7 Amendments of Julie GIRLING 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 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,, to take account of the precautionary principle, without undermining the risk assessment conducted by EU scientific bodies, or however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, acknowledging that product approvals should continue to be science-based, objective and non-discriminatory.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
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.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Transparency on the votes ofthroughout the entire legislative process, including with regard to information on how Member State representatives at the appeal committee levelvote, should be increased and the i. Individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. Detailed information should be given on the composition and attendance of committees, and on the Member State authorities represented.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In order to improve the understanding of the EU decision-making process, including decisions around product approvals in ‘sensitive areas’, and to further improve transparency, EU Member States and the European Commission should work together to develop risk communication strategies to help build more trust in the EU scientific bodies and agencies.
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
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, variety of reasons including a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
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, in exceptional circumstances, 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.
Amendment 44 #
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, financial 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.