REPORT Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

European Parliament

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

Procedure : 2005/0166(COD)

Document stages in plenary

Document selected : A6-0124/2006
Texts tabled : A6-0124/2006		Debates : PV 13/06/2006 - 19 CRE 13/06/2006 - 19		Votes : PV 14/06/2006 - 4.2 Explanations of votes		Texts adopted : P6_TA(2006)0257

REPORT ***I

345k

226k

3 April 2006

PE 367.675v03-00

A6-0124/2006

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

(COM(2005)0399 – C6-0256/2005 – 2005/0166(COD))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Rapporteur: Frederika Brepoels

		DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
		EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
		OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
		PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

(COM(2005)0399 – C6-0256/2005 – 2005/0166(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0399)(1),

– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 152 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0256/2005),

– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0124/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission		Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 7 a (new)
		(7a) It should be one of the Centre’s tasks to provide information on best practices and guidelines in the Member States and to facilitate the exchange of such practices among them.
Amendment 2 Recital 8
(8) Council Resolution of 15 November 2001 on the implementation of the five key epidemiological indicators on drugs encourages Member States to ensure, making use of the national focal points, the availability of comparable information on the five key epidemiological indicators.		(8) The Council Resolution of 15 November 2001 on the implementation of the five key epidemiological indicators on drugs urges Member States to ensure, making use of the national focal points, the availability of comparable information on the five key epidemiological indicators. The implementation by Member States of these indicators is a precondition for the Centre to perform its tasks as set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 3 Recital 9 a (new)
		(9a) The way in which the Centre is organised and its working methods should be consistent with the objective nature of the results sought, namely the comparability and compatibility of sources and methods in connection with drug information.
Justification
This amendment aims at reintroducing a recital which was deleted in the Commission proposal. In order to reach an objective comparison, the information collected by the Centre needs to be comparable and compatible.
Amendment 4 Recital 11
(11) There already exist national, European and international organizations and bodies supplying information of this kind, and the Centre should be able to carry out its tasks in close cooperation with them.		(11) There already exist national, European and international organizations and bodies supplying information of this kind, and the Centre must be able to carry out its tasks in close cooperation with them.
Amendment 5 Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure that the European Parliament is well informed of the state of the drugs phenomenon in the European Union, it must be able to question the Centre's Director.		(16) In order to ensure that the European Parliament is well informed of the state of the drugs phenomenon in the European Union, it must have the right to question the Centre's Director.
Amendment 6 Article 1, paragraph 2
2. The Centre's objective is to provide, in the areas referred to in Article 3, the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information at European level concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences.		2. The Centre's objective is to provide, in the areas referred to in Article 3, the Community and its Member States with factual, objective, reliable and comparable information at European level concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences.
Justification
The information supplied by the centre must be factual and to the point, so as to ensure that the centre provides only relevant assistance to governments, institutions and organisations.
Amendment 7 Article 1, paragraph 3
3. The statistical, documentary and technical information processed or produced is intended to help provide the Community and the Member States with an overall view of the drug and drug addiction situation when, in their respective areas of competence, they take measures or decide on action. The statistical element of this information shall be developed, in collaboration with the relevant statistical authorities, using as necessary the Community Statistical Programme to promote synergy and avoid duplication.		3. The statistical, documentary and technical information processed or produced is intended to help provide the Community and the Member States with an overall view of the drug and drug addiction situation when, in their respective areas of competence, they take measures or decide on action. The statistical element of this information shall be developed, in collaboration with the relevant statistical authorities, using as necessary the Community Statistical Programme to promote synergy and avoid duplication. Account shall be taken of further WHO and UN data available worldwide.
Justification
To avoid duplication.
Amendment 8 Article 1, paragraph 5
5. The Centre shall not collect any data making it possible to identify individuals or small groups of individuals. It shall refrain from any transmission of information relating to specific named cases.		5. The Centre shall not collect any data making it possible to identify individuals or small groups of individuals. It shall refrain from any transmission of information relating to specific named cases unless criminal offences have been committed.
Justification
It would be unacceptable for information of crucial importance for investigating a criminal offence to be available, but withheld.
Amendment 9 Article 2, point (a) (i)
(i) collecting, registering and analysing information, including data resulting from research, communicated by Member States as well as that emanating from Community, non-governmental national sources and competent international organizations; this collection, registration analysis work shall also cover data on emerging trends in poly-drug use, including the combined use of licit and illicit psychoactive substances;		(i) collecting, registering and analysing information, including data resulting from research, communicated by Member States as well as that emanating from Community, non-governmental national sources and competent international organizations, including Europol; providing information on best practices in the Member States and facilitating the exchange of such practices among them; this collection, registration, analysis and information work shall also cover data on emerging trends in poly-drug use, including the combined use of licit and illicit psychoactive substances;
Justification
One of the tasks of the Agency should obviously consist in fostering the exchange of best practices.
Amendment 10 Article 2, point (a) (v)
(v) facilitating exchanges of information between decision-makers, researchers, specialists and those involved in combating drugs in governmental and non-governmental organizations;		(v) facilitating exchanges of information between decision-makers, researchers, specialists and those involved in drugs-related issues in governmental and non-governmental organizations;
Amendment 11 Article 2, point (d) (ii a) (new)
		(iia) cooperating actively with Europol to attain maximum efficiency in monitoring the drugs problem;
Justification
Sharing information on drug use and drug-related crime would be beneficial for both EMCDDA and Europol.
Amendment 12 Article 2, point (d a) (new)
		(da) Information obligations The Centre shall be obliged, if it recognises new developments and changing trends, to inform the competent authorities of the Member States.
Justification
It must be clear that the Centre must operate proactively and flag up dangers on its own initiative.
Amendment 13 Article 5, paragraph 2, point (a)
(a) The national focal points shall form an interface between the participating countries and the Centre. They shall contribute to the establishment of key indicators and data, including guidelines for their implementation with a view to obtaining reliable and comparable information at European Union level. They shall collect and analyse at national level all relevant information on drugs and drug addiction, as well as on policies and solutions applied. In particular, they shall provide data for the five epidemiological indicators specified by the Centre.		(a) The national focal points shall form an interface between the participating countries and the Centre. They shall contribute to the establishment of key indicators and data, including guidelines for their implementation with a view to obtaining reliable and comparable information at European Union level. They shall collect and analyse in an objective manner at national level, bringing together experiences from different sectors - health, justice, law enforcement, in cooperation with experts and national organisations active in the field of drugs policy, all relevant information on drugs and drug addiction, as well as on policies and solutions applied. In particular, they shall provide data for the five epidemiological indicators specified by the Centre.
Justification
The focal points should take stock of the expertise of NGOs and the know-how of experts active in the field.
Amendment 14 Article 6, paragraphs -1 and -1 a (new)
		Data on drugs and drug addiction provided to or by the Centre may be published subject to compliance with Community and national rules on the dissemination and confidentiality of information. Personal data may not be published or made accessible to the public.
		Member States and the specialised centres shall be under no obligation to provide information classified as confidential under their national law.

Justification

This amendment aims at reintroducing two paragraphs which were suppressed in the Commission's proposal, and at changing the order of the paragraphs.

Amendment 15 Article 9, paragraph 4
4. The management board shall adopt a three-year work programme on the basis of a draft submitted by the Centre's Director, after consulting the Scientific Committee and seeking the opinions of the Commission and shall forward it to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.		4. The management board shall adopt a three-year work programme on the basis of a draft submitted by the Centre's Director, after consulting the Scientific Committee and seeking the opinions of the Commission and the European Parliament, and shall forward it to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
Justification
The European Parliament should be consulted before the adoption of the work programme.
Amendment 16 Article 9, paragraph 6
6. In the case where the Commission expresses its disagreement with the three-year or annual work programme, these programmes shall be adopted by the Management Board by a 4/5 majority.		6. Where the Commission expresses its disagreement with the three-year or annual work programme, these programmes shall be adopted by the Management Board by a 3/4 majority.
Justification
The majority required would be changed from 4/5 to 3/4 in order to facilitate the taking of decisions where the Commission disagrees with the draft work programmes.
Amendment 17 Article 10
1. The Management Board shall be assisted by an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall be made up of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the Management Board and two Commission representatives. The Director shall take part in its meetings, without voting rights.		1. The Management Board shall be assisted by an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall be made up of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the Management Board, two other members of the Management Board representing the Member States and appointed by the Management Board and two Commission representatives. The Director shall take part in its meetings.
2. The Executive Committee shall meet at least twice a year and whenever necessary to prepare the decisions of the Management Board and to assist and advise the Director. It shall decide on behalf of the Management Board on the matters foreseen in the EMCDDA financial regulation which are not reserved to the Management Board by this Regulation. It shall adopt its decisions simple majority.		2. The Executive Committee shall meet at least twice a year and whenever necessary to prepare the decisions of the Management Board and to assist and advise the Director. It shall decide on behalf of the Management Board on the matters foreseen in the EMCDDA financial regulation which are not reserved to the Management Board by this Regulation. Decisions shall be adopted by consensus.
Amendment 18 Article 11, paragraph 1
1. The Centre shall be headed by a Director appointed by the management board on a proposal from the Commission for a five-year period, which on a proposal from the Commission and after evaluation, may be extended once for a period of not more than five years.		1. The Centre shall be headed by a Director appointed by the management board on a proposal from the Commission and after approval by the European Parliament for a five-year period. The proposal shall consist of a list of the best ranked candidates selected by the Commission after an open competition. On a proposal from the Commission and after evaluation, the Director’s term of office may be extended once for a period of not more than five years.
In the evaluation the Commission shall assess in particular:		In the evaluation the management board shall assess in particular:
- The results achieved in the first term of office and the way in which they were achieved;		- the results achieved in the first term of office and the way in which they were achieved;
- The Centre’s duties and requirements in the coming years		- the Centre's duties and requirements in the coming years.
		The evaluation shall be submitted without delay to the Commission and to the European Parliament.
Justification
The final selection should be operated by the Management Board .This formulation has been used recently in several Regulations (the EMEA, the Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) establishing Community agencies. The application and selection procedure should be as transparent as possible to attract the attention of all potential candidates. The Management Board, as the appointing authority should carry out the evaluation of the work of the Director. The decision to extend the term of office of the Director should be taken only after that, if appropriate. As the evaluation concerns a holder of public office and a Community agency, it is important that it is made available to the Commission and the European Parliament.
Amendment 19 Article 11, paragraph 2
2. Up on appointment to a first term, out of a maximum of two terms, the candidate nominated by the Management Board for the post of Director may be invited without delay to make a statement before the European Parliament and answer questions put by members of that institution.		2. Upon appointment to a first term, out of a maximum of two terms, the candidate nominated by the Management Board for the post of Director shall be invited without delay to make a statement before the European Parliament and answer questions put by members of that institution.
Justification
The appearance of the Director nominee before the Parliament before the final appointment should be made obligatory, as in the case of other decentralised agencies.
Amendment 20 Article 12, title
Hearing of the Director before the European Parliament		Hearing of the Director and of the Chairperson of the Management Board before the European Parliament
Justification
The expertise and the insight of the Chairperson of the Management Board can be of great interest for the EP.
Amendment 21 Article 12
Each year the Director shall submit to the European Parliament the general report on the Centre’s activities. The European Parliament may also ask for a hearing with the Director on any subject related to the Centre’s activities.		Each year the Director shall submit to the European Parliament the general report on the Centre’s activities. The European Parliament may also ask for a hearing with the Director and the Chairperson of the Management Board on any subject related to the Centre’s activities.
Justification
The expertise and the experience of the Chairperson of the Management Board can be of great interest for the EP.
Amendment 22 Article 13, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1
2. The Management Board shall appoint one member per Member State to the Scientific Committee based on proposals by Member States of individuals selected on the basis of their experience and scientific excellence in the area of drugs and drug addiction, and taking into account the need for the Committee to be multidisciplinary in nature and to cover all scientific fields linked to the problems of drugs and drug addiction. Such fields include, but are not restricted to: Biomedical Research, Neuroscience, Criminology, Educational Science, Epidemiology, Economics, Forensic Science, Law, Policy Evaluation and Analysis, Political Science, Prevention Evaluation/Research, Psychiatry of Addiction, Psychology, Psychopharmacology, Public Health, Qualitative Research, Social work, Statistics, Sociology, Survey Research, Toxicology, and Treatment Evaluation/Research.		2. The Scientific Committee shall consist of at most fifteen well-known scientists appointed in view of their scientific excellence and their independence by the Management Board, following the publication of a call for expression of interest in the Official Journal of the European Union. The selection procedure shall ensure that the specialist fields of the members of the Scientific Committee cover the most relevant scientific fields linked to the problems of drugs and drug addiction.
Justification
A scientific committee with one representative from each member state does not give evidence of good governance. A system with a limited number of experts, appointed after an open competition ensures the independent and efficient functioning of the committee.
Amendment 23 Article 13, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2 a (new)
		The Scientific Committee shall take into account the different positions expressed in the national expert opinions, if available, before the finalisation of any decision.
Amendment 24 Article 13, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3
The Management board shall approve, from among those proposed by the Member States, a panel of experts from whom at most five may be chosen from time to time by the Director, acting on the advice of the Chairperson of the Scientific Committee, to serve on the extended Scientific Committee as set out in Article 6.2 of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on information exchange, risk assessment and control o new psychoactive substances.		deleted
Amendment 25 Article 20, paragraph 2
Such cooperation should be based on working arrangements concluded with the aforementioned authorities and organisations. These arrangements shall be adopted by the Management Board on the basis of a draft submitted by the director and after the Commission has delivered an opinion. Where the Commission expresses its disagreement with these arrangements, the Management Board shall adopt them by a 4/5 majority.		Such cooperation should be based on working arrangements concluded with the aforementioned authorities and organisations. These arrangements shall be adopted by the Management Board on the basis of a draft submitted by the director and after the Commission has delivered an opinion. Where the Commission expresses its disagreement with these arrangements, the Management Board shall adopt them by a 3/4 majority.
Justification
We can refer to the justification concerning amendment 6.
Amendment 26 Article 23, paragraph 2
In that context, the Commission shall, if appropriate, present a proposal for revision of the provisions of this Regulation in light of developments in respect of regulatory agencies, in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 251 of the Treaty. The European Parliament and the Council shall examine this proposal and in particular consider whether the composition of the Management Board needs to be revised in accordance with the general framework to be adopted for European regulatory agencies.		In that context, the Commission shall, if appropriate, present a proposal for revision of the provisions of this Regulation in light of developments in respect of regulatory agencies, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty.
Justification
There is no need to mention explicitly the composition of the Management Board in the context of a revision of the provisions of the Regulation.
Amendment 27 Annex I, section A, point 2
(2) monitoring the solutions applied to drug-related problems;		(2) monitoring the solutions applied to drug-related problems; providing information on best practices in the Member States and facilitating the exchange of such practices among them.
Justification
One of the tasks of the Agency should obviously consist in fostering the exchange of best practices.

(1)	Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The proposal for a revision of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) already has a long history.

Legal aspects of this revision have been debated since the end of 2003, when the Commission submitted an initial proposal for a revision of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93. The legal basis chosen at that time was Article 308 of the Treaty. Accordingly, the European Parliament had to be consulted, and delivered an opinion in April 2004 (COD 2003/0311).

After discussions within the Horizontal Drugs Group - the relevant working group of the Council - it was decided to alter the legal basis of the proposal to Article 152 in the Health Chapter. The amendment of the legal basis also entails a change of procedure, as Article 152 requires codecision.

An opinion from the European Parliament's Legal Service indicated that problems might arise if any further work were to be done on the original proposal. The Commission therefore submitted a new proposal, involving the European Parliament under codecision. The present proposal for revision cancels and replaces the former Commission proposal, which the Commission has withdrawn as part of the 'better regulation' exercise.

The subject of the new Commission proposal is consolidation of three previous amendments to the establishing regulation, an increase in the role of the Centre and its adaptation to the new reality of Europe after enlargement.

In future, the Centre will accordingly devote more attention to new trends in drug use, such as the combination of licit and illicit psychoactive substances. The proposal is also designed to adapt the operation of the Centre's bodies in order to take account of enlargement and the everyday practice of the European Union.

The rapporteur's position

The rapporteur can largely endorse the proposal. In its latest form, it already takes account of a number of the European Parliament's ideas and suggestions as set out in the first report (COD 2003/0311). These include the representation of Parliament on the Centre's Management Board and attention for multiple drug use, such as combined use of licit and illicit psychoactive substances. A number of other proposals by Parliament have not been incorporated.

The rapporteur supports the call for more objective and comparable data. At present, not enough data are available from certain Member States, or they are hardly comparable, which hampers general monitoring of the European drugs situation. The rapporteur therefore proposes reinstating a provision from the old regulation as Recital 9a (new).

The rapporteur considers that, in order for information to be gathered efficiently, decision-making needs to be streamlined and to take place in a transparent organisational framework. She therefore supports the inclusion in the EMCDDA Regulation of provisions concerning the Executive Committee, and likewise endorses the regular evaluation of the Centre's work and of the Reitox network and the six-yearly external evaluations: all these changes will promote the efficiency and operation of the Centre.

In order to make it possible for the Executive Committee to operate efficiently it seems appropriate, in addition to the chairman and vice-chairman, to appoint two representatives of the Council and two of the Commission, who must always take decisions by consensus.

The rapporteur feels that it is desirable that, in addition to the Director of the Centre, it should be possible for Parliament to hear the Chairperson of the Management Board.

The Management Board and the Director of the Centre are assisted by a Scientific Committee whose task is to deliver an opinion on any scientific matter concerning the Centre's activities. The rapporteur considers that the Member States are already sufficiently represented on the Management Board and takes the view, partly for that reason but more particularly because this body must be able to work independently, that the Scientific Committee should not have more than 15 members, who should be selected on the basis of their expertise, by means of an open procedure.

Only in the context of the Council Decision of 10 May 2005 on information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances may the Scientific Committee be enlarged to include experts from the Commission, Europol and the EMEA, as well as experts from scientific fields which are insufficiently represented, if at all. Limiting the number of members of the Committee seems to be the only correct way of facilitating efficient organisation and decision-making.

As the Centre's main task is to collect and disseminate information about drugs and drug use, providing information on best practices for tackling the drugs problem and facilitating exchanges of such practices would contribute to the policies of the Member States.

In addition, cooperation between national focal points and organisations active in the field of drugs could make it possible to keep abreast of the European drugs situation quickly and appropriately and enable Member States to respond more effectively to new developments and phenomena relating to drugs and drug use.

OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (23.2.2006)

for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

(COM(2005)0399 – C6-0256/2005 – 2005/0166(COD))

Draftsman: Jiří Maštálka

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction was set up by means of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 of 8 February 1993 establishing a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the purpose of providing the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information concerning drugs and drug addiction. In 2003 the Commission submitted a new draft version of that Regulation (COM(2003)0808). Article 308 was selected as the legal basis (as it had been in the case of the original Regulation). The European Parliament was consulted in respect of the draft, although after several months of discussion within the relevant Council working party it was decided that the legal basis would be changed to Article 152, which provides for the codecision procedure. Hence the Commission decided to submit this new revised proposal (COM(2005)0399) so that Parliament could be properly consulted on the matter.

The purpose of the proposal is to 'beef up' the Centre, in particular in order to enable new trends in drug use to be taken into consideration (including the combination of legally permitted and legally banned psychoactive substances) and in order to enable the Centre to adapt to new circumstances following the enlargement of the EU. The proposal should also eliminate the number of ambiguities which were detected after the original Council regulation came into force.

However, in order to ensure that the Centre genuinely operates effectively, some of the provisions contained in the proposal need to be amended in some way. The Centre should not be concerned solely with gathering, analysing and processing data relating to drug issues; rather, it should also be concerned with the systematic evaluation of drug policies (at both EU and Member-State level) and of trends in drug consumption. That would make it easier for the Member States to learn from one another and to exchange experiences in their efforts to combat drug addiction.

A further requirement is that there should be more intensive cooperation between the Centre and non-EU countries, at least in terms of the systematic gathering and analysis of data relating to drug issues, not least in view of the fact that most drugs enter the European Union from non-EU (frequently neighbouring) countries.

The Centre must also devise common criteria and standard data-collection methods to be used by all the parties involved, since that is the only way of ensuring that data relating to drug issues are objective, reliable and above all comparable. Furthermore, the exchange of information between the Centre and Europol concerning drugs and crimes committed in connection with drug use would be beneficial to both parties.

The European Parliament should be more involved in the Centre's activities and should be properly informed regarding its work. Hence when the Centre's three-year work programme is being drawn up, not only the Commission's opinion should be taken into consideration - the European Parliament should be asked for its opinion, too. Parliament should also have one representative on the Executive Committee (an independent expert designated by Parliament).

In order to ensure that the Commission does not have excessive influence over the Centre's work, a mere ¾ majority should be sufficient for the Management Board to adopt important decisions (concerning, for example, the Centre's annual and three-year programme) in cases where the Commission expresses its disagreement.

The Director of the Centre should be nominated in the same way as the directors of other Community bodies. Hence he or she should be nominated by the Executive Committee from a list of candidates proposed by the Commission after a public competition and an invitation to take part therein have been announced in the Official Journal and in one major daily newspaper in each Member State. This method of nominating a director is also more transparent and a public competition would attract a greater number of potential candidates.

The Centre should expand its remit to include the monitoring of psychomodulation substances. If they are abused they cause serious, long-lasting and frequently irreversible damage to health. In the future the Centre should also cover the problems of alcohol and tobacco abuse, since there are close parallels between the problems associated with drug abuse and those associated with alcohol and tobacco abuse. In the case of alcohol and tobacco consumers there is a significantly increased relative risk of drug addiction and people frequently switch from alcohol and tobacco to drugs, or vice versa.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission(1)		Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 7a (new)
		(7a) Account should also be taken of illicit and inappropriate use of psychomodulation substances, which can have serious consequences on physical and mental health.
Amendment 2 Recital 7 b (new)
		(7b) The Centre should also be entrusted with the task of providing information and evaluating different drug policies in Member States in order to facilitate the dissemination and exchange of best practice.
Justification
Member States should learn from each other's experience on combating drug abuse. The Centre could facilitate this by evaluating the impact of different policies.
Amendment 3 Recital 9
(9) It is desirable for the Commission to be able to entrust the EMCDDA directly with the implementation of Community structural assistance projects relating to drug information systems in non-Community countries such as the candidate countries or the countries of the western Balkans which have been authorised by the European Council to participate in Community programmes and agencies.		(9) It is desirable for the Commission to be able to entrust the EMCDDA directly with the implementation of Community structural assistance projects relating to drug information systems in non-Community European countries such as the candidate countries or the countries of the western Balkans which have been authorised by the European Council to participate in Community programmes and agencies.
Justification
Structural assistance projects should continue to be confined to the candidate countries and the countries of the western Balkans.
Amendment 4 Recital 11
(11) There already exist national, European and international organizations and bodies supplying information of this kind, and the Centre should be able to carry out its tasks in close cooperation with them.		(11) There already exist national, European and international organizations and bodies supplying information of this kind, and the Centre must be able to carry out its tasks in close cooperation with them.
Amendment 5 Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure that the European Parliament is well informed of the state of the drugs phenomenon in the European Union, it must be able to question the Centre's Director.		(16) In order to ensure that the European Parliament is well informed of the state of the drugs phenomenon in the European Union, it must have the right to question the Centre's Director.
Amendment 6 Recital 18
(18) An external evaluation of the EMCDDA's work should be conducted on a regular basis, and this Regulation should be adapted accordingly, if needed.		(18) An external evaluation of the EMCDDA's work should be conducted every three years, and this Regulation should be adapted accordingly, if needed.
Justification
The work of the EMCDDA will be based on three-year work programmes (see Article 9, paragraph 4). It would be logical to carry out an external evaluation during the last year of each period in order to have input for the preparations for the new programme.
Amendment 7 Article 1, paragraph 2
2. The Centre's objective is to provide, in the areas referred to in Article 3, the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information at European level concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences.		2. The Centre's objective is to provide, in the areas referred to in Article 3, the Community and its Member States with factual, objective, reliable and comparable information at European level concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences.
Justification
The information supplied by the centre must be factual and to the point, so as to ensure that the centre provides only relevant assistance to governments, institutions and organisations.
Amendment 8 Article 1, paragraph 3
3. The statistical, documentary and technical information processed or produced is intended to help provide the Community and the Member States with an overall view of the drug and drug addiction situation when, in their respective areas of competence, they take measures or decide on action. The statistical element of this information shall be developed, in collaboration with the relevant statistical authorities, using as necessary the Community Statistical Programme to promote synergy and avoid duplication.		3. The statistical, documentary and technical information processed or produced is intended to help provide the Community and the Member States with an overall view of the drug and drug addiction situation when, in their respective areas of competence, they take measures or decide on action. The statistical element of this information shall be developed, in collaboration with the relevant statistical authorities, using as necessary the Community Statistical Programme to promote synergy and avoid duplication. Account shall be taken of further WHO and UN data available worldwide.
Justification
To avoid duplication.
Amendment 9 Article 1, paragraph 5
5. The Centre shall not collect any data making it possible to identify individuals or small groups of individuals. It shall refrain from any transmission of information relating to specific named cases.		5. The Centre shall not collect any data making it possible to identify individuals or small groups of individuals. It shall refrain from any transmission of information relating to specific named cases unless criminal offences have been committed.
Justification
It would be unacceptable for information of crucial importance for investigating a criminal offence to be available, but withheld.
Amendment 10 Article 2, point (a) (i)
(i) collecting, registering and analysing information, including data resulting from research, communicated by Member States as well as that emanating from Community, non-governmental national sources and competent international organizations; this collection, registration and analysis work shall also cover data on emerging trends in poly-drug use, including the combined use of licit and illicit psychoactive substances;		(i) collecting, registering and analysing information, including data resulting from research, communicated by Member States and non-Community European countries as well as that emanating from Community, non-governmental national sources and competent international organizations; this collection, registration and analysis work shall also cover data on emerging trends in poly-drug use, including the combined use of licit and illicit psychoactive substances, and on the illicit use of psychomodulation substances, providing information on and facilitating the exchange of "best practice" in the Member States;
Justification
Many drugs entering the European Union originate from neighbouring countries. The Centre should systematically collect and analyse data at least from those non-Community European countries, which take part in its work. Moreover, given the serious health consequences of the illicit and inappropriate use of psychomodulation substances, it is important that their use is also monitored by the Centre. The Centre should provide information and facilitate the exchange of "best practice" in the Member States.
Amendment 11 Article 2, point (b) (i)
(i) ensuring improved comparability, objectivity and reliability of data at European level by establishing indicators and common criteria of a non-binding nature, compliance with which may be recommended by the Centre, with a view to greater uniformity of the measurement methods used by the Member States and the Community; in particular, the Centre shall develop tools and instruments to facilitate Member States in the monitoring and evaluation of their national policies and the European Commission in monitoring and evaluation of Union policies;		(i) ensuring improved comparability, objectivity and reliability of data at European level by establishing indicators and common criteria, compliance with which may be recommended by the Centre, with a view to greater uniformity of the measurement methods used by the Member States and the Community; in particular, the Centre shall develop tools and instruments to assist Member States in the monitoring and evaluation of their national policies and the Commission in the monitoring and evaluation of Union policies; on the basis of collected data, the Centre shall also advise Member States on best practice.
Justification
Establishing common criteria and statistical methods for data collection are vitally important for the credibility of the work of the Centre. The Centre should advise Member States on best practice on the basis of the collected information.
Amendment 12 Article 2, point (b a) (new)
		(ba) Systematic evaluation of drug policies and consumption trends in order to facilitate policy-making and the dissemination of best practice
		(i) evaluating national drug policies and strategies, including legislation, on the basis of collected data and established indicators,
		(ii) evaluating consumption and supply trends.
Justification
The Centre should not only collect data but also evaluate it. This would facilitate policy-making both at the EU and the national level.
Amendment 13 Article 2, point (d) (ii a) (new)
		(iia) cooperating actively with Europol to attain maximum efficiency in monitoring the drugs problem;
Justification
Sharing information on drug use and drug-related crime would be beneficial for both EMCDDA and Europol.
Amendment 14 Article 2, point (d a) (new)
		(da) Information obligations The Centre shall be obliged, if it recognises new developments and changing trends, to inform the competent authorities of the Member States.
Justification
It must be clear that the Centre must operate proactively and flag up dangers on its own initiative.
Amendment 15 Article 9, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4
Each member of the management board may be assisted or represented by an alternative member. In the absence of the full member, who has the right to vote, the alternative member may exercise that right.		Each member of the management board may be represented by an alternate. In the absence of the full member, who has the right to vote, the alternate may exercise that right.
Justification
Clarification of the role of an alternate, as well as the wording.
Amendment 16 Article 9, paragraph 4
4. The management board shall adopt a three-year work programme on the basis of a draft submitted by the Centre's Director, after consulting the Scientific Committee and seeking the opinions of the Commission and shall forward it to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.		4. The management board shall adopt a three-year work programme on the basis of a draft submitted by the Centre's Director, after consulting the Scientific Committee and seeking the opinions of the Commission and the European Parliament, and shall forward it to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
Justification
The European Parliament should be consulted before the adoption of the work programme.
Amendment 17 Article 9, paragraph 6
6. In the case where the Commission expresses its disagreement with the three-year or annual work programme, these programmes shall be adopted by the Management Board by a 4/5 majority.		6. Where the Commission expresses its disagreement with the three-year or annual work programme, these programmes shall be adopted by the Management Board by a 3/4 majority.
Justification
The proposed threshold would give the Commission an unnecessarily strong say on the Centre's work.
Amendment 18 Article 10, paragraph 1
1. The Management Board shall be assisted by an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall be made up of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the Management Board and two Commission representatives. The Director shall take part in its meetings, without voting rights.		1. The Management Board shall be assisted by an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall be made up of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the Management Board, one of the independent experts designated by the European Parliament and one Commission representative. The Director shall take part in its meetings, without voting rights.
Justification
One of the independent experts designated by the European Parliament should be member in the Executive Committee, which has an important preparatory function. This solution would guarantee that the Parliament is properly informed about the work of the Centre. Moreover, it would be sufficient to have one Commission representative in this committee
Amendment 19 Article 11, paragraph 1
1. The Centre shall be headed by a Director appointed by the management board on a proposal from the Commission for a five-year period, which on a proposal from the Commission and after evaluation, may be extended once for a period of not more than five years.		1. The Centre shall be headed by a Director appointed by the management board on the basis of a list of candidates proposed by the Commission after an open competition, following the publication of a call for expression of interest in the Official Journal of the European Union and in one major newspaper in every Member State, for a five-year period, which on a proposal from the Commission and after evaluation by the management board, may be extended once for a period of not more than five years.
In the evaluation the Commission shall assess in particular:		In the evaluation the management board shall assess in particular:
- The results achieved in the first term of office and the way in which they were achieved;		- The results achieved in the first term of office and the way in which they were achieved;
- The Centre's duties and requirements in the coming years.		- The Centre's duties and requirements in the coming years.
		The evaluation shall be submitted without delay to the Commission and to the European Parliament.
Justification
This formulation has been used recently in several Regulations (the EMEA, the Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) establishing Community agencies. The application and selection procedure should be as transparent as possible to attract the attention of all potential candidates. The Management Board, as the appointing authority should carry out the evaluation of the work of the Director. The decision to extend the term of office of the Director should be taken only after that, if appropriate. As the evaluation concerns a holder of public office and a Community agency, it is important that it is made available to the Commission and the European Parliament
Amendment 20 Article 11, paragraph 2
2. Up on appointment to a first term, out of maximum two terms, the candidate nominated by the Management Board for the post of Director may be invited without delay to make a statement before the European Parliament and answer questions put by members of that institution.		2. Upon appointment to a first term, out of maximum two terms, the candidate nominated by the Management Board for the post of Director shall be invited without delay to make a statement before the European Parliament and answer questions put by members of that institution.
Justification
The appearance of the Director nominee before the Parliament before the final appointment should be made obligatory, as in the case of other decentralised agencies.
Amendment 21 Article 20, paragraph 2
Such cooperation should be based on working arrangements concluded with the aforementioned authorities and organisations. These arrangements shall be adopted by the Management Board on the basis of a draft submitted by the director and after the Commission has delivered an opinion. Where the Commission expresses its disagreement with these arrangements, the Management Board shall adopt them by a 4/5 majority.		Such cooperation should be based on working arrangements concluded with the aforementioned authorities and organisations. These arrangements shall be adopted by the Management Board on the basis of a draft submitted by the director and after the Commission has delivered an opinion. Where the Commission expresses its disagreement with these arrangements, the Management Board shall adopt them by a 3/4 majority.
Justification
The threshold for taking a decision if the Commission disagrees is unnecessarily high.
Amendment 22 Article 23, paragraph 1
The Commission shall initiate an external evaluation of the Centre every six years to coincide with the completion of two three-year work programmes of the Centre. This evaluation should also include the Reitox system. The Commission shall forward the evaluation report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Management Board.		The Commission shall initiate an external evaluation of the Centre every three years to coincide with the completion of each three-year work programme of the Centre. This evaluation should also include the Reitox system. The Commission shall forward the evaluation report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Management Board.
Justification
An evaluation cycle of six years is too long, as the operative environment of the Agency is rapidly evolving. It would be more appropriate to evaluate the work of the Centre more often, preferably during the last year of each work programme.
Amendment 23 Annex I, part A, paragraph 2, points 1 and 2
(1) monitoring the state of the drugs problem, in particular using epidemiological or other indicators, and monitoring emerging trends, in particular those involving poly-drug use;		(1) monitoring the state of the drugs problem, including the use of psychomodulation substances, and in particular using epidemiological or other indicators, and monitoring emerging trends, in particular those involving poly-drug use;
(2) monitoring the solutions applied to drug-related problems;		(2) monitoring the solutions applied to drug-related problems, providing information on and evaluating the measures in order to identify best practice and facilitate its exchange in the Member States;
Justification

The monitoring of the abuse of psychomodulation substances should belong to the tasks of the Centre. Also the evaluation of current drug policies should be one of the priority areas of the EMCDDA. It's not the task of the centre to evaluate the policies of the different member States. The Centre should nevertheless provide information and facilitate the exchange of "best practice" in the Member States.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
References	COM(2005)0399 – C6-0256/2005 – 2005/0166(COD)
Committee responsible	LIBE
Opinion by Date announced in plenary	ENVI 15.9.2005
Draftsman Date appointed	Jiří Maštálka 22.9.2005
Previous draftsman
Discussed in committee	24..2006		22.2.2006
Date adopted	22.2.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	47 1 2
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Liam Aylward, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frederika Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Dorette Corbey, Avril Doyle, Jillian Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Milan Gaľa, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Caroline Jackson, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Aldis Kušķis, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Marios Matsakis, Roberto Musacchio, Miroslav Ouzký, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Jonas Sjöstedt, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Anders Wijkman
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	María del Pilar Ayuso González, Christofer Fjellner, Jutta D. Haug, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Jiří Maštálka, Miroslav Mikolášik, Renate Sommer
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez
Comments (available in one language only)

(1)	OJ C ... /Not yet published in OJ.

PROCEDURE

Title		Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
References		COM(2005)0399 – C6-0256/2005 – 2005/0166(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament		31.8.2005
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary		LIBE 6.9.2005
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary		JURI 6.9.2005		ENVI 6.9.2005
Not delivering opinion(s) Date of decision		JURI 24.10.2005
Enhanced cooperation Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed		Frederika Brepoels 14.9.2005
Previous rapporteur(s)
Simplified procedure – date of decision
Legal basis disputed Date of JURI opinion
Financial endowment amended Date of BUDG opinion
European Economic and Social Committee consulted – date of decision in plenary
Committee of the Regions consulted – date of decision in plenary
Discussed in committee		23.11.2005	21.2.2006		21.3.2006
Date adopted		21.3.2006
Result of final vote	+ – 0	43 0 0
Members present for the final vote		Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Roberta Angelilli, Edit Bauer, Johannes Blokland, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Maria Carlshamre, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Carlos Coelho, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Lilli Gruber, Lívia Járóka, Timothy Kirkhope, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Romano Maria La Russa, Edith Mastenbroek, Claude Moraes, Hartmut Nassauer, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Stefano Zappalà, Tatjana Ždanoka
Substitute(s) present for the final vote		Frederika Brepoels, Richard Corbett, Gérard Deprez, Lutz Goepel, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Hubert Pirker, Herbert Reul, Marie-Line Reynaud, Rainer Wieland
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote		Pierre Schapira
Date tabled		3.4.2006
Comments (available in one language only)		...

Last updated: 1 August 2006

Legal notice