Österreichs Opposition im Rat der Europäischen Union und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Richtlinienumsetzung

Sammanfattning: In order to adopt binding legislation in the Council of the European Union, a qualified majority is required in most policy fields. Due to this majority rule, individual Member States can be outvoted when adopting legislation that has to be implemented into national law. What are the specific effects of being outvoted in the Council on the transposition of Directives? Does oppositional behaviour in the Council (defined as a vote against or an abstention) actually induce Member States to transpose the respective Directive with a delay or not in compliance with the law? This doctoral thesis will answer these questions by using the example of Austria during the investigation period from 2000 to 2008. In order to answer the research questions, a mixed methods approach with the integration of both qualitative and quantitative elements was chosen. Initially, a comprehensive data set was generated which included information on all formally adopted Directives and the voting behaviour of Member States between 2000 and 2008. The analysis of this data set revealed – among other things – that out of 439 Directives, Austria voted against a new law five times and abstained from voting in seven cases. Only Belgium (with 19 oppositional votes) showed an oppositional attitude more often, while France was equal to Austria with 12 cases of oppositional voting. Austria’s cases of opposition referred to the following Directives: Firearms Directive (2008/51), Critical Infrastructure Directive (2008/114), Timeshare Directive (2008/122), Directive laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production (2007/43), Directive for working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (2005/47), Packaging Waste Directive (2004/12), Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35), Linking Directive (2004/101), Directive on the intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (2003/43), Directive as regards health requirements for animal by-products (2002/33), Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37) and Directive on measures for the control of classical swine fever (2001/89). These twelve Directives, the corresponding decision-making process at EU level, and the respective transposition at the national level were analysed qualitatively, which included 22 expert interviews. A survival analysis was then applied to calculate and compare the delays in the transposition of approved and opposed Directives. The number of initiated infringement procedures (including preliminary proceedings) was also assessed. The results demonstrate that, rather than a negative political attitude, other factors were crucial for delays and procedures when transposing Directives during the period under investigation. These factors included changes of government, domestic conflicts, federal structures, issue linkage (the linkup of EU-Directives with national reforms), the transposition deadline set by the Commission, uncertainties about the level of adaptation, and administrative difficulties. It is not common political practice in Austria to express an oppositional stance towards an EU-Directive by neglecting to implement the Directive.