2012/2323(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that it is 'clear from the provisions of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty that delegated acts and implementing acts are answering different needs and therefore cannot be substituted by one for another' (Handbook on Delegated Acts/Implementing Acts, DG IPOL, February 2012, page 4);

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Believe~~Insists that, in the context of any post- Lisbon alignment of a legislative act, those measures previously subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny should clearly become delegated ~~rather than implementing~~acts, and not implementing acts, as delegated acts are foreseen for exactly the same purpose as measures subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (to adopt measures of general scope/application designed to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative acts), unless exceptionally justified;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that, in the context of any post- Lisbon alignment of a legislative act, those measures previously subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny should become delegated rather than implementing acts, unless exceptionally justified; this justification should be evaluated within a reasonable amount of time.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Strongly criticises the Council for systematically trying not only to avoid delegated acts at all costs in new legislation, but even to roll back on the pre-Lisbon alignment by unduly trying to turn measures subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny into implementing acts in post-Lisbon alignment acts; calls on the Council to respect the provisions of the Treaty as regards the clearly distinct nature of delegated acts compared to implementing acts;

Amendment 6 #

Maria do Céu PATRÃO NEVES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Considers that choosing not to delegate certain non-essential elements but to keep any changes thereto in the ordinary legislative procedure may be an appropriate solution in some cases that respects the prerogatives of both Council and Parliament, but would not be appropriate in other cases where it would be disproportionate to the nature of the non-essential element to be amended and would thus de facto act as a break on what may well be important adaptations;

Amendment 7 #

Chris DAVIES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare a study on the outcome of legislative negotiations between Parliament and the Council involving the issue of delegated and implementing acts, with a view to providing advice and best- practice guidelines for rapporteurs and others involved in future negotiations.

Amendment 8 #

Anna ROSBACH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Is of the opinion that ~~the~~ current arrangements concerning ithe European Parliament's oversight of implementing acts are ~~inadequate~~sufficient and should ~~not be~~remain limited to draft acts1; ~~calls for Article 11 of the implementing acts Regulation to be~~ __________________ 1 1 Article 291 TFEU does not provide for any involvement of the European Parliamen~~ded~~t, so ~~that (in principle and with the exception of acts adopted for reasons of urgency) Parliament has the right to scrutinise an implementing act within a period of one month following its adoption~~amending the implementing acts regulation to provide for Parliament oversight would be contrary to the wording of the Treaty and indeed the concept of 'implementing' acts.

source: PE-510.673

2013/06/06 PECH 9 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Proposes that, in each parliamentary committee, the Chair, one of the Vice- Chairs or a relevant Member should be charged with supporting Members and guaranteeing coherence regarding delegated and implementing acts in coordination with the other committees; points out that the rapporteur for the basic act should automatically become the rapporteur for its follow-up and should report periodically to the committee; also points out that functional organisation will be needed within the secretariats if scrutiny is to be effective, and recommends, further, that an item given over to follow-up of delegated acts be included on committee agendas;

Amendment 2 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that scrutiny is essential inasmuch as it enables Parliament to lay down predetermined criteria which, if fulfilled, would rule out the possibility that Parliament would object to a delegated act;

Amendment 3 #

Isabelle THOMAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to make the publication of its acts more transparent, enabling Parliament and European citizens alike to gain access to them; suggests to that end that the Commission create an IT tool with a view to setting up a database in which acts could be recorded in a form lending itself to democratic scrutiny;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Deplores the fact that, in the field of the common fisheries policy, as in other fields in which the codecision procedure was not introduced until the entry into force of the current Treaty and the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny was previously not used, the process of aligning pre- Lisbon legislation with the new legal framework comprising legislative, delegated and implementing acts is facing considerable difficulties ~~and is even stagnating, often owing to~~– entailing lengthy and dangerous delays – and is even stagnating, with the result that measures needed urgently in the fisheries sector cannot be implemented, and that the reason for this situation often lies in the Council’s unwillingness to acknowledge and make effective use of the delegation of powers to the Commission to adopt delegated acts under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);

Amendment 5 #

Alain CADEC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Maintains that the alignment of fisheries policy necessitated by the Treaty of Lisbon must not lead the Commission to assume powers exceeding the bounds of that Treaty; points out that the authorisation granted to the Commission to adopt delegated acts is not meant to be ‘open-ended’, but rather must be limited in time by agreement (as a rule, powers of this kind are delegated for three years);

Amendment 6 #

Maria do Céu PATRÃO NEVES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Invites the Commission and the Council to engage in further negotiations with the European Parliament in order to find a common understanding on the interpretation and use of, and follow-up to, Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU, in particular a workable demarcation between delegated and implementing acts, possibly with unquestionable specific examples of powers that are classified as legislative, delegated or implementing.

Amendment 7 #

Pat the Cope GALLAGHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls the importance of the delegation of executive powers to the Commission in certain policy areas in order to avoid micro-management and a heavy and lengthy co-decision procedure;

Amendment 8 #

Pat the Cope GALLAGHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses that the choice of instrument also has consequences as regards the follow-up control of the delegated power; therefore supports the line taken by the Conference of Presidents to opt for delegated acts in cases where the choice of conferral applying the rules of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union is not evident;

Amendment 9 #

Pat the Cope GALLAGHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Is of the opinion that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers lose credibility in the eyes of EU citizens if important policies cannot be introduced because the two institutions cannot agree among themselves on which administrative procedure is to be used.

source: PE-513.175

2013/06/19 TRAN 14 amendments...

Amendment 10 #

Gesine MEISSNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

(4a) Considers that the correct exercise of Parliament’s scrutiny in relation to delegated acts may be difficult without an adequate follow-up of their preparatory phase and the necessary expertise to assess their content, given the limited time and resources given for their scrutiny at Committee level;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

(4a) Recalls that rule-making in the European Union also takes place below the legislative level, in acts developing and implementing legislative acts and that it is necessary to ensure the correct application of the Treaty to guarantee a sufficient level of democratic legitimacy for these acts as well;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

(4b) Recalls that according to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty, delegated acts and implementing acts are answering different needs and therefore cannot be substituted by one for another;

Amendment 13 #

Eva LICHTENBERGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

(4b) Urges the Commission to propose a set of precise interinstutional criteria for the use of delegated and implementing acts, including revision mechanisms, and based on the various stages of decision making that lead these acts;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

(4c) Believes that, in order to strengthen the position of its rapporteurs in legislative negotiations, more recourse should be made to the possibility of requesting an opinion from JURI under Rule 37a of the Rules of Procedure;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

(4d) Calls on the Commission to ensure that the same level of information and transparency is provided to both national experts and Parliament’s experts;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

(4e) Considers that the correct exercise of Parliament’s scrutiny in relation to delegated acts may be difficult without an adequate follow-up of their preparatory phase and the necessary expertise to assess their content, given the limited time given for their scrutiny at Committee level;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)

(4f) Underlines the importance of Parliament’s involvement in the preparatory phase of delegated acts both to influence, if possible, their content at an early stage and to be in a good position to scrutinise the content after their transmission, given the limited period given to Parliament for scrutiny;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 g (new)

(4g) Insists that, in the context of the post- Lisbon alignment of a legislative act, those measures previously subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny should become delegated acts rather than implementing acts, unless exceptionally justified;

Amendment 5 #

Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its concerns about the alignment exercise in the current context of the Council and Commission’s hostility towards the use of delegated acts, since it could lead to Parliament losing its scrutiny rights if measures were to become implementing acts in important and politically sensitive pieces of legislation, like those related to security, where democratic control should, in any case, be adequately guaranteed through Parliament’s scrutiny rights on delegated acts;

Amendment 6 #

Gesine MEISSNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

(3a) Urges the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to fulfil its commitments under Articles 290 and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty and support Parliament in defending its rights of scrutiny;

Amendment 7 #

Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

(3a) Laments the Commission’s opposition, during the tripartite dialogues on legislative reports currently in progress, to the use of delegated acts, which would provide for scrutiny by Parliament; reminds the Commission of the Joint Declaration on practical arrangements for the codecision procedure, and in this respect requests that during those discussions the Commission perform its role of helping to reconcile the positions of Parliament and the Council;

Amendment 8 #

Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

(3b) Considers that Parliament must at all times be guaranteed a right of scrutiny over the action the Commission takes by means of delegated acts, without the exercising of that right presenting an obstacle to the EU’s capacity for action and initiative;

Amendment 9 #

Eva LICHTENBERGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

(4a) Emphasises that delegated and implementing acts should be limited to issues of purely technical and/or administrative nature: political topics should be reserved to a democratic and transparent co-decision procedure, accessible to the European citizen;

source: PE-513.391

2013/06/26 EMPL 9 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Stresses~~Is critical of the fact that the delegation of legislative powers to the Commission involves significant political and strategic questions; stresses that it is important for European Parliament committees to adopt a coherent approach in this context; points out, with regard to the MFF legislative proposals, that, when not included in the basic act, ‘elements such as objectives and priorities, financial allocations in broad terms (...) should be adopted by delegated acts’1;

Amendment 2 #

Pervenche BERÈS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Criticises the Council and the Commission for systematically trying to avoid delegated acts in legislative proposals; calls on those institutions to respect Articles 290 and 291 TFEU regarding the distinct nature of delegated acts compared to implementing acts; ~~recalls that in the field of employment and social affairs, Parliament has challenged the validity of the EURES decision2 before the Court of Justice in order to defend its prerogatives;~~

Amendment 3 #

Csaba ŐRY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. C~~riticises~~alls on the Council and the Commission ~~for systematically trying to avoid delegated acts in legislative proposals; calls on those institutions~~ to respect Articles 290 and 291 TFEU regarding the distinct nature of delegated acts compared to implementing acts; recalls that in the field of employment and social affairs, Parliament has challenged the validity of the EURES decision before the Court of Justice in order to defend its prerogatives;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Criticises the Council and the Commission for systematically trying to ~~avoid~~give implementing powers precedence over delegated acts in legislative proposals; calls on those institutions to respect Articles 290 and 291 TFEU regarding the distinct nature of delegated acts compared to implementing acts; recalls that in the field of employment and social affairs, Parliament has challenged the validity of the EURES decision2 before the Court of Justice in order to defend its prerogatives;

Amendment 5 #

Pervenche BERÈS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. recalls that in the field of employment and social affairs, Parliament has challenged the validity of the EURES decision2 before the Court of Justice in order to defend its prerogatives, on the ground that the Commission did not respect the limit resulting from Article 291 TFEU; __________________ 2 OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 21, Commission Implementing Decision of 26 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment and the re- establishment of EURES.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Council and Commission to attempt to keep to a minimum the overall use of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU and implementing powers pursuant to Article 291 TFEU;

Amendment 7 #

Csaba ŐRY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament to decide, among the non-essential elements of the basic act, which ~~are to~~may be addressed or not through a delegation of powers; recognises that it should delegate powers with care, having regard to the need to safeguard its prerogatives and to ensure transparency in EU law-making;

Amendment 8 #

Pervenche BERÈS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that in the context of the alignment of old comitology measures, the measures previously subject to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny should in principle become delegated ~~rather than implementing~~ acts; urges the Commission to speed up the alignment;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to inform the rapporteur with responsibility for a basic act about the preliminary work on a delegated act no later than during the preparatory stage of work on the delegated act;

source: PE-514.742

2013/07/15 ITRE 6 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that while the co-legislators may not always share the same understanding of the essential elements of the two type of acts, Parliament should continue to ~~str~~assess th~~at politically sensitive issues that could supplement the basic act cannot be dealt with by means~~e appropriateness of either delegated ofr implementing acts~~, as this would affect Parliament's right of scrutiny in a negative way~~ on the basis of legal criteria, rather than a political judgement;

Amendment 2 #

Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the increasing difficulties faced by Parliament in negotiating with the Council as a result of the Council’s unwillingness to consider the use of delegated acts and the fact that, although the possibility of including all of the necessary elements in the basic act and only allowing implementing acts may be a legally sound option, the approach could be extremely difficult to apply in some cases, such as in sectors where technologies are still being developed; points out that, in addition, this approach may lead to pieces of legislation which are not in line with the principles of good legislation in the EU;

Amendment 3 #

Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that in many legal areas, such as energy or ICT, questions that at first appear to be rather technical may entail political choices carrying important consequences; therefore underlines that in order to ensure democratic legitimacy throughout the whole EU law-making process, Parliament should be provided with sufficient expertise so as to exercise its scrutiny rights in an independent way;

Amendment 4 #

Claude TURMES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Believes that, in order to democratically legitimise the adoption of each delegated and implementing acts, the Commission should establish Consultation Forums in order to exchange views on the measure with all the relevant stakeholders, including civil society, Member States and European Parliament representatives;

Amendment 5 #

Claude TURMES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the availability of the Commission's experts to participate in information meetings with Members, as the organisation of such meetings ~~– idea~~welly before the adoption of the delegated acts ~~– have proven to be particularly~~is useful for clarifying key aspects of such acts and for facilitating Parliament's final agreement.;

Amendment 6 #

Jean-Pierre AUDY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes the very substantial increase in the possibilities offered by delegated acts with regard to with legislative acts; expresses its concern that the European Parliament lacks sufficient staff to assume fully its political responsibilities in scrutinising the process of delegation to the Commission, for example expressing its objections to the deadline stipulated in a basic legislative act; calls for a quantitative and qualitative assessment of staff needed by the European Parliament to assume properly its responsibility as co- legislator.

source: PE-516.646

2013/07/16 DEVE 2 amendments...

source: PE-516.609

2013/09/25 LIBE 11 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital A (new)

A. Whereas the Treaty of Lisbon provides for a new hierarchy of norms consisting of legislative acts, in which the legislator decides on essential elements, delegated acts, to be adopted by the Commission under the control of the legislator to amend or supplement certain non- essential elements of the legislative act, and implementing acts, normally to be adopted by the Commission under the control of Member States when uniform conditions for the implementation of Union acts are needed;

Amendment 10 #

Timothy KIRKHOPE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on an independent and legal review of the correct use of delegated acts in the new financial programmes; ~~believes that decisions such as the setting of priorities and the allocation of financial resources among those priorities clearly supplement the basic act and therefore, require delegated acts;~~is concerned about the excessive delay of discussions concerning justice and home affairs programmes with a financial element which may result in the cancellation of some vital programmes.

Amendment 11 #

Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on the correct use of delegated acts in the new financial programmes; believes that decisions such as the setting of priorities and the allocation of financial resources among those priorities clearly supplement the basic act and therefore, require ~~delegated~~, at least, delegated acts, in so far as such decisions only concern existing legislative acts;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital B (new)

B. Whereas the vast majority of legal acts adopted in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (former third pillar) were not amended since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and thereby continue to operate outside the system of delegated and implementing acts (Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU) as well as - for a transition period of five years - without the Commission being able to launch infringement procedures and the Court of Justice having the limited powers of the former treaty (Article 10 of Protocol 36);

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital C (new)

C. Whereas the intergovernmental conference invited the institutions to seek to amend or replace the legal acts of the former third pillar in order to entail the full applicability of the powers of the institutions as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty (Declaration No. 50 concerning Article 10 of Protocol 36, Article 10(2) of Protocol 36); whereas the European Parliament in its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Stockholm Programme requested with reference to Article 265 TFEU (failure to act) a number of priority proposal from the Commission by 1 September 2010 of which several are outstanding;

Amendment 4 #

Timothy KIRKHOPE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers it ~~democratically inappropriate and contrary to the principle of the rule of law~~to be concerning that, three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, procedures for the implementation of former third pillar acts which often exclude Parliament or provide only for consultation, irrespective of the nature of the decisions to be taken, continue to be used; calls on the Commission to include in its work programme for 2014, at the latest, proposals to amend all legal acts of the former third pillar to align them with the new hierarchy of norms under the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that this will require an individual assessment of each legal act in order to identify decisions which – as essential elements – need to be taken by the legislator, including where they touch upon the fundamental rights of the persons concerned, and those that can be considered to be non-essential (see ruling of the Court of Justice in the case C- 355/01); proposes the setting-up of an interinstitutional working party to this end;

Amendment 5 #

Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Con~~siders it democratically inappropriate~~demns as undemocratic and contrary to the principle of the rule of law the fact that, three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, procedures for the implementation of former third pillar acts which often exclude Parliament or provide only for consultation, irrespective of the nature of the decisions to be taken, continue to be used; calls on the Commission to include in its work programme for 2014, at the latest, proposals to amend all legal acts of the former third pillar in order to align them with the new hierarchy of norms and to respect Parliament’s powers, competences and right to information with regard to the delegation of powers to the Commission under the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that this will require an individual assessment of each legal act in order to identify decisions which – as essential elements – need to be taken by the legislator, ~~including~~particularly where they touch upon the fundamental rights of the persons concerned, and those that can be considered to be non-essential (see ruling of the Court of Justice in the case C- 355/01); proposes the setting-up of an interinstitutional working party to this end in order to establish criteria for the use of delegated or implementing acts on the basis of Article 290 of the TFEU; calls on the Council and the Commission to enter into negotiations with Parliament with a view to reaching agreement on such criteria as quickly as possible;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1a (new)

1a. Draws attention to the fact that the Council continues to adopt legal acts on the basis of provisions of the former third pillar, long after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, such that the Parliament has been required to bring legal action before the Court of Justice such as in Case C-317/013 challenging Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4- methylamphetamine to control measures.

Amendment 7 #

Timothy KIRKHOPE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deeply deplores the Council's insistence, and often also that of the Commission, on implementing acts even in cases where the criteria for delegated acts, as laid down in Article 290 TFEU, are clearly met;deleted

Amendment 8 #

Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Deeply deplore~~Strongly condemns the Council’s insistence, and often also that of the Commission, on implementing acts even in cases where the criteria for delegated acts, as laid down in Article 290 TFEU, including the stipulation that the power delegated to the Commission covers only the adoption of non-legislative acts to supplement or amend non-essential elements of a legislative act, are clearly met;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2a (new)

2a. Believes that the choice between delegated acts or implementing acts needs to made on a case-by-case basis. That choice requires careful consideration with reference, in each case, to the requirements of Articles 290 and 291 of the TFEU. Believes, in that regard, that indicative guidelines on the application of those articles could prove useful.

source: PE-519.520

2013/10/01 JURI 28 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Lisbon Treaty introduced the possibility for Parliament and the Council ('the legislator') to delegate part of its own power to the Commission in a legislative act (‘the basic act’); whereas delegation is a delicate operation in which the Commission is instructed to exercise a power which is intrinsic to the legislator's own role; whereas the starting-point in examining the issue of delegation must therefore always be the freedom of the legislator; whereas according to settled case-law, the adoption of rules essential to the subject matter envisaged is reserved to the legislator, which means that the adoption of provisions requiring political decisions that fall within the responsibility of the legislator cannot be delegated; whereas a law is always essential as a matter of principle; whereas therefore that delegated power can only consist in supplementing or amending parts of a legislative act that are not essential; whereas the resulting delegated acts adopted by the Commission will be non- legislative acts of general scope; whereas the basic act must explicitly define the objective, content, scope and duration of that delegation, and must lay down the conditions to which the delegation is subject;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 7

- A measure that determines the type of information to be provided under the basic act (i.e. the exact content of the information) generally supplements the obligation to provide information and should be carried out by means of delegated acts.deleted

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 9

- Measures establishing a procedure (i.e. a way of performing or giving effect to something) can either be a delegated or implementing act (or even an essential element of the basic act) depending on their content, context and the nature of the provisions set out in the basic act. Measures establishing elements of procedures involving further non- essential policy choices in order to supplement the legislative framework laid down in the basic act should in general be delegated acts. Measures establishing details of procedures in order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of an obligation laid down in the basic act should in general be implementing measures.

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 11

~~- In general,~~ delegated ~~acts should be used where the basic act leaves a considerable margin of discretion to the Commission to supplement the legislative framework laid down in the basic act.~~

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 12

- Authorisations can be measures of general application. This is for instance the case where decisions concern the authorisation or prohibition of the inclusion of a specific substance in food, cosmetics etc. Those decisions are general because they concern any operator willing to use such substance. In such cases, if the Commission decision is fully based on criteria contained in the basic act, it should be an implementing act, provided that the legislator did not choose to keep the authorisations as an integral part of the basic act in the form of an Annex; if it adds new normative content affecting the substance of the rights and obligations and thereby adding secondary political orientation or policy choices to the basic act, thus supplementing it, it should be a delegated act.

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 12

- Authorisations can be measures of general application. This is for instance the case where decisions concern the authorisation or prohibition of the inclusion of a specific substance in food, cosmetics etc. Those decisions are general because they concern any operator willing to use such substance. In such cases, if the Commission decision is fully based on criteria contained in the basic act, it shcould be an implementing act~~, provided that the legislator did not choose to keep the authorisations as an integral part of the basic act in the form of an Annex; if it~~; if, however, the Commission decision adds new normative content affecting the substance of the rights and obligations and thereby adding secondary political orientation or policy choices to the basic act, thus supplementing it, it should be a delegated act.

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 12

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 13

- A legislative act may only delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non- legislative acts of general application. Measures of individual application may not, therefore, be adopted by means of delegated acts. An act is of general ~~scope is an act that establishes rules that are intended to apply to an indeterminate number of addressees~~application if it applies to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects with respect to categories of persons generally and in the abstract.

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 14

~~- Implementing acts should not add any further political orientation and the powers given to the Commission should not leave any significant margin of discretion.~~Deleted

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 15

- Measures implying temporary deviation from the rules established by the basic act to be applied in a specific situation, under specific clearly defined conditions and for a limited period of time do not amend or supplement the basic act. They should therefore be adopted by means of implementing acts. They should therefore be adopted by means of implementing acts. However, when those measures imply a more permanent deviation from the rules established in the basic act, going beyond a limited period of time, they should be adopted by means of delegated acts.deleted

Amendment 19 #

Eva LICHTENBERGER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 15

- Measures implying temporary deviation from the rules established by the basic act to be applied in a specific situation, under specific clearly defined conditions and for a limited period of time do not amend or supplement the basic act. They should therefore be adopted by means of implementing acts. However, when those measures imply a more permanent deviation from the rules established in the basic act, going beyond a limited period of time, they should be adopted by means of delegated actsshould be adopted by means of delegated acts, where the basic act is adopted in the ordinary legislative procedure.

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

D a. whereas the delegation of power to the Commission is not merely a technical issue but can involve questions of considerable political importance for Union citizens and consumers, enterprises and complete sectors because of their possible socio-economic, environmental and health impacts;

Amendment 20 #

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Reiterates the decisions taken by the Conference of Presidents in its meetings on 13 January 2011 and 19 April 2012 in relation to delegated and implementing acts, and stresses that Parliament should always insist on the use of delegated acts for all powers delegated to the Commission fulfilling the criteria set out in Article 290 TFEU, and that files in which the institutional rights of Parliament as regards the inclusion of delegated acts are not safeguarded should not be put on the plenary agenda for a vote leading to an agreement; emphasises that Parliament should, already at the start of the negotiations, flag the issue of delegated and implementing acts as a key institutional issue for the Parliament;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission in future to provide an explicit and sustainable justification of why it is proposing a delegated or implementing act in a particular legislative proposal and why it considers its regulatory content to be non- essential;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses serious concern that the alignment of the acquis to the Treaty of Lisbon is only partly a reality four years after its entry into force; ~~calls on~~welcomes the presentation by the Commission ~~to p~~of the rescent any outstanding alignment proposals; calls on the Council Presidency to do its utmost to progress with talks on those packages that are currently stalled in the Council, including proposals in the fields of agriculturproposals for alignment of the remaining legislative acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS); stresses however the need to start negotiations on these proposals as soon as possible, in order to finalise this exercise before the aend ~~fisheries~~of this legislature; considers that at least all cases previously dealt with under RPS should now be aligned to Article 290 TFEU, as RPS measures are also measures of general scope designed to amend non-essential elements of that instrument, inter alia by deleting some of those elements or by supplementing the instrument by the addition of new non-essential elements; at the same time, calls on the Council to progress with talks on those specific alignment proposals that are still stalled in the Council, including proposals in the fields of agriculture and fisheries;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Emphasises that in those cases where it has been decided to use implementing acts, the Parliament's negotiating team should carefully assess what kind of control by Member States is needed and whether the advisory or the examination procedure should be used; stresses that Parliament's negotiation teams, in case the examination procedure is used, should only accept the so-called "no opinion clause" in exceptional well justified cases, as it prevents the Commission from adopting the draft implementing act in case of "no opinion" by the committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls for clear rules governing Parliament's representation and participation and the information to be forwarded to Parliament; points, accordingly, to the political responsibility of the legislator and the need for the regular and timely involvement of the political authorities in the discussions on delegated acts;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Encourages its committees to closely monitor the use of delegated and implementing acts within their respective spheres of responsibility, bundle issues together in order to develop a common approach for the whole Parliament, and at the same time preserve the necessary flexibility on the part of the committees in each individual case; recommends, to this end, that a permanent rapporteur be appointed in each committee for delegated and implementing acts; continues to call on the members of negotiating teams in particular to pay particular attention to this matter when reporting to the competent committee following each trilogue pursuant to Rule 70(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Encourages its committees to closely monitor the use of delegated and implementing acts within their respective spheres of responsibility; to that purpose, requests the Commission to enhance the administrative arrangements for transmission and filing of documents related to delegated acts, in order to ensure at least the same level of information and transparency as for the existing register for implementing acts;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for sufficient technical and personal resources to be assigned for delegated and implementing acts, inter alia in order to ensure an efficient internal flow of information;

Amendment 28 #

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Urges the Commission to fully respect paragraph 15 of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, inter alia by simplifying the procedure for inviting Parliament's experts to meetings with national experts, if so requested by the responsible Parliamentary committee; recognises that as a result of attending those meetings the Commission can be invited to the Parliament to have a further exchange of views on the preparation of delegated acts; urges the Commission to apply paragraph 15 of the Framework Agreement also for the parts of meetings of Member States and the Commission where matters other than implementing acts in the sense of Regulation (EU) N° 182/2011 are discussed;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas legislative negotiations on many files have shown divergent interpretations among the institutions on certain issues; whereas, in accordance with Rule 37a of its Rules of Procedure, Parliament's committees may request an opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs when scrutinising a proposal which contains delegated acts; whereas the Conference of Presidents on 13 January 2012 endorsed a common line, and on 19 April 2012 endorsed a horizontal approach to be followed by individual committees in order to overcome differences of opinion; whereas that common line needs to be taken one step further by Parliament setting out its own criteria for the application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU and by endeavouring to agree on such criteria with the Council and the Commission;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Considers that ~~the following criteria should be followed by Parliament in applying Articles 290 and 291 TFEU~~Parliament and Council should assess the appropriateness of either delegated or implementing acts on the basis of legal criteria, rather than a political judgement; nevertheless, where the legal parameters of delegated and implementing acts allow, considers that the choice of delegated or implementing acts may be made on a case-by-case basis, reflecting policy needs; in this regard, believes the following criteria may be helpful:

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Considers that the following non- binding criteria should be followed by Parliament in applying Articles 290 and 291 TFEU; this list of criteria should not be considered as exhaustive:

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 2

- The Commission may only amend legislative acts by means of delegated acts. This includes amendment of annexes, as annexes are an integral part of the legislative act. Annexes are not to be added to or deleted with the aim of triggering or avoiding the use of delegated acts; if the legislator considers that a text should be an integral part of the basic act, it may decide to include that text in an annex. This is particularly true regarding Union lists or registers of authorised products or substances which should remain, in the interests of legal certainty, an integral part of the basic act, if appropriate, in the form of an Annex.

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 4

~~- Measures leading to a choice of priorities, objectives, expected results should be adopted by means of delegated acts, if the legislator decides not to include them in the legislative act itself.~~deleted

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 5

- Measures designed to lay down (further) conditions, criteria or requirements to be met - the fulfilment of which must be ensured by the Member States ~~or other persons or entities directly concerned by the legislation - will, by definition,~~- may alter the content of the legislation and add new rules of general application. Consequently, the creation of such further rules or criteria may be accomplished only by means of a delegated act. By contrast, the implementation of the rules or criteria already established in the basic act (or in a future delegated act), without modifying the substance of the rights or obligations stemming from them and without making further policy choices, can take place through implementing acts.

Amendment 9 #