2017/0035(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

Amendment 16 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

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. ~~In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products~~Thus a very small percentage of the cases subject to the examination procedure are concerned.

Amendment 20 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Experience has shown that, ~~in the vast majority of cas~~sometimes, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not always helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.

Amendment 21 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) ~~That discretion is, however, significantly reduced~~However, in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision.

Amendment 22 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) While the Commission ~~is empowered~~has the competence to decide in such cases, which should be assumed at any event, 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, ismay not be the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.

Amendment 23 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 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 ~~for the possibility of holding a fur~~that it vote unanimously. In fact, as ther meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extendedatters discussed within this committee are extremely sensitive and neither the Commission nor the Member States wish to assume responsibility for certain decisions, a power the Commission no longer wants should be withdrawn while the Member States should be made to act in accordance with their prerogatives. Unanimity will ensure that in regard to extremely political issues Member States cannot have unwelcome rules imposed on them.

Amendment 25 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) ~~In order to increase the added valu~~The role of the appeal committee ~~its role~~ should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee ~~should~~may be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.

Amendment 26 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The voting rules for 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 majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.deleted

Amendment 27 #

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 orientat~~In specific cases, at the request of the Commission, the Council may express its opinion on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. Th~~e Commission shall 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~~at opinion will be optional in nature and will not be binding, and it should be issued within 3 months after the submission of the request, unless, in duly justified cases, another deadline has been set by the Commission.

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 ~~take account of~~endorse 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.

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

Amendment 30 #

Richard CORBETT

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. or any other implementing act that a committee member has proposed be called back."

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 ~~decid~~propose that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral.

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

4. Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Where the Commission does not adopt the draft implementing act, the chair may submit to the committee an amended version thereof. Without prejudice to Article 7, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act where: (a) financial services, the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or definitive multilateral safeguard measures; (b) the basic act provides that the draft implementing act may not be adopted where no opinion is delivered; or (c) a simple majority of the component members of the committee opposes it. In any of the cases referred to in the sec(1a) In Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: "4. Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act. The Commission shall then conduct consultations with the Member States. Fourteen days at the earliest and one month at the latest after the committee meeting, the Commissiond s~~ubparagraph, where an implementing act is deemed to be necessary, the chair may either submit an amended version of that act to the same committee within 2 months of the vote, or~~hall inform the committee members of the results of those consultations and submit ~~the~~a draft implementing act ~~within 1 month of the vote to the appeal committee for further deliber~~to the appeal committee. that act concerns taxation.,

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

~~1. The appeal committee shall deliver its opinion by the majority provided for in Article 5(1).~~(-a) Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "1. The appeal committee shall deliver a unanimous opinion."

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, ~~the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientat~~at the request of the Commission, the Council may express its opinion on the wider implications of the ~~absence of opinion~~outcome of the vote, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. Th~~e Commission shall 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~~at opinion will be optional in nature and will not be binding, and it should be issued within 3 months after the submission of the request, unless, in duly justified cases, another deadline has been set by the Commission.

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 the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall ~~take account of~~endorse 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.

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 #

Charles GOERENS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. ~~The references of all documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph~~All documents and information referred to in paragraph 1 points (a) to (h) shall be made public in the register.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1

This Regulation shall ~~not~~ apply to ~~pending~~ procedures ~~on which the appeal committee has already delivered an opinion on the date of entry into force of this Regulation~~begun after its entry into force.

source: 606.148

2017/10/13 AGRI 16 amendments...

Amendment 15 #

Jan HUITEMA

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, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts ~~without,~~, to take account of the precautionary principle, without undermining the risk assessment conducted by EU scientific bodies, or however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, acknowledging that product approvals should continue to be science-based, objective and non-discriminatory.

Amendment 17 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

Amendment 18 #

Nicola CAPUTO

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, with reference also to the precautionary principle, to ensure that appropriate measures are adopted with a view to avoiding damaging effects on human health and the environment. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.

Amendment 19 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

Amendment 20 #

Nicola CAPUTO

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 ~~its~~their 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 positions expressed by the Council and the European Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 23 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency ~~on the votes of~~throughout the entire legislative process, including with regard to information on how Member State representatives ~~at the appeal committee level~~vote, should be increased ~~and the i~~. Individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. Detailed information should be given on the composition and attendance of committees, and on the Member State authorities represented.

Amendment 24 #

Bronis ROPĖ

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 #

Jan HUITEMA

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

a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: "However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.";deleted

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. "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implicationsThe opinion of the appeal committee shall be mandatory, given the consequences of failure to deliver an opinion regarding institutional, legal, political and international issues. Where the Commission has any objections to the opinion of the appeal committee, it may refer the matter to the Council by presenting its views and seeking the views and orientation of the Council. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after ~~the referral~~presenting its views. In duly justified cases, the Commission may ~~indicate~~request a shorter deadline ~~in the referral.";~~ for replying to the Council."; This amendment applies throughout the text. Adoption thereof will necessitate corresponding changes throughout the text.) Or. xm (No cross reference)

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 ~~for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implicat~~and the European Parliament for an opinions. The Commission shall take account of any positions expressed by the Council and the European Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 30 #

Bronis ROPĖ

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 #

Kay SWINBURNE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

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

(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.;deleted

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; " Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)

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~~, in the case of the appeal committee,~~ the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; as well as substantive reasons by each representative for their vote;

Amendment 14 #

Ivana MALETIĆ

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, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; ;~~, at the committee and at the appeal committee level, including the votes and explanations expressed by the representative of each Member State; (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Amendment 15 #

Ivana MALETIĆ

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. The references of all documents 5. referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register. That public register shall be available for access via the internet. (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Amendment 16 #

Kay SWINBURNE

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, athat draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act or that it is not compatible with the legislative intent or the content of the basic act. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft implementing act. " Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)

Amendment 7 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 8 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency ~~on the vote~~throughout the whole process should be increased. Transparency on the votes, views and orientations of Member States representatives at ~~the~~committee level, including at appeal committee level, should be increased and the individual Member State ~~represen~~s votes, as well as the substantives' reasons for those votes should be made public. More detailed information should be given on the composition of committees.

Amendment 9 #

Ivana MALETIĆ

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 majority of the Member States are participating members of the committees and the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.

Amendment 11 #

France JAMET

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 #

Heidi HAUTALA

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 anthe highest appropriate level of representation. By 1 April 2011, the Commission shall convene the first meeting of the appeal committee in order to adopt its rules of procedure (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)" Or. en

Amendment 15 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 5 – paragraph 1

(1b) In Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: " Where the examination procedure applies, the committee shall deliver its opinion by the majority laid down in Article 16 (4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union and, where applicable, Article 238(3) TFEU, for acts to be adopted on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in those Articles. ~~(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)~~However, only members of the committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered participating members of the committee. " Or. en

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 ~~component~~voting members of the committee ~~(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)~~. " Or. en

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 ~~component~~voting members oppose the draft implementing act ~~(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)~~. " Or. en

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. 140 days at the earliest and 21 ~~month~~days at the latest after the committee meeting, the Commission shall inform the committee of the results of those consultations and submit a draft implementing act to the appeal committee. By way of derogation from Article 3 (7), the appeal committee shall meet 140 days at the earliest and 21 ~~month~~days at the latest after the submission of the draft implementing act. The appeal committee shall deliver its opinion in accordance with Article 6. The time limits laid down in the paragraph shall be without prejudice to the need to respect the deadlines laid down in the relevant basic acts. ~~(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)~~The European Parliament shall be informed about the decision adopted. " Or. en

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~~, in the case of the appeal committee,~~ the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; ;

Amendment 20 #

Heidi HAUTALA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)

(3a) In Article 11, after paragraph 1, a new paragraph is inserted: 1a. The European Parliament and the Council shall have one month, from the date of receipt by the Committee concerned of the final draft implementing act in all the language versions, to give the indication as referred to in the first paragraph. The Commission shall not adopt the implementing act until that period for the European Parliament to indicate its view has passed.

Amendment 7 #

France JAMET

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

Amendment 9 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

source: 612.280

2018/01/22 ENVI 66 amendments...

Amendment 14 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) TIt has become evident that there are marked limitations to the system established by Regulation (ECU) 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 certaiin those cases in which Member States fail to reach the majorities required in the committees set up by the basic acts and deliver a "no opinion" instead of taking a position. In such cases, the Commission is called upon to adopt decisions that are often extremely problematic, for politically sensitive matters which lie outside the Commission's remit but fall within the political preserve of the European tPar~~geted amendments concerning specific aspe~~liament and the Council, especially where this concerns decisions that have a direct impacts o~~f procedure at~~n citizens and enterprises, as for example in the ~~lev~~field of the ~~appeal committee. These amendments are intended~~alth and safety of humans, animals or plants. That system should therefore be changed radically 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 15 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Matteo SALVINI, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

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, except in cases where the appeal committee does not manage to take a decision and where the adoption of the draft implementing act is at the discretion of the Commission. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except in the abovementioned situation.

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 led to a plethora of implementing acts, making it difficult for Parliament and the Council to exercise their control function. It is clear from the number of objections that Parliament has adopted, particularly to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or pesticides – matters on which public opinion is clear – that the system of adoption and control of implementing acts takes scant account of democratic parliamentary representation. That system should therefore be changed, particularly through the adoption of targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure that Member State governments assume 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 17 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

Amendment 18 #

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, 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. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to authorisations for plant protection products and other active substances, genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed ~~and plant protection products~~.

Amendment 19 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Matteo SALVINI, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) In a significant number of ~~specific~~ cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, 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. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products.

Amendment 20 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions despite the fact that the Member States are consulted at the examination procedure stage, and those positions may remain undisclosed when the matter goes to the vote.

Amendment 21 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered, resulting in disproportionate responsibility being placed on the Commission. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.

Amendment 22 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion, an unacceptable situation under the most basic rules of a democratic system.

Amendment 23 #

Monika BEŇOVÁ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion, subject to the procedure laid down, without prejudice to the limitations laid down.

Amendment 24 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretionary power that is normally the preserve of the European Parliament and the Council.

Amendment 25 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) That discretion is, however, ~~significantly~~ reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision. Throughout the procedure, moreover, the Commission may choose to disregard Parliament’s position entirely, as it has done on almost 20 occasions in the past three years, thus, while undoubtedly complying with the Treaties, giving members of the public every reason to be mistrustful of the EU.

Amendment 26 #

Lampros FOUNTOULIS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) That discretion ishould, however, ~~significant~~be extremely reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, ~~such as~~especially in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision.

Amendment 27 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

Amendment 28 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) ~~While~~The option of 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 votedeciding in cases where the appeal committee takes no decision should therefore be removed.

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) While the Commission is currently empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should a~~lso fully assume thei~~ssume greater responsibility in the decision- making process. ~~This, however, is not the case when~~Where the act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, greater weight should be given to political accountability. When in such cases Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority~~, due to, amongst others, a significant number of absten~~ in favour of proposals to grant authorisations for ~~non-appearances at the moment of the vote~~a product or substance, that authorisation should be deemed to have been refused.

Amendment 30 #

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, a~~mongst others,~~ variety of reasons including a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.

Amendment 31 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

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 for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.deleted

Amendment 32 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

Amendment 33 #

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 for the possibility, in exceptional circumstances, of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.

Amendment 34 #

Frédérique RIES

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 for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee, at the earliest opportunity, whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.

Amendment 35 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In order to increase the ~~added value~~legitimacy of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee ~~should~~may be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to ~~deliver an opin~~indicate its position should be extended.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 37 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 38 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee ~~should~~ought to 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 majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today. We would point out, however, that amending the rules for the calculation of the qualified majority in this way would be in breach of the Treaties1a. __________________ 1ahttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData /docs_autres_institutions/parlements_nati onaux/com/2017/0085/PL_SENATE_CO NT1-COM(2017)0085_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/d ocs_autres_institutions/parlements_natio naux/com/2017/0085/FR_SENATE_CON T1-COM(2017)0085_FR.pdf

Amendment 39 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The voting rules for 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~~qualified majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.

Amendment 40 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The voting rules for 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 majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.

Amendment 41 #

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 referrarefer the matter to the Council. The Commission should adopt the proposal referred back to it by the Council.

Amendment 42 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the two co-legislators, the European Parliament and Council, to indicate ~~its~~their 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 European Parliament and the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the European Parliament and the Council to indicate ~~its~~their 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 European Parliament and the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 44 #

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, financial and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 45 #

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~~comply with 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.

Amendment 46 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency ~~on the votes of Member State representatives at~~throughout the entire advisory and examination procedures, including the appeal committee level should be increased ~~and~~. In particular, the individual Member State representatives' votes, including their voting intentions, in case no formal vote takes place, accompanied by clear justifications, should be made public.

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level ~~should be increased~~, and during the prior examination procedure, should be increased, States should be invited to explain their votes and the individual Member State representatives'’ votes should be made public.

Amendment 48 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

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'’ attendance at the appeals committee and their votes should be made public.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) For Regulation (EU) No 182/2001 to improve further the functioning of the institutional system, the right of the European Parliament and of the Council to scrutinise the legality of Union acts should be made effective. If the European Parliament or the Council indicate to the Commission that in their opinion a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, the Commission should not be able to adopt said draft implementing act without changes thereto.

Amendment 50 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) In order to guarantee full accountability of decisions taken throughout the comitology process, the appropriate level of transparency has to be ensured. This should include making the proposals, written comments submitted by Member States, all proposed amendments and detailed minutes of committee meetings public. Moreover, each standing committee should ensure balanced participation of stakeholders under observer status in its meetings.

Amendment 51 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) Where it appears difficult to obtain positive opinions from the Member States in relation to similar draft implementing acts, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the relevant basic acts.

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly once it has been duly confirmed that it will be compatible with the Treaties,

Amendment 53 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6

(1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth subparagraph is added: "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral.";deleted

Amendment 54 #

Frédérique RIES

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 decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level and at the earliest possible opportunity. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral. The Commission may decide in exceptional and duly justified cases to reduce the time limits provided for in this paragraph.

Amendment 55 #

Piernicola PEDICINI, Eleonora EVI

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 decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. Upon a reasoned request from the European Parliament, one Member of the European Parliament per political group shall be admitted to this meeting as observers. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral.”;

Amendment 56 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6

Amendment 57 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. Where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Where the Commission does not adopt the draft implementing act, the chair may submit to the committee an amended version thereof. Without prejudice to Article 7, the Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act where: (a) financial services, the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or definitive multilateral safeguard measures; (b) implementing act may not be adopted where no opinion is delivered; or (c) component members of the committee opposes it. In any of the cases referred to(1a) In Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: "4. Without prejudice to Article 7, where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may not adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph~~, w~~. Where an implementing act is deemed to be necessary, the chair may either submit an amended version of that act to the same committee within 2 months of the vote, or submit the draft implementing act within 1 month of the vote to the appeal committee for further deliberation.". that act concerns taxation, the basic act provides that the draft a simple majority of the

Amendment 58 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a

(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: "However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.";deleted

Amendment 59 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a

(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.deleted

Amendment 60 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a

However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote~~, and do not abstain from voting,~~ shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.

Amendment 61 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

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) The second subparagraph of paragraph 3 shall be deleted.

Amendment 62 #

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 63 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a

(b) The following paragraph 3a is inserted 3a. the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence ofdeleted Where no opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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.;s delivered in

Amendment 64 #

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, the Commission may refer the matter to the European Parliament and the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the European Parliament and the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 65 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

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~~shall refer the matter to the European Parliament and the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the European Parliament and the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 66 #

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, the Commission ~~may~~shall refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Co~~mmission~~uncil shall tmake ~~account of any position express~~recommendations which shall be forwarded byto the Co~~uncil within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral~~mmission, the Member States and Parliament. The Commission shall use the recommendations to draw up a fresh proposal for an implementing act within 3 months.

Amendment 67 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

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, the Commission may ~~refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientatio~~: (a) withdraw the draft implementing act; or (b) refer the matter to the Council. The Council shall by the majority laid down oin the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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 referrArticle 5(1) propose to the Commission either that it adopt the draft implementing act, with or without amendments, or that it not adopt it. The Commission shall adopt without delay the Council's proposal.";

Amendment 68 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

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 for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall ~~take account of~~comply with 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.

Amendment 69 #

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 replaced by the following: "4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 3a, for the adoption of definitive multilateral safeguard measures, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt the draft measures.".

Amendment 70 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

(ba) The following paragraph is inserted: "4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft implementing act for which the basic act provides involves a proposal to grant authorisation for a product or substance, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt that draft implementing act and the authorisation shall be deemed to have been refused."

Amendment 71 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

(ba) the following paragraph is inserted: “4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft implementing act for which the basic act provides involves proposing to grant authorisation for a product or substance, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt that draft implementing act and the authorisation shall be deemed to have been refused.”.

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 182/2011
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

(2a) in Article 9, paragraph 1 the following third subparagraph is added after subparagraph 2: “Each committee shall ensure balanced participation of stakeholders under the observer status in all meetings.”;

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the summary records, together with the lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;~~ (-a) in paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following: "(c) the summary records, together with the lists of persons designated by the Member States and the authorities and organisations they belong to, written comments submitted by the Member States, all proposed amendments and detailed minutes of each meeting;” Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)

Amendment 74 #

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~~, in the case of the appeal committee,~~ the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; and, in case no formal vote takes place, Member States’ voting intentions accompanied by clear justifications;

Amendment 75 #

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, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by, and the attendance of, the representative of each Member State;

Amendment 76 #

Matteo SALVINI, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. ~~The references of a~~All documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register.

Amendment 77 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11 – paragraph 1

(3a) Article 11 is replaced by the following: "Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time before the Commission refers the matter to the Council in accordance with Article 6(3a)(b), indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall ~~inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to mainta~~within two months: (a) submit an amended version thereof to the committee; or (b) refer the draft implementing act back to the Council in, a~~mend or withdraw the draft implementing act~~ccordance with Article 6(3a)(b); or (c) withdraw it. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of the decision taken.".

Amendment 78 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11 – paragraph 1

(3a) in Article 11, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, or is not consistent with Union law in other respects. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to ~~maintain,~~ amend or withdraw the draft implementing act. ” Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1516208034834&uri=CELEX:32011R0182)

Amendment 79 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)

(3b) In Article 11, the following paragraph is added: “In addition, where either the European Parliament or the Council considers that the conferral of implementing powers on the Commission in the basic act needs to be reviewed, it may, at any time, call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend that basic act.”

source: 616.711

2018/02/14 ITRE 57 amendments...

Amendment 20 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) The European Parliament has set up a special committee to look into the Union’s authorisation procedure for pesticides in the EU in order to identify possible conflicts of interest in the approval procedure and to look at the role of Union agencies, and whether they are adequately staffed and financed to fulfil their obligations. The final report of its factual findings and recommendations, to be approved by the full house, should be taken into account to improve the system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011.

Amendment 21 #

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 forrequire such a plethora of implementing acts as to jeopardise effective exercise by the European Parliament and the Council of their right to scrutinise the legality of Union acts. The numerous objections formulated by Parliament and disregarded by the Commission, in particular concerning authorisations for genetically modified organisms or pesticides, have shown that this system lacks democratic control. It is therefore appropriate to make 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~~Article 291 TFEU.

Amendment 22 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

Amendment 23 #

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, 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. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products, which are issues in relation to which the opinions and decision-making of Member States are of utmost importance.

Amendment 24 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions, and such situations of ambiguity in turn decelerate the decision- making process in the Union on very significant matters.

Amendment 25 #

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. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Member States be incentivised to take a clear decision, in favour or against, and actively take part during voting sessions by at least being present .

Amendment 26 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) While the Commission is currently 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 w~~When Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority~~, due to, amongst others, a significant number of absten~~ in favour of proposals to grant authorisations for ~~non-appearances at the moment of the vote~~a product or substance, that authorisation should be deemed to have been refused.

Amendment 27 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

Amendment 28 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

Amendment 30 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

Amendment 31 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

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 for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee without delay whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be at an appropriate political level, such as at ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.

Amendment 32 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) In order to establish a right to opt out of the implementing act, where Member states have a serious concern and where the Appeal Committee does not deliver an opinion due to the Member States failing to reach the required majority, the Commission should be free to adopt the implementing act. However, that implementing act should not have a binding effect on the Member States that voted against it, and in cases in which it concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants.

Amendment 33 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 35 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

Amendment 37 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

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.deleted

Amendment 38 #

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.deleted

Amendment 39 #

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.deleted

Amendment 40 #

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 referrarefer the matter to the Council. The Commission should adopt the proposal referred back to it by the Council.

Amendment 41 #

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 immediately properly informed of the outcome of the referral to the Council.

Amendment 42 #

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 ~~its~~their 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 and the European Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

Amendment 43 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency onshould be increased throughout the entire advisory, examination and appeal committee procedure, in particular as regards the votes taken in each procedure. In particular, the votes of individual Member State representatives ~~at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual~~', including their voting intentions where no formal vote takes place, should be made public. In addition, where the draft implementing act involves a proposal to grant authorisation for a product or substance, a record of the substantive reasons should be given by each Member State’s representative~~s' vot~~ for their vote. Detailed information on the composition of expert committees should also be made public.

Amendment 44 #

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~~should be increased throughout the entire advisory, examination and appeal committee procedure. The discussions throughout all the committee procedures should be web streamed live.

Amendment 45 #

(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and, on the request by the Commission, on particularly sensitive issues, the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.

Amendment 46 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) For Regulation (EU) No 182/2001 to improve further the functioning of the institutional system, the right of the European Parliament and of the Council to scrutinise the legality of Union acts should be made effective. If the European Parliament or the Council indicate to the Commission that, in their opinion, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, the Commission should not be able to adopt said draft implementing act without changes thereto.

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) Discussions should be web streamed live.

Amendment 48 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 b (new)

(11b) Where there appears to be a systematic difficulty in obtaining positive opinions from a committee in relation to several draft implementing acts Under the same basic act, the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the corresponding basic act should be reviewed.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7

(1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth subparagraph is added: Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral.deleted

Amendment 50 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7

(1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth subparagraph is added: ‘Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral. ;’deleted

Amendment 51 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7

Amendment 53 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph7

Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting~~, at ministeri~~ without a delay, at the appropriate political level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral. ;

Amendment 54 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 5 – paragraph 4

~~4. W~~(1a) In Article 5, paragraph (4) is replaced by the following: "4. Without prejudice to Article 7, where no opinion is delivered, the Commission may not adopt the draft implementing act, except in the cases provided for in the second subparagraph. Where ~~the Commission does not adopt the draft implementing act, the chair may submit to the committee an amended version thereof. Without prejudice to Article 7, th~~an implementing act is deemed to be necessary, the chair may either submit an amended version of that act to the same Ccommission shall not adopt the draft implementing act where: (a) that act concerns taxation, financial services, the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or definitive multilateral safeguard measures; (b) the basic act provides that the draft implementing act may not be adopted where no opinion is delivered; (c) a simple majority of the component members of the committee opposes it. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&rid=1)ttee within 2 months of the vote, or submit the draft implementing act within 1 month of the vote to the appeal committee for further deliberation.". Or. it

Amendment 55 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1

(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: “However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.”;deleted

Amendment 56 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

(a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: ‘However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.;’deleted

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1

However, only members of the appeal committee who are present or represented at the time of the vote, and do not abstain from voting, shall be considered as participating members of the appeal committee. The majority referred to in Article 5(1) shall be the qualified majority referred to in Article 238(3) (a) TFEU. A vote shall only be considered to be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members.;deleted

Amendment 58 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

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 59 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3a

(b) the following paragraph 3a is inserted: ‘3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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.;’deleted

Amendment 60 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3a

3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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.;deleted

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3a

3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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.;deleted

Amendment 62 #

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, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council ~~for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications~~and the European Parliament for an opinion. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Council and the European Parliament within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.;

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a

Amendment 64 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

(ba) the following paragraph is inserted: "4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where the draft implementing act involves granting authorisation for a product or a substance, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt that draft implementing act and the authorisation shall be deemed to have been refused.";

Amendment 65 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

(ba) 4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, when the Appeal Committee does not deliver an opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall adopt that draft implementing act. This act has no binding effect on a Member State that has voted against the draft implementing act, which concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants.

Amendment 66 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

(ba) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: "4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 3 and 3a, for the adoption of definitive multilateral safeguard measures, in the absence of a positive opinion voted by the majority provided for in Article 5(1), the Commission shall not adopt the draft measures. ~~(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&rid=1)~~" Or. it

Amendment 67 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10

(3) Article 10 is amended as follows: (a) replaced by the following: ‘(e) case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; ;’ ‘5. referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register.’deleted in paragraph 1, point (e) is the voting results including, in the The references of all documents

Amendment 68 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1

-a Article 1 - paragraph 1 - point 2 - point a a (new) "Article 10 Information on committee proceedings 1. The Commission shall keep a public register of committee proceedings which shall contain: (a) a list of committees; (b) the agendas of committee meetings; (c) the summary records, together with the lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong; (d) the draft implementing acts on which the committees are asked to deliver an opinion; (e) the voting results; (f) the final draft implementing acts following delivery of the opinion of the committees; (g) information concerning the adoption of the final draft implementing acts by the Commission; and (h) statistical data on the work of the committees. " Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32011R0182)

Amendment 69 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a – introductory part

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point (i) – new

(a) in paragraph 1, point (ei) is ~~replaced by the following:~~added as follows: (i) on the request by the Commission, on particularly sensitive issues, in the case of the appeal committee, the voting results including the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State;

Amendment 70 #

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, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; ;~~deleted

Amendment 71 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

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, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State;~~ expressed by the representative of each Member State, both in the committees and in the appeal committee, accompanied by a justification, including the cases of abstentions.;

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5

(b) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: ‘5. referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register.’deleted The references of all documents

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5

Amendment 74 #

Peter KOUROUMBASHEV, Adam GIEREK, Zigmantas BALČYTIS, Carlos ZORRINHO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5

5. The references of all documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f), (g) and (gi) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register.

Amendment 75 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 3 and 4

(ba) In Article 10, paragraphs 3 and 4 are deleted.

Amendment 76 #