BETA

9 Amendments of Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS related to 2017/0035(COD)

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 should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is not the case wWhen Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of absten in favour of proposals to grant authorisations for non-appearances at the moment of the votea product or substance, that authorisation should be deemed to have been refused.
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee should be changed in order to reduce the risk of no opinion being delivered and to provide an incentive for Member State representatives to take a clear position. To this end only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.deleted
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
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 itstheir 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 and the European Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) Transparency onshould be increased throughout the entire advisory, examination and appeal committee procedure, in particular as regards the votes taken in each procedure. In particular, the votes of individual Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual', including their voting intentions where no formal vote takes place, should be made public. In addition, where the draft implementing act involves a proposal to grant authorisation for a product or substance, a record of the substantive reasons should be given by each Member State’s representatives' vot for their vote. Detailed information on the composition of expert committees should also be made public.
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Discussions should be web streamed live.
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
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.
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
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 for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implicationsand the European Parliament for an opinion. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Council and the European Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.;
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
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.";
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 73 #
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 aAll documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register. That public register shall be available for access via the internet.
2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE