opinion parliamentary committee draft, 16 November 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 ITRE-PA-604503 · (COM(2017)0085 – C80034/2017 – 2017/0035(COD)
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy · Rapporteur: Claude Turmes
AI:In short
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy's draft opinion responds to the Commission's proposal to amend Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on how member states control the Commission's implementing powers. The rapporteur supports making member state votes public throughout the advisory, examination and appeal committee procedures, and wants member states to give reasons for their votes. The rapporteur opposes the proposed extra appeal levels at ministerial and Council level, and rejects the changes to quorum and vote counting that would exclude abstentions. The draft opinion proposes that, for products and substances affecting health, animals or plants, the Commission must not authorise them if there is no qualified majority in favour. It also proposes that Parliament or the Council may call on the Commission to review the implementing powers in a basic act when positive opinions are systematically hard to obtain.
Position. The rapporteur supports the transparency measures and proposes further ones, including reasoned votes. The rapporteur opposes the additional appeal levels and the changes to quorum and vote counting, and proposes that authorisation be refused for health, animal and plant products without a qualified majority in favour.
Key points
- The rapporteur fully supports improving transparency and suggests further measures, including requiring member states to justify adopting or rejecting an implementing act.
- The rapporteur believes additional appeal levels at ministerial and Council level would not be helpful, as appeal committee votes rarely differ from standing committee votes.
- The rapporteur is strongly opposed to the proposed change in quorum and vote counting, calling it unacceptable from a democratic point of view.
- For products and substances in health, animals and plants, the Commission would be required to prohibit the substance if there is no qualified majority in favour of authorisation.
- Where member states systematically fail to deliver an opinion on the same basic act, the Commission should consider revising that basic act.
- Transparency should be increased throughout the advisory, examination and appeal committee procedures, including making individual member state votes and voting intentions public.
- Where the basic act concerns health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft act would grant authorisation for a product or substance, each member state representative should record substantive reasons for their vote.
- Discussions on sensitive issues relating to health or safety of humans, animals or plants should be web streamed live.
- The Commission may adopt a draft implementing act without delay to avoid market disruption in agriculture or a risk to the Union's financial interests only where the basic act does not concern health or safety of humans, animals or plants.
- The summary records should include the lists of persons present and the authorities and organisations to which they belong.
- Parliament, the Council and the public should have access to information under Article 10(1), and references of documents should be made public in the register.
- Parliament or the Council may at any time call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend a basic act if they consider its implementing powers need review.
Who is affected
- Member states: their representatives' votes and voting intentions would be made public, and they would have to justify votes in sensitive areas.
- The Commission: it would be barred from authorising products or substances in health, animals and plants without a qualified majority in favour.
- The public: it would gain access to committee information and live web streaming of sensitive discussions.
- Parliament and the Council: they could call on the Commission to review implementing powers in a basic act.
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 (19)
Text 4 paragraphs
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
2017/0035(COD)
16.11.2017
DRAFT OPINION
Short justification 168 paragraphs
Article 291 of the Treaty of Lisbon provides that legislative acts shall grant implementing powers to the Commission where uniform conditions of execution are needed. How Member States control the exercise of these implementing powers and the adoption of related implementing acts is set out in Regulation 182/2011, hereby proposed for revision.
In many cases, the existing procedure has been functioning well. However, there are cases, in particular under the "examination procedure", that are more problematic, raising questions of responsibility and ownership of the decisions made by the Member States, especially in politically sensitive areas, such as in the field of health and safety of humans, animals and plants.
According to the "examination procedure", a qualified majority in favour of the implementing act proposed by the Commission is necessary to adopt the act. If this majority is not reached, the Commission may appeal to an Appeal Committee. And if no majority is established in the Appeal Committee neither for nor against the implementing act (“no-opinion” situation), the Commission may decide to adopt or to reject the act on its own.
To address this problem, the Commission proposes in its revision to:
Make the voting positions of individual Member State representatives in the Appeal Committee public;
Introduce additional levels of appeal at the ministerial level and possibly further refer the matter to Council level for orientation;
Not count abstentions and introduce a new quorum to participate in the votes (simple majority of Member States).
Your rapporteur for opinion fully supports the proposal to improve transparency and suggest further similar measures throughout the procedure, including requiring Member States to provide justifications for adopting or rejecting an implementing act. On the other hand, your rapporteur for opinion believes that proposed additional levels of appeal would likely not be helpful, as experience shows that outcomes of votes in appeal committees are rarely different to outcomes in the standing committees. Your rapporteur for opinion is also strongly opposed to the proposed change in quorum and vote counting practices, unacceptable from a democratic point of view.
To resolve the problem arising to situations of “no-opinion”, the proposal is to distinguish cases according to the area and the nature of the decision. For products and substances in the fields of health, animals and plants, the Commission would be required to prohibit the substance if there is no qualified majority in favour of granting its authorisation. This procedure would remove the case-by-case choice of the Commission and ensure more legal certainty as the obligation to not authorise the substance in case of absence of majority would be enshrined in this Regulation.
In addition, in cases involving the same basic act, there are systematically situations in which the Member States do not deliver an opinion. In these cases, provision should be made for the Commission to consider a revision of the basic act on that basis precise point.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy 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 the examination procedure, advisory procedure and the 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
More voting transparency is needed not only in the appeal committee, but also in the examinations committee and throughout the advisory procedure. More weight should be given to the precautionary principle
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 draft implementing act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, the precautionary principle should prevail. 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
The precautionary principle should be given greater weight 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 advisory, examination and appeal committee procedure. In particular, the votes of individual Member State representatives, including their voting intentions where no formal vote takes place, should be made public. These requirements should apply to votes at the appeal committee, the examination committee and throughout the advisory procedure. In addition, where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, and 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 for their vote. More detailed information on the composition of expert committees should be made public. |
Or. en
Justification
Transparency should be increased throughout the committee procedure. Moreover, Member States political responsibility should be increased and the precautionary principle should be given more weight.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (11a) Where the draft implementing act concerns sensitive issues in relation to the protection of health or safety of humans, animals or plants, discussions should be web streamed live. |
Or. en
Justification
Transparency should be increased.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (11 b) Where there appears to be a systematic difficulty in obtaining positive opinions from a committee in relation to several draft implementing acts under a same basic act, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the corresponding basic act. |
Or. en
Justification
Systematic problems with similar draft implementing acts may warrant a review of the implementing powers in the relevant basic act.
Amendment 9
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 subparagraph 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. Moreover, there could be a risk of political trade-offs.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a
| 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 11
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 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 12
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 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."; |
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 13
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 7 – paragraph 1
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2a) in Article 7, the first paragraph is amended as follows: | |
| By way of derogation from Article 5(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 5(4), the Commission may adopt a draft implementing act where it needs to be adopted without delay in order to avoid creating a significant disruption of the markets in the area of agriculture or a risk for the financial interests of the Union within the meaning of Article 325 TFEU. | "By way of derogation from Article 5(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 5(4), and where the basic act does not concern the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, the Commission may adopt a draft implementing act where it needs to be adopted without delay in order to avoid creating a significant disruption of the markets in the area of agriculture or a risk for the financial interests of the Union within the meaning of Article 325 TFEU."; |
Or. en
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)
Justification
This derogation needs to take into consideration the precautionary principle and should not compromise the health or safety of humans, animals or plants.
Amendment 14
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 amended as follows: | |
| (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/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)
Justification
Transparency should be increased throughout the entire legislative process. More detailed information should be given on the composition of committees.
Amendment 15
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, expressed by the representative of each Member State, including their voting intentions where no formal vote takes place. 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, a record of the substantive reasons shall be given by each Member State’s representative for their vote; |
Or. en
Justification
Transparency should be increased throughout the committee procedure. 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 16
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 3
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (aa) paragraph 3 is amended as follows: | |
| 3. The European Parliament and the Council shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the applicable rules. | "3. The European Parliament, the Council and the public shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the applicable rules."; |
Or. en
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182&from=EN)
Justification
Transparency should be increased and the public should have a right of access to information.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 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 shall be made public in the register. | 5. 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. |
Or. en
Justification
Transparency should be increased and the public should have a right of access to information.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) the following paragraph is added: | |
| "5a. Where the draft implementing act concerns sensitive issues in relation to the protection of health or safety of humans, animals or plants, discussions in the committees shall be web streamed live."; |
Or. en
Amendment 19
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 |
|---|---|
| (3a) 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
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 to the Commission.