Talk:Special territories of members of the European Economic Area/Archive 2

EU customs territory and third states
Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein are listed as "partialy in the EU customs territory", but is it so for sure? There is no Customs Union between them and the EU?? Alinor 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. It is called the European Economic Area. -- 194.17.253.121 11:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think that this is correct. the EEA has no common external tariff, so it can't be described as customs union, or? Alinor 13:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why it is written "partially". There has to be relatively similar tariffs in the EEA as in the EU, otherwise it could be a loophole for import/export into the EU.-- BIL 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. Similar tariffs are not the SAME tariffs. Also, paritialy means, that some products are excluded from a customs union. In the case of EEA there is no such union. Also, there is no loophole, because the goods should be of EEA origin to be customs-free. Imported goods have no EEA origin and when they enter the EU custom duties are applied to them. Alinor 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are other mistakes in the table Non-member countries participating in agreements with the European Union. That's why I think that more detailed descriptions (as for the member states' special territories above) would be welcome: Alinor 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Svalbard - Paritial EU law - it is excluded from the EEA, so I wonder about this paritiality (links?)
 * Switzerland - paritialy EU customs???
 * Liechtenstein - it is not yet signatory to Schengen
 * Monaco - part of Schengen, border control funcions by France
 * Monaco - it is stated as EU VAT and customs, but No application of EU laws? Is this correct?

Canary Islands (Spain) are not in the EU-Customs union! I can't give you a trusted source though. A lot of incomplete and wrong info on the net. I know since I had to go through the customs import procedures, when I moved here in 2005. Jwf2010 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Canary Islands are included in the customs union and the single market, but not the VAT union, meaning VAT must be paid on all goods when entering or leaving (except small values or travel equipment like your own car). The reason is that the Canary Islands has so low VAT (5%) so it would be a loophole in the EU VAT union. --BIL (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I and more people have probably misunderstood "Customs union". I thought it meant no customs for internal trade. But maybe that is called Free trade area. I think it would be more interesting which areas are and are not having full or partial free trade with the main EU countries, compared to "common external customs tariffs". Maybe the new column EU single market includes that. Was that why Croatia was deleted from the Third coutry table? Clarification needed about all this.--BIL (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

St.-Barthélemy and St.-Martin
Now that these islands have been detached from the Department of Guadeloupe, and are now Overseas Collectives, what are their stati in regards to the EU? --Paploo 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably the same as Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and Mayotte? john k 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily so. It is written in the Treaty of Rome which the OCT areas are, like Mayotte and new can't be added by France itself. Until further notice they are handled like Guadeloupe. Further research needed. -- 194.17.253.121 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Further  research is most definitely required. (The break-up of Netherlands Antilles looks likely to be even more awkward, when it happens). john k 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They remain part of the European Union for now. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a complete brainfart of mine; they are not. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. I can quote this source (French Senate report) « Si Saint-Barthélemy devait en effet abandonner le statut de région ultrapériphérique pour celui de PTOM, il reviendrait alors au Gouvernement d'obtenir la modification de la liste des ces derniers dans les traités communautaires. » that is Should Saint-Barthélémy leave out its status as an outermost region to become an overseas country or territory, it would be the duty of the Government to obtain a modification of the list of these overseas countries in the EC treaties. It seems that nothing is changed as far as treaties are not modified, as far as I can understand what happens. (By the way, does somebody know what happened to Saint-Pierre et Miquelon in the short period (1976-1985) where it was a French department. Some sources seemed to imply more or less implicitly that it was part of the European Communities in this time interval, but I found nothing through web searches ; indeed I should browse through a library if nobody here knows the answer). French Tourist 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe effectively this means that SBM and SMT are neither part of the EU nor officially recognised OCT currently, a situation which will have to be rectified in the next amendment of European Union treaties. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Guadeloupe-2007 together with St. Barth and St. Martin are considered succssion "states" of different parts of Guadeloupe-2006? In that case they would all be part of the EU I suppose...
 * A third possibility is that the treaty applies in both the new collectivities without any exceptions. Article 299(1) states: "This Treaty shall apply to the ... French Republic". If French collectivities are part of the "French Republic", EU law would apply to them in full unless they are otherwise excepted (like for example being listed among the OCT states). BTW what's the official citation of the French Senate report? Caveat lector 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Draft Reform Treaty
I found some very interesting information in the Draft Reform Treaty, the treaty that is currently negotiated by the EU:

"ARTICLE 287: Article 299 shall be amended as follows: (a) paragraph 1 shall be deleted. The first subparagraph of paragraph 2 and paragraphs 3 to s6 shall become Article 311; they shall be amended as set out below in point 293. Paragraph 2 shall not be numbered; (b) at the beginning of the first paragraph, the word "However," shall be deleted and the words "the French overseas departments" shall be replaced by "Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin"; the following sentence shall be added at the end of the paragraph: "Where the specific measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament."; (c) at the beginning of the second paragraph, the words "The Council shall, when adopting the relevant measures referred to in the second subparagraph, take into account areas such as" shall be replaced by "The measures referred to in the first paragraph concern in particular areas such as"; (d) at the beginning of the third paragraph, the reference to the second subparagraph shall be replaced by a reference to the first paragraph."

- Draft Reform Treaty (this article is on page 148)

The current article 299:

"Article 299 (1) 1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. However, taking account of the structural social and economic situation of the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the present Treaty to those regions, including common policies. The Council shall, when adopting the relevant measures referred to in the second subparagraph, take into account areas such as customs and trade policies, fiscal policy, free zones, agriculture and fisheries policies, conditions for supply of raw materials and essential consumer goods, State aids and conditions of access to structural funds and to horizontal Community programmes. The Council shall adopt the measures referred to in the second subparagraph taking into account the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions without undermining the integrity and the coherence of the Community legal order, including the internal market and common policies. 3. The special arrangements for association set out in Part Four of this Treaty shall apply to the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to this Treaty. This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list. 4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. 5. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol 2 to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. 6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs: (a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands; (b) this Treaty shall not apply to the United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus except to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements set out in the Protocol on the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and in accordance with the terms of that Protocol; (c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972."

So this means Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin will remain in the EU! Maarten 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if the Reform Treaty ever gets ratified. The current status of these places is still somewhat vague. Caveat lector 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the current situation is rather vague, but it shows the intention of the French government to sustain the OMR status of both islands. Currently both islands are definately no OCTs, because Annex II of the Treaty of Rome doesn't list them (the Annex lists the French OCTs by their name, not by their status as overseas collectivity or something). They either have de facto sustained their status as OMR, or they have become directly part of the EU (as they are part of France). The former seems more plausible. Maarten 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bermuda - OCT
Why is Bermuda not listed as an OCT? Alinor 13:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They have some kind of exception. -- BIL 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [http://www.bermuda-online.org/colonial.htm Bermuda and the European Union

Bermuda has chosen not to be treated as one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union (EU). According to Steven Hillebrink, The Netherlands, of website, Bermuda is an OCT because it is placed on Annex II of the EC Treaty (and will be on a similar annex to the EU Constitution), but does not fall under the scope of the OCT Decisions that the Council takes every 10 years, at its own request. It is believed Bermuda made this request principally because it does not wish to comply with EU Human Rights legislation, and for other reasons. The UK had no objection to this request.] CaribDigita 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory
I have removed some information that suggests that British overseas territories by virtue of a connection to the BIOT are less entitled to British citizenship than other BOTCs. This is untrue. Any BOTC connected to the BIOT became a British citizen on 21 May 2002. The special arrangements in section 6 of the 2002 British Overses Territories Act are for those connected to the BIOT who did not possess BOTC. JAJ 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this section! When I wrote the section, I did so based on my interpretation of the section of the law on the Chagossians; I didn't intend to deceive readers. I'm in the US (and interested in the topic), so the fine points of the law might not be as clear to me as it would be to someone in the UK. - Thanks, Hoshie 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked if it would be possible to be a (BIOT) BOTC and not a British citizen. The answer is that all BOTCs connected with the BIOT became British citizens on 21 May 2002.  The only way to be a BOTC and not a British citizen after that date would be if : a. (BIOT) BOTC was acquired by naturalisation or registration after 21 May 2002 (near impossible) and no British citizenship application was made, or b. a person renounced their British citizenship but not their (BIOT) BOTC status (again - almost inconceivable). JAJ 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar question
Quoth the article:


 * The electoral register compiled for the 2004 European Election indicated that apart from a handful, most Gibraltarians had exercised their right to British Citizenship. Some 58% of the Gibraltar electorate participated compared to 31% in the region as a whole,

What exactly is meant here by "exercised their right to British Citizenship"? Does it mean something specific that isn't explained, or is it just a somewhat pompous way to say that they voted? If so, 42%, while certainly not a majority, is way too large a percentage to be characterized as a "handful." Alternately, if "exercised their right to British Citizenship" refers to registering to vote, we should have some numbers for that too. --Jfruh (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The passage did sound rather and was completely off-topic. The fact that there are elections is significant. The results aren't relevant to the article. I've deleted it. Caveat lector 10:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

France and Netherlands new arrangments
France Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, Guadeloupe and Netherland Antilles are/will be experiencing changes lately. This should be shown in the table/description (when the process is finalized), but I don't know their new arrangements regarding the EU... On a side note - after Switzerland's implementation of Schengen the German/Italian enclaves there should be changed to "Yes" Alinor 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Application of EU law
Does anyone know what the difference between "yes" and "full" is under the column heading "Application of EU law" on the table under the heading "Territories and their relationship with the European Union"? I will replace all references to "full" with "yes" unless anyone objects. Caveat lector 10:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Radical Surgery
This article is too long and unnecessarily repeats itself. I propose to make the following changes:
 * The sections on the VAT area and the Customs Union should be moved to their own (stub) articles. While they are relevant to the article, they should not be part of it.
 * Delete the section on "Freedom of movement for workforce". Ample information on this is available elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is not necessary to repeat it here.
 * Delete the table under the heading "Territories and their relationship with the European Union". This table:
 * takes up too much space,
 * repeats information held elsewhere in the article and
 * includes lots of irrelevant information such as the status of EU law in Ireland and mostly irrelevant information such as the status of EU law in the UK.
 * relevant information should be copied to the relevant part of the article, every else can be deleted.

Caveat lector 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sections on Algeria, East Timor, Hong Kong and Macau. Neither EEC nor EU law ever applied to any of these places. In relation to Algeria the application of the ECSC seems just a bit remote. Even if East Timor had not be subject to Indonesian occupation it is not clear if EU law would in any aspect have ever applied. Surely some aspect of EU law should have applied (or there should be a possibility that EU law might currently apply) before we start listing a territory as a special territory? Otherwise we might as well list New South Wales as a special territory!
 * As far as I know, EEC law did partially apply in Algeria (original version of Rome treaty, article 227 2). And understanding to which territories EURATOM treaty did apply is quite a question for specialists (I understand to virtually all the territories under control of the six founding members, but am far from sure). I nevertheless approve of your projected removal. French Tourist 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the section on "Basel/Mulhouse airport". I think this counts as more of an arrangement than a territory. It is like saying the runway at Charles de Gaul Airport is not part of the EU Customs Union as you only pass though customs after you arrive there. No one lives in "Basel/Mulhouse airport". It is not like there is a customs union with Switzerland, there is just a closed in road that will take you there without passing French customs. In short it is not truly a special territory.
 * Delete sections on "Bermuda" and the "British Indian Ocean Territory" as these just repeat information in the section headed "Other overseas British territories (OCTs)" and expand it by including irrelevant information of British nationality law.
 * Rather than being arranged by country, the special territories should be listed under 3 main headings: "Outmost regions", "Overseas countries and territories" and "Special cases". This would avoid having to repeat information on what is an outmost region os an OCT under each territory.
 * Rewrite and find sources for pretty much everything else.


 * Thank you for the improvemntes you have made. Nonetheless, I belive that the table under the heading "Territories and their relationship with the European Union", while continaing some redundant information, is of great value becuase of it offers the user the ability to compare and summarize. My recommendation is to replace thes table.

stumcgill 02 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Repetition it may be, it's a good summary. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a terrible summary. It was full of irrelevant information. Caveat lector 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that opinion is of the minority. The table has been part of the article for over a year at least and numerous people have contributed to it and it has received lots of compliments, just look back at the archive. It's borderline vandalism to unilaterally delete it, at least for the fact that it was done without concensus. I have fished out the last version of the table before it was deleted. If the table is taking up to much space, all it's needed is a Hide-Table tag. The table is a quick way to find different degrees of EU law application in a territory comparing with others without reading through the paragraphs which are not always concise and inclusive of all concern issues. This advantage should be self-evident unless Caveat lector has never seen a summary table before. I would invite Caveat lector to look up what the word "summary" means. Of course it contains redundant information, it's a summary!--Kvasir (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This table summarises the various components of EU laws applied in the EU member states and their sovereign territories.



Clipperton Island
I just noticed that the article on the French Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean now says that they form part of French Southern and Antarctic Lands resolving their EU law status. What about Clipperton Island? Is it now also part of French Southern and Antarctic Lands? Caveat lector 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Clipperton is still a special territory. French Tourist 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Article problem!!!
In the "Euro" article it says that the euro is the legal currency of the uninhabited "Clipperton Island" and the "French southern and antarctic lands" (which are made also by the "Scattered islands in the Indian ocean"), but if you go to the "Special member state territories and the European Union" article there is a table where it says that both "Clipperton Island" and the "Scattered islands in the Indian ocean" (which are now part of the "French southern and antarctic lands") don't have the euro as their legal currency!!! So please can somebody see what is wrong and correct one of the two articles? Thank you. 8 July 2007
 * I am pretty sure that the Euro is the legal currency, (which other currecny would it be, other French areas except in the pacific have Euro) but since these areas are uninhabited, it is of little value which currency. -- BIL 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They could use the Franc Pacifique if they had any shops or they may simply have no legal tender at all. Why would they need one? If the currency is the euro they have a status similar to Andora. These doesn't appear to be any formal EU decision saying that their currency is the euro. Caveat lector 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Clipperton Island would probably use the Franc Pacifique if they had any inhabitants since it is administred from French Polynesia. The french article do not state anything. The "Scattered islands in the Indian ocean", like Kerguelen, have euro. They have inhabiatants, staff on research stations. The french article fr:Terres australes et antarctiques françaises says "La monnaie officielle des TAAF est l'euro" that is "The official currency of the TAAF is the euro". -- 81.230.74.91 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Faroe Islands
"One of the curious upshots of which is if Faroe Islanders move to the Union (as opposed to just going there on holiday) they become EU citizens capable of exercising the right of freedom of movement as they would no longer be resident on the Faroe Islands."

So does this mean that islanders need a residence permit to move to an EU country (other than the Nordic countries, where the Nordic Passport Union applies), but that the residence permit automatically renders as unnecessary as soon as they have registered their residence? (Stefan2 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Very interesting question. :) But I think 1/2 of the answer can be immediately deduced from the portion you have cited: if one is resident of Faroe Islands and goes to live in (the main part of) Demnark, one won't need any residence permit because it's still Kingdom of Denmark. All one will need to do it perhaps go to local komune offices and register the new address. (check this in Denmark's legislation, but it seems the most locgical thing). Once registered in say Copenhagen - can move again to say Vienna.
 * The other 1/2, if one whats to go directly to Vienna: To simplify the bureaucracy, I think there must exist in those documents a provision allowing to do it directly. On the other hand, say there isn't any such provision. What reason whould one in Vienna have not to give someone from Faroe a residence permit if he/she rents an appartment in Vienna and says he/she wants to live there? Generally, one does this because one intends to work there (why reside in Vienna if you want to work in London?), so he/she will also have paperwork from the job. So, unless he/she is a terrorist, or is a persona non-grata in Austria, he/she'll get the permit anyway.
 * Conclusion: I think the problem is only in theory, and in practice it's no difference (unless it's about a persona non grata). :Dc76 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume that Faroers have Danish passports, and then they could move anywhere in the EU. If they couldn't, any Dane would need proof of registred address in Denmark so that no Faroer would sneak in. -- BIL 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Faroes isn't an independent country, but a province of Denmark with extensive home rule, so yes, they carry Danish passports and are citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Rigsfællesskabet article has a little more detail on the contruction. Valentinian T / C 09:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty
A dispute had been raised relating to the territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty on the Talk:Saint Pierre and Miquelon page. It relates to whether or not a territory could be part of the European Union without being part of the European Community.

Please post any comments you may have on the talk page. Caveat lector 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean "without being part of the European Community"? -- Petri Krohn 01:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. Caveat lector 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Mount Athos
FYI: Mount Athos is part of the Schnegen area. It was subject to a non-binding declaration when Greece joined Schengen, but that was it. EU anti-discrimination law doesn't cover churches. The Roman Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox church and many othere are not required to allow female priests. Monestries can legally exclude women from entering their own property. (Almost any property owner can do this!) A monestry might extend to a large amount of land but this does not make the prohibition illegal or the monestry any more or less a part of the Scgengen area than the member state in which it is situated. Caveat lector 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)