PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling)
EUU Alm.del Bilag 270
Offentligt

4 November 2014

Twenty-second Bi-annual Report:

Developments in European Union

Procedures and Practices

Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny

Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to:

LII Conference of Parliamentary Committees

for Union Affairs of Parliaments

of the European Union

30 November-2 December 2014

Rome

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs

of Parliaments of the European Union

COSAC SECRETARIAT

WIE 05 U 041, 50 rue Wiertz, B-1047 Brussels, Belgium

E-mail:

[email protected]

| Tel: +32 2 284 3776

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ........................................................................................................................................................ iv

Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................... 1

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 1:

EUROPE 2020 ............................................................................................................................. 9

Part A - Implementation progress of Europe 2020 strategy ............................................................................. 9

PART B - Review of Europe 2020 strategy ....................................................................................................... 16

PART C – Governance of Europe 2020 ............................................................................................................ 18

CHAPTER 2:

FUTURE OF THE EU - EU INSTITUTIONS AND PARLIAMENTS .................................................. 23

PART A – Implementation of new powers conferred to national Parliaments by the Lisbon Treaty ............. 23

Part B - National Parliaments and new trends in the EU policy and decision-making process....................... 26

PART C - More effective participation of EU Parliaments in the EU decision-making process and further

developments in EU integration ...................................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 3:

THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE ROLE OF EU PARLIAMENTS ................................................. 44

PART A - Neighbourhood Policy ...................................................................................................................... 44

PART B - Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) and Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the

Mediterranean (PA UfM) ................................................................................................................................. 45

PART C - Addressing growing migration flows ................................................................................................ 46

CHAPTER 4:

EU AGENCIES AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS ......................................................................... 49

PART A – Role and accountability of EU agencies ........................................................................................... 49

PART B - Relations between national Parliaments and EU agencies............................................................... 55

iii

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Background

This is the Twenty-second Bi-annual Report from the COSAC Secretariat.

COSAC Bi-annual Reports

The XXX COSAC decided that the COSAC Secretariat should produce factual

Bi-annual Reports, to be published ahead of each ordinary meeting of the

Conference. The purpose of the Reports is to give an overview of the

developments in procedures and practices in the European Union that are

relevant to parliamentary scrutiny.

All the Bi-annual Reports are available on the COSAC website at:

http://www.cosac.eu/documents/bi-annual-reports-of-cosac/

The four

http://www.cosac.eu/en/documents/biannual/

on information provided by the national

chapters of this Bi-annual Report are based

Parliaments of the European Union Member States and the European Parliament. The deadline for

submitting replies to the questionnaire for the 22nd Bi-annual Report was 15 September 2014.

The outline of this Report was adopted by the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC, held on 18

July 2014 in Rome.

As a general rule, the Report does not specify all Parliaments or Chambers of which the case is

relevant for each point. Instead, illustrative examples are used.

Complete replies, received from 40 out of 41 national Parliaments/Chambers of 28 Member States

and the European Parliament, can be found in the Annex on the COSAC website. The Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie

did not answer the questionnaire due to the timing of elections.

Note on Numbers

Of the 28 Member States of the European Union, 15 have a unicameral Parliament

and 13 have a bicameral Parliament. Due to this combination of unicameral and

bicameral systems, there are 41 national parliamentary Chambers in the 28

Member States of the European Union.

Although they have bicameral systems, the national Parliaments of Austria, Ireland

and Spain each submitted a single set of replies to the questionnaire.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Abbreviations

ACER

AFCO Committee

AGS

BEREC

BUDG Committee

CEAS

CEF

CEPOL

CONT Committee

CSRs

CULT Committee

EASA

EASO

EBA

ECHA

ECON Committee

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs

Annual Growth Survey

Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications

European Parliament's Committee on Budgets

Common European Asylum System

Common Europe Facility

European Police College

European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control

Country-Specific Recommendations

European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education

European Aviation Safety Agency

European Asylum Support Office

European Banking Authority

European Chemicals Agency

European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary

Affairs

European Defence Agency

European Fisheries Control Agency

European Financial Stability Facility

European Institute for Gender Equality

European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

EDA

EFCA

EFSF

EIGE

EIOPA

EMCDDA

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

EMEA

EMPL Committee

EMU

ENISA

ENVI Committee

European Medicines Agency

European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

Economic and Monetary Union

European Network and Information Security Agency

European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health

and Food Safety

European Public Prosecutor's Office

European Railway Agency

European Supervisory Authorities

European Stability Mechanism

European Securities and Markets Authority

European Union

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions

European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit

European Police Agency

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation

at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union

European Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer

Protection

Interparliamentary EU Information Exchange

European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

Interinstitutional Working Group

European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs

Legal Affairs

Multiannual Financial Framework

EPPO

ERA

ESAs

ESM

ESMA

EU-OSHA

EUROFOUND

Eurojust

Europol

FRA

FRONTEX

IMCO Committee

IPEX

ITRE Committee

IWG

JURI Committee

MFF

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

MIP

NRP

NSP

OHIM

PA UfM

PECH Committee

SGP

TEU

TFEU

TSCG

Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure

National Reform Programmes

National Stability Programmes

Office for Harmonisation in the internal market

Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean

European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries

Stability and Growth Pact

Treaty on European Union

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance of the Economic

and Monetary Union

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Union for the Mediterranean

TTIP

UfM

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 1:

EUROPE 2020

The first Chapter of the Bi-annual Report outlines the proposals of the EU Parliaments for the mid-

term review of Europe 2020 strategy which will take place in 2015.

Regarding the implementation progress of the targets of Europe 2020, almost all responding

Parliaments/Chambers considered the progress on employment and poverty and social exclusion

goals unsatisfactory, stressing the need for additional measures to achieve the EU and national

targets, such as a more efficient EU growth and employment policy.

A wide range of positions was expressed about the implementation progress of the other Europe

2020 goals (research and development and education).

Most Parliaments/Chambers underlined that the economic crisis combined with fiscal

consolidation resulted in reduced investment towards achieving the Europe 2020 targets. Several

Parliaments/Chambers noted that Europe 2020 goals could only be achieved by a significant shift

in the overall EU approach from austerity to growth oriented policies and measures.

Most responding Parliaments/Chambers considered that the Europe 2020 strategy has not been

effectively implemented at EU, national and local level. Several Parliaments/Chambers

underscored the remarkable differences in implementation progress among the Member States,

as well as among regions within individual Member States.

A wide majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers noted that the five headline targets set in

the Europe 2020 strategy and the flagship initiatives contributed positively to boosting growth and

tackling unemployment. Several Parliaments/Chambers deemed that the related EU-level levers

(European single market, EU budget, EU external agenda) contributed to this purpose as well.

As for the upcoming Europe 2020 strategy review, only six Parliaments/Chambers have so far

taken a formal position through different procedures. However, there was wide agreement among

the responding Parliaments on the need for a thorough mid-term evaluation. Several underlined

the need for updating employment and social cohesion targets and the relevant flagship initiatives

and for enhancing the contribution of the EU Budget to the implementation of Europe 2020.

Most responding Parliaments/Chambers noted that the European Semester provided an effective

framework for implementing the revised strategy and also viewed the European Semester as a

means of further improvement of the revised Europe 2020 strategy. Almost all

Parliaments/Chambers agreed that the European Semester should be re-geared towards growth

and employment, although some of them stressed the need for a very careful balance between

stronger growth and employment enhancing policies and fiscal stability. Several Parliaments

stressed the need for reinforcing the social dimension.

Almost all responding Parliaments/Chambers considered the forthcoming review of governance

structures related to the so-called "Six Pack" and "Two Pack" useful towards enhancing the

effectiveness of the Europe 2020 strategy. Some of them focused on the role of national

Parliaments in the new governance framework.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

CHAPTER 2:

FUTURE OF THE EU - EU INSTITUTIONS AND PARLIAMENTS

The second Chapter of the Bi-annual Report, building upon previous Bi-annual Reports,

parliamentary debates and contributions of several Parliaments/Chambers and with a view to

continuing the debate under future Presidencies, takes stock of the overall impact of new

prerogatives conferred to national Parliaments by the Lisbon Treaty in relation to their role in the

EU, focusing also on the potential of powers not yet exercised by national Parliaments. It further

presents how EU Parliaments have reacted, both in the context of scrutiny of their own

Government and of the political dialogue, to some significant innovations introduced by the Lisbon

Treaty, as well as to new trends in the EU policy and decision-making process, such as the rising

role of the European Council and the adoption of intergovernmental treaties in the field of

economic governance. Building on the findings of the 21st Bi-annual Report and following the

Conclusions of the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments in Vilnius (paragraph 22) (6-8 April

2014), this Chapter also collects proposals by national Parliaments and the European Parliament

for more efficient use of subsidiarity checks and for new instruments aimed at improving the

involvement of national Parliaments in the EU decision-making process. It finally presents national

Parliaments' views on a possible further development of the European integration process.

Regarding implementation of the new powers conferred to national Parliaments by the Lisbon

Treaty, the majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers believed that the provisions of the

Treaties had been implemented in the best possible way. When asked which powers conferred on

national Parliaments by Article 12 TEU had had the most positive impact on the good functioning

of the Union, the vast majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers favoured information

provided by the EU institutions, participation in interparliamentary cooperation and subsidiarity

checks.

In relation to powers not yet exercised, a few Parliaments/Chambers mentioned actions before

the CJEU on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity as having the greatest

potential to enhance national Parliaments' participation in the EU decision-making process, while

only five mentioned veto on bridge clauses.

In relation to new trends in the EU policy and decision-making process, over half of the responding

Parliaments/Chambers stated that they had developed specific tools or procedures as regards the

rising role of the European Council, while less than half of those responding mentioned tools or

procedures in relation to intergovernmental treaties in the field of economic governance. Less

than one third mentioned involvement in trade agreement negotiations.

Most responding Parliaments/Chambers stated that they had not taken a formal position on

Treaty provisions in relation to delegated acts (Article 290 TFEU). Parliaments/Chambers' views on

the main critical aspects of delegated acts varied. Among others, Parliaments/Chambers referred

to excessive use of delegated acts and to the need of explicitly defining the objectives, content

and scope of the delegation of power.

Regarding early legislative agreements, almost 2/3 of Parliaments/Chambers saw early legislative

agreements under first reading as positive with regard to the EU legislative process.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

With regard to trilogues between the European Parliament, the Council and the European

Commission in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure, half of responding

Parliaments/Chambers stated that they were informed about such meetings by their

Governments.

Concerning national Parliaments' early involvement in the development of EU legislative

proposals, a large majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers supported the idea of

ad hoc

national Parliaments’ public consultations.

A wide majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers favoured the idea of creating new

instruments aimed at involving national Parliaments in EU decision-making without any formal

Treaty changes. In this context, Parliaments/Chambers mostly referred to possibilities in relation

to subsidiarity checks and the potential introduction of the "green card". Enhancing the

cooperation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament and the political dialogue

was also stressed by a few Parliaments/Chambers. The vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers

supported that such ideas should be taken into consideration by COSAC in order to foster further

interparliamentary cooperation.

Parliaments/Chambers' proposals on how to make more efficient use of subsidiarity checks in the

framework of the existing treaties and on the basis of paragraph 22 of the Conclusions of the

Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments in Vilnius, 6-8 April 2014, varied. A number of

Parliaments/Chambers underlined, among others, the importance of reinforcing cooperation and

better exchanging information among Parliaments/Chambers when scrutinising legislative

proposals, while a number of them referred expressly to the possibility of extending or improving

the eight-week deadline, developing common guidelines and criteria governing the application of

the principle of subsidiarity and improving relations with the European Commission.

The majority of Parliaments/Chambers had not taken a position on a potential further

development of the European integration process. Parliaments/Chambers expressed various ideas

in relation to the fields in which further sharing of sovereignty or, conversely, re-nationalisation of

competences and what institutional changes would be required.

In relation to the question as to how democratic legitimacy should be ensured in case of further

sharing of sovereignty considering in particular the role of the European Parliament and national

Parliaments, Parliaments/Chambers expressed various ideas mentioning, in general, the need to

make more systematic and effective use of their scrutiny/oversight function and of the political

dialogue, reminding national Parliaments' role in ensuring democratic representation and

advocating closer cooperation between them and the European Parliament.

CHAPTER 3:

THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE ROLE OF EU PARLIAMENTS

The third Chapter of the Bi-annual Report focuses on the cooperation between EU and South-East

Mediterranean countries. It provides an assessment of the Neighbourhood policy towards the

South-East Mediterranean countries. It highlights Parliaments/Chambers' views on EU actions to

address growing migration flows and presents Parliaments/Chambers evaluation of the UfM.

A majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers did not express a specific position or view on

several European Commission's documents on EU Neighbourhood policy. Those

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Parliaments/Chambers presenting their opinions, highlighted different issues, such as positive

evaluation of the new model, more EU funds allocation to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership,

strengthened border surveillance and not mandatory solidarity aspect, as well as the importance

of interparliamentary cooperation.

The vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers, when asked to share their ways of participation in the

relaunch of the UfM, and in relation also to the PA UfM, replied that they ensured it through

information received by their Governments and through the participation in the PA UfM.

According to the findings, in many Parliaments, the reports on developments in the PA UfM are

available to all Members of Parliaments.

As regards the parliamentary scrutiny of EU actions to address growing migration flows and the

consequent deadly accidents at sea, a number of Parliaments have expressed their views by

examining the Commission Communication on Migration (COM (2011) 248 and by scrutinising

their Government before or after European Council or Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings

(JHA). Some Parliaments/Chambers do this through other means, such as discussing at committee

level on EC Communication "An open and secure Europe: making it happen" (COM(2014) 154),

issuing opinions on Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 and expressing their views in political

statements.

Some responding Parliaments/Chambers gave more specific information on their opinions on EU

actions to address the growing migration flows. Among others, responses included positions on

relocation of migrants, views on the role of the UfM, the importance of the solidarity and fair-

sharing principles, increased financial assistance of FRONTEX, reviews of legislation (Dublin II and

Dublin III) and correct implementation of CEAS instruments.

CHAPTER 4:

EU AGENCIES AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

The first part of the fourth Chapter focuses on the views expressed by EU Parliaments with regard

to the establishment of agencies, the powers delegated to them and the effectiveness of their

work and of the existing accountability mechanisms by means of which EU institutions monitor

their activity. Even though there is a growing number of European agencies, charged with

performing a number of highly technical and occasionally regulatory functions, more than half of

the responding Parliaments/Chambers have never carried out neither an overall consideration of

the role, function and accountability mechanism of EU agencies nor of a specific agency. The

negligible scrutiny performed on the related documents issued by the European Commission, the

European Parliament and the Council (Common Approach on decentralised agencies and

roadmap) shows that national Parliaments have not, at this stage, deemed necessary to actively

take part in the debate on establishing a more consistent and effective framework for the

functioning of decentralised agencies.

The second part presents Parliaments/Chambers' evaluation of agencies in terms of their

effectiveness as tools to implement European policies, provides insights on cooperation between

EU Parliaments/Chambers and EU agencies and gathers Parliaments' ideas on their contribution to

the current reflection on enhancing the accountability of EU agencies.

Almost a third of the responding Parliaments/Chambers highlighted the important role of the EU

agencies in implementing effectively and timely European policies in various fields thus helping all

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

the institutions to concentrate on core policy-making tasks. Over a quarter of the respondents

expressed criticism mainly in relation to the lack of transparency, cost-effectiveness, good

governance and accountability of EU agencies, but also in relation to their proliferation and

duplication of their activities. The majority of respondents replied that there was no official

position on the appropriateness of the legal bases used for the establishment of European

agencies, taking into account the nature and the scope of powers conferred on them.

Over half of the respondents informed that there was no official position on the need to improve

the structure and the governance of agencies, while more than a quarter suggested increasing the

accountability and control of EU agencies, amongst others by ensuring budgetary discipline and

sound financial management, simplifying the structure and governance of agencies, defining the

criteria for the choice of the seat and considering the option of merging agencies. Overall,

respondents indicated that the effectiveness and adequacy of the existing accountability

mechanisms by means of which EU institutions monitor the agencies should be increased and

called for the enhancement of parliamentary control over the activities of the agencies. Around

half of the respondents believed national Parliaments could contribute to the on-going reflection

on enhancing the accountability of EU agencies, mentioning, among others, sharing best practices,

using the outcome of their reflection to set up effective mechanisms for agencies' supervision and

ensuring strong parliamentary scrutiny of EU agencies by national Parliaments together with the

European Parliament.

The overwhelming majority of respondents replied that there were no specific legal provisions,

practices or administrative arrangements concerning relations between their respective

Parliament/Chamber and EU agencies. Two thirds of the respondents provided figures or

information on formal and informal relations with EU agencies since 2010; just over half of the

responding Parliaments/Chambers made use of information or expertise provided by EU agencies

in the framework of their activities, both at political and administrative level. In the view of most

respondents, there was scope for cooperation between national Parliaments and EU agencies to

be enhanced; a set of practical recommendations was proposed in this respect.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

CHAPTER 1: EUROPE 2020

The EU strategy for growth and employment Europe 2020 will undergo a mid-term review in 2015

in order to assess if it is delivering at European and domestic level, and if the aftermath of the

economic and financial crisis requires a review of the goals set in 2010. An initial assessment of the

implementation progress has been provided by the European Commission in the communication

"Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth"

; the

Commission should submit its proposals in early 2015, after assessing the outcome of a public

consultation.

The first Chapter of the Bi-annual Report outlines EU Parliaments' proposals in view of the mid-

term review of Europe 2020 taking into account, in particular, the positions expressed within the

framework of the scrutiny of the abovementioned communication as well as the outcome of the

consideration of countries' NRPs.

This Chapter is divided into three parts.

The first part presents the views of EU Parliaments on the implementation progress of the Europe

2020 goals at national and European level, as well as their positions on other relevant issues such

as, among others, funding and coordination with other EU policies.

The second part highlights the proposals put forward by EU Parliaments as regards the review of

the strategy in 2015, with reference to the Communication COM(2014)130, and also as regards

the actions the EU may implement in order to boost growth and employment.

The third part assesses whether the tools and the procedures to implement the Europe 2020

strategy are appropriate, with particular reference to the European Semester for economic policy

coordination.

Part A - Implementation progress of Europe 2020 strategy

Scrutiny of the Europe 2020 strategy and progress on the Europe 2020 specific goals

Almost half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (17 out of 38) expressed their views on the

implementation progress of Europe 2020 by scrutinising the Communication "Taking stock of the

Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth". Three Parliaments informed

that the Communication was currently under scrutiny.

Twenty-three out of 30 responding Parliaments/Chambers and the responding Committees of the

European Parliament considered the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy under a specific

procedure or in the framework of other procedures. Many of them evaluated its progress in

parliamentary debates on the documents of the European Semester (Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

French

Assemblée nationale,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

Latvian

Saeima,

German

Bundesrat,

German

Bundestag,

Luxembourg

COM(2014)130

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Chambre des Députés,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

), on the implementation of the NRP (Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Romanian

Senat)

or on the Draft Budgetary Plan (DBP) (Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés).

Three Parliaments considered the issue in debates and/or in resolutions

adopted in view of meetings of the European Council (Italian

Camera dei deputati,

Spanish

Cortes

Generales)

or of the Council of Ministers of the EU (Croatian

Hrvatski sabor).

Some Parliaments

considered the strategy's implementation through scrutinising Government's reports (Slovak

Národná rada,

Finnish

Eduskunta),

holding regular hearings with Government representatives

(French

Assemblée nationale)

or addressing written parliamentary initiatives to the Government

(Spanish

Cortes Generales).

Several Parliaments focused on some aspects of the strategy, through

specific reports (UK

House of Lords,

French

Assemblée nationale),

debates (Croatian

Hrvatski

sabor)

or through scrutinising relevant EU documents (Italian

Camera dei deputati,

French

Sénat,

Dutch

Eerste Kamer).

The responding Committees of the European Parliament considered the

implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy under other procedures, in the framework of the

budget (BUDG, ITRE) and the European Semester procedure (BUDG, ECON, ENVI, IMCO

Committees), through structural dialogue with Commissioners, hearings and informal meetings

with the European Commission (ITRE, ENVI), through own-initiative reports and relevant opinions

focusing on specific targets of the strategy (ENVI, CULT, PECH, IMCO) and through scrutinising

implementing measures (including delegated and implementing acts) (ITRE). The European

Parliament's EMPL Committee considered the issue through drafting oral questions to the

Commission and Council, accompanied by a motion for a resolution, to be adopted in November

and the CONT Committee focused on the specific implementation actions achieved by the

Commission, during previous discharge procedures. The CONT Committee insisted also that the

evaluation report on the financial performance of the Union foreseen by Article 318 TFEU should

mainly focus on EU internal policies for the achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Concerning the different goals set in the strategy, none of the responding Parliaments/Chambers

considered the implementation progress on employment targets satisfactory, with the exception

of the Lithuanian

Seimas,

which noted that numerous targeted measures aimed at reducing

unemployment, especially youth unemployment, had been implemented at the EU and national

levels and pointed out that the effects of this process would be felt only after a certain time. Two

respondents referred to the national level, mentioning significant progress in their respective

employment situation (Polish

Sejm

and Hungarian

Országgyűlés).

The latter noted, nevertheless,

that a performance gap was still tangible between the current data and the 2020 targets.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

identified a more efficient growth and employment policy as the most

urgent priority at EU level, noting the need to improve competitiveness increasing productivity

and innovation and support Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). The Czech

Senát

pointed out

the necessity of a new growth model based on innovation, support of science and research,

efficient use of limited resources and social inclusion, but, at the same time, warned against the

negative consequences of possible profound mid-term changes of the goals of the Europe 2020

strategy on the implementation of long-term national measures under the European Semester.

The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

clarified that, when Ireland was in a macro-economic adjustment programme

(2009- 2013), it was not required formally to participate in the European Semester process, nonetheless, it did

prepare a NRP based on the targets set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. The progress made in achieving the targets

was reviewed annually by the Irish Houses of the

Oireachtas.

The position expressed in this Chapter by the European Parliament's EMPL Committee has to be confirmed after the

adoption of the oral questions and the motion for resolutions in November 2014.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The UK

House of Lords

noted that there was little reference to supply-side reforms in the

Commission’s Communication and underlined the need to share best practice in this area. The

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

found particularly worrying the rise of long-term unemployment, as this

could indicate the increase of structural unemployment; it emphasised the need for social

prevention policies and investment in human capital and for return to employment of those

outside the labour market. The Italian

Senate

deemed necessary a more effective action, through

social inclusion policies and labour market flexibility measures and a systemic approach aimed at

adapting economic progress to the requirements of a new European and international economic

and demographic scenario. The European Parliament's EMPL Committee called on the European

Council and the Member States to ensure that national and regional parliaments, social partners,

public authorities and civil society were closely involved in the implementation and monitoring of

policy guidance under the Europe 2020 strategy and its economic governance process, in order to

ensure ownership.

Some Parliaments focused on the discrepancies among Member States and regions, pointing out

the differences in quantitative indicator dynamics between Member States, and the resulting

discrepancies in the regions' performance (Latvian

Saeima).

The inconsistencies due to the limited

geographic mobility across the EU were also underlined (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon).

Several Parliaments focused on youth employment, putting forward specific proposals concerning

the youth guarantee, the use of the European Social Fund and the apprenticeships in the context

of the Erasmus+ programme (French

Sénat)

and welcoming the EU recommendations on

traineeships and apprenticeships (UK

House of Lords).

The UK

House of Lords

also noted that it was

important for local authorities to be given sufficient control over EU funds and expressed its

disappointment that the UK Government had not implemented a Youth Guarantee Scheme.

With regard to research and development (R&D) targets, three Parliaments/Chambers explicitly

considered their implementation insufficient (Italian

Camera dei deputati,

Italian

Senato della

Repubblica,

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor,

and the

Green Party

of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat).

The French

Assemblée nationale

and

Sénat

pointed out the modest level of resources

assigned to R&D in the MFF. The governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

noted that increased flexibility would be needed to fully exploit the

potential contribution of R&D to renewed growth. The Finnish

Eduskunta

and the UK

House of

Lords

emphasised the need to simplify the funding application process. The UK

House of Lords

also

urged greater support for companies and organisations of which the research was on the point of

being commercialised, calling for research and development to be more coordinated in order to

tackle energy and climate change challenges head on. At national level, the Lithuanian

Seimas

noted the insufficiency of investment into R&D in Lithuania, urging the Government to facilitate

private investment.

Most responding Parliaments/Chambers and the ENVI Committee considered satisfactory the

overall implementation of the climate change and energy goals. A different position was expressed

by the Latvian

Saeima

which pointed out that some Member States had nearly reached their

ceiling of economically justifiable measures and that it would seem reasonable to try to align

future EU energy efficiency targets with each Member State's actual potential. At national level,

two Parliaments/Chambers pointed out the positive implementation of the goals concerning

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

climate change and energy in their respective countries (Lithuanian

Seimas,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República).

The Czech

Senát

considered the goals of the current period decisive in drawing up national

policies, but did not support prospective increase in the quantitative environmental targets of the

strategy for 2020. For the European Parliament's ITRE Committee, the goals regarding reduction of

greenhouse emissions, renewable energy and energy saving and reduction of energy dependence

should be extended after 2020 and made more ambitious.

The Italian

Camera dei deputati

and the European Parliament's ENVI Committee underlined that

further efforts were needed in order to match the energy efficiency targets. The ENVI Committee

urged the European Commission and Member States to integrate the resource efficiency agenda

as comprehensively as possible into all other policies and to implement it at local, regional,

national, and EU level.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

noted that progress could be further facilitated by completing the internal

energy market, correcting the emission´s trading scheme and increasing R&D funding. The Slovak

Národná rada

considered that large investments in renewable sources and energy efficiency may

have negative impact on energy prices and EU economic competitiveness, stressing the need to

define appropriate incentives at national and EU level in order to meet the objectives. The UK

House of Lords,

on one hand, highlighted the need to deepen cuts in greenhouse gas emissions

and to develop carbon capture and storage so that the EU meets its medium and long-term

reduction targets; on the other hand, it supported structural reform of the Emissions Trading

System and identified the need for increased investment to make renewable energy technologies

viable. The Green party of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

noted that combating climate

change and exiting from nuclear and fossil-fuel energy were not given the utmost priority. The

French

Sénat

considered it was necessary to bring closer German and French strategies on energy

transition.

Eight Parliaments/Chambers and the European Parliament's CULT Committee expressed their

position on the implementation of goals relating to education. The European Parliament's CULT

Committee assessed the target on education and the flagship initiative "Youth on the move" as

very positive. Some other Parliaments/Chambers explicitly considered the progress at EU level

positive, but underlined that further efforts were required at national level (Italian

Camera dei

deputati,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Latvian

Saeima

and the European Parliament's CULT

Committee). Three Parliaments/Chambers emphasised the need to pay more attention to

indicators of quality rather than to quantitative indicators (Lithuanian

Seimas,

Czech

Senát,

governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat).

The

Polish

Sejm

emphasised that Poland had reached recommended values of 2 indicators of the

educational goals set in Europe 2020 strategy on increasing the education level. The French

Sénat

welcomed the increase of the resources assigned to the Erasmus+ programme and called for

measures aimed at setting up the appropriate framework for developing massive open online

courses in Europe, while respecting national competencies on education. The Slovenian

Državni

svet

and the Latvian

Saeima

urged for greater attention, respectively, on vocational education and

training and on linking targets with remuneration and employment levels.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

All Parliaments commenting on goals relating to poverty and social exclusion underlined the need

for more coordinated efforts and additional measures to achieve the EU and national targets, such

as an enhanced coordination of the relevant national policies, a more flexible application of the

fiscal rules and adequate financing at EU and national level (Italian

Camera dei deputati),

developing motivating social benefit policies and supporting low income groups (Latvian

Saeima).

The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

questioned the ability of the "main" index that had been selected for

the target monitoring and its ability to capture the growing divergences among Member States,

and pointed out the fact that national targets were often associated with national agendas rather

than with the European goal.

Implementation of Europe 2020 at EU, national and local level

Less than half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (5 out of 14) considered the Europe 2020

Strategy effectively implemented at EU, national and local level

. Two responding Committees of

the European Parliament (ITRE and ENVI) considered it partially implemented, particularly

underlining the rather short timeframe for evaluating its effectiveness (ITRE). The European

Parliament's BUDG Committee deemed the implementation not entirely satisfactory, noting that

the utmost had not been drawn from the possibilities offered by the EU Budget.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

noted that, based on official reporting, progress had been below

expectations. The Italian

Camera dei deputati

pointed out that the Europe 2020 strategy had not

been implemented effectively and coherently at EU, national and local level due to the absence of

growth-oriented policies based on clearly defined anti-cyclical principles, the weakness of

governance procedures within the framework of the European Semester, the fiscal consolidation

and the lack of significant targeted resources. The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

noted that the strategy

goals allowed monitoring progress and undertaking the transparent and fair comparison of

policies among Member States. However, progress, both at European and national level, was

disappointing. The European Parliament's CONT Committee, on one hand, stressed that the

Commission services should better coordinate its actions, clearly prioritise, orient and adjust its

programmes in function of the objectives of the strategy and evaluate and report on its main

achievements; on the other hand, it pointed out that a clear weakness of the Lisbon Strategy was

the use of the open method of coordination, which had only been partly remedied by the Europe

2020 strategy.

Three Parliaments/Chambers emphasised the different level of implementation in different

Member States (Estonian

Riigikogu,

Latvian

Saeima)

and also the growing gap between regions

inside Member States or between regions of different Member States (Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor).

Some Parliaments/Chambers noted that, at national and local level, the progress in

the EU 2020 strategy implementation varied in different sectors (Lithuanian

Seimas,

governing

majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) in the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat).

The governing

majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) in the Austrian

Nationalrat and Bundesrat

added that, at EU

level, coordination mechanisms with regard to the goals were too weak. The Polish

Sejm

noted

that, although the experience in meeting targets and implementing flagship initiatives varied,

setting and adopting them helped to focus on long-term issues of key importance for the future of

the EU society and economy.

Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Czech

Senát

and

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Belgian

Chambre des

représentants

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The impact of the economic and financial crisis

Several Parliaments/Chambers underlined the impact of the crisis on the achievement of the EU

2020 goals, especially in the field of employment, social exclusion and poverty (Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) in the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

Italian

Camera dei deputati)

and, at national level, as a result of austerity measures

(Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon).

The Romanian

Senat

pointed out that the consequences of fiscal

consolidation had been worse than those of the crisis. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

noted

that an analysis and an assessment of the effectiveness of the economic policies of austerity

adopted by Member States and the EU should be conducted. The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

pointed

out that Europe 2020 should also be considered in relation to the short-term effects of policies.

Particularly with regard to the social situation, levels of unemployment, poverty and social

exclusion should be significantly reduced sooner than 2020.

Most responding Parliaments (18 out of 23, and the European Parliament's BUDG, ECON and ITRE

Committees) deemed that the economic crisis together with fiscal consolidation resulted in

reduced investment towards achieving the Europe 2020 targets.

Several Parliaments noted that Europe 2020 goals could not be achieved without a significant shift

in the overall EU approach from austerity to growth oriented policies and measures (Italian

Camera dei deputati,

Czech

Senát,

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

and

Senat).

The Italian

Senato

della Repubblica

called for promoting a European New Deal which, notwithstanding its compliance

with current fiscal constraints, should address the current recession. The Portuguese

Assembleia

da República

pointed out that the Europe 2020 strategy should be financed within the MFF, as EU

funds were decisive for the recovery and the structural transformation of the economy, in

accordance with the requirements of fiscal consolidation. The French

Sénat

recalled its proposal to

temporarily exclude youth employment expenses co-financed by Member States from the national

fiscal balance. The European Parliament's ECON Committee underlined that the European

Parliament urged the European Commission to introduce Europe 2020 national objectives into the

recommendations issued to Member States under Economic Adjustment Programmes and to take

proper account of the constraints created by these adjustment programmes in the delivery of such

objectives

Some Parliaments noted that the R&D, Employment and social targets (Slovenian

Državni svet,

Polish

Sejm,

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon)

were the most affected by the crisis. The Slovak

Národná rada

pointed out that the targets would have to be lowered and the "flagship initiatives" updated in the

areas of growth, employment and social inclusion. On the contrary, two Parliaments noted that

the crisis had helped Member States to move closer to reaching climate change and energy

targets, given lower production and lower energy demand (Italian

Camera dei deputati,

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon).

This fact should not undermine the urgency for structural and not cyclical

emissions' reduction (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon).

On energy targets, the Estonian

Riigikogu

noted,

however, that the economic crisis had affected the State's possibilities to invest in energy

efficiency. The European Parliament's ITRE Committee noted that the reduction of budgetary

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination:

implementation of 2013 priorities - P7_TA(2013)0447; European Parliament resolution of 25 February 2014 on the

European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 201 - P7_TA(2014)0128

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

appropriations in the MFF and the permanent budget cuts in annual budgets had significantly

reduced investments towards achieving the Europe 2020 targets; it specifically mentioned the

example of the telecommunications in the CEF.

The Latvian

Saeima

pointed out that the economic crisis affected the Latvian economy from the

outset and, as a result, national EU 2020 targets set during the height of economic crisis at the

beginning of 2010. However, since then steady economic growth had in part supported moving

closer towards achieving the EU 2020 goals.

Contribution of the five headline targets, of the flagship initiatives and of related EU-level levers

to boost growth and tackle unemployment

A wide majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers noted that the five headline targets set in

Europe 2020 and the flagship initiatives contributed positively to boost growth and tackle

unemployment (18 out of 22, the European Parliament's ENVI and ITRE Committees and the

Governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) in the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat;

the

Green Party considered positive the five headline targets and negligible the flagships initiatives).

Many Parliaments (16 out of 21 respondents, and the governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP

(EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

and the European Parliament's BUDG, ENVI and

ITRE Committees) considered the related EU-level levers identified in the European Commission's

Communication "European single market, EU budget, EU external agenda" (COM(2014)130 )

positive to that objective as well.

The European Parliament's CONT Committee envisaged a modulation of the objectives and

indicators by country. The German

Bundesrat

was very critical in respect of the quantitative

national objectives for the core objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy (particularly in the field of

education), rejecting such objectives as they did not comply with the division of competences

stipulated in EU Treaties. However, the German

Bundesrat

had always supported the substantive

goals of the Europe 2020 strategy.

The French

Sénat

clarified that its positive answer on the targets and initiatives set in Europe 2020

strategy had to be coupled with previous positions on the insufficient budget resources to match

EU's ambition, the challenge of reciprocity in trade relations at global level and the way in which

the European Commission implemented the competition law and State aid rules.

With regard to the flagships initiatives, the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

noted that some flagship

initiatives, such as Horizon 2020, had positively contributed to employment prospects in particular

SMEs. The European Parliament's CONT Committee considered positive the articulation of the

Europe 2020 in 7 flagships initiatives, as it pushed the European Commission to define its

contribution in function of global policy objectives and not only on the basis of each separate

budget line. Among the related EU-level levers, the German

Bundestag

emphasised the role of the

European single market. The European Parliament's IMCO Committee expressed the need to

recognise the indispensable role of the single market as a driver for growth and jobs and to

strengthen single market governance by establishing, as a specific pillar of the European Semester,

an annual Single market governance cycle; it also pointed out the existing barriers and restrictions

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

in the services sector and the lack of investment at national and EU level in the area of energy,

transport and the digital single market.

PART B - Review of Europe 2020 strategy

Purpose and scope of the review

The large majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (27 out of 33) had neither adopted an

official position yet on the upcoming Europe 2020 Strategy review in 2015, nor issued any

proposals in this regard. Six Parliaments/Chambers (Finnish

Eduskunta,

Italian

Camera dei

deputati,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Latvian

Saeima,

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Romanian

Senat,

and

the European Parliament's ENVI Committee) had taken a position on the review under different

procedures. Valuable comments were also provided from the Parliaments/Chambers which had

not yet formally adopted any position.

Most Parliaments/Chambers commenting on this question agreed on the need for a thorough

mid-term evaluation.

Both Chambers of the Italian Parliament suggested a forward-looking approach, taking into

account the new socio-economic realities that had arisen from the crisis, and the outlook for

reviving growth and employment in European countries through infrastructural long-term

investment policies.

Several Parliaments/Chambers, such as the Latvian

Saeima

and the Czech

Senát,

considered that

the main purpose of the review of Europe 2020 strategy should be to find a more effective

governance framework for the strategy, building on the European Semester. This would call for

stepped up involvement of national Parliaments in the European Semester, going beyond

individual national level debates.

The French

Assemblée Nationale

called for a better collective evaluation by national Parliaments,

more frequent exchange of best practices, for example by means of the debate during the Inter-

Parliamentary Conference under Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and

Governance of the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG).

The European Parliament's ECON Committee informed about its intention to prepare a report on

"The review of the economic governance framework: stocktaking and challenges" where the issue

of the review of the Europe 2020 strategy might be addressed, whereas the IMCO Committee

might address it in its own initiative report on Single Market governance within the European

Semester 2015.

When asked what areas and/or instruments should be emphasised or activated in order to ensure

proper alignment between objectives and instruments needed to achieve them,

Parliaments/Chambers pointed out the following:



the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

replied that synergy and complementarity between

Horizon 2020 and other EU programmes, including cohesion policy and structural funds,

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



were essential and noted that the Europe 2020 strategy should be more incisive and tightly

focused in the 2014-2020 Structural Funds cycle;

the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

suggested a closer linkage between Europe 2020 and

cohesion policy;

the European Parliament's EMPL committee suggested professional training and social

cohesion measures;

the Lithuanian

Seimas

indicated the scoreboard of the implementation of the CSRs by EU

Member States as a useful tool;

the Latvian

Saeima

pointed out that a uniform approach to setting individual targets for

Member States should be considered;

the European Parliament's ENVI Committee called on the European Commission to put

forward a concrete proposal for measurable, clear and verifiable sectoral targets, including

an overall target, in order to implement the vision and milestones of the Roadmap to a

Resource Efficient Europe, and on Member States to include them in their own resource

efficiency strategies.

The Latvian

Saeima

pointed out that a uniform approach to setting individual targets for Member

States should be considered.

The European Parliament's EMPL Committee, the Latvian

Saeima

and the Lithuanian

Seimas

agreed that employment and social cohesion targets should be updated, along with the relevant

flagship initiatives. The Lithuanian

Seimas

suggested that the initiative for substantial reduction of

poverty and social exclusion should be revised in order to create a consistent and integrated social

policy at the EU level, since, in its view, employment, and especially youth employment and social

cohesion remain issues of utmost importance at national and EU levels. The Romanian

Senat

advised taking into account the social effects caused by Member States' budget consolidation

policies and coming up with adequate indicators to ensure the efficiency of recommendations

when implemented.

The Italian

Camera dei deputati

suggested that employment should be considered as an

overarching priority to be pursued not only through labour market policies, but also through

employment-friendly policies, aimed at generating employment opportunities. It underlined the

need for updating social indicators and introducing new and targeted means to reach them, and

for launching a new flagship initiative to further develop and integrate EU non-bank finance,

including long-term institutional investment and direct capital markets, with a special focus on

SMEs. It also suggested furthering the establishment of a true Single Market through a specific set

of targets and initiatives and including in the Europe 2020 the 20% target of industry’s share in

Europe’s GDP set out by the European Commission.

Funding of Europe 2020

When asked if there was a need to enhance the contribution of the EU Budget to the

implementation of Europe 2020, the Italian

Camera dei deputati

and the European Parliament's

BUDG Committee answered in the affirmative, asking for a significant increase within the

framework of the mid-term review of the MFF 2014-2020. The Latvian

Saeima

considered that

such enhancement would be useful from the perspective of a broader achievement of targets,

especially for these countries that were hit hard by the economic crisis and therefore were unable

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

to fully contribute to growth-facilitating measures. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

would

welcome the start of new national and European investment programmes, focusing on measures

supporting growth of businesses, on employment and on new welfare policies. The Lithuanian

Seimas

noted that the EU budget should be increased for implementing the common energy

policy, a key factor to EU security. Furthermore, promoting public funding for research and

development and encouraging private investment, including through favourable financing and tax

incentives, was something that the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

would consider as vital in

order to change the current situation.

PART C – Governance of Europe 2020

Role of the European Semester in the implementation of the revised strategy

When asked if the European Semester had so far provided an effective framework for policy

implementation, most of the respondent Parliaments/Chambers (20 out of 25) answered in the

affirmative, assessing it as "a useful and well-structured process" (Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas)

"with sufficient flexibility" (Estonian

Riigikogu).

The Belgian

Chambre des Représentants

pointed out that the European Semester forced EU

Member States to consider their respective NRPs and NSPs as a whole, and to integrate their

budgetary processes into a coherent structure and time schedule.

The European Semester as a structured process had become an integral part of debates at the

German

Bundestag,

with a general assessment that a balanced approach combining fiscal

discipline and economic coordination could contribute to fostering the EMU.

The UK

House of Commons

deemed that the principle that EU Member States could learn from

each other's experiences was the right approach towards promoting growth and structural reform

throughout the EU.

The Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

added, on a more critical note, that closer economic

coordination and integration at the European level must be accompanied by tighter democratic

controls both at national and European level.

The UK

House of Lords

noted that national Parliaments needed "more effective purchase" on the

European Semester, which was an essential element of their key role in scrutinising national

economic and financial policies.

The European Parliament was among those Parliaments/Chambers which considered that the

European Semester had not so far provided an effective framework for policy implementation

(BUDG, ECON and EMPL Committees). Not only the Member States' track record of implementing

the CSR was weak, but also the EU and euro area dimension was not sufficiently taken into

account, particularly with regard to spill over effects of policies to be implemented at national

level. The BUDG Committee said that the resources fell short of the ambitious objectives set and

lots of improvements were needed.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

A wide majority of the respondent Parliaments (19 out of 22 and the European Parliament's BUDG,

ECON and EMPL Committees) viewed the European Semester also as a means for further

improvement of the revised Europe 2020 strategy.

The French

Sénat

considered that the Europe 2020 strategy could be improved through the

European Semester by not overly focusing on the NSP, but rather on the NRP, seen as key to the

success of its implementation.

The Italian

Camera dei deputati,

considering that the European Semester did not provide an

effective framework for the Europe 2020 implementation up to now, suggested that the Europe

2020 goals, especially social indicators, should be emphasised and taken into account at all steps

in the Semester procedure. In this regard, full implementation of the European Commission

communication "Strengthening the Social Dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union" (COM

(2013) 690), proposing a scoreboard of five additional social indicators to be included in Europe

2020, would constitute an important step. Coherence and coordination between budgetary and

public finance objectives and growth-enhancing policies were required, especially in the CSRs. The

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

and the Slovak

Národná rada

indicated that the implementation of the

revised strategy could be improved by incorporating its targets into CSRs, thus making Europe

2020 targets more binding. It would also enhance public awareness and interest.

The European Parliament in its resolution

, considered that more can be done within the Semester

framework, not only for democratic accountability but also for effectiveness. The EMPL committee

specifically called on the European Council and the Commission to incorporate the monitoring and

evaluation of the Europe 2020 employment, social and education goals more effectively into the

European Semester process.

A more cautious approach was taken by the UK

House of Lords,

which issued a warning of the risk

of 'overloading' the European Semester by adding further elements to it.

Both the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

and

Senat

reminded that the strategy could be achieved

only if individual countries' efforts were properly coordinated between Member States, involving

all relevant actors. It was pointed out that EU institutions had collectively achieved a greater say in

national policy-making in this process.

The Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

the Polish

Sejm

and the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

found regretful the European Semester's narrow timetable that limited opportunities of national

Parliaments and the European Parliament for timely intervention. Furthermore, the French

Sénat

considered it would help if the European Parliamentary Week did not take place in January, at a

time when the Commission is conducting the AGS, but rather in late March or early April, after the

Council issues (March) guidelines for national policies and before Member States present (April)

their NRPs and NSPs.

Several Parliaments mentioned the involvement of national Parliaments at all stages as a key

precondition for the implementation of the strategy and, therefore, the achievement of its goals.

European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on the report of

the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup

"Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union", P7_TA(2012)0430

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The Czech

Senát

reminded that national Parliaments were the bodies that adopted and

implemented individual economic policy recommendations through the national legislative

process. Therefore, active involvement of national Parliaments in the European Semester, the first

phase of the EU's annual cycle of economic policy guidance and oversight, could contribute to the

strengthening of its democratic legitimacy and enhance effectiveness.

The Lithuanian

Seimas

proposed establishing a national Parliament/Government cooperation and

control structure, involving social partners, whereby national Parliaments could assume a key role

in exercising results-oriented parliamentary control. It proposed establishing deeper cooperation

between the European Parliament and national Parliaments, going beyond the mere exchange of

views during the Parliamentary Week. The Latvian

Saeima

suggested that the Member States

should hold more in-depth talks during the European Semester on strategy implementation,

leading to more uniform understanding and more active involvement of Member States in

addressing common issues.

The large majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (23 out of 26 and the European

Parliament's ECON and EMPL Committees) agreed with the statement that the European Semester

should be re-geared towards growth and employment; some of these stressed that this could be

attained only by preserving gains achieved in fiscal consolidation and promoting fiscal

sustainability. Three Parliaments disagreed, noting that fiscal stability should remain of paramount

importance (Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer).

The Finnish

Eduskunta

underlined the need for a very careful balance between stronger growth

and employment enhancing policies and fiscal stability. The Latvian

Saeima

noted that the long-

term strengthening of the economy was not only a matter of balancing budgets, but required a

sound strategic structural policy. Structural reforms and economic consolidation were generally

seen by the German

Bundestag

as important factors contributing to economic growth and

employment. Also, according to the latest European Parliament resolution

on the European

Semester, "Europe and the Member States need, beyond fiscal consolidation, structural reforms

leading to real, sustainable and socially balanced growth, sustainable employment and

strengthened competitiveness while more specific and urgent measures should be taken to tackle

the unacceptably high levels of unemployment, in particular youth unemployment".

Many Parliaments focused on policies, within the framework of the European Semester, which

enhanced growth and employment and on measures aimed at fighting poverty.

The Italian

Camera dei deputati

noted that Europe 2020 should be reviewed within the framework

of a more general EU strategy aiming at achieving higher growth rates in all European countries,

reducing the widening wealth disparities in the EU, and restoring competitiveness to European

economies, especially with reference to productivity. Accordingly, three steps to this end were

required; firstly, implementation of the plan, announced by the President of the European

Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, that sought to deploy up to € 300 billion's worth of public funds

over the next three years; secondly, full use of the flexibility laid down in the current rules of the

SGP in order to promote investment at national level; and thirdly, specific initiatives aimed at

capitalising on the specific qualities of the European system, such as its social market economy, by

European Parliament resolution of 25 February 2014 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination:

Annual Growth Survey 2014 P7_TA(2014)0128

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

mainstreaming the social dimension into all EU policies. The French

Sénat

endorsed the institution

of a fiscal capacity of the Eurozone in order to finance growth and employment measures.

The social dimension was stressed by several Parliaments/Chambers. Both the German

Bundesrat

and the Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

welcomed the Commission’s policy on strengthening the

social aspects of the EMU. Furthermore, the Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

believed that more

specific proposals were needed to ensure that economic governance took into account the social

dimension. The European Parliament, in its resolution

, called "on the Commission to bring

forward, under the European Semester, a proposal to adopt a convergence code based on the

Europe 2020 strategy and establishing a strong social pillar" (ECON Committee).

The UK

House of Lords

supported the introduction of social and employment indicators, urging for

caution in using rigid indicators of poverty as they could exclude certain groups. The European

Parliament's EMPL Committee noted that, in the newly established scoreboard, those indicators

had not been made binding, unlike the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) scoreboard

and asked the Commission and the Member States to assess this situation in the light of the

growing social and employment imbalances in the EU. Moreover, the EMPL Committee called for

the scoreboard to include additional indicators, in particular child poverty levels, access to

healthcare, homelessness, and a decent work index. In its view, the indicators should, after

consultation with the Parliament, be reviewed on a regular basis. The French

Sénat

suggested

reinforcement of the social dimension through a European unemployment insurance. The

Portuguese

Assembleia da República

noted that the Budget Pact should be interpreted broadly to

ensure that, barring non-compliance, Member States can be given sufficient margin to re-launch

their economies.

The forthcoming review of governance structures as the set of means towards strengthening

Europe 2020 strategy effectiveness

When asked if the forthcoming review of governance structures related to the so-called "Six Pack"

and "Two Pack" could serve to strengthen the effectiveness of the Europe 2020 strategy, 19 out of

22 Parliaments/Chambers and the European Parliament's EMPL Committee answered positively.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

viewed European governance structures merely as a useful reporting

template, without much impact on the actual performance of Member States.

The views of Parliaments/Chambers providing positive assessment varied. The Irish

Houses of

Oireachtas,

the Austrian

Nationalrat and Bundesrat

and the Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

argued

the assessment depended on the outcome of the review, whereas others mentioned having high

expectations regarding the implementation of this new framework.

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

noted that the rules introduced alongside the

aforementioned packages worked towards preventing the emergence of fiscal imbalances in some

Member States. It however called for a more flexible interpretation of some of the forecast items,

so that measures could, if needed, be introduced to reach the Strategy 2020 goals without

jeopardising public accounts' long-term balance. A similar position was expressed by the Italian

European Parliament resolution of 12 December 2013 on constitutional problems of a multitier governance in the

European Union, P7_TA(2013)0598)

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Camera dei deputati

which considered the review as an opportunity to ensure that SGP and the

Macro-Economic surveillance took into account the need to promote growth, employment and

social goals. To this end, more flexibility should be introduced in the application of the rules

concerning public debt.

A different view was expressed by the Latvian

Saeima

which, whilst ready to begin constructive

talks towards improving the economic governance framework of the Union, strongly advised

against any amendments that could weaken the SGP. In its view, any watering down of existing

rules would weigh down on the credibility of the Pact, as well as undermine the confidence in the

financial markets. Also, the Romanian

Senat

saw implementing the "Six-Pack" and "Two-Pack" as

potentially leading to sound fiscal policies and believed that the effectiveness of Europe 2020

strategy relied on such instruments.

The European Parliament's EMPL committee believed that the revenue collected from fines

resulting from the collection of data for the MIP procedure should be allocated to the financing of

the Member States' NRPs and their consequences as part of the European Semester cycle, with

the aim of reducing economic, employment and social divergences.

The Slovak

Národná rada

believed that changes to the system of governance of EU policies were

needed, so that pressure was put on Member States to align their national policies with the

Europe 2020 goals.

Some respondents focused on the role of national Parliaments in the new governance framework.

The Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

saw the new requirement for national governments to report

on how national Parliaments had been involved in the development of NRPs and NSPs, as a

positive step forward. The Polish

Sejm

and the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

took a similar view,

adding that increased participation of national Parliaments in the whole process granted it greater

democratic legitimacy and responsibility.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

CHAPTER 2: FUTURE OF THE EU - EU INSTITUTIONS AND PARLIAMENTS

The second Chapter of the Bi-annual Report, building upon previous Bi-annual Reports,

parliamentary debates and contributions of several Parliaments/Chambers, examines the impact of

the European integration process' developments on EU Parliaments five years after the entry into

force of the Lisbon Treaty, in an effort to continue the debate during future Presidencies.

The first part of this Chapter aims at taking stock of the overall impact of new prerogatives

conferred to national Parliaments by the Lisbon Treaty in relation to their role in the EU. Special

focus is placed on the potential of powers not yet exercised by national Parliaments.

The second part presents how EU Parliaments have reacted, both in the context of scrutiny of their

own government and of the political dialogue, to significant innovations introduced by the Lisbon

Treaty, as well as to new trends in the EU policy and decision-making process.

The third part, building on the findings of the 21st Bi-annual Report and following the Conclusions

of the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments in Vilnius (6-8 April 2014) where Speakers

proposed that COSAC should explore possibilities for a more efficient use of subsidiarity checks,

collects proposals by national Parliaments and the European Parliament on a further, possibly

federal, development of the European integration process by ensuring more effective participation

of EU Parliaments in the EU decision-making, taking into account also the operational role of

COSAC.

PART A – Implementation of new powers conferred to national Parliaments by the Lisbon Treaty

Application of Treaty provisions relating to national Parliaments

The majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers (17 out of 27) believed that the provisions of

the Treaties conferring powers on national Parliaments had been applied in the best possible way.

When asked which powers conferred on national Parliaments by Article 12 TEU had had the most

positive impact on the good functioning of the Union, the vast majority of responding

Parliaments/Chambers favoured the information provided by the EU institutions (26 out of 28),

the participation in interparliamentary cooperation (26 out of 28), and the subsidiarity checks (24

out of 27). Only a few respondents referred to the cooperation in the framework of the area of

freedom, security and justice (12 out of 28), the participation in the Treaty revision procedures (11

out of 28) and the notification of applications for accession to the Union (10 out of 28) as effective

powers.

Concerning the information provided by EU Institutions, the Italian

Camera dei deputati

and the

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

stressed that this flow of information helped national

Parliaments be better involved at a very early stage of the EU decision-making process. According

to the Romanian

Deputaţilor,

national Parliaments were put on an equal footing with their

Governments in terms of access to documents.

With regard to participation in interparliamentary cooperation, the Lithuanian

Seimas,

the UK

House of Lords

and the Czech

Senát

pointed out that interparliamentary cooperation helped

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

politicians to scrutinise effectively the most relevant EU dossiers. It enhanced national

Parliaments' capacity to hold national Governments to account (UK

House of Lords)

and was an

important tool for the qualitative and in-depth involvement of national Parliaments in the EU

decision-making process (Portuguese

Assembleia da República).

While welcoming the idea of further developing interparliamentary cooperation, the European

Parliament's AFCO Committee stated that it did not replace normal parliamentary scrutiny

exercised by the European Parliament in accordance with the competences conferred on it by the

Treaties and by national Parliaments over their governments’ EU-related activities.

Regarding subsidiarity checks, the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

and the Portuguese

Assembleia da

República

stressed that it should not be a priority; what really mattered was the influence on the

content of the EU policies and decisions. The Czech

Senát,

the UK

House of Lords,

the German

Bundestag,

the Estonian

Riigikogu,

the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

and the

Italian Senato della

Repubblica

also stressed the importance of political dialogue. The Portuguese

Assembleia da

República

stated that it would be useful to receive the European Commission's feedback on the

assessment of the real impact of the "Barroso initiative".

Regarding the subsidiarity check procedure, Parliaments/Chambers replying made the following

remarks:



the procedure was not effective and needed improvements (Finnish

Eduskunta);

the subsidiarity control mechanism had been insufficiently used by other Parliaments

(Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the Swedish

Riksdag);

subsidiarity checks enabled national Parliaments to adopt their positions on EU proposals

independently, before national Governments even started their analysis (Romanian

Deputaţilor);

reasoned opinions from national Parliaments often raised pertinent questions about

important aspects, such as the number and scope of delegated acts in legislative proposals,

or the lack of a substantial justification of the conformity of proposals with the principle of

subsidiarity (European Parliament's JURI Committee);

the European Commission did not consistently comply with the obligation imposed by

article 5 of Protocol no. 2 for draft legislative acts to contain "a detailed statement making

it possible to appraise compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality"

(UK

House of Commons

and UK

House of Lords).

The UK

House of Commons

asked the

European Commission to include such a statement in its explanatory memorandum, which

formed part of the draft legislative act and was translated into all official languages of the

EU, and not in the annexed impact assessment;

in general, the European Commission's responses to reasoned opinions and opinions were

not deemed satisfactory, in particular because of their brevity, generality and delay in their

receipt

. National Parliaments and the European Commission should work together to

determine appropriate guidelines for the European Commission to respond to reasoned

opinions (UK

House of Lords);



Letter sent to the European Commission on 26th June 2014

House of Commons

and

House of Lords,

French

Sénat,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Irish

Houses of the

Oireachtas,

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

Czech

Senát,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Luxembourg

Chambre

des Députés

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the European Commission did not take into due account the "yellow card" on the Proposal

for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office

(EPPO) (Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

Czech

Senát

and

Poslanecká sněmovna).

The European Commission should make an undertaking - when a

"yellow card" has been issued it would either drop or substantially amend the proposal in

question (UK

House of Lords);

national Parliaments should engage in a debate on changes to increase the effectiveness of

the "yellow card" procedure, without Treaty change and with a view to codifying them at a

later stage, such as allowing a longer deadline for national Parliaments to issue reasoned

opinions (UK

House of Lords);

the threshold for triggering a "yellow card" should be lowered, even slightly (Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat);

With regard to some of these remarks, the UK

House of Commons

acknowledged, nevertheless,

that the European Commission had already stated that it had reviewed its internal procedures to

shorten the time taken to reply; in its replies it endeavoured to cover the major points raised by

national Parliaments and invited national Parliaments, which were not satisfied with a reply, to ask

for further explanations; it agreed that the explanatory memorandum was the appropriate place

for the statement and reviewed its working methods accordingly.

The UK

House of Commons

added that, in its report

on the reform of the scrutiny system, the

Scrutiny Committee proposed changes which would give the UK Parliament additional powers.

Concerning cooperation in the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, some

national Parliaments replied that it was crucial and should be more effective (Greek

Vouli ton

Ellinon,

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer).

The

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

stated that this "new field where European Parliament and national

Parliaments gain more decision power fits the quest for legitimacy and for bringing the Union

closer to its citizens".

Regarding participation in the Treaty revision procedures, the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

replied that it allowed national Parliaments to reflect on constitutional aspects of the EU.

However, the Finnish

Eduskunta

commented that all these tools were necessary, but not

remarkable and that what really mattered was national Parliaments' real influence on European

policies and, in this regard, the Treaty of Lisbon had not changed much, while the Polish

Sejm

observed that national Parliaments had limited influence on the functioning of the EU as

demonstrated with regard to the "yellow card" on the EPPO proposal.

The European Parliament's AFCO Committee stated that, on the basis of five years' experience,

"the instruments" or "tools" developed for implementing Protocols 1 and 2 of the Lisbon Treaties

could be evaluated and improvements could be introduced thus avoiding amending the Treaties; it

COM(2013) 534

"Reforming the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons", European Scrutiny Committee, UK House of

Commons, Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2013-14:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/109/109.pdf

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

further commented that national Parliaments could only be capable of influencing decisions of

their respective Governments if they had enough information available, commending the role

played by the tool IPEX.

Potential of new powers not yet exercised

Parliaments/Chambers were asked which powers among those not yet exercised had the greatest

potential to enhance national Parliaments' participation in the EU decision-making process.

Nine Parliaments/Chambers replied actions before the CJEU on grounds of infringement of the

principle of subsidiarity; seven respondents answered veto on bridge clauses.

With regard to actions before the CJEU, the

Estonian Riigikogu,

the Portuguese

Assembleia da

República

and the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

and the European Parliament's JURI Committee

added that this would allow the CJEU to clarify the scope and content of the principle of

subsidiarity and would impact on the role of national Parliaments in the Union's decision-making

process and on how the European Commission responded to national Parliaments (Estonian

Riigikogu,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República).

The Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

the Finnish

Eduskunta,

the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

and

the UK

House of Lords

underlined that both these measures were exceptional and therefore

unlikely to become regular policy instruments, while the Italian

Camera dei deputati

questioned

the effectiveness of such measures as tools to enhance national Parliaments' role.

Part B - National Parliaments and new trends in the EU policy and decision-making process

Tools and procedures regarding new trends in the EU policy and decision-making process

Eighteen Parliaments/Chambers stated that they had developed specific tools or procedures as

regards the rising role of the European Council.

Many national Parliaments replied that they usually held a debate with their Governments on

European Council meetings

Parliaments/Chambers referred to information provided to them by the Government in debates /

meetings / statements / reports / hearings both before and after the European Council meetings,

only before such meetings and only after such meetings.

In relation to information before and after the European Council meetings:



the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

holds a debate with the Prime Minister before and after

European Council meetings;

Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Czech

Senát,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

Swedish

Riksdag,

French

Sénat,

House of Lords,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Polish

Sejm,

Italian

Camera dei deputati

and

Senato della Repubblica,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

German

Bundestag,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the Czech

Senát

organises an European Affairs Committee meeting and plenary session

before and after European Council meetings to discuss the programme, the Government's

position and the outcome;

the Prime Minister briefs the European Affairs Committee of the Estonian

Riigikogu

before

and after European Council meetings;

the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

holds hearings with the Secretary of State for

European Affairs before and after European Council meetings, according to relevant

legislation. Furthermore, in the last change to their methodology of EU scrutiny, there was

a provision to monitor and scrutinise European Council documents;

the Minister for European Affairs informs the EU Committee of the Polish

Sejm

before and

after European Council meetings;

the Advisory Committee on European Affairs of the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

may hold a hearing with the Prime Minister before and after European Council meetings;

the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

referred to Taoiseach's statements to the House before

and after European Councils;

the Croatian Prime Minister has to submit to the Croatian

Hrvatski sabor

the agenda and

governments position ahead of European Council meetings and a report after them;

in accordance with relevant legislation on the Italian participation to the EU, the Prime

Minister reports in Plenary, both to the Italian

Camera dei deputati

and

Senato della

Repubblica,

before European Council meetings. After the speech of the Prime Minister, a

debate takes place and resolutions are usually adopted. The Government has to take into

account any recommendations formulated by the Parliament. After European Council

meetings, the Minister for European Affairs usually reports to the Committees on Foreign

Affairs and European Policies of both Houses.

In relation to information before European Council meetings:



concerning the Swedish

Riksdag,

according to some recent amendments to the relevant

legislation, the Government consults the Committee on European Affairs before European

Council meetings;

the French

Sénat

holds public debates with the Minister for European Affairs before

European Council meetings;

the Speaker of the Hungarian

Országgyűlés

convenes an

in camera

meeting ahead of

meetings of the European Council where the Prime Minister elaborates the standpoint to

be represented.

In relation to information after European Council meetings, the UK

House of Lords

organises

hearings with the UK Minister for Europe and it is considering whether or not to change its

procedure permanently to hold such hearings also before European Council meetings (as they

already did ahead of the July European Council meeting), while the European Parliament organises

regularly plenary debates with the President of the European Council.

The German

Bundestag

referred generally to the obligation of the Federal Government to inform

the Chamber of meetings of the European Council and provide relevant documents and to regular

plenary discussions or EU Affairs Committee discussions. The Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

said that the EU Committee of the Austrian

Nationalrat

followed issues on the agenda of the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

European Council and that it could adopt opinions by which it gave instructions to the Chancellor

for the negotiations in the European Council.

The UK

House of Commons

replied that "there should be an opportunity for Members in the

Chamber to air issues in advance relating to forthcoming European Council meetings, and rather

than a debate, we recommend that this should be timed to coincide with a session of Oral

Questions on European Union matters".

Fourteen Parliaments/Chambers stated that they had developed specific tools or procedures as

regards the stipulation of intergovernmental treaties in the field of economic governance.

When asked to provide further information, Parliaments/Chambers referred to tools or

procedures relating specifically to the Inter-parliamentary Conference under Article 13 of the TSCG

and generally to other procedures.

Concerning tools or procedures relating to the Inter-parliamentary Conference under Article 13 of

the TSCG, Parliaments/Chambers provided, among others, the following information:



the Spanish

Cortes Generales

stated that it had appointed a permanent delegation

composed of Members of both Chambers to participate;

the Polish

Sejm

informed that it introduced rules regarding the involvement of the

Committees on European Union Affairs, on Economy and on Public Finance which

represent the

Sejm

in those meetings and which together tackle the issues related to the

European Semester.

Concerning tools or procedures relating to other procedures, Parliaments/Chambers provided,

among others, the following information:



the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

had agreed with their Government upon an information protocol

concerning the decision-making process of the EFSF and the ESM, which guaranteed the

ante

involvement of the Parliament;

the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

held hearings, with the participation of the

Government, on various instruments of the European Semester, particularly on the SGP;

concerning intergovernmental treaties, legal provisions provided that the Government had

to, according to relevant legislation, "keep the

Assembleia da República

informed, in

sufficient time, about the issues and debating positions in European institutions as well as

on the proposals under discussion and the on-going negotiations, sending all relevant

documentation as soon as it is presented or submitted to the Council, in particular, on

draft treaties or agreements concluded by the European Union or between Member States

in the context of the European Union";

the Italian

Camera dei deputati

and

Senato della Repubblica

replied that, according to

relevant legislation, the Italian Government had to promptly inform the Italian Parliament

"about any initiative aiming at concluding agreements among EU member States whereby

fiscal rules are introduced or strengthened or that anyhow have important fiscal

consequences. Parliament may issue recommendations to the Government, which the

Government must comply with or – if this is not the case – explain to Parliament why it

took a different course of action";



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the German

Bundestag

pointed out that the Federal Constitutional Court had confirmed

that agreements under international law are also part of EU affairs, if they complemented

the law of the EU or had other particularly close links with EU law. As regards economic

governance, parliamentary involvement is covered by the Act on Financial Participation in

the ESM

the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

replied that they set up a sub-committee dealing

with matters regarding the ESM;

the Czech

Senát

informed it introduced an internal procedure to monitor the European

Semester (discussing the AGS, the Spring European Council and the preparation of NRP and

NSP, scrutinising the draft CSRs and issuing an opinion before they are adopted by the

Council);

the French

Sénat

replied that the Committee on Finance was involved in the procedures

linked to the application of the TSCG;

the European Parliament's ECON Committee informed that the European Parliament was

invited as observer during the negotiation on the TSCG in the EMU.

Twelve Parliaments/Chambers replied that they had developed specific tools or procedures

regarding the involvement of Parliaments in trade agreement negotiations.

Several Parliaments/Chambers stated that they usually followed trade agreement negotiations

and showed great interest for the TTIP negotiations

. The European Parliament's INTA Committee

welcomed the "parliamentarisation" of trade policy at EU level, stating that it was aware of some

calls for further involvement of national Parliaments in the scrutiny of draft trade agreements. It

also expressed its willingness to continue the trend of bilateral meetings with parliamentarians

interested in trade issues.

The

House of Lords

informed that their European Union Committee conducted an inquiry into the

TTIP and published a report in May 2014.

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

stated that it sent jointly with other Parliaments a letter to the

European Commission to stress the importance of involving national Parliaments in the phase of

the TTIP negotiations.

When asked about other initiatives, the UK

House of Commons

stated that the UK Government

kept the House updated on the trilogue process and also if there were material changes during

negotiations within the Council. The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

informed that it held

hearings with the participation of the Government, on the 'State of the Union of the President of

the European Commission' and a debate on the priorities of each Presidency of the Council of the

EU.

French

Sénat,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

Belgian

Chambre des Représentants,

German

Bundestag

French

Sénat,

House of Lords,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

the Croatian

Hrvatski sabor,

the Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Treaty provisions in relation to delegated acts (Article 290 TFEU)

Twenty out of 37 responding Parliaments/Chambers stated that they had not taken a formal

position on Treaty provisions in relation to delegated acts (Article 290 TFEU).

When asked to present their views on the main critical aspects, Parliaments/Chambers pointed

out the following:



the excessive use of delegated acts (Czech

Senát,

French

Sénat,

Portuguese

Assembleia da

República,

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

);

the need and impact of delegated acts should always be evaluated carefully on a case-by-

case basis (Finnish

Eduskunta);

legislative acts should explicitly define the objectives, content and scope of the delegation

of power and the latter should not be vague or too extensive (Czech

Senát,

French

Sénat,

Swedish

Riksdag,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Polish

Sejm,

German

Bundesrat,

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

European Parliament's JURI Committee). The essential

elements shall not be the subject of a delegation of powers (Czech

Senát,

French

Sénat,

Polish

Sejm,

German

Bundesrat,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

the latter pointing out that the definition of "essential

elements" was not clear);

the interpretation of the concept of "duration of the delegation of powers" should not lead

to delegation of power unlimited in time (Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Polish

Sejm,

German

Bundesrat).

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

stated that otherwise national

Parliaments would be deprived of the power, conferred by the Treaty, to scrutinise any

amendments to the provisions that were the object of delegation. It added that a better

solution could be to limit the duration of the delegation to five years, with a tacit extension

for the same period subject to presentation of a report by the European Commission;

concerning the selection procedure for the Committee of experts assisting the European

Commission in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Commission should return

to the practice of experts from Member States (French

Sénat

and German

Bundesrat)

and

the procedure should be clear (Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat);

the EU should determine an appropriate period for objection on a case-by-case basis, that

must be sufficient to enable effective control of the delegation, without unduly delaying

the entry into force of uncontroversial delegated acts (European Parliament's JURI

Committee). The deadline should not be shortened from three month to two months

(German

Bundesrat);

a model of cooperation between national Parliaments and EU Institutions for the scrutiny

of delegated acts should be established, even if only on an informal basis (Portuguese

Assembleia da República);

national Parliaments should be empowered to initiate a revocation of the delegation by

the legislators (Danish

Folketing);

the European Commission and the Council should engage with the European Parliament in

negotiations on the criteria for the appropriate application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, in

the framework of the revision of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making

(Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor).



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The European Parliament's JURI Committee stated that the choice between the use of delegated

or implementing acts had caused difficulties in many negotiations on new legislative proposals by

the European Commission and proposals aligning the existing legislation with the Lisbon Treaty.

The active role of national Parliaments in the fields of subsidiarity checks and the use of delegated

acts provided, in its view, for the possibility of fruitful cooperation and exchanges between

national Parliaments and the European Parliament.

The UK

House of Lords

added that over the last two years it had requested that the UK

Government formalise the system of consultation for delegated and implementing legislation, and

explicitly stated in the Explanatory Memoranda when a legislative proposal contained provisions

to make delegated or implementing legislation (from May 2013 - May 2014, it was consulted on

80% of the adopted delegated legislation).

Public consultations and national Parliaments

A large majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (25 out of 30) supported the idea of

hoc

national Parliaments’ public consultations and of having a dedicated section for national

Parliaments’ replies in the European Commission’s summary report on the consultation.

Several Parliaments/Chambers further elaborated on the subject. The Finnish

Eduskunta

stated

that it neither opposed nor expressly supported these ideas, but as a matter of democratic

legitimacy, the European Commission should take more seriously the inputs of national

Parliaments, in particular relating to consultations, which did not necessarily require institutional

arrangements or further complication in formal procedures, but rather a more professional

approach.

The UK

House of Lords

report on the role of national Parliaments in the EU

recommended that

the European Commission should "make clear when and how national Parliaments have

influenced the development of policies", including identifying national Parliaments' contributions

in their summary reports following public consultations. Furthermore, the Commission's annual

report on relations with national Parliaments should be used to identify the impact of national

Parliaments' engagement. The Belgian

Chambre des représentants

commented that Parliaments

were not likely to have sufficient know-how to satisfactorily cope with those very specialised and

technical issues. The European Parliament's AFCO Committee, while it was open to the

development of wide - ranging relations between national Parliaments and the Commission,

highlighted that the European Parliament should be more closely involved in the political dialogue,

mainly in view of the interdependence between the decisions of the European Parliament and

those of national Parliaments.

Early legislative agreements under first reading in the EU decision-making process

Seventeen out of 27 Parliaments/Chambers, as well as the European Parliament's AFCO

Committee, saw early legislative agreements under first reading as positive with regard to the EU

"The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union", European Union Committee, House of Lords, 9th Report

of Session 2013-14:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeucom/151/151.pdf

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

legislative process. When asked to further elaborate on the subject, 4 Parliaments/Chambers

and the Green Party of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

explicitly regarded early legislative

agreements under first reading as positive stating that it speeded up, simplified and/or made the

legislative process more efficient. Five Parliaments/Chambers

, on the other hand, explicitly

regarded it as negative, due to the lack of transparency and insufficient democratic scrutiny. The

Finnish

Eduskunta

referred to the weakening of the overall democratic scrutiny of EU legislation

and thus the primary role of the European Parliament as a democratic institution. For the Czech

Senát

the procedure was highly non-transparent and of dubious added value; in its view, most

Member States’ representatives in the Council were excluded from the negotiations, which clearly

affected the possibilities of parliamentary scrutiny. It also argued that the engagement of the

European Parliament lacked the merits of parliamentary decision-making stipulated in the

Treaties, through which the European Parliament should contribute to the legitimacy of EU

legislation; first reading agreements posed a significant threat to the legitimacy of EU legislation,

as well as its quality, due to the risk of pressure from, among others, particular interests of

lobbying groups.

Several Parliaments/Chambers regarded early legislative agreements under first reading as

positive, but raised concerns mainly on the decreasing transparency of the EU decision-making

process and, in some cases, referred to the lack of sufficient control by national Parliaments. The

Polish

Seijm

associated the issue with the importance of the documents and the scope it covered.

The UK

House of Lords

noted that, even though the UK Government provided information and

updates to the EU Committee on the content of first reading deals, this was often taking place

after the agreement had been reached. In this regard, in its report on the role of national

Parliaments, it suggested that the Council should consider making a commitment that, if a draft

legislative proposal was significantly altered during negotiations between the co-legislators, it

would give sufficient time (no less than 12 weeks) for national Parliaments to scrutinise the

amended proposal before agreement in the Council.

Half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (18 out of 36) stated that they were informed about

tripartite meetings (trilogues) between the European Parliament, the Council and the European

Commission in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure. Many of them elaborated further

on the procedures.

The Slovenian

Državni zbor

responded that it was sometimes informed, but not in relation to all

acts discussed, while the Danish

Folketing

said it was informed on specific dossiers when

presented to the European Affairs Committee. The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

was informed in a

written report or was briefed by the Government representative about the outcome of trilogue

meetings. The Czech

Senát

and the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

were informed upon

request from the Government, while the Dutch

Eerste Kamer

stated that although it was informed

on the progress of the negotiations, it did not have a clear view on the content. The Swedish

Riksdag

had extensive rights to information through the Government’s obligation to inform and

consult the Committee on EU Affairs ahead of all decisions in the Council, including early

legislative agreements under first reading. The Latvian

Saeima

stated that national positions

subject to parliamentary scrutiny usually comprised a section on the EU institutions’ views,

consequently, when a particular proposal was in a trilogue stage, the national position should

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Polish

Senat,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

Finnish

Eduskunta,

Czech

Senát,

Croatian

Hrvatski sabor

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,Cyprus Vouli ton Antiprosopon

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

contain some information on the results of the trilogue. The French

Assemblée nationale

commented that information provided by the Government on negotiations was relatively

satisfactory. The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

noted that there was no formal procedure, but

there was good exchange of information at official level. Both the German

Bundesrat

and

Bundestag

received the Council document on trilogue negotiations from the Federal Government,

and the Federal Government’s reports on the trilogue meetings.

When asked whether the increasing number of first reading agreements had an impact on the

procedure of scrutiny of EU acts, only 9 out of 34 Parliaments/Chambers answered positively.

The Danish

Folketing

strengthened in 2006 its scrutiny of legislative proposals to be adopted in

first reading agreements by obligating the Government to present its proposed mandate before

the Government had fixed its position. The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

and the Belgian

Chambre

des représentants

clarified that scrutiny took place at an early stage.

The Italian

Camera dei Deputati

and

Senato della Repubblica

described how their parliamentary

scrutiny had been adapted, noting that under relevant legislation, the President of the Council of

Ministers or the Minister for European Affairs are obliged to forward to the Chambers reports and

briefing notes prepared by the Italian Permanent Representation to the EU with reference, among

others, to tripartite meetings as part of the legislative procedures. Taking into account such

information (as well as information and briefing provided by the Department of EU Affairs of the

Chamber), the competent Committees try to conclude the scrutiny before an agreement is

reached through the trilogues. The Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

considered that first reading

agreements may not have a positive impact on the procedure of scrutiny of EU acts carried out by

national Parliaments, since there may not be enough time to carry out effective

interparliamentary cooperation in order to influence decisions taken at EU level.

Further commenting on the questions, the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

noted that

agreements under third reading were atypical and less democratic than under the first reading, as

they are reached by i.e. the rapporteur who, in this setting, acted as a non-elected representative

of the European Parliament.

PART C - More effective participation of EU Parliaments in the EU decision-making process and

further developments in EU integration

New instruments and ideas aimed at involving national Parliaments in the EU decision-making

process

Parliaments/Chambers were asked whether they favoured the idea of creating new instruments

aimed at involving national Parliaments in EU decision-making without any formal Treaty changes.

Twenty-one out of 30 respondents favoured the idea.

Three of those providing further information expressly stated that they would like to enhance the

use of existing mechanisms / procedures (Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Latvian

Saeima

and Belgian

Chambre des représentants).

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Adding to this, the UK

House of Lords

and the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

supported, among others, the

extension of the deadline for subsidiarity checks. The latter also expressed the opinion that certain

possibilities, such as the possibility to scrutinise proportionality, to increase the political dialogue

and to introduce a "green card", should be discussed with the European Commission. The Danish

Folketing,

the UK

House of Lords,

the French

Sénat

and the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

supported the suggestion of the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

to introduce a "green card" to give national

Parliaments the possibility to recommend new legislation, including proposals to review or repeal

existing legislation, to the European Commission. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

suggested

making good use of COSAC, in this area, and the Czech

Senát

said the "green card" could

significantly contribute to national Parliaments' participation and awareness on EU issues. Three

Parliaments/Chambers made reference to proposals submitted in relevant reports that they have

issued. The UK

House of Lords,

referring to the report

of its European Union Committee,

supported that the "yellow card" procedure could be improved by political agreement between

national Parliaments, the Council and the European Commission. The French

Assemblée nationale

mentioned its numerous and ambitious proposals including the proposal to institutionalise a

permanent Assembly of national Parliaments vested with the power of co-decision on issues

related to economic governance, defence and certain aspects in the field of freedom, security and

justice

. The French

Sénat

proposed creating a Permanent Representation of national Parliaments

composed of members appointed by each Chamber/Parliament, which would meet periodically

and when necessary. The Danish

Folketing

referred to its recommendations in the document of its

European Affairs Committee

. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

suggested, amongst others,

setting up a list of all legislative proposals on which national Parliaments have signalled a possible

problem, and enhancing democratic legitimacy and ownership by national parliamentarians of the

EU. Referring to the proposals of the Danish

Folketing,

it supported strengthening the role of

national Parliaments in holding their Head of State or Government accountable regarding

European Council decisions, setting up a code of conduct on good interparliamentary meetings,

organising meetings of clusters of Parliaments/Chambers on issues of shared interests and

enhancing the bilateral ties between national Parliaments and the European Parliament.

Enhancing the cooperation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament and the

political dialogue was also stressed by a few other Parliaments/Chambers. While not supporting

the creation of new mechanisms, the Latvian

Saeima

advocated more efficient use of existing ones

and the improvement of certain informal cooperation mechanisms through cooperation between

political groups, committees and rapporteurs. Along the same lines, the Lithuanian

Seimas

made

reference to better communication between the European Parliament's specialised committees

and national Parliaments. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

spoke of direct engagement

between the European Parliament and national Parliaments at committee level based on Article

142 (3) of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, referring to appropriate forms of pre-

legislative and post-legislative cooperation.

House of Lords

report, see footnote 16

Rapport d'information déposé par la Commission des affaires européennes sur l’approfondissement démocratique

de l’Union et présenté par Mme Danielle Auroi:

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/europe/rap-info/i1200.pdf

Folketinget: Twenty-three recommendations to strengthen the role of national parliaments in a changing European

governance, European Affairs Committee, Danish Parliament, January 2014:

http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/upload/application/pdf/2d81b9f4/Twenty_three_recommendations.pdf%3Fdownload%3D1

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The AFCO Committee of the European Parliament believed that the Treaty provisions on the early

warning mechanism in Protocol 2 of the Lisbon Treaty were clear and that their purpose was not

to block the decision-making process, but to improve the quality of EU legislation by ensuring, in

particular, that the EU operated within its competencies. In this context, it added that all new

instruments should be viewed and used as one of the tools for ensuring effective cooperation

between European and national Institutions and that their use did not require formal Treaty

changes

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

the Irish

Oireachtas

and the AFCO Committee of the European

Parliament were open to discuss further instruments, whereas the Finnish

Eduskunta,

being

neither in favour of nor against creating new instruments, expressed the view that every national

Parliament has, in the context of its national constitutional arrangements, the means to maximise

its role in EU policy formulation.

The vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers (26 out of 31) replying supported that ideas, such as

the ones proposed by some Parliaments (see paragraphs above) should be taken into

consideration by COSAC in order to foster further interparliamentary cooperation.

A number of Parliaments/Chambers supported various ideas in this regard. The most recurring

ones were related to a possible "green card" procedure, an enhanced political dialogue, the

scrutiny/examination of draft trade agreements and to issues regarding the "yellow card"

procedure.

Regarding a possible "green card", the Polish

Sejm

stated that introducing such a procedure

seemed to be in line with the idea of increasing the participation of national Parliaments in the EU

decision-making process, but that, however, its implementation did not depend on COSAC and

would require expression of good will by the European Commission.

Regarding the "yellow card" procedure

, some Parliaments/Chambers proposed taking into

consideration and discussing ideas such as improving the "yellow card" (Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

French

Sénat,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República),

jointly evaluating the European Commission's

reply in the cases where a "yellow card" is issued (Slovenian

Državni zbor),

making subsidiarity

checks more efficient in an early stage throughout the end of the decision-making process

(Hungarian

Országgyűlés),

revising and extending the deadline for subsidiarity checks (Czech

Senát,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

House of Lords,

Croatian

Hrvatski sabor).

Other notable proposals included discussion about, amongst others, establishing a working group

of the European Commission to set up an action plan to strengthen the role of national

Parliaments (Dutch

Tweede Kamer),

closer informal cooperation amongst national Parliaments

(Polish

Senat)

and whether

ad hoc

working groups could be established under the auspices of

COSAC to discuss and debate specific policy matters with a view to presenting discussion papers to

COSAC Plenary, or to take forward agreed conclusions (UK

House of Lords).

European Parliament resolution of 16 April 2014 on relations between the European Parliament and the national

parliaments, P7_TA(2014)0430

See also Part A of Chapter 2 above.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

According to the German

Bundestag,

besides bilateral exchanges of experience, the political

dialogue within COSAC was considered to be useful. The German

Bundestag

specified that,

regarding the Dutch and other proposals in this area, it had no formal position.

On a different note, the Finnish

Eduskunta

stated that all the proposals mentioned may prove

useful as

ad hoc

measures, but that it saw no need to institutionalise these, as there was nothing

stopping national Parliaments from working together on any topical subject. The Belgian

Chambre

des représentants

stressed that the existing procedures should be optimised, that there was no

need to formalise the "green card" procedure as national Parliaments' proactive approach already

corresponded to such a procedure and that national Parliaments already actively participated in

policy-setting through the Laeken Declaration.

The Spanish

Cortes Generales

stated that it would eventually accept that the proposals suggested

be taken into consideration provided the Presidency accepted this and as long as this decision did

not interfere with the agenda of COSAC agreed by the Troika.

The AFCO Committee, replying negatively, mentioned Article 9 of Title II of Protocol 1 of the

Lisbon Treaty supported the development of an 'understanding' between national Parliaments and

the European Parliament as basis for efficient cooperation, underlining that COSAC should remain

the forum for regular exchange of views, information and best practices in relation to practical

aspects of parliamentary scrutiny.

More efficient use of subsidiarity checks

In paragraph 22 of the Conclusions of the Conference of Speakers of EU Parliaments in Vilnius, 6-8

April 2014, the Speakers propose that COSAC should explore the possibilities for more efficient use

of subsidiarity checks, and that the next Conference of Speakers could consider any such work

undertaken by COSAC. In this light, Parliaments/Chambers were asked to present their proposals

in the framework of the existing treaties to make more efficient use of subsidiarity checks.

Various ideas were presented regarding Parliaments/Chambers' cooperation as well as the

procedures of subsidiarity checks. A number of Parliaments/Chambers underlined the importance

of reinforcing cooperation among Parliaments/Chambers when scrutinising legislative proposals

(Lithuanian

Seimas,

French

Sénat,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

Danish

Folketing,

Latvian

Saeima).

The

Danish

Folketing

suggested that national Parliaments should exchange views and experiences with

regard to their assessment of the subsidiarity principle, taking into account the views expressed by

the European Commission and other European institutions. It further proposed that they could

exchange a list of prioritised proposals selected from the Commission work programme (CWP)

before 31st January. The Latvian

Saeima

referred to better cooperation and coordination to

improve the quality and the outcome of subsidiarity checks, for example through the creation of a

permanent working group within the framework of the COSAC meetings dealing with subsidiarity

assessments. The governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

noting the short deadline for subsidiarity checks, stressed the importance of early

information on the findings of other Parliaments/Chambers underlining that the weekly meetings

of national Parliaments' permanent representatives in Brussels could be a suitable forum of

exchange of information.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

In relation to better exchange of information, the role of IPEX was noted. According to the

Swedish

Riksdag,

measures are needed so that the database can offer better support to

subsidiarity checks. Along the same lines, the Italian

Camera dei deputati

stated that the potential

of the IPEX website should be fully exploited to this effect.

In relation to the procedure, a number of Parliaments/Chambers referred expressly to the

possibility of extending or improving the eight-week deadline (Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Finnish

Eduskunta,

Czech

Senát,

Swedish

Riksdag,

House of Lords,

Portuguese

Assembleia da

República).

The Swedish

Riksdag

stated that "the Committee on the Constitution has drawn the

conclusion that the subsidiarity control mechanism is ineffective in its current form. An important

aspect is the excessively short time frame available for carrying out the control. The Committee

considers that an extension should be considered."

Furthermore, the possibility of developing common guidelines and criteria governing the

application of the principle of subsidiarity was proposed (Latvian

Saeima,

Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor).

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

referred to its letter addressed to the European Commission of 3rd June

2014 asking the Commission whether the experience of the issuing of two "yellow cards" justify

further clarification or review of the Commission's "Practical arrangements for the operation of

the subsidiarity control mechanism under Protocol no. 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon of 1st December

2009.

The UK

House of Lords,

citing its report

, acknowledged that the key elements of the procedure

were set out in the Treaties and could only be changed formally through a revision to the Treaties;

however, it supported the idea of Member States acting together in the Council, in cooperation

with the European Commission, to agree a package of improvements and an inter-institutional

agreement on the scope, the deadline, the Commission engagement, the effect, the threshold and

the timing. It further supported COSAC discussing these six issues.

The Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

argued that it was essential to have more rapid and more

individualised responses by the European Commission to the arguments presented by national

Parliaments.

What is more, the Polish

Sejm

suggested that COSAC should establish a good relationship with the

new European Commission, as well as discuss and agree on the manner of treating national

Parliaments' opinions, in particular reasoned opinions, especially in the case of a "yellow card".

On a different note, the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

noted that the current procedures and

practices were in principle adequate, therefore there was no need to propose new arrangements.

According to it, "COSAC (or its secretariat) should not be conferred any power to 'coordinate' the

monitoring of subsidiarity by national Parliaments, in order to make it easier to reach the

thresholds set for the early warning mechanism. This would be in contradiction with the conferral

of the relevant responsibilities to the individual parliaments, which exercise them in accordance

with their own procedures and powers. The Lisbon Treaty, moreover, gives no specific powers to

House of Lords

report, see footnote 16

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

COSAC over subsidiarity, having eliminated all previously existing references". Along the same line,

the AFCO Committee of the European Parliament argued that the control of subsidiarity was not a

collective exercise, but an individual one of every Parliament/Chamber, that concerned specialised

committees of national Parliaments and not only European Affairs committees; in its view, this did

not impede COSAC from examining in detail the problems that national Parliaments' met in

exercising the prerogatives conferred to them by the Lisbon Treaty.

Positions on a potential further development of the European integration process, on

sovereignty issues and on possible federal perspectives

In response to the question whether Parliaments/Chambers had taken a position on a potential

further development of the European integration process, the majority (23 out of 35) replied

negatively.

Five Parliaments/Chambers referred to specific reports issued:



the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

referred to its report entitled "Ahead of Europe: On the role of

the Dutch House of Representatives and national parliaments in the European Union"

with three topics relating to the "yellow card", the "green card" and cooperation;

the Finnish

Eduskunta

mentioned its report on the Government's White Paper on EU policy

which provides the Eduskunta's overall views on the future of EU integration;

the French

Sénat

cited its report on the perspectives of the EU

which includes twenty-

four proposals on the future of Europe grouped in five chapters regarding rethinking

European governance by organising a Europe of different concentric circles and

differentiated rhythms maintaining the objective of overall consistency, reinforcing

Europe's economic capacity, reforming the institutions, reinforcing the

acquis

et better

communicating on Europe, and encouraging a better identification of Europe by citizens;

the French

Assemblée nationale

referred to the report by the Chairwoman of the

Committee on European Affairs on the democratic deepening of the Union where

proposals were made for reaffirming the democratic anchorage of the EU

. In addition, it

cited its resolution regarding the rapid shaping of the Inter-parliamentary Conference

under Article 13 of the TSCG;

the AFCO Committee of the European Parliament referred to the adoption of several

reports

in the framework of which the need to make use of the full potential of the

Lisbon Treaty was reiterated; the reports contained suggestions for different modifications

of the Treaties, among others, the completion of a genuine and democratic EMU and the

establishment of a Union of citizens and states.



http://www.tweedekamer.nl/images/Ahead_in_Europe_181-238660.pdf

Rapport d'information au nom de la commission des affaires européennes sur les perspectives de l’Union

européenne par M. Pierre Bernard-Reymond:

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r13-407/r13-4071.pdf

Mme Auroi, French

Assemblée nationale

report, see footnote 20

See European Parliament resolutions on Multi-tier economic Governance, P7_TA(2013)0598, Relations with the

European Council, P7_TA(2013)0599, with European Commission, P7_TA(2014)0249, and with National Parliaments,

P7_TA(2014)0430

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

A few other Parliaments/Chambers expressed an opinion on this. The Portuguese

Assembleia da

República

stated that it had no reservation about starting a debate that could deepen the

European integration process, which would be comprehensive, include national Parliaments and

would take into consideration the general principles governing the foundation of the EU. The

Italian

Camera dei deputati

said that it "stated in several resolutions the need to further develop

the political integration process with a federal perspective. This is considered as a precondition to

give the Union the capacity to respond adequately to global dynamics and prevent the national

interests of Member States from prevailing over the common interest. Only a Union with an

economic government, an independent fiscal capacity, a real foreign policy, a coordinated taxation

policy and effective common policies in other key sectors can meet the expectations of European

citizens and to play an effective role at the global level." The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

stated

that "the general pro-European integration attitude of the Senate has always been present in the

deliberations adopted". It further stated that a general approval had been granted by the main

political groups supporting the Government on the need for a major sharing of sovereignty in

Europe to tackle the growing concerns about the crisis and to overcome its negative effects in a

more efficient way.

Although it stated that no formal position had yet been taken on the potential further

development of the European integration process, the Hungarian

Országgyűlés

explained that its

Committee on European Affairs and Committee on Foreign Affairs debated on a regular basis the

Government's annual report related to Hungary's membership of the EU, as well as the situation

of European integration. Similar issues were often, it added, on the agenda of the EU Consultative

Body.

In response to the question on the fields in which further sharing of sovereignty or, conversely, re-

nationalisation of competences would be required, seven Parliaments/Chambers of 23 responding

stated that they had had no official position on or had not debated this issue.

Four of them are likely to express views and/or adopt a position on this issue.

Some notable remarks of those expressing a view included the following:



the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

had drawn a list of actions on policies that the Netherlands would

prefer to be taken up only at national level, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,

and on legislation that, in its view, had been designed or threatened to be designed in a

way that would go beyond what was needed to attain its objectives – based on the

principle of proportionality;

the Finnish

Eduskunta

had emphasised that any further integration should respect the

principle of subsidiarity and involve all Member States whenever possible. It referred to,

amongst others, the importance of citizens' support to further integration, stressing that "it

is obvious that some integration proposals that were tabled under cover of the economic

crisis went further than member states and citizens were willing to accept (e.g. European

Finance Minister, debt redemption fund, common fiscal policy). On the other hand, recent

developments concerning the internal market and digital commerce are examples of

integration that is supported by all member states;



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the Committee on European Affairs of the French

Sénat,

in its report, estimated that the

sharing of competences did not have to be rigid. It referred to the necessity of a precise

evaluation of what the EU was doing and of the added-value of EU law;

the Swedish

Riksdag,

although it had not made any statements in relation to this issue,

referred to a statement of it Committee on the Constitution regarding

the impact of subsidiarity checks and the division of competences between the EU and

Member States and pointed to the importance of monitoring how the long-term

development of EU law affected the division of competence;

the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

considered that any debate in this area would

necessarily be made as part of the Treaties and, consequently, with the participation of

national Parliaments;

the French

Assemblée nationale

cited the establishment of Eurobonds, the endowment

of the Eurozone with the fiscal capacity for compensating asymmetric shocks, a better

consideration of European public goods, a more efficient fight against fiscal, social and

environmental dumping and the establishment of real European public services;

according to the Latvian

Saeima,

further sharing of sovereignty would be desirable in all

areas potentially involving cross-border elements. In other areas, such as environmental

protection, a certain re-nationalisation would be preferable in order to allow Member

States with higher level of protection to maintain their national standards;

the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

stressed that a further sharing of sovereignty was urgently

required in the fields of economic and financial governance, taxation (included direct

taxation), immigration, foreign and security policy;

according to the Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

further sharing of sovereignty should be

considered in the field of the EMU, with a special focus on growth, competitiveness and

innovation, and in the field of Single Market, the cornerstone of European integration;

the Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

estimated that the level of sharing sovereignty was quite

satisfactory;

the AFCO Committee called for a genuine EMU enhancing the Union’s competences, in

particular in the field of economic policy, and strengthening its budgetary capacity and the

role and democratic accountability of the Commission and the prerogatives of the

European Parliament. It added that a better and clearer division of competences and

resources between the EU and the Member States must go hand in hand with a stronger

parliamentary ownership and accountability with regard to national competences.

More than half of Parliaments/ Chambers of those responding expressly stated that they had had

no official position or had not debated the issue as to which institutional changes would be

required.

In relation to institutional changes that would be required:



the Committee on European affairs of the Lithuanian

Seimas

was of the opinion that the

European Parliament should become a genuine European legislator with the right of

legislative initiative and the right to appoint the President of the European Commission. It

also stressed that it was vital to look for possibilities to make the meetings of the Council of

the EU, including those of the European Council, widely open to the general public;

Mme Auroi, French

Assemblée nationale

report, see footnote 20

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the Committee on EU affairs of the French

Sénat

proposed the election of the President

of the Council by all national parliamentarians and members of the European Parliament

the abolition of the six-month Presidency of the EU, the election of members of the

European Parliament according to a uniform electoral procedure, the increase of the

European Parliament's powers conferring to it, amongst others, the right of initiative,

hierarchising the European Commission according to the importance of the responsibilities

of its Commissioners, reinforcing the organisation of the Eurozone, democratising the

Eurozone by systematically associating national parliamentarians, and abolishing the rule

of unanimity at the Council of the EU;

in her relevant report

, the Chairwoman of the Committee on European Affairs of the

French

Assemblée nationale

proposed major institutional innovations, such as the creation

of an Assembly of European people, an electoral procedure of the European Parliament

closer to democratic standards and to the principle "one person one voice", a tightening of

the workforce of the European Commission abandoning the representation of all Member

States. Lastly, and a clarification of the representation of the EU by merging the posts of

the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council and the

President of the Councils of the Eurozone;

the AFCO Committee considered that a future Treaty change should affirm the Eurosummit

as an informal configuration of the European Council and called for the Commissioner for

Economic and Financial Affairs to be a Treasury Minister and a permanent Vice-President

of the Commission;

the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

suggested that national Governments or other relevant

authorities should be urged to include the opinion of the national Parliament, in the

country’s position / mandate for the Council of the EU and European Council negotiations;

the governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

suggested that a future convention should give special attention to increasing democratic

legitimacy and accountability of the EU’s institutions and to strengthening the role of the

European Parliament, direct citizens’ participation as well as the involvement of national

Parliaments

matters.

The

Green

party

noted

that

the

European Parliament should receive the right for legislative proposals, the Council should

become a "Länderkammer" and members of the European Parliament should be voted

through "real" European voting lists;

the Romanian

Senat

underlined that the future of the EU could not depend on a person

and that deeper legitimacy and the idea of general elections should been taken into

consideration.

Out of 23 respondents, more than half replied explicitly that they had no official position or that

they had not considered a possible federal perspective of the EU or of the Euro area. Of these the

Slovak

Národná rada

said it had not concluded a document relevant to a possible federal

perspective of the EU, whereas the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

stated that it had, up to

that moment, always actively supported a realistic and federal EU respectful of the subsidiarity

principle. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

said that, although an explicit position had not been

adopted, a federal perspective was implicitly mentioned in its opinions and positions. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

replied it did not have an official position in a structured way, but that, in

French

Sénat

report, see footnote 26

Mme Auroi, French

Assemblée nationale

report, see footnote 20

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

some debates, that prospect was mentioned by strong pro-European senators. The Romanian

Senat

said that, although it did not have a formal position, there was an internal opinion

supported by many members according to which a deepening process meant a federal option. The

Dutch

Tweede Kamer

stated that various political parties had various views on that issue. For the

AFCO Committee, any future Treaty change should affirm differentiated integration as a tool for

achieving further integration while safeguarding the unity of the Union.

In relation to the question as to how democratic legitimacy should be ensured in case of further

sharing of sovereignty considering in particular the role of the European Parliament and national

Parliaments, Parliaments/Chambers expressed various ideas, a couple of them referring to their

reports (UK

House of Commons

and Danish

Folketing

The views expressed included, among others, the following:



the key to democratic legitimacy in the EU is the accountability of national governments to

their respective national parliaments. The governments should regularly inform the

parliaments on their work in the Council and, in particular, in the European Council whose

procedures should be more democratic, transparent, coherent and predictable. The same

applies to the Euro group summits (Finnish

Eduskunta);

the European Parliament should become a genuine European legislator with the right of

legislative initiative and the right to appoint the President of the European Commission

(Lithuanian

Seimas);

democratic legitimacy and accountability should be ensured through democratic equality,

representative democracy and participatory democracy (Slovak

Národná rada);

the Conference

(i.e. the

Inter-parliamentary Conference under Article 13 of the TSCG) has

to be restricted to parliamentarians of countries in the Eurozone. National Parliaments

have to be integrated also via a permanent parliamentary representation composed of

members appointed by each Chamber/Parliament (French

Sénat);

the cooperation between Parliaments, the European Parliament and the national

Parliaments, should be better defined (Estonian

Riigikogu);

"National parliaments must have more effective purchase on the steps towards enhanced

economic surveillance, encapsulated in the European Semester". Although

interparliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and the European

Parliament via the Inter-Parliamentary Conference under Article 13 of the TSCG and the

European Parliamentary Week was very valuable, the UK

House of Lords

said, "means

must be found to ensure that EU institutions are accountable not only to the European

Parliament but also to national Parliaments". "The democratic foundations of the EU could

be undermined" "unless steps are taken to strengthen national parliaments' role in

oversight" of further integration

;

national Parliaments should keep playing central role in ensuring democratic

representation in a more integrated EU. Strengthened democratic legitimacy implies a

closer cooperation between the European Parliament and national Parliaments, especially

when it comes to issue of having an impact on national budgets (Latvian

Saeima);



House of Commons

report, see footnote 12

Danish

Folketing

report, see footnote 21

House of Lords

report, see footnote 16

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the legislative and policy setting role of the European Parliament should be strengthened

and extended to all EU policies. National Parliaments should make a more systematic and

effective use of the general scrutiny and of the political dialogue. The existing fora and

tools of interparliamentary cooperation should be enhanced in order to improve the

exchange of information, views and best practices. New or existing interparliamentary fora

or bodies should not be conferred the competence to express 'collective' positions of

national Parliaments (Italian

Camera dei deputati);

both the European Parliament and national Parliaments should contribute to democratic

legitimacy in their relevant areas of competence (German

Bundestag);

a stronger role for EU Parliaments should be granted by a more structured development of

interparliamentary cooperation stipulated in Article 12(f) TEU and Article 9 of Protocol no.

1. Further extension of the powers of co-decision should be granted to the European

Parliament, while as regards national Parliaments the possibility of adopting specific

provisions on their obligation to scrutinise their respective Government activities in the

Council should be explored (Italian

Senato della Repubblica);

proper legitimacy and accountability must be ensured at national and EU levels by national

Parliaments and the European Parliament respectively; in order to achieve this, it is

important to intensify the cooperation with national Parliaments (AFCO Committee);

Parliaments would keep an important role if they succeeded in regaining the confidence of

the citizens (Romanian

Senat).

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

CHAPTER 3: THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE ROLE OF EU PARLIAMENTS

EU relations with Mediterranean partners have evolved over the past few years as a result of the

establishment of the Union for the Mediterranean in July 2008, the boost given to the

Neighbourhood Policy following the Arab Spring, and the adoption in March 2011 of the Joint

Communication of the European Commission "Partnership for democracy and shared prosperity

with the Southern Mediterranean"

, as well as the development of initiatives aimed at addressing

the dramatically increasing migration flows from southern shore countries, including the

establishment of the Task Force Mediterranean.

The third Chapter of the Bi-annual Report focuses on the cooperation between EU and South-East

Mediterranean countries. It highlights Parliaments/Chambers' views on EU actions to address

growing migration flows and presents Parliaments/Chambers' evaluation of the UfM.

This Chapter of the Report is divided into three parts.

The first part focuses on Neighbourhood Policy issues, starting from the Joint Communication of

the European Commission "Neighbourhood at the crossroads"

, and aims at collecting EU

Parliaments' positions as regards the implementation of the 2012 roadmap

The second part deals with the UfM and explores the ways in which EU Parliaments have

participated in the relaunch of the UfM, in relation also to the PA UfM.

The third part focuses on parliamentary scrutiny of EU actions to address growing migration flows

and the deadly accidents at sea, presenting EU Parliaments' positions on which actions relating to

migration management should be a priority and which economic (and non-economic) instruments

should be used.

PART A - Neighbourhood Policy

The majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers (26 out of 37) reported they had not expressed

a position on the European Commission's document "Partnership for democracy and shared

prosperity" adopted in March 2011 to adjust the Neighbourhood Policy towards the South-East

Mediterranean countries, taking into account the developments related to the Arab Spring. In the

same way, the majority of Parliaments/Chambers (30 out of 35) reported that they had not

expressed a position on the roadmap established in 2012 to implement the new Partnership.

Likewise, the majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers (31 out of 38) reported they had not

expressed a position on the Joint Communication "Neighbourhood at the crossroads" (JOIN (2014)

12) of March 2014.

Twelve Parliaments/Chambers gave an assessment of the new neighbourhood model with respect

to Mediterranean partner countries, while eight of them expressed more detailed views/positions.

COM(2011) 200

JOIN (2014) 12

Joint staff working document "Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity: Report on activities in 2011 and

Roadmap for future action" (SWD (2012) 121) accompanying the document Joint Communication Delivering on a New

European Neighbourhood Policy, (JOIN (2012) 14

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Parliaments/Chambers, more specifically, gave the following information:



the Italian

Senato della Republica

stated that assessment of the new model of

neighbourhood policy is, on the whole, positive, although it stressed that equal attention

should be given to political issues and the structural weakness of the economy in the

countries of the Southern shore of the Mediterranean;

the Italian

Camera dei deputati

and the French

Sénat

highlighted in particular that EU funds

allocated to the Neighbourhood Policy should be addressed to the extent of at least 2/3 to

the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership;

the UK

House of Lord

EU Committee expressed its concern that no further progress would

be made until the wider revision of the neighbourhood policy took place. The Committee

also stated that democracy and human rights, which had been neglected in the past,

should be at the heart of the UK and EU approaches. Furthermore, the Committee

welcomed the focus on democratic institutions, including the fight against corruption and

illicit financial outflows. Finally, it suggested that there should be greater emphasis on

environmental issues;

the UK

House of Commons

EU committee reported that the very mixed picture was painted

more broadly in the Joint Communication and the documents on the regional dimensions.

Though the Joint Communication, according to it, was essentially narrative, and only

prescriptive in the short-term, its title hinted at the broader, strategic question that arose

from the latest developments;

the Swedish

Riksdag

was of the opinion that the EU’s support to the political reforms in the

region up until 2010 seems to have had only limited effects and the EU could therefore

learn from past experience and direct its efforts more towards supporting democratic

development;

the Estonian

Riigikogu

supported strengthening border surveillance activities in the

Mediterranean region; proposed operations under the aegis of FRONTEX and underlined

the importance of the cooperation between origin and transit countries; it added that "the

management of migration flows in the Mediterranean region is a problem that has to be

dealt by all the Member States. However, Estonia believes that solidarity cannot by its

nature be mandatory That is why Estonia is of the opinion that relocation should remain

optional for member states" and that "Estonia does not support the creation of additional

legal channels for access to the European Union. Problems should be solved in third

countries by regional protection programs while ensuring effective protection of asylum

seekers";

the Romanian

Senat

explicitly referred to the interparliamentary cooperation in the

CFSP/CSDP field, while expressing its concerns regarding the tensions at the southern

border of the Mediterranean Sea and acknowledging that the EU needed to be prepared to

face new challenges.



PART B - Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) and Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the

Mediterranean (PA UfM)

In response to the question whether Parliaments/Chambers were informed by the Government

about ministerial conferences organised in the framework of the UfM, more than half (22 out of

37) replied positively (8 Parliaments/Chambers regularly and 14 occasionally).

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Further information was provided by certain Parliaments/Chambers. Among those, the Polish

Sejm

reported that the Polish government sent written summaries of ministerial conferences organised

as part of the UfM to the attention of either the Chair of the EU Affairs Committee or the Office

for International Affairs of the Polish

Sejm,

while the German

Bundestag

stated that it was

informed upon request.

Sixteen out of 37 Parliaments/Chambers reported that they participated in all meetings of the PA

UfM (plenary and committee meetings) with their own delegates, while 17 reported they attended

some of the meetings.

From those Parliaments/Chambers of which the delegates did participate, the vast majority (29

out of 33) reported on the outcome of the PA UfM meetings. Twenty-one Parliaments/Chambers

always reported on the outcome of the PA UfM meetings, while 8 Parliaments/Chambers reported

occasionally.

According to the information provided, the vast majority of the reporting was in written report

format. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

and the Spanish

Cortes Generales

informed that they

published these reports on a webpage.

Four Parliaments/Chambers

prepared an official report only once per year; the Czech

Senát

delegates presented a report only once every two years in the plenary session of the Senate.

According to the findings, it seems to be common practice that delegates prepared reports

available to all Members of Parliaments. However, the French

Sénat, the

Portuguese

Assembleia

da República,

the Lithuanian

Seimas,

the Polish

Sejm

and the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

distributed reports only to the relevant departments and units of their Parliaments/Chambers. The

Hungarian

Országgyűlés

staff prepared official reports regularly sent not just to the relevant

departments and units of the Parliament, but also to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and

to other ministries as well, if deemed relevant.

PART C - Addressing growing migration flows

More than half of responding Parliaments/Chambers (19 out of 36) reported they had issued an

opinion on possible EU action to tackle increasing migration flows in the Mediterranean area.

Six of those parliaments expressed their opinion while examining the Commission Communication

on Migration

. The vast majority (12 out of 17) Parliaments/Chambers had expressed their

opinion during government hearings before or after European Council or Justice and Home Affairs

Council meetings (JHA). Only 2 Parliaments/Chambers stated that their opinion was expressed

while examining the European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on migratory flows in the

Slovenian

Državni zbor,

Belgian

Sénat,

Swedish

Riksdag

and French

Sénat

COM (2011) 248

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Mediterranean, with particular attention to the tragic events off Lampedusa

and 4 had examined

the Commission Communication on the work of the Task Force Mediterranean

Eight Parliaments/Chambers mentioned other frameworks, where they had expressed their

opinion on the issue in question. Among those, the Lithuanian

Seimas

considered those questions

in the European Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee meetings, where

discussions on the Eastern Partnership and the Communication "An open and secure Europe:

making it happen (COM (2014) 154) were held. The French

Sénat

had expressed its opinion while

examining the proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending

Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary

reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances. The Portuguese

Assembleia da Republica

expressed its opinion on immigration adding a reference to the

"Statement of the COSAC Chairpersons of the Parliaments of the South" (Rome, July 17, 2014),

highlighting humanitarian dimension and the need for protection of lives at risk.

A number of responding Parliaments/Chambers gave more specific information on their opinions

or guidelines on possible EU action to tackle increasing migration flows in the Mediterranean area.

The UK

House of Commons

referred to its opinion on

the

Communication on Migration,

emphasising the document΄s attempt to set out a broader, longer-term policy framework

encompassing internal measures for strengthening the EU's external borders, preventing irregular

immigration and managing legal migration more effectively, as well as external policy measures to

address the root causes of migration. The Czech

Senát

mentioned that the character of

involvement of Member States into the internal relocation of migrants must remain voluntary, as

it involved a costly procedure, both in administrative and financial terms. The French

Sénat

referred to its resolution and report of the EU Affairs Committee, emphasising the need to make

the "Union of the Mediterranean" an instrument of a Euro- Mediterranean policy responsible of

migratory flows, through concrete projects. Furthermore, the Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

stated that

the subject was often discussed within the Committee on European Affairs and had also been a

priority of the Hellenic Parliament, mentioning two related meetings organised in the framework

of the parliamentary dimension of the Hellenic Presidency and a paragraph on migration included

in the LI COSAC Contribution of Athens, which, among other aspects, underlined the need for

initiatives aimed at implementing the principle of solidarity and fair-sharing of responsibility, as

laid down in Article 80 of the TFEU.

The Italian

Camera dei deputati

approved motions in plenary on EU migration policy which

requested further support, including through increased financial assistance of FRONTEX

operations, to the Italian action to cope with the flow of landings as well as review of the Dublin III

Regulation

in order to allow refugees to submit asylum application already in transit countries

and not only in the first country of arrival. In addition, it urged the EU to encourage the countries

of origin and transit to put in place a proper policy management of flows, especially in the fight

against trafficking of human beings.

P7_TA-PROV(2013)0448

COM (2013) 869

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and

mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection

lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

urged the Government to assess operational proposals

enabling European migration policies to make a step forward, by developing a dimension of

solidarity and responsibility-sharing; to support the strengthening of FRONTEX; to make every

effort, even bilaterally, to enter co-operation agreements with countries of origin and transit and

to evaluate the degree of consent with a view to amending the Dublin II Regulation

(reception

criteria, distribution of asylum claims among Member States).

The European Parliament's LIBE Committee stated, that the European Parliament, in its

Resolution of 23 October 2013 on migratory flows in the Mediterranean, with particular attention

to the tragic events off Lampedusa stressed the importance of solidarity and responsibility-sharing

in the field of asylum and called on the Member States to make sure that all the provisions of the

various CEAS instruments were correctly implemented; it also stressed the need for a more

comprehensive strategy, in particular for the Mediterranean, which would place labour migration

within the context of the social, economic and political development of its neighbourhood and at

the same time for strong criminal sanctions for those individuals who facilitate human trafficking.

The UK

House of Lords,

adding information on its activities, reported that it considered migration

flows in the Mediterranean in 2008 when it conducted a major inquiry into FRONTEX. It also cited

its report, published in 2013, on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility which considered,

among other things, the Commission Communication COM(2011)743 final.

Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining

the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-

country national

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

CHAPTER 4: EU AGENCIES AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

The first part of the fourth Chapter focuses, firstly, on whether EU Parliaments have scrutinised

the role, functions and accountability mechanisms of EU agencies and, secondly, on the views

expressed by EU Parliaments with regard to the establishment of agencies, the powers delegated

to them and the effectiveness of their work and of the existing accountability mechanisms by

means of which EU institutions monitor their activity with special focus on the Common approach

on decentralised agencies adopted in July 2012 by the European Parliament, the Council and the

European Commission and the roadmap presented by the European Commission in December

2012.

The second part presents Parliaments/Chambers' evaluation of agencies in terms of their

effectiveness as tools to implement European policies, the appropriateness of the legal bases used

for their establishment, their structure and governance, the effectiveness and adequacy of existing

accountability mechanisms at EU level for monitoring these; it also gathers Parliaments' ideas on

national Parliaments' contribution to the current reflection on enhancing the accountability of EU

agencies.

In addition, this Part contains information on: existing legal provisions or administrative

arrangements regulating relations between Parliaments/Chambers and EU agencies; formal and

informal cooperation between Parliaments/Chambers and EU agencies; the use of EU agencies'

information or expertise by Parliaments/Chambers; and the possible need to improve relations

between national Parliaments and EU agencies.

PART A – Role and accountability of EU agencies

The majority of Parliaments/Chambers (22 out of 38) answered that they had never carried out an

overall consideration of the role, functions and accountability mechanisms of EU agencies, or of

any specific agency.

Most of the Parliaments/Chambers that answered positively referred to consideration of certain

agencies, which they specified (i.e. Europol and Eurojust being the most common, as well as

FRONTEX, EASO, EPPO, ENISA etc.). The Estonian

Riigikogu

associated the debate with the agenda

of the EU Council.

Four Parliaments/Chambers (Finnish

Eduskunta,

French

Sénat,

Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

Italian

Senato

della Repubblica)

raised general points on the functioning, role and accountability mechanisms of

EU agencies. The Finnish

Eduskunta,

in its report on the Government´s White Paper on EU policy

noted the increased role of the agencies and suggested that "the limits to delegation of authority

by the Commission to subordinate agencies, and the corollary democratic oversight need to be

subjected to clearer and more uniform regulation". The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

mentioned that it had

extensively discussed the proliferation of EU agencies and the possible duplication of the work of

some agencies of the EU and the Council of Europe, and noted that the overall role of EU agencies

was a recurring theme in the yearly debate on the State of the EU.

The competent committees of the European Parliament answered on the positive. The AFCO and

BUDG Committees referred to their participation in the IWG on decentralised agencies. In addition

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

to that, the BUDG Committee organised hearings on a yearly basis on budget and other horizontal

issues, while the CONT Committee evaluated decentralised agencies through the related yearly

discharge procedure.

The EU Affairs Committee of the French

Sénat

adopted a resolution in 2006 concluding that

European agencies were established without overall consistency and were too fragmented in

terms of their respective role and effectiveness; their areas of responsibility and competence were

not precisely delineated; their added value by comparison to the national level was uneven; there

was insufficient control of the increase in their financial means and personnel; when their

effectiveness was assessed, such assessment had no effect on them.

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

noted that it had praised the role played by agencies and had

often called for their modernisation, strengthening and improved accountability, emphasising the

need for better co-ordination with authorities of member States and other bodies, also within the

EU.

Almost all of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (34 out of 35) answered that they had not

considered the Common Approach on decentralised agencies adopted in July 2012 by the

European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

The Estonian

Riigikogu

mentioned, though, that some parties raised the issue during the European

elections campaign. The Swedish

Riksdag,

being the only national Parliament answering in the

affirmative, recalled that the Committee on Justice noted that the European Commission referred

to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies as an argument for merging Europol and

CEPOL. The European Parliament was represented in the IWG that prepared the document, which

was discussed in various committees and by the Conference of Presidents; the CONT committee

had considered both the Common Approach and the roadmap in its relevant report

, while the

BUDG Committee follows its implementation, in the framework of the budgetary procedure and

legislative opinion.

When asked if Parliaments/Chambers had considered the roadmap presented by the European

Commission in December 2012 on the follow-up to the abovementioned Common Approach and

progress on its implementation, all but 2 of the 35 responding Parliaments/Chambers answered

negatively. The BUDG and CONT committees responded positively, while the AFCO Committee

negatively.

The UK

House of Commons

recalled its Committee‘s conclusion that significant financial

considerations were at the heart of the reform of decentralised agencies, particularly given

current economic and budgetary pressures. The Committee had also asked for an update from the

Minister on the outcome of the Government's review of the performance of the agencies within

the scope of the Common Approach and Roadmap "from the point of view of the UK's interaction

with them" and, more generally, giving the Government's assessment of the rigour with which the

reforms set out in the Roadmap were being applied and monitored by the Commission.

European Parliament resolution of 3 April 2014 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the

European Union agencies for the financial year 2012: performance, financial management and control,

P7_TA(2014)0299

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The UK

House of Lords'

Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection

conducted scrutiny on the dossier and corresponded with the UK Government on it. In particular,

the Sub-Committee drew attention to the need for a comprehensive EU regulatory framework

dedicated to conflict of interest, which would establish minimum standards applicable to all EU

agencies and asked for further updates from the Government about progress on the

implementation of the Common Approach.

The German

Bundestag

noted that it participated in the legislative process when a new agency

was set up.

Effectiveness of agencies as a tool to implement European policies

Nine of the 31 responding Parliaments/Chambers highlighted the important role of the EU

agencies in implementing effectively and timely (Italian

Camera dei deputati)

European policies in

various fields (Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Polish

Sejm,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica),

in ensuring consistency notably due to their technical expertise and know-how (Latvian

Saeima),

in conducting independent surveys and providing evidence-based assistance and expertise to EU

institutions and Member States (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon),

in helping all the institutions to

concentrate on core policy-making tasks and in contributing to enhance the cooperation between

Member States and the EU in important policy areas (European Parliament's AFCO Committee).

Some Parliaments/Chambers argued that this should be assessed on a case by case basis

(European Parliament's BUDG Committee), and that agencies contributed to the effective

implementation of EU policies only to a certain extent (Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

European

Parliament's CONT Committee), or in some fields Europol and Eurojust (Czech

Senát)

or the EFCA

(European Parliament's PECH Committee) were specifically referred to. The Governing majority

SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

pointed out that while highly

specialised agencies served a good purpose, simple outsourcing of the Commission’s task did not.

The responding committees of the Swedish

Riksdag

mentioned the importance of agencies in

bringing the EU closer to its citizens and the justified need for bodies responsible for follow-up at

the EU level of EU policies and that are seen as independent from the Commission, or holding

specific expertise on evaluations for the implementation of policies.

Criticism was expressed by 7 responding Parliaments/Chambers mainly in relation to the lack of

transparent control adequate to their

de facto

powers and the risk of agency capture by sectoral

interests the agencies are meant to regulate (Czech

Senát);

the questionable necessity, usefulness

or cost-effectiveness of agencies which raise questions of good governance and accountability and

are " part of member states’ appetite for a "juste retour" on their contributions to the EU budget"

(Finnish

Eduskunta);

the proliferation of EU agencies and duplication of their activities (Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

French

Sénat,

German

Bundesrat).

The Irish Houses of

the Oireachtas

advocated a case-by-case approach to the creation of agencies,

while the Romanian

Senat

emphasised the need to avoid lack of transparency and duplications.

The German

Bundesrat

asserted that agencies should only be established after an examination to

determine the need for a new agency and appraisal of "possible alternatives in the light of

deregulation, subsidiarity, proportionality and concentration". The UK

House of Commons

mentioned its support to "Government's opposition to the increase in EU funding of decentralised

agencies" and to its willingness to advocate budgetary restraint. The Committee on Transport and

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Communications of the Swedish

Riksdag

indicated it displayed caution towards an extension of

the agencies’ competences and increased budget resources.

Appropriateness of the legal bases used for the establishment of agencies

The majority (24 out of 31) of responding Parliaments/Chambers replied there was no official

position on the appropriateness of the legal bases used for the establishment of European

agencies, taking into account the nature and the scope of powers conferred on them.

In some cases, although no official position was taken, debates were conducted with regard to the

possibility of creating a new EU Agency for Child Protection, Innovation and Social Inclusion

(Romanian

Senat),

draft acts to establish agencies (Portuguese

Assembleia da República),

the

operation of individual agencies, their tasks, goal and financing, and also the need to adapt the

legal framework of agencies such as Eurojust and Europol to Treaty requirements (Polish

Sejm).

The Committee on Transport and Communications of the Swedish

Riksdag

mentioned that it

deemed the proposed changes within the EASA inappropriate. In the framework of the subsidiarity

check of the Commission’s proposal on the Fourth Railway Package, the Committee questioned

whether a certain transfer of decision-making authority from the member states to the ERA was a

proportional measure for achieving the objective of the proposals.

The Italian

Camera dei Deputati

has taken an official position on the appropriateness of the legal

bases used for the establishment of the ESAs, the EBA, the EIOPA and the ESMA. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

considered the legal bases of several agencies to be appropriate in most

cases (e.g. FRA, Europol, ENISA); it considered however that Article 77(2)(d) TFEU should be part of

the legal basis of FRONTEX and Article 192(1) TFEU should be added to that of the EMSA.

In its opinion on the appropriate legal basis of the amended proposal for a regulation of the

European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the operational management

of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice

, the European Parliament's

JURI Committee concluded that Articles 85(1) and 88(2) TFEU should be added to Articles 74,

77(2)(a) and (b), 78(2)(e), 79(2)(c), 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU to form the legal basis for the

proposed regulation.

In a 2008 opinion, the German

Bundesrat

called for the unambiguous stipulation of the mandates

of agencies in the legal founding acts and for the consideration of the option of introducing a

possible time limit for the existence of the agency. More recently, it has noted that the draft

Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training did not

fall within the scope of the legal basis indicated in that Regulation and expressed scepticism

regarding the synergy effects or savings resulting from the merger of the CEPOL and Europol.

The European Parliament's AFCO Committee mentioned that the European Parliament called for

the introduction of a legal basis in order to establish Union agencies which may carry out specific

executive and implementing functions conferred upon them by the European Parliament and the

Council in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure

. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

COM(2010)0093

European Parliament Resolution of 12 December 2013 on Constitutional problems of a multitier governance in the

EU, P7_TA(2013)0598

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

drew attention, among others, to the impact of Europol's new organisational framework on its

operational capacity; the infringement of the provisions of the Treaty when denying national

Parliaments access to classified information processed by or through Europol, which is accessible

to the EP; the negative effects of the merger of Europol and the CEPOL; the risk of reducing the

effectiveness of Eurojust in case of an unbalanced transfer of resources to the future European

Prosecutor. On the proposed reform of Eurojust, the Czech

Senát

argued Eurojust was "a special

case for which the common approach should not apply – especially the principle that the members

of the collegium exercise powers that they are granted by the national law" and that "the limited

role of Commission should be maintained".

Possible need to improve the structure and the governance of agencies

Sixteen out of the 31 responding Parliaments/Chambers replied there was no official position on

this issue, while several mentioned there was a need to improve the structure and the governance

of agencies, for instance in terms of good governance and accountability (Finnish

Eduskunta,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés

and the Governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat and Bundesrat),

transparency (Portuguese

Assembleia da República),

independence

(Czech

Senát),

namely by:



ensuring accountability and control of EU agencies by not granting them too strong factual

powers from the outset (Czech

Senát);

ensuring that the structure and governance remain appropriate to the developing tasks of

agencies; developing a comprehensive regulatory framework on conflict of interest (UK

House of Lords);

establishing regulating guidelines and objective pre-defined criteria for choosing agencies'

seats; observing the principles of strict budgetary discipline and sound financial

management; adapting, possibly by reducing agencies' budgetary and personnel resources

taking into account the results of the execution of the Community budget; developing

instruments of management control; presenting agencies accounts on the basis of

common indicators allowing comparisons between agencies; greater involvement of

Member States, through their representatives on the Executive Boards in the operation

and control of agencies (French

Sénat);

merging agencies where they tasks represent functional similarities; making a more

efficient and rational use of available resources (Latvian

Saeima);

simplifying the structure and the governance of agencies; ensuring that Executive Boards

do not have an excessively large structure and that major decisions require qualified rather

than simple majority; assessing whether agencies fully meet the requirements of efficiency

and rapid response; concentrating budgetary resources on operational costs, instead of

administrative costs (Italian

Camera dei deputati);

actively supporting the development of agencies; promoting agencies in EU Member States

and among citizens; supporting civil servants who apply for working in EU agencies;

assessing agencies' effectiveness (Polish

Sejm);

as suggested in the Common Approach, undertaking an objective impact assessment

before deciding to create a new Agency; defining the criteria for the choice of the seat;



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



introducing a review clause foreseeing the option of merging or closing down agencies

(European Parliament's AFCO Committee);

improving agencies’ structure and governance, particularly in providing value for money for

European taxpayers (European Parliament's CONT Committee).

The Slovak

Národná rada

supported the view that there was no need to improve the structure and

the governance of agencies.

Effectiveness and adequacy of the existing accountability mechanisms by means of which EU

institutions monitor the agencies

For the European Parliament's BUDG Committee, the existing accountability mechanisms were

overall adequate and effective, while they were deemed to be only partly effective by the

Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

and not sufficiently adequate by the European Parliament's CONT

Committee. The governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat,

the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

and the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

replied

that the existing accountability mechanisms were not adequate and effective, while the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

viewed them as only partly effective. The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

underlined

that further efforts were necessary in this respect.

Accountability before the European Parliament and national Parliaments, when this is foreseen,

should be strengthened, according to the Italian

Senato della Repubblica.

It was also argued that

the European Parliament should have adequate monitoring powers (Italian

Camera dei deputati)

and a more proactive role (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon)

in scrutinising EU agencies.

The Lithuanian

Seimas

underlined that parliamentary control over the activities of the agencies

could be further enhanced, while the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

stated that existing

mechanisms did not fully recognise the role of national Parliaments in all cases and argued that

they could contribute to enhancing the accountability of agencies. The Portuguese

Assembleia da

República

argued that it was desirable for the heads of agencies to be available to come also to

national Parliaments for more in-depth monitoring.

The Latvian

Saeima

welcomed the European Commission guidelines on the prevention and

management of conflicts of interest in EU decentralised agencies, as well as its ongoing work on

the elaboration of evaluation guidelines. The European Parliament's BUDG Committee mentioned

the creation of a new working group, focusing on budgetary aspects of decentralised agencies. The

French

Sénat

called for the "horizontal" assessment of regulatory agencies undertaken by the

European Commission to include a systematic review of the added-value of their operation in

comparison with the action of Member States, under the principle of subsidiarity; this review

should also address possible overlaps of competences between agencies, with a view to

approximating or merging some of them.

The European Parliament's AFCO Committee recalled that the implementation of the Common

Approach represented a responsibility for the EU co-legislators, notably when deciding on

agencies' founding acts; notwithstanding the need for a case by case analysis, already performed

by the Commission upon preparation of its legislatives proposals, it would welcome a more

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

coherent and reform-minded approach on the side of the co-legislators when discussing issues

stemming from the Common Approach.

The Committee on Justice of the Swedish

Riksdag

proposed changes with a view to strengthen

parliamentary scrutiny of Europol and emphasised the importance of the national Parliaments

participating on equal terms in relation in the European Parliament in the discussions on the

establishment of a joint parliamentary scrutiny. With reference to the reporting requirements of

Europol, the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

proposed the creation of an interactive platform for

information exchange between Europol and national Parliaments and the European Parliament; it

also proposed the publication by the European Commission of a document informing the general

public on Europol's activities.

Possible contribution of national Parliaments to the current reflection on enhancing the

accountability of EU agencies

Fourteen responding Parliaments/Chambers answered national Parliaments could contribute to

the on-going reflection on enhancing the accountability of EU agencies, mentioning, among others

sharing best practices (Czech

Senát),

involving national Parliaments in reflecting on the role of

agencies and their supervision (Portuguese

Assembleia da República)

and using the outcome to set

up effective mechanisms (Hungarian

Országgyűlés);

ensuring strong parliamentary scrutiny of the

EU agencies (Committee on Justice of the Swedish

Riksdag)

by national Parliaments together with

the European Parliament (the governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat).

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

mentioned, in this regard, that it had accepted the invitation of the LIBE

committee of the European Parliament to voice its opinion on the accountability mechanism of

Europol. In relation to Europol, the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

suggested "the establishment of

a permanent interparliamentary forum for strengthening control by national Parliaments (...);

including Europol's relations with national Parliaments in its Communication Strategy as well as

the External Cooperation Strategy".

The Finnish

Eduskunta

argued that "national Parliaments should be careful when addressing the

inner mechanics of the EU executive" deeming, however, the general issue of whether agencies

were an appropriate answer to the EU’s needs a legitimate subject for Member States and

national Parliaments. The European Parliament's AFCO Committee recalled that EU agencies were

accountable to the EU institutions and that suggestions from national Parliaments to enhance that

accountability were welcome.

PART B - Relations between national Parliaments and EU agencies

Information by EU Parliaments on formal and informal relations with EU agencies

The overwhelming majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers (29 out of 37) replied that there

were no specific legal provisions (legislation, rules of procedure, etc.), practices or administrative

arrangements concerning relations between their respective Parliament/Chamber and EU

agencies.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The European Parliament is the discharge authority for the European agencies budget. As co-

legislator and budgetary authority, the European Parliament can prevent the creation of any

agency in case there is no agreement on its funding; all budgetary documents, including

information on building projects, have to be submitted to the European Parliament. The European

Parliament is involved in the nomination process of executive directors, ensures political

supervision, also through the presentation of agencies annual work programmes/activity reports,

has formal relations with agencies (visits, annual meetings, exchange of letters) and sometimes

directly uses agencies' expertise.

Several other Parliaments/Chambers provided details on existing arrangements, mentioning,

among others:



hearings by standing committees of EU agency officials in the framework of fact-finding

enquiries, under the Rules of Procedure or informally; the establishment by law of a Joint

Committee for Schengen Agreement, Europol and Immigration Oversight (Italian

Senato

della Repubblica);

national EU scrutiny procedures (Finnish

Eduskunta);

discussion of the annual reports of Europol and Eurojust (Czech

Senát,

Lithuanian

Seimas

which included this practice in its Rules of Procedure);

the appointment of a national contact point between the Spanish

Cortes Generales

and the

FRA;

contact with EU agencies both through subject committees and the scrutiny process of

Annual Reports (UK

House of Commons);

formal and informal meetings of officials from EU agencies with parliamentarians to discuss

specific issues; inquiry into FRONTEX and visit to Warsaw in order to take evidence from

the Director and senior officials; inquiry into the work of Europol and visit at The Hague to

Europol and Eurojust in order to take evidence from the Director; visit to the EMCDDA in

order to take evidence from the Director and senior officials; request for written evidence

from the European Asylum Support Office; scrutiny of the draft Proposal for a Regulation

on the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation & Training (Europol) proposed by the

Commission in 2013

; consideration of the Proposal for a Regulation establishing the

European Police College, repealing and replacing the Council Decision 2005/681/JHA

(CEPOL)

(UK

House of Lords);

hearings by Standing Committees of representatives of the EU Agencies under the Rules of

procedure (Italian

Camera dei Deputati).



Twenty out of the 30 responding Parliaments/Chambers could provide figures or general

information about formal and informal relations (hearings, visits, conferences, etc.) with EU

agencies since 2010, mentioning:



only occasional visits to/from the ECHA (Finnish

Eduskunta);

eleven committee meetings with the participation of representatives from EU agencies and

presentations made by the latter in various conferences (Lithuanian

Seimas);

COM (2013) 173

COM (2014) 465

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



discussion of annual reports of Eurojust and Europol with participation of Czech

members/liaison officers in these agencies; working visits of members to the FRA and to

the Europol and Eurojust (Czech

Senát);

visits of the Representative of the EMCDDA and of the Director of the FRA (Spanish

Cortes

Generales);

visits to Europol and Eurojust (French

Sénat);

invitation of representatives of EU agencies to committee meetings; meetings with

representatives of the FRA, the EASO, Eurojust and Europol (Dutch

Eerste Kamer);

participation in FRA conference, study visit to the EIGE, interest in the work of the EU-

OSHA, the Eurofound, reception of e-mails from the FRA (responding committees of

Swedish

Riksdag);

regular meetings with agencies and productive relationship (UK

House of Lords);

joint committee hearing with the Director of the FRA; contacts between competent

committees and the EMCDDA (Portuguese

Assembleia da República);

planned session with the participation of FRONTEX representatives in the near future

(Polish

Sejm);

three meetings with Eurojust, BEREC, FRA (Latvian

Saeima);

seven meetings (3 formal hearings, 2 informal meetings, 1 conference and 1 Study visit of a

delegation of the Chamber) (Italian

Camera dei deputati);

six hearings (of which 4 formal as part of an enquiry and 2 informal jointly with the

Chamber of Deputies); 1 visit of the Senate Health Committee to the EMEA (Italian

Senato

della Repubblica);

participation of the Director of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology in 2

committee meetings (Hungarian

Országgyűlés);

thematic session where the EMCDDA presented the European Drug Report; visit of

members to the EMCDDA (Croatian

Hrvatski sabor);

participation of parliamentarians to joint meetings organised by the European Parliament;

parliamentary questions; hearings in the framework of preparation of legislation (Belgian

Chambre des représentants);

between 2012-2014, 6 conferences involving the ACER, Europol, EIGE and EEA (Romanian

Senat);

two visits and the participation of parliamentarian delegations to 3 conferences (Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor);

in 2014, 3 meetings were held between the competent committees and delegations from

FRA, EIGE and ENISA; participation of the FRONTEX Director Executive as a speaker in a

meeting held during the Hellenic Presidency (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon);

based on the decision of relevant committees - (formal and informal) meetings with

representatives from FRONTEX, the EDA, ESMA, EBA and EIOPA, the Director of FRA;

debates on Annual Report (Eurojust, EDA); visits to FRA, EBA, EDA and to the OHIM;

discussion and adoption of legislation on relevant agencies (German

Bundestag);

the European Parliament's CONT Committee organises every year a presentation of

discharge reports, as well as an exchange of views, in the presence of the agencies’

Directors; in 2011 it organised a hearing on the discharge to decentralised agencies and in

2013 a workshop on better avoidance of conflict of interest in EU agencies and other

bodies; BUDG organises annual hearings with the Agency network; it commissioned 3

studies on agency-related issues; the rapporteurs and Committee Chair visited several

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

agencies (e.g. FRONTEX in 2011) and participated in meetings of the Heads of agencies;

various agencies had to defend their building policy before the committee; PECH organised

in 2013 a mini-hearing on EFCA performance, with EFCA representatives, and sent a

delegation to EFCA in 2012.

Making use of information or expertise provided by EU agencies

Sixteen of the 33 responding Parliaments/Chambers replied that they made use of information or

expertise provided by EU agencies in the framework of their activities. In general, according to the

information provided, this was done at both political and administrative level (Czech

Senát,

Spanish

Cortes Generales,

responding committees of the Swedish

Riksdag,

House of Commons,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Danish

Folketing,

Polish

Sejm,

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

German

Bundestag,

responding committees of the European Parliament) or only at political

(Finnish

Eduskunta,

House of Lords,)

Dutch

Eerste Kamer)

or administrative level (Romanian

Senat,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Latvian

Saeima,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati).

Respondents stated that the information and expertise provided by EU agencies under the form of

studies, reports, statistics, but also delivered in the framework of formal and informal meetings

with officials from EU agencies, was used in the work of parliamentary bodies, namely in the

scrutiny of related proposals of EU legislation, in the legislative process, in national policy-making

for an assessment of policies and trends or when considering the review of legislation and as a

general source of information for parliamentary business (Czech

Senát,

Spanish

Cortes Generales,

Italian

Camera dei deputati,

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon).

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

mentioned that, when agencies published documents on European

dossiers that were under scrutiny by the Chamber, these documents were linked in the electronic

dossier on the website of the Senate. The information and expertise provided by Europol,

Eurojust, FRA, EMCDDA, EU-OSHA, FRONTEX, EIGE, ESMA, EBA and EIOPA were specifically

referred to by some of the responding Parliaments/Chambers.

Improving relations between national Parliaments and EU agencies

Twenty-two of the 26 responding Parliaments/Chambers replied that, in their view, relations

between national Parliaments and EU agencies should be improved and that there was scope for

contact and cooperation to be enhanced. The Czech

Senát

explained that, given the limited time

and resources of the Chamber, establishing closer relations with other agencies was not a priority.

Various practical recommendations were made in this respect, among which:



regular invitations from agencies to representatives from national Parliaments for site visits

(Dutch

Eerste Kamer)

and availability of the agency directors to travel regularly

(Portuguese

Assembleia da República);

formal and informal meetings of officials from EU agencies with parliamentarians (UK

House of Lords)

both in individual Chambers and in Agency seats (Polish

Sjem,

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés),

more frequent bilateral and multilateral meetings (Italian

Camera

dei deputati);



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



exchange of documents (Italian

Camera dei deputati);

regular and systematic access to

information about the activities of EU agencies (Hungarian

Országgyűlés)

that could be

directly transmitted by the latter to national Parliaments (Latvian

Saeima);

use of the IPEX platform by agencies in order to inform national Parliaments on data

available and how to access it (Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor);

attendance of executive directors or experts from EU agencies to Committee hearings or

debates (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna);

annual hearing of the agencies’ CEOs during Joint committee meetings (Belgian

Chambre

des représentants);

extending directors/boards existing reporting duties

vis-à-vis

national Parliaments to other

agencies (Governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat and

Bundesrat);

regular interparliamentary meetings of committees with those who are responsible for the

implementation of relevant Treaty provisions (Italian

Senato della Repubblica);

the responding committees of the Swedish

Riksdag,

while acknowledging that a closer

contact between national Parliaments and EU agencies would increase the perceived

reliability of the information given by the EU agencies, pointed out that national agencies

with similar competences might be more appropriate points of contact for certain issues;

The French

Sénat

mentioned specific documents on the activities of Europol which national

Parliaments should receive regularly and timely, suggesting that this could also be

considered in order to improve cooperation with other agencies;

more frequent inclusion of discussions on agencies or on a specific agency in the agenda of

interparliamentary meetings, notably COSAC (Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés).

Referring to the Proposal for a Regulation establishing Europol

, the UK

House of Lords

took the

view that "the provisions proposed by the Commission were very much what was needed, while

the amendments proposed by the European Parliament would give rise to a large and expensive

body, meeting only at and on the invitation of the European Parliament, without any of the

desirable flexibility for such arrangements".

The Romanian

Senat

affirmed that any kind of conflict of competencies between national

Parliaments and the European Parliament had to be avoided and that cooperation between the

national level and the European level of decision-making had to be strengthened in relation to the

control of the functioning of European agencies.

Regulation establishing Europol, see footnote 47

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files