Procedure completed
2015/2319(INI) Control of the Register and composition of the Commission's expert groups
Lead committee dossier: CONT/8/05053
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | BUDG | TRÜPEL Helga (Verts/ALE) | |
| Lead | CONT | DE JONG Dennis (GUE/NGL) | GRÄSSLE Ingeborg (EPP), VAUGHAN Derek (S&D), DLABAJOVÁ Martina (ALDE), THEURER Michael (ALDE), VALLI Marco (EFD) |
| Opinion | JURI | KAUFMANN Sylvia-Yvonne (S&D) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
- 2017/02/14 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- 2017/02/13 Debate in Parliament
-
2017/01/12
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A8-0002/2017
summary
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the own-initiative report by Dennis de JONG (GUE/NGL, NL) on control of the Register and composition of the Commission’s expert groups. The Committee on Legal Affairs, exercising its prerogative as an associated committee in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure, also gave its opinion on the report. Members welcomed the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission’s expert groups. Through the adoption of the new horizontal rules, many concerns previously expressed by Parliament have seemingly been met, in particular those concerning the need for public calls for applications for the selection of the members of expert groups and concerning the revision of the Register of Commission expert groups and the creation of synergy between this Register, the Transparency Register of the Commission and Parliament, and those rules relating to the need to avoid conflicts of interest. Reform of the system: Members considered that the effective reform of the Commission's expert groups system, based on clear principles of transparency and balanced composition, will improve the availability and reliability of data, which will in turn help increase people's trust in the EU. They reiterated the importance of reviving forms of involvement of representatives of civil society and the social partners in crucial areas such as the transparency and the functioning of the European institutions. Selection of experts: noting that transparency and coordination of interinstitutional activities are of paramount importance, Members welcomed the fact that the selection process is now taking place publicly. They stressed that it needs to be clearly visible what practical experience and qualifications the experts possess. Moreover, new rules should apply strictly and equally to all Commission expert groups, irrespective of their title to ensure a balanced representation through participation of representatives of all stakeholders. According to the report, the Commission is asked to: make progress towards a more balanced composition of the expert groups; when creating new expert groups, state clearly in the public call for applications how it defines a balanced composition, which interests it seeks to be represented, and why; investigate whether a new complaints mechanism is required, if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders or whether current arrangements are adequate, Parliament should be associated in this control mechanism; explore ways to facilitate and encourage the participation of underrepresented organisations or social groups in expert groups (e.g. experts representing SMEs, consumers, trade unions); assess the development of an allowance system that supports underrepresented groups in acquiring the necessary expertise; make it possible for European non-governmental organisations to be represented in the expert groups by representatives of their national member organisations, when provided with a clear mandate from the European organisations; provide for the meetings and minutes to be made public; develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups should be meaningful and complete; devote sufficient resources to the activities relating to the Register. Lastly, Members noted that the Commission has stated that by the end of 2016, the new framework for Commission expert groups will have to be implemented by all Directorates-General. They requested the Commission to submit to Parliament a report on the implementation and evaluation at the latest one year after the adoption of the Decision, i.e. before 1 June 2017.
-
A8-0002/2017
summary
-
2017/01/09
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2015/11/26
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0002/2017
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0021/2017
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 97 |
2015/2319(INI)
2016/03/08
BUDG
13 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas its Committee on Budgets, in light of the lack of transparency
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Urges the Commission to adopt a more proactive approach to the participation of under-represented groups such as civil society and trade unions, to tackle existing information asymmetries, and to develop, in dialogue with these groups, a special allowance system for that purpose;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Urges the European Commission to ensure the full consultation of those groups currently underrepresented when putting forward proposals for the reform of the expert groups.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Requests the Commission to put forward a plan for action in line with the recommendations of the European Ombudsman; this plan should include deadlines for action and progress to ensure timely results; it should also be presented with sufficient time for the Parliament to consider before it prepares its position on the Budget 2017
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas a recent study it commissioned1 has identified a widespread lack of transparency and an at times imbalance
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) C a. whereas balanced composition and transparency are critical preconditions for the expertise to adequately reflect the needs for regulatory action and fosters its legitimacy in the eyes of European citizens.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Underlines that despite the progress that resulted from the 2011 budgetary reserve, the Commission has so far failed to alter the horizontal rules for EGs and their practices in a way that would meet Parliament’s requests for transparency, and that the number of EGs in which there is an imbalance has increased
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Points out, in this context, and with regard to par. 34-45 of the Ombudsman's aforementioned opinion, that, although the Comission has not yet formally defined its concept of 'balance', the latter is not to be understood as the result of an arithmetic exercise, but rather as the result of efforts to ensure that the members of an EG, together, possess the necessary technical expertise and breadth of perspectives to deliver on the mandate of the EG in question; finds that the concept of balance should, therefore, be understood as tied to the specific mandate of each single EG; considers that the criteria to assess whether an EG is balanced should include the tasks of the group, the technical expertise required, the stakeholders who would be most likely affected by the matter, the organisation of groups of stakeholders, and the appropriate ratio of economic and non- economic interests;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Underlines that the trust of European citizens in the European Union suffers from a lack of transparency and the over- reliance on economic actors in EU-law making and does hence underline that the effective reform of the EC's expert groups system will make the EU more legitimate.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Welcomes the Commission's public announcement that the revised framework for EGs will take up a number of Parliament's and the Ombudsman's suggestions, such as mandatory open calls for application, an improved register, mandatory registration in the Transparency Register for stakeholder representatives, a definition, for each EG, of the profiles needed to ensure a balanced composition, as well as mandatory declarations on conflicts of interest, which will be put on the register;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) 1 d. Urges the Commission to implement, moreover, the Ombudsman's recommendations on transparency, namely, that the agendas, background documents and minutes of EG meetings should be published, unless, in exceptional cases and with the Commission's consent, a majority of members decides otherwise, and that the published minutes should be as meaningful as possible and set out the positions expressed by the members;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Urges the Commission
source: 578.735
2016/09/09
CONT
57 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas it has expressed its concerns with regard to the functioning of the previous framework for Commission expert groups of November 20103 which had been set up with the aim of introducing significant operational innovations to strengthen the transparency and coordination of inter- institutional work; __________________ 3 C(2010)7649 final of 10.11.2010.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups, but
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recognises that, through the adoption of the new horizontal rules, many concerns previously expressed by Parliament have been met, in particular those concerning the need for public calls for applications for the selection of the members of expert groups and concerning the revision of the Register of Commission expert groups and the creation of synergy between this Register, the Transparency Register of the Commission and Parliament, as well as those rules relating
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recalls that a lack of transparency has a negative effect on the trust which Europe's citizens have in the EU institutions; the effective reform of the Commission's expert groups system, based on clear principles of transparency and balanced composition, will improve the availability and reliability of data, which will in turn result in an increase in people's trust in the EU;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises that the new rules should apply to all Commission expert groups, irrespective of their title (thus including special, high-level or other ‘extraordinary’ groups, and formal or informal groups), that are not exclusively composed of representatives of Member States or governed by Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level6 ; reiterates that a wide extension of the principle of participation in the expert groups is essential to ensure an effective reform of the system; __________________ 6 OJ L 225, p. 27.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises that the new rules should apply strictly to all Commission expert groups, irrespective of their title (thus including special, high-level or other ‘extraordinary’ groups, and formal or informal groups), that are not exclusively composed of representatives of Member States or governed by Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level;6 · __________________ 6 OJ L 225, p. 27. OJ L 225, p. 27.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises that the new rules should apply to all Commission expert groups regardless, irrespective of their title (thus including special, high-level or other ‘extraordinary’ groups, and formal or informal groups), that are not exclusively composed of representatives of Member States or governed by Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level;6 · __________________
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission, when creating new expert groups or changing the composition of existing ones, to state clearly in the public call for applications, in all possible forms, how it defines a balanced composition and which interests it seeks to be represented, and to justify any possible deviation from the balanced composition as defined beforehand, when the expert groups are established;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission, when creating new expert groups or changing the composition of existing ones, to state clearly in the public call for applications how it defines a balanced composition
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to set up a complaints mechanism, if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders; calls for Parliament to be associated in this control mechanism;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, in particular, its Committee on Budgets, in light of the lack of transparency and the imbalanced composition of a certain number of expert groups, and given the need to make sure that the composition of expert groups strikes the right balance in terms of expertise and of views represented, adopted budgetary reserves in 2011 and 2014, and has formulated demands which have not yet been accepted for their reform;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to set up a
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to set up a complaints mechanism, including if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission forthwith to set up a complaints mechanism, if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Requests, therefore, the Commission to
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Requests the Commission to apply its provisions for reimbursement of expenses generously, in order to cover outlays for any such ‘alternative costs’
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Requests the Commission to apply its provisions for reimbursement of expenses
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Asks the Commission to assess the development of an allowance system that supports underrepresented groups in acquiring the expertise necessary for a fully effective participation in the expert group;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the European Ombudsman has in her strategic inquiry5 , put forward a recommendation concerning the composition of Commission expert groups
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to make it possible for European non-governmental organisations to be represented in the expert groups by representatives of their national member organisations, when provided with a clear mandate from the European organisations, in a purely advisory capacity;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to make sure that, even if, despite specific arrangements, it is still not possible to find sufficient experts representing all relevant interests, the expert group concerned will take all appropriate measures
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman has recommended to the Commission to make the deliberations of expert groups public, unless a qualified majority of their members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting would need to be secret, and regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of expert groups decides that the deliberations should be made public; considers it essential to implement the greatest possible transparency and calls on the Commission to provide for the meetings and minutes to be made public;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman has recommended to the Commission to make the deliberations of expert groups public
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman has recommended to the Commission to make the agendas, background documents, minutes of meetings and deliberations of expert groups public, unless a qualified majority of their members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting would need to be secret, and regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of expert groups decides that the deliberations should be made public;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman ha
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Invites the Commission to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency possible
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Invites the Commission to develop specific guidelines -in consultation with stakeholders including the European Parliament- explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency possible, in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Invites the Commission to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency and public information possible, in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Invites the Commission forthwith to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups sh
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Ε Ε. whereas
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Invites the Commission forthwith to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency possible, in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to clarify that, if individuals appointed in their personal capacity have submitted false or incomplete declarations of interest, or have failed to keep these up to date, th
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to clarify that, if individuals appointed in their personal capacity have submitted false or incomplete declarations of interest, or have failed to keep these up to date, this will not only have consequences for their membership in the expert group concerned, but will also mean that they will be banned from other existing or future expert groups for a period of at least two years after the discovery of the errors in respect of their declarations of interest in a quasi- automatic manner;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to clarify that, if individuals appointed in their personal capacity have submitted false or incomplete declarations of interest, or have failed to keep these up to date, this will not only have consequences for their membership in the expert group concerned, but will also mean that they will be banned from other existing or future expert groups
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to clarify that, if individuals appointed in their personal capacity have submitted false or incomplete declarations of interest, or have failed to keep these up to date, this will not only have consequences for their membership in the expert group concerned, but will a
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to clarify that, if individuals appointed in their personal capacity have submitted false or incomplete declarations of interest, or have failed to keep these up to date, this will not only have consequences for their membership in the expert group concerned, but will automatically mean that they will be banned from other existing or future expert groups for a period of at least t
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that, in addition to experts appointed in their personal capacity, members from universities, research institutes, law firms European and other think tanks and consultancies may also have conflicts of interest, as they do not necessarily represent a specific interest, and requests the Commission to clarify how it avoids conflicts of interest for these specific categories of experts;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that, in addition to experts appointed in their personal capacity, members from universities, research institutes, law firms and consultancies may also have conflicts of interest
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that, in addition to experts appointed in their personal capacity, members from universities, research institutes, law firms and consultancies may also have conflicts of interest, a
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Calls on the Commission to make enough resources available for the central oversight of the implementation of the horizontal rules
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Calls on the Commission to devote, in particular, sufficient resources to the activities relating to the Register, by developing innovative and particularly effective methods so that it will be kept up to date and does not contain any factual errors;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Calls on the Commission to devote, in particular, sufficient resources to the activities relating to the Register, so that it will be kept up to date
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Calls on the Commission to devote, in particular, sufficient resources to the activities relating to the Register, so that it will be kept up to date and does not contain any factual errors and/or omissions;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the Commission has stated that by the end of 2016, the new framework for Commission expert groups will have to be implemented by all Directorates-General, and requests the Commission to submit to Parliament an evaluation report at the latest one year after the adoption of the Decision, i.e. before 1 June 2017; Calls on the Commission to ensure that, as part of the structured dialogue with Parliament, a first oral presentation of the report can already be made within the next six months;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the Commission has stated that by the end of 2016, the new framework for Commission expert groups
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the Commission has stated that by the end of 2016, the new framework for Commission expert groups will have to be implemented by all Directorates-General, and requests the Commission to submit to Parliament an evaluation report at the latest
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Ζ G. whereas, this notwithstanding, unfortunately neither the working document of the Commission’s services, nor the Commission Decision, provides solutions to all concerns raised by Parliament;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups, but regrets the fact that, despite many non- governmental organisations having expressed their interest, the Commission
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups
source: 589.101
2016/09/30
JURI
27 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that transparency
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the Commission
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that for financial and organisational reasons it is frequently not possible for under-represented groups, which are often representatives of civil society and of small and medium-sized undertakings, to participate; therefore calls on the Commission, in the interest of ensuring balanced composition of expert groups, to consider possibilities for financial support to enable them to participate and, as a first step, to explore options for remote participation via video link, which would be more economical;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that for financial and organisational reasons it is frequently not possible for under-represented groups, which are often representatives of civil society and of small and medium-sized undertakings or other organisations of general public interest, to participate; therefore calls on the Commission, in the interest of ensuring balanced composition and the smooth functioning of expert groups, to consider possibilities for
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all minutes of meetings are published; stresses in this connection that the content and the positions expressed by the experts at these meetings must be clearly shown; also calls for the possibility of publishing minority decisions; reiterates the importance of making public the decisions of the expert groups and believes that this principle should remain valid even where a qualified majority of their members support the need to keep secret a specific meeting or part of a meeting;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all minutes of meetings are published in full; stresses in this connection that the content and the positions expressed by the experts at these meetings must be clearly shown
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all minutes of meetings are published; stresses in this connection that the content and the positions expressed by the experts at these meetings must be clearly shown;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all minutes of meetings are published in order to produce greater transparency; stresses in this connection that the content and the positions expressed by the experts at these meetings must be clearly shown; also calls for the possibility of publishing minority decisions;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that users need to be given access to a range of documents (agendas, reference documents, various reports), with a view to efficient monitoring by interested stakeholders; takes the view, further, that the website of the Register of expert groups – whether as such or through hyperlinks to other relevant websites – should be one of the instruments or mechanisms used to obtain constantly updated information on policy developments, thereby guaranteeing a high level of transparency;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Regrets that even today the Commission persists in a system in which meetings are held behind closed doors, with deliberations being held in public only where a simple majority of the members of expert groups thus decides; calls on the Commission to take account of the recommendations made by the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman to the effect that the deliberations of expert groups should be held in public unless a qualified majority of the members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting should be held behind closed doors; takes the view that, given that the decisions adopted following the deliberations of Commission expert groups serve the public interest, the debates that led to the adoption of those decisions should be made public as a rule and not as an exception;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that transparency is of paramount importance in the composition of the expert groups; therefore welcomes the fact that the selection process is now taking place publicly; stresses in this connection that it needs to be clearly visible what practical experience
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Emphasises that the measures provided for must be taken immediately when conflicts of interest become apparent, particularly among individuals appointed in a private capacity, acting independently and expressing their personal viewpoint in the general interest; points out that closer consideration should be given to these measures because their application will constitute the guarantee of experts’ independence;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights furthermore that the Commission, in preparing and drafting delegated acts and in drawing up strategic guidelines, must ensure that all documents, including draft acts, must be communicated to the European Parliament and the Council at the same time as to the Member States’ experts, as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 12 May 2016.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights furthermore that the Commission, in preparing and drafting delegated and implementing acts, must ensure that all documents, including draft acts, must be communicated to the European Parliament and the Council at the same time as to the Member States’ experts, as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 12 May 2016.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights furthermore that the Commission, in preparing and drafting delegated acts, must ensure that all documents, including draft acts, must be communicated to the European Parliament and the Council at the same time as to the Member States’ experts, as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 1
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. (recital) having regard to the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups,
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. (recital) having regard to the Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission,
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. (recital) having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that transparency is of paramount importance in the composition and the action of the expert groups; therefore welcomes the fact that the selection process is now taking place publicly; stresses in this connection that it needs to be clearly visible what practical experience and qualifications the experts possess;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the fact that a connection has already been established between the Register of Commission expert groups and the Transparency Register, thus ensuring improved transparency;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Is concerned that the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 does not set out clearly and precisely what is meant by balanced composition of the Commission expert groups;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Finds it regrettable that the attempt to conduct a public consultation on the establishment of the new rules was unsuccessful; calls on the Commission to act in a transparent manner and to be accountable to the citizens of the EU;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the Commission has made progress towards a more balanced composition of the expert groups
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the Commission has made progress towards a more balanced composition of the expert groups; regrets, however, that as yet no express distinction is drawn between those representing economic and non-economic interests in order to guarantee a maximum of transparency and balance; considers it important therefore to involve Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee in order to produce a more balanced definition of that distinction;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the Commission has made progress towards a more balanced composition of the expert groups;
source: 589.484
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2019-07-06Show (17) Changes | Timetravel
| activities |
|
| commission |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| docs |
|
| events |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
CONT/8/05053New
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
| procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
2017-02-16Show (6) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/docs |
|
| activities/3/docs |
|
| activities/3/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in Parliament |
| activities/4 |
|
| other/0/commissioner |
Old
JUNCKER Jean-ClaudeNew
TIMMERMANS Frans |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
2017-01-14Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2017-01-11Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
2016-12-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2017-02-02T00:00:00New
2017-02-13T00:00:00 |
2016-11-22Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/1/date |
Old
2016-11-30T00:00:00New
2017-02-02T00:00:00 |
| committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
2016-09-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2016-11-21T00:00:00New
2016-11-30T00:00:00 |
2016-09-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2016-11-30T00:00:00New
2016-11-21T00:00:00 |
2016-09-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2016-10-27T00:00:00New
2016-11-30T00:00:00 |
2016-09-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
2016-06-17Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/2/date |
2016-03-15T00:00:00
|
| activities/0/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| committees/2/date |
2016-03-15T00:00:00
|
| committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2016-06-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
2016-04-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
2016-02-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
2016-01-26Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/0/committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
2015-12-17Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/date |
2015-12-03T00:00:00
|
| activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
| committees/0/date |
2015-12-03T00:00:00
|
| committees/0/rapporteur |
|
2015-12-01Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
CONT/8/05053
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2015-11-28Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|