[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice 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 forrequire such a plethora of implementing acts as to jeopardise effective exercise by the European Parliament and the Council of their right to scrutinise the legality of Union acts. The numerous objections formulated by Parliament and disregarded by the Commission, in particular concerning authorisations for genetically modified organisms or pesticides, have shown that this system lacks democratic control. It is therefore appropriate to make certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. 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~~Article 291 TFEU.

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

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

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

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

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

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 referrarefer the matter to the Council. The Commission should adopt the proposal referred back to it by the Council.

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) For Regulation (EU) No 182/2001 to improve further the functioning of the institutional system, the right of the European Parliament and of the Council to scrutinise the legality of Union acts should be made effective. If the European Parliament or the Council indicate to the Commission that, in their opinion, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, the Commission should not be able to adopt said draft implementing act without changes thereto.

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7

(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

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 5 – paragraph 4

~~4. W~~(1a) In Article 5, paragraph (4) is replaced by the following: "4. Without prejudice to Article 7, where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may not adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Where ~~the Commission does not adopt the draft implementing act, the chair may submit to the committee an amended version thereof. Without prejudice to Article 7, th~~an implementing act is deemed to be necessary, the chair may either submit an amended version of that act to the same Ccommission shall not adopt the draft implementing act where: (a) that act concerns taxation, financial services, the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or definitive multilateral safeguard measures; (b) the basic act provides that the draft implementing act may not be adopted where no opinion is delivered; (c) a simple majority of the component members of the committee opposes it. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&rid=1)ttee within 2 months of the vote, or submit the draft implementing act within 1 month of the vote to the appeal committee for further deliberation.". Or. it

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1

(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

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

(aa) in paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is deleted;

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a

3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may ~~refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientatio~~: (a) withdraw the draft implementing act; or (b) refer the matter to the Council. The Council shall by the majority laid down oin 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 Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referrArticle 5(1) propose to the Commission either that it adopt the draft implementing act, with or without amendments, or that it not adopt it. The Commission shall adopt without delay the Council's proposal.

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

(ba) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: "4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 3a, for the adoption of definitive multilateral safeguard measures, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt the draft measures. ~~(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&rid=1)~~" Or. it

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Angelo CIOCCA, Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11

(3a) Article 11 is replaced by the following: “Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time before the Commission refers the matter to the Council in accordance with Article 6(3a)(b), indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft implementing act. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&rid=1)within two months: (a) submit an amended version thereof to the committee; or (b) refer the draft implementing act back to the Council in accordance with Article 6(3a)(b); or (c) withdraw it. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of the decision taken.". Or. it

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

12 Amendments of Lorenzo FONTANA related to 2017/0035(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024