REPORT on better lawmaking – 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

29.6.2010 - (2009/2142(INI))

Committee on Legal Affairs
Rapporteur: Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on better lawmaking – 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

(2009/2142(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making[1],

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Common Approach to Impact Assessment of November 2005,

–   having regard to its resolution of 9 February 2010 on a revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission for the next legislative term[2],

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on ‘Better lawmaking 2006’ pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (14th annual report)[3],

–   having regard to its resolutions on the 24th and 25th annual reports from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law[4],

–   having regard to the Commission report on subsidiarity and proportionality (15^th report on Better Lawmaking, 2007) (COM(2008)0586),

–   having regard to the Commission report on subsidiarity and proportionality (16^th report on Better Lawmaking, 2008) (COM(2009)0504),

–   having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled ‘Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union’ (COM(2009)0015),

–   having regard to the Commission working document entitled ‘Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union’ – 2008 progress report and 2009 outlook’ (COM(2009)0016),

–   having regard to the Commission working document entitled ‘Third progress report on the strategy for simplifying the regulatory environment’ (COM(2009)0017),

–   having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled ‘Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU – Sectoral Reduction Plans and 2009 Actions’ (COM(2009)0544),

–   having regard to the Commission’s Impact Assessment Guidelines (SEC(2009)0092),

–   having regard to the Impact Assessment Board Report for 2008 (SEC(2009)0055),

–   having regard to the Impact Assessment Board Report for 2009 (SEC(2010)1728),

–   having regard to the report of 17 September 2009 of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens,

–   having regard to the conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 4 December 2009,

–   having regard to the final report of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform 2007-2009,

–   having regard to the Conference of Committee Chairs working document entitled ‘Impact Assessment: The European Parliament’s Experience’,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation on the citizens' initiative (COM(2010)0119),

–   having regard to Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7‑0215/2010),

A. whereas correct application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality is essential for the proper functioning of the European Union and for its institutions’ activities to meet the expectations of its citizens, companies operating in the internal market and national and local government, and to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen,

B.  whereas better lawmaking has become a prerequisite for the effective functioning of the European Union and can play an important role in ending the economic crisis and achieving economic growth,

C. whereas the issue of better lawmaking should be considered not only in the context of the Commission programme on better regulation, but also in a wider sense, in connection with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty,

D. whereas the Lisbon Treaty places Parliament on an equal footing with the Council in lawmaking under the ordinary legislative procedure,

E.  whereas the Lisbon Treaty provides for the formal involvement of national parliaments in monitoring the application of the principle of subsidiarity,

F.  whereas better lawmaking was a matter of priority for the previous Commission and should also be a task of primary importance for the new Commission,

G. whereas better regulation in the Union covers a range of matters, such as carrying out impact assessments, reducing administrative burdens and simplifying and codifying existing legislation,

H. whereas consultations with all interested parties, in particular social partners, are of fundamental importance in the preparation of draft legislation (including impact assessments),

I.   whereas, under Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Parliament may request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties,

J.   whereas a programme aimed at reducing the administrative burdens arising from European Union legislation has been in place since 2005 and seeks to reduce those burdens by 25% by 2012,

K. whereas one of the key elements of the programme is the baseline measurement of administrative costs based on a standard cost model,

L.  whereas the use of recasting and codification to simplify and codify existing legislation ensures greater clarity and consistency as regards the changes made,

M. whereas correct and timely implementation by Member States is of crucial importance as regards European Union directives, as is the ongoing problem of the ‘gold-plating’ of legislation, i.e. the inclusion of obligations going beyond the requirements of European law,

N. whereas the Lisbon Treaty has replaced the comitology system by a new distinction between delegated and implementing acts,

O. whereas the Lisbon Treaty has introduced a European citizens’ initiative, which is a new instrument allowing citizens to influence European Union law,

P.  whereas the citizens’ rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union include the right to good administration, which cannot be achieved without clear laws that the general public can understand,

Basic comments

1.  Stresses the vital importance of making simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand;

2.  Emphasises that European institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality when formulating proposals and observe the criteria laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the TFEU;

3.  Stresses that all draft legislation must include reasons for concluding that the objective can be better achieved by EU action, substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators, in accordance with the above-mentioned protocol;

4.  Firmly supports the process of better regulation aimed at increasing the transparency, effectiveness and coherence of European Union legislation; emphasises the Commission’s key role, as the institution with the power of legislative initiative, in drafting high-quality legislative proposals; undertakes to make every effort to examine such proposals promptly, in accordance with the appropriate legislative procedure; emphasises, furthermore, the importance of cooperating with Member States to ensure that legislation is correctly implemented;

5.  Notes the Commission’s commitment to this process, as reflected in a series of documents, in particular the Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union, as well as in its ongoing activities; notes, at the same time, that the programme remains unknown to a wider audience and calls on the Commission to promote it more effectively;

6.  Agrees with the observations set out in paragraphs 3 and 15 of the Council conclusions of 4 December 2009 concerning joint responsibility for better regulation and giving all the bodies and individuals involved in the process greater responsibility;

7.  Notes the participation of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in discussions on better regulation and the reduction of administrative burdens, and hopes to see fruitful cooperation in this area;

8.  Considers that the improvement of interinstitutional cooperation in this vast area requires a revision of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making of 2003; draws attention, in this regard, to the relevant paragraphs of its resolution of 9 February 2010 on the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, especially to the joint commitment of the two institutions to agree on key changes in preparation for future negotiations with the Council of Ministers on an adaptation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making to the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty;

9.  Urges the Commission, on the basis of the political agreement embodied in the resolution of 9 February 2010 on a revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission, to make every effort to ensure that Parliament and the Council are treated as equals in the lawmaking process, thus implementing the principle of equal treatment between Parliament and the Council deriving from the Lisbon Treaty, in particular by simultaneously and comprehensively notifying both institutions of all events and developments affecting that process and ensuring equal access to meetings and to proposals or other information;

10. Stresses that the process of simplifying legislation must not lead to a lowering of the standards laid down in current legislation, which is why consultations with all interested parties, including social partners, must be an integral part of the process;

11. Welcomes the closer involvement of national parliaments in the European legislative process, in particular in the process of verifying the compliance of legislative proposals with the principle of subsidiarity; underlines the need for national parliaments to observe the eight-week period in which to make their opinions known;

12. Welcomes the action taken by the Commission to ensure an effective exchange of information with national parliaments and to inform Parliament and the Council thereof; encourages national parliaments to distinguish clearly between opinions concerning the principle of subsidiarity and opinions on the substance of Commission proposals;

Impact assessment

13. Underlines the Commission’s basic responsibility to carry out impact assessments; calls for the development of mechanisms to guarantee the independence and credibility of the analyses carried out; at the same time undertakes to continue to assess the impact of any significant amendments it makes to Commission proposals;

14. To this end, invites the Commission to provide systematically a two-to-four-page summary of its impact assessment to Parliament and the Council, together with the full impact assessment, when submitting the legislative proposal;

15. Encourages all Parliament committees to precede any discussion of a Commission legislative proposal with an exchange of views with the Commission on the impact assessment;

16. Recognises the need, in the light of experience to date, for a revision of the Interinstitutional Common Approach to Impact Assessment and encourages all the institutions to fulfil their commitments regarding impact assessments; draws attention to the conclusions of the Conference of Committee Chairs’ working document in this connection; encourages the initiatives taken by Parliament committees in inviting the Commission to present all impact assessments so that they can be scrutinised fully by the relevant committees at the outset and before the first exchange of views;

17. Reminds the Commission, at the same time, that all new proposals should be evaluated with regard to the full extent of their impact, in accordance with the principle of an integrated approach, which means that their economic, social and environmental consequences all need to be analysed;

18. Stresses, in particular, the need to examine the social effects of legislative proposals, including their impact on the European labour market and living standards; underlines once again the necessity to examine carefully the impact of legislation on businesses;

19. Suggests that the Commission should carry out an impact assessment on all proposals to reduce administrative burdens, thereby allowing any side effects of such proposals to be examined;

20. Points out that, for an impact assessment to be objective, the Commission must systematically consult all interested parties, including small and medium-sized enterprises; recognises the need to ensure that interested parties are better informed of the possibility of taking part in consultations and calls for the extension of the eight-week consultation period; calls on the Commission to draw up and publish a clear list of the impact assessments planned for the year ahead, in order to allow interested parties to prepare for them;

21. Believes that objective impact assessments are an extremely important tool for assessing Commission proposals and calls, therefore, for scrutiny of the conduct of impact assessments by an independent body, which should, however, be accountable to Parliament;

22. Emphasises that the quality of impact assessments should be subject to continuous monitoring; welcomes the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board on the general improvement in their quality; notes that the Board is applying stricter assessment criteria; notes, at the same time, that the high percentage of impact assessments (over 30%) that are initially rejected by the Board testifies to the need for the relevant Commission departments to improve their quality further; calls for an increase in the staff available to the Board;

23. Welcomes the Commission’s new guidelines on carrying out impact assessments and, in particular, the inclusion therein of a set of questions concerning the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; hopes that the new guidelines will lead to a significant improvement in the carrying-out of impact assessments and a subsequent improvement in the quality of legislative proposals;

24. Welcomes, in particular, the fact that the Commission’s new Impact Assessment Guidelines call for analysis of the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs (the SME test) and for the results of such analysis to be taken into account when proposals are drafted; emphasises that systematic application of the SME test in the Commission’s impact assessments is an important element in implementation of the Small Business Act, contributing significantly to an SME-friendly regulatory environment; calls on the Member States to apply the SME test at national level;

25. Calls on the Commission to clarify the ‘smart regulation’ agenda outlined in President Barroso’s political guidelines, in particular with reference to stepping up efforts regarding ex-post assessments, and also to include on that agenda quantitative indicators, particularly those connected with the intention to reduce bureaucratic burdens;

26. Calls on the Commission systematically to carry out ex-post assessments of adopted legislation in order, among other things, to verify insofar as possible the accuracy of the relevant impact assessments;

27. Notes the evaluation of the impact assessment system undertaken by the Court of Auditors and awaits its results with interest;

Reducing administrative burdens

28. Emphasises the importance of reducing the costs for businesses operating in the European Union, in order to enable them to function effectively in difficult economic conditions and compete globally; underlines the need to streamline public administrative procedures; stresses that administrative burden reduction must focus on unnecessary information requirements and, as such, fully supports the ‘only once’ principle set out in the Small Business Act; emphasises that reducing administrative burdens for businesses must not have any negative social or environmental consequences;

29. Welcomes the results of the Commission’s work to date in drafting proposals which, once adopted, will enable administrative burdens to be reduced by as much as 33% by 2012, an improvement on the earlier commitment to a 25% reduction; notes that savings generated in this way could amount to more than EUR 40 billion[5];

30. Draws particular attention to the progress made in the work on those Commission proposals that offer the greatest potential for savings (i.e. the exemption of micro-enterprises from Union accounting requirements and the amendment of the VAT Directive to facilitate electronic invoicing); calls on Member States to work together constructively in the Council and to ensure the effective transposition into national law of adopted legislation;

31. Notes that the baseline programme for the measurement of administrative burdens has proved to be a useful but costly method; encourages the Commission to consider alternative methods of measuring administrative burdens, such as consultation with interested parties, which would allow the prompt removal of burdens in specific cases;

32. Emphasises that the Standard Cost Model for the measurement of administrative burdens has not been independently evaluated;

33. Notes, at the same time, the relatively small number (148 in 2008) of suggestions posted online on the dedicated website; considers that the Commission should publicise the fact that those affected may draw attention to excessive administrative costs resulting from European or national law;

34. Shares the Commission’s opinion that electronic communication constitutes an excellent tool for reducing administrative burdens and encourages it to realise the ideas set out in the e-Commission 2006-2010 framework and the i2010 strategy aimed at modernising administration in Europe;

35. Urges the Commission to continue to implement sectoral plan measures to reduce administrative burdens; undertakes to give prompt consideration to legislative proposals relating thereto;

36. Notes the positive contribution made by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens to the programme to reduce those burdens that is being carried out by the Commission; emphasises, however, that the composition of the group should be better balanced, with the inclusion of more experts representing civil society and experts from other Member States; calls for the terms of reference of the group, thus expanded, to be extended to 2013;

37. Points out that citizens are not able to distinguish between administrative burdens resulting from European law and those imposed by national law and that national administrative burdens play a part in creating a negative image of the European Union;

38. Points out that, to ensure that the programme to reduce burdens is successful, active cooperation between the Commission and the Member States is necessary in order to avoid discrepancies in interpretation and the ‘gold-plating’ of legislation;

39. Calls on Member States to work consistently to meet their own national targets for reducing administrative burdens and hopes for fruitful cooperation with national parliaments on this matter;

40. Encourages the Commission to extend the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU to new priority areas and other legislative acts, on the basis of consultation with all affected stakeholders, including the social partners, and the ex-post assessment of existing legislation; calls on the Commission to continue this Action Programme beyond 2012;

Institutional and procedural comments

41. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts so far to identify and draft the proposals for simplifying and codifying European legislation; stresses the need to maintain good interinstitutional cooperation in that regard, in particular in relation to the withdrawal by the Commission of legislative proposals that are not considered essential;

42. Calls on the Commission to proceed with the codification of legislative acts and to present the report scheduled for 2009 detailing the achievements of the codification programme as a whole[6];

43. Stresses that the recasting technique should always be used when amending legislation; at the same time recognises and respects the Commission’s rights in the legislative process;

44. Points out that the other initiatives for simplifying legislation are subject to the ordinary legislative procedure and the corresponding deadlines; gives an assurance that it is making every effort to consider Commission proposals as quickly as possible;

45. Points out that the TFEU[7] explicitly prohibits the adoption by Parliament and the Council of legislative acts not envisaged in the Treaty provisions for the area in question;

46. Warns against abandoning necessary legislation in favour of self-regulation or co-regulation or any other non-legislative measure; believes that the consequences of such choices should be subject to careful examination in each case, in accordance with Treaty law and the roles of the individual institutions;

47. Stresses, at the same time, that soft law should be applied with the greatest of care and on a duly justified basis, without undermining legal certainty and the clarity of existing legislation, and after consultation of Parliament as underlined in its resolution on a revised Framework Agreement;

48. Notes with satisfaction the streamlined exchange of information and documents connected with implementing acts (comitology), and in particular the functioning of the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny; hopes that the transition to the new system introduced by the Lisbon Treaty will take place smoothly and without unnecessary delays;

49. Points, furthermore, to a range of other institutional changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty that will affect lawmaking in the European Union; emphasises in particular the importance of the European citizens" initiative, which has the potential to become an essential element of European public debate and welcomes the Commission's proposal for a regulation on this matter; stresses the need of close cooperation between Parliament and the Commission to create an effective and understandable instrument, with clear criteria of admissibility, that will be in accordance with the good practice of the EU lawmaking process;

50. Supports the Commission’s proposal to examine the admissibility of a proposed ex-ante citizens’ initiative already when it has obtained one-third of the required declarations of support, which will make it possible to avoid disappointing citizens in the event of initiatives being declared inadmissible;

51. Calls on the Commission to define not only its time limit for examining an officially submitted initiative, but also the time limit for it to bring forward a legislative proposal in the event of the initiative being admissible;

52. Urges the Commission to give an undertaking regarding the deadlines by which it will meet requests made by Parliament pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, with specific reference to the commitment under the Framework Agreement to draw up a report on the follow-up to all legislative initiative requests during the three months following adoption of a legislative initiative report and to submit a legislative proposal within a year at most;

53. Calls on the Commission, in the light of Parliament’s resolutions thus far on monitoring the application of Union law, to make full use of its rights under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU, in particular in connection with failure by Member States to notify measures transposing a directive;

54. Points out that the issue of better lawmaking is directly linked to the issue of monitoring the implementation of Union law;

55. Is closely following the implementation of the EU pilot project for such monitoring; is concerned that the proposed method for examining complaints could lead to the Commission being overly dependent on the Member States;

56. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

• [1]               OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1.
• [2]               Texts adopted of that date, P7_TA-PROV(2010)0009.
• [3]               Texts adopted of that date, P6_TA(2008)0493.
• [4]               Texts adopted of that date, P6_TA(2008)0494 and P6_TA-PROV(2009)0335.
• [5]  See page 6 of the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU – Sectoral Reduction Plans and 2009 Actions (COM(2009)0544).
• [6]  See section 5 of the third progress report on the strategy for simplifying the regulatory environment (COM(2009)0017).
• [7]  Article 296(3) TFEU.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The report on better lawmaking in the European Union covers many issues. In addition to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the report deals with the strategy for better regulation at European level as a whole. The programme began with the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking of 2003 and has been the subject of many Parliament resolutions over the last two terms. The strategy covers, in particular, forecasts of the social, economic and environmental impact of proposed legislation, the reduction of administrative burdens and the simplification and codification of existing legislation.

This report refers to the Commission’s 15th and 16th reports on better lawmaking, covering 2007 and 2008, the Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union of 28 January 2009 and the annexes thereto), the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens of 22 October 2009, and other documents adopted by various institutions, including recent Parliament resolutions on better regulation and monitoring the application of EU law.

The report is also a timely opportunity to address several institutional issues arising from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (on 1 December 2009) that will affect lawmaking in the future.

The most important issues raised in this draft are:

· The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

These principles constitute the basic requirements of primary legislation and their correct application should help to ensure that European law meets citizens’ expectations. They also enable Member States to exercise their own legislative prerogatives in a spirit of cooperation at all levels of government, thereby increasing legal certainty.

The Lisbon Treaty significantly strengthens the role of national parliaments as regards the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission already forwards all legislative proposals to parliaments, although, to date, only a few parliaments have regularly sent back their opinions. In the near future, national parliaments should be encouraged to engage in cooperation and take advantage of the new opportunities.

· Impact assessments

Impact assessments are an extremely important part of the legislative process and Parliament has repeatedly pointed out that the Commission should carry them out in a manner that ensures their utmost reliability. In 2006, in response to Parliament’s demands, the Commission set up the Impact Assessment Board, which is an internal Commission body that reports directly to the President. The Board checks the quality of impact assessments before the draft of a given act is presented as an official legislative proposal from the Commission. In view of the results of the Board’s work so far, it is necessary to ensure full independence and appropriate working conditions. The Board currently consists of five members (or their substitutes), with the equivalent of 15 support staff, which seems insufficient given that the Board examines impact assessments from all the Commission’s directorates-general and covers all areas of legislation. In the light of, among other things, the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board, in January 2009 the Commission adopted new guidelines for preparing impact assessments.

The Committee on Legal Affairs considers it legitimate to refer to the above issues in this report, in spite of the fact that it is also drawing up a separate report on the preparation of impact assessments.

· Reducing administrative burdens

Bearing in mind the ambitious goal of reducing administrative costs arising from European law by 25% by 2012, the Committee refers both to the method for measuring such costs and to cooperation between the EU institutions and Member States as regards their reduction. Of particular importance here is the fact that, on the basis of the baseline measurement of administrative costs, it is estimated that 72 EU legislative acts have imposed 486 information obligations, which have led to the adoption in the Member States of more than 10 000 implementing acts. Furthermore, it is estimated that 32% of EU administrative burdens are the result of decisions by certain Member States to exceed the requirements of EU legislation (excessively rigorous implementation) and of the ineffectiveness of their administrative procedures. This demonstrates the importance of the role Member States have to play in reducing administrative burdens and the need for the transposition of Union law to be subject to thorough and active monitoring.

In connection with the sectoral plans drawn up by the Commission in October 2009 for the reduction of administrative burdens, it seems desirable to adopt opinions on individual legislative proposals. The role of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, the Chair of which, Edmund Stoiber, was a guest of the Committee on Legal Affairs in November 2009 and June 2010, is welcomed in this regard.

· Simplified and codified law

In this context, the Commission’s Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union, which contains information on specific proposals and a schedule of the Commission’s work, should be examined. Parliament should underline its support for the strategy and the overall objectives of the process, although the Committee on Legal Affairs experience of updating legislation by means of recasting and codification indicates that there is an opportunity to improve interinstitutional cooperation.

Six years after the signing of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, certain conclusions may be drawn and consideration given to how to improve this cooperation further. The Committee on Legal Affairs does not consider it necessary in this report to propose amendments to the relevant agreements (or to the Common Approach to Impact Assessment). The report does, however, draw attention to the vital recommendations set out in the final report of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform as well as in the resolution of 9 February 2010 on a revised Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission.

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Committee draws particular attention to the European citizens’ initiative, which will enable citizens to play an active role in the drafting of European law. It is also worth noting the new distinction under the Lisbon Treaty between delegated and implementing acts.

OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (4.5.2010)

for the Committee on Legal Affairs

on better lawmaking - 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
(2009/2142(INI))

Rapporteur: Tadeusz Zwiefka

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas the Lisbon Treaty places Parliament on an equal footing with the Council in lawmaking under the ordinary legislative procedure,

B.  whereas the Lisbon Treaty, by introducing the European Citizens’ Initiative, gives EU citizens the right to request a legislative procedure,

C. whereas on 31 March 2010 the Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation setting out the procedures and conditions for the Citizens’ Initiative,

D. whereas under Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Parliament may request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties,

E.  whereas the citizens’ rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union include the right to good administration, which cannot be achieved without clear laws that the general public can understand,

1.  Urges the Commission, on the basis of the political agreement embodied in the resolution of 9 February 2010 on a framework agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission, to make every effort to ensure that Parliament and the Council are treated as equals in the law-making process, thus implementing the principle of equal treatment between Parliament and the Council deriving from the Lisbon Treaty, in particular by simultaneously and comprehensively notifying both institutions of all events and developments affecting that process and ensuring equal access to meetings and to proposals or other information;

2.  Calls on the Commission to lose no time in making, in cooperation with Parliament, the legal and organisational arrangements required in order to enable EU citizens to exercise their right, as recognised in Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty, to initiate legislation;

3.  Urges the Commission to give an undertaking regarding the deadlines by which it will meet requests made by Parliament pursuant to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with specific reference to the commitment under the framework agreement to draw up a report on the follow-up to all legislative initiative requests during the three months following adoption of a legislative initiative report and to submit a legislative proposal within a year at most;

4.  Stresses the vital importance of making simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	3.5.2010
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	20 1 0
Members present for the final vote	Carlo Casini, Andrew Duff, Roberto Gualtieri, Zita Gurmai, Gerald Häfner, Stanimir Ilchev, Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, Constance Le Grip, David Martin, Morten Messerschmidt, Potito Salatto, György Schöpflin, Indrek Tarand, Rafał Trzaskowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Marietta Giannakou, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Alain Lamassoure, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Vital Moreira, Helmut Scholz
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote	Maria Da Graça Carvalho

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	23.6.2010
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	21 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Raffaele Baldassarre, Luigi Berlinguer, Sebastian Valentin Bodu, Françoise Castex, Christian Engström, Marielle Gallo, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Alajos Mészáros, Bernhard Rapkay, Evelyn Regner, Alexandra Thein, Diana Wallis, Zbigniew Ziobro, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Jan Philipp Albrecht, Piotr Borys, Sajjad Karim, Kurt Lechner, Angelika Niebler, József Szájer