Receiving the texts to be transposed as soon as possible and agreeing on procedures to tackle the association agreement with the European Union. This is the request made by commissioner Antonella Mularoni (RF), who spoke during the joint committee session on 12 October. Below is her speech in full.
“On the Interior Secretary’s remarks I will be very quick, because I agree with what my colleague Matteo Zeppa said. Given that the agreement is being signed next week, that there are only seven weeks left until the end of the year, and that if it enters into force on 1 January or 1 February 2027 we need to be ready, I expected this joint meeting of the two committees to get down to specifics – to examine the actual legislation that needs to be transposed. We should already know what needs to be transposed first and be able to discuss the details of how to do it. I remind Secretary Belluzzi that Article 3 of the bill presented today by the Foreign Affairs Secretary provides that, by 31 October of each year, the Congress of State, on a proposal from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Internal Affairs and after consulting the other Secretaries of State, must present the bill. His Secretariat will therefore have a key role, and we cannot get to mid-October still saying “we will do it,” “we will say it,” “my view is this.” I formally ask the government to give us, as soon as possible, the complete picture of the acquis we will need to transpose in the first phase. I repeat what I have already said many times: as a political party we have always shown maximum willingness to work together on finding the best ways to show the European Union that we are capable of meeting this challenge. We have no objections in principle to the methods for transposing the Community acquis, but first we need to agree on the content. Let me give a simple example, speaking purely for myself: if we need to transpose technical specifications for screw heads or nails, then by all means a very fast procedure is fine. But if we are dealing with far more significant matters, we need to decide together and establish different procedures. Secretary Beccari, I appreciated that you clarified this is only a draft to be discussed. If you open up a working table, I will be very glad to take part, because in my view there is a great deal to review, including with regard to the procedure set out in Article 5, paragraph 1. But I want to make another point: you think this approach will streamline the work considerably, but in doing so you deprive many councillors of the chance to have their say. And how many of these measures will there be? If there are thousands, pushing them all through committee and then back through the Council again might not be the best solution. I would also like to look at best practices adopted by small countries – Malta, for example, where members of parliament, like us, are not full-time professionals. Personally, I consider it an asset that we do not have to give up our professions. Different arrangements have been devised there, and I raise this also for the colleagues on the Committee for Institutional Reforms, whose two chairs and several members are present today. One option, for instance, could be a dedicated official, paid by the State, for each council group, tasked with reviewing in advance the legislation to be transposed each year. This is essential. These officials would then report back to the council groups, reassuring them that, say, 80% of the measures are technical in nature and do not require political debate. For that portion we set up a very fast-track procedure and leave political discussion to the Grand and General Council. Some form of prior screening by all groups – even if mediated or indirect – still needs to exist. It seems to me this is not provided for in your bill. I know, Secretary, that you will be before the Committee for Institutional Reforms on Friday. I really would like us to keep alive the idea of a Grand and General Council made up of people who do not work here full-time, but who nonetheless keep their finger on the pulse, know what is happening and how things are meant to proceed. I also note, Secretary Beccari, that Article 8 sets a deadline of 30 June 2027 for transposing the Community acquis. I assume that is the deadline you have in mind for the first transposition, but perhaps you can tell me whether it refers to the first phase or the second. Does the European Union accept that the agreement could enter into force even if we are not ready with the transposition of even the first part of the acquis? I ask because I have always assumed that, when we notify the European Union of the agreement’s entry into force, we indicate the areas for which we are ready. I do not believe we can say we are not ready on anything and still have the agreement enter into force regardless. You will no doubt be able to answer this. I have also looked at the two documents you provided us, including the timeline and its update. I see that the items for which you expect to be ready by 2026 are few. For everything else, there is clearly still a great deal of work to do – I understand that. I am again asking for the bills on which the government believes it is ready. At recent Foreign Affairs Committee meetings we were told that work on some texts – on residence permits and residency – was essentially complete. I am asking you to let us have these much-needed bills, because, I repeat, there are only seven weeks left until the end of 2026. If we also need to carry out preparatory work within our own groups, we want to receive politically sensitive texts – ones that could have a significant impact on the country – in good time. Let me give another example, one I have followed since the last legislature: the bill on companies. I even took part in a video conference with Professor Baratta and the Department of Foreign Affairs. We were told the professor was working on it and that not much needed to change: providing for a few additional types of company, allowing articles of incorporation to be drawn up as public deeds, and tackling the more significant issue of the company regime, which needs to be brought into line with Community law. Incidentally, someone experienced from the Economic Activities Office has long been seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I then read that the Secretary of State for Industry has commissioned a consultancy from a professional. Unfortunately I see that the new frontier of spending has become consultancies for transposing the Community acquis – in contrast, moreover, with what we were told during the last legislature. Can we get a clear picture and understand where things actually stand? When you have a bill on companies, let’s get help from the Order of Chartered Accountants and the Order of Notaries, so as to avoid the usual messes that we then have to fix a month later. Can we manage to work in a coordinated way as a country and make the most of the resources we have? We do have resources, and we don’t need consultants for everything – especially people who, in the best case, hand us a bill that is identical to Italy’s and which, at times, is also badly drafted and ill-suited to our legal system. My appeal is for you to let us have these texts as soon as possible and to clarify where things stand with the bill on companies. As I have already said, we need to be ready as soon as possible on the measures that can bring added value and boost GDP. We must not prepare only for the things the European Union asks of us – which, rightly, we must do, knowing that some will cause us difficulties, such as state aid and competition rules. These aspects seem to me underestimated in your document, whereas I believe they need to be explained clearly to our businesses. At the same time, we need to put forward measures capable of generating added value, including through forms of cooperation between San Marino companies and economic operators and their counterparts in EU countries. We should be moving very fast. This work should have been done many months ago already, and I am worried about the delay. I come now to the last document, the one in blue and turquoise – our patriotic colours. In many places I see asterisks next to the phrase “no adaptation.” Further down it states that, by the time the association agreement enters into force, San Marino must have national legislation in place to transpose the relevant EU acquis and must give it concrete effect. Does this mean we still have everything left to do? Does “no adaptation” mean that no adaptation is needed, or that none has been carried out yet? If the latter is the correct interpretation, then the task ahead looks enormous. If, on the other hand, no adaptation is required because we are already compliant, then I don’t understand what the asterisk at the bottom is meant to clarify in relation to the preceding sentence. If you can reassure me that “no adaptation” means we are already ready, I will be the happiest person in the world. I’ll conclude, and thank you for letting me run slightly over time. For our part, there is full willingness to work together on finding the best ways to be ready for when the time comes for the association agreement to enter into force – something we hope will happen as soon as possible. Please let us have, as quickly as possible, all the material and the full acquis relating to the first stage of Community transposition: we will play our part. Secretary Beccari, there are certain aspects of the bill that we will need to discuss further. You cannot write that the Congress of State undertakes to ensure, “where possible,” that the first transposition of acts introducing significant innovations takes place through ordinary law. Let us decide together which matters should be transposed through ordinary law, and for everything that does not require that route, let us jointly find much faster procedures. We fully agree with that approach, while respecting the powers of the Grand and General Council as the legislative authority of this Republic.”
