Progress: Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | ||
Former Responsible Committee | JURI | POSPÍŠIL Jiří ( EPP), SZÁJER József ( EPP) | |
Former Responsible Committee | JURI | ||
Committee Opinion | AFET | ||
Committee Opinion | DEVE | ||
Committee Opinion | INTA | ||
Committee Opinion | ECON | ||
Committee Opinion | EMPL | ||
Committee Opinion | ENVI | ||
Committee Opinion | ITRE | ||
Committee Opinion | IMCO | ||
Committee Opinion | TRAN | ||
Committee Opinion | REGI | ||
Committee Opinion | AGRI | ||
Committee Opinion | PECH | ||
Committee Opinion | CULT | ||
Committee Opinion | LIBE | ||
Committee Opinion | AFCO | ||
Committee Opinion | FEMM | ||
Former Committee Opinion | AFET | ||
Former Committee Opinion | AFET | ||
Former Committee Opinion | DEVE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | DEVE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | INTA | ||
Former Committee Opinion | INTA | SIMON Sven ( EPP) | |
Former Committee Opinion | ECON | ||
Former Committee Opinion | ECON | ||
Former Committee Opinion | EMPL | ||
Former Committee Opinion | EMPL | ||
Former Committee Opinion | ENVI | POLČÁK Stanislav ( EPP) | |
Former Committee Opinion | ENVI | ||
Former Committee Opinion | ITRE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | ITRE | NIINISTÖ Ville ( Verts/ALE) | |
Former Committee Opinion | IMCO | ||
Former Committee Opinion | IMCO | ||
Former Committee Opinion | TRAN | ||
Former Committee Opinion | TRAN | ||
Former Committee Opinion | REGI | ||
Former Committee Opinion | REGI | ||
Former Committee Opinion | AGRI | ROPĖ Bronis ( Verts/ALE) | |
Former Committee Opinion | AGRI | Eric ANDRIEU ( S&D), Jan HUITEMA ( RE), Gilles LEBRETON ( ID), Mazaly AGUILAR ( ECR) | |
Former Committee Opinion | PECH | ||
Former Committee Opinion | PECH | ||
Former Committee Opinion | CULT | ||
Former Committee Opinion | CULT | ||
Former Committee Opinion | LIBE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | LIBE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | AFCO | DURAND Pascal ( Verts/ALE) | |
Former Committee Opinion | AFCO | ||
Former Committee Opinion | FEMM | ||
Former Committee Opinion | FEMM |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 291-p3
Legal Basis:
TFEU 291-p3Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 429 votes to 85, with 182 abstentions, amendments to the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down general rules and principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.
The matter was referred to the relevant committee for inter-institutional negotiations.
The main amendments adopted in plenary concern the following points:
Referral to the Appeal Committee
In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. However, Members pointed out that in practice, in particular in the field of genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products, cases have been referred to the appeal committee in cases where no qualified majority could be reached in the Committee under the examination procedure and where, as a result, no opinion was delivered.
Parliament considered that where no opinion is delivered by the appeal committee, the Chair or a simple majority of the Member States may decide to organise a new meeting of the appeal committee, at a sufficiently high political level, for example at ministerial level, so as to ensure that a political debate is held.
In certain cases, the Commission could invite the European Parliament and the Council to inform it of their position and their assessment of the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including institutional, legal, economic, political and international implications. The Commission should take into account any position expressed by the European Parliament and the Council within three months of the referral.
Implementing acts in sensitive areas
Members considered that 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 authorisation for a product or substance, that authorisation shall only be granted if the vote results in a positive opinion.
Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the protection of the environment, case-specific detailed reasons for votes and abstentions should be given by each Member State representative in order to raise awareness and understanding of the procedure among EU citizens.
European Parliament and the Council’s right of scrutiny
Where the European Parliament or the Council considers that the conferral of implementing powers on the Commission for a basic instrument should be reviewed, Members proposed that either Parliament or the Council may at any time invite the Commission to submit a proposal to amend that basic instrument.
Transparency of information on committee work
Parliament suggested that the accessibility of the register should be further increased and changes to its content should be made in order to ensure that there is greater transparency concerning the decision-making process, in particular by adding more information as regards that process. Improving the search functions of the register to allow searches by policy area would be an essential element in that regard.
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by József SZÁJER (EPP, HU) 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.
As a reminder, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 sets out the mechanism for the control of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers by Member States. Under the most frequently used procedure, the so-called 'examination procedure', the Commission representatives submit draft implementing acts to a committee composed of representatives from the Member States, which gives its opinion, generally by vote. These votes follow the qualified majority rule as set out in the Treaties.
The committee recommended that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as follows.
Improved transparency
In order to enhance Union citizens’ awareness and understanding of the procedure and enhance the visibility thereof, Members proposed adding a new Article stipulating that ‘the Member State representatives shall provide reasons for their vote or abstention or for any absence from the vote. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the Member State representatives shall provide case-specific detailed reasons for their vote or abstention. The report called for the European Parliament and the Council to have access to this information with applicable rules and without undue delay.
Comitology register
Members stressed the need to increase the accessibility of the comitology register and to apply changes to its content, which will allow citizens to know not only the formal elements of the procedure but also the reasons for the decisions of the Member States. They suggested enhancing the search functions of the register for searches to be made by policy area.
Right of scrutiny
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, Members proposed that it may, at any time, call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend that basic act.
PURPOSE: to improve the functioning of the comitology procedures.
PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
BACKGROUND: Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on comitology sets out the mechanism for the control of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers by Member States. Under the most frequently used procedure, the so-called “examination procedure”, the Commission representatives submit draft implementing acts to a committee composed of representatives from the Member States, which gives its opinion, generally by vote.
The appeal committee was introduced in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 in order to elevate the debate, in particular in case the examination committee did not deliver an opinion, to a more political level.
The Commission has found itself in the past years in a situation where it is legally obliged to take an authorisation decision in the absence of a qualified majority of the Member States taking position (either in favour or against) in the committee. This 'no opinion' situation is in the Commission's view particularly problematic when it concerns politically sensitive matters of direct impact on citizens and businesses, for instance in the field of health and safety of humans, animals or plants (e.g. GMOs or glyphosate).
The Commission considered that Member States should, in these specific situations, also assume their responsibilities in the decision-making process to a greater extent. It is for this reason that it has proposed amendments to improve the functioning of the comitology procedures at the level of the appeal committee in order to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts.
CONTENT: this proposal provides for targeted and limited amendments to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and thus relates to implementing acts only.
The Commission proposes to:
amend the voting rules for the appeal committee in order to reduce the risk of a no opinion scenario and to clarify the positions of the Member States. To this end, the proposal stipulates that 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; provide the possibility of a further referral to the appeal committee at ministerial level where no opinion is delivered. The changes proposed aim at reducing the risk of no opinion outcomes at the appeal committee level and at facilitating the decision-making and to ensure the political ownership of Member States of certain sensitive decisions; increase the transparency of the comitology procedure by proposing that the votes of the Member States' representatives taken in the appeal committee be made public (they are currently confidential); enable the Commission to formally refer specific cases after a no opinion outcome in the appeal committee for a non-binding opinion to the Council, with a view to obtaining its political orientation on the implications of the no opinion outcome.
Documents
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading: T9-0364/2020
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading: A9-0187/2020
- Contribution: COM(2017)0085
- Contribution: COM(2017)0085
- Contribution: COM(2017)0085
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2017)0085
- Legislative proposal published: EUR-Lex
- Contribution: COM(2017)0085
- Contribution: COM(2017)0085
- Contribution: COM(2017)0085
Activities
- Heidi HAUTALA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2020/12/17 Announcement of voting results
- Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2020/12/17 Announcement of voting results
Votes
A9-0187/2020 - József Szájer - Am 1-15, 17-25 #
A9-0187/2020 - József Szájer - Am 16 #
A9-0187/2020 - József Szájer - Proposition de la Commission #
A9-0187/2020 - József Szájer - Renvoi (article 59, paragraphe 4 du règlement) #
Amendments | Dossier |
302 |
2017/0035(COD)
2017/06/19
AFCO
29 amendments...
Amendment 15 #
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.
Amendment 16 #
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 for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political
Amendment 17 #
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 for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee as well as the introduction of a right to call back implementing acts, inspired by work on the Convention on the Future of Europe and essential to any worthwhile scrutiny of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission. 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 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2a) These amendments apply to a minority of examination procedures and 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 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, particularly in relation to genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products, the appeal committee has been seized 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.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) Experience has shown that,
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6)
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is 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. The Commission, for its part, experiences great difficulties in assuming its decision-making powers and it is these difficulties that lie behind the proposition presented by the Commission.
Amendment 24 #
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
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8)
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)
Amendment 28 #
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
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and
Amendment 30 #
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 act.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (-1) Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. The chair shall submit to the committee the draft implementing act to be adopted by the Commission
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1- paragraph 1 -point -1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new) (-1a) In paragraph 3 the following subparagraph is added: "Any committee member may propose on duly justified grounds that an implementing act be called back in order to scrutinise the measures implemented and where necessary propose amendments to the act."
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 5 (1b) In Article 5, paragraph 5 is deleted.
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 Amendment 37 #
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:
Amendment 38 #
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,
Amendment 39 #
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
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 4 (ba) Paragraph 4 is deleted.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 5 (bb) Paragraph 5 is deleted.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 This Regulation shall
source: 606.148
2017/10/13
AGRI
16 amendments...
Amendment 15 #
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 for 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. These amendments should make sure that the reliability of the scientific opinions of independent European scientific bodies is maintained in order to stimulate and assure a science-based approach in the decision making process.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall,
Amendment 17 #
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. Th
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision-
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 a (new) (7a) On several occasions, concerning the adoption of acts which are subject to the comitology procedure, the Commission has found itself over the past few years in a situation where it is legally obliged to take an authorisation decision in the absence of a qualified majority of the Member States taking position in the committee. This 'no opinion' situation is, in the Commission's view, particularly problematic when it concerns politically sensitive matters which have a direct impact on citizens and businesses, for instance in relation to consumer health, food safety or environmental protection.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council and the European Parliament to indicate
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation 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 should be made public. There should also be more transparency on the agendas of the meetings and the documents and texts being discussed.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) In order to improve the understanding of the EU decision-making process, including decisions around product approvals in ‘sensitive areas’, and to further improve transparency, EU Member States and the European Commission should work together to develop risk communication strategies to help build more trust in the EU scientific bodies and agencies.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) A change of procedural rules may possibly lead to an alteration in the decision making process among Member States. Therefore, socio-economic consequences need to be taken into account with the implementation of the proposed amendments.
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point β Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3 a 3a.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b 3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (-a) In paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following: (b) the agendas of committee meetings, including drafts of text to be decided upon and documents being discussed;
source: 610.563
2017/10/25
ECON
10 amendments...
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation 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 should be made public in the register.
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 12 #
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 lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;
Amendment 13 #
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
Amendment 14 #
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
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 (3 a) In Article 11, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, and after notification of the draft implementing act simultaneously to the European Parliament and the Council as soon as it is available, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time indicate to the Commission that, in its view,
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes and explanations of Member State representatives at committee and at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes and explanations should be made public.
source: 612.286
2017/10/26
INTA
14 amendments...
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) The voting rules for both the committees and 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
Amendment 11 #
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 referral. This approach can only be valid if it is validated by all Member States.
Amendment 12 #
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 referral. The European Parliament should be given the possibility to express its views within set deadlines.
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the committee and the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 5 (1a) In Article 3 paragraph 7, the fifth subparagraph is replaced by the following: " The chair shall set the date of the appeal committee meeting in close cooperation with the members of the committee, in order to enable Member States and the Commission to ensure
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 1 Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point c (1c) In Article 5 paragraph 4, point (c) is replaced by the following: " a simple majority of the
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 d (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (1d) In Article 5 paragraph 5, first subparagraph is replaced by the following: " By way of derogation from paragraph 4, the following procedure shall apply for the adoption of draft definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures, where no opinion is delivered by the committee and a simple majority of its
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 e (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 (1e) In Article 5 paragraph 5, second subparagraph is replaced by the following: " The Commission shall conduct consultations with the Member States. 1
Amendment 19 #
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
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a regulation Citation 3 After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments and pending the adoption of a clear position by those national parliaments,
Amendment 8 #
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 for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the committees and the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure the wide
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is 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, both in committees and in appeal committee.
source: 612.280
2018/01/22
ENVI
66 amendments...
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2)
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has
Amendment 17 #
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 for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of the advisory procedure and examination procedure, including the 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.
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation 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 seized 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 authorisations for plant protection products and other active substances, genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In a significant number of
Amendment 20 #
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 despite the fact that the Member States are consulted at the examination procedure stage, and those positions may remain undisclosed when the matter goes to the vote.
Amendment 21 #
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, resulting in disproportionate responsibility being placed on the Commission. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion, an unacceptable situation under the most basic rules of a democratic system.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion, subject to the procedure laid down, without prejudice to the limitations laid down.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretionary power that is normally the preserve of the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6) That discretion is, however,
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6) That discretion
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6) That discretion is, however,
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7)
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is currently empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should a
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 33 #
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, in exceptional circumstances, 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.
Amendment 34 #
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, at the earliest opportunity, 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.
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) In order to increase the
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) The voting rules for the appeal committee
Amendment 39 #
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
Amendment 40 #
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
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the two co-legislators, the European Parliament and Council, to indicate
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the European Parliament and the Council to indicate
Amendment 44 #
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
Amendment 45 #
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
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation 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
Amendment 49 #
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.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) In order to guarantee full accountability of decisions taken throughout the comitology process, the appropriate level of transparency has to be ensured. This should include making the proposals, written comments submitted by Member States, all proposed amendments and detailed minutes of committee meetings public. Moreover, each standing committee should ensure balanced participation of stakeholders under observer status in its meetings.
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) Where it appears difficult to obtain positive opinions from the Member States in relation to similar draft implementing acts, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the relevant basic acts.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 (12) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly once it has been duly confirmed that it will be compatible with the Treaties,
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 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 and at the earliest possible opportunity. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral. The Commission may decide in exceptional and duly justified cases to reduce the time limits provided for in this paragraph.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 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. Upon a reasoned request from the European Parliament, one Member of the European Parliament per political group shall be admitted to this meeting as observers. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 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
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 4 Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote
Amendment 61 #
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) The second subparagraph of paragraph 3 shall be deleted.
Amendment 62 #
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;
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3 a Amendment 64 #
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 European Parliament and 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 European Parliament and the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b 3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission
Amendment 66 #
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
Amendment 67 #
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
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b 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 orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 4 (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.".
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) 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 for which the basic act provides involves a proposal to grant authorisation for a product or substance, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt that draft implementing act and the authorisation shall be deemed to have been refused."
Amendment 71 #
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 for which the basic act provides involves proposing to grant authorisation for a product or substance, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt that draft implementing act and the authorisation shall be deemed to have been refused.”.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Regulation (EU) 182/2011 Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new) (2a) in Article 9, paragraph 1 the following third subparagraph is added after subparagraph 2: “Each committee shall ensure balanced participation of stakeholders under the observer status in all meetings.”;
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 74 #
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
Amendment 75 #
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, and the attendance of, the representative of each
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 (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
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 (3a) in Article 11, paragraph 1 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 indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, or is not consistent with Union law in other respects. 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
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new) (3b) In Article 11, the following paragraph is added: “In addition, where either the European Parliament or the Council considers that the conferral of implementing powers on the Commission in the basic act needs to be reviewed, it may, at any time, call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend that basic act.”
source: 616.711
2018/02/14
ITRE
57 amendments...
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) The European Parliament has set up a special committee to look into the Union’s authorisation procedure for pesticides in the EU in order to identify possible conflicts of interest in the approval procedure and to look at the role of Union agencies, and whether they are adequately staffed and financed to fulfil their obligations. The final report of its factual findings and recommendations, to be approved by the full house, should be taken into account to improve the system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to
Amendment 22 #
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 for 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, in particular by the Member States, of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation 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 seized 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, which are issues in relation to which the opinions and decision-making of Member States are of utmost importance.
Amendment 24 #
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
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is 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. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Member States be incentivised to take a clear decision, in favour or against, and actively take part during voting sessions by at least being present .
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is currently empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 31 #
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 without delay whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be at an appropriate political level, such as at ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new) (8a) In order to establish a right to opt out of the implementing act, where Member states have a serious concern and where the Appeal Committee does not deliver an opinion due to the Member States failing to reach the required majority, the Commission should be free to adopt the implementing act. However, that implementing act should not have a binding effect on the Member States that voted against it, and in cases in which it concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to
Amendment 41 #
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
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council and the European Parliament to indicate
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives
Amendment 45 #
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and, on the request by the Commission, on particularly sensitive issues, the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.
Amendment 46 #
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.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) Discussions should be web streamed live.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 b (new) (11b) Where there appears to be a systematic difficulty in obtaining positive opinions from a committee in relation to several draft implementing acts Under the same basic act, the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the corresponding basic act should be reviewed.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph7 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
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 4 Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 Amendment 58 #
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;
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3a Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3a Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3a Amendment 62 #
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
Amendment 63 #
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
Amendment 64 #
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 draft implementing act involves granting authorisation for a product or a substance, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt that draft implementing act and the authorisation shall be deemed to have been refused.";
Amendment 65 #
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) 4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, when the Appeal Committee does not deliver an opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall adopt that draft implementing act. This act has no binding effect on a Member State that has voted against the draft implementing act, which concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants.
Amendment 66 #
(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.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 -a Article 1 - paragraph 1 - point 2 - point a a (new) "Article 10 Information on committee proceedings 1. The Commission shall keep a public register of committee proceedings which shall contain: (a) a list of committees; (b) the agendas of committee meetings; (c) the summary records, together with the lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong; (d) the draft implementing acts on which the committees are asked to deliver an opinion; (e) the voting results; (f) the final draft implementing acts following delivery of the opinion of the committees; (g) information concerning the adoption of the final draft implementing acts by the Commission; and (h) statistical data on the work of the committees.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a – introductory part Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point (i) – new (a) in paragraph 1, point (
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point (e) Amendment 71 #
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
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 74 #
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), (g) and (
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 3 and 4 (ba) In Article 10, paragraphs 3 and 4 are deleted.
Amendment 76 #
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
source: 618.148
2020/03/04
JURI
57 amendments...
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) The procedure for adopting implementing acts shall be subject to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Implementing acts are complementary legislative acts and should be transmitted to Member States, through the Council, in order to monitor compliance with these principles.
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2)
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2)
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011
Amendment 16 #
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
Amendment 17 #
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 and so far has provided only limited added value, leaving the Commission to decide on behalf of the Member States in a 'no opinion' situation.
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.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion regarding the need to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is currently empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or intentional non-appearances at the moment of the vote. Therefore, given the politically sensitive nature of the act which led to the blocking, the matter should be referred back to the Council for a final decision.
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.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee
Amendment 25 #
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 high- level meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should therefore 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 albeit for a reasonable period only.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 28 #
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
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)
Amendment 31 #
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 initial referral. or, failing that no more than one month after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the European Parliament and the Council to indicate
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11)
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) In order to enhance visibility and Union citizens’ awareness, as well as their understanding of the procedure, each Member State representative’s vote should be accompanied by reasons. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, case-specific and detailed reasons for votes and abstentions should be given by each Member State representative.
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) Where it appears that it would be difficult to obtain positive opinions from the Member States in relation to several similar draft implementing acts, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the relevant basic acts.
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.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 b (new) (11b) The accessibility of the register should be further increased and changes to its content should be made in order to ensure greater transparency. Improving the search functions of the register to allow searches by policy area is an essential element in this process.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 b (new) (11b) The transparency and accessibility of the register should be further enhanced, in particular by adding more information related to the decision- making process, and by improving its search functions.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair or a simple majority of the Member States 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 no more than 3 months of the initial date of referral.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 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 Amendment 48 #
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.
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
Amendment 50 #
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 is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission
Amendment 51 #
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 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 Council within 3 months after the initial referral or, where that is not possible, no more than one month after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
Amendment 52 #
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
Amendment 53 #
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 "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and opinion on the wider implications of the orientation on the wider implications of absence of opinion, including the the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, economic, political and institutional, legal, political and international implications. The international implications. The Commission shall take account of the Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral."; shorter deadline in the referral.";
Amendment 54 #
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 "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and opinion on the wider context of the orientation on the wider implications of absence of opinion, including the the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, economic, political and institutional, legal, political and international implications. The international implications. The Commission shall take account of any Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.";
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.”
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 4 b (new) (bb) the following paragraph is inserted: “4b. The Member State representatives shall provide reasons for their vote or abstention under paragraph 1. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the Member State representatives shall provide case-specific detailed reasons for their vote or abstention.”;
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b (
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
Amendment 59 #
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
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e 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
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new) (aa) in paragraph 1, the following subparagraph is added: “The European Parliament and the Council shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.”;
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new) (ba) the following paragraph is added: “5a. For the purpose of greater transparency and accessibility, the Commission shall ensure that the search functions of the register enable the search by policy area.”
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new) (ba) the following paragraph is added: “5a. For the purpose of greater transparency, the Commission shall ensure that the search functions of the register enable the search by policy area.”
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 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.”
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 This
source: 648.423
2020/03/11
AGRI
53 amendments...
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) The procedure for adopting implementing acts is subject to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The implementing acts complement the legal acts and should be communicated by the Council to the Member States for the purposes of monitoring compliance with these principles.
Amendment 16 #
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 for 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
Amendment 17 #
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
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011
Amendment 19 #
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 for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal
Amendment 20 #
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 for 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
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation 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 22 #
Proposal for a regulation 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 seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation 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
Amendment 24 #
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, leaving it to the Commission’s discretion to decide on behalf of the Member States in a 'no opinion' situation.
Amendment 25 #
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
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such |