12 Amendments of Paulo RANGEL 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 182/2011Consequently, this may not be the best time to embark on amending specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee.
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) These amendments apply to a minority of examination procedures and 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.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, particularly in relation to genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products, 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 productsThus a very small percentage of the cases subject to the examination procedure are concerned.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cassometimes, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not always helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) That discretion is, however, significantly reducedHowever, 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 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) While the Commission is empoweredhas the competence to decide in such cases, which should be assumed at any event, 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, ismay not be 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.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to increase the added valuThe role 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 opinion should be extended.
Amendment 27 #
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 orientatIn specific cases, at the request of the Commission, the Council may express its opinion on the wider implications of the absence of an 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 referralat opinion will be optional in nature and will not be binding, and it should be issued within 3 months after the submission of the request, unless, in duly justified cases, another deadline has been set by the Commission.
Amendment 29 #
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 the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made publicdisclosed.
Amendment 33 #
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 decidpropose 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.
Amendment 38 #
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 may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientatat the request of the Commission, the Council may express its opinion on the wider implications of the absence of opinionoutcome of the vote, 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 referralat opinion will be optional in nature and will not be binding, and it should be issued within 3 months after the submission of the request, unless, in duly justified cases, another deadline has been set by the Commission.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
This Regulation shall not apply to pending procedures on which the appeal committee has already delivered an opinion on the date of entry into force of this Regulationbegun after its entry into force.