[ParlTrack]

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 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,~~, taking account of the precautionary principle without, however, weakening the risk assessment carried out by the EU’s assessment agencies, and without modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

Proposal for a regulation
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. The European Ombudsman pointed out in her decision on complaint 1582/2014 that the Commission must comply with the existing legal requirements regarding the timescales for the authorisation of genetically modified food and feed.

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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 non-appearances at the moment of the vote~~.

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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

Mazaly AGUILAR

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

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes ~~should be made public~~, and the composition of the committees, should be made public and should be accompanied by a justification to help citizens understand the outcome of the vote.

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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.’; (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr)deleted Or. es

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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

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

Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide, in agreement with the majority of Member States present at the time of the vote, 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. ~~(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr)~~Or. es

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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."; deleted Or. es (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr#d1e399-13-1)

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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)

~~(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr)~~(ba) The following paragraph 4a is inserted: ‘By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where no opinion is delivered despite the positive assessment of the European risk assessment organisations confirming that the product or substance is as safe as a product or substance already on the market, the Commission shall adopt the corresponding implementing act.’ Or. es

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Mazaly AGUILAR

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~~; (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=fr)~~, along with the justification; Or. es

2020/03/11
Committee: AGRI

Activities of Mazaly AGUILAR related to 2017/0035(COD)

Shadow opinions (1)

Amendments (12)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024