What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

9 unchanged paragraphs

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context

(COM(2018)0373 – C80228/2018 – 2018/0198(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0373),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and in particular third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C80228/2018),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 September 2018,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of ... ,

Changed:– having regard to the written and reasoned opinions submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Portuguese Parliament and Swedish Parliament, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

Changed:– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A80000/2018),(A8-0414/2018),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Change 1

Changed:Recital 9:2 (9)a In(new): full(2a) respectTo ofimprove the constitutionallife andof institutionalcitizens set-upin ofcross-border theregions Memberon States,maritime theborders useor ofin thecross-border Mechanismregions shouldbetween bethe voluntary.Member ItStates shouldand consistthird ofcountries, twothe measures:application theof signaturethis Regulation and the conclusionuse of a Europeanmechanism Cross-Borderto Commitmentresolve (thelegal 'Commitment')and oradministrative theobstacles signatureshould be extended to all border regions of athe EuropeanUnion, Cross-Borderwhile Statementrespecting (theUnion 'Statement').law.

Change 2

Added:Recital 8: (8) Even though a number of effective mechanisms for cross-border cooperation already exist at inter-governmental, regional and local level in certain regions of the Union, they do not cover all border regions in the Union. In order to complement the existing systems, it is therefore necessary to set up a voluntary mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in all border regions ('the Mechanism'), but this does not prevent the creation of alternative comparable mechanisms according to specific needs at national, regional or local level.

Added:Recital 9: (9) In full respect of the constitutional and institutional set-up of the Member States, the use of the Mechanism is voluntary. It should consist of two measures: the signature and the conclusion of a European Cross-Border Commitment (the 'Commitment') or the signature of a European Cross-Border Statement (the 'Statement'). It should be possible for Member States to choose using an instrument which they consider to be more beneficial.

Added:Recital 9 a (new): (9a) The competent authorities of the Member States, countries, entities or regions involved should adopt, in accordance with their constitutional and legally defined specific competencies, the proposed ad hoc legal solution before concluding and signing the Commitment or signing the Statement pursuant to this Regulation.

Added:Recital 11: (11) The Statement would still require a legislative procedure in the Member State. The authority concluding the Statement should make a formal statement that it will trigger by a certain deadline the legislative procedure necessary to amend the normally applicable national law and to apply, by way of an explicit derogation, the law of a neighbouring Member State, in order to remove obstacles to the implementation of joint cross-border projects.

Added:Recital 12: (12) Legal obstacles are predominantly felt by persons interacting on land borders, such as cross-border workers, because people cross borders on a daily or weekly basis. In order to concentrate the effect of this Regulation to the regions closest to the border and with the highest degree of integration and interaction between neighbouring Member States, this Regulation should apply to cross-border regions within the meaning of the territory covered by neighbouring land or maritime border regions in two or more Member States at NUTS level 3 regions26. This should not prevent Member States from applying the Mechanism also to external borders others than those with EFTA countries, on a voluntary basis in relation to all parties concerned.

Recital 13: (13) In order to coordinate the tasks of different authorities which in some Member States will include national and regional legislative bodies, within a given Member States and between those of one or more neighbouring Member States, each Member State should be obliged to set up a national and, where appropriate, regional Cross-border Coordination Points and define their tasks and competencies during the different steps of the Mechanism covering initiation, conclusion, implementation and monitoring of Commitments and Statements.

The obligation to set up National Cross-border Coordination Points is imposed on all MS's.

Change 3

Removed:Recital 24: (24) In order to establish a database according to Article 7, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to lay down rules on its running, on the protection of data and the model to be used when information on the implementation and on the use of the Mechanism is submitted by Cross-border Coordination Points. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the advisory procedure under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council28 . For practical and coordination purposes, the ‘Coordination Committee for the European Structural and Investment Funds’ should be the committee competent for the procedure of adoption of implementing acts.

Added:Recital 17: (17) The key actor in the Member States requested to conclude a Commitment or Statement should be the respective national or regional Cross-border Coordination Points which is to liaise with all competent authorities in its Member State and with its counterpart in the neighbouring Member State. It should also be clearly established that the Cross-border Coordination Point may decide whether a procedure leading to the conclusion of a Commitment or a Statement is to be launched or whether for one or more legal obstacles a resolution has already found which could be applied. On the other hand, it should also be established that the Member State the legal provisions of which are to be applied in the other Member State may refuse such application outside its territory. Any decision should be duly justified and communicated in due time to all the partners.

Added:Recital 19: (19) The implementation of a self-executing Commitment should consist in the application of national provisions of another Member State when implementing joint projects. This should mean either the amendment of legally binding administrative acts already adopted in accordance with the normally applicable national law or, where this has not yet been done, the adoption of new administrative acts based on the legislation of another Member State within a deadline agreed by all the partners in order to be able to launch joint projects in due time. Where several authorities are each competent for different aspects of a complex legal obstacle, the Commitment should be accompanied by a timetable for each of these aspects. Respecting the subsidiarity principle, the adoption and transmission of those amended or new administrative acts should follow the national law on administrative procedures.

Added:Recital 24: (24) In order to establish a database according to Article 7, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to lay down rules on its running, on the protection of data and the model to be used when information on the implementation and on the use of the Mechanism is submitted by Cross-border Coordination Points. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the advisory procedure under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council28. For practical and coordination purposes, the ‘Coordination Committee for the European Structural and Investment Funds’ should be the committee competent for the procedure of adoption of implementing acts.

Recital 25: deleted

Change 4

Removed:Recital 28: (28) In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) TEU, the content and form of Union action should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. The recourse to the specific Mechanism set up under this Regulation to resolve legal obstacles in cross-border regions is voluntary. Where a Member State decides, for a specific joint project with one or more neighbouring Member States, to continue to resolve legal obstacles in a specific cross-border region under the effective mechanisms it has set up at national level or which it has set up formally or informally, together with one or more neighbouring Member States, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Likewise, where a Member State decides, for a specific joint project with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective mechanism set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States, provided that mechanism allows for accession, again, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Finally, where a Member State decides together with one or more neighbouring Member States, to set up formally or informally a new effective mechanism to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. This Regulation does therefore not go beyond what is necessary in orde…

Added:Recital 26: (26) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8), the right to education (Article 14), the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work (Article 15), in particular the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State, the freedom to conduct business (Article 16), access to social security and social assistance (Article 34), access to health care (Article 35), access to services of general economic interest (Article 36) and a high level of environmental protection in accordance with the principle of sustainable development (Article 37).

Removed:Article 1 – paragraph 1: 1. This Regulation sets up a voluntary mechanism to allow for the application in one Member State, with regard to a single joint project in a cross-border region, of the legal provisions from another Member State, where the application of the legal provisions of the former would constitute a legal obstacle hampering the implementation of a joint Project ('the Mechanism').

Added:Recital 28: (28) In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5(4) TEU, the content and form of Union action should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. The recourse to the specific Mechanism set up under this Regulation to resolve legal obstacles in cross-border regions is voluntary and in no way precludes the use of alternative comparable instruments. Where a Member State decides, for a specific joint project with one or more neighbouring Member States, to continue to resolve legal obstacles in a specific cross-border region under the effective mechanisms it has set up at national level or which it has set up formally or informally, together with one or more neighbouring Member States, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Likewise, where a Member State decides, for a specific joint project with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective mechanism set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States, provided that mechanism allows for accession, again, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. Finally, where a Member State decides together with one or more neighbouring Member States, to set up formally or informally a new effectivemechanism to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions, the Mechanism set up under this Regulation does not need to be selected. T…

Added:Recital 30 a (new): (30a) This Regulation should comply with the subsidiarity principle. It does not affect, by any means, the sovereignty of Member States nor contradict their constitutions.

Added:Article 1 – paragraph 1: 1. This Regulation sets up a voluntary mechanism to allow for the application in one Member State, with regard to a single joint project in a cross-border region, of the legal provisions from another Member State, where the application of the legal provisions of the former would constitute one or more legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint Project ('the Mechanism').

The wording in the proposal raises doubts about the interpretation whether a member state may opt for the ECBM for each single "joint project" or is obliged to decide on the application of the mechanism for all possible "joint projects" along a border. The rapporteur wants to avoid that MS’s that currently have no existing mechanisms, have no other choice then to choose for the ECBM. The application of the ECBM should be on a voluntary basis based on a case-by-case assessment of the MS.

Change 5

Changed:Article 41 – paragraph 1: 1. Member States3 may– eitherpoint optc: for(c) the Mechanism or optlegal forprotection existingof wayspersons toresident resolvein legala obstaclescross-border hamperingregion theor implementationthose ofwho alive jointthere projectfor ina cross-borderlimited regionsperiod with one or moreregard neighbouringto Memberthe States.Mechanism.

Change 6

Removed:Article 4 – paragraph 2: 2. A Member State may also decide, with regard to a joint project in cross-border regions, with one or more neighbouring Member States, to join an existing effective way set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States.

Added:Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1: (1) 'cross-border region' means the territory covered by neighbouring land or maritime border regions in two or more Member States at NUTS level 3 regions;

Removed:Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new): 2a. A Member State may also decide together with one or more neighbouring Member States to set up formally or informally a new effective mechanism to resolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions.

Added:Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2: (2) 'joint project' means any item of infrastructure with an impact in a given cross-border region or any service of general economic interest provided in a given cross-border region, regardless of whether this impact appears on both sides of the border or only on one side thereof;

Removed:Member States may opt for the mechanism but could also choose to join existing mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles, or even to create new mechanisms to do so.

Added:Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5: (5) 'initiator' means the actor who identifies one or more legal obstacles and triggers the Mechanism by submitting an initiative document;

Change 7

Changed:Article 54 – paragraph 11: –1. introductoryMember part:States 1.may Eachopt Memberfor Statethe shallMechanism establishor oneopt orfor moreother Cross-borderways Coordinationto Pointsresolve legal obstacles hampering the implementation of a joint project in cross-border regions with one ofor themore followingneighbouring ways:Member States.

Change 8

Added:Article 4 – paragraph 2: 2. A Member State may, with regard to a joint project in cross-border regions, with one or more neighbouring Member States, join an existing effective way set up formally or informally by one or more neighbouring Member States or shall apply the Mechanism in respect of the Statement.

Added:Article 4 – paragraph 3: 3. Member States may also apply the Mechanism to a joint project in a cross-border region between one or more Member States and one or more third countries or one or more overseas countries and territories on a voluntary basis in relation to all parties concerned.

Added:Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part: 1. Each Member State shall establish or designate one or more Cross-border Coordination Points in one of the following ways:

In the proposal of the rapporteur, the CBCPs will be key in order to assess if and how to resolve legal obstacles. The rapporteur therefore proposes the mandatory setting-up of CBCPs in each MS. Since the application of the ECBM will be triggered on a voluntary basis, it is up to the MS’s to decide on how substantial the administrative capacity of these CBCPs has to be.

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d: (d) liaise with the Cross-border Coordination Points in the neighbouring Member State or States and with the Cross-border Coordination Points in other territorial entities with legislative powers of its own Member State or another Member State;

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c: (c) upon request from a given competent committing authority located in another Member State, perform the preliminary analysis of an initiative document;

Change 9

Added:Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b: b) create, publish and keep an up-dated database of all national and regional Cross-border Coordination Points;

Added:Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new): 1a. The Commission shall prepare a supporting communication strategy with the aim of: / (a) promoting the exchange of best practices; / (b) providing practical information and interpretation of the subject area and the thematic focus of this Regulation; and / (c) clarifying the precise procedure for concluding a Commitment or Statement.

Added:The implementation of the Regulation should be accompanied by an information campaign providing clear and practical information that will facilitate its application by stakeholders.

Added:Article 8 – paragraph 1: 1. The initiator shall identify one or more legal obstacles with regard to the planning, development, staffing, financing or functioning of a joint project.

Added:Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a: (a) a description of the joint project and of its context, of one or more corresponding legal obstacles in the committing Member State as well as of the rationale for resolving one or more legal obstacles;

Added:Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b: (b) a list of the specific legal provisions of the transferring Member State resolving one or more legal obstacles or, where no appropriate legal provision exists, a proposal for an ad hoc legal resolution;

Added:Article 10 – title: Preliminary analysis of the initiative document by the committing and transferring Member State or States

Article 10 – paragraph 1: 1. The competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State shall analyse the initiative document. It shall liaise with all competent committing authorities and with the national or, where relevant, other regional Cross-border Coordination Points in the committing Member State and with the national Cross-border Coordination Point in the transferring Member State.

Change 10

Changed:Article 10 – paragraph 2 –1 introductorya part:(new): 2.1a. Within sixthree months afterof receipt of thean initiative documentdocument, the competent Cross-border Coordination Point shallof take,the onetransferring orMember moreState ofshall thesend followingits actions,preliminary reaction to bethe transmittedcompetent toCross-border Coordination Point of the initiatorcommitting inMember writing:State.

Change 11

Added:Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part: 2. Within six months after receipt of the initiative document the competent Cross-border Coordination Point of the committing Member State shall take, one or more of the following actions, to be transmitted to the initiator in writing: