Table of ContentsBackground...........................................................................................................................5Abstract.................................................................................................................................6Chapter 1: Parliamentary control of Europol and evaluation of Eurojust ..............................101.1Current practices in parliamentary scrutiny of Europol and Eurojust ....................101.2Plans for developing parliamentary scrutiny of Europol and evaluation of Eurojust..................................................................................................................................111.3Forms of direct communication between parliaments and National Members ofEurojust and/or Europol Liaison Officers.........................................................................121.4Cooperation with regard to the evaluation of Eurojust and the scrutiny of Europolin the light of the Treaty of Lisbon...................................................................................131.5The role of COSAC with regard to the evaluation of Eurojust and the scrutiny ofEuropol’s activities..........................................................................................................14Chapter 2: The role of the EU parliaments in the promotion of human rights and democracyin the world .........................................................................................................................162.1. Structures established by parliaments to handle the issues of promotion of humanrights and democracy.......................................................................................................162.1.1. Committees dealing with human rights issues ....................................................162.1.2. Debates on the state of human rights and democracy in the world ......................162.1.3. Resolutions and reports on critical human rights and democracy situations in theworld ...........................................................................................................................172.2. Parliamentary control in the field of human rights and democracy ............................172.2.1. Control of the Government.................................................................................172.2.2. Monitoring of the current state of human rights and democracy before concludingan agreement ...............................................................................................................182.2.3. Human rights and democracy clauses in the EC agreements with third countries 192.3. Participation of Parliaments in promoting human rights and democracy....................202.3.1. Projects and initiatives aimed at promoting human rights and democracy...........202.3.2. Criteria applied by parliaments in selecting initiatives and projects promotinghuman rights................................................................................................................22Chapter 3: Representatives of national parliaments to the EU ..............................................233.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................233.2. Reasons for the decision to send a permanent representative to the EU .....................233.3. Titles of the representatives.......................................................................................243.4. Term in office ...........................................................................................................253.5. Coordination of activities of the representatives of bicameral parliaments.................253.6 Main functions...........................................................................................................263.7 Focus of attention ......................................................................................................273.8 Reporting on developments in the EU and selection of topics ....................................283.9. Administrative accountability ...................................................................................293.10. Reporting on representatives' activities ...................................................................303.11. Attendance of the EU Speakers' Conferences, meetings of the Secretaries Generaland COSAC meetings......................................................................................................303.12. Assistants................................................................................................................313.13. Future developments...............................................................................................31Table 1: History of the Representatives........................................................................32Table 2: Information on the Representatives ................................................................34Chapter 4: Evaluation of the COSAC Bi-annual Reports .....................................................404.1. Picture of the experience of five years of the COSAC Bi-annual Reports..................403

CHAPTER 1: Parliamentary control of Europol and evaluation of EurojustCurrently neither national parliaments nor the European Parliament possess sufficient legalmeans to scrutinise directly the activities of Europol and Eurojust. That is whynationalparliaments exercise their control via their governments or findad hocways to beinformed about the activities of Europol and Eurojust.TheEuropean Parliament willasof 1 January 2010,acquire oversight and influenceover the two bodies thanks to theCouncil Decisions agreed in the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 6 April 2009.1There is no systematic scrutiny of Europol and Eurojust at national level, nor is there regularcommunication with the National Member of Eurojust and/or Europol Liaison Officer.However, parliaments widely share the conviction that proper parliamentary control ofEuropol and Eurojust is necessary; the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon could provide themeans to do so. The Treaty of Lisbon (Art. 88 and Art. 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning ofthe European Union) foresees involving national parliaments and the European Parliament inthe evaluation of Eurojust’s activities, and scrutinising by the European Parliament, togetherwith national parliaments, of Europol’s activities.Parliaments realise the need for changesin their procedures in the light of the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon,but at this stage are neither specific nor certain about the forms of such changes.There are twoparallel questionswhich parliaments are addressing at present: (i)establishing or upgradingcontrol of Europol and Eurojust on national level,and (ii)establishingscrutiny on inter-parliamentary level.The latter question is specifically linkedto the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which foresee cooperation between the EuropeanParliament and the national parliaments in the scrutiny of Europol and evaluation of Eurojust.Given the initial stage of affairs in these matters, there seems to be aneed for furtherexchange of ideas and best practices.In this respect, specific attention could be paid to thediscussions of theAnnual Reports of Europol/Eurojustin parliaments.When and if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified it will raise a series of issues. Nationalparliaments request that theEuropean Commission consultswith them before presenting itsproposals for regulations on Europol and Eurojust. Once the proposals are published,theCouncil and the European Parliamentare encouraged in their turn toconsult withnational parliamentsgiving them sufficient time to discuss the proposals amongthemselves. Furthermore, it will be necessary todefine,inter alia,the form, functioning,periodicity, remit, content of work of the mechanisms for evaluating Eurojust andcontroling Europol.The discussion among parliaments on the best platform to implementthese provisions is important and could be debated within COSAC.

CHAPTER 2: The role of the EU parliaments in the promotion of human rights anddemocracy in the worldIn most cases, promotion of human rights and democracy in the world are dealt with by theCommittees on Foreign Affairs of EU parliaments.The protection of human rights and democratic standards is a sensitive issue for Members ofParliaments. That is why evaluation of these issues is a regular part of parliamentarydiscussions. The resolutions coming from these debates do not legally bind governments.However, parliaments may, and usually do, pass resolutions or recommendations todrawgovernments’ attention to critical human rights and democracy situationsin thirdcountries.The majority of parliaments are informed about the state of human rights and democracy inthird countries during their debates on international agreements. One of the possible ways tomonitor respect of human rights and democratic principles once the agreement enters intoforce is to include in the agreement a so-called suspension clause conditioning theapplication of the agreement on respecting human rights and democracy. Most parliamentswelcome and support theinsertion of suspension clausesinto agreements between theEuropean Community (henceforth "the EC") and third countries.In general parliaments cooperate with other parliaments, the EU Institutions and internationalorganisations in order to share information on their activities and good practices. They alsocooperate on joint projects, in particular, parliaments tend to cooperate withthe UnitedNations, the Council of Europeandthe Organisation for Security and Cooperation inEurope.CHAPTER 3: Representatives of National Parliaments to the EUSince1991when theDanishFolketingsent the first representative to the EU,there hasbeen a fundamental shift in the approach of national parliaments towards EU matters. Thegrowing number of national parliament representatives in Brussels reflects an increasedinterest in contacts with the EU Institutions, in particular the European Parliament, andcooperation between parliaments. Presently33 representativesof national parliaments orchambersfrom 24 out of the 27 Member States are permanently basedon the premises ofthe European Parliamentin Brussels.The tasks and competences of these representativesvary considerably.National parliaments have abroad spectrum of motivesfor posting permanentrepresentatives in Brussels. Among these are: the need to receive rapid, firsthand informationon the EU developments, to enhance political influence over EU decision-making; and toassist official relationships and direct cooperation between national parliaments and the EUInstitutions and between national parliaments.Representatives carry outmany and diverse functions.However, almost all parliamentsexpect their representatives toreport back on political developments in the EUand toassist Members of Parliament when they attend inter-parliamentary meetings.Thereporting function seems to stay at the top of the representatives' agenda. The time spent oninter-parliamentary cooperation is constantly increasing and, therefore, can divert attention ofrepresentatives from their principal function of reporting back to their parliaments.

CHAPTER 4: Evaluation of the COSAC Bi-annual ReportsOver five yearsCOSAC Bi-annual Reports have become well-established documents,considered by national parliaments to be of a great value. Indeed, thanks to their insight intothe procedures and practices of the EU parliaments, the Reports are appreciated as theyprovideup to date and comparative information, allowing the exchange of best practiceson scrutiny of EU legislation and policy.Since May 2004, the COSAC Secretariat has publishedten Bi-annual Reports.The Reportshavecovered many subjects.The most often covered were subjects related to theConstitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionalityand scrutiny procedures and practices in national parliaments.Onthe current formof the Reports, there seems to be a consensus among nationalparliaments that it is“accurate” and “satisfactory”.Although some consider that an effortshould be made to make themmore compact and analyticalto improve their impact on thereadership.Parliaments' replies to the questions regarding thecontentof the Bi-annual Reports indicatediverging opinions,especially on the issue of whether there should be a link between thetopics of the Report and the agenda of COSAC Ordinary meetings. Regardless of the natureof the topics, many parliaments are in favour of a link, indicating that the Bi-annual Reportsarea valuable preparatory document for debateson the agenda. Other parliaments drawattention to thenature of the Bi-annual Reports and the COSAC meetings.In theiropinion, Bi-annual Reports are first intended to be procedural reports whilst the COSACmeetings deal with topics of a political nature. Therefore, the rule should be that there is nosuch direct link.The feedback from those national parliaments who have presided over COSAC in the lastfive years, indicates thatthe choice of the subjectsfor the Bi-annual Reports is, above all,based on topicalityto current debates in European Union or in COSAC, and the priorities ofthe EU Presidency.

The major issues suggested by parliaments for debate in the coming years are theimplementation of the Treaty of Lisbonwith regard to the enhanced role of the nationalparliaments and, more particularly, the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Thesetopics therefore should continue to be addressed in future Bi-annual Reports. This chapteralso provides a list of various topics suggested by national parliaments.Theproceduresin national parliaments forpreparing and approving repliesto COSACquestionnaires are quite similar. There are, however, a few exceptions. Usually theSecretariats of the Committees on European Affairs are in charge of the replies, often incooperation with other bodies of the parliamentary administration. If the content of thereplies requires, the staff inform the Members, and in a number of cases the replies areapproved by the Chairperson.In a number of parliamentsthe Report is distributed to the Membersof the Committees onEuropean Affairs or to the Members who are attending the COSAC meetings, sometimes toother Members. In a few parliaments there is anopportunity to discussthe content of theBi-annual reports in the Committees on European Affairs.

Chapter 1: Parliamentary control of Europol and evaluation of EurojustFrom the moment of their creation, the effective democratic control of Europol and Eurojustand the evaluation of their activities has been a question for national parliaments and theEuropean Parliament alike. They share the notion that current parliamentary control of thesebodies is weak and needs substantial improvement. Against this background they haveengaged in an ongoing inter-parliamentary debate.The Treaty of Lisbon, once ratified and in force, will enhance parliamentary prerogativesboth in the area of Europol (Art. 88 TFEU) and Eurojust (Art. 85 TFEU). The Treatyforesees that national parliaments and the European Parliament shall be involved in theevaluation of Eurojust’s activities and that the European Parliament, together with nationalparliaments, shall scrutinise Europol’s activities. Consequently the issue of defining thiscooperation among national parliaments and between national parliaments and the EuropeanParliament is raised.That is why this chapter firstly takes stock of the current situation of parliamentary scrutinyof Europol and Eurojust by the EU parliaments and secondly looks at the future possibilitiesand necessities of cooperation in this field among national parliaments and between nationalparliaments and the European Parliament.1.1Current practices in parliamentary scrutiny of Europol and Eurojust

Currently there is no legislation setting out procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of Europoland Eurojust. The two EU bodies are accountable to the Council of the EU (Justice andHome Affairs (henceforth “the JHA Council”)). Thusnational parliaments exercise theircontrol via their respective governments.The European Parliament scrutinises theactivities of Europol and Eurojust informally through auditions, hearings and round tablesattended by the Director of Europol and the President of the College of Eurojust.Those national parliaments whose remits are confined to document-based scrutiny acquire acertainad hocoversight over Europol and/or Eurojust when they discuss acts changing thecompetences of the bodies2or agreements of Europol/Eurojust with third countries.Parliaments disposing of the right to hold their governments to account in EU matters usethis right to obtain information regarding Europol/Eurojust at any given moment (the BelgianChambre des Représentants,the FrenchSénat).Some national parliaments entertain relationswith their country’s national representatives in Europol/ Eurojust (see further in chapter 1.3.)and some discuss the reports of Europol annually (the FinnishEduskunta,the DutchTweedeKamer;the LatvianSaeimaand the LithuanianSeimasare starting such procedure) orEurojust (the PortugueseAssembleia da República).Those national parliaments, which have a mandating scrutiny system, discussEuropol/Eurojust if it is on the agenda of a JHA Council meeting.There are two national parliaments which can exercisedirect influence on decisionsrelating to Europol/Eurojust:the IrishHouses of the Oireachtasand the DanishFolketing.2

They have a specific role stemming from to the fact that their respective governments need toseek parliamentary approval prior to agreeing in the Council to their countries' participationin measures under the area of Justice and Home Affairs.Other specific cases are: the FinnishEduskuntascrutinises regularly yet indirectly theactivities of Europol/Eurojust through the government communication on the yearbooks ofthe two institutions. A GermanBundesratrepresentative attends meetings of the EuropolManagement Board and reports on these to the Committee on European Union Questions. Asfor Eurojust, aBundesratrepresentative in the Council Working Group on cooperation inCriminal Matters reports to the Committee on European Union Questions. The ItalianParliament’s joint committee is charged with scrutinising the implementation of the EuropolConvention.When envisaging future developments and possibilities of inter-parliamentary cooperation, itis important to note the obvious: national parliaments currently scrutinise Europol/Eurojustwithin their system of general scrutiny of Justice and Home Affairs. This involves in somecases the Committees on EU Affairs, in other cases the specialised committees or acombination of both.1.2 Plans for developing parliamentary scrutiny of Europol and evaluation ofEurojustThe latest developments in this field are in relation to the European Parliament (henceforth"the EP"). TheEP will acquire oversight powersas defined in the Council Decisionestablishing the European police office3and Council Decision on the strengthening ofEurojust amending Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002, as amended byCouncil Decision 2003/659/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fightagainst serious crime4. Both Decisions were approved by the JHA Council on 6 April 2009and will enter into force as of 1 January 2010. The EP will,inter alia,adopt the budgets ofEuropol and Eurojust and will have the right to be informed of their activitiesonrequest.National parliaments envisage new developmentsin parliamentary scrutiny of Europol andEurojustalmost exclusively in connection to the Treaty of Lisbon(see chapter 1.4.). Mostnational parliamentsdo not have ready-made scenariosfor the scrutiny following possibleentry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This is partly due to the still ongoing ratificationprocess and uncertainty over its end result.Some parliaments (e.g. the BelgianChambre des Représentants,the EstonianRiigikogu,theRomanianCamara Deputatilor,the HungarianOrszággyüllés)already define the modalitiesof their future involvement,i.e.establishing a specific administrative task force, evaluatingthe current scrutiny system, holding sittings of relevant committees together with governmentrepresentatives and the national representatives in Europol/Eurojust. In general, manyparliaments claim to be envisaging new modes of control without further detailedspecification. In this respect it is recommended to consult the results of the inquiry carried

out by both Houses of the UK Parliament5, which provide a concise analysis of the currentsituation and outline a framework for possible future arrangements including questions to beconsidered.1.3 Forms of direct communication between parliaments and National Members ofEurojust and/or Europol Liaison OfficersUnsurprisingly the extent to which parliaments in the European Union have established directcommunication with the respective National Member of Eurojust and/or Europol LiaisonOfficer varies greatly in form, regularity, intensity and quality. In many casescommunication is scarce,if established at all.Where communication is established it is mainlyad hoc, i.e.it is established wheneverdeemed necessary (e.g. the EstonianRigikogu,the GermanBundestagwith its relevantcommittees, the FrenchSénat,the PolishSejm).Among other possibilities thead hoccommunication can take the form of hearings or expert meetings (e.g. the HungarianOrszággyülésor the FinnishEduskunta).Some parliaments had visits to the seats ofEuropol/Eurojust.In a number of parliaments communication with Europol/Eurojust is rather indirect,established through the national government, which is politically accountableto theparliament for these two executive bodies (e.g. the BelgianSénatandChambre desReprésentants,the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat).In some national parliamentsMembers,e.g.of their specialised committees, might contact their respective NationalMembers of Eurojust or Europol Liaison Officers on their own initiative, usually forparticular inquiries.However, a few parliaments have been able to developmore regular and extensivecontacts.In the case of the PortugueseAssembleia da República,since 2007 its Committeeon Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees has been assessing the annualreports of Eurojust. As of 2008, this committee has also organised jointly with the Committeeon EU Affairs meetings with Mr José Luís Lopes da MOTA, the Portuguese NationalMember of Eurojust and the current President of the College of Eurojust, on the activities ofEurojust and on the European Space of Freedom, Security and Justice.The European Parliament has developed a line of direct communication with bothorganisations. The heads of both Europol and Eurojust have been invited to attend committeemeetings or hearings. They also present reports recently adopted by their organisations to theCommittee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, such as the Annual Report ofEurojust or the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT) of Europol. In addition,the organisations have been visited by Members’ delegations and contacts at administrativelevel have been established.

1.4 Cooperation with regard to the evaluation of Eurojust and the scrutiny of Europolin the light of the Treaty of LisbonThe Treaty of Lisbon6foresees that national parliaments and the European Parliament shallbe involved in the evaluation of Eurojust's activities and that the European Parliamenttogether with national parliaments shall scrutinize Europol's activities.In its consolidated version the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (henceforth“the TFEU”) stipulates that on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission and inthe framework of the ordinary legislative procedure the European Parliament and the Councilshall adopt a regulation which,inter alia,shall “determine arrangements for involving theEuropean Parliament and national parliaments in theevaluation of Eurojust’s activities”(Article 85 TFEU) and “lay down the procedures forscrutiny of Europol’s activitiesby theEuropean Parliament, together with national parliaments” (Article 88 TFEU).The answer to the question on how national parliaments could cooperate together and withthe European Parliament in this area is determined by the fact that the ratification of theTreaty of Lisbon is still pending. It is therefore unsurprising that many parliamentshave putthis question aside for the moment(e.g. the AustrianNationalrat and Bundesrat,theBelgiumSénat,the DanishFolketing,the GermanBundestag),intending to raise it againonce the ratification is completed. Others are currently examining the implications of theprovisions for their parliaments.Nevertheless, many of the answers to the questionnaire, on which this report is based, revealideas and suggestions or – equally important – points of substantial concerns and potentialdifficulties, which should be addressed in the framework of any future solution.With a view to the elaboration and adoption of the regulations envisaged in Articles 85 and88 of the TFEU, a number of national parliaments made it clear that theyexpect to beconsulted by the involved EU Institutionsabout the drafts of the regulations and during theprocess of their adoption. According to the UKHouse of Commons,reasonable time shouldbe given to national parliaments in which to consult each other in COSAC and preparecomments. Equally, theHouse of Commonshas raised a number of questions which are ofrelevance to all parliaments,e.g.concerning potential constitutional implications of theregulations, the purpose of the evaluation or scrutiny and its follow-up or the matters ofpracticality and organisation.Regarding the actualform of cooperationin these areas, a number of suggestions have beenmade. They range from theuse of existing inter-parliamentary meetings(e.g. the FinnishEduskunta),the creation of a specificmixed committee composed of Members of nationalparliaments and the European Parliament(e.g. the FrenchSénat)toenhancing the roleof COSAC(see further in chapter 1.5.) or the combination of all above.Currentlymost of the specific proposals build on already existing forms of cooperation.In this context, a considerable number (e.g. the BelgianChambre des Représentants,theFinnishEduskunta,the FrenchAssemblée nationale,the GreekVouli Ton Ellinon,the IrishHouses of the Oireachtais,the LatvianSaeima, the Slovenian Državni svet)of parliaments6

have mentioned that eitherJoint Committee Meetings (JCM) or Joint ParliamentaryMeetings (JPM)could be considered as possible instruments to achieve an efficientcooperation among parliaments. This position is also explained by the intention to avoid yetanother new form of inter-parliamentary cooperation. In this context, it appears that a numberof national parliaments (i.e. the FrenchAssemblée nationale,the LithuanianSeimas,the UKHouse of Lords)are looking to the European Parliament to put forward ideas on the specificforms of cooperation with national parliaments, including using already existing fora.Whatever the form of inter-parliamentary cooperation, in general parliaments agree thatmeetings should have aclearly defined periodicity.The most frequent suggestion was tomeet at leastonce a yearto discuss matters of Europol and Eurojust.The European Parliament in its resolution of 25 September 2009 considered that apermanent monitoring mechanismshould be built up, associating the European Parliamentand national parliaments not only as far as Europol and Eurojust activities are concerned, butalso with regard to issues related to Schengen, migration and asylum. Moreover, theCommittee for Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has proposed to maintain thepractice of an annual debate with national parliaments on issues related to the Area ofFreedom, Security and Justice, which should be prepared by previous consultations withnational parliaments and should be accompanied by the direct involvement of nationalparliaments’rapporteurson specific legislative proposals.In addition to specific forms of cooperation, where Members of national parliaments and theEuropean Parliament meet directly, a considerable number of parliaments stressed theimportance of intensifying the exchange of information in this area. Many parliamentsmentioned that IPEX could be instrumental in this context, provided that information isaccessible to all parliaments7. Furthermore the IrishHouses of the Oireachtassuggested thatthe European Parliament and its responsible committees “should be encouraged tosystematically share” relevant reports with national parliaments.The EU Speakers’ Conference in June 2008 in Lisbon encouraged national parliaments toalso post on the IPEX website summaries in English or French and other languages ofimportant decisions, as well as the relevant internal scrutiny procedures, which werefollowed.1.5 The role of COSAC with regard to the evaluation of Eurojust and the scrutiny ofEuropol’s activitiesThere is aconsiderable diversity of viewson the potential role which COSAC could play inrelation to the future evaluation of Eurojust and the scrutiny of Europol activities. It exposesvarying understanding among parliaments about the general character of COSAC and thescope and intensity of its activities as well as it reflecting the current difficulties for dealingwith Eurojust and Europol matters.

A number of parliaments (e.g. the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat,the CzechPoslanecká Sněmovna,the CypriotVouli Antiprosopon,the GermanBundesrat,the PolishSejm,the DutchEersteandTweede Kamer,the HungarianOrszággyülés,the LuxembourgishChambre des Députés)stated thatCOSAC could serve as a forumfor discussing, sharingideas and exchanging information as well as the best practices related to both issues.According to the CypriotVouli Antiprosopon,meetings of COSAC could focus onformulation of guidelines, recommendations and common standards on how to performthe parliamentary scrutinyof the two organisations´ activities.Some parliaments expressed the opinion that such debates (including the analysis of annualreports of Europol and Eurojust) should take placeonce a yearin COSAC (e.g. the DanishFolketing,the IrishHouses of the Oireachtais,the LithuanianSeimas,the LatvianSaeima).Others (e.g. the CzechSenátand the CypriotVouli Antiprosopon)suggested in addition thatthe Director of Europol as well as the President of the College of Eurojust should be invitedto participate in these deliberations to provide information on the activities of their respectiveorganisations during the current year and those planned for the following year. According tothe BulgarianNarodno Sabraniethe heads of both organisations should be invited toCOSAC hearings every two years.Furthermore, some parliaments considered thatevaluation of Eurojust and the scrutiny ofEuropol’s activities should be a regular point on the agenda of COSAC meetings(e.g.both chambers of the Italian Parliament, the FrenchAssemblé Nationale,the LuxemburgChambre des Députés,the EstonianRiigikogu,the SlovakianNárodná Rada).According tothe BelgianChambre des ReprésentantsCOSAC meetings could also play an alertingfunction of drawing attention to possibly problematic aspects of activities of Europol andEurojust. In addition the FrenchSénatrecalled that the Treaty of Lisbon, in Protocol 1 on theRole of national Parliaments in the European Union, foresees the possibility that COSAC“may also organise interparliamentary conferences on specific topics”.Notwithstanding the above, some parliaments revealeddoubts over a role for COSAC inthe evaluation of Eurojust and the control of Europol activities(e.g. the BelgianSénat,the FinnishEduskunta,the GreekVouli Ton Ellinon).Some of the concerns are linked to thepotential impact on COSAC’s current agenda and organisationand the suitability ofCOSAC to deal with items which are actually amatter for specialised committees(e.g.FrenchAssemblée Nationale).In the same sense theEuropean Parliamentbelieves thatscrutiny and evaluation of Europol/Eurojust should rather be left to the competent specialisedcommittees. Eurojust and Europol's activities in the European Parliament’s view should bediscussed within COSACwhenever a substantial debate is possible and necessarywithoutpre-empting the scrutiny and evaluationof the activities of the two organisations by eachindividual parliament.

Chapter 2: The role of the EU parliaments in the promotion of humanrights and democracy in the worldWhether in the EU or in the world parliaments are important guardians and promoters ofhuman rights and democracy standards. Since the EU is a system of reference for manycountries, its role as the guardian and promoter of human rights has been strengthened.This chapter firstly presents an overview of the structures and systems, established and usedin EU parliaments for handling promotion of human rights and democracy; and, secondly,highlights examples of best practices, instruments and selection criteria used to promotehuman rights and democracy in the world.Article 6/1 of the TEU states that:"The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the MemberStates."2.1. Structures established by parliaments to handle the issues of promotion of humanrights and democracy2.1.1. Committees dealing with human rights issuesIn the majority of parliaments human rights are dealt with by more than one committee,depending on the specific issue. Thus, Committees on Constitutional Affairs (in 9 cases),Committees on Legal Affairs (in 8 cases) and/or Committees on Justice Affairs (in 5 cases),are mostly competent for domestic human rights questions, whereas Committees on ForeignAffairs (in 23 cases) mostly deal with the international aspect of the issue. Some parliamentshave establishedspecialised Committees on Human Rights(in 17 cases) orspecialisedsub-committees on Human Rights(in 3 cases, all of them created under Committees onForeign Affairs). Committees on EU Affairs (in 7 cases), Committees on Equal Opportunities(in 2 cases), or Delegations for Parliamentary Cooperation (in 3 cases), were also mentionedby parliaments.The role of these committees in the framework of human rights matters is usually exercisedthrough organisation of debates and/or publication of reports (see below 2.1.2 and 2.1.3).2.1.2. Debates on the state of human rights and democracy in the worldMost parliaments report having debates on the actual state of human rights and democracy inthe world, eitherregularly(in 16 cases) or on anad hocbasis (in 17 cases).Among the replies, theEU Annual Report on Human Rights8appeared four times as abasis of the parliamentary discussion (in the European Parliament, the ItalianCamera dei8

Deputatiand theSenato della Repubblicaand the GermanBundestag)and thereports onthe activities of the Council of Europewere quoted three times (in the GermanBundesrat,the PortugueseAssembleia de Repúblicaand the DutchTweede Kamer).The CzechSenátand the DutchTweede Kameralso mentioned a discussion taking place before the GeneralAffairs and External Relations Council (GAERC).In the FinnishEduskuntahuman right issues are considered to be cross cutting. That is whythese questions as well as questions concerning the democracy in the world are oftendiscussed in the framework of the overall discussions, mostly on the ratification ofmultilateral or bilateral agreements.Debatesare held either in plenary sessions (e.g. the European Parliament or the EstonianRiigikogu)or,more often, within the relevant committees.The frequency of debatesmostly depends on current international events (e.g. the situation in on the Eastern Balkans,in Belarus, Georgia, Gaza, Tibet, etc.) and/or the will of the parliaments.2.1.3. Resolutions and reports on critical human rights and democracy situations in theworldNo example of legally binding a government by resolutions passed by a parliament in thisfield was given. However, parliaments may pass and usually do pass resolutions orrecommendations todraw the government’s attention to critical human rights anddemocracy situationsand maytake positionstowards the states where human rights anddemocracy are endangered. For example, the PortugueseAssembleia de República,theLithuanianSeimas,both Chambers of the Italian Parliament or the CzechSenátgave anumber of examples of such resolutions.As far as the publication of reports is concerned only a few examples were given. TheEuropean Parliament publishes its Annual Report on Human Rights in the World9, while theForeign Affairs Committee of the UKHouse of Commonspublishes an annual report onhuman rights issues, to which the Government is obliged to respond.The Foreign AffairsCommittee of the SwedishRiksdagannually presents committee reports on the subject ofhuman rights and democracy in the world where the recommendations to the Governmentcan be included.In addition to parliamentary reports, reports issued outside parliaments are also basis fordiscussions. Such reports are published mostly by the governments (e.g. the FinnishGovernment presents to theEduskuntaonce in its term a White Paper on Human RightIssues, the SlovakianNárodná radadiscusses the Government’s report on the foreign policyof the previous year and the report on the priorities for the next year, including the humanrights issues or the CzechPoslanecká sněmovnareports that the Government is responsiblefor presenting an annual report on the human rights and democracy to the Committee onPetitions) or other international organisation (see 2.1.2.).2.2. Parliamentary control in the field of human rights and democracy2.2.1. Control of the Government

Following the principle ofseparation of powersthe government negotiates and concludesinternational agreements and theparliament exercises its control.To make this controleffective parliaments have established structures and procedures in accordance with theirconstitution.Most parliaments do not have any special procedures for controlling government on humanrights and democracy, but they can use all the available instruments under their rules ofprocedure: such as oral and written questions, hearings with ministers,ad hocdebates,requests for information, etc. These measures can be used as a source of information for theparliament and they enable a closer exchange of views with the government that is inprinciple accountable to the parliament. The weight of these measures naturally rises in caseswhere a parliamentary ratification procedure is foreseen.The institutionalised and continuous communication between the government and theparliament (e.g. the GermanBundestag'sCommittee on Human Rights and HumanitarianAid, is not a legislative committee but it is in continuous contact with the Government andexercises its parliamentary control by, for example, inviting members of the Governmentregularly to its sittings), close control of financing (e.g. the UKHouse of Commonsdecidesthe overall funding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department forInternational Development) orad hocinquiries (e.g. the Committees dealing with HumanRights within the RomanianCamera Deputaţilorandthe Senatulmay initiate aparliamentary inquiry regarding any ministry activity or other public authority) could be seenas measures to a more effective control of governments.The BelgianChambre des Représentantsdrew attention to the possibility of controlling thepolicy of its governmentvia broader parliamentary platformssuch as the ParliamentaryAssembly of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation forSecurity and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or the Euro-Mediterranean ParliamentaryAssembly (EMPA).2.2.2. Monitoring of the current state of human rights and democracy beforeconcluding an agreementThe evaluation of human rights and democracy standards is regularly a part of overallparliamentary discussion before concluding an agreement with a third country as these topicsare sensitive for Members of Parliament. Therefore the governments can anticipate theirinterest and submit this information together with a background paper or an explanatorymemorandum on the bill of ratification. This is often the way parliaments get thisinformation even if governments are not under an explicit obligation to do so. An exceptionis, for example, the Belgian Government which has a special obligation to submit to theChambre des Représentantsa report on the state of human rights in the case of 18 countrieswith which Belgium has direct bilateral cooperation (development aid).If the information is not available this way there are still regular procedures of theparliamentary control of government that can be used in order to get the information needed(see above 2.2.1.).Because the government is expected to know the situation in the given country best, it isnaturally the principal source of information. Nevertheless, parliaments are susceptible to anyother information.

Such additional sources of information are, for example, parliamentary debates on humanrights and democracy (see 2.1.2.), reports published or discussed within the parliament (see2.1.3.), fact-finding missions (e.g. the FrenchSénatcan initiate a fact-finding mission thatserves as a bases for a background document), visits or preliminary assessment of specialisedcommittees on a request of the lead committee (e.g. the ItalianSenato della Repubblicastatesthat before an agreement with a third country is ratified its Committee on Human Rights iscalled to give an opinion; also, the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UKHouse ofCommonsand theHouse of Lordsreports on the human rights implications of everygovernment bill passing through the Parliament).2.2.3. Human rights and democracy clauses in the EC agreements with third countriesMany EU parliaments consider respect for human rights standards or at least willingness toimprove in this respect in the third countries to be a prerequisite for further cooperation withthese countries.One of the possible ways to influence respect of human rights and democratic principles oncean agreement enters into force is to include asuspension clause on human rights anddemocracy,conditioning the application of the agreement on respect of human rights in thecountry in question. Such suspension clauses may be activated whenever their provisions arebreached. So, when the clause is breached the agreement could be suspended or eventerminated.The so-calledhuman rights and democracy suspension clauses on human rights anddemocracycould be an effective instrument of promoting the respect of human rights anddemocracy. Initially these clauses were seen as a non-binding declaration rather then aneffective instrument. That is why progress was made by gradual reformulation of theseclauses.The suspension clauses conditioning the application of agreements between the EC and thirdcountries by respecting the human rights are being used since the Lomé Convention withACP countries10and have becamestandard parts of agreements between the EC andthird countries.The specificity of this approach consists in the importance accorded tosocial and political considerations, for example, byencouraging democratisation andrespect for human rights.The human rights and democracy clauses are, in compliance with Art. 177/2 and 181a TEC11,progressively incorporated into the EC association, business or partnership agreements.10

The majority of parliaments explicitly welcome and support the insertion of the human rightsand democracy clauses into the agreements between the EC and third countries. The ItalianCamera dei Deputatiand theSenato della Repubblicaindicates a tendency of inserting thesuspension clauses in their own international agreements. On the other hand, the FrenchAssemblée nationalesupports the clause in principle, but states that the implementation ofthese clauses is far from being ideal. The DutchEerste Kamersupports the suspensionclauses too but thinks that the EU should use more the knowledge, experiences andinstruments of the Council of Europe regarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law.There is no parliament with a negative position on the use of the suspension clauses. On theother hand, some parliaments (in 12 cases) declare that they have not discussed this specificissue or that they do not have any formal position on it yet.2.3. Participation of Parliaments in promoting human rights and democracyIt is not only the EU Institutions and the governments of the EU Member States that have arole in projects aimed at promoting human rights and democracy. The outcome of theStrategy Paper 2007-2010 on European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights(EIDHR)12, for example, underlines that there is general acceptance of the need for the so-called“local ownership” of the development and democratisation processthat shouldengage public institutions of the relevant third countries. It would be difficult to achieve it ifrelations with partner countries remained limited to government-to-government contacts.2.3.1. Projects and initiatives aimed at promoting human rights and democracyDiscussions, hearings, conferences on human rights and democracy are the means that areoften used by parliaments to promote human rights and democracy. Other possible forms arestudy visits or seminars for the representatives of EU parliaments and/or those from the thirdcountries which provide more interaction among the participants.A majority of parliaments express their support for projects aimed at promoting human rightsand democracy in the third countries. Even if some parliaments do not have any suchexperience yet, they refer to the individual initiatives of their Members. The activities ofparliaments in this area are naturally influenced by their geographic preferences13and differwith regards to type of activity or partners they cooperate with.A few interesting examples of the projects and initiatives are: the GermanBundestag'sinitiative called “Parliamentarians protect Parliamentarians”14; the CzechSenát'screation ofits new Standing Commission on Assistance to Worldwide Democracy aimed at directsupport of democracy outside the EU; the ItalianCamera dei Deputati's“a Centre for thetraining of the parliamentarians of the South-Eastern Europe” that was launched by thePresident of theCamera dei Deputati,the President of the Albanian Assembly and theChancellor of the Tirana’s University; the DanishFolketing'sstanding agreement with itsCommunity policy in this area shall contribute to the general objective of developing and consolidatingdemocracy and the rule of law, and to the objective of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms."12http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/worldwide/eidhr/documents/eidhr-strategy-paper-2007_en.pdf13E.g.through its Overseas Office the UKHouse of Lordsand theHouse of Commonscontribute to a range ofprogrammes and initiatives throughout the world, with a strong focus on Commonwealth countries.14http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/committees/a17/flyer.pdf

Ministry of Foreign Affairs on providing parliamentary assistance to new and emergingdemocracies; the FinishEduskunta'sspecial human rights group that acts very actively inbridging the activities of theEduskuntaand the Council of Europe as well as the UnitedNations; and the GreekVouli ton Ellinon'sInstitution for the Democracy andParliamentarism, whose main objective is to promote the values of parliamentary democracy,by organising conferences, exhibitions, publishing books.For more concrete examples please look at the annex to this rapport with the replies ofparliaments. The parliaments had also the possibility to present their projects and initiativesvia theIPEX surveythat is available on its website15.2.3.1.1. Cooperation with the Council of EuropeA number of parliaments have emphasised their cooperation with the Council of Europe16(henceforth "the CoE") (in 14 cases) referring to the initiatives and projects connected to theactivities of the CoE. The reason for that is, firstly, the membership of all the EU MemberStates in the CoE with its geographic coverage of the nearest region, and, secondly, the CoE,which advocates protection of human rights, pluralist democracy, rule of law anddevelopment of the principles of democracy based on the European Convention on HumanRights. More specifically, the active participation in the Campaign of the CoE to CombatViolence against Women17was mentioned repeatedly in the answers of parliaments. TheForum of the CoE on the Future of Democracy18was also mentioned (the PolishSejm).To reconfirm the enhancement of the cooperation within the CoE to promote human rightsand democracy, the delegation of the DutchEerste Kamer,for example, proposed to use theoccasion of the anniversary of the 60th anniversary of the CoE19and the 50th anniversary ofthe European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg20. In addition, the GermanBundesrathasalready repeatedly argued that improvements are needed to ensure that the work of theEuropean Court of Human Rights is more efficient.2.3.1.2. Inter-parliamentary cooperation and cooperation with other organisationsFirst of all, undoubtedly the EU plays an important role in the area because of itscoordination role, its investments into information campaigns and support to the inter-parliamentary cooperation.Besides, within the inter-parliamentary cooperation, the EU Speakers’ Conference haslaunched a project on the assistance to Parliaments of new and emerging democracies aimedat promoting cooperation among the EU parliaments and the EU Institutions, notably theEuropean Commission21.

Some parliaments also invest in institutionalisation of that cooperation (e.g. the GreekVouliton Ellnionset up an Institution for Democracy and Parliamentarism in order to promote thevalues of parliamentary democracy and the LithuanianSeimasestablished the Centre forParliamentary Cooperation in order to share the Lithuanian experience of the EU integrationand democratic reforms to the staff and Members of Parliaments of the countries aspiring todemocratic reforms).Some national parliaments also underlined their participation in programmes arranged,e.g.by the United Nations22, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe23or theInter-Parliamentary Union24. Some parliaments also reported that they or their Memberscooperate with relevant non-governmental organisations or other institutions depending inprinciple on their preferences, either geographical25or concerning the activity26.In cooperation with these organisations many parliaments also participate, either regularly oron anad hocbasis, inelection observation missionsin third countries. Apart from theactivities and the cooperation within the parliamentary assemblies of several internationalorganisations, there are the so-calledfriendship groupsestablished in parliaments in orderto create parliamentary fora aimed at promoting international relations. The friendshipgroups, which fit into the concept of parliamentary diplomacy, enable Members ofParliament to share information of mutual interest.2.3.2. Criteria applied by parliaments in selecting initiatives and projects promotinghuman rightsNaturally, the procedures and criteria for selecting the initiatives and projects aimed atpromoting human rights and democracy differ from one parliament to another. Some criteriacould be deduced from the answers given, such as effectiveness, impact on democracy andhuman rights standards, as well as the regional orientation depending on the externalpriorities. On the other hand, most of the parliaments either have not set formal criteria orwere not able to provide specific information. The enumerated criteria, however, indicate thetendency of certain flexible application to satisfy actual needs.

Chapter 3: Representatives of national parliaments to the EUPresently national parliaments of 24 out of the 27 Member States have one or more officialsbased permanently in Brussels. Their tasks and competences vary considerably.This chapter aims to examine the expectations national parliaments have of theirrepresentatives (focusing on the content of their work and their role) and their future plans inthis regard.The chapter also presents an overview of the broad-ranging practices of national parliamentsin appointing their representatives in Brussels. The chapter compares the practices of therepresentatives' term in office, main functions, accountability, duty to report to thenominating parliament, relations with the Member State's Permanent Representation to theEU, and other related aspects. The chapter also looks at the specific reasons behind thedifferent practices of national parliaments.Based on the information supplied by national parliaments, this chapter attempts to give anoverview of the best practices and procedures of national parliaments in this area.3.1. IntroductionIn 1991, the official ofthe DanishFolketingMr Peter Juul LARSENbecamethe firstnational parliament representative to the EUin Brussels. In 1995, the FinnishEduskuntawas the second to send a representative to Brussels, in 1998 - the ItalianCamera deiDeputati,in 1999 – the FrenchSénat,and the United KingdomHouse of Commons.Since themid 1990s, the representatives have been hosted by the European Parliament. With theenlargements of the EU in 2004 and 2007 the number of national parliament representativesto the EU soared.Presently, national parliamentsof 24 out of 27 Member States have one or more officialspermanently basedin the European Parliamentin Brussels27. Five bicameral parliaments:the Belgian, the Czech, the French, the Polish and the UK, have two representatives,representing each of their chambers, three bicameral parliaments: the Austrian, the Irish andthe Dutch, designated only one representative, while in three other cases of bicameralparliaments only their lower chambers have representatives. These are the GermanBundestag,the RomanianCamera Deputatilorand the SlovenianDržavni zbor.The ItalianCamera dei Deputatihas 5 officials performing the function of the representative. Theyalternate on a weekly basis. Thus, currently,33 national parliaments or chambers out of40have the total of33 representativesin Brussels. The rapid growth of the number ofnational parliaments’ representatives to the EU illustrates the increased attention of nationalparliaments to EU matters.3.2. Reasons for the decision to send a permanent representative to the EUNational parliaments quote a number of reasons for their decision to send theirrepresentatives to Brussels. For instance, in 1995 the main reason for the FinnishEduskunta27

was a recurrent problem of access to EU documents. Subsequently, the reporting function oftheEduskuntarepresentative and the general political significance of the parliamentaryrepresentative's physical presence in Brussels were the main justifications for continuing thepost.In 1998 the UKHouse of Commonssaw "great potential value" in the establishment of anOffice in Brussels, which in its opinion "should not simply be a post-box nor again just aglorified protocol office. It is in no way a replication of UKREP28: its prime purpose must beto act as a forward observation post for the House, and to act as the eyes and ears of theEuropean Legislation Committee acting on the House's behalf."29In 1999, the FrenchSénatdecided to create a permanent administrative office in Brussels soas to get access to "a rapid and complete information at all stages about issues discussed inBrussels" and "to be able to intervene "upstream" into the EU decision-making process sothat the position of the FrenchSénatcan be expressed as soon as possible, before thedecision-making process is completely set in motion" as well as "to alert the authorities ofthe EU about the concerns of the French citizens".Amongthe objectivesfor posting a permanent representative in Brussels nationalparliaments singled out the following:to follow and report backat an early stageon the EU decision-making processandother developments in Brussels in order to enhance democratic control and politicalinfluence on the EU decision making process;to provide rapid,diversified andup-to-date informationon EU matters, thusfacilitating the work of national parliaments on EU issues with special regard to thescrutiny procedure;to communicateinformation about national parliaments' dealingswith EU issues;to assist inpreparing for the EU Presidency,especially in view of the membershipin the COSAC Secretariat during 18 months;to assist official relationships anddirect cooperationbetween national parliamentsand theEU Institutions,including the European Parliament;to organisevisits of Members of Parliamentand parliamentary officials to the EUInstitutions and to provide additional support for those participating in inter-parliamentary events;to develop working relations between national parliaments throughnetworking andexchanging of informationthrough their permanent representatives in Brussels,especially in view of the enhanced role of national parliaments envisaged in theTreaty of Lisbon;to provide a valuablepart of career developmentfor parliamentary officials.3.3. Titles of the representativesTitlesof the national parliaments' representatives in Brusselsvary considerably.The titlescan be divided into three groups in accordance to the attribution of the representatives to theEuropean Union, to the European Union Institutions or to the European Parliament.

The largest part of the parliaments and chambers (13 out of 33) chose the title "The(Permanent) Representative/Officerto the European Union"30, seven parliaments orchambers chose the title "(Permanent) Representativeto the European Parliament"31andtwo parliaments chose the title of "The (Permanent) Representativeto the EUInstitutions"32. The rest of parliaments and chambers either chose not to use any specifictitle or to use such unique titles as: "The Representative in Brussels", "The Head of thePermanent Office to the EU" or the "Liaison Officer".It is worthwhile noticing that in almost half of the cases (15 out of 33) parliaments andchambers chose to use the word "permanent" in the title of their representatives to reflect thefact that they have representatives posted in Brussels on a permanent basis in contrast to aadhoc,short-term visits to the EU Institutions.3.4. Term in officeThe practice of national parliaments and chambers to appoint their representatives in Brusselsfor a certain term in office also varies. The replies of parliaments indicate that a larger part ofthe representatives (18 out of 33) are nominated for a fixed term in office which varies fromtwo to eight years.On average,the term in office of the representatives isthree years,eitherrenewable or non-renewable. Regardless of the fact that the fixed-term-in-office nominationsmay or may not be renewed, they offer the permanent representatives a degree of certainty asto their future.On the other hand, almost half of the representatives (15 out of 33) are appointed to the postwithout a predetermined term in office, i.e. on a case-by-case basis, depending on the termsof the "contract" between the official and the nominating parliament or chamber. This mayleave a certain degree of uncertainty as to the representative's future.3.5. Coordination of activities of the representatives of bicameral parliamentsPresently five bicameral parliaments: the Belgian, the Czech, the French, the Polish and theUK Parliaments have two representatives in Brussels, representing each of their chambers.Judging from the replies of the chambers, the general rule is that the representatives of thechambers of the bicameral parliaments do not engage in any formal coordination of theiractivities and work to the needs and demands of their respective chambers. Without doubtthis practice is predetermined by the internal constitutional order of the Member States inquestion.However, there are exceptions. For instance, during the Presidency of the EU a high degreeof coordination of the activities of both representatives is necessitated by an increasedworkload. For instance, administrative coordination both in Paris and in Brussels (between30

the representatives of the FrenchAssemblée nationaleand theSénat)during the FrenchPresidency of the EU in the second half of 2008 was achieved through a regular dialoguebetween the political authorities of the two Chambers. Following the Presidency, the tworepresentatives maintained the practice of informal daily exchange of information, especiallyin case of events involving both Chambers.Similar coordination of activities, even ifad hoc,is evident in the case of the current CzechPresidency of the EU. In addition to the representative of the CzechSenátin Brussels, theCzechPoslanecká sněmovnasent its own representative to Brussels primarily to serve as amember of the COSAC Secretariat. However, during the Presidency the tasks of therepresentative of thePoslanecká sněmovnawere broadened to include some of the"traditional" functions of the national parliament representative to the EU.Also, replies indicate that in cases of inter-parliamentary activities, visits of the Members ofParliament to Brussels or study visits of parliamentary officials, permanent representatives ofbicameral parliaments tend to closely cooperate on an informal basis. This is true in case ofthe PolishSejmand theSenat,the CzechPoslanecká sněmovnaand theSenátas well as theUKHouse of Commonsand theHouse of Lords.3.6 Main functionsThe responses to the questionnaire verify that the representatives of national parliamentsperform alarge variety of "main" functions.This goes for the representativesindividually,but also in a comparison between them.It can be assumed, that had the respondents beenasked to enumerate all functions of their representatives, the variation would have been evenlarger.However, two fields of work are mentioned by almost everyone as being (part of) the mainfunctions of their respective representatives. One isreporting on political events anddevelopments in the EU,the other isto assist Members of Parliamentwhen they attendinter-parliamentary meetingsorganised in Brussels.Although reporting is indicated as a core function for all representatives, it is clear from theanswers that the mode and frequency of reporting, choice of topics, etc. differs considerably(see under 3.8 below).The variation in what parliamentary representatives do in relation to different types ofinter-parliamentarymeetings is smaller. However, in addition to being present at the meetingitself, being on hand withinformation on the topic(s)discussed and/or providingpracticalassistanceto the Members of Parliament attending, representatives are sometimes involvedindrafting of background documents.They oftenwrite reportsof the inter-parliamentarymeetings, either on their own, or in cooperation with officials accompanying the Members ofParliament.Organising visits by Members or officialsof "their" parliament to EU Institutions inBrussels or Strasbourg is also frequently mentioned. These visits are of different characters.On the level of Members of Parliament they may be ranging from visits of a fullparliamentary committee, to those of a single Member of Parliament, perhaps arapporteurinthe national parliament concerned. Similarly, programmes may range from several meetings,

over a few days and with a large number of politicians and high-level officials, down to onesingle meeting on a particular issue or otherwise for one specific purpose.In about half the responses"contacts", "exchange of information", or "co-ordination"withrepresentatives in Brussels ofother national parliamentsare mentioned among the"main functions". In many of these cases, the answers indicate that the importance of thisfunction isexpected to increase,in view of the enhanced role of national parliamentsenvisaged in the Treaty of Lisbon. For instance, theHouse of Representativesof Cyprusmentions "the need to have a stronger link between the House of Representatives, theEuropean Parliament and the group of the representatives of the national parliaments alreadyin Brussels, especially in view of the role of national parliaments envisaged in the Treaty ofLisbon."A few national parliaments, among them the FrenchSenát,the SwedishRiksdagand the UKHouse of Lords,mention that one of the main tasks of its representative is todisseminateinformation concerning the activities and positionstaken by those parliaments. Generally,it is not specified to whom such information should be given. One interpretation of thiswould be that, by and large, it is left to the representative to decide, based on his/herknowledge of persons and institutions in Brussels, who might be the appropriate recipient(s).In any case, such information concerning national parliaments' position seems to be given ona case-by-case basis.Also, in a number of cases,liaising with the respective country's Members of theEuropean Parliamentis mentioned among the main tasks. Presumably, passing informationto them concerning developments in national parliament is one element. More important,however, seems to be for the representative to facilitate a flow of information betweenMembers of the European Parliament and Members (or Committees) of the nationalparliament dealing with the same issue.Organising and contributing totraining courses for staffof the respective nationalparliament is another function of the representative that is mentioned by a few of therespondents. For instance, the representative of the IrishHouses of Oireachtasprovideslogistical support as well as input to EU related training.The Parliaments of Austria and of the Netherlands also mention the more general function ofnetworking.Some representatives, such as those of the FrenchAssemblée nationale,theGermanBundestag,and the ItalianSenato della Repubblica,are specifically charged withupholding contacts outside the EU Institutions as such - with think tanks, academics, lobbygroups, etc. In some cases, such as the BulgarianNarodno Sabranie,the LatvianSaeimaandthe SlovakianNárodna Rada,representatives are working in cooperation with the PermanentRepresentation of the country to the EU.3.7 Focus of attentionMany respondents have found itdifficult to indicateon which type(s) of work theirrepresentative focuses his/her attention (apart from referring to the "main functions"),or toquantify,even in rough terms, theamount of time used for different functions.Many,such as the CzechSenát,state that although reporting and channelling information isgenerally the main task, other matters may dominate and become the main task during acertain period. Another factor might be that for many parliaments the experience of having a

representative in Brussels is still relatively new, sometimes in combination with therepresentative having arrived shortly before the parliament in question entered the "COSACtroika". Regardless of previous experience the Presidency role seems to shift the focus ofrepresentatives: the SlovenianDržavni zborsays that "however, during the preparations forand in the course of the Slovenian Presidency of the Council, the emphasis was put on inter-parliamentary cooperation". Therefore, as is pointed out by the CzechPoslanecká Sněmovna,any answer based (mainly) on experience of that particular situation, would be misleading.All those who did give a quantitative indication of how time is allocated to different types ofactivities put"reporting" (or related/similar tasks) in the forefront- figures ranging from95 % to 25 %. This is not surprising, given the fact that almost all parliaments/chambersconsider this to be a "main function" of their representative.What might be worth noting is also the rather substantial proportion of time allocated toactivities having to do with inter-parliamentary co-operation(even outside the"Presidency periods"): meetings of parliamentarians, but also exchange of informationrelated to such meetings, to issues related to subsidiarity control, and to questions from otherparliaments generally. According to the answer of the ItalianSenato della Repubblica"thetime spent ... on inter-parliamentary cooperation at political and administrative level isconstantly increasing, following the new perspectives developed by the Treaty of Lisbon".The figures given cannot be used for judging developments (relative increase or decrease)over time, but this observation corresponds to a general impression among therepresentatives of national parliaments.3.8 Reporting on developments in the EU and selection of topicsAs has been highlighted, reporting on developments in the EU stands at the forefront ofactivities of practically all representatives. This is particularly evident if one considers"observing" or "following" decision-making processes or debates as part of reporting on theissues debated or decided upon. It is more evident, also, if oneunderstands "reporting" ina broad sense,including answers to specific questions on EU matters put forward byMembers or officials, andincluding oral as well as writtenreporting.Aboutone thirdof the respondents answer that their representative is expected toreport ona regular basis.Such reporting often takes the form of a weekly bulletin or newsletter (theHouse of Representatives ofCyprus, the DutchStates-General,the FinnishEduskunta,thePolishSejm,and the UKHouse of Commonsmention that reports are sent on a weekly basis.)In addition to regular reports, representatives are free to - or supposed to -complement thisby reportingad hoc.Such additionalad hocreporting may concern matters consideredurgent, matters of interest to only a few Members or officials, or otherwise not fit to be dealtwith in the framework of the regular reports.It is obvious that for regular reports intended to cover the main issues that have been dealtwith by the EU Institutions during, say, the past week, the content is dependent on theagendas of the EU Institutions during that week. This does not exclude, as is clear from forinstance the answer of the DutchStates-General,that issues of interest to the particularparliament can be identified beforehand, based on various planning documents of the EUInstitutions. Furthermore, a selection among those issues that are dealt with during aparticular week has to be made. Usually, this is done via more or less informal consultationswith staff in the parliament concerned.

Most representatives, who report on a weekly basis, have an assistant or trainee who assistswith reporting and/or other tasks.Most representatives - about two thirds - report onad hocbasis only.In many cases,topics are determined by the expressed needs or wishes of the Committees on EUAffairs,other parliamentary committees, or individual Members or officials of parliament.These are most often brought to the attention of the representative by theHead of the EUAffairs Department(or Head of International Department, or similar title). This is the casefor the AustrianBundestag,the LatvianSaeima,and others. This has to do with the fact thatmany of the representatives work (mainly) for the Committees on EU Affairs of theirparliament. If so, the Head of Secretariat of that committee is often the immediate superior ofthe representative, at least as far as setting priorities for their reporting is concerned. A fewrepresentatives - those of theHouse of Representatives ofCyprus, the PortugueseAssembleiada República,the SwedishRiksdag- are responsible directly to the secretary general ordeputy secretary general of their parliament.At the same time, answers, for instance from the Austrian Parliament, the DanishFolketing,the FinnishEduskunta,the PolishSejmand the LuxemburgChambre des Députés,indicatethat topics are often selected, at least in part, by the representative himself or herself, againstthe background of a general knowledge of which issues might be of most interest to his/herparliament. In some cases, most topics to be reported on are chosen in this way, meaning,that requests from committees and the like are less frequent. In other cases it seems thatmany demands or questions are put forward, and given priority, so that in practice therepresentative is able to select topics only rarely, if and when time allows. Regardless ofwhether emphasis lies on initiatives of the representative or from committees or services ofhis or her parliament, there is in practice of adialogue between the representative and hisor her superior - or colleagues - concerningwhichtopicsto give priority. For instance, forthe CzechSenát,the representative proposes topics to be agreed by the head of EU AffairsUnit. Another model is that of the UKHouse of Lords,where the representative decides infull consultation with the London-based staff.3.9. Administrative accountabilityA large number of representatives (12 out of 33) are administratively accountable to theirSecretaries General.In case of the BulgarianNarodno Sabraniethe permanentrepresentative is accountable to both the Speaker and to the Secretary General. While in thecase of the RomanianCamera Deputatilor,the representative is accountable to the Speakerand the Standing Bureau of theCamera Deputatilor.In the vast majority of the remaining cases the administrative accountability andaccountability in terms of setting of the priorities of the representative's work is to theHeadsof the EU and/or International Departmentsor to the Directors of the Committees/Headsof the Secretariat of the Chamber. In a few cases,e.g.the LatvianSaeimaor the PolishSejm,the accountability in terms of priorities is to apolitical body,i.e. the Committee on EuropeanAffairs or its Chairperson.

3.10. Reporting on representatives' activitiesIn addition to their day-to-day reporting on the developments in the EU, a number ofrepresentatives havea duty to regularly report on their activities.A number ofrepresentatives, those of the BulgarianNarodno Sabranie,the FrenchAssembée nationaleand theSénat,the HungarianOrszággyűlés,the ItalianCamera Dei Deputatiand theSenatodella Repubblica,the LatvianSaeima,the LithuanianSeimas,the PolishSejmandSenat,thePortugueseAssembleia da República,and the SlovenianDržavni zbor,produce annual, bi-annual or trimestral reports addressed, for instance, to the Speakers, Secretaries General,parliamentary groups, heads of the EU/International Departments, Committees on EuropeanAffairs, specialised committees or in some instances to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or theHead of the Permanent Representation to the EU.A number of representatives report on their activities to their immediate administrativesuperiors or to the Committees on European Affairs even if there is no formal requirement todo so. The permanent representative of the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosoponprovides a reportof her work at the end of each parliamentary session. Other representatives report on anadhocbasis several times a year. Such parliaments include the BelgianSénat,the CzechSenátand the DanishFolketing.The rest of the representatives do not produce any activity reports since their regular andadhocreports on EU developments are sufficient evidence of their activities.3.11. Attendance of the EU Speakers' Conferences, meetings of the Secretaries Generaland COSAC meetingsSeveral parliaments and chambers consider it important that their representatives regularlyattend major EU parliamentary conferences:the EU Speakers' Conferences, meetings ofthe Secretaries General and the COSAC meetings. This givesthem first hand knowledgeof the debates and the conclusions of meetings. These are: the BelgianChambre desReprésentants,the DanishFolketing,the IrishHouses of the Oireachtas,the LithuanianSeimas(explicit provision in the Law on the Permanent Representative of the Seimas of theRepublic of Lithuania to the European Union) and the PortugueseAssembleia da República.The COSAC meetingsare regularly attended by the representatives of the PolishSenat,theSlovenianDržavni zbor,the SwedishRiksdagthe UKHouse of Lords,the LatvianSaeima(Ordinary meetings) the FrenchSénat(Ordinary meetings), and the UKHouse of Commons(Ordinary meetings). While the representatives of the CzechSenátand the FrenchAssembléenationaleonly attend the COSAC meetings as a function of their Presidency of the EU.The EU Speakers’ Conferences and meetings of Secretaries Generalare attended by theRomanian representative, but seldom the COSAC meetings. The UKHouse of LordsLiaisonOfficer, where he has time and the agenda is relevant, attends the EU Speakers’ Conferences.Other parliaments and chambers take decisions on whether their representatives in Brusselswould attend those conferences on a case-by-case basis.

3.12. AssistantsA number of representatives in Brussels (8 out of 33) have assistants, who perform a wholespectrum of tasks, including technical ones. These are the representatives of the AustrianParliament (until recently), the BelgianSénat,the DanishFolketing,the FinnishEduskunta,the FrenchAssemblée nationale,the GermanBundestag,the GreekVouli Ton Ellinon,theHungarianOrszággyűlés,the LithuanianSeimas andthe DutchStates-General.The UKHouse of Commonsis the only chamber to have a deputy representative.Two parliaments: the LatvianSaeimaand the PolishSenatare considering introducing thepost of an assistant in the near future. For the duration of the EU Presidency, therepresentative of the CzechSenátis assisted by a trainee student.Of particular note are the GermanBundestagand the LithuanianSeimas.Apart from thepermanent representative, an additional four members of staff of the GermanBundestagwork in its Liaison Office in Brussels. Conversely, the LithuanianSeimashas developed asystem of alternating members of staff. Three or four officials a year assist the permanentrepresentative in month-long rotations. This system, introduced in 2006, enables trainingover a dozen advisors to specialised committees, the Committee on European Affairs andofficials from other structural units of the Office of theSeimas.3.13. Future developmentsThe role of the representatives in Brussels is constantly evolving, and a number ofparliaments and chambers are planning to reassess it when the Treaty of Lisbon enters intoforce. The FrenchAssemblée nationale,for instance, is planning to broaden therepresentative's tasks by including monitoring and coordination with the counterparts withinthe framework of the new powers granted by the Treaty of Lisbon to national parliaments.The ItalianSenato della Repubblicaand the UKHouse of Commonshave similar plans,especially with regard to the monitoring of the application of the principle of subsidiarity.The CzechSenátis of the opinion that the position of its representative in Brussels should beadapted to the new forms of inter-parliamentary cooperation. It foresees, for example, thatvisits ofSenátCommittees to the EU Institutions will become standard and their frequencywill increase due to the increased attention to EU affairs in theSenát.In the opinion of the FinnishEduskunta“the role of the representative’s office may grow, ifthe network of representatives acquires some sort of facilitating or clearing-house role interms of the subsidiarity procedure”. On the other hand, theEduskuntafeels strongly that thejob of the representatives should primarily concern "the facilitation of the communicationand fact-finding".Some parliaments are thinking about strengthening their representations in Brussels byintroducing a post of an assistant (the PolishSenatand the LatvianSaeima)or establishing ajoint office of both chambers of the parliament (the Romanian Parliament). As in the case ofthe LithuanianSeimas,the post of an assistant of the representative of the LatvianSaeimawill be offered to the advisors of the specialised committees for a specific time periods. Thispractice is expected to facilitate greater involvement of specialised committees of theSaeimain EU matters.

Table 1: History of the RepresentativesCountry, ChamberAustria:

Nationalrat and

Bundesrat

Belgium:

Chambre des

Représentants

Belgium:

Sénat

Bulgaria:

Narodno Sabranie

Cyprus:

Vouli Ton

Antiprosopon

Czech Republic:

Poslanecká Sněmovna

Czech Republic:

Senát

Denmark:

Folketing

Start of theterm in officeMay 200520062006March 2006October 2006March 2008Mid-April 2007Mid-April 20071 July 2008November 2004November 200619911994199920042007200520081995199720002006February 20081 March 20031 December 20041 October 2007May 1999November 2005November 2005-May 2005September 2006August 20041 September 20031 July 2007March 1998200020042004November 2008November 200831 August 2006End of the term inofficeto presentto presentto presentOctober 2006to presentto presentDecember 2008to present31 December 2009October 2006to present1994199920042007to present2008to present1997200020062008November 200830 November 200430 September 2007to presentOctober 2005to presentto present-September 2006to presentto present1 July 2007to presentto presentto present2007to presentto presentto presentto presentName of the representativeMs Heike MALICEKMr Hugo D'HOLLANDERMr Daniel LUCIONMr Michel VANDEBORNEMs Marie-Aline STACANOVMr Dencho GEORGIEVMs Natia KARAYIANNIMs Christiana FRYDAMr. František ČAKRT,Also a Member of the COSACSecretariatMs Hana DAŇKOVÁMs Hana SEDLÁČKOVÁMr Peter Juul LARSENMr Finn Skriver FRANDSENMr Morten KNUDSENMr Richard Mongin FORRESTMr Peter Juul LARSENMr Arvi KAROTAMMs Malle KUULERMr Mikko VALTASAARIMr Ilkka SALMIMs Sarita KAUKAOJAMs Carita OLLIKAINENMs Sarita KAUKAOJAMr Jean-Pierre MEVELLECMr Fran§ois DULUCMr Frank BARONMr Marc THOUMELOUMs Anne MARQUANTMs Vesna POPOVIC-Mr Harris KARABARBOUNISMr George PAPAKOSTASMr László SINKAMr Kevin LEYDENMr John HAMILTONMr Gianfranco NERIMr Sebastian FIUME GARELLIMs Maria Giovanna CAPPELLINOMr Antonio ESPOSITOMs Debora CICCOTTIMr Massimiliano ELEONORIMs Beatrice GIANNANI

Frequency ofAccountabilityReportingRegular reportsTo the Secretarycalled "BrusselsGeneral of theBulletins" andChamber and thereports on aHead of thecase-by-caseInternationalbasis on subjects Relationsof specialServiceimportanceRegular andadAdministrative:hocreportsto the Head ofthe Departmentfor CommitteeSupport of theHouse ofRepresentatives.Work prioritiesare a sharedresponsibilitywith clerk andstaff of theCommittees ofEU Affairs ofboth Chambers.Prepares weeklyAdministrative:reports on theto the Head ofdevelopments in the EU Division.the EP.Setting of theAdditionally,work priorities:when requested,to the Chairmantheof the EU AffairsRepresentativeCommittee.sends reports onspecific issues.Reports regularly Directly - to theon a weeklyDirector of thebasis and isBureau ofexpected toInternational andreport onEU Affairs.important issuesIndirectly - to theon anad hocSecretarybasisGeneral of theChancellery ofthe Senate.Reports on theDirectly andactivities thesolely to thePermanentSecretaryRepresentativeGeneral of thetakes part in,Assembly of thewhenever he/she Republic. Forsees fit or whenlogistical andspecificallyfunctionalrequestedpurposes - to thedirector of theoffice forEuropeanAffairs.

Chapter 4: Evaluation of the COSAC Bi-annual ReportsIn accordance with the document on the Establishment of a Secretariat of the COSACadopted by the XXX COSAC in Rome on 7 October 2003, the COSAC Secretariat isrequired to “compile a factual report on developments in EU procedures and practicesrelevant to the parliamentary scrutiny every six months in order to provide the basis fordebates in COSAC”. Since May 2004, the COSAC Secretariat has published ten such Bi-annual Reports33.This chapter provides the basis for an evaluation of the COSAC Bi-annual Reports(henceforth alternatively “the Reports”) in the light of five years of experience, aiming atbenefiting the COSAC Secretariat and the future Presidencies.With the help of the feedback given by parliaments, this chapter focuses on the following: thecontent and the form of the Bi-annual Report, and the practice of parliaments with regard tothe Bi-annual Reports. Issues like topics, their link with the agenda of the COSAC Ordinarymeetings and the organisation and length of reports are therefore addressed. Attention is alsopaid to the procedural arrangements under which parliaments prepare the replies to thequestionnaires which precede each Report and to the use of the Reports within parliaments.However this chapter begins by providing a picture of the ten COSAC Bi-annual Reportswith a view to assessing their added value.4.1. Picture of the experience of five years of the COSAC Bi-annual Reports4.1.1. Brief presentation of the first ten Bi-annual Reports (2004-2009)Since May 2004, the COSAC Secretariat has published ten Reports endorsed by the COSACOrdinary meetings during each Presidency. The first Report was published in May 2004, inassociation with the XXXI COSAC in Dublin. This was the first COSAC meeting after thenew Rules of Procedure, which were agreed at the XXIX COSAC in Athens in May 2003.The purpose of the procedural reform was to focus COSAC's activities more on the work ofnational parliaments within the EU and to strengthen COSAC as a platform for exchanginginformation and best practices between parliaments, in particular on the practical aspects ofparliamentary scrutiny.As a result, the first Bi-annual Report covered such topics as: recent developments in EUprocedures and practices, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, legislativeprocedures of the EU, and proposals on the draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution forEurope.During the past five years the Bi-annual Reports covered numerous subjects. The issues thatreceived the widest coverage related to the Constitutional Treaty and the Treaty of Lisbon.Several chapters of the Reports dealt with issues like ratification of the Constitutional Treaty,state of the debate on the Future of Europe, national parliaments' expectations of theIntergovernmental Conference, involvement of national parliaments in the ratification33

process of the Treaty of Lisbon, the principle of subsidiarity, etc. In that respect, it is worthmentioning the 10th Bi-annual Report of November 2008, which includes a chapter on theresults of the working group of national parliaments’ representatives to the EU on theimplementation of Protocol 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity andproportionality as attached to the Treaty of Lisbon.Another popular subject for the Reports is scrutiny procedures and practices in the EUnational parliaments. For instance, the Reports analysed recent developments in EUprocedures and practices twice as well as scrutiny of EU matters by Committees on EuropeanAffairs and specialised committees.The Reports also covered, although less frequently, such subjects as: Justice and HomeAffairs, national parliaments' cooperation with the EU Institutions, transparency matters,budgetary and financial matters and so on. While such subjects as the role of Members of theEuropean Parliament in national parliaments, Northern and Mediterranean Dimensions of theEU and climate change were covered once.4.1.2. Added value of the Bi-annual Reports according to the EU parliamentsWhen asked about the added value of the Bi-annual Reports, the overwhelming majority ofparliaments underline theusefulnessof theirinsight into the procedures and practices ofother parliamentsregarding the legislation and policies of the EU. The knowledge providedon the different scrutiny systems is much appreciated34, given that otherwise suchinformation is “not available or very difficult to find”, as emphasised by the GermanBundesratin its reply. For many respondents, the presentation of up to date information isalso a valuable aspect as well as the comparative dimension of the Reports.Bi-annual Reports therefore are considered to be animportant tool for exchanging bestpractices and experiences.Many parliaments or chambers specify that the Reports provideexamples for them as they review or seek to improve their own procedures and practices.This function of the Reports is, for example, expected to be helpful in the context of thepossible implementation of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon35. At the same time, someparliaments already pay tribute to the contribution of the Reports in the exchange ofinformation on developments in procedures and practices relating to the principles ofsubsidiarity and proportionality36.A few parliaments explain in more details how Bi-annual Reports are or were beneficial tothem. The Romanian Parliament reports that the Bi-annual Reports “are being extensivelyused, in various forms and for various projects, by the staff and the members of bothchambers”. It also acknowledges the fact that Bi-annual Reports were an “excellentinstrument” for building a new Member State’s systems ". The SlovenianDržavni zborreports that it was particularly interested in learning in the 3rdBi-annual Report about therespective functions and roles of the Committees on European Affairs and specialisedcommittees in the scrutiny process and more specifically “the division of competencies34

between working bodies responsible for European affairs (Committee on EU Affairs,Committee on Foreign Policy)”.From a general point of view, the IrishHouses of the Oireachtasconsider that Bi-annualReports remain a vitalcatalyst to “help focus the discussion on issues within nationalparliaments”.In the same way, the Committees on European Affairs of the LatvianSaeimaand the PolishSejmstate that the Bi-annual Reports can serve as an additional tool tostructure their work priorities: whilst the preparation of the Reports for theSaeimais anopportunity to set priorities in its working programme, theSejmindicates that topics of theReports can be added to the agenda of the committee when they are deemed valuable; arecent example is the committee meeting dedicated to the scrutiny of the activities of Europoland Eurojust.Among the replies, it is also worth mentioning that for the CzechPoslanecká SněmovnaBi-annual Reports can be useful foridentifying possibilities of cooperation and/or forcoordinationbetween parliaments or chambers on the basis of the positions expressed onEuropean issues or similar procedural ways of dealing with them.4.2. Prospects for the content of the Bi-annual Reports4.2.1. Issue of the link between the content of the Bi-annual Reports and the agenda ofthe COSAC meetingsMany parliamentsare of the opinion thatthere should be a link between the content ofthe Bi-annual Report and the agenda of the corresponding COSAC Ordinary meeting.Most of them think that the Report and the agenda should be linked “partially” (the PolishSejm),“to some extent” (the Austrian Parliament), with regard to “the main topics” (theHungarianOrszággyűlés)or “a majority of the topics” (the CzechSenát).Among them, theBelgianSénat,the FinnishEduskunta,the LithuanianSeimasand the MalteseKamra tad-Deputatieven advocate that the topics of the Report should be closely linked to the agenda ofthe COSAC meeting. The reasons for the justification are similar: it “helps to prepare thedebates at the COSAC meeting”; it “facilitates in-depth discussion” during the meeting; it“can serve as background for the debate”. Moreover, for the IrishHouses of the Oireachtas,this question of a link is a matter of respecting the original purpose of the Bi-annual Reports,which is “to provide the basis for debates in COSAC”, as written in the document on theEstablishment of a Secretariat of the COSAC (7 October 2003).On the other hand,a number of parliaments/chambers(the CzechPoslanecká Sněmovna,the DutchEerste Kamer,the GermanBundesrat,the SlovakianNárodná Rada,the SlovenianDržavni zborandDržavni svetand the European Parliament) declare that thelinkbetweenthe Bi-annual Report and the agenda of the COSAC Ordinary meeting isnot necessaryandshould certainly not be seen as a rule.Some parliaments base their opinions on more in-depth analysis. For instance, the DanishFolketingand the FrenchSénatdraw a clear distinction between the topics of the Bi-annualReports which they consider to be a matter of exchanging best practices on parliamentaryscrutiny of European issues, and items on the agenda of the COSAC ordinary meeting whichare of a far more political nature. This distinction leads both chambers to conclude thattheabsence of a link should be the regular rule; the Bi-annual Reports are intended to beprocedural reports and not to prepare the political debates of the meetings;substantial42

political issues should be dealt with in separate reports or background papers prepared by theCOSAC Presidency, if deemed necessary. The FrenchSénatnonetheless considers that thecontent of the Bi-annual Reports should continue to be discussed as currently in theframework of the ordinary meetings through a separate point of the agenda.Other parliaments refer also to the existence of two different categories of topics in COSACmatters, but do not consider that a strict differentiation between what is the essence of theReports and the essence of the COSAC meetings should be inferred from that. Among them,the Romanian Parliament considers that political and procedural topics can be either framedwithin the Bi-annual Reports or during the COSAC meetings. Also advocating closer links,the FinnishEduskunta,the GermanBundestagand the PolishSenatare, nonetheless of theopinion that during COSAC meetings it is difficult to discuss procedural issues in detail. Inaddition, the FinnishEduskuntaconsiders that discussions at COSAC meetings “should bereserved for more important and current topics”. Thus, the three parliaments/chambers urge,on the one hand, toincorporate in the Reports the political topics of the agendaand, onthe other hand, toconfine issues on parliamentary procedures in the Reports, as“additional” informationnot worth debate by parliamentarians.On the question of the correlation between the Bi-annual Reports and the COSAC meetings,the Italian Parliament holds an opinion that could finally be seen as acompromise solution.Taking into account the procedural nature of the Reports, as established by the RomeDecision on the Secretariat of the COSAC, it considers that aconnectionbetween Reportsand the agenda of COSAC meetings isacceptable, in so far as the Report aims atproviding all the relevant factual information about the EU scrutiny procedures andpractices in the EU Parliaments concerning the topics included in the COSAC agenda,whatever their nature is.4.2.2. Selection of topics: experience of the past COSAC PresidenciesFrom the replies of all the relevant presidencies to this question, it can be inferred thattopicality is the main criterionfor determining the subjects of the Reports. Indeed, in mostcases, the choice was made on the basis of:the issues at the centre of the debates in the EU at the time of the Presidency;the priorities defined by the government in charge of the Presidency of the EUCouncil;the decisions taken during the previous COSAC meetings.

4.2.3 Proposals for topics for future Bi-annual ReportsParliaments were asked to suggest topics for the future Bi-annual Reports to give a picture oftheir primary concerns and to help create guidelines for future COSAC Presidencies.Among the numerous proposals, a distinction needs to be made between those, which aremade by two or more parliaments or chambers of different Member States(a)and those,which are suggested by only one parliament or chamber(b).(a)A great number of parliaments show interest for two topics: theimplementation of theTreaty of Lisbonwith regard to the activities of the EU parliaments, in general, and theapplication of the principle of subsidiarity,in particular.The first proposal is made by a group of parliaments/chambers which do not go into greatdetail in their replies: the Austrian Parliament, the SlovenianDržavni zbor,the FrenchAssemblée nationale,the GermanBundestag,the Italian Parliament, the MalteseKamra tad-Deputati,the Romanian Parliament and the SlovakianNárodná Rada.As for the topic of theapplication of the principle of subsidiarity, parliaments have various proposals for how todeal with it. Some parliaments consider this issue through theimplementation of theProtocol 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionalityasattached to the Treaty of Lisbon. Among them, the IrishHouses of the Oireachtasis infavour of anevaluation of the COSAC subsidiarity checks,whilst the FrenchAssembléenationaleadvocates a general evaluation of the use by national parliaments of the possibility,in the framework of the “Barroso initiative”, to scrutinise informally the draft legislation withregard to its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, by compiling information on thenumber of adopted reasoned opinions and presenting their motives. Finally, the IrishHousesof the Oireachtasand the SlovenianDržavni zborandDržavni svetask for astudy of theconcept of subsidiaritywith a view to developing a common understanding of the principle.In connection with this topic, the PolishSejmand the SlovenianDržavni zborpropose anassessment of the IPEX system,aiming at giving a state of play of the effectiveness of theinter-parliamentary cooperation provided by IPEX.Besides these major topics, there is also a need for a few parliaments (the BulgarianNarodnoSabranie,the CzechPoslanecká Sněmovna,and the FrenchSénat)to tackle the question ofcomitologyand the possible ways for national parliaments to influence the decisions takenby the comitology committees. Another issue that needs to be addressed according to theCzechSenátand the IrishHouses of the Oireachtasis the examination of theco-decisionprocedures for adopting EU legislationin order to ensure effective national parliamentaryscrutiny during co-decision.(b)As a matter of interest, the following list includes the proposals made by a singleparliament or chamber:The practices of national parliaments in examining the preparation for, andoutcomes of, the meetings of the Council of Ministers, including the typology ofagreements reached in the Council (“general approach”, “political agreement” etc.)(the CzechSenát);The significance of draft Conclusions of the European Council and the Council ofMinisters, and the scope for parliamentary scrutiny of these documents (the CzechSenát);

The implication of the widening deployment of information and communicationtechnologies in the work of EU and national institutions for the parliamentaryprocedures (the CzechPoslanecká Sněmovna);The democratic control of the (national) management of the EU-budget (the DutchEerste Kamer);The democratic control of European agencies (the DutchEerste Kamer);The cooperation between the EU and the Council of Europe (the DutchEersteKamer);Better Lawmaking (the GermanBundesrat);Evaluation of the role and influence of the various bodies of the inter-parliamentarycooperation (Conference of the Speakers of the EU Parliaments, COSAC, jointcommittee meetings, etc) and the practical methods implemented for ensuringcooperation between them (the FrenchAssemblée nationale);The scrutiny of European Union legislation concluded in trialogues through first orearly second reading agreements (the DanishFolketing);Monitoring and control of the transposition and implementation of Community Lawin EU Member States (the Italian Parliament);The parliamentary administration of the EU affairs (the BulgarianNarodnoSabranie).

4.3. Form of the Bi-annual ReportsThere seems to be a ratherbroad agreementbetween national parliaments which find thecurrentstructureof the Bi-annual Reports“accurate”and“satisfactory”.However, a number of parliaments state thatBi-annual Reports tend to be “too extensive”or“too voluminous”. According to the Italian Parliament, this situation has a majordrawback: “the length and detail of the Bi-annual Report can make sometimes the documentvery difficult to be read by the Members who should be the main target of this document”. Inthe opinion of some parliaments, Bi-annual Reports therefore should not become any longer,but instead bemore “compact” and “analytical”,“as concise as possible” or, to put itdifferently, should comply with the motto “shorter is better”, as the UKHouse of Lordsrecommends.Assolutions with a view to reducing the size of the Reports,the BulgarianNarodnoSabranisuggests publishing only a summary and the corresponding conclusions, whilst theItalian Parliament and the SwedishRiksdagpropose including all the detailed information inthe annexes of the Report and publish it on the COSAC website. In addition, even ifparliaments are reluctant to set strict limits on the number of chapters considering thePresidency’s prerogatives, there is a tendency to think that it should not exceed the four.Besides strictly formal concerns, a number of parliaments took the opportunity to proposemodifications with regard to the drafting of the Reports. The following list includes theirproposals:

Some comments focus also on the questionnaires. They are in line with the wish expressedby some parliaments to shorten and simplify the Reports. The questions therefore should be“as limited as possible in the questionnaires” (the DutchEerste Kamer),and “yes/no”questions (with a possibility to add comments) should be favoured so that the comparison ofthe answers would be easier (the PolishSejmandSenat).4.4. Practises of parliaments with regard to the Bi-annual ReportsWhen asked about the procedure in each parliament/chamber for preparing and approving thereplies to the questionnaires, the answers are quite similar with a few exceptions. In mostparliaments the administrative service responsible or coordinating the drafting of the repliesis the staff of the Committees on European Affairs (or EU-Committee/European ScrutinyCommittee/Department of European Affairs etc.). Several parliaments/chambers answeredthat the replies to the questionnaire are drafted by the staff of the Committees on EuropeanAffairs in cooperation with other bodies of the parliamentary administration, if the content ofthe questions requires so.In the LuxemburgChambre des Députés,the Secretariat of the COSAC delegation is incharge of the replies. The Secretariat sends a draft of the replies for approval to the Presidentof the delegation and to the Chairman of the Committee. Several other parliaments/chambersusually send a draft of the replies for approval to the Committee on European Affairs (or itsequivalent) or to the Chairperson of the Committee,e.g.the BulgarianNarodna Sabranie,theCypriotVouli ton Antiprosopon,the BelgianSénat,the LithuanianSeimas,the PortugueseAssembleia da República,and the MalteseKamra tad-Deputati.In the UKHouse of Commons,the answers are approved by the European ScrutinyCommittee after the staff drafts them in consultation with the National Parliaments Office inBrussels. The LatvianSaeimahas a similar procedure. Its advisor in the secretariat of theCommittee on European Affairs, who is responsible for COSAC matters, is also responsiblefor drafting the replies. The advisor consults other clerks in the secretariat of the Committee,or the Permanent Representation in Brussels, or others. The replies are finally approved bythe Chairwoman of the Committee on European Affairs.The IrishHouses of the Oireachtasanswered that their replies are drafted by the JointCommittee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on EU Scrutiny and considered bythe Committees when the Members have an opportunity to make amendments. The repliesare finally approved by the Committees.

Some national parliaments answered that their Members are not involved in the approval ofthe replies. Others said that Members or Chairpersons were involved if the content of thequestionnaire had a political interest. The Romanian Parliament answered that, if thequestionnaire has some political interest, the board of the Committee on European Affairsnominates one or two Members who are responsible for the replies.To sum up, the staff of the Committees (or their equivalents) in charge of the replies eitherdraft the replies themselves or in consultation with other Committees or structural units ofnational parliaments (e.g., research bureaus). Several answers indicate that the staff of thesecretariats of the Committees on European Affairs approves the replies, sometimesinforming Members, while in a number of cases the approval is done by the Chairperson.As to the translation of the Reports into national languages, only the PolishSejmreplied thatit translates the whole Report and publishes it on the website of theSejm.It also publishes apaper version of the Reports in Polish. The CzechSenátanswered that in case the Membersare interested, a translation would be prepared on demand. Similarly, in the RomanianParliament a translation would be made if Members considered it important. In the GreekVouli ton Ellinon,some parts of the Reports are translated and distributed to the Memberswhen a similar subject is debated in the Committee on European Affairs.When it comes to the circulation of the Reports, a number of parliaments/chambers answeredthat the Reports are distributed to the Members of the Committees on European Affairs,e.g.the LithuanianSeimas,the MalteseKamra tad-Deputati,the GreekVouli ton Ellinon(someparts), the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosopon,the CzechSenát,the DanishFolketing,theRomanian Parliament, the SlovenianDržavni zbor,and the SlovakianNárodná rada(most ofthe times). Furthermore, a lot of parliaments/chambers hand out the Reports to the Membersattending the COSAC meetings. That is the case with the Austrian Parliament, the FrenchAssemblée nationaleand theSénat,the UKHouse of Commonsand theHouse of Lords,theSwedishRiksdag,the DutchTweede Kamer,and the FinnishEduskunta.In both chambers ofthe Italian Parliament the main findings of the Reports are summarised and included in thenotes or fact sheets drafted before the COSAC meetings, sometimes these documents are alsodistributed to the Members who are not attending the COSAC meetings. In both the GermanBundestagand theBundesratthe Reports including summaries are sent to the Membersattending the COSAC meetings.The BulgarianNarodno Sabranieanswered that, given that the Reports are available on theCOSAC website, they do not distribute the Reports. The LuxembourgChambre des Députésdoes not distributed the Reports either, while in the LatvianSaeimathe decision depends onthe subjects,i.e.if they are relevant, the Report is sent to the Chairwoman of the Committeeon European Affairs, who in turn informs the other Members. In the DutchEerste Kamer,theReport is put on the agenda of the Committee on European Affairs, and a summary isdistributed to the Members of the Committee, and occasionally to other Members.When the IrishHouses of the Oireachtasdistribute the Report to the Joint Committee onEuropean Affairs, and the Joint Committee on EU Scrutiny, there is an opportunity to debatethe content of the Report. In the FrenchAssemblée nationalea meeting of the Committee incharge of the European Affairs is usually held to discuss the outcome of COSAC meetingson the basis of a report made by the Chairman. The Bi-annual Report is distributed to theMembers of the Committee. In the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosopon,subjects of the Reportmay be discussed in the Committee on European Affairs. In the PortugueseAssembleia da

Nationalrat and

Bundesrat

Chambre des

Représentants

Sénat

Narodno Sabranie

Vouli Ton

Antiprosopon

Poslanecká Sněmovna

Senát

Folketing

Riigikogu

Eduskunta

Assemblée nationale

Sénat

Bundestag

Bundesrat

Vouli Ton Ellinon

Országgyűlés

Houses of the

Oireachtas

Camera dei Deputati

Senato della Repubblica

Saeima

Seimas

Chambre des Députés

States-General

Kamra tad-Deputati

Sejm

Senat

Assembleia da República

Camera Deputatilor

Senatul

Narodná radá

Državni zbor

Državni svet

Cortes Generales

Riksdag

House of Commons

House of Lords

Nationalrat

and Bundesrat

Chambre des

Représentants

Sénat

Narodno

Sabranie

Vouli Ton

Antiprosopon

Poslanecká

Sněmovna

Senát

Folketing

Riigikogu

Eduskunta

Assemblée

nationale

Sénat

Bundestag

Vouli Ton

Ellinon

Országgyűlés

Houses of the

Oireachtas

Camera dei

Deputati

Senato della

Repubblica

Saeima

Seimas

Chambre des

Députés

States-General

Sejm

Senat

Assembleia da

República

Camera

Deputatilor

Narodná radá