opinion parliamentary committee draft, 12 May 2017
On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers
Document AFCO-PA-604673 · (COM(2017)0085 – C80034/2017 – 2017/0035(COD))
Committee on Constitutional Affairs · Rapporteur: Pascal Durand
AI:In short
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs gives its draft opinion on the Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on how member states control the Commission's implementing powers.
Position. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs sets out its draft opinion on the proposal to amend Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Key points
- The draft opinion concerns the proposal to amend Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on mechanisms for control by member states of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.
Who is affected
Written by AI from the full text · every figure comes from the text · ¶ opens the paragraph · 25 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
Full text
Jump to an amendment (14)
Text 4 paragraphs
Committee on Constitutional Affairs
2017/0035(COD)
12.5.2017
DRAFT OPINION
Amendments 115 paragraphs
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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 and to take greater account of the precautionary principle without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. |
Or. en
Justification
The precautionary principle should be given more weight
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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. | (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 assume greater responsibility in the decision-making process. Where the act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, greater weight should be given to the precautionary principle. When, in such cases Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority in favour of proposals to grant authorisation for a product or substance, that authorisation should be deemed to have been refused. |
Or. en
Justification
Greater weight should be given to the precautionary principle and Member States should bear greater responsibility in this politically sensitive area.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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 |
Or. en
Justification
A further meeting at ministerial level does not seem useful, taking into account that in most cases the result of the vote in the appeal committee did not differ from the voting result in the standing committee.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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 |
Or. en
Justification
The change in the voting rules seems inspired by bringing about certain statistical effects rather than increasing Member States' responsibility. Member State representatives may have valid reasons to abstain when voting.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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 |
Or. en
Justification
The added value of this measure is not clear.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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 should be increased throughout the entire legislative process. In particular, the votes of individual Member State representatives should be made public. 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 a substance, substantive reasons for those votes should be given by each Member State representative. More detailed information should also be given on the composition of committees. |
Or. en
Justification
Transparency should be increased throughout the whole legislative process. Moreover, substantive reasons should be given for certain votes in the interest of a reasoned decision-making process, to increase Member States' political responsibility and bearing in mind possible legal claims.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (11 a) 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. |
Or. en
Justification
Systematic problems with similar draft implementing acts may warrant a review of the implementing powers in the relevant basic act.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth paragraph is added : | deleted |
| « 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. ; » |
Or. en
Justification
A further meeting at ministerial level does not seem useful, taking into account that in most cases the result of the vote in the appeal committee did not differ from the voting result in the standing committee.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) in paragraph 1, the following second subparagraph is added: | deleted |
| « 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. » |
Or. en
Justification
The change in the voting rules seems inspired by bringing about certain statistical effects rather than increasing Member States' responsibility. Member State representatives may have valid reasons to abstain when voting.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) the following paragraph 3a is inserted: | deleted |
| « 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. » |
Or. en
Justification
The added value of this measure is not clear.
Amendment 11
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)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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.” |
Or. en
Justification
Greater weight should be given to the precautionary principle and Member States should bear greater responsibility in this politically sensitive area.
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
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (- a) in paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following: | |
| (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; | "(c) the summary records, together with the lists of the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons belong;" |
Or. en
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R0182)
Justification
Transparency should be increased throughout the entire legislative process. More detailed information should be given on the composition of committees.
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
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e) the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State; | (e) the voting results, broken down by representative of each Member State, as well as a record of the substantive reasons to be given by each Member State representative for their vote 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 a substance; |
Or. en
Justification
Transparency should be increased also at the level of the standing committee. Moreover, substantive reasons should be given for votes in the interest of a reasoned decision-making process, to increase Member States' political responsibility and bearing in mind possible legal claims.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3 a) 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.” |
Or. en
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R0182)
Justification
Where it appears difficult to obtain a positive opinion of the Member States in similar cases, it may be opportune to review the implementing powers conferred on the Commission.