Awaiting committee decision
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Opinion | AFCO | DURAND Pascal (Verts/ALE) | |
Opinion | AFET | ||
Opinion | AGRI | ROPĖ Bronis (Verts/ALE) | |
Opinion | CULT | ||
Opinion | DEVE | ||
Opinion | ECON | GUALTIERI Roberto (S&D) | |
Opinion | EMPL | ||
Opinion | ENVI | DELAHAYE Angélique (EPP) | |
Opinion | FEMM | ||
Opinion | IMCO | ||
Opinion | INTA | VAN DE CAMP Wim (EPP) | |
Opinion | ITRE | TURMES Claude (Verts/ALE) | |
Lead | JURI | SZÁJER József (EPP) | KAUFMANN Sylvia-Yvonne (S&D), DZHAMBAZKI Angel (ECR), ROHDE Jens (ALDE), CHRYSOGONOS Kostas (GUE/NGL), DURAND Pascal (Verts/ALE) |
Opinion | LIBE | ||
Opinion | PECH | ||
Opinion | REGI | ||
Opinion | TRAN |
Legal Basis TFEU 291-p3
Activites
-
2017/03/01
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2017/02/14
Legislative proposal published
-
COM(2017)0085
summary
PURPOSE: to improve the functioning of the comitology procedures. PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council. BACKGROUND: Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on comitology sets out the mechanism for the control of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers by Member States. Under the most frequently used procedure, the so-called “examination procedure”, the Commission representatives submit draft implementing acts to a committee composed of representatives from the Member States, which gives its opinion, generally by vote. The appeal committee was introduced in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 in order to elevate the debate, in particular in case the examination committee did not deliver an opinion, to a more political level. The Commission has found itself in the past years in a situation where it is legally obliged to take an authorisation decision in the absence of a qualified majority of the Member States taking position (either in favour or against) in the committee. This 'no opinion' situation is in the Commission's view particularly problematic when it concerns politically sensitive matters of direct impact on citizens and businesses, for instance in the field of health and safety of humans, animals or plants (e.g. GMOs or glyphosate). The Commission considered that Member States should, in these specific situations, also assume their responsibilities in the decision-making process to a greater extent. It is for this reason that it has proposed amendments to improve the functioning of the comitology procedures at the level of the appeal committee in order to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts. CONTENT: this proposal provides for targeted and limited amendments to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and thus relates to implementing acts only. The Commission proposes to: amend the voting rules for the appeal committee in order to reduce the risk of a no opinion scenario and to clarify the positions of the Member States. To this end, the proposal stipulates that only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee; provide the possibility of a further referral to the appeal committee at ministerial level where no opinion is delivered. The changes proposed aim at reducing the risk of no opinion outcomes at the appeal committee level and at facilitating the decision-making and to ensure the political ownership of Member States of certain sensitive decisions; increase the transparency of the comitology procedure by proposing that the votes of the Member States' representatives taken in the appeal committee be made public (they are currently confidential); enable the Commission to formally refer specific cases after a no opinion outcome in the appeal committee for a non-binding opinion to the Council, with a view to obtaining its political orientation on the implications of the no opinion outcome.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/secretariat-general_en', 'title': 'Secretariat-General'}, TIMMERMANS Frans
-
COM(2017)0085
summary
Documents
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2017)0085
Amendments | Dossier |
69 |
2017/0035(COD)
2017/06/19
AFCO
29 amendments...
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee as well as the introduction of a right to call back implementing acts, inspired by work on the Convention on the Future of Europe and essential to any worthwhile scrutiny of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2a) These amendments apply to a minority of examination procedures and are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, particularly in relation to genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products, the appeal committee has been seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) Experience has shown that,
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6)
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote. The Commission, for its part, experiences great difficulties in assuming its decision-making powers and it is these difficulties that lie behind the proposition presented by the Commission.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8)
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) Where sustained difficulties arise in the implementation of a basic act, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in that act.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (-1) Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. The chair shall submit to the committee the draft implementing act to be adopted by the Commission
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1- paragraph 1 -point -1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new) (-1a) In paragraph 3 the following subparagraph is added: "Any committee member may propose on duly justified grounds that an implementing act be called back in order to scrutinise the measures implemented and where necessary propose amendments to the act."
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 5 (1b) In Article 5, paragraph 5 is deleted.
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 (aa) In paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is deleted:
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3 a 3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee,
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3 a 3a. Where no opinion is delivered in
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 4 (ba) Paragraph 4 is deleted.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 5 (bb) Paragraph 5 is deleted.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 This Regulation shall
source: 606.148
2017/10/13
AGRI
16 amendments...
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. These amendments should make sure that the reliability of the scientific opinions of independent European scientific bodies is maintained in order to stimulate and assure a science-based approach in the decision making process.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall,
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. Th
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision-
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 a (new) (7a) On several occasions, concerning the adoption of acts which are subject to the comitology procedure, the Commission has found itself over the past few years in a situation where it is legally obliged to take an authorisation decision in the absence of a qualified majority of the Member States taking position in the committee. This 'no opinion' situation is, in the Commission's view, particularly problematic when it concerns politically sensitive matters which have a direct impact on citizens and businesses, for instance in relation to consumer health, food safety or environmental protection.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council and the European Parliament to indicate
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. There should also be more transparency on the agendas of the meetings and the documents and texts being discussed.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) In order to improve the understanding of the EU decision-making process, including decisions around product approvals in ‘sensitive areas’, and to further improve transparency, EU Member States and the European Commission should work together to develop risk communication strategies to help build more trust in the EU scientific bodies and agencies.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a) A change of procedural rules may possibly lead to an alteration in the decision making process among Member States. Therefore, socio-economic consequences need to be taken into account with the implementation of the proposed amendments.
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point β Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3 a 3a.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b 3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (-a) In paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following: (b) the agendas of committee meetings, including drafts of text to be decided upon and documents being discussed;
source: 610.563
2017/10/25
ECON
10 amendments...
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public in the register.
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c (-a) in paragraph 1, point c is replaced by the following: "(c) the summary records, together with the lists of the persons present and lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e (e) the voting results, including
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e (e) the voting results
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 (3 a) In Article 11, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, and after notification of the draft implementing act simultaneously to the European Parliament and the Council as soon as it is available, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time indicate to the Commission that, in its view,
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes and explanations of Member State representatives at committee and at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes and explanations should be made public.
source: 612.286
2017/10/26
INTA
14 amendments...
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) The voting rules for both the committees and the appeal committee should be changed in order to reduce the risk of no opinion being delivered and to provide an incentive for Member State representatives to take a clear position. To this end only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral. This approach can only be valid if it is validated by all Member States.
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral. The European Parliament should be given the possibility to express its views within set deadlines.
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the committee and the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 5 (1a) In Article 3 paragraph 7, the fifth subparagraph is replaced by the following: " The chair shall set the date of the appeal committee meeting in close cooperation with the members of the committee, in order to enable Member States and the Commission to ensure
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 1 Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 4 – point c (1c) In Article 5 paragraph 4, point (c) is replaced by the following: " a simple majority of the
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 d (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (1d) In Article 5 paragraph 5, first subparagraph is replaced by the following: " By way of derogation from paragraph 4, the following procedure shall apply for the adoption of draft definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures, where no opinion is delivered by the committee and a simple majority of its
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 e (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 5 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 (1e) In Article 5 paragraph 5, second subparagraph is replaced by the following: " The Commission shall conduct consultations with the Member States. 1
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e (e) the voting results including
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a regulation Citation 3 After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments and pending the adoption of a clear position by those national parliaments,
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the committees and the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure the wide
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision- making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote, both in committees and in appeal committee.
source: 612.280
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/1/committees/12/shadows/5 |
|
committees/12/shadows/5 |
|
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
activities/1/committees/2/date |
2017-02-28T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
committees/2/date |
2017-02-28T00:00:00
|
committees/2/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/12/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
4f1ac716b819f25efd000066New
4f1adacfb819f207b3000090 |
activities/1/committees/12/shadows/2/name |
Old
CAVADA Jean-MarieNew
ROHDE Jens |
committees/12/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
4f1ac716b819f25efd000066New
4f1adacfb819f207b3000090 |
committees/12/shadows/2/name |
Old
CAVADA Jean-MarieNew
ROHDE Jens |
activities/1/committees/10/date |
2017-03-20T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/10/rapporteur |
|
committees/10/date |
2017-03-20T00:00:00
|
committees/10/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/11/date |
2017-05-30T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/11/rapporteur |
|
committees/11/date |
2017-05-30T00:00:00
|
committees/11/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/5/date |
2017-03-21T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/5/rapporteur |
|
committees/5/date |
2017-03-21T00:00:00
|
committees/5/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/7/date |
2017-04-05T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/7/rapporteur |
|
committees/7/date |
2017-04-05T00:00:00
|
committees/7/rapporteur |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1/committees/12/shadows/0 |
|
activities/1/committees/12/shadows/1 |
|
committees/12/shadows/0 |
|
committees/12/shadows/1 |
|
activities/1/committees/0/date |
2017-03-20T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
committees/0/date |
2017-03-20T00:00:00
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/12/shadows/0 |
|
committees/12/shadows/0 |
|
activities/1/committees/12/date |
2017-02-28T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/12/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/12/shadows |
|
committees/12/date |
2017-02-28T00:00:00
|
committees/12/rapporteur |
|
committees/12/shadows |
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52017PC0085:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52017PC0085:EN
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|