Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 102kWORD 17k
15 June 2018
E-003285-18
Question for written answer E-003285-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Max Andersson (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  Transparency in the EU's Committee Procedures
 Answer in writing 

There are major shortcomings in the transparency of the EU’s system of committees, also known as ‘comitology’.

Citizens and the European Parliament have no insight into how the different countries vote and argue. Current examples are the decisions on glyphosate and on neonicotinoids, where the different countries’ positions only became known through leaks, and it is unclear if the representatives had firmly established their positions with their respective governments. Countries often hide behind comitology and sometimes abstain from voting to force the Commission into deciding on sensitive issues. The Commission has now put forward a proposal for greater transparency, but only in the ‘Appeal Committee’.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

What does it intend to do to further increase transparency in comitology?

Is the Commission prepared to disclose how the different countries have argued and voted in all parts of the comitology and to live-stream meetings when someone so requests?

Original language of question: SV 
Last updated: 28 June 2018Legal notice