80

Rezultatas(-ai)

Žodis(-iai)
Publikacijos rūšis
Politikos sritis
Autorius
Raktinis žodis
Datą

Reform of the Comitology Regulation

04-03-2021

On 14 February 2017, the European Commission adopted a proposal amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (the 'Comitology Regulation') in order to increase the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process leading to the adoption of implementing acts. The main elements of the proposal include amending the voting rules for the Appeal Committee (AC) in order to reduce the risk of a no opinion scenario and to clarify the positions of the Member States, providing for the possibility of a ...

On 14 February 2017, the European Commission adopted a proposal amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (the 'Comitology Regulation') in order to increase the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process leading to the adoption of implementing acts. The main elements of the proposal include amending the voting rules for the Appeal Committee (AC) in order to reduce the risk of a no opinion scenario and to clarify the positions of the Member States, providing for the possibility of a further referral to the AC at ministerial level if no opinion is delivered, and increasing the transparency of the comitology procedure by making public the votes of the Member States' representatives in the AC. Following the opinions of a number of committees, submitted in the previous and current terms, on 12 October 2020, Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs adopted its report. It proposes to oblige Member States' representatives to give reasons for their vote, abstention or for any absence from the vote, and where particularly sensitive areas are concerned (consumer protection, health and safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment), also case-specific detailed reasons for their vote or abstention. Other amendments concern better accessibility to the comitology register to increase transparency for citizens, and empowering Parliament and Council to call on the Commission to submit a proposal amending the basic act, where they deem it appropriate to review the implementing powers granted to the Commission. A partial first-reading report was adopted on 17 December 2020 in plenary and the file was referred back to the Legal Affairs Committee for interinstitutional negotiations. First edition. The 'EU Legislation in Progress' briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.

Unfair terms in Swiss franc loans: Overview of European Court of Justice case law

04-03-2021

In the first decade of the 21st century, loans denominated in or indexed to foreign currencies, in particular the Swiss franc, became very popular in a number of EU Member States, including Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, and also in two non-EU countries, Montenegro and Serbia. For a certain period, in some Member States these loans became the most popular type of loan issued to consumers. By pegging loans to a stable foreign currency, banks could lend more money ...

In the first decade of the 21st century, loans denominated in or indexed to foreign currencies, in particular the Swiss franc, became very popular in a number of EU Member States, including Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, and also in two non-EU countries, Montenegro and Serbia. For a certain period, in some Member States these loans became the most popular type of loan issued to consumers. By pegging loans to a stable foreign currency, banks could lend more money to the same consumer by virtue of interest rates being lower than those for the same type of loan expressed in the national currency. However, when, as a result of the global economic crisis, the rate of exchange between the Swiss franc and these national currencies (zlotys, forints, kunas, etc.) soared, consumers found themselves trapped. Often, they had to repay as much as twice the value of the loan taken, and could not escape the unfavourable contract by simply selling the property they had bought, as this would cover only a fraction of their debt. While certain Member States implemented mechanisms aimed at protecting consumers and bringing the situation under control, the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), based on dynamic interpretation of the Unfair Terms Directive (93/13), has proved to be a significant factor in securing effective consumer protection. This briefing explains the legal significance of the relevant ECJ judgments, against the backdrop of the Swiss franc loan situation in Europe.

Complementary executive capacity

15-02-2021

Against the backdrop of new and unprecedented crises and challenges, the advantages of coordinated approaches and effective cross-border responses are all the more evident, and gaining support among Europeans, as shown by recent Eurobarometer surveys. In this context, EU complementary executive capacity could be a way of meeting citizens' expectations, through complementing, without replacing, the executive capacities of the Member States. The concept of complementary EU executive capacity dovetails ...

Against the backdrop of new and unprecedented crises and challenges, the advantages of coordinated approaches and effective cross-border responses are all the more evident, and gaining support among Europeans, as shown by recent Eurobarometer surveys. In this context, EU complementary executive capacity could be a way of meeting citizens' expectations, through complementing, without replacing, the executive capacities of the Member States. The concept of complementary EU executive capacity dovetails naturally with the ongoing transformation of the EU from a legislative union to a hybrid (legislative–executive) union, as it becomes more involved in implementing law rather than purely enacting it. Essentially, the notion repackages pre-existing administrative practices in a way that facilitates their operationalisation, draws attention to new areas of potential EU executive involvement, and presents a tool for communication with citizens that can be understood.

Amending the Comitology Regulation

10-12-2020

When adopting implementing acts, the Commission acts under the scrutiny of the Member States (represented in specialised committees and an appeal committee) following mechanisms set out in the Comitology Regulation. In 2017, the Commission proposed amendments to this Regulation, aimed at eliminating 'no opinion' deadlocks in the appeal committee and increasing transparency in the procedure. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal during the December plenary session.

When adopting implementing acts, the Commission acts under the scrutiny of the Member States (represented in specialised committees and an appeal committee) following mechanisms set out in the Comitology Regulation. In 2017, the Commission proposed amendments to this Regulation, aimed at eliminating 'no opinion' deadlocks in the appeal committee and increasing transparency in the procedure. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal during the December plenary session.

Protecting EU common values within the Member States: An overview of monitoring, prevention and enforcement mechanisms at EU level

25-09-2020

This study analyses the existing and proposed mechanisms available to the institutions of the EU that may be deployed in order to monitor and enforce the observance of EU values by the Member States. More specifically, the study addresses the status and meaning of EU values (Article 2 TEU) and also discusses existing monitoring and preventive mechanisms (European Semester, EU Justice Scoreboard, Commission's rule of law framework, the Council's dialogues on the rule of law, and the preventive arm ...

This study analyses the existing and proposed mechanisms available to the institutions of the EU that may be deployed in order to monitor and enforce the observance of EU values by the Member States. More specifically, the study addresses the status and meaning of EU values (Article 2 TEU) and also discusses existing monitoring and preventive mechanisms (European Semester, EU Justice Scoreboard, Commission's rule of law framework, the Council's dialogues on the rule of law, and the preventive arm of Article 7 TEU) and enforcement mechanisms (preliminary reference rulings, infringement procedures and the sanctions arm of Article 7 TEU)). It also analyses a number of proposed mechanisms: the pact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; rule of law review cycle; reviewed Council dialogues on the rule of law; and the rule of law budgetary conditionality.

The State of the Union debate in the European Parliament, 2020

11-09-2020

The State of the Union address of 2020 will be delivered at a time when the coronavirus pandemic continues to create challenges for the European Union and its Member States. At the same time, the the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), the EU's long-term budget, is yet to be agreed. Unresolved challenges also include ensuring respect for EU values (Article 2 TEU) in the Member States, addressing the threat of climate change, and ensuring Europe is fit for the digital age. The tradition of ...

The State of the Union address of 2020 will be delivered at a time when the coronavirus pandemic continues to create challenges for the European Union and its Member States. At the same time, the the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), the EU's long-term budget, is yet to be agreed. Unresolved challenges also include ensuring respect for EU values (Article 2 TEU) in the Member States, addressing the threat of climate change, and ensuring Europe is fit for the digital age. The tradition of EU State of the Union addresses, delivered by the President of the European Commission before the European Parliament, dates back to 2010. The address takes stock of the achievements of the past year and presents the priorities for the year ahead. The State of the Union speech constitutes an important instrument for the European Commission's ex-ante accountability vis-à-vis Parliament. It is also aimed at rendering the definition of priorities at EU level more transparent, and at communicating those priorities to citizens. It resembles similar speeches in national democracies. The United States of America, for instance, has a long-standing tradition of presidential State of the Union addresses, in which the President speaks in the Capitol to a joint session of Congress, thus fulfilling his constitutional obligation. By contrast to the US Constitution, the EU Treaties do not prescribe the State of the Union address, which was instigated with the 2010 Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission. Former Commission Presidents José Manuel Barroso (2010 to 2013, marked mainly by the economic and financial crisis) and President Jean Claude Juncker each gave four State of the Union speeches. In his 2015 address, Jean Claude Juncker presented new proposals on migration, external action, and economic and fiscal policy. In 2016, he announced new initiatives to invest in Europe's young people, jobseekers and start-ups, to expand public access to wifi, and make fairer copyright laws. In 2017, he proposed a roadmap for a more united, stronger and more democratic union. In his final speech in 2018, he called for a more sovereign Europe that allows its nations to be global players, setting out proposals on migration, cybersecurity and foreign policy. This briefing further updates an earlier one, from September 2016, originally written by Eva-Maria Poptcheva.

Protecting the EU budget against generalised rule of law deficiencies

25-06-2020

When preparing the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework, the European Commission proposed to strengthen the link between EU funding and respect for the rule of law. To this end, on 3 May 2018, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation that would introduce a general rule of law conditionality into the EU's financial rules. Any Member State where a generalised rule of law deficiency is found could be subject to the suspension of payments and commitments, reduced funding and a prohibition ...

When preparing the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework, the European Commission proposed to strengthen the link between EU funding and respect for the rule of law. To this end, on 3 May 2018, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation that would introduce a general rule of law conditionality into the EU's financial rules. Any Member State where a generalised rule of law deficiency is found could be subject to the suspension of payments and commitments, reduced funding and a prohibition on concluding new commitments. On 13 November 2019, the decision of the European Parliament's Budget and Budgetary Control Committees to enter interinstitutional negotiations on the proposal was announced in plenary. Negotiations will be based on Parliament's first-reading position adopted in plenary in April 2019. Parliament's main amendments are concerned with the definition of generalised deficiencies, procedural issues (the panel of independent experts and the need to put Parliament on an equal footing with Council), and with the protection of end beneficiaries of EU funding. The rule of law conditionality has become an important element of the negotiations on the legislative package for the 2021-2027 MFF and the Recovery Instrument for the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. Second edition. The 'EU Legislation in Progress' briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.

Coronavirus and elections in selected Member States

17-06-2020

With the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, many countries around the world that were or are due to organise elections or referendums, have had to decide whether to hold them as originally planned, introducing mitigating measures, put them on hold or postpone them to a later date. When deciding whether to continue with elections or not, decision-makers have needed to take into account a variety of legal, technical and sanitary parameters and implications, as well as constitutional arrangements ...

With the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, many countries around the world that were or are due to organise elections or referendums, have had to decide whether to hold them as originally planned, introducing mitigating measures, put them on hold or postpone them to a later date. When deciding whether to continue with elections or not, decision-makers have needed to take into account a variety of legal, technical and sanitary parameters and implications, as well as constitutional arrangements, to ensure that democratic institutions function as they would in normal circumstances and to ensure people's fundamental rights and freedoms are upheld. While postponing an election may be the most feasible and responsible option from the public health perspective, the decision may open the door to other risks, including undermining people's trust in democracy and casting doubt on the regular nature of elections. However, as experts suggest, democracy can also be undermined by holding elections during the pandemic, as their free and fair nature might be questioned. In order to protect election staff and voters, health and safety procedures can be built into election-related procedures, and special voting arrangements can be introduced, such as postal or e-voting, that allow citizens to cast their votes remotely. These entail other technological, security and social challenges, however, that need to be taken into account. This briefing provides example of how selected EU Member States have dealt with elections and referendums that were due to take place during the coronavirus pandemic.

Parliaments in emergency mode: How Member States' parliaments are continuing with business during the pandemic

24-04-2020

The coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by a huge array of public measures aiming to protect against and mitigate the consequences of the virus. While citizens have had to adjust to weeks of lockdown in their homes as a consequence of the emergency measures adopted by Member States, public institutions have been forced to move quickly to adapt their ways of working to a new and unprecedented scenario. These changes are particularly challenging for parliamentary institutions, as their functioning ...

The coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by a huge array of public measures aiming to protect against and mitigate the consequences of the virus. While citizens have had to adjust to weeks of lockdown in their homes as a consequence of the emergency measures adopted by Member States, public institutions have been forced to move quickly to adapt their ways of working to a new and unprecedented scenario. These changes are particularly challenging for parliamentary institutions, as their functioning is based on the principles of pluralism, deliberation and transparency. How can decisions be adopted on the basis of those principles if many members cannot attend parliamentary sessions owing either to the restrictions on freedom of movement and bans on public gatherings in virtually all Member States, or to personal health concerns? National parliaments in the EU have adopted a variety of approaches to address this challenge. Some have gone entirely digital, using remote technology to ensure all members can take part in parliamentary work, including voting. Others have opted to adopt parliamentary decisions with a reduced number of members while ensuring the balance of power between their different political groups. Some others, finally, have decided to adopt social distancing measures, allowing members to continue with their parliamentary activities from different rooms of the parliament premises or from another location entirely. Given the particular difficulties in travelling between Member States, the European Parliament opted for the first solution, holding its first ever digital plenary session, in which Members voted remotely using a new electronic voting procedure, on 26 March 2020.

Action for annulment of an EU act

08-11-2019

An action for annulment is a legal procedure before the Court of Justice that guarantees the conformity of EU legislative acts, regulatory acts and individual acts with the superior rules of the EU legal order. An action can be brought within two months of the publication or notification of the contested measure. Applicants are divided into three categories: privileged, semi-privileged and non-privileged. Privileged applicants – the Member States, Parliament, Commission and Council – may bring an ...

An action for annulment is a legal procedure before the Court of Justice that guarantees the conformity of EU legislative acts, regulatory acts and individual acts with the superior rules of the EU legal order. An action can be brought within two months of the publication or notification of the contested measure. Applicants are divided into three categories: privileged, semi-privileged and non-privileged. Privileged applicants – the Member States, Parliament, Commission and Council – may bring an action for annulment purely in the interests of legality, without proving any particular interest. Semi-privileged applicants – comprising the European Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors – may bring an action for annulment only to protect their own prerogatives. Finally, non-privileged applicants, comprising all natural and legal persons, including regional or local governments, may bring an action for annulment only if they prove that the contested act infringes upon their interests. More specifically, they may bring an action against an act addressed to them, or – if it is not addressed to them – if it is of direct and individual concern to them, as well as against a regulatory act that is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures. The Treaty provides five grounds for annulment, i.e. reasons for which the Court may declare an EU act to be null and void. These are lack of competence; infringement of an essential procedural requirement; infringement of the Treaties; infringement of a rule relating to the application of the Treaties; and, finally, misuse of powers. If the Court finds the action well founded, it declares the nullity of the contested act, which, in principle, is considered null from the moment of its adoption. However, the Court may decide that some effects of the contested act should, nonetheless, remain in force in the interests of protecting legitimate interests and legal security.

Būsimi renginiai

15-03-2021
EPRS online Book Talk with Vivien Schmidt: Legitimacy and power in the EU
Kitas renginys -
EPRS
16-03-2021
EPRS online policy roundtable: New European Bauhaus
Kitas renginys -
EPRS
17-03-2021
Hearing on Responsibilities of transport operators and other private stakeholders
Klausymas -
ANIT

Partneriai