[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
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 whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should 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 opinion should be extended.deleted

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

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

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Proposal for a regulation
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.deleted

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and, on the request by the Commission, on particularly sensitive issues, the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7

(1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth subparagraph is added: ‘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 3 months of the initial date of referral. ;’deleted

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1

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

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

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 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 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.;deleted

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a – introductory part

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point (i) – new

(a) in paragraph 1, point (ei) is ~~replaced by the following:~~added as follows: (i) on the request by the Commission, on particularly sensitive issues, in the case of the appeal committee, the voting results including the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State;

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
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; ;~~deleted

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

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 all documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f), (g) and (gi) 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.

2018/02/14
Committee: ITRE

10 Amendments of Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI related to 2017/0035(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024