6 Amendments of Pavel TELIČKA related to 2017/0035(COD)
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
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 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice 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 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee 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 meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
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 immediately properly informed of the outcome of the referral to the Council.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph7
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, at ministeri without a delay, at the appropriate political level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral. ;
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; expressed by the representative of each Member State, both in the committees and in the appeal committee, accompanied by a justification, including the cases of abstentions.;