By letter of 26 February 2002 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Articles 93, 94, 157, 269, 279 and 308 of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council regulation adapting the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity) (COM(2001) 789 - 2001/0316(CNS)).

At the sitting of 11 March 2002 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as the committee responsible and all the committees concerned for their opinions (C5-0092/2002).

At its meeting of 26 March 2002 the Committee on Constitutional Affairs appointed Monica Frassoni rapporteur.

It considered the Commission proposal and the draft report at its meetings of 11 November 2002 and 17 February 2003.

At the latter meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 18 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

The following were present for the vote: Giorgio Napolitano (chairman), Jo Leinen (vice-chairman), Ursula Schleicher (vice-chairman), William Abitbol (vice-chairman), Monica Frassoni (rapporteur), Enrique Barón Crespo, Georges Berthu, Jens-Peter Bonde, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, Richard Corbett, Armando Cossutta, Jean-Maurice Dehousse, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Lone Dybkjær, Gerhard Hager, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Hans-Peter Martin, Hans-Peter Mayer (for Teresa Almeida Garrett, pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, Jacques F. Poos (for Carlos Carnero González), Reinhard Rack (for Luigi Ciriaco De Mita), Dimitris Tsatsos and Paavo Väyrynen (for Paolo Costa).

The opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market are attached.

The report was tabled on 19 February 2003.

on the proposal for a Council regulation adapting the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity) (COM(2001) 789 – C5‑0092/2002 – 2001/0316(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2001) 789(1)),

–   having regard to Articles 93, 94, 157, 269, 279 and 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which it was consulted by the Council (C5‑0092/2002),

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5‑0032/2003),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal;

2.   Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.   Asks the Council to consult it afresh, should it intend to make substantial changes to the Commission proposal;

4.   Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 448.

1.   Council Decision 1999/468/EC(1) of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission ('comitology' decision) replaced Decision 87/373/EEC(2) of 13 July 1987 on the same subject. The Council and Commission Declaration No 2(3) accompanying Decision 1999/468/EC sets out how and on what basis the committee procedures are to be adapted: the current procedure I would be turned into the new advisory procedure; the current procedures II(a) and II(b) would be turned into the new management procedure; the current procedures III(a) and III(b) would be turned into the new regulatory procedure. The declaration stipulates, further, that the provisions relating to the committees assisting the Commission in the exercise of implementing powers provided for in application of the former comitology decision should be adjusted without delay in order to align them with the new provisions.

With a view to carrying out that adjustment, the Commission has submitted four proposals for Council regulations seeking to replace the provisions relating to the instruments in force which provide for referrals to the various committees. These four proposals have been drawn up in accordance with the type of procedure to be employed to adopt the amended basic acts providing for the implementation of the various committee procedures. The annex to each of the proposals for a regulation sets out a list of the instruments to be modified.

These proposals are highly technical and, as the explanatory memorandum to each proposal makes clear, the proposed regulations do not affect either the substantive provisions of the amended legislative acts or their application.

2.   Despite some grounds for dissatisfaction, Parliament took the view that the new 'comitology' decision represented a step forward and ratified it by means of its resolution of 17 February 2000(4) in which it accepted the interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing the new 'comitology' decision. In that resolution, Parliament also endorsed the above-mentioned Declaration No 2, taking the view that 'all the "committees" which existed before the Decision of 28 June 1999 should be modified in accordance with the new procedures'.

Parliament has thus given its agreement of principle to the adjustment of the committee procedures which the Commission is now proposing to put into practice. Nevertheless, the proposals will be scrutinised closely in order to check that they do no more than adjust the committee procedures and that they do so correctly. With that aim in view, all the competent parliamentary committees in each area concerned by the proposals have been asked for their opinions. Only the Committee on Fisheries, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have delivered opinions, all of which advocate the adoption of the proposals.

Moreover, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs alone has tabled amendments in its two opinions. Those amendments seek to ensure that, in future, the committee procedures will be more transparent. Without calling into question the relevance of those amendments, this is not the time or place to revive that debate, given that the proposals under consideration merely adjust the committee procedures in the light of the existing rules.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs thus takes the view that the plenary should be urged to adopt the four proposals for regulations.

3.   It should be emphasised, however, that adoption of the proposals would in no way imply that Parliament has given up its efforts to gain acceptance for its outstanding policy calls concerning comitology. Parliament must continue to fight to eliminate the distortions in the current system, defending the key concerns reflected in its standpoint.

In particular, Parliament wishes to see the legislative procedure and its prerogatives as co-legislator observed to the full, so as to ensure that no legislative act is adopted outside the codecision procedure under the pretext that it is an implementing measure (this signifies, in particular, that Parliament regards it as unacceptable that implementing measures should amend, update or supplement the basic elements of legislative acts). In addition, it wishes to safeguard the institutional balance by guaranteeing effective parity between Parliament and the Council as regards both the form in which implementing powers are delegated to the Commission and scrutiny of the provisions adopted by the Commission with a view to implementing legislative acts adopted under the codecision procedure.

This should in no way be taken to mean that Parliament wishes to appropriate implementing powers for itself. The aim is rather to establish a system which enables it to exercise proper scrutiny and, where necessary, to challenge an implementing measure with which it is not in agreement if that measure relates to an act adopted under the codecision procedure. That procedure should lay down a deadline by which Parliament might express its opposition to the implementing measure in question. The Commission would then be required to withdraw/amend the proposal for an implementing measure or to submit a legislative proposal (as it would should the Council express its opposition in the same way).

It should be borne in mind, moreover, that, during the discussions concerning the financial markets, Parliament also called for the bestowal on the co-legislators, Parliament and the Council, of the right to revise the scope of the delegation granted to the Commission by restricting its period of validity through the incorporation in the basic legislative acts of a clause suspending the delegation.

In keeping with that philosophy, Parliament has consistently called for the abolition of the procedure involving the regulatory committees and is in principle also opposed to the management committees, since these two types of procedure give the Council the power to block Commission decisions, a power not enjoyed by Parliament. In fundamental terms, Parliament would like to see provision made only for advisory committees.

Moreover, Parliament has always argued that a clearer definition in the basic legislative act of the nature of the implementing powers delegated to the Commission would help to increase the degree of independence enjoyed by the Commission, particularly vis-à-vis the Member States, in connection with the implementation of legislative acts. After all, it is incumbent on the legislator, and thus on Parliament and the Council in the case of all acts adopted under the codecision procedure, to specify, when each legislative act is adopted, the nature and scope of the powers which it intends to delegate to the executive. Proper use of that prerogative would also make it possible to draw a clearer distinction between substantive legislation and implementing provisions.

Parliament’s other main concern regarding comitology is to ensure the transparency of the system, in particular by means of the forwarding to Parliament of the agendas for and summary records of committee meetings, lists of participants, draft implementing measures submitted to the committees, provisional calendars of meetings and details of the outcome of votes. All the committee documents, with the exception of confidential documents, should be accessible to the public.

Of course, the fundamental issue which must be resolved first is the amendment of Article 202 of the EC Treaty to incorporate a stipulation placing Parliament and the Council on an entirely equal footing. The procedures governing the exercise of executive responsibilities and implementing powers by the Commission should be drawn up by Parliament and the Council in accordance with the codecision procedure and not by means of a Council decision on which Parliament is merely consulted.

However, these matters should not be raised in connection with the procedure under consideration here. Instead, they will have to be dealt with when the Commission submits new proposals on comitology or by the Convention which is preparing the forthcoming revision of the Treaties. Nevertheless, given that they will resolve all the outstanding problems relating to the implementation of the 1999 decision, the prompt adoption of the proposals under consideration here will enable Parliament to focus its efforts on these fundamental issues, thereby helping it to ensure that the European institutions operate in an effective, democratic manner.

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. (2) OJ L 197, 18.7.1987, p. 33. (3) OJ C 203, 17.7.1999, p. 1. (4) OJ C 339, 29.11.2000, p. 269.

for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs

on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds

(11104/2002 - C5-0440/2002 - 2001/0313(AVC))

and on the proposal for a Council Regulation adapting the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity)

(COM(2001) 789 final – C5‑0092/2002 – 2001/0316 (CNS))

Draftsman: Othmar Karas

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs appointed Othmar Karas draftsman at its meeting of 19 March 2002.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 4 June, 9 July and 27 August 2002.

At the last meeting it adopted the following amendments unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Christa Randzio-Plath, chairwoman; José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Philippe A.R. Herzog and John Purvis vice-chairmen; Othmar Karas, draftsman; Generoso Andria, Luis Berenguer Fuster (for Pervenche Berès), Hans Blokland, Renato Brunetta, Hans Udo Bullmann, Jonathan Evans, Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman, Mary Honeyball, Christopher Huhne, Pierre Jonckheer (for Alain Lipietz), Giorgos Katiforis, Christoph Werner Konrad, Wilfried Kuckelkorn (for David W. Martin), Werner Langen (for Ingo Friedrich), Astrid Lulling, Helmuth Markov (for Armonia Bordes), Ioannis Patakis, Fernando Pérez Royo, Mikko Pesälä (for Karin Riis-Jørgensen), Alexander Radwan, Bernhard Rapkay, Olle Schmidt, Peter William Skinner, Charles Tannock (for Hans-Peter Mayer), Helena Torres Marques, Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (for Mónica Ridruejo) and Theresa Villiers.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Background

In submitting the two proposals for Council regulations 2001/0313 AVC and 2001/0316 CNS (together with the two proposals 2000/314 COD and 2001/0315 CNS, which are the subject of a separate opinion), the Commission is at last, a good three years after the relevant Council Decision 1999/468/EC on the reform of the comitology procedure, adapting the instruments concerned to the new provisions. The Council decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission specifies, for the choice of type of committee, (non-binding) criteria relating to the choice of committee procedures, with a view to achieving greater consistency and predictability. At the same time, the Council decision aims at boosting the European Parliament's involvement and gaining recognition for its views, as well as seeking to improve the information provided both to the European Parliament and to the public about the comitology procedure. The Council decision is accompanied by three declarations. Relevant here is Council and Commission Declaration No 2, which the European Parliament approved in its resolution of 17 February 2000. There, the Commission and the Council agree that the provisions deriving from the 'old' comitology decision (87/373/EEC) should be adjusted without delay to bring them into line with the new rules. The simplification thereby entailed will mean, where the committees are concerned, that the current procedure I would be turned into the new advisory procedure, procedures II(a) and II(b) would be turned into the new management procedure, and procedures III(a) and III(b) would be turned into the new regulatory procedure.

The proposals for regulations under consideration here do not affect 'either the substantive provisions of the amended legislative acts or the application of the latter' (p. 2). They concern only a technical adjustment to bring the acts concerned, in which the comitology procedure is applied, into line with the new provisions. The corresponding passages in those acts will be updated.

Assessment

Not least as a result of the debate engendered by the so-called 'Lamfalussy process' (see the resolution on financial services legislation of 5 February 2002), comitology has again become a matter of public concern. The debate focuses in particular on the extent to which Parliament is enabled to scrutinise and intervene in this area, which - or so it is usually perceived by the public - is removed from any form of democratic control. Comitology is frequently identified with impenetrable decision-making by anonymous committees behind closed doors. The fact that it is essentially concerned with implementing measures or technical adjustments to existing provisions, and as such amounts to an, in principle, desirable acceleration of the legislative process in certain areas, often goes unrecognised. Yet it is for all that no less an area in which transparency and commensurate participation by the European Parliament must also be guaranteed.

The proposals under consideration are not however an appropriate basis for a fundamental debate on comitology. That should be conducted in the context of the Convention. The concern here is, as already stated, simply with a routine adjustment procedure for the implementation of a Council decision adopted three years ago, which is late in coming and should be concluded promptly.

The legal instruments to be amended essentially concern areas that do not fall within the terms of reference of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The first proposal relates solely to provisions concerning the structural funds. It concerns a Council regulation under advisory procedure and a Council regulation under management procedure. The second proposal (consultation procedure/unanimity) essentially concerns provisions on standardisation, the environment, education and training, own resources accruing from value added tax, agriculture, energy, the internal market, economic cooperation with developing countries (advisory procedure: 5 instruments; management procedure: 8 instruments; regulatory procedure: 59 instruments).

This is not the place to hold a debate on comitology. It is, however, necessary to draw attention to the need for the comitology procedure to be made transparent. In that connection, the Commission had already (OJ C 225/2, 8 August 2000), published a list of committees that assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers. That in itself is already an important step, albeit one that still falls short of guaranteeing a comprehensive and clear overview of how the comitology procedure is used. It must therefore be supplemented by a comprehensive overview specifying:

-   all existing committees,

-   the instrument on the basis of which each committee was set up,

-   the procedure used, and

-   drafts of all implementing measures (with cross-references).

The Commission should draw up and submit that document not later than the end of 2003.

Against that background, your draftsman proposes approving the Commission proposals subject to requiring such an overview to be provided.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds

(11104/2002 - C5-0440/2002 - 2001/0313(AVC))

Text proposed by the Commission(1)   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 Recital 6a (new)   A comprehensive overview of all committees laid down in the respective instruments which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers is necessary to guarantee the transparency of the procedure. Justification If the transparency of the comitology procedure is to be guaranteed, such a comprehensive overview will be essential. Amendment 2 Article 3a (new)   The Commission shall, not later than 31 December 2003, compile a register that shall contain particulars of all existing committees, the instrument on the basis of which each committee was set up, the procedure used and drafts of all implementing measures, and that shall be continuously updated. Justification If the transparency of the comitology procedure is to be guaranteed, such a comprehensive overview will be essential. Proposal for a Council Regulation adapting the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity)

(COM(2001) 789 final – C5-0092/2002 – 2001/0316 (CNS))

Text proposed by the Commission(2)   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 Recital 7a (new)   A comprehensive overview of all committees laid down in the respective instruments which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers is necessary to guarantee the transparency of the procedure. Justification If the transparency of the comitology procedure is to be guaranteed, such a comprehensive overview will be essential. Amendment 2 Article 4a (new)   The Commission shall, not later than 31 December 2003, compile a register that shall contain particulars of all existing committees, the instrument on the basis of which each committee was set up, the procedure used and drafts of all implementing measures, and that shall be continuously updated. Justification If the transparency of the comitology procedure is to be guaranteed, such a comprehensive overview will be essential.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p 383. (2) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p 448.

11 September 2002

for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs

on the proposal for a Council regulation adopting the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity)

((COM(2001) 789 – C5‑0092/2002 – 2001/0316(CNS))

Draftsman: Diana Wallis

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market appointed Diana Wallis draftsman at its meeting of 26 February 2002.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 11 July 2002 and 10 September 2002.

At the latter meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Giuseppe Gargani, chairman; Willi Rothley, Ioannis Koukiadis and Bill Miller, vice-chairmen; Diana Wallis, draftsman; Paolo Bartolozzi, Maria Berger, Ward Beysen, Michel J.M. Dary, Enrico Ferri, Francesco Fiori (for Rainer Wieland pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Janelly Fourtou, Marie-Françoise Garaud, Evelyne Gebhardt, Fiorella Ghilardotti, José María Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, Malcolm Harbour, The Lord Inglewood, Hans Karlsson (for Carlos Candal), Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Neil MacCormick, Toine Manders, Hans-Peter Mayer, Arlene McCarthy, Manuel Medina Ortega, Pasqualina Napoletano (for François Zimeray pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Angelika Niebler, Anne-Marie Schaffner, Marianne L.P. Thyssen and Stefano Zappalà.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (Comitology Decision) repealed the Decision, on the same issue, of 13 July 1987.

Declaration No 2 of the Council and Commission on Council Decision 1999/468/EC establishes that the committees assisting the Commission in application of Decision 87/373/EEC should be adapted in order to bring them into line with the new Decision, especially with Articles 3,4,5 and 6.

Declaration No 2 indicates the methods and conditions for adapting the committee procedures. It provides that all procedures, except the safeguard procedure, should be automatically brought into line.

The four proposals for a Council regulation submitted to the Parliament (Committee on Constitutional Affairs, lead committee, all the other for opinion) aim to replace the pertinent provisions of the instruments providing for recourse to the different committees.

The annex to the Regulations establishes the list of the instruments to be amended.

The nature of the proposals is a technical one and, as said in the Explanatory Memorandum relating to all of them, the regulations do not affect either the substantive provisions of the amended legislative acts or the application of the later.

I therefore consider that the Legal Affairs Committee should approve the proposed regulation without amendments.

CONCLUSIONS

The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to adopt the proposal for a regulation.