Considerations on COM(2017)85 - Amendment of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on the rules and principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2017)85 - Amendment of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on the rules and principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2017)85  |
| date | February 14, 2017 |
(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
(3) In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, the appeal committee has been seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products.
(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.
(5) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion.
(6) That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision.
(7) While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision-making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.
(8) In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.
(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee should be changed in order to reduce the risk of no opinion being delivered and to provide an incentive for Member State representatives to take a clear position. To this end only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today.
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.
(12) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.