European Union

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the European Union

European Parliament President Martin Schulz Largest groups; Joseph Daul: EPP María Badía (Interim): S&D 7th session MEPs (736) 2009-14 term Bureau Vice Presidents Quaestor Conference Legislative procedure

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy Parties List of meetings

Council of the EU Presidency Denmark Configurations General Foreign Economic Euro Legislative procedure Voting Secretariat Secretary-General Uwe Corsepius COREPER

European Commission Barroso Comm. President José M. Barroso Vice Presidents Catherine Ashton Viviane Reding Joaquín Almunia Siim Kallas Neelie Kroes Antonio Tajani Maroš Šefčovič Commissioners Civil Service Secretary-General Catherine Day

Court of Justice Court of Justice General Court Civil Service Tribunal Members Rulings

Other institutions Central Bank President ESCB Euro EMU Eurozone Court of Auditors Budget OLAF Investment Bank CoR EESC Ombudsman Other bodies Agencies National parliaments

Policies and issues Budget Four Freedoms Economic area Single market Area of FS&J Schengen Policies Agricultural Energy Fisheries Regional Citizenship Identity Pro-Europeanism Euroscepticism Integration Supranationalism Federalism U.S.E. Multi-speed Opt-outs Enhanced co-op Withdrawal

Foreign relations High Representative Catherine Ashton Ext. Action Service Foreign Policy Defence Policy Enlargement

Elections 1979, 1984, 1989 1994, 1999, 2004 2009 (last election) 2014 (next election) Political parties Constituencies Referendums

Law Acquis Primacy Subsidiarity Treaties Fundamental Rights Membership v t e

The European Union's (EU) internal market (sometimes known as the single market, formerly the common market) seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people – the EU's "four freedoms" – within the EU's 27 member states.^[1]

The internal market is intended to be conducive to increased competition, increased specialisation, larger economies of scale, allows goods and factors of production to move to the area where they are most valued, thus improving the efficiency of the allocation of resources.

It is also intended to drive economic integration whereby the once separate economies of the member states become integrated within a single EU wide economy. Half of the trade in goods within the EU is covered by legislation harmonised by the EU.^[2]

The creation of the internal market as a seamless, single market is an ongoing process, with the integration of the service industry still containing gaps.^[3] It also has an increasing international element, with the market represented as one in international trade negotiations. Notably, the internal market is open to three non-EU states via the European Economic Area.

History[link]

Two of the original core objectives of the European Economic Community (EEC) were the development of a common market offering free movement of goods, service, people and capital (see below). Free movement of goods was established in principle through the customs union between its then-six member states.

However the EEC struggled to enforce a single market due to the absence of strong decision making structures. It was difficult to remove intangible barriers with mutual recognition of standards and common regulations due to protectionist attitudes.

In the 1980s, when the economy of the EEC began to lag behind the rest of the developed world, the Delors Commission took the initiative to attempt to relaunch the common market, publishing a White Paper in 1985 identifying 300 measures to be addressed in order to complete a single market. The White Paper which was well received and led to the adoption of the Single European Act, a treaty which reformed the decision making mechanisms of the EEC and set a deadline of 31 December 1992 for the completion of a single market. In the end, it was launched on 1 January 1993.^[4]

The new approach, pioneered by the Delors Commission, combined positive and negative integration, relying upon minimum rather than exhaustive harmonisation. Negative integration consists of prohibitions imposed on member states of discriminatory behaviour and other restrictive practices. Positive integration consists in approximation of laws and standards. Especially important (and controversial) in this respect is the adoption of harmonising legislation under Article 114 of the TFEU.

The Commission also relied upon the European Court of Justice's Cassis de Dijon^[5] jurisprudence, under which member states were obliged to recognise goods which had been legally produced in another member state, unless the member state could justify the restriction by reference to a mandatory requirement. Harmonisation would only be used to overcome barriers created by trade restrictions which survived the Cassis mandatory requirements test, and to ensure essential standards where there was a risk of a race to the bottom. Thus harmonisation was largely used to ensure basic health and safety standards were met.

By 1992 about 90% of the issues had been resolved^[6] and in the same year the Maastricht Treaty set about to create Economic and Monetary Union as the next stage of integration. Work on freedom for services did take longer, and was the last freedom to be implemented, mainly through the Posting of Workers Directive (adopted in 1996)^[7] and the Directive on services in the internal market (adopted in 2006).^[8]

In 1997 the Amsterdam Treaty abolished physical barriers across the internal market by incorporating the Schengen Area within the competences of the EU. The Schengen Agreement implements the abolition of border controls between most member states, common rules on visas, and police and judicial cooperation.^[9]

Even as the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009 however, some areas pertaining parts of the four freedoms (especially in the field of services) had not yet been completely opened. Those, along with further work on the economic and monetary union, would see the EU move further to a European Home Market.^[6]

Free movement of goods[link]

Customs duties and taxation[link]

The European Union is also a customs union. This means that member states have removed customs barriers between themselves and introduced a common customs policy towards other countries. The overall purpose of the duties is "to ensure normal conditions of competition and to remove all restrictions of a fiscal nature capable of hindering the free movement of goods within the Common Market".^[10]

By agreement between the Union and the states concerned Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Turkey also participate in the EU Customs Union.

Customs duties[link]

Article 30 TFEU prohibits member states from levying any duties on goods crossing a border, both goods produced within the EU and those produced outside. Once a good has been imported into the EU from a third country and the appropriate customs duty paid, Article 29 TFEU dictates that it shall then be considered to be in free circulation between the member states.

Neither the purpose of the charge, nor its name in domestic law, is relevant.^[11]

Since the Single European Act, there can be no systematic customs controls at the borders of member states. The emphasis is on post-import audit controls and risk analysis. Physical controls of imports and exports now occur at traders' premises, rather than at the territorial borders.

Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties[link]

Article 30 of the TFEU prohibits not only customs duties but also charges having equivalent effect. The European Court of Justice defined charge having equivalent effect in Commission v Italy.

[A]ny pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect... even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect and if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product.^[12]

A charge is a customs duty if it is proportionate to the value of the goods; if it is proportionate to the quantity, it is a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty.^[13]

There are three exceptions to the prohibition on charges imposed when goods cross a border, listed in Case 18/87 Commission v Germany. A charge is not a customs duty or measure having equivalent effect if:

• it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike,^[14]
• if it constitutes payment for a service in fact rendered to the economic operator of a sum in proportion to the service,^[15] or
• subject to certain conditions, if it attaches to inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Union law.^[16]

Taxation[link]

Article 110 of the TFEU provides:

No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other member states any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.

Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other member states any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

In the taxation of rum case, the ECJ stated that:

The Court has consistently held that the purpose of Article 90 EC [now Article 110], as a whole, is to ensure the free movement of goods between the member states under normal conditions of competition, by eliminating all forms of protection which might result from the application of discriminatory internal taxation against products from other member states, and to guarantee absolute neutrality of internal taxation as regards competition between domestic and imported products."^[17]

Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect[link]

In addition to prohibiting customs duties and discriminatory taxes, the TFEU, in Article 34, prohibits quotas and “measures having equivalent effect”. But what are measures having equivalent effect and how do they affect trade between member states? The Treaty does not answer these questions and European Court of Justice has over several decades provided detailed case law interpreting Article 34. In a well-known series of cases beginning with Dassonville,^[18] continuing with Cassis de Dijon^[19] and culminating in Keck and Mithouard,^[20] the Court has said that discriminatory and non-discriminatory rules of member states (therefore not actions of private corporations or individuals) that hinder trade shall be illegal.

Directly discriminatory rules[link]

Directly discriminatory rules distinguish between national and imported goods in law and in fact. A prohibition of imports imposed by state A on goods from state B is directly discriminatory but restrictions do not have to take the shape of prohibitions or quotas. A Member State can lead advertising and promoting campaigns that favours domestic products, or it can impose higher prices or more stringent conditions (such as health inspections) on imported goods. The key to discrimination is that domestic products are not subject to the added difficulties, and are therefore put at an advantage.

Indirectly discriminatory rules[link]

Indirectly discriminatory rules that hinder trade do not distinguish in law but do so in fact. They impose a higher burden on the importer due to additional work it has to complete to make the product marketable. Although in law the rules apply equally to domestic producers and importers, in reality the burden is born by importers, the domestic producers already complying with the rules. If, in addition, the product is marketed in a number of member states, the exporter from state A might be subject to as many different regimes as there are countries into which he is hoping to import.

For example, a (fictitious) law in state A is that alcoholic drinks of a particular kind must not contain more than 20% alcohol. Producer from state B makes and regularly exports drinks which contain 25% alcohol. Law in state A applies to all those who wish to market the alcoholic drinks in question – whether they are domestic in origin or foreign. In that respect, in law, they do not discriminate. On the other hand, as a result of their presence, a legally marketed drink from state B either has to be modified and its alcohol contents reduced to only 20% or must be absent from the market of state A altogether. EU law, under the circumstances mentioned in the previous paragraph, prohibits this kind of distinction: although the law appears to treat all parties equally, in fact domestic producers are favoured.

Product requirements and certain selling arrangements[link]

Naturally, allegations can be made against any rule that inconveniences the trader, and this includes a very large number of rules. Therefore, in the last of the mentioned cases, Keck, and those that followed it, the Court decided that only rules relating to product requirements (shape, size, colour, etc.) should be illegal, while those relating to selling arrangements (opening hours, staff training requirements, etc.) will mostly not be. The division was an attempt to limit the number of cases to only those situations where, in the absence of discrimination, there is real danger of importer suffering the presence of dual burden.

Justification[link]

Under certain circumstances, member states whose rules have been disapplied may defend them. For rules that discriminate, a defence will be possible under Article 36 which mentions, among other things, public health or public morality. For example, a restriction of import of meat from certain countries will be legal if it has clear medical grounds. A restriction of importation of pornographic material may be justified if such material is normally not available in the said Member State. Non-discriminatory rules may be justified not only by reference to Article 36 but also to a Court-made list of exceptions which were first set out in the Cassis de Dijon case.^[21]

Free movement of capital[link]

Free movement of capital is intended to permit movement of investments such as property purchases and buying of shares between countries.^[22] Until the drive towards Economic and Monetary Union the development of the capital provisions had been slow. Post-Maastricht there has been a rapidly developing corpus of ECJ judgements regarding this initially neglected freedom. The free movement of capital is unique in that it is a goal of the EU to pursue a liberal capital regime with third countries.

Capital within the EU may be transferred in any amount from one country to another. All intra-EU transfers in euro are considered as domestic payments and bear the corresponding domestic transfer costs.^[23] This includes all member States of the EU, even those outside the eurozone providing the transactions are carried out in euro.^[24] Credit/debit card charging and ATM withdrawals within the Eurozone are also charged as domestic, however paper-based payment orders, like cheques, have not been standardised so these are still domestic-based. The ECB has also set up a clearing system, TARGET, for large euro transactions.^[25]

Free movement of services[link]

The free movement of services and of establishment allows self-employed persons to move between member states in order to provide services on a temporary or permanent basis. While services account for between sixty and seventy percent of GDP, legislation in the area is not as developed as in other areas. This lacuna has been addressed by the recently passed Directive on services in the internal market which aims to liberalise the cross border provision of services.^[26] According to the Treaty the provision of services is a residual freedom that only applies if no other freedom is being exercised.

The Free Movement of Services is established in Article 56 TFEU, with further guidance in Article 57 – 62 TFEU. Exceptions are found in Articles 51-55 TFEU (common with Freedom of Establishment). The freedom prohibits restrictions on free circulation of services within Member States. Services are defined in the negative, “they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.” (Art. 57 TFEU)

The services are distinguished from freedom of establishment based on their temporary rather than permanent nature and from free movement of workers based on the fact that the freedom affects corporate entities and individuals outside of the relationship of employment. Chapter 3 of Title IV applies to services as long as either the service moves across the border, or the provider moves or the service itself moves (e.g. an internet purchase).

The freedom to provide services is directly effective, meaning that member states must ensure that national laws do not conflict with the provisions.^[27] The Court has recognised that the obstacles to freedom to provide services may arise both from discriminatory and indistinctly applicable rules.^[28]

Two directives are also of particular relevance - the Posting of Workers Directive, sometimes referred to as the Posted Workers Directive,^[7] and the Directive on services in the internal market.^[8]

Freedom of establishment[link]

The principle of the freedom of establishment has a basis in Articles 49-55 of the TFEU. To better understand the freedom of establishment, Article 49 and Article 54 tend to be read together..^[29] According to Article 49 "...restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited.... Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54..." This second paragraph defines 'companies or firms' as "...companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non-profit-making." The right of establishment, therefore, is granted both to natural and legal persons.^[30]

The principle has been broadly interpreted by the European Court of Justice. However, its restrictions have been narrowly and literally interpreted. For example, in the case of Reyners, the European Court of Justice held that "...the exceptions allowed by the first paragraph ... cannot be given a scope which would exceed the objective for which this exemption clause was inserted.".^[31] The teeth of this principle is that natural persons, who are nationals of a Member State, and Community companies may take up economic activity in any Member State in a stable and continuous way^[32] and cannot be discriminated against based on nationality^[33] or the mode of incorporation.^[34] (See also: Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely)

Free movement of people[link]

The free movement of people means EU citizens can move freely between member states to live, work, study or retire in another country. This required the lowering of administrative formalities and more recognition of professional qualifications of other states.^[35] Fostering the free movement of people has been a major goal of European integration since the 1950s.^[36]

Broadly defined, this freedom enables citizens of one Member State to travel to another, to reside and to work there (permanently or temporarily). The idea behind EU legislation in this field is that citizens from other member states should be treated equally with domestic ones – they should not be discriminated against.

The main provision of the freedom of movement of persons is Article 45 of the TFEU that prohibits restrictions on the basis of nationality.

Free movement of workers[link]

Workers have the right to move to a different Member State, to look for work and be employed under the same conditions as nationals of that State (subject to a number of reserved areas greatly varying according to country: this means in many instances nationals of country A exercising a profession in country B the equivalent of which a national of country B would not be authorised to exercise in country A), number and benefit from the same social and tax advantages. This right has been extended by the Court of Justice to family members that accompany the worker, although they derive their rights from the main holder. Family members from non-EU states also have these rights. To claim these rights, family members must complete specific paperwork. In the United Kingdom, for example, the relevant document is the EEA family permit.

Free movement for the non-economically active[link]

Following the Maastricht Treaty, the rights of economically active persons to free movement within the EU have been complemented by limited rights for non-economically active citizens to move freely within the EU, under Article 20 (1) of the TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely within the EU.

The Schengen Area[link]

Through the Schengen Area most EU member states (excluding Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the United Kingdom) and four non-members—Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland—have abolished physical barriers across the single market by eliminating border controls.^[37]

See also[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Internal Market

Notes[link]

References[link]

Books

• Barnard, Catherine (2010). The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929839-6. 
• Chalmers, D., et al. (2010). European Union Law: Text and Materials (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-12151-4. 
• Vaughan, David, Robertson, Aidan (eds) (2003 (looseleaf since)). Law of the European Union. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-904501-11-4. 

Articles

• Easson (1980). "The Spirits, Wine and Beer Judgments: A Legal Mickey Finn?". European Law Review 5: 318. 
• Easson (1984). "Cheaper wine or Dearer Beer?". European Law Review 9: 57. 
• Hedemann-Robinson (1995). "Indirect Discrimination: Article 95(1) EC Back to Front and Inside Out". European Public Law 1: 439. 
• Danusso and Denton (1990). "Does the European Court of Justice Look for a Protectionist Motive under Article 95?". Legal Issues in European Integration 1: 67. 
• Gormley, Laurence W (2008). "Silver Threads among the Gold: 50 years of the free movement of goods". Fordham International Law Journal 31: 601. 

External links[link]

• European Union: internal market

Mario Monti
Prime Minister of Italy
Incumbent
Assumed office 16 November 2011
President	Giorgio Napolitano
Preceded by	Silvio Berlusconi
Minister of Economy and Finance
Incumbent
Assumed office 16 November 2011
Preceded by	Giulio Tremonti
Senator for Life of the Italian Senate
Incumbent
Assumed office 9 November 2011
President	Giorgio Napolitano
European Commissioner for Competition
In office 15 September 1999 – 30 October 2004
President	Romano Prodi
Preceded by	Karel Van Miert
Succeeded by	Neelie Kroes
European Commissioner for Internal Market, Services, Customs and Taxation
In office 18 January 1995 – 15 September 1999
President	Jacques Santer Manuel Marín (Acting)
Preceded by	Raniero Vanni d'Archirafi
Succeeded by	Frits Bolkestein
Personal details
Born	(1943-03-19) 19 March 1943 (age 69) Varese, Italy
Political party	Independent
Spouse(s)	Elsa Antonioli
Children	Federica Monti Giovanni Monti
Residence	Palazzo Chigi
Alma mater	Bocconi University Yale University
Religion	Roman Catholic[1]
Signature

Mario Monti (Italian pronunciation: [ˈmaːrjo ˈmonti]; born 19 March 1943) is an Italian economist and academic who has been the 54th Prime Minister of Italy, as well as Minister of Economy and Finance, since November 2011.

Monti served as a European Commissioner from 1995 to 2004, with responsibility for the Internal Market, Services, Customs and Taxation from 1995 to 1999 and for Competition from 1999 to 2004. Monti has also been Rector and President of Bocconi University in Milan.

On 12 November 2011, in the midst of the European sovereign debt crisis, Monti was invited by President Giorgio Napolitano to form a new technocratic government (in Italian, governo tecnico) following the resignation of Silvio Berlusconi. Monti was sworn in as Prime Minister on 16 November 2011, just a week after having been appointed a Senator for Life.

Early life[link]

Monti was born in Varese on 19 March 1943.^[2] His mother was from Piacenza. Although his father grew up in Varese, he was born in Luján in the Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, where the Monti family had emigrated in the 19th century and built up a soft-drink and beer-production business.^[3][4] Monti's father went back to Argentina during World War II, but later returned to his family home in Varese.^[5]

Monti studied at the Leo XIII private catholic high school, and attended Bocconi University of Milan, where he obtained a degree in economics in 1965. Later he won a scholarship to Yale University,^[6] where he studied under James Tobin, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics.^[7]

Academic career[link]

Monti began his academic career at the University of Trento; he then taught economics at the University of Turin from 1970 to 1985, before moving to Bocconi University, where he was appointed rector from 1989 to 1994, and of which he is president since 1994. He also served as president of the SUERF (The European Money and Finance Forum) from 1982 to 1985.^[8] His research helped to create the Klein-Monti model, aimed at describing the behaviour of banks operating under monopoly circumstances.^[9]

European Commissioner[link]

Mario Monti served as a European Commissioner from 1994 to 2004.

Santer Commission[link]

In 1994, Monti was appointed to the Santer Commission, along with Emma Bonino, by the first Silvio Berlusconi cabinet. In his office as a European Commissioner from 1994 to 1999, he was responsible for Internal Market, Financial Services and Financial Integration, Customs, and Taxation. His work with the commission has earned him the nickname "Super Mario" from his colleagues and from the press.^[10]

Prodi Commission[link]

In 1999, Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema confirmed his appointment to the new Prodi Commission and he was given one of the most powerful positions at the Commission, Competition Commissioner.^[11]

As Competition Commissioner Monti led the investigation into a number of high profile and controversial mergers, including: Scania AB & Volvo (1999),^[12] WorldCom & Sprint (2000),^[13] General Electric & Honeywell (2001), Schneider Electric & Legrand (2001)^[14] and Carnival Corporation & P&O Ferries (2002).^[15] His term in office also saw the European Court of Justice, for the first time, overrule the Commission's decision to block a merger in three separate cases, although two were decided by his predecessor.^[16] Monti was also responsible for levying the EU's largest ever fine at the time (€497 million) against Microsoft for abusing its dominant market position in 2004.^[17]

Monti was criticised in the media and by competition lawyers for the perceived inflexibility of the merger oversight process and the high number of cases that were being blocked.^[12][18][19] On 1 November 2002, Monti responding to the European Court of Justice's ruling which reversed his decision to block the merger between Airtours & First Choice Holidays said, "Last week was a tough week for the Commission's merger control policy - and of course for me."^[16][19] This ruling in combination with his decision to block the General Electric & Honeywell merger led to criticism in the United States against both the Commission's procedures and accusations that Monti's decisions were politically motivated.^[20] Monti, however, was defended by supporters who saw his actions as an important step in the development of competition law in the EU. Dan Rubinfeld, economics professor at the University of California who worked on the US Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft, said of Monti, "There has been a lot of talk of politics in this and other cases, but I believe he has been driven entirely by the desire to do the right thing."^[16]

On 11 December 2002, Monti proposed a series of reforms to the EU's merger rules and made structural changes within the Commission's Competition department which aimed to improve transparency for companies throughout the merger review process.^[21] The reforms were adopted by the EU as Regulation 139/2004 (known as ECMR).

In 2004, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi returned to power in Italy and did not re-appoint Monti to the Barroso Commission.^[22]

Barroso Commission[link]

In 2010, Monti, then no longer a European Commissioner, was asked by Commission President Manuel Barroso to draft a "Report on the Future of the Single Market" proposing further measures towards the completion of the EU's Single Market.^[23][24] The published report, adopted by the EU on 13 April 2011, proposed 12 reforms to the Single Market and was intended to "give new momentum" to the European economy.^[25]

Prime Minister[link]

Appointment[link]

Monti's cabinet swearing ceremony at the presence of President Giorgio Napolitano.

On 9 November 2011, Monti was appointed a Lifetime Senator by Italian President Giorgio Napolitano.^[26] He was seen as a favourite to replace Silvio Berlusconi to lead a new unity government in Italy in order to implement reforms and austerity measures.^[27] On 12 November 2011, following Berlusconi's resignation, Napolitano invited Monti to form a new government.^[28] Monti accepted the offer, and held talks with the leaders of the main Italian political parties, declaring that he wanted to form a government that would remain in office until the next scheduled general elections in 2013.^[29] On 16 November 2011, Monti was officially sworn in as Prime Minister of Italy, after unveiling a technocratic cabinet composed entirely of unelected professionals.^[30] He also chose to hold the post of Minister of Economy and Finance.^[31][32] On 17 and 18 November 2011, the Italian Senate and Italian Chamber of Deputies both passed motions of confidence supporting Monti's government, with only Lega Nord voting against.^[33][34]

Austerity measures[link]

Monti during his swearing.

On 4 December 2011, Monti's government introduced emergency austerity measures intended to stem the worsening economic conditions in Italy and restore market confidence, especially after rising Italian government bond yields began to threaten Italy's financial stability.^[35] The austerity package called for increased taxes, pension reform and measures to fight tax evasion. Monti also announced that he would be giving up his own salary as part of the reforms.^[36] On 16 December 2011, the Lower House of the Italian Parliament adopted the measures by a vote of 495 to 88.^[37] Six days later the Upper House gave final approval to the package by a vote of 257 to 41.^[38]

Labour market reforms[link]

On 20 January 2012, Monti's government formally adopted a package of reforms targeting Italy's labour market. The reforms are intended to open certain professions (such as taxi drivers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and notaries) to more competition by reforming their licensing systems and abolishing minimum tariffs for their services.^[39][40] Article 18 of Italy's labour code, which requires companies that employ 15 or more workers to re-hire (rather than compensate) any employee found to have been fired without just cause,^[41][42] would also be reformed. The reforms to Article 18 are intended to make it easier for companies to dismiss or lay-off employees, which would hopefully encourage companies to hire more employees on permanent rather than short-term renewable contracts.^[42] The proposals have been met by strong opposition from labour unions and public protests.^[43] In early January 2012, consultations between the government and labour unions commenced^[44] and on 13 February it was reported in the Italian media that a compromise on the proposals was very close and the government was hopeful that reforms could be approved by the Italian parliament in March.^{[45][dated info]}

Think tanks[link]

Monti actively participates in several major think tanks. He is a member of the Praesidium of Friends of Europe. He was the founding chairman of Bruegel, another European think tank, which was formed in 2005. He is also the European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a think tank founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller.^[46]

Monti is a leading member of the exclusive Bilderberg Group.^[47] He has also been an international advisor to Goldman Sachs^[48] and The Coca-Cola Company.^[49] He has also been a member of the "Senior European Advisory Council" of Moody's^[50] and he is one of the members of the "Business and Economics Advisors Group" of the Atlantic Council.^[51]

In 2007, Mario Monti was one of the first supporters of the first European civic forum, États Généraux de l'Europe, initiated by European think tank EuropaNova and European Movement. He was also a member of the French government's Attali Commission from 2007 to 2008,^[6][52] appointed by Nicolas Sarkozy to provide recommendations to enhance economic growth in France.

Monti is a founding member of the Spinelli Group,^[53] an organization launched in September 2010 to facilitate integration within the European Union (other members of the steering group include Jacques Delors, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Guy Verhofstadt, Andrew Duff and Elmar Brok).

Personal life[link]

Monti is married to his wife Elsa^[54] and has two children.^[55]

Known for his reserved character, Monti acknowledges not being especially sociable.^[56] He has said that his youth was given over to hard study; spare-time activities included cycling and keeping up with world affairs by tuning in to foreign short-wave radio stations.^[56]

Awards and decorations[link]

	Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic – awarded on 29 November 2004[57]
	Commander of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic – awarded on 27 December 1992[58]

See also[link]

	Biography portal
	Italy portal
	Politics portal

• List of Prime Ministers of Italy
• Monti Cabinet

References[link]

External links[link]

• Super Mario and the Temple of Learning, interview in "Finance and Development", quarterly magazine of the International Monetary Fund, June 2005.
• Profile at Politics.co.uk
• Articles at The Guardian

v t e Monti Cabinet (2011 – present) Monti Terzi di Sant'Agata Cancellieri Di Paola Severino Profumo Balduzzi Fornero Clini Ornaghi Catania Passera

v t e European Commissioners for Competition von der Groeben • Sassen • Borschette • Vouel • Andriessen • Sutherland • Brittan • Van Miert • Monti • Kroes • Almunia

v t e Prime Ministers of Italy Kingdom of Italy Cavour · Ricasoli · Rattazzi · Farini · Minghetti · La Marmora · Ricasoli · Rattazzi · Menabrea · Lanza · Minghetti · Depretis · Cairoli · Depretis · Cairoli · Depretis · Crispi · Starabba · Giolitti · Crispi · Starabba · Pelloux · Saracco · Zanardelli · Giolitti · Tittoni · Fortis · Sonnino · Giolitti · Sonnino · Luzzatti · Giolitti · Salandra · Boselli · Orlando · Nitti · Giolitti · Bonomi · Facta · Mussolini · Badoglio · Bonomi · Parri · De Gasperi Italian Republic De Gasperi · Pella · Fanfani · Scelba · Segni · Zoli · Fanfani · Segni · Tambroni · Fanfani · Leone · Moro · Leone · Rumor · Colombo · Andreotti · Rumor · Moro · Andreotti · Cossiga · Forlani · Spadolini · Fanfani · Craxi · Fanfani · Goria · De Mita · Andreotti · Amato · Ciampi · Berlusconi · Dini · Prodi · D'Alema · Amato · Berlusconi · Prodi · Berlusconi · Monti

v t e Great Offices of the Italian Republic President Giorgio Napolitano President of the Senate Renato Schifani President of the Chamber of Deputies Gianfranco Fini Prime Minister Mario Monti