AMENDMENTS EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament

Transcription

1 European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 2017/0035(COD) AMDMTS Draft opinion Bronis Ropė Rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2017)0085 C8-0034/ /0035(COD)) AM\ docx PE v01-00 United in diversity

2 AM_Com_LegOpinion PE v /12 AM\ docx

3 15 Jan Huitema 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. (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. 16 Julie Girling Recital 2 (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, (2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, AM\ docx 3/12 PE v01-00

4 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. 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, 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. 17 Georgios Epitidios 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 (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. The system should nevertheless be amended regarding specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and acceptance of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and PE v /12 AM\ docx

5 sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. Or. el 18 Nicola Caputo 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 decisionmaking 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. (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. Or. it 19 Julie Girling Recital 7 (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at (7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at AM\ docx 5/12 PE v01-00

6 stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decisionmaking 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. stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decisionmaking process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority. 20 Nicola Caputo 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. Or. it 21 Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez Recital 9 (9) The voting rules for the appeal deleted PE v /12 AM\ docx

7 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. Or. es 22 Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez 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. (10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council and the European Parliament to indicate their views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion. 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. Or. es AM\ docx 7/12 PE v01-00

8 23 Julie Girling 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. (11) Transparency throughout the entire legislative process, including with regard to information on how Member State representatives vote, should be increased. 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. 24 Bronis Ropė on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group 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. (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. 25 Julie Girling PE v /12 AM\ docx

9 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. 26 Jan Huitema 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. 27 Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez Article 1 paragraph 1 point 2 point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 paragraph 1 AM\ docx 9/12 PE v01-00

10 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 Or. es 28 Georgios Epitidios 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 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."; 3a. The 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 presenting its views. In duly justified cases, the Commission may request a shorter deadline for replying to the Council."; PE v /12 AM\ docx

11 (No cross reference) Justification Necessary in order to improve the current situation This amendment applies throughout the text. Adoption thereof will necessitate corresponding changes throughout the text.) Or. xm 29 Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez Article 1 paragraph 1 point 2 point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Artícle 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 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. 3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council and the European Parliament for an opinion. 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. Or. es 30 Bronis Ropė on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Article 1 paragraph 1 point 3 point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 AM\ docx 11/12 PE v01-00

12 Article 10 paragraph 1 point b (-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; PE v /12 AM\ docx