8 Amendments of Marie-Christine BOUTONNET related to 2017/0035(COD)
Amendment 16 #
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 led to a plethora of implementing acts, making it difficult for Parliament and the Council to exercise their control function. It is clear from the number of objections that Parliament has adopted, particularly to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or pesticides – matters on which public opinion is clear – that the system of adoption and control of implementing acts takes scant account of democratic parliamentary representation. That system should therefore be changed, particularly through the adoption of targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure that Member State governments assume 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 20 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
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 25 #
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. Throughout the procedure, moreover, the Commission may choose to disregard Parliament’s position entirely, as it has done on almost 20 occasions in the past three years, thus, while undoubtedly complying with the Treaties, giving members of the public every reason to be mistrustful of the EU.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee shouldought to 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. We would point out, however, that amending the rules for the calculation of the qualified majority in this way would be in breach of the Treaties1a. __________________ 1ahttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData /docs_autres_institutions/parlements_nati onaux/com/2017/0085/PL_SENATE_CO NT1-COM(2017)0085_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/d ocs_autres_institutions/parlements_natio naux/com/2017/0085/FR_SENATE_CON T1-COM(2017)0085_FR.pdf
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased, and during the prior examination procedure, should be increased, States should be invited to explain their votes and the individual Member State representatives'’ votes should be made public.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
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 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6
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 32 months of the initial date of referral.
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission mayshall 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 Commissionuncil shall tmake account of any position expressrecommendations which shall be forwarded byto the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referralmmission, the Member States and Parliament. The Commission shall use the recommendations to draw up a fresh proposal for an implementing act within 3 months.