ПРЕПОРЪКА ЗА ВТОРО ЧЕТЕНЕ общата позиция на Съвета с оглед приемането на регламент на Европейския парламент и на Съвета за установяване на обща рамка за търговските регистри за статистически цели и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕИО) № 2186/93 на Съвета

4.10.2007 - (7656/5/2007 – C6‑0218/2007 – 2005/0032(COD)) - ***II

Комисия по икономически и парични въпроси
Докладчик: Hans-Peter Martin

ПРОЕКТ НА ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛНА РЕЗОЛЮЦИЯ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ

относно общата позиция на Съвета с оглед приемането на регламент на Европейския парламент и на Съвета за определяне на обща рамка за търговските регистри за статистически цели и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕИО) № 2186/93 на Съвета

(7656/5/2007 – C6‑0218/2007 – 2005/0032(COD))

(Процедура на съвместно вземане на решение: второ четене)

Европейският парламент,

–   като взе предвид общата позиция на Съвета (7656/5/2007 – C6‑0218/2007),

–   като взе предвид своята позиция на първо четене[1] относно предложението на Комисията към Европейския парламент и към Съвета (COM(2005)0112),

–   като взе предвид член 251, параграф 2 от Договора за ЕО,

–   като взе предвид член 62 от своя правилник,

–   като взе предвид препоръката за второ четене на комисията по икономически и парични въпроси (A6‑0353/2007),

1.  одобрява общата позиция във вида, в който е изменена;

2.  възлага на своя председател да предаде позицията на Парламента съответно на Съвета и на Комисията.

Обща позиция на Съвета	Изменения, внесени от Парламента
Изменение 1 Член 11, параграф 3
3. За да се гарантира използването изключително за статистически цели на предадените по настоящия член данни, целта, обхватът, форматът, сигурността и мерките за поверителност, както и процедурата за предаване на данни относно индивидуални единици пред Комисията (Евростат) и за предаване на данни относно мултинационалните групи от предприятия на съответните национални органи се приемат в съответствие с процедурата по регулиране, посочена в член 16, параграф 2.	3. За да се гарантира използването изключително за статистически цели на предадените по настоящия член данни, (заличаване) форматът, сигурността и мерките за поверителност, както и процедурата за предаване на данни относно индивидуални единици пред Комисията (Евростат) и за предаване на данни относно мултинационалните групи от предприятия на съответните национални органи се приемат в съответствие с процедурата по регулиране, посочена в член 16, параграф 2.
Обосновка
The inclusion of the two words would allow the Commission to determine the "purpose" and "scope" of the transmission of data provided for in these articles and in the annex. It would thus permit the Commission to modify the obligations of the Member states, the authorities and central banks concerned as well as the Commission under Articles 11 and 12 and the annex. These obligations are elements of the basic act. Modifying them in one direction or another would affect political choices made in the basic act.
Изменение 2 Член 12, параграф 2
2. За да се гарантира използването изключително за статистически цели на данните, предавани съгласно този член, целта, обхватът, форматът, сигурността и мерките за поверителност, както и процедурата за предаване на данни относно мултинационалните групи от предприятия на националните централни банки и на Европейската централна банка се приемат в съответствие с процедурата, посочена в член 16, параграф 2.	2. За да се гарантира използването изключително за статистически цели на данните, предавани съгласно този член, (заличаване) форматът, сигурността и мерките за поверителност, както и процедурата за предаване на данни относно мултинационалните групи от предприятия на националните централни банки и на Европейската централна банка се приемат в съответствие с процедурата, посочена в член 16, параграф 2.
Обосновка
The inclusion of the two words would allow the Commission to determine the "purpose" and "scope" of the transmission of data provided for in these articles and in the annex. It would thus permit the Commission to modify the obligations of the Member states, the authorities and central banks concerned as well as the Commission under Articles 11 and 12 and the annex. These obligations are elements of the basic act. Modifying them in one direction or another would affect political choices made in the basic act.

• [1]  Приети текстове, 1.6.2006 г., P6_TA(2006)0229.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

„Red tape“ is a common expression in the English language, but not a household word in other languages. Unfortunately. Because this term would, in the eyes of the rapporteur and the majority of the peoples of the Member States of the European Union, apply to a very broad spectrum of legislative actions the EU institutions have undertaken for a long time. The overregulation and ever new bureaucratic initiatives serve primarily the well fed body of Brussels based bureaucrats whose pension averages 5509 Euros. These enormous privileges lead to a momentum that innumerable individuals involved have a strong tendency to create more and more regulations in order to justify their work place instead of contributing significantly to the reduction of the bureaucratic burden.

This fundamental problem has to be addressed when dealing with the issue involving this report. The Regulation on business registers (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2186/93), which compiles statistics on businesses operating in the European Union, namely data on their number, type, size structure and other characteristics, was said to aim providing reliable statistical data for EU policy makers.

The objective of the Commission proposal of 5 April 2005 was to update the regulation in order to take into account new requirements stemming from the ongoing globalisation process and the further integration of the Internal Market.

On 1 June 2006 the European Parliament supported the core of the Commission proposal in its first reading, subject to 22 amendments focusing on the issue of the administrative burden, a clarification of the terms and conditions under which confidential data can be transmitted and, finally, a series of amendments of a technical and editorial nature.

The Council endorsed all 22 amendments of Parliament in its Common Position of 21 May 2007.

But now there is a remaining issue. Because only a few weeks after the first reading of Parliament, on 17 July 2006, the Council Decision 2006/512/EC amended the Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999, laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission and introducing a new procedure named "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" (Article 5a).

This new "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" has now to be used to adopt measures of general scope which seek to amend non-essential elements of a basic instrument adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty, inter alia by deleting some of those elements or by supplementing the instrument by the addition of new non-essential elements.

As a consequence, a second reading of Parliament has become unavoidable, creating new red tape. Because in order to incorporate the new comitology provisions into the draft regulation, the Council had to attribute the specific powers conferred to the Commission to the two types of regulatory procedures: the one with scrutiny and the one without scrutiny.

In line with the assessment of Parliament and the Commission respectively, the Council conferred measures of general scope designed to amend non-essential elements of the regulation to the Commission, thereby using the procedure with scrutiny, as laid down in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC. In the case of the Regulation on business registers, the new procedure consequently applies:

•       to the update the list of registers characteristics in the Annex, their definitions and their continuity rules,

•       to the decision on the coverage of the smallest enterprises and all resident enterprise groups,

•       to the establishment of common quality standards,

•       to the content and periodicity of the quality reports, and, finally,

•       to the adoption of the rules for updating registers.

These points are all uncontroversial. However, in respect of the powers concerning the transmission of data, a legal problem has appeared. These powers would be covered by the regulatory procedure without scrutiny according to Council. Parliament could accept this, if only the Council had not included in its common Position the two words "purpose" and "scope" in Articles 11(2) and 12(3).

After an assessment, the legal service of the European Parliament came to the conclusion that the incorporation of these two words in the powers would allow the Commission to "modify the obligations of the Member states, the authorities and central banks concerned as well as the Commission under Articles 11 and 12 and the annex. These obligations are elements of the basic act. Modifying them in one direction or another may affect political choices made in the basic act. Those obligations can nevertheless reasonably be considered to be non essential. For a powerpermitting such a modification the regulatory procedure with scrutiny is compulsory." The other elements of these powers do not allow for such modifications.

In other words, if the Council had insisted on the inclusion of these two words, the regulatory procedure with scrutiny would have to apply to the transmission of data.

But now, a majority of Member States is willing to delete the two words. This would remove the last obstacle to a second reading agreement with Parliament.

Your rapporteur therefore suggests deleting the two words in the draft regulation, but wants to point out that the whole procedure has not only taken a lot of time but also was a costly affair.

At the end of the day, the rapporteur finds it impossible to justify all the extra cost involved for the tax payer and renews his appeal to the EU institutions to come forward with much less costly and much more efficient procedures. In addition, these procedures are unnecessarily complicated and hinder the minimum of transparency and accessibility to the legislative process a common citizen should be entitled to.

ПРОЦЕДУРА

Позовавания	07656/5/2007 - C6-0218/2007 - 2005/0032(COD)
Дата на 1-во четене в ЕП – Номер P	1.6.2006                     T6-0229/2006
Предложение на Комисията	COM(2005)0112 - C6-0089/2005
Дата на обявяване в заседание на получаването на общата позиция	12.7.2007
Водеща комисия        Дата на обявяване в заседание	ECON 12.7.2007
Докладчик(ци)        Дата на назначаване	Hans-Peter Martin 10.5.2005
Разглеждане в комисия	10.9.2007		24.9.2007
Дата на приемане	3.10.2007
Резултат от окончателното гласуване	+: –: 0:	34 0 0
Членове, присъствали на окончателното гласуване	Mariela Velichkova Baeva, Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, David Casa, Manuel António dos Santos, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Robert Goebbels, Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Gunnar Hökmark, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Wolf Klinz, Guntars Krasts, Astrid Lulling, Gay Mitchell, Cristobal Montoro Romero, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan, Bernhard Rapkay, Heide Rühle, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Cristian Stănescu, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Ieke van den Burg, Sahra Wagenknecht
Заместник(ци), присъствал(и) на окончателното гласуване	Katerina Batzeli, Harald Ettl, Thomas Mann, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Donato Tommaso Veraldi
Дата на внасяне	4.10.2007