Text · Opinion parliamentary committee draft
On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers
Full title
On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers
Document INTA-PA-610686 · COM(2017)0085 – C80034/2017 – 2017/0035(COD)
- Kind
- Opinion parliamentary committee draft INTA-PA-610686
- Date
- 19 September 2017
- Committee
- Committee on International Trade
- Rapporteur
- Wim van de Camp
- Dossier
- 2017-0035
More facts (2)
- Formats
- Official page PDF Word
- Reference
- COM(2017)0085 – C80034/2017 – 2017/0035(COD)
Text
The text as parsed from the official Word file. Every paragraph has a link (¶) and can be saved to a project as a passage.
Jump to an amendment (6)
Short justification
In this proposal the Commission has put forward four amendments to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (“comitology regulation”) which address situations when during a comitology procedure the appeal committee is unable to deliver an opinion on Commission’s draft proposed implementing act. Namely, it is proposed to:
• Remove abstaining committee members’ votes from the calculation of a qualified majority in the appeal committee. Decisions of the appeal committee would only be valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members;
• Provide for a possibility that the Commission refers the matter to the Council for its views on an issue and the wider implications where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee;
• Make public the record of votes of Member States in the appeal committee. This measure aims at increasing the transparency of the comitology procedures.
These proposed modifications only concern procedures at the level of appeal committee where no opinion is delivered. In practical terms, the proposal addresses cases that form only around 2% of all draft implementing acts submitted to committees.
As regards the common commercial policy that falls in the competence of the Committee on International trade (INTA), there are 14 existing comitology committees (in 2015) and the majority of implementing acts adopted concern the field of trade defence instruments (“TDI”), that is, anti-dumping and countervailing measures (to illustrate: in 2015 of 58 total implementing acts adopted in the common commercial policy field 52 concerned the TDI). The comitology regulation only started applying to TDI measures from February 2014, following the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014. Since then the appeal committee procedure for the TDI measures has been triggered once, in February 2017 relating to the “solar panels” case.
The INTA committee is also responsible for implementing acts adopted in other fields, such as relating to macro-financial assistance to third countries or external aspects of customs.
Overall, the rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s proposal. Examples from the current practice show that more precise mechanisms should be put in place to increase certainty and transparency on Member States’ positions taken in the framework of comitology procedures. It should however be ensured that the comitology procedures at appeal committee level, nor at the referral to the Council level do not negatively affect the adoption of necessary TDI measures that are often subject to great time pressure.
In general, the rapporteur would like to underline that procedures within the European Union (“EU”) must be optimized and executed in a time-efficient manner. It is very important that the EU delivers on its promises, goals and obligations in a time of growing global economic competition, so it can remain competitive and set the standards regarding its high economic, social and environmental targets.
Therefore the rapporteur proposes that with regard to meetings of the appeal committee (at the ministerial level, as well as the initial meeting) and the referral of the matter to the Council, it should be specified that in cases where the respective basic acts provide for a fixed time-frame for the procedures to be concluded, it should always be possible for the Commission to shorten the deadlines.
It is also proposed to lay down a specific time limit within which the European Parliament and the Council can exercise their right of scrutiny. This time limit existed before the current comitology regulation was adopted and the rapporteur considers it unfortunate that it was not included in the current comitology regulation. Therefore this modification of the current comitology regulation should be seen as a good opportunity to establish a time limit that would provide more certainty for the European Parliament to exercise its right of scrutiny. Appropriate exceptions should also be laid down for urgent cases, as it is in no way intended to hinder the efficiency of the comitology regime
The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6a) Where Union legislative acts provide for the Commission to conduct an investigation based on a complaint made by a natural or legal person, such as in the case of anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings, the Commission is required to take decisions within specific deadlines and in the light of findings made during the investigation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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. | (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, except when statutory deadlines laid down in the relevant basic acts have to be respected, such as in the case of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. In order to ensure that procedures at appeal committee level do not entail delays, the Commission should also be allowed, in duly justified cases, to shorten the deadlines before which the appeal committee has to deliver an opinion. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (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. | (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. Shorter deadlines should apply when the Commission is bound by fixed statutory deadlines laid down in the relevant basic acts, such as in the case of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1) in Article 3(7), the following sixth subparagraph is added: | (1) in Article 3(7), the following subparagraphs are added: |
| "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral. “; | "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral as laid down in the third subparagraph of this paragraph. Where applicable, the Commission shall set a shorter deadline in order to comply with the deadlines laid down in the relevant basic acts. |
| The Commission may in duly justified cases decide to set a shorter deadline than the deadlines mentioned in this paragraph.“; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) the following paragraph 3a is inserted: | (b) the following paragraph 3a is inserted: |
| "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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.” | "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall 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. Where applicable, the Commission shall set a shorter deadline in order to comply with the deadlines laid down in the relevant basic acts.” |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3a) In Article 11, the following paragraph is added: | |
| “The European Parliament and the Council shall have one month to give the indication as referred to in the first paragraph, beginning on the date of receipt of the final draft implementing act in the language versions submitted to the committee concerned. The time limit of one month shall not apply in urgent cases or in the case of implementing acts relating to day-to-day administrative matters and/or having a limited period of validity.” |
The right of scrutiny by the European Parliament cannot efficiently be implemented if the time limit for its exercise is not known. The time limit of one month for the right of scrutiny existed under the previous comitology framework of Council Decision 1999/468/EC, it was laid down in the interinstitutional agreement of 2008 between the EP and the Commission on comitology procedures. This time period should be laid down in the current Regulation 182/2011.
Connections
The dossier, the decisions on this text and its other versions.
No connections found for this item.
Sources & citation
Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.
- Data source
- Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Retrieved
- 25 September 2026
Cite as
European Parliament (2017). “DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers”. Text, 19 September 2017. docId INTA-PA-610686. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/INTA-PA-610686 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: EP Open Data API: document record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/documents/INTA-PA-610686 (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-inta-pa-610686,
author = {{European Parliament}},
title = {{DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers}},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-09-19},
howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/INTA-PA-610686}},
url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/INTA-PA-610686},
urldate = {2026-09-25},
publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
note = {Text. docId INTA-PA-610686. Data: EP Open Data API: document record (CC BY 4.0)}
}