12 Amendments of Mireille D'ORNANO related to 2017/0035(COD)
Amendment 15 #
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 of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, except in cases where the appeal committee does not manage to take a decision and where the adoption of the draft implementing act is at the discretion of the Commission. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except in the abovementioned situation.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In a significant 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.
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
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 27 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) WhileThe option of 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 votedeciding in cases where the appeal committee takes no decision should therefore be removed.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to increase the added valuelegitimacy of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility 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 shouldmay 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 opinindicate its position should be extended.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
Amendment 45 #
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 ofcomply with 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.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
(aa) The second subparagraph of paragraph 3 shall be deleted.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
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 take account ofcomply with 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.