Activites

• 2004/03/18 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Decision 2005/684
  • OJ L 262 07.10.2005, p. 0001-0010
• #2558
• 2004/01/26 Council Meeting
• 2003/12/17 Motion for a resolution
  • B5-0543/2003
  • B5-0544/2003
  • B5-0563/2003
  • B5-0564/2003
  • T5-0573/2003 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Council to inform Parliament as soon as possible whether it is in a position to accept the proposed compromise and to approve the Statute for Members of the European Parliament should the decision, which Parliament adopted on 3 and 4 June 2003, be amended accordingly. An overall compromise on the Statute for Members of the European Parliament could comprise the following points: - the part of the Statute relating to secondary law should be examined separately and autonomously from that relating to primary law and they should be approved on the basis of the institutional provisions applying to each of them; - as regards the part relating to primary law, Member States should be asked to revise those provisions of the Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 which concern Members of the European Parliament, using the Statute adopted on 3 and 4 June 2003 as a model; - consequently, and subject to a favourable opinion from the Council, Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 38(2), recitals 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and the words 'or only in respect of residual matters not covered by primary law' in recital 14 should be deleted; - Members should be entitled to an old-age pension as from the age of 63; - consequently, and subject to a favourable opinion from the Council, in Article 20(1), '60' should be replaced with '63'; - the provision concerning the Community tax to which the Members' allowance is to be made subject is without prejudice to the Member States' power to make this allowance subject to national tax law provisions, provided that any double taxation is avoided (compromise reached under the Belgian Presidency); - consequently a new paragraph 1a should be inserted after paragraph 1 of Article 18 to read: 'Paragraph1 shall be without prejudice to the Member States' power to make this allowance subject to national tax law provisions, provided that any double taxation is avoided'; - the new rules governing the reimbursement of Members' expenses should enter into force at the same time as the Statute.

  • OJ C 091 15.04.2004, p. 0131-0230 E
  • RC-B5-0543/2003
• #2532
• 2003/10/13 Council Meeting
• #X019
• 2003/09/29 Council Meeting
• 2003/06/04 Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
  • T5-0241/2003
  • OJ C 068 18.03.2004, p. 0147-0210 E
• 2003/06/03 Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0236/2003 summary

    The European Parliament adopted the Decision on the Statute for Members of the European Parliament drafted by Willi ROTHLEY (PES, D) by 323 votes for, 167 votes against and 36 abstentions. This concludes the procedure for the Parliament and it is now up to the Council to approve or reject the draft statute. A proposal by Daniel Marc COHN-BENDIT (Greens/EFA, F) to refer the report back to the Legal Affairs Committee was rejected. The draft statute contains some highly contested issues: - on the issue of salaries (the Members' "allowance"), Parliament endorsed the rapporteur's recommendation that they should be equivalent to 50% of the basic salary of a judge at the European Court of Justice. At present, the figure would be around EUR 8.500 per month (or EUR 102.000 per year). - on the issue of taxation, Parliament distanced itself from an earlier agreement with the Council to allow some Member States to levy a national tax in addition to Community tax. Parliament adhered to the principle that the Community tax is the standard rule and national tax the exception. It voted to exclude the possibility of levying a national tax as it wishes to keep all options open and see how things develop in Council. - with regard to expenses, Parliament agreed on a two-pronged approach. In principle MEPs are entitled to the reimbursement of costs incurred in the exercise of their mandate. Parliament should determine the cases in which this may consist of a flat-rate sum, taking into account that the administrative costs of requiring MEPs to produce evidence for every individual item of expenditure would be too great. The precise rules on this issue, however, are not laid down in the Statute itself, but are subject to a decision by Parliament's Bureau. This decision was unanimously taken by the Bureau in its meeting of 28 May 2003. The decision introduces as a rule the reimbursement of travel costs actually incurred, up to the ceiling of a Business Class ticket for air travel and of a first class ticket for rail travel, on presentation of supporting documents (such as tickets and all boarding cards for air travel, tickets for rail travel, and personal declarations for car travel.) It also provides for a distance allowance to cover MEPs' incidental expenses related to the journey (cost of transfer to and from the airport/ railway station etc) and a time allowance to compensate MEPs for the time they spend to travel to and from Parliament's various working places. - on the question of immunities, the draft states that a Member may at no time be prosecuted or held accountable extra-judicially for any action, vote cast or statement made in the exercise of his/her mandate. Any restriction of a Member's personal freedom shall be permitted only with the consent of Parliament, except where he/she is arrested in the act of committing an offence. MEPs' documents can only be seized, their mail intercepted or their phone tapped with Parliament's consent. The aim is to give MEPs immunity from politically motivated prosecution. - on the issue of languages, Members decided that Parliament's documents will be translated into all the official languages. Speeches given in one official language will be interpreted simultaneously (but not directly, thus allowing for relay interpretation) into all the other official languages. The draft Statute also provides for transitional periods for newMember States, which will begin on the date of entry into force of the accession treaties and end with the second full European Parliament legislative term after that. During these periods new Member States will be entitled to adopt rules different from the provisions of the Statute regarding remuneration, transitional allowances, and pensions, provided that these rules place their MEPs on at least an equal footing with their national counterparts. In procedural terms, although Parliament makes the initial proposal for the Statute and takes the final decision, the Council has to give its approval. The main points of disagreement remaining between Parliament and the Council are those of taxation and primary law provisions. The controversy behind this latter is whether it is legally permissible to amend primary law provisions as those on MEPs' immunities laid down in the Protocol of 1965 on Privileges and Immunities with secondary law provisions as those of the MEPs Statute. Following an extensive legal study of the issue and in accordance with an opinion by its Legal Service, Parliament takes the view that this is possible provided that those two groups of provisions are not in force at the same time. It therefore clarifies in a recital, that Statute provisions that conflict with provisions of primary law may not enter into force unless and until an Intergovernmental Conference has decided to repeal the corresponding primary law provisions and that decision has been ratified by the Member States. The Statute shall enter into force after its approval by the Council and simultaneously with the Treaty amendments adopted as a result of the work of the European Convention. An amendment seeking to set as a date for the entry into force of the Statute the 1 July 2009 has been rejected. The British Conservatives, Labour Group and Liberal Democrats voted against the resolution on the Members' Statute.

  • OJ C 068 18.03.2004, p. 0024-0115 E
• 2003/06/03 Commission opinion on Parliament's position at 2nd reading
  • N5-0014/2003
• 2003/06/02 Debate in Parliament
• 2003/05/21 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • A5-0193/2003
• 2003/05/21 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • A5-0193/2003
• 2003/04/07 Committee draft report
  • PE324.184/CON
• 2003/01/27 Committee draft report
  • PE324.184
• 2003/01/16 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading

Documents

• Committee draft report: PE324.184
• Committee draft report: PE324.184/CON
• Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A5-0193/2003
• Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A5-0193/2003
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0236/2003
• Text adopted by Parliament, partial vote at 1st reading/single reading: OJ C 068 18.03.2004, p. 0024-0115 E
• Commission opinion on Parliament's position at 2nd reading: N5-0014/2003
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0241/2003
• Text adopted by Parliament, single reading: OJ C 068 18.03.2004, p. 0147-0210 E
• Motion for a resolution: B5-0543/2003
• Motion for a resolution: B5-0544/2003
• Motion for a resolution: B5-0563/2003
• Motion for a resolution: B5-0564/2003
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0573/2003
• Text adopted by Parliament, topical subjects: OJ C 091 15.04.2004, p. 0131-0230 E
• Joint motion for resolution: RC-B5-0543/2003
• : Decision 2005/684
• : OJ L 262 07.10.2005, p. 0001-0010

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)