BETA

Activities of Gilles LEBRETON related to 2017/0035(COD)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION 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
2020/06/17
Committee: AGRI
Dossiers: 2017/0035(COD)
Documents: PDF(199 KB) DOC(165 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Bronis ROPĖ', 'mepid': 125214}]

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (20)

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.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
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.
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
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 appropriateshould, in principle, strike an institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certabe changed, in tpargeted amendments concerningticular as regards 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 aincrease the involvement of the Council in politically sensitive implementing acts, in specific cases where no opinion has been delivered at the end of the ordinary scrutiny procedures forganised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 these acts.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #
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 appropriateshould, in principle, strike an institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certabe changed, in tpargeted amendments concerningticular as regards 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 aincrease the involvement of the Council in politically sensitive implementing acts, in specific cases where no opinion has been delivered at the end of the ordinary scrutiny procedures forganised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 these acts.
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
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.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 26 #
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
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 28 #
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, by virtue of 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.
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the CouncilWhere no opinion could be delivered at the level of the appeal committee, the Commission should be required to refer the matter to the Council for a final decision. Having regard to the right of scrutiny provided for in Article 11 of Regulation EU No 182/2011, the European Parliament may be asked 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 Commissiondecision taken by the Council should be binding on the Commission. The Council should also take account of anythe position expressed by the CouncilEuropean Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicatefor reasons of urgency, it should be possible to provide for a shorter deadline in the referral.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #
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
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) TA transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee levelt process for appointing the Member State representatives should be increasestablished and the individual Member State representatives' votesir work should be made public.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the CouncilWhere no opinion could be delivered at the level of the appeal committee, the Commission should be required to refer the matter to the Council for a final decision. Having regard to the right of scrutiny provided for in Article 11 of Regulation EU No 182/2011, Parliament may be asked 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 Commissiondecision taken by the Council should be binding on the Commission. The Council should also take account of anythe position expressed by the CouncilParliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadlinefor reasons of urgency, a shorter deadline should be provided for in the referral.
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
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
Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Wh(1a) In Article 5(4), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: ‘Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission does not adopt the draft implementing act, the chair may submitshall refer the matter to the appeal committee ain amended version thereof.ccordance with the procedures laid down in Article 6 of this Regulation.’
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
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
(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: “However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.";deleted
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) TA transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee levelt process for appointing the Member State representatives should be increasestablished and the individual Member State representatives' votesir work should be made public.
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
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.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
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 mayshall refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating final decision. In accordance with its right of scrutiny as provided for in Article 11 of this Regulation, the European Parliament may also be asked to give its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commissionuncil shall take account of any position expressed by the CouncilEuropean Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadlinefor reasons of urgency, a shorter deadline may be provided for in the referral.
2020/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 5 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
(1a) The first subparagraph of paragraph 4 is amended as follows: "4. Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Where the Commission does not adopt the draft implementshall refer the matter to the appeal committee ing act, the chair may submit to the committee an amended version thereof. ((https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr))cordance with the procedures laid down in Article 6 of this Regulation.’ Or. fr
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1
(a) In paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: "However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members."; ((https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr))deleted Or. fr
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
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) The second subparagraph of paragraph 3 is deleted.
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 60 #
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 mayshould refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating final decision. In accordance with its right of scrutiny as provided for in Article 11 of this Regulation, Parliament may also be asked to give its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commissionuncil shall take account of any position expressed by the CouncilParliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral."; ((https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr))for reasons of urgency, a shorter deadline may be provided for in the referral. Or. fr
2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI