Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | BUDG | CHRISTODOULOU Efthymios (PPE) | |
Lead | BUDG | SAMLAND Detlev (PSE) | |
Opinion | JURI |
Activites
-
1996/01/22
Final act published in Official Journal
-
1995/12/12
Debate in Parliament
-
Debate in Parliament
summary
The rapporteur, Mr CHRISTODOULOU, called for a dual approach to the rules for defining a legal basis for legislative acts with a financial impact. In the long term, a definitive solution would only be found by revising the financial provisions of the Treaty on European Union, which was the responsibility of the IGC. In the short term, the rapporteur called for a trialogue between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. As far as the substance was concerned, he proposed that the pilot or preparatory projects should aim at developing multiannual programmes and that the period of time required for the adoption of the legal basis should not exceed three financial years. As regards the indicative amount to be provided for the financing of a particular project, this should be contingent on the scope afforded by the financial perspective. Moreover, the entering of appropriations without a legal basis should be subject to rigid and clear conditions. Commissioner LIIKANEN agreed to the proposal to set up an institutional trialogue.
-
T4-0595/1995
summary
In adopting the report by Mr CHRISTODOULOU (PPE, D), the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Communication to the budgetary authority concerning legal bases and maximum amounts. Recalling that, at the interinstitutional Trialogue of 4 April 1995, the Council had stressed the need to reach agreement on the legal bases, Parliament stressed the obligation, first and foremost, to ensure that the Community budget was drawn up and operated without hindrance. Taking the view that the proposed procedures did not eliminate all the shortcomings of the existing provisions, it believed that a definitive solution could only be achieved by revising the financial provisions of the Treaty, in the framework of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. Any viable long-term solution should be based on an enhancement of the role of the European Parliament as a branch of the budgetary authority and its equal participation in the budgetary legislative process. The EP considered that the question of the legal basis could not be resolved without a greater acceptance by the Council and the Commission of the budgetarity priorities adopted by Parliament and that the Commission's Communication could not therefore be regarded as an acceptable, short-term operational framework for drawing up and implementing the budget. It called on the Council and the Commission to meet for tripartite talks to formulate such a framework as a follow-up to the previous trialogue relating to the 'amount deemed necessary'. This framework would be provisional pending a definitive solution of the problem. The scope of the framework would cover every possible action that could contribute to implementing the Treaty. The EP also believed that any disputes between the two arms of the budgetary authority would have to be resolved using an appropriate procedure for dialogue between the three sides concerned. The EP considered that pilot or preparatory projects should aim at developing multiannual programmes and that it was essential in this respect to specify a period of time and a non-uniform indicative amount: - the period of time should take account of the type of legislative procedure required for the adoption of the legal basis but should not exceed a period of three financial years in total; - the indicative amount should be contingent on the scope afforded by the financial perspective. The EP also stressed that entering appropriations without a legal basis should be conditional on the creation of a mechanism to ensure that the necessary measures could be taken without delay or hindrance to establish the legal basis, the budgetary authority being kept fully informed of the implementation of appropriations. Any failure to implement approved appropriations should be duly justified.�
-
Debate in Parliament
summary
-
1995/11/23
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- A4-0308/1995
-
1995/03/06
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
1995/03/06
Formal reconsultation of Parliament
-
1995/03/01
Debate in Parliament
-
Debate in Parliament
summary
During the debate Mr Samland stated that Parliament should be able to exercise its budgetary powers in full. He hoped that each of the EP’s own-initiative reports would be accompanied by a financial statement. On behalf of the EPP, Mr Pronk expressed his satisfaction that a solution had been found to this quarrel. Mr Bourlanges (EPP) indicated that he would abstain as he felt that the approved text was highly ambiguous in that it did not state clearly enough that the amounts laid down in the legislative texts could not be considered to be ceilings. Finally, Mr Dell’Alba (ARE) stated that he believed the text to be a step in the right direction but had reservations about the final compromise, which, in his view, tied the EP to positions expressed by the Council, even though ‘the EP should be able to adjust the annual amounts under a financial allocation in accordance with the needs identified each year’. Commissioner Liikanen highlighted the need to agree on new rules of the game and stated that ‘if applied in good faith’ the joint declaration would certainly result in a satisfactory balance overall. He believed that the illustrative nature of the financial reference included in acts not subject to the codecision procedure should be explicit in order to ensure ‘recognition of the budgetary authority in relation to the legislative authority’.
-
T4-0081/1995
summary
The European Parliament adopted the report by Mr SAMLAND on the legal bases and the maximum amounts included in legislative acts, thus approving the draft statement by the three institutions - the EP, Commission and Council - on the inclusion of financial provisions in legislative acts. The statement by the three institutions stipulated that: - the legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes adopted through the codecision procedure should include a provision in which the legislator established the financial envelope for the programme for its entire duration. The budgetary authority and the Commission, when drawing up the preliminary draft budget, agreed not to depart from this amount except under new, objective and permanent circumstances that were explicitly and clearly justified; - the legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes not subject to the codecision procedure should not include any "amount deemed necessary". If the Council wished to introduce a financial reference, it would have an illustrative nature; - the financial envelope provided for by the financial regulation should represent in financial terms the objectives of the proposed programme and include a schedule of payments for the duration of the programme. �
-
Debate in Parliament
summary
- #1828
-
1995/02/20
Council Meeting
-
1995/02/13
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- A4-0021/1995
-
1994/07/06
Non-legislative basic document published
-
SEC(1994)1106
summary
In its Communication to the budgetary authority the Commission proposed that measures be taken to improve the implementation of the Joint Declaration of 1982 on maximum amounts and the need for a legal basis, this with a view to eliminating the shortcomings of the existing practice in respect of both the provisions applying to the legal bases and the maximum amounts. As regards non-significant actions (NSA): - the Commission (in the same way as the budgetary authority when it creates a budget line of its own initiative) should establish clearly by way of suitable justification that the proposed action really does constitute a non-significant action; - it should not be possible to carry out limited actions for more than two years without a legal basis. After this deadline has passed the action should either be cancelled or result in the adoption of a legal basis; - In practical terms a legal basis should be proposed before the end of the second year of the action's existence. However, the action could still be undertaken as a limited action for one further year so as to enable the decisional process to be concluded and to allow the possible re-scheduling of the project as a significant action; - By contrast, in the budget for the year n+3, the line concerned could no longer be executed without adopting a legal basis; if a legal basis is adopted, the conversion to a significant action is concluded; otherwise, the appropriations provided for are transferred under the Notenboom procedure. As regards significant actions (SA): - the Commission would undertake to submit a proposal for a legal basis as quickly as possible during the first half-year of the budget for which the significant action is set up; - for the implementation of appropriations, and where the legal basis would not be acquired in the month of May, a trialogue would be called on to give its opinion on the possibility of the appropriations at least being implemented in parallel during the budget year in question, and if necessary for this deadline to be extended until the end of the following year; - the execution of the appropriations would not be possible beyond this period, unless a legal basis has been successfully adopted; the appropriations provided for would then be transferred under the Notenboom procedure. It should be noted that the Commission was to concentrate its budget discharge efforts on those lines which had been allocated more than 5 million ecus in the draft budget for 1995. It therefore carried out an inventory of the significant actions for which no legal basis had hitherto existed, distinguishing between lines which were the subject of a proposal and those which were not. �
-
SEC(1994)1106
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: SEC(1994)1106
- Committee interim report tabled for plenary: A4-0021/1995
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0081/1995
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A4-0308/1995
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0595/1995
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
council |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
BUDG/4/06443;BUDG/4/06444New
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|