarding the right to erasure in the strict sense that if a controller has no reason to
further process or retain data received from the data subject, the data subject has the right to have his/her
data erased, though a subject to certain restrictions. For example, regarding legal obligations of the
controller or exercising freedom of expression. The new feature of this Regulation is the proposed Article
17(2). The provision states that, if a controller has made personal data public, they shall take all reasonable
steps for the publications they are responsible for to be deleted (e.g. to inform third parties that are
processing such data that the data subject requested that data, and any links to or copies of it).
While exceptions are provided in 17(3), it is still unclear if the second provision will bring any benefit or
possibly cause issues relating to freedom of expression as expressed in Article 80. Furthermore, it is argued
that Article 13 already covers this issue and that 17(2) should therefore be deleted.
Data Breaches (Breach Notification)
Articles 31 and 32 of the proposed Regulation concern the unfortunate events of data breaches, to the
data protection authority (DPA) and individuals, respectively. Article 31 states that, in case of a personal
data breach, the controller shall without delay and, where feasible, not later than 24 hours after having
become aware of it, notify the breach to the supervisory authority. They shall then describe the breach,
communicate the identity and details of the breach, recommend measures to mitigate possible adverse
effects and describe the consequences of the breach.
To the data subjects, Article 32 mandates that breaches be communicated without undue delay, with
detailed descriptions as to the nature of the breach. These Articles have since been heavily criticized for
a very strict time limit of 24 hours, and suggested extending the time limit to 72 hours. Furthermore, it
has been argued that mandatory breach notification would lead to breach fatigue, a condition where
breaches would, since they are likely to occur, be so common for the data subjects that they would stop
paying adequate attention to them. Therefore, the question of mandatory breach notifications and
deadlines concerning them remains open to debate.
Responsibility and Accountability
The European Union has always devoted heightened scrutiny towards socially sensitive issues, so it is no
surprise that, in the age of technology and information, personal data is of the highest importance. The
personal data of the data subjects will, in many cases, be of a sensitive nature and the data subjects will
always have a vested interest that, when handling their personal data on matters such as private social
interactions, health and others, the processors act with due diligence appropriate for such sensitive
information. The proposed Regulation contains a number of provisions which rely heavily on the
responsibility and accountability of controllers and processors. Chapter IV of the Regulation contains
measures to be adopted in respect of the keeping of documentation (Article 28), implementing data
security requirements (Article 30), performing data protection impact assessments (Article 33),
designating data protection officers (Article 35), and others.
The level of data protection is understandably high. For example, in Article 23 the Regulation mandates
that controllers implement appropriate technical and organizational measures and procedures in order
to ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject, by design and by default. This means that, as
early as when designing products and services, data protection must be taken into account. These are
14/37

steps taken in order to raise the security of the entire process, so that the controllers do not need to invest
into data protection afterwards. However, some claim that this Article in Chapter IV of the proposed
Regulation presents unjust burden for the controllers, as they would then need to increase their costs of
production and administration in order to meet these requirements.
Furthermore, some say that this Article is too vague until technical and organizational measures is
further Article 33 describes a procedure of data protection impact assessment, which would serve to
increase the reliability of data protection, as the impact assessment would, to some extent, make it easier
for controllers and processors to preserve personal data when dealing with particularly sensitive
information or situations, laid out in Article 33(2). However, it should be pointed out that such impact
assessments are merely anticipated results and should not be relied on extensively, but only as an
indicator, which, in the end, does little to calm the data subject affected, should the impact assessment
prove erroneous or misleading. The Commission stipulated in Article 33(2)(6) a method of postponing the
final solution to this problem, but the question remains as to how effective these provisions will be when
put to the test.
Lastly, one of the major issues is definitely the appointment of data protection officers (DPOs). Data
protection officers will be tasked with protecting the data subjects data and ensuring that the processing
of data is done in accordance with the Regulation. According to Article 35(1), they have to be appointed
for any case where the processing is: a) carried out by a public authority or body, b) an enterprise
employing 250 or more employees, or c) where the particular activities of the controller or the processor
so require. This provides sample protection for data subjects data processed by public authorities, but it
is argued that points b) and c) will leave plenty of controllers unattended, as due to increased technical
abilities, undertakings may process a lot of data (and, by extension, a lot of data subjects) with fewer than
250 employees. Some argue, that the size criterion is not to differentiate between organizations, but that
a risk-based approach is better suited for introducing mandatory data protection officers.
Supra-national Data Protection Regulation
Article 64 of the proposed Regulation constitutes the European Data Protection Board, composed of the
heads of supervisory authorities of each Member State, and its task, described in Articles 66 and 67,
ensuring consistent application of the Regulation through means such as reports, opinions, reviews of
practical applications, handling of requests, etc. A single, central data protection authority is certainly a
big step in ensuring legal certainty throughout the European Union regarding the protection of personal
data. But the questions of the effectiveness and adequacy remain. Does the Union really need another
institution, and if it does, to which extent should its powers
Fines
The General Data Protection Regulation proposed, in Chapter VIII, a comprehensive set of penalties and
administrative sanctions to be handed out by supervisory authorities in cases of non-compliance with the
Regulation. These fines, set out in Article 79, include several paragraphs entailing different fines available
to the supervisory authority, ranging from a warning in writing to a penalty of 1 000 000 EUR or a 2%
annual turnover for enterprises. The requirement is that these fines are effective, proportionate and
dissuasive.
In a consolidated version of GDPR by Jan Albrecht so as to prescribe fines including only the upper limit
for fines set to 100 000 000 EUR or a 5% worldwide annual turnover for enterprises (of course, bearing in
mind they must be proportionate, effective and dissuasive). The amendments also included warnings in
writing and regular periodic data protection audits. However, Article 79(7) of the original proposal states
15/37

that the Commission will have the right to adopt acts for the purpose of updating the absolute amounts
of administrative fines.
Positions of stakeholders and political groups
As mentioned earlier, Jan Phillip Albrecht (Greens/EFA) serves as the head Rapporteur of the Parliament
for this proposed Regulation. Naturally, that means his party backs him in defending the increase of data
privacy and protection. He stated This legislation introduces overarching EU rules on data protection,
replacing the current patchwork of national laws, and an overwhelming majority of MEPs have voted to
ensure it delivers a high level of protection for EU citizens.
Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL) from Germany, said in an interview after the rapporteur round-up in the
Parliament that The GUE/NGL group pushed hard during these negotiations to strengthen the data
subject's rights in cases of profiling, to boost transparency, to restrict access of certain data, to tighten
the rules on data transfer to third countries, and for the 'right to erasure'. Now we will take the fight to
the council.
The faction of S&D stated in the same interview: Our main principles during our discussions and
negotiations were: strengthening the protection of our citizens' rights, taking care of our businesses (small
and mediumenterprises), and being strict with the giants - the ones who are responsible most of the times
for the abuse of our personal data.
The EPP, and their shadow rapporteur Axel Voss, have brought arguments for substantively less rigid data
privacy. Actively in favor of the proposal, they have proposed the reconsideration of data protection
officers in an amendment of Article 35, stating that In every company there is to be an employee
responsible for data protection in the future. The threshold is to be 5000 customer contacts per year. This
threshold value is much more realistic than a rigid definition of the number of employees of a company.
The information and documentation obligations of a company will, in future, be based on the risk
associated with data processing. The load on small companies such as the local baker, who does not have
a data protection problem, will be removed.
Further reading:
Original text of the General Data Protection Regulation:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0011:FIN:EN:PDF
GDPR key issues explained: http://www.edri.org/files/GDPR-key-issues-explained.pdf
Group, Country & MEP positions on GDPR: http://lobbyplag.eu/map/countries
How will the data protection reform affect social networks? Find out about the "right to be forgotten",
"privacy by default" and more:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/factsheets/3_en.pdf
Data Protection - all you need to know about the EU privacy debate:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-european-union-closes-in-on-data-privacy-legislationa-877973.html
Short presentation on GDPR by Content Team:
http://prezi.com/p3viu1ekyq09/meuz-general-data-protection-regulation/
16/37

European Commission - MEMO/14/60 27/01/2014: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-1460_en.htm

EU Data Protection Regulation Tracker all important documents released by relevant EU institutions:
http://www.huntonregulationtracker.com/legislativescrutiny/
Opinion of the Commissions Legal Affairs Committee: http://www.wsgr.com/eudataregulation/processupdates.htm
LIBE report on 22/11/2013:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/printsummary.pdf?id=1324830&l=en&t=D
Inofficial consolidated version after LIBE Committee vote, provided by the rapporteur on 22 October 2013:
http://www.janalbrecht.eu/fileadmin/material/Dokumente/DPR-Regulation-inofficial-consolidatedLIBE.pdf
Press release database from 25/1/2012 on the GDPR: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-1246_en.htm?locale=en

17/37

Directive on Improving the Gender Balance among Company Boards

The last decades have witnessed significant progress in women's educational attainment, labour market
participation and position in the European society as a whole. Today, more women than men graduate
from universities: 60% of university graduates are women. Today, more women work in Europe than ever
before: their employment rate exceeded 60% and the EU is making more use of their talent and better
use of their skills. Today, it is clear that women and men cannot be discriminated against on grounds of
gender.
The EU has contributed to this progress through a multitude of measures such as legislation, dedicated
funding and action programmes, specific measures for the advancement of women, social dialogue and
dialogue with civil society. Gender equality is a fundamental right, a common value of the EU, and a
necessary condition for the achievement of the EU objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
It has become a well-established area of policy action as enshrined in the EU Treaties and the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights. Gender equality has progressively been integrated in all EU policies, and is now
well anchored in employment and cohesion policies, research, education, development cooperation and
the Europe 2020 process, to name some examples.
Despite progress, the road to effective equality remains, however, long and full of obstacles. Gender
imbalances in economic decision-making are emblematic of this reality, and the situation in corporate
boards is particularly disappointing with little signs of improvements. Across the EU, company boards are
currently dominated by one gender: 86.3% of board members are men while women represent just 13.7%
(15% among non-executive directors). 96.8% of the chairpersons are men and only 3.2% are women.
Women occupy a quarter of the seats on boards of large listed companies in Finland, Latvia and Sweden
and just over a fifth in France. But there are fewer than one in 10 in Ireland, Greece, Estonia, Italy,
Portugal, Luxembourg and Hungary, fewer than one in 20 in Cyprus and around one in 30 in Malta.
Women and men should have the same opportunities and be given the same possibilities to take
leadership positions. This principle was clearly set out in the European Commission Strategy for Equality
between women and men 2010-2015. It is not only a question of gender equality. There is also a wellestablished economic and business case for increasing the presence of women in business leadership
positions. An efficient use of human capital constitutes the most important determinant of an economys
competitiveness and is key for addressing the EUs demographic challenges and for competing
successfully in a globalised economy. Numerous studies have shown that there is a positive correlation
between gender diversity at top-level management and a companys financial performance and
profitability. Improving female representation on the boards of listed companies in the Union can
therefore have a positive impact on companies performance. Labour market equality contributes to
economic growth. Enhancing womens presence in the board of companies listed on the stock exchange
in the EU not only positively affects the appointed women, but has also the potential to attract female
talent to the company and increases the presence of women at all levels of management and in the
workforce. Therefore, making full use of the female talent pool improves return on education for both
individuals and the public sector. Ultimately, making full use of the female talent pool contributes to the
fulfilment of the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, notably
its 75% employment target.
Member States and the EU institutions have undertaken numerous efforts in the course of several
decades to promote gender equality in economic decision-making, notably to enhance female presence
in company boards, by adopting recommendations and encouraging self-regulation.
18/37

Two Council Recommendations (in 1984 and 1996) encouraged the private sector to increase the
presence of women at all levels of decision-making, notably by positive action programmes, and called
upon the Commission to take steps to achieve balanced gender participation in this regard. National selfregulation and corporate governance initiatives were aimed at encouraging companies to appoint more
women into top-level positions.
In March 2012, the Commission took stock of the situation, finding an average annual increase of the
share of women in company boards of just 0.6 percentage points over the past years. At this slow rate of
progress, it would take more than 40 years before companies naturally reach gender balanced
representation in boards. Clear requirements as regards the targets to be achieved by companies as
regards the gender of the non-executive directors, the transparency of the recruitment process
(qualifications criteria) and reporting obligations as regards gender diversity of boards are therefore
necessary. For this reason, the Commission launched a public consultation on possible action to tackle
this imbalance. It also conducted an impact assessment on the costs and benefits of improving gender
balance on the boards of listed companies.
Legislative background
Equality between women and men is one of the Union's core aims under Articles 2 and 3(3) TEU (Treaty
on the European Union). In accordance with Article 8 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union) the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women
in all its activities.
The objective of eliminating inequalities between men and women, lined out in Article 8 TFEU, is further
specified by Article 157 TFEU, the pivotal provision for legislative measures taken to fight gender
inequality.
So far, EU law only provided negative obligations for member states, as laid down in Article 157(1): they
were simply obliged to assure that men and women were treated equally (most notably, that they receive
equal payment - Article 157(1) TFEU). Some other directives like the Gender directive (2004/113/EC)
targeted unequal treatment of men and women with regard to the supply of goods and services or the
2006/54/EC directive regarding the equal opportunities in matters of employment and education. Be
aware that all of those prohibited direct of indirect discrimination, but did not require much more from
companies or others persons addressed by the laws.
The present proposal is a game changer in this regard, since it is the first proposal of EU legislation that
requires member states to take positive action, which means in our context, taking measures that
explicitly favour the under-represented gender. This principle is recognised in Article 157(4) TFEU which
allowed member states to take action on their own, whithout being obliged by the EU to do so, which
some did to some extent. The basis for the proposal is, however, paragraph (3), which enables the Council
and Parliament to adopt measures to ensure the application of the principle of equal opportunities and
equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. The fact that positive
action is mentioned in paragraph (4) as an acceptable choice of instrument for member states might have
helped the Commission overcome its fears of overstepping its competences. Taken together, paragraph
(3) and (4) seem to provide a politically stable basis for the proposal.
The proposal was considered by the European Social and Economic Committee, whose opinion is available
at
19/37

http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/eescopiniondocument.aspx?language=en&docnr=2444&year=2012
and
by
the
Committee
of
Regions,
whose
opinion
is
available
here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2013.218.01.0033.01.ENG
Purpose of the Proposal
The purpose of the proposal is to substantially increase the number of women on corporate boards
throughout the EU by setting a minimum objective of a 40% presence of the underrepresented sex among
the non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and by requiring companies with a
lower share of the under-represented sex among the non-executive directors to introduce preestablished, clear, neutrally formulated and unambiguous criteria in selection procedures for those
positions in order to attain that objective.
The proposal seeks to promote gender equality in economic decision-making and to fully exploit the
existing talent pool of candidates for more equal gender representation on company boards, thereby
contributing to the Europe 2020 objectives. The proposed Directive will lead to breaking down the barriers
that women face when aiming for board positions and to improved corporate governance, as well as
enhanced company performance.
Minimum harmonisation as regards both a requirement for listed companies to take appointment
decisions on the basis of an objective comparative assessment of the qualifications of candidates and the
setting of a quantitative objective for the gender balance among non-executives directors seems essential
to ensure a competitive playing field and to avoid practical complications for listed companies in the
internal market.
The quantified objective of 40% set by this Directive only applies to non-executive directors in order to
strike the right balance between the necessity to increase the gender diversity of boards on the one hand
and the need to minimise interference with day-to-day management of a company on the other hand.
Non-executive directors and supervisory boards have an essential role in appointing the highest level of
management and shaping the company's human resources policy. A stronger presence of the underrepresented sex among non-executive directors will therefore have positive ripple effects for gender
diversity throughout the career ladder.
The proposal focuses on publicly listed companies, due to their economic importance and high visibility.
They set standards for the private sector at large. Moreover, they tend to have larger boards and have a
similar legal status across the EU, providing the necessary comparability of situations.
The proposed objective of 40% for the minimum share of both sexes is in line with the targets currently
under discussion and set out in a number of EU Member States/EEA countries. This figure is situated
between the minimum of the 'critical mass' of 30%, which has been found necessary in order to have a
sustainable impact on board performance and full gender parity (50%).
Proposed Content:
Article 1 of the proposal states the aim of this Directive.
Article 2 gives key definitions based on several legislative EU documents. The definitions ensure in
particular that the Directive is equally applicable to various systems of board structures for listed
companies that exist in the Member States, i.e. to a dual ('two-tier') system in which there are separate
management and supervisory boards, to a unitary ('one-tier') system combining the management and

20/37

supervisory functions in one single board, as well as to mixed systems featuring elements of 'one-tier' and
'two-tier' systems or giving companies an option between different models.
The definition of 'director' clarifies that the objectives set by the directive cover all nonexecutive directors,
including employee representatives in those Member States where a certain proportion of the nonexecutive directors can or must be appointed or elected by the company's workforce and/or organisations
of workers.
Article 3 excludes from the scope of the Directive listed companies which are small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs), as defined by a Commission Recommendation.
In Article 4 the first of the actual measures is defined. Paragraph 1 imposes on listed companies which do
not have a presence of the underrepresented sex of at least 40 per cent of non-executive directors an
obligation to make the appointments to those positions on the basis of a comparative analysis of the
qualifications of each candidate, by applying pre-established, clear, neutrally formulated and
unambiguous criteria, in order to attain the said percentage at the latest by 1 January 2020. A shorter
deadline for achieving the objective (1 January 2018) is set for listed companies which are public
undertakings because Member States exercise a dominant influence over such companies and therefore
have more instruments to bring about the change more rapidly. Paragraph 2 specifies the method of
calculation of the exact number of non-executive director positions necessary to meet the objective
mentioned in paragraph 1. The exact number of board positions necessary to comply with the objective
should be the number closest to 40 percent, whether below or above that threshold, but at the same time
listed companies should not be obliged to appoint members of the under-represented sex to half or more
of the nonexecutive board positions in order to avoid excessive constraints. Paragraph 3 imposes a
preference rule with the aim of meeting the objective laid down in paragraph 1. This preference rule
provides that, in the presence of equally qualified candidates of both sexes priority shall be given to the
candidate of the under-represented sex unless an objective assessment taking account of all criteria
specific to the individual candidates tilts the balance in favour of the candidate of the other sex. This
procedural requirement is necessary to ensure that the objectives comply with the case-law of the Court
of Justice of the European Union concerning positive action. The requirements laid down in this paragraph
should be met at the appropriate stage of the selection process depending on national law and the articles
of association of listed companies.
Paragraph 4 imposes a disclosure obligation while Paragraph 5 establishes a burden of proof rule
applicable in cases of challenges to the selection procedure by an unsuccessful candidate.
Paragraph 6 provides for a possibility of justifying non-compliance with the objective where the members
of the under-represented sex represent less than 10 per cent of the workforce.
Paragraph 7 gives the possibility that the objective laid down in Paragraph 1 can also be met where the
members of the under-represented sex hold at least one third of all director positions, irrespective of
whether they are executive or non-executive.
Article 5 enforces additional measures undertaken by companies and defines the rules for reporting on
gender balance on company boards. Paragraph 1 imposes an obligation for listed companies to undertake
individual commitments regarding the representation of both sexes among executive directors. Paragraph
2 imposes an obligation for listed companies to provide and publish information on the gender
composition of their boards and on compliance with Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) on a yearly basis.
Paragraph 3 imposes on listed companies which fail to meet the objectives concerning the non-executive
directors or commitments concerning executive directors an additional obligation to explain the reasons
and to include the description of measures taken and planned in order to meet the objectives or
21/37

commitments in the future. Paragraph 4 concerns the competences of the national equality bodies
established under Directive 2006/54/EC.
Article 6 obliges Member States to lay down rules on sanctions applicable in case of breach of this
Directive. These sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. A non-exhaustive list of
possible concrete measures is set out in paragraph 2.
Article 7 states the minimum harmonisation nature of the Directive, meaning that Member States are
allowed to impose stronger provisions than defined in this Directive, given their compliance with EU
legislation.
Article 8 regulates the implementation of the Directive, while Article 9 imposes a reviewing obligation
both to Member States and the Commission. Article 10 states the date of entry into force of the Directive
and defines its temporary nature by imposing an expiry.
Positions of Stakeholders and Political Groups
In a public consultation in spring 2012 the Commission gathered stakeholders' views on whether and what
kind of action should be taken to tackle the current gender imbalance on corporate boards. More than
150 individual citizens and more than 300 organisations replied to the call by the Commission. Most of
the replies from organisations came from companies (79) and business associations at different levels
(56), but also 53 NGOs (most of them womens organisations and several regional or local governments
sent their statements.
There was a large consensus on the urgency to increase the share of women on company boards. The vast
majority of respondents agreed that a gender-diverse workforce and board structure is a driver of
innovation, creativity, good governance and market expansion for companies and that it would be shortsighted to leave untapped the economic potential of qualified women who constitute half of the talent
pool. Views varied among stakeholders on the appropriate means to bring about change. While some,
predominantly the business stakeholders, favoured continued self-regulation, corporate governance
codes, recommendations or corporate initiatives, other stakeholders, including trade unions, other NGOs
and a number of regional and municipal authorities, considered that non-binding measures and selfregulation had shown their limits and advocated a more ambitious approach in the form of binding
objectives for the gender composition of corporate boards. Some stakeholders also expressed concerns
about the often obscure and impenetrable recruitment processes within company boards.
The then head of the S&D Group, Hannes Swoboda, stated in a press release after the first reading of the
proposal: "This proposal has been strongly supported by the Socialists and Democrats and the European
Parliament. This is a good day for women across Europe. He warned that "The Socialists and Democrats
will fight for a strong EU law that includes serious sanctions for companies that don't respect the goal of
getting 40% women on their boards."
"While strong opposition was expressed recently to the project in some Member States, the Commission
has to be congratulated for its pragmatic and prudent approach", said Mariya Gabriel MEP, EPP Group
Coordinator in the Committee, and Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou MEP, EPP Rapporteur on Women and
Business Leadership in a press release at the same occasion.
Also ALDE [...] welcome[d] the Commission's ambitious proposal and are committed to making it a reality
as discussions move to the European Parliament." as Antonyia Parvanova MEP said.

22/37

The Greens/EFA even started their own campaign Get women on board! in support of the directive.
(http://get-women-on-board.eu/en/home)
The ECR Group, while generally supporting the cause for equality, ECR womens spokesman Marina
Yannakoudakis believes that voluntary levels being applied at national level are having an effect and that
an EU quota raises the risk of women being open to accusations of tokenism, which would have a
detrimental impact on their standing in the workplace.
Similarly, EFDs spokesperson on gender equality issues, Janice Atkinson, points out: Corporate policies
encouraging women to step forward - if they wish - and demonstrating that they're just as eligible for
rising through the ranks, help promote women without patronising them. Placing female directors in the
boardroom for their genders over their merits does not merely undermine the status of women executives
collectively. It is exactly the type of tokenistic treatment that sends the wrong message to women, who
only need a culture of due respect for effort to know that if they work hard for their goals they'll be seen
and promoted on equal terms to their peers. The only just solution, according to Janice Atkinson, is
education of future female leaders by scrapping tuition fees.

Useful links:
Website of the Commission with original documents and helpful
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/gender-equality/news/121114_en.htm

materials:

Website of the Section Gender Equality of the Director-General for Justice of the Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/
The
website
of
the
Network
of
Legal
Experts
on
Gender
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/tools/legal-experts/index_en.htm

Equality:

See the report of the Network of Legal Experts, 1/2013, p. 17, available here:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-9
Questions that might help you prepare for your role as Council member or MEP:

What is the difference between a regulation (like the other legislative proposal to be discussed at
MEU Vienna 2015) and a directive?

Which companies and which positions are affected by the directive? Make sure you understand the
terms executive director, non-executive director, publicly listed/non-listed companies and
small/medium enterprises.

Who are the main stakeholders affected by this proposal?

Does your faction/member state support measures by the EU that force companies to appoint women
to top positions, even though they might not be willing to do so?

What are the reasons your faction/state supports or disapproves of this? If they disapprove of the
proposal, what alternative measure does it suggest?

Did the member state you represent put in place legislation with a similar aim? If so, what lessons can
be learned from your member states experience?

23/37

4) Your role at MEU Vienna

As you know, there are three roles to be played by the participants. You were informed via mail which
role you are assigned exactly (MEP, Council, Journalist) and what country/party you are representing.
Please note that you are to play a role which might differ from your personal opinion and ideas about the
topics in question. But as this is a simulation, you should always act as the role you are assigned, regardless
of your personal opinion.

Member of the Parliament (MEP)

MEPs are directly elected representatives of the citizens of the EU member states. They form political
parties according to their political stance (i.e. progressive, left, conservative, right, liberal, green, etc.).
They debate and amend the proposal with support by their party, but also have to respect the wishes of
their national constituency, which might lead to a conflict of interest with their parties. Usually the parties
try to find an internal common decision to act together, giving them more strength. But depending on the
topic in question, some party members might not agree and vote different from their party.
As MEP you should work together with your colleagues and find common ground within the party and
later on the parliament. As you need the approval of the Council to pass a proposal, you have to take into
account their position as well. To do so, each chamber elects 2-3 persons per topic to join together and
have Trialogue meetings. Each party is also to elect a faction-president and a press officer amongst
themselves. The president should coordinate the faction and lead talks with the other parties. The press
officer has the task to communicate with the journalists, take part in the press conferences and answer
questions on the parties ideas and proposals.

Minister of the Council

28 ministers represent the national governments of the EU member states and have to follow their
national positions. Other than the European Parliament, the Council doesn't decide with a simple majority.
For a proposal or an amendment to pass, the Council needs a qualified majority. As the Council needs to
agree with the Parliament to get legislation passed, Trialogue meetings are held to reach common ground
on pressing issues.

Journalists
These stress-resistant individuals follow the happenings of both Council and Parliament closely, even
though the sessions of the Council are not open to the public. Through interviews, press conferences,
observing and listening in, journalists find the stories of MEU Vienna 2015. It's your job to keep the
participants up to date, be it with photos, videos, social media or a newspaper. It is up to you how you
want to do the news and how you want to split up the tasks among the journalists. To help you coordinate,
a member of the MEU Team will contact you beforehand, so you can start your role right away.

24/37

5) The Position Papers

For all MEPs and Members of the Council, it is mandatory to write a short position paper and submit it to
us before February 7th. It represents a formal statement of your assigned role's opinion on the two
subjects and will be made available to the other participants. It can help you to find alliances or spot
difficulties within your party. And of course the position paper allows you to organise your research on
your position on the two proposals.
Your position paper may include:

your country's special position on the topic, measures taken by it, or reasons why its role is
different compared to other countries.

If and how your role/party has ever voted on a similar issue before.

Whether or not you are in favour or against the proposal at hand and what changes you would
need to pass in order to vote for the proposal.

What you think is the key issue at hand.

What you hope to reach during the debate.

To help you find out your role's position visit governmental and faction's websites, check the MEP's
personal website/social media, look for youtube videos of discussions, etc. For MEPs keep in mind the
differences between your national stance and the position of your European party. And again: Your
position paper should represent your assigned party's country's opinion, not your personal beliefs!
Your position paper should be about 500-800 words in total, 250-400 words on each proposal. It should
be clear and concise, as to make it easy to find out your position on the proposal in question. Your position
paper should be sent to participants@meu-vienna.at until the 7th of February.
For Journalists, the position paper functions a bit differently. They will be contacted by their coordinator
directly.

25/37

6) Rules of Procedure
The rules of procedure are very important for your participation at MEU Vienna. Please read them
carefully and follow them. On the first day, they will be explained again and we will have a short mock
debate, so you can see them in practice.

Rule 1
The President
1.1. The Council or Parliament shall be chaired jointly by a President and Vice-Presiden(s) assisted by a
Secretary. The term President in these rules of procedure refers to both President and Vice-President.
1.2. The President shall open, suspend and close sittings, temporarily adjourn meetings, direct the debates
of the Council or Parliament, rule on the admissibility of procedural points, motions and amendments,
ensure observance of the rules, maintain order, call on speakers, close debates, limit the number of
speakers permitted within a certain debate, close the list of speakers, ascertain whether a quorum exists,
put questions to the vote, and announce the result of any vote.
1.3. The President must ensure that all Members yield to the rules of procedure at all times.Every Member
should respect the decisions of the President.
1.4. If questions arise over the interpretation of these rules of procedure, the President shall decide on
the correct interpretation.
1.5. No Member may speak in the plenary unless called upon to do so by the President. If a speaker departs
from the subject, the President shall call him or her to order. If a speaker is called to order twice on the
same item of business, the President may, on the third occasion, forbid him or her to speak again on that
item.
1.6. A speaker may not be interrupted except by the President.
1.7. The President may take immediate measures against Members who disrupt the conduct of a session
(see Rule 2).
1.8. The President shall not vote on any matter on the agenda.

26/37

Rule 2
Maintenance of order
2.1. Words or expressions which affront human dignity or which may prejudice orderly debate may not
be used.
2.2. The President shall call to order any Member of the Council or Parliament who causes a disturbance
during proceedings.
2.3. If the offence is repeated, the President shall again call the Member to order, and this shall be
recorded in the report of debate. Should the disturbance continue, or if a further offence is committed,
the President may deny the offender the right to speak and/or exclude him/her from the Chamber or
Parliament for the remainder of the sitting. The President may also resort to the latter measure
immediately in cases of exceptional gravity.
2.4. Should disturbances threaten to obstruct the business of the House, the President shall close or
suspend the sitting for a specific period of time to restore order. If he/she cannot make himself heard,
he/she shall leave the Chair; this shall have the effect of suspending the sitting. The President shall
reconvene the sitting at a later time.
2.5. Mobile phones should be turned off during sessions.

Rule 3
Official Language
English is both the working and official language for all organs of MEU.

Rule 4
General Course of a Reading in the Council or Parliament
4.1. A reading consists of introductory statements, general debate on the topic, debate on specific
amendments, and voting on amendments (first/second reading only).
4.2. At the beginning of a reading, there will be time for introductory statements by Council Members or
a representative from each group in the Parliament as selected during group meetings. Each introductory
statement should not exceed 3 minutes.
4.3. After the introductory statements, there will be a general debate on the topic. Every Member who
wishes to speak may do so.
4.4. The general debate ends when there are no more speakers on the list of speakers for the general
debate or when a motion for a closure of general debate (see Rule 6.4) has been granted.
4.5. The President can limit the number of speakers permitted during a debate beforehand; he or she can
also close the list of speakers during the debate.
27/37

4.6. When the general debate on a topic has been closed, the President will announce debate on proposed
amendments.
4.7. The debate on a specific amendment ends when there are no more speakers on the list of speakers
for the debate on this amendment or when a motion for closure of debate has been granted. The House
moves to voting procedures on the amendments (see Rule 10).
4.8. Only amendments that have been debated can be voted on during an amendment voting session.
4.9. When voting procedures on the amendments finish, the House moves to a general debate or to voting
procedures on the draft proposal in question (third reading only).

Rule 5
Types of Debate and Right to Speak
5.1. There are three types of debate: the Speakers List, Moderated Caucus, and Informal Discussion.
5.2. Speakers List:
a. Each Member who wishes to speak during a debate within a Speakers List must ask to be put on the
list by raising their placard when they are asked by the President, by making a Motion to be added to the
Speakers List or by passing a note to the President.
b. The President can limit the number of speakers permitted during a certain debate before it begins.
He/she may also close the list of speakers at any time.
c. The President will call upon the Members on the Speakers List when their turn comes. The Members
will deliver their speech from their seat.
d. The speaking time is usually one minute. The chair can announce a change of the time limit for a set of
speakers or for individual speakers at his/her discretion. Motions to extend or limit the speaking time are
in order.
e. When a speaker has finished his speech, he or she will be asked by the President whether he or she is
open to questions (Points of Information) or short remarks from other Members. The speaker has the
right not to answer any question. Both the President and the speaker can limit the number of
questions/short remarks they want to permit. The time limit for a question/short remark is thirty seconds.
f. Members who wish to pose a question or make a short remark to a speaker should raise their placards
when they are asked to do so. They will be put on the
list of questions / short remarks and called upon to speak at the appropriate time.
g. When the Member has finished his question/short remark, the President will ask the speaker to answer
the question or will give him/her the opportunity to comment on the short remark. The President can also
decide not to give the speaker the opportunity to answer.

28/37

h. In exceptional cases, the President can allow that Member who asked the question to comment on the
answer of the speaker.
i. If speakers whose names have been duly entered on the list are not able to speak due to lack of time,
they have the right to hand in the text of their speech to the President in writing, in a final and legible
form, provided that it does not exceed the speaking time they would have been allowed. A 1-minute
speech is normally equal to 1/2 page. The President may make a summary of the speeches of those
speakers at the close of debate.
5.3 Moderated Caucus:
a. A Moderated Caucus can be proposed by the President and the Members of the Council/Parliament at
all times by a Motion for a Moderated Caucus, specifying the time limit for this discussion, the time limit
for the speaking times, and the topic for discussion. The time limit may not exceed 20 minutes.
b. During a Moderated Caucus, members are expected to remain in the room and follow the discussions.
c. The President moderates the discussion, though no questions or comments are allowed on remarks
made during Moderated Caucus.
d. The President shall alert the Members when the Moderated Caucus is reaching its time limit.
e. A Motion for a Moderated Caucus is only valid in the Council of Ministers. A Motion for a Moderated
Caucus will not be entertained in the European Parliament.
5.4 Informal Discussion:
a. An Informal Discussion can be proposed by the President or the Members of the House at any time via
a Motion for an Informal Discussion, specifying the time limit of the Informal Discussion. This time limit
may not exceed 20 minutes.
b. During an Informal Discussion, Members shall stay in the room.
c. The President does not moderate and the discussion is unofficial.
d. The Secretary shall project a countdown in a visible place, if possible.

Rule 6 [Council]
Procedural Motions
6.1. A Member shall have a right to speak if he or she raises a procedural motion. Members can raise
procedural motions at all times, except for during Informal Discussion, Moderated Caucus, when another
Member is speaking, or during voting procedures.
6.2. To raise a procedural motion, a Member shall raise their placard and state the type of the motion.
6.3. No motion may interrupt a speaker.
29/37

6.4. These are the following procedural motions:

a. Motion for a Moderated Caucus
A Member may make a Motion for a Moderated Caucus to allow for a deeper examination of a particular
clause or provision under the topic for debate. The President can either approve the motion or put it to a
vote. A simple majority is required to adopt the motion. Furthermore, in order for the motion to be valid,
it must be made with a proposed overall time limit, a proposed limit for speaking times, and a topic.
b. Motion for an Informal Discussion
A Member may make a Motion for an Informal Discussion so that disputed points can be clarified in an
informal setting. The President can either approve the motion or put it to vote immediately. A simple
majority is required. The President also has the possibility to declare a temporary adjournment of the
session without a motion from a Member.
c. "Motion to Close Debate"
A Member may make a Motion to Close Debate, which can pertain to the general debate, the debate on
the amendments, or the debate on a specific amendment. In case there are objections to this motion, it
should be put to a vote. One Member may speak in favour and one Member may speak against the
motion. A two-thirds majority is required. Once a motion for closure of debate has passed, the debate will
be closed immediately and none of the speakers still on the list of speakers will have the possibility to
deliver their remarks verbally.
d. Motion to Extend/Limit Speaking Time
A Member may propose to change the duration of the speaking times. This motion can be raised only
when the President asks for points and motions. The President may put this motion to a vote. A simple
majority is required.
6.5. There are no abstentions during votes on procedural motions.
6.6. The President is allowed to dismiss dilatory procedural motions.

Rule 6 [Parliament]
Procedural Motions
6.1. A Member shall have a right to speak if he or she raises a procedural motion. Members can raise
procedural motions at all times, except for during Informal Discussion, when another Member is speaking,
and during voting procedures.
6.2. To raise a procedural motion, a Member shall raise their placard and state the type of the Motion.
6.3. No motion may interrupt a speaker.
6.4. There are the following procedural motions:
30/37

a. Motion for an Informal Discussion

A Member may make a Motion for an Informal Discussion so that disputed points can be clarified in an
informal setting. The President can either approve the motion or put it to vote immediately. A simple
majority is required. The President also has the possibility to declare a temporary adjournment of the
session without a motion from a Member.
b. Motion to Close Debate
A Member may make a Motion to Close Debate, which can pertain to the general debate, the debate on
the amendments, or the debate on a specific amendment. In case there are objections to this motion, it
should be put to a vote. One Member may speak in favour and one Member may speak against the
motion. A two-thirds majority is required. Once a motion for closure of debate has passed, the debate will
be closed immediately and none of the speakers still on the list of speakers will have the possibility to
deliver their remarks verbally.
c. Motion to Extend/Limit Speaking Time
A Member may propose to change the duration of the speaking times. This motion can be raised only
when the President asks for points and motions. The President may put this motion to a vote. A simple
majority is required.
6.5. There are no abstentions during votes on procedural motions.
6.6. The President is allowed to dismiss dilatory procedural motions.

Rule 7
Procedural Points
7.1. Point of Information: If not immediately following a speech by another speaker, this must be confined
to raising procedural questions, whether that is regarding a ruling from the Chair or a factual error on the
part of any of the parties to the discussion. A Point of Information may also be raised immediately
following a speaker if the President and the previous speaker agree to entertain Points of Information. If
the right to raise procedural points is misused, the President may forbid further Points of Information for
the remainder of the sitting.
7.2. Point of Order: A Member may raise a Point of Order if he/she has legitimate reason to believe that
a breach of the rules of procedure has occurred. The Point of Order should only be phrased to draw
attention to the concern and will be addressed accordingly by the President. A Point of Order may
interrupt a speaker.
7.3. Point of Personal Privilege: A Member may raise a Point of Personal Privilege when experiencing
discomfort, such as not being able to hear another Members speech. This point can be raised without the
President asking for points and motions. A Point of Personal Privilege may also interrupt a speaker.
7.4. Right of Reply: A member may raise a Right of Reply immediately following the remarks of another
Member if he/she feels that these remarks insulted his/her dignity or national honour. The President shall
31/37

immediately rule whether the Right of Reply is valid and whether the remarks could have been reasonably
considered insulting or offensive. The remarks granted to the offended member under a Right of Reply
must be respectful and intended to challenge any perceived personal attack, lasting no more than thirty
seconds.
7.5. Verification of Quorum: A member may raise a Verification of Quorum if he/she believes that a
significant portion of the Council or Parliament is missing from debate. The President has the right to
regard this as a dilatory point outright. If the point does appear to be valid, a head count will be
conducted to determine the new quorum. All future votes on procedural motions will account for this
revised quorum.

Rule 8
Order of Precedence of Points and Motions
In case of more than one procedural point or motion at the same time, the order of precedence shall be
as follows:
-Point of Personal Privilege
-Point of Order
-Point of Information
-Right of Reply
-Verification of Quorum
-Motion to Limit/Extend Speaking Time
-Motion for an Informal Discussion
-Motion for a Moderated Caucus
-Motion to Close the Speakers List
-Motion to Close Debate

Rule 9
Amendments to a Proposal
9.1. The amendments will be debated during the amendments debate and immediately following the
general debate. They will be debated in the order in which they appear in the text. If two or more
contradictory amendments relate to the same paragraph, the amendment which differs most from the
text shall have priority over the others and shall be taken first. If it passes, the other amendments thereby
fail; if it is rejected, the amendment which is next in priority shall be considered, and similarly for each of
the remaining amendments. In case of doubt as to the order, the President shall give a ruling.
32/37

9.2. Every Member can propose amendments to a proposal. Amendments must be handed in to the
President in the designated form.
9.3. An amendment which would tend to delete, replace or render inoperative the whole of a draft text is
not in order. The President can dismiss dilatory amendments.
9.4. Amendments can be handed in at all times during the general debate and the amendments debate.
9.5. When a proposed amendment is to be debated, the President calls upon the Member who submitted
that amendment to present it. Apart from reading out loud the text of the proposed amendment, the
Member should explain it in a few brief sentences. After that, the President shall open a speakers list
regarding the amendment. No speech on amendments may last for more than one minute unless
otherwise agreed upon by the President.
9.6. An amendment can make changes to several paragraphs in the text if these changes are linked with
each other and if it would make no sense to split the amendment up into several amendments. The
President can dismiss an amendment on the grounds that it changes several paragraphs at a time but
could be split up into several amendments.
9.7. The Member who proposed an amendment can withdraw that amendment at any time. If he/she
does so, the President will ask whether another Member is willing to take over the amendment. If no
other Member immediately takes over the amendment, it is deemed void.
9.8. Sub-amendments (Amendments to the Amendments) shall relate to an amendment previously
discussed and may not contradict the sense of the amendment. A subamendment may not be further amended.
9.9. Friendly amendment: A member who discovers a spelling, grammatical or stylistic mistake in the
proposal or in an amendment being debated may propose a friendly amendment. The friendly
amendment should be in a written form and can be delivered to the President at all times. The President
decides on the matter. The President also has the possibility to propose a friendly amendment.

Rule 10 [Council]
Voting on Amendments
10.1. When the debate on amendments has been closed, the President announces the beginning of the
amendment voting procedure. No amendments may be submitted during the voting procedure and no
Member is allowed to enter or exit the Chambers. Guests may be asked to leave the room.
10.2. The amendments that have been debated will be voted on following their order of appearance in
the text. The President will read out the text of the amendment to be voted on. The Members will vote
directly afterward, without debate. A qualified majority is needed for the amendment to be accepted.
Abstentions are permissible in the Council.
10.3. All the passed amendments become part of the amended proposal.
33/37

Rule 10 [Parliament]
Voting on Amendments
10.1. When the debate on amendments has been closed, the President announces the beginning of the
amendment voting procedure. No amendments may be submitted during the voting procedure and no
Member is allowed to enter or exit the Chambers. Guests may be asked to leave the room.
10.2. The amendments that have been debated will be voted on following their order of appearance in
the text. The President will read out the text of the amendment to be voted on. The Members will vote
directly afterward, without debate. A simple majority is needed for the amendment to be accepted.
Abstentions are not permissible in the Parliament.
10.3. All the passed amendments become part of the amended proposal.

Rule 11 [Council]
Quorum
11.1. Quorum is the number of Members necessary to be present in order for the Council to enter voting
procedure. The presence of a majority of the Member States of the European Union, represented by at
least one member, is required for a quorum. When a substantive vote is to be taken, the President shall
check that there is a quorum.
11.2. If there is no quorum, the vote is void unless it is a vote on a procedural motion.

Rule 11 [Parliament]
Quorum
11.1. Quorum is the number of Members necessary to be present in order for the Parliament to enter
voting procedure. The presence of one-third of the Members is required for a quorum. When a
substantive vote is to be taken, the President shall check that there is a quorum.
11.2. If there is no quorum, the vote is void unless it is a vote on a procedural motion.

Rule 12 [Council]
Voting procedures
12.1. No Member shall enter or leave the room during voting procedure, nor speak or raise a motion
except for Points of Information concerning the voting procedure. Guests may be asked to leave the room.
12.2. Nobody may be called to speak during a vote.

34/37

12.3. There is the possibility to vote in favour, to vote against, or to abstain. When voting on procedural
motions, however, there is no possibility to abstain.
12.4. The Council shall vote on procedural motions by raising placards. If the President decides that the
result is in question, a fresh vote shall be taken. During the vote by roll call for the adoption of
amendments and the approval of an amended proposal, the President will call upon the countries
represented. Voting shall be verbal and shall be expressed by "Yes", "No", or "Abstain". After a vote by
roll call, no fresh vote can be taken.
12.5. The Member States are afforded the following distribution of votes. A qualified majority is necessary
to adopt a proposal or an amendment:
- Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom: 29 votes
- Poland, Spain: 27 votes
- Romania: 14 votes
- Netherlands: 13 votes
- Portugal, Hungary, Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece: 12 votes
- Austria, Sweden, Bulgaria: 10 votes
- Lithuania, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia: 7 votes
- Luxemburg, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia: 4 votes
- Malta: 3 votes
For a qualified majority, 260 out of these 352 votes are needed. Furthermore, these votes must be cast
by a majority of Member States. Before a proposal is deemed to be adopted, a Member of the Council
may request via a procedural motion that the President check whether the countries that voted in favour
of a given proposal comprise 62% of the population of the European Union. If this is not the case, the
proposal may not be adopted.
12.6. The President shall declare the voting closed and announce the result, which may not subsequently
be modified. The numerical result of a vote on a piece of legislation shall be displayed publicly in the
Chamber, if possible.

Rule 12 [Parliament]
Voting procedures
12.1. No Member shall enter or leave the room during voting procedure, nor speak or raise a motion
except for Points of Information concerning the voting procedure. Guests may be asked to leave the room.
12.2. No Member may be called to speak during a vote.
35/37

12.3. Members may vote in favour or against. It is not possible to abstain on procedural motions or
substantive votes.
12.4. The Parliament shall vote by either a show of hands or the raising of placards. If the President decides
that the result is doubtful, a fresh vote shall be taken via a roll-call vote. During the roll-call, the President
will call upon the Members present to state their voting intent.
12.5. Every Member has one vote. A simple majority of votes of all Members present is needed.
12.6. The President shall declare the voting closed and announce the result, which may not subsequently
be modified. The numerical result of a vote on a piece of legislation shall be displayed publicly in the
Parliament, if possible.

Rule 13
Majorities
There are three different kinds of majority:
a. A simple majority.
Every Member has one vote. A simple majority of all Members present is needed when voting on
procedural matters in the Council and for most votes in the Parliament.
b. A two-thirds majority.
Every Member has one vote. Two-thirds of the votes of all Members present are needed. This majority is
only needed for a Motion to Close Debate for both the Council and Parliament.
c. A qualified majority [Council].
The number of votes for each Member State is outlined in Rule 12 [Council]. The total number of votes
for a qualified majority is 260 out of a possible 352. This majority is needed for the adoption of
amendments and directives/regulations in the Council only.

36/37

7) Code of Conduct
In order to ensure the best possible experience, you are strongly advised to comply with the following
Rules of Conduct:
General Rules:
1. Respect the timetable at all times. Being late might result into you disturbing the conference/not
having lunch/dinner/breakfast.
2. Remember that you are required to attend all the session in order to obtain the Certificate of
Participation.
3. Do not engage in any such activity that may result into harming yourself/others or damaging property.
4. Wear your name/position tag at all times. In case you lost your name tag, contact someone from the
staff immediately.
5. If you want to be respected, treat others with due-respect. Do not insult on any basis. Refrain from
physical assaults. If you have been victim of an assault, please, see someone from the MEU Vienna
Team immediately. No such behaviour shall betolerated. Racist, sexist, homophobic behaviour will
not be tolerated.
6. Respect and follow the instructions of the organising team at all times.
7. In case of an emergency, inform the organising teamimmediately.
8. Respect the other participants, students at the venue and hotel guests. Refrain from making
unnecessary noise and disturbing people.

37/37