13 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2017/0035(COD)
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
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, resulting in disproportionate responsibility being placed on the Commission. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice with some limitations and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee whose functioning is unsatisfactory. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, the appeal committee has been seizedabdicated its responsibilities in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
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 helpedperformed its function in providing clarity on Member State positions.
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake a "no opinion" should mean that the authorisation cannot be granted, Member States should alsomust fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is currently not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
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 while respecting the need for timely decision-making.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
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 simplequalified 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.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes and attendance at the appeal committee should be made public.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives'’ attendance at the appeals committee and their votes should be made public.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
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 State; ; (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr)and the attendance at the appeals committee of each Member State and the written rational for the decisions taken; Or. en
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by, and the attendance of, the representative of each Member State;