Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

L-Erbgħa, 15 ta' Diċembru 2010 - Strasburgu

19. Kontroll min-naħa tal-Istati Membri tal-eżerċizzju tal-poteri ta' implimentazzjoni konferiti lill-Kummissjoni (dibattitu)

  El Presidente. − El siguiente punto es el informe de József Szájer , en nombre de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos, sobre la propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo por el que se establecen las normas y los principios generales relativos a las modalidades de control por los Estados miembros del ejercicio de las competencias de ejecución de la Comisión (COM(2010)0083 - C7-0073/2010 - 2010/0051(COD)) (A7-0355/2010).

  József Szájer, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is only about one year since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which envisages considerable changes in the delegation of powers by the European Parliament and Council to the Commission.

A few months ago in this Parliament, we discussed my report about delegated acts. Delegated acts are when Parliament and Council delegate powers, but from now on, compared to the previous situation, we can take them back any time. We can set a deadline, we can change and we can veto if the Commission is not in line with what the legislator wanted.

In the case of the present regulation we are discussing based on Article 291 of the Treaty, we are speaking about implementing acts. In the case of implementing acts, the situation is a bit different. Here, it is the Member States which exercise their rights on how to implement the different legislation of the European Union. So there is a clear difference.

The new regulation and the new system of delegated acts gives us very wide powers. From Parliament’s point of view, it changes our influence considerably, especially in certain areas of legislation.

However, in the field of implementation, we have the right as Parliament, as legislator, to regulate how the implementation procedure for the Member State should go.

I think Parliament was right after long negotiations to take the position that we would like to confirm and get clear commitments from both the Council and the Commission that Parliament’s rights are met. After very long negotiations, we have made very serious progress in this area which has influence and an effect not only – and particularly not only – in the area of implementing acts, but also on delegated acts.

Even in the case of implementing acts, Parliament got and kept the right of scrutiny which means that, on the basis of the agreement with the other institutions, we have a procedure which we can apply.

My first priority was that we could keep these important positions. There is also another issue here, which is that there are other ongoing discussions in this Parliament represented by other committees – especially the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Foreign Affairs – and also between Parliament and Council on the legislation concerning financial instruments and whether and how they should be regulated.

My goal in this framework was that this regulation should not prejudge this discussion. We want to help our colleagues who are fighting our position in an important discussion with the Council so that we can finally end up with the cooperation of the Council.

Finally, since my time is over, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their flexibility in the negotiations. I understand that it was very difficult to get an agreement in Council. I think this is the deal which Parliament wanted and this deal can be satisfying for all Members, especially because this is not only about the text we are discussing now, but we expect both the Commission and Council to take part in the common understanding concerning these important issues. We also expect declarations which make clear that there is a clear commitment from the Commission for the alignment of the remaining part of the acquis communautaire. This text attached to my report should be satisfying for all Members of this Parliament.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, this morning we heard a very good debate on the citizens’ initiative and tonight we are discussing the very important topic of comitology. I think it is a very good sign that here, after the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, we are actually finalising the main pieces of the legislation necessary for its full implementation.

The regulation on implementing acts will have a major impact on the way the Commission implements European law in the future. It will have a very important influence on the Union’s ability to deliver its policies in the interests of its citizens. When we presented our proposal we set out its main objective: that new rules should put in place a system for the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission which would be simpler, more efficient, and more transparent and in full compliance with the Treaty.

How did we achieve these goals in the proposals we are about to discuss? As in the past, the control mechanism foreseen by the regulation is based on comitology, meaning committees composed of representatives from Member States to which the Commission will submit draft measures but, contrary to the present system, there will no room for intervention by the Council as such.

As the Treaty makes clear, only Member States and not the Council can control the exercise of the implementing powers by the Commission. Moreover, the regulation provides that all special procedures will disappear and that all implementing measures including those on trade – various measures such as anti-dumping or countervailing measures – will be subject to the regulation. This will represent a real revolution in the field of commercial policy.

We want to have simpler procedures, so not only will the new regulation establish just two procedures – advisory and examination – instead of four, but it will also provide for an automatic adaptation of the existing comitology procedures. The new procedures will begin to apply to all existing legislation from day one. Of course this is without prejudice to the nature of the powers conferred on the Commission on the basic acts.

The Commission has committed in a declaration to review all the acquis in order to adapt it as far as legally required to the regime of delegated acts, and I know how important this is for this House. We have so far identified 153 acts which were not submitted to codecision before the Lisbon Treaty, and which confer powers on the Commission that have to be turned into delegated powers. In addition there are 299 acts which were previously aligned to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which will now have to be reviewed in the light of the provisions of the Treaty on delegated acts. But our aim is that before the end of Parliament’s present legislative period all existing legislation will be fully in line with the new provision of the Lisbon Treaty.

This means full alignment. You know how ambitious this goal is and therefore I am particularly pleased that the Belgian minister Mr Chastel kindly asked me to deliver to this House the commitment and the statement of the Presidency.

It states that the Presidency is aware of the ambitious intentions of the Commission in this regard; it welcomes these and supports the objectives. It can confirm that it is willing to do its utmost to make sure that this alignment is concluded as soon as possible once proposals by the Commission have been submitted. The Presidency is ready to cooperate in a loyal manner with Parliament and the Commission to achieve these objectives.

Of course we would like to have this statement enshrined in an official written record, but I think that we have to welcome the very cooperative spirit and collegial approach from the Belgian Presidency.

We want to have a system which is more efficient; accordingly the new rules fully reflect the Commission’s role under the Treaties – with just one regrettable exception which I will come back to later – because only a qualified majority vote by the Committee against the draft implementing act can prevent the Commission from adopting it.

The one exception I just mentioned, where the Commission explicitly needs a positive opinion of the committee before being authorised to adopt the draft implementing act, relates to definitive multilateral trade safeguard measures. Even though only a limited number of acts are adopted in this area, we were against these exceptions on institutional grounds as we would have preferred a full alignment with the new rules.

I wanted to make this institutional point here although in the end this was the only possible basis for the compromise for the legislator and we welcome it. We want to have a system which is more transparent; the whole procedure will be conducted in full transparency.

All documents submitted to the committees are simultaneously sent to the European Parliament and to the Council; these two institutions will have a right of scrutiny on a completely equal footing. At any time during the procedure they may indicate to the Commission that they consider that the draft implementing act exceeds its powers; if we are overstepping our powers you have the right to make it very clear to us.

To conclude, all in all the text presents a very good result for Europe; it clearly strengthens the Community method and it clearly expands Parliament’s power of scrutiny into all areas.

For instance, the new regulation provides that in some cases the Commission might be obliged to discuss the matter in an appeal committee. However this committee will be a normal comitology committee chaired by the Commission and subject to the same rules; only qualified majority against the Commission’s draft can then prevent the Commission from adopting it.

If the new comitology regulation is approved today by the European Parliament it will enter into force very soon, already on 1 March 2011, and this is indeed very good news. We need to have the new legal framework operating as soon as possible, and I also hope that in parallel we could launch a common reflection about the line of demarcation between the delegated powers and the implementing powers of the Commission. We need these not only to avoid further conflicts when discussing proposals for the new legislation but also to streamline the alignment exercise.

To conclude I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for all the work done throughout the negotiating process and also to all political groups for their cooperation and the flexibility they demonstrated. A final word of thanks goes to the Belgian Presidency who did a remarkable job in getting this file through the Council, in finding this very difficult compromise. I believe that what we are about to discuss, and I hope tomorrow approve, is very good news for Europe.

  Gay Mitchell, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. − Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Szájer, for his efforts and for his report.

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the current comitology provisions will be replaced by delegated acts and implementing acts under Articles 290 and 291, as has been explained, but I worry very much about the role of the Commission in implementing the decisions made in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.

I think I heard the Commissioner just say that their aim is to do so by the end of this Parliament. That is another three and a half years, and they only have an ‘aim’! This is not a residents’ association, this is Parliament! If the Council is involved, Parliament is involved. As a parliamentarian – and it gives me no joy to say this – it seems to me that often, instead of acting as honest broker between Council and Parliament, the Commission is far too close to the Council, while Parliament, being of such numbers, is easily divided and far too easily sometimes facilitates what is a common view reached by the Council and by the Commission.

I must stress firstly that Parliament, in my view, should not be under any pressure to sign up completely to the proposed first-reading text in this regard. The most important thing is that we reach a fair compromise that is the best option available for this House and for the citizens we represent, while noting what our colleague, Mr Szájer has said. If this means waiting for a second-reading agreement, then so be it. As I said, the rule must be that if Council is involved, Parliament is involved. We are co-decision makers, co-legislators in this regard.

As the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development, I feel it is of paramount importance that we assert the independence of Parliament and that the Commission respect both institutions. I am not sure that this ‘compromise’ achieves that.

  Saïd El Khadraoui, Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie vervoer en toerisme. − Ik wil om te beginnen de rapporteur danken voor het werk dat hij heeft afgeleverd in dit complex en zeer technisch, maar ook zeer belangrijk dossier voor onze toekomstige werkzaamheden.

Voor onze Commissie vervoer en toerisme was de oude comitologieprocedure met de vier verschillende mogelijkheden geen onbekende en wij zijn al een hele tijd vertrouwd met hoe om te gaan met uitvoeringsbesluiten. Maar met betrekking tot de aanpassingen ingevolge het Verdrag van Lissabon wil ik zeggen dat wij de compromissen die de rapporteur met de Raad heeft onderhandeld, ondersteunen. Er zijn echter twee zaken waarvoor wij uw aandacht vragen.

Ten eerste willen wij een maximale doorstroming van informatie naar het Parlement en een maximale betrokkenheid van het Parlement, ook bij de voorbereiding van beslissingen van het comité.

Ten tweede wil ik het belang benadrukken van een goede aanpak van de overgangsperiode, waarbij wij de Commissie vragen om bij de omschakeling van de in het acquis bestaande comitologieprocedure op de nieuwe gedelegeerde en uitvoeringshandelingen genereus te zijn in het voordeel van het Parlement, wanneer een keuze tussen beide procedures voor discussie vatbaar kan zijn.

En dat betekent dus ook niet alleen bij de omzetting, maar ook bij de toepassing van het huidige acquis in afwachting van de omzetting.

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. − Mr President, I worry that rejecting the inclusion of delegated acts in financial instruments might set a dangerous precedent for other policies. It also raises interinstitutional distrust and we are all concerned by this situation.

The forthcoming proposals on the legislative package for regional policy after 2013 might require application of implementing acts, but might also require delegated acts. We cannot accept the prior exclusion of delegated acts. This should be a matter of negotiation among the co-legislators on a case-by-case basis.

This position is, in my view, consistent politically and legally and I believe that the Council and the Commission will evidently share it with Parliament. Ahead of us lie a number of difficult years, without doubt. Our duty as European institutions is to make the most of our policies, and by avoiding unnecessary conflicts and procedures we can be more effective in this common task.

  Paolo De Castro, relatore per parere della commissione per l'agricoltura. − Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, come presidente della commissione per l'agricoltura sono profondamente deluso, per molteplici motivi, del contenuto della relazione Szájer, domani in votazione.

In primo luogo, nessuno degli emendamenti votati dalla mia commissione all'unanimità – e sottolineo, all'unanimità – è stato preso in considerazione, anche se la politica agricola comune è una delle politiche con più atti adottati secondo la procedura di comitatologia, e quindi una delle più coinvolte dall'adattamento degli atti legislativi secondo il trattato di Lisbona.

In secondo luogo, con il testo dell'articolo 10, il Parlamento europeo non avrà alcun potere di pressione e margini di negoziato con il Consiglio sull'adattamento degli atti legislativi della PAC al nuovo trattato.

Sappiamo, infatti, che il Consiglio ha già mostrato la volontà di non accordare gli atti delegati al Parlamento europeo e, con l'approvazione di questo regolamento, il Consiglio non avrà alcun interesse ad avanzare nei negoziati, visto che l'adattamento automatico – che esclude gli atti delegati e prevede solo atti di esecuzione – per quanto transitorio, non ha una data limite.

Per questo motivo, insieme ad altri colleghi, ho presentato un emendamento che rende realmente temporaneo l'allineamento automatico e chiedo a tutti voi di sostenerlo per rafforzare il ruolo del Parlamento europeo. Non c'è alcun motivo, infatti, di trovare un accordo in prima lettura su un dossier così sensibile, che scrive le regole di implementazione del trattato per i prossimi anni. È per questo che – su questo dossier così importante – abbiamo il diritto – anzi, ritengo soprattutto il dovere – di migliorare il testo il più possibile e andare quindi in seconda lettura senza cedere ai ricatti del Consiglio, che minaccia di non voler più avanzare su questo dossier per farci accettare un accordo così negativo.

Dopo il bilancio, penso questo sia il più importante dossier su cui dobbiamo esprimerci, perché ridisegna gli equilibri di potere tra le istituzioni europee, e in questa sede dobbiamo difendere con forza le prerogative del Parlamento, democraticamente eletto e che rappresenta tutti i cittadini europei.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios. − Señor Presidente, querido Comisario, queridos colegas, el Tratado de Lisboa introduce cambios sustanciales en el proceso de desarrollo y ejecución de la legislación comunitaria, al distinguir entre actos delegados y de ejecución. El Derecho originario anterior solo contemplaba medidas de ejecución.

El presente Reglamento es imprescindible para un tránsito ordenado del antiguo al nuevo sistema y para el ejercicio adecuado de las competencias de ejecución atribuidas a la Comisión, de acuerdo con el nuevo Tratado de Lisboa. Fortalece el principio democrático porque reconoce el derecho de control del Parlamento, incrementa la transparencia con el informe anual e incorpora una cláusula de revisión para perfeccionarlo según la experiencia alcanzada. Por todo esto, satisface las demandas que la Comisión de Asuntos Económicos había planteado al respecto.

En el ámbito de los servicios financieros, contribuirá a incrementar la seguridad jurídica y la eficacia de la legislación. Completa el objetivo de la Directiva Ómnibus de limitar los poderes conferidos a la Comisión en el viejo marco que sean compatibles con el actual a un periodo de tres años desde la entrada en vigor del nuevo Tratado, y establece las previsiones para que los estándares técnicos de ejecución, que se contemplan en la nueva arquitectura de supervisión y en la normativa sectorial en el ámbito de los servicios financieros, puedan llegar a adoptarse.

Por todo ello, como ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Asuntos Económicos, lo valoro positivamente y felicito al señor Szájer.

Agradeciendo la generosidad del Presidente, les felicito también a todos ustedes estas fiestas y el próximo año.

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Es bedarf doch einer Reihe von Erklärungen – auch hier im Plenum noch – im Zusammenhang mit missverständlichen Debatten, die in den Fraktionen, in der Konferenz der Ausschussvorsitzenden, aber auch teilweise im Ausschuss geführt worden sind.

Zunächst geht es bei dieser Verordnung nicht darum zu entscheiden, was delegierte Rechtsakte nach Artikel 290 sind und was Durchführungsrechtsakte nach Artikel 291 sind. Das entscheidet diese Verordnung überhaupt nicht. Das wird im Basisrechtsakt entschieden. Das heißt, im Gesetz selbst wird über die Ermächtigungsgrundlage nach Artikel 290 oder 291 entschieden, wenn man das vorsieht. Hier wird lediglich über das Verfahren für einen Fall des Artikels 291 entschieden.

Das Zweite ist die Kritik an Artikel 10. Auch Artikel 10 betrifft alleine das Verfahren – nur das Verfahren und nichts anderes. Die Kommission hat in diesem Zusammenhang nochmals klarstellend erklärt, dass sie selbstverständlich die Absicht hat, im Rahmen des Alignments alle vorhandenen Rechtsakte aus der Vor-Lissabon-Zeit zu überarbeiten und mit neuen Vorschlägen an beide Gesetzgeber – Parlament und Rat – heranzutreten. Das ist noch einmal verstärkt worden im Vergleich zu der Vereinbarung, die wir vorher interinstitutionell getroffen haben.

Das Einzige, was wirklich neu ist, ist das Verfahren im Bereich des Außenhandels. Ich gebe zu, der Kompromiss, den die belgische Präsidentschaft gefunden hat, ist ein bisschen bürokratisch. Das ist keine Frage. Aber das war die einzige mögliche Lösung angesichts von zwei blockierenden Minderheiten, die es im Rat gab.

Für mich geht es bei dieser Frage um eine Güterabwägung. Man muss auch das abwägen – der Berichterstatter hat es genannt –, was das Parlament ausgehandelt hat. Wir haben ein Verfahren der Überprüfung bei den Durchführungsrechtsakten, das der Vertrag überhaupt nicht vorsieht. Das ist ein ganz gewaltiger Schritt nach vorne, auch im Hinblick auf die Parlamentsbeteiligung, und geht über den Vertrag hinaus. In der Güterabwägung kann man deshalb nur dafür sein. Deswegen unterstütze ich den Bericht so, wie er vorliegt, ohne Änderungsanträge. Wir werden jetzt in erster Lesung nicht mehr erreichen können, als wir in einem späteren Vermittlungsverfahren in unabsehbarer Zeit würden erreichen können.

  Eva Lichtenberger, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Diese Regelung, die heute diskutiert wird, hat lange Zeit in allen Ausschüssen nicht sehr viel Aufmerksamkeit erfahren. Jetzt am Schluss aber, als das Ergebnis vorlag, sind einige Menschen in diesem Hause aufgewacht. Einige sind leider jetzt zur Debatte nicht erschienen, es wäre sehr spannend gewesen, auch ihre Meinung zu hören.

Als ehemaliges Mitglied des Konvents ist mir der Geist des Konvents noch sehr deutlich in Erinnerung. Dort wurde in vielen Bereichen ganz klar gefordert, dass das Europäische Parlament bestimmte Rechte bekommen muss, um auch im Rahmen der Institutionen und gegenüber den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern glaubwürdig zu sein und zu bleiben.

Trotz der Vorgaben des Konvents wurde uns nichts geschenkt. Es waren extrem schwierige Verhandlungen, vor allem geführt von der belgischen Präsidentschaft gegenüber dem Rat, die es ermöglicht haben, einige wichtige Fortschritte zu erzielen. Ich erinnere daran, was der Kollege Lehne schon gesagt hat, es war eben die Frage der ständigen Möglichkeit der Überprüfung, ob die Kommission ihre Kompetenzen überschritten hat.

Natürlich gibt es einige nicht ganz so ideale Regelungen, wie etwa die internationalen Handelsabkommen, aber trotzdem kann ich mich mit dem Ergebnis einverstanden erklären. Ich danke der belgischen Präsidentschaft. Sie hat sich wirklich sehr dahintergeklemmt, dass etwas geschieht, und ich danke unserem Berichterstatter, der mit Herz und Hirn verhandelt hat.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, con la votazione di domani sulla relazione del collega Szájer daremo il via a uno dei nuovi strumenti – quello degli atti esecutivi – contenuti nel trattato di Lisbona.

Ciò permetterà di semplificare il vecchio sistema di comitatologia. Si tratta di una misura che assicurerà maggiore trasparenza durante la fase di adozione degli atti, regolando le modalità di controllo da parte degli Stati membri sull'esercizio delle competenze attribuite alla Commissione. La fondamentale importanza del regolamento ha reso complesso l'iter legislativo, sia a livello interistituzionale che all'interno del Parlamento dove però, grazie al coinvolgimento – seppure tardivo – di tutte le commissioni, spero si riuscirà ad adottare la proposta in prima lettura.

Mi congratulo pertanto con il relatore per essere riuscito a raggiungere gli obiettivi prioritari per il Parlamento europeo: mi riferisco alle garanzie di allineamento dei procedimenti di comitatologia in corso alla nuova procedura, al diritto di scrutinio da parte del Parlamento e del Consiglio, alla creazione di un comitato d'appello presieduto dalla Commissione e all'inclusione di una clausola di revisione che permetterà di valutare l'efficienza della procedura.

Permettetemi un commento conclusivo su quello che è stato l'ultimo ostacolo dei negoziati: l'inclusione della politica commerciale comune nella sfera di applicazione del futuro regolamento. Nonostante l'accordo finale permetta, durante un periodo transitorio di diciotto mesi, di applicare la maggioranza semplice col sistema di voto per l'adozione di misure antidumping, successivamente le misure saranno adottate a maggioranza qualificata. Sono convinto che questa soluzione, frutto di un difficile compromesso, soddisfi sia le esigenze dell'industria che dell'esecutivo comunitario, sottraendo decisioni di natura tecnica a pericolose politicizzazioni.

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non concordo affatto con gli ultimi interventi! Personalmente trovo che questo sia un provvedimento lesivo delle priorità del Parlamento e che non rispetta lo spirito del trattato di Lisbona.

Ci apprestiamo a concludere il 70 percento degli accordi in prima lettura con il Consiglio, ma non si capisce la fretta di chiudere in prima lettura un provvedimento delicato come questo, concernente l'implementazione del trattato di Lisbona che ha ampliato le nostre prerogative, soprattutto sulla politica commerciale. Proprio sull'apertura delle procedure antidumping passiamo dall'oggettività della certezza del diritto a un intervento degli Stati membri che rischia di essere frutto di una contrattazione tra Commissione e Stati membri.

Credo quindi che sia tratti di un passo indietro, così come l'allineamento automatico senza limiti temporali dalla vecchia comitatologia a oggi in campo agricolo che potenzi quello che è il ruolo del Parlamento.

Non credo sia quindi saggio concludere così in fretta un accordo con il Consiglio in prima lettura, perché corriamo anche il rischio di contenziosi dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for all the contributions, which reflect how complex an issue we are dealing with.

Allow me to react to some of the comments. Concerning the review and our commitment to it in relation to all the relevant acts, we have here an extremely ambitious plan and I have been discussing it with Mr Lehne during our framework agreement discussions: we have 299 plus 153 acts to align. I think that if we say we would like to do it within the period of this legislature, it is a very ambitious plan. If I say it is ‘our’ ambition, I mean that on behalf of the three institutions because this clearly requires loyal cooperation from all of us.

I would like to assure Mr Mitchell of the Commission’s utmost respect for Parliament.

I would like to highlight one paragraph in the draft Commission statement which is attached to the proposal. I will just read it out: ‘While this alignment exercise is under way, the Commission will keep the European Parliament regularly informed on draft implementing measures related to these instruments which should become, in the future, delegated acts.’ So our commitment to transparency and clarity is absolutely clear. I would like also to confirm, here in this House, that we will offer Parliament the maximum amount of information. Parliament will receive all information at the same time as the committees, so we will do our utmost to keep Parliament informed also in this procedure.

I think I have to thank Mr Lehne for clarifying the situation in the debate. What we are discussing today are implementing acts, and this regulation does not prejudge in any way whether we should use delegated or implementing acts in the future.

Concerning the issue of alignment, I think Mr De Castro was not here when I was reading out the agreed statement of the Belgian Presidency with a full commitment to loyal cooperation to achieve this ambitious goal of full alignment in the coming years. I think there is a reassurance here that it is not only in Parliament’ interests, but also in the Commission’s and the Council’s interests to proceed very quickly. I think this is very clear and I am sure that we will honour this agreement.

Concerning the issue of politicisation of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, I think, actually, that we will see the opposite, because you know what the system is today: that a simple majority of the Member States’ representatives can block a Commission proposal. This would be much more difficult in the future because you would need a qualified majority of the Member States representatives to block it. So I think that what we are doing here will actually strengthen the Union approach and strengthen the position of the Commission in the trade talks, exactly as prescribed and projected by the Lisbon Treaty.

If you will allow me, I will conclude by underlining the importance of legal certainty in this matter because, of course, when we are dealing with sensitive issues like trade, like anti-dumping measures, like countervailing measures, we need to have very well established procedures and we need to have a clear division of roles and responsibilities. Parliament needs the very clear scrutiny rights which have been given to it by the Lisbon Treaty, and we need the legal certainty to operate in this very important legislative area because you know how often these measures are disputed in various international fora.

Therefore, I would plead with the honourable Members to support these proposals without amendment because I think they are really good for the position of the European Union in world affairs.

  József Szájer, rapporteur. − Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for their contributions, both now and during the last nine months we have been working on this issue.

First, a procedural thing. Many colleagues have voiced their worries about the fact that we are rushing into a first-reading agreement under pressure from the Council. Both the Commission and Council and several colleagues involved in the negotiations can testify that the pressure was the opposite. It was Parliament and myself who said to the Council that if it did not reach agreement then the whole thing could fall apart.

We got a very clear commitment from both the other institutions because like Parliament, as Mr Šefčovič just mentioned, they are for the stability of the Lisbon Treaty. The later we accept, the later we adopt this kind of regulation, the longer the old comitology procedure – which we do not like because of its many problems – will go on. From that point of view, nine months is not a short time and could encompass two readings. There has been full transparency, and several colleagues can bear witness to that.

I have been in the Conference of Committee Chairs six times during these nine months and have also met with shadows and coordinators from all the committees. It was I who decided to go for agreement because we were getting everything I wanted. Maybe the Council and the Commission do not like it, but we got everything.

What does a rapporteur do when everything I and the different committees requested is there, although perhaps not in the form we want? Mr De Castro is right. His requests are not in the form of the text of this regulation, but this is about implementing acts, and they are there in the Commission’s commitment. I have done this alignment – the omnibus – before, and the same commitment was given by the Commission, which it honoured with very minor exceptions. In that sense, I thought I could trust this promise and if the Commission does not honour it, I will stand up and claim it and align, as Mr De Castro is doing.

In that sense, there is no pressure. The pressure came from me. Through good cooperation in many difficult negotiations we agreed on something which I can unreservedly offer to the House to take on board.

Thank you very much to everybody, especially to the colleagues who took part in this very difficult process. I apologise to the general public, which does not understand a word of what we are discussing, but I can definitely say that transparency and parliamentary control of European Union issues will be much better after this regulation is adopted.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Vital Moreira (S&D), por escrito. – Esta iniciativa legislativa sobre o controlo dos "actos executivos" da Comissão é imposta pelo Tratado de Lisboa, que inclui esta matéria na competência legislativa do Parlamento Europeu. Trata-se inegavelmente de um diploma globalmente positivo, tendo em conta a situação existente.

Mas vários aspectos ficam aquém do integral cumprimento do Tratado de Lisboa. Entre os aspectos negativos avultam dois. Em primeiro lugar, falta um prazo limite para a adaptação obrigatória das inúmeras situações existentes ao novo regime e ao Tratado de Lisboa. Por isso, subscrevi uma alteração introduzindo uma tal cláusula. Em segundo lugar, e principalmente, são inaceitáveis as derrogações previstas para os instrumentos de defesa comercial (nomeadamente as medidas antidumping e anti-subsídio, bem como as medidas de salvaguarda), segundo os quais os Estados-Membros terão um controlo mais intrusivo sobre a Comissão, dificultando a aplicação daquelas medidas e proporcionando a sua politização. Essas medidas são essenciais para defender as empresas europeias da concorrência de importações que beneficiam de tais vantagens ilícitas.

Não existe nenhum fundamento constitucional, nem político para este tratamento discriminatório das medidas de defesa comercial, que enfraquece a capacidade da Comissão (e da União) de defender a indústria europeia contra concorrência desleal externa no próprio mercado interno europeu.