BETA

Activities of Pascal DURAND related to 2017/0035(COD)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers
2020/10/12
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2017/0035(COD)
Documents: PDF(361 KB) DOC(164 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Jiří POSPÍŠIL', 'mepid': None}]

Opinions (1)

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers
2020/04/29
Committee: AFCO
Dossiers: 2017/0035(COD)
Documents: PDF(196 KB) DOC(121 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Pascal DURAND', 'mepid': 124693}]

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (16)

Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions, or to overcome the absence of opinions in the examination procedure.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Where the act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, the granting of authorisations with regard to a product or substance should be subject to a qualified majority.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.deleted
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee should be changed in order to reduce the risk of no opinion being delivered and to provide an incentive for Member State representatives to take a clear position. To this end only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.deleted
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referralIn specific cases, at the request of the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council may decide to express their views on the wider implications of the outcome of the vote in the appeal committees, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. In such cases, those views should be expressed within 3 months.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Transparency onshould be increased throughout the entire legislative process. In particular, the votes of individual Member State's representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made publicshould be made public. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive sectors, such as the protection of consumers or the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, greater importance should be given to the precautionary principle. Substantive reasons for votes on those sensitive acts should be given by each Member State representative. The Commission should also provide information on the composition of committees, including the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons belong.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Where sustained difficulties arise in the implementation of a basic act, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in that basic act.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6
(1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth subparagraph is added: "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral.";deleted
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: "However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.";deleted
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3a
3a. Where no opinion ishas been delivered inby the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Councilask the European Parliament and the Council to express their views on the wider implications of the outcome of the vote in the appeal committee. Those expressions of views shall be delivered within 3three months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referralof the Commission’s request.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(ba) the following paragraph is inserted: “4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft implementing act provides for the grant of authorisations for a product or substance, such authorisations shall be approved only if the vote in accordance with paragraph 1 results in a positive opinion. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the right of the Commission to propose a modified draft implementing act concerning the same subject matter.”
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
(-a) in paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following: “(c) the summary records, together with the lists of the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member Sta, broken down by representative of each Member State, together with the reasons for the vote;
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. The references of all documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as theAll documents and information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph 1 shall be made public in the register.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(3a) in Article 11, the following paragraph is added: “In addition, where either the European Parliament or the Council considers it to be appropriate to review the conferral of implementing powers on the Commission in the basic act, it may, at any time, call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend that basic act.”
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
This Rregulation shall not apply to pending procedures on which the appeal committee has already delivered an opinion on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI