– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0001),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0026/2008),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1),
– having regard to Rules 80a and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0280/2008),
A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,
1. Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.
Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(1) was amended by Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006(2). Article 5a of amended Decision 1999/468/EC introduced the new 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny' (RPS) for 'measures of a general scope which seek to amend non-essential elements of a basic instrument adopted in accordance with codecision, inter alia by deleting some of those elements or by supplementing the instrument by the addition of new non-essential elements'.
Following the screening of the existing legislation and on-going procedures(3), the European Commission presented inter alia this recast proposal, transformed from a codification in order to incorporate the amendments necessary for the alignment to RPS.
In its decision of 12 December 2007 the Conference of Presidents designated the Committee on Legal Affaires as the lead Committee to deal with this 'comitology alignment' and the specialised committees as opinion-giving committees. The Conference of Committee Chairs agreed on 15 January 2008 on the modalities of cooperation between the Committee on Legal Affairs and the other committees involved.
In view of the fact that the proposed alignment to RPS is complete, the Committee on Legal Affairs does not propose any amendments, apart from the technical adaptations suggested by the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services.
Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the consultative working party consisting of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission met on 22 January and 6 February 2008 in order to consider, among others, the above Commission proposal.
On examining(1) the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council intended to recast Council Directive 78/25/EEC of 12 December 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the colouring matters which may be added to medicinal products, the working party noted, by common accord, that, in Article 2, the words ‘the general and specific criteria of purity’ should be replaced by the words ‘the general specifications for aluminium lakes of colours and the specific criteria of purity’.
Having considered the working document, the working party was thus able to establish, without dissent, that the proposal does not involve any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the text itself or in this opinion. The working party also concluded, as regards codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal is indeed confined to straightforward codification and does not substantially alter the acts in question.