This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012DC0375
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2011 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2011 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2011 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
/* COM/2012/0375 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2011 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS /* COM/2012/0375 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2011
ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS 1. Introduction This seventh annual report on relations
between the Commission and national Parliaments focuses on the political
dialogue with national Parliaments in a broad sense. It encompasses all
relevant interactions and exchanges of information and opinion between the
Commission and national Parliaments. Specific aspects relating to the subsidiarity
control mechanism (through which national Parliaments scrutinise whether draft
legislative acts comply with the principle of subsidiarity) are dealt with in
the Annual Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, which is published in
parallel[1]
and should thus be seen as complementary to this report. The political dialogue between the
Commission and national Parliaments is a continuous debate on the Commission
Work Programme (CWP) and the EU’s political priorities; a written exchange of
views on specific Commission documents (legislative or otherwise); and
discussions on a wide range of policy issues in the COSAC, in joint parliamentary
meetings, inter-parliamentary committee meetings and joint committee meetings.
It also covers a growing number of bilateral contacts, at administrative or political
level, including numerous visits by Commissioners to national Parliaments. The
fact that, as of 2011, almost all national Parliaments have sent permanent
representatives to Brussels has been instrumental in stepping up this
particular aspect of the political dialogue. In 2010, the Commission’s relations with
national Parliaments were still predominantly framed by the entry into force of
the Treaty of Lisbon. The focus was on the implementation of the new Treaty
provisions, in particular of the new subsidiarity control mechanism. National
Parliaments adapted their scrutiny processes and political focus. In 2011, there was an environment of
growing economic, social and political instability. As the global economic
crisis hit the Euro zone, national political debates increasingly focused on the
substance of European policies. The overall message emerging from the political
dialogue with national Parliaments in 2011 has been that a lot is expected of
the Commission. The political dialogue in its broader sense
naturally covers a wide range of topics and policy domains. However, in 2011
two major issues of common interest emerged. Apart from opinions and exchanges on
a vast array of legislative measures proposed in response to the economic and
financial crisis (for instance, in relation to financial regulation, the single
market and economic governance), national Parliaments were also involved in the
debate concerning the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014 – 2020 in
general, and the sectoral proposals in particular. 2. Building a common
understanding of the challenges In 2011, it became increasingly clear that,
over and above the regular parliamentary scrutiny of European affairs in 40
national Chambers, there is a case for creating a structured exchange of views,
between and with national Parliaments, with a view to shaping a shared
perspective on major European issues and challenges. Over and above the various inter-parliamentary
configurations, steered by the European Parliament and the Parliament of the Member
State holding the EU Council Presidency, the method used so far within COSAC
was to concentrate on subsidiarity vetting, based on a coordinated examination of
the CWP. However, in 2010 the focus started to shift. In May 2010, the Madrid COSAC
suggested that the Commission President should present the CWP for the current
year at the first six-monthly COSAC meeting, while at the second such meeting, he
should be invited to present an overview of how the CWP was being implemented. Building on these reflections, President
Barroso addressed the Brussels COSAC in October 2010 and reiterated the
Commission’s conviction that individual opinions of national Parliaments or
collective contributions via the COSAC should be submitted to feed into the
preparation of the CWP, complementing the Commission’s formal structured dialogue
with the European Parliament. National Parliaments could thus help to build a
real consensus on where the EU should focus its policy and resources for the
coming years. During the first half of 2011, the
Hungarian COSAC Presidency shared this perspective and focused discussions accordingly.
The Budapest COSAC in May 2011 concluded that the Commission should, in the
second half of each year, present its work programme for the following year and
in principle agreed with the idea of a general policy debate feeding into the
strategic planning process — even though several Parliaments still had doubts
about the feasibility of such an ex ante discussion within the COSAC, in
the absence of a document which might serve as a basis for discussion. Already on that occasion, Vice-President
Šefčovič reiterated the Commission’s belief that, as a first step in
this direction, national Parliaments could focus on the
major issue of economic governance. Through collective involvement in the
European Semester, national Parliaments and the European Parliament could be
encouraged to debate jointly the main lines of EU policy, as formulated in the
Europe 2020 strategy and reflected in the National Reform Programmes and the country-specific
recommendations, or the Annual Growth Survey for the given year. The Vice-President also identified the budget
as another clear case where a collective assessment could help to paint a
broader picture. In this way, the added value of inter-parliamentary
cooperation, i.e. getting an overview of what happens in other Member States,
exchanging best practices, and increasing the peer pressure needed to deliver,
could be best harnessed. During the second half of 2011, the Polish
COSAC Presidency focused national Parliaments’ attention on the Commission’s MFF
2014 – 2020 proposal. As a follow-up, in October 2011, a first High-level Conference
dedicated to the post-2013 MFF was organised jointly by the Polish Presidency
of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. It specifically
targeted national Parliaments, which took an active part. One of the most
debated issues was the question of own resources. The efforts made by national Parliaments,
the European Parliament and the Commission over the past two years to
coordinate priorities at European level are expected to continue. Economic
governance and the next MFF are likely to remain two of the main common policy
challenges (see chapter 5). 3. Opinions from national Parliaments (Political
dialogue) Participation Launched by President Barroso in 2006, the written exchange of
opinions and replies between national Parliaments and the Commission has been steadily
intensifying over the past six years. The total number of opinions received
from national Parliaments in 2011, including reasoned opinions under the
subsidiarity control mechanism, reached 622. This represents an increase of some
60 % compared to 2010 (387), which had already seen a 55 % increase over
2009 (250). This upward trend has continued into 2012,
with more than 400 opinions received by June 2012. The great majority of the 622 opinions
received in 2011 contained substantive comments and questions on the content of
Commission proposals and initiatives. As in previous years, only a comparatively
small number (64) of opinions were reasoned opinions within the meaning of
Protocol No 2, notifying a breach of the principle of subsidiarity. There was a particularly notable increase
in the number of opinions received from the Portuguese Parliament, from both
Romanian chambers, the Swedish Parliament, the Czech Senate and the Bulgarian
Parliament[2].
Only four chambers took no part at all in the political dialogue in 2011
(compared to ten in 2010). Since its inception, the political dialogue
has helped to make European decision-making more transparent and to bring
European policies closer to the public debate in Member States, thus raising
public awareness on some of the key European policy issues. The Commission
continues to encourage those Parliaments which, for different reasons, have so
far chosen not to participate actively in a direct exchange with the Commission
on the substance of its proposals and strategic initiatives, to engage in this
political dialogue. This includes exchanges during the
pre-legislative phase, e.g. in the context of public consultations, and in
terms of targeted contacts and discussions at both political and expert levels.
These are a particularly effective way for national Parliaments to contribute
constructively to the shaping of future EU initiatives and legislation, as several
concrete examples have shown. The Commission has indicated its openness to
examine the possibility of systematically alerting national Parliaments to all
public consultations as and when they are launched, and of highlighting more
specifically national Parliaments’ contributions. Following up on its
Communication on "Smart Regulation in the European Union"
{COM(2010)543}, the Commission is now carrying out a review of its consultation
policy. Among other things, the review will look at the need and ways to
increase the reach of its consultations and strengthen the quality and
transparency of the information on the results of consultations. Scope The focus of national Parliaments’ opinions
remains diverse. The 622 opinions received in 2011 addressed a large number of
Commission documents, predominantly legislative ones, with the majority of proposals
and initiatives eliciting only between one and three opinions. However, the
number of Commission documents receiving comments from more than four chambers (67)
has increased significantly compared to 2010 (25). The proposals which attracted most comments
in 2011[3]
were also those which elicited the highest number of reasoned opinions under
the subsidiarity control mechanism, such as the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax
Base[4] (17 opinions, including nine
reasoned opinions); temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal
borders in exceptional circumstances[5]
(11 opinions in 2011, of which six were reasoned opinions); jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of
decisions regarding the property consequences of
registered partnerships[6]
(eight opinions, four of them reasoned opinions); and Common European Sales Law[7] (seven opinions in 2011, including
five reasoned opinions). In 2011, five policy fields accounted for
more than half of the opinions received in the context of the political
dialogue - Internal Market and Services, Justice, Agriculture, Home Affairs and
Taxation. Despite the fact that the Commission has
encouraged national Parliaments to see the CWP as a strategic tool in helping
to build a consensus on where the EU should focus its policy for the coming
year(s), very few national Parliaments expressed their views on the CWP 2011 in
the context of the political dialogue. The political dialogue on key topics Apart from the numerous economic governance
and MFF-related files, the following initiatives and proposals are among those
which attracted particular attention from national Parliaments’ in 2011: ·
Energy efficiency directive[8] In the ten opinions submitted in 2011 (four
more in early 2012), parliamentary chambers expressed somewhat similar positions.
On the one hand, they were concerned about the financial and administrative
burden; on the other they called for a more specific country-based approach
with more discretion for national and local authorities. Their fear was that EU action at administrative level would not leave
room for solutions adapted to national and regional conditions. Two national Parliaments
issued a reasoned opinion in this respect, claiming a breach of the
subsidiarity principle. However, national Parliaments agreed
that achieving the 20 % primary energy saving target was a key objective
under the Europe 2020 Strategy. ·
Taxation of energy products and electricity[9] Of ten opinions received in 2011, half
argued that the impact assessment accompanying the proposal was not thorough
enough and did not provide enough qualitative and quantitative indicators to back
the proposal’s compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Several opinions underlined
that the provisions of the proposal could jeopardise the competitiveness of the
EU economy. Potential administrative, financial and fiscal burdens and the potentially
negative social impact were also matters of concern. ·
Communication on procedures for the scrutiny of Europol’s
activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments[10] The Commission received nine opinions,
welcoming the Commission's communication. A large majority of the Chambers were
in favour of using the existing inter-parliamentary committee meetings to
ensure a proper scrutiny of Europol rather than setting up new forums or
conferences. They advocated more efficiency and flexibility and proposed using
the same structures for the parliamentary scrutiny of Eurojust. National Parliaments
also called for a balanced approach when defining the size of parliamentary
delegations to the new supervisory body, though the understanding of such a balance
varies. 4. Contacts and Visits As in previous years, a wide range of
personal contacts and meetings, at both political and administrative level,
have complemented the exchange of written opinions and replies between national
Parliaments and the Commission. The Vice-President for inter-institutional
relations, Mr Šefčovič, continued to make regular visits to national
Parliaments in line with his objective of meeting all of them at least once
during his term of office. During 2011, members of the Commission visited 24
out of 27 national Parliaments. The Commission was represented at political
level at all major inter-parliamentary meetings held during 2011, including the
meetings of the COSAC and the joint parliamentary meetings. The High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/ Vice-President of the
Commission, Baroness Ashton, attended or was represented at the meetings of the
COFACC and the CODACC[11]. The conference on the Common Fisheries Policy reform, organised by the
Commission in October 2011, and the first High-level Conference on the Multiannual
Financial Framework for 2014 -2020, organised jointly by the Council
Presidency, the European Parliament and the European Commission on 20-21
October 2011, were specifically targeted at national Parliaments, whose members
took an active part. Commission officials also continued to give
evidence before national Parliaments’ committees, when requested, and to have regular
meetings with the permanent representatives of national Parliaments based in
Brussels to discuss a variety of upcoming initiatives or ongoing files. In 2011, permanent representatives of
national Parliaments met twice with Vice-President Šefčovič, and once
each with Vice-President Kallas and with Commissioner Georgieva. 2011 also saw
an intensification of contacts between the Commission and national Parliaments as
part of the preparations for a new regulation on the democratic scrutiny of
Europol. A meeting of stakeholders, including representatives of national
Parliaments, provided an occasion for a first exchange of views on the topic in
January 2011. 5. Outlook: Common Policy
Challenges Tackling the consequences of the economic
crisis, promoting growth and job creation, especially for young people, and
further strengthening European economic governance will remain at the top of Europe’s
political agenda in 2012. The inter-parliamentary committee meeting on economic
governance in Brussels in February 2012 confirmed that there is a strong
interest on the part of both national Parliaments and the Commission in an
intensified exchange of views, not least because the European Semester is still
a relatively new and evolving mechanism. The financial, economic, and sovereign debt
crises have shown why closer coordination among Member States is needed. These efforts
must however recognise that many aspects of economic policy remain a national
competence. National stakeholders, and in particular national Parliaments, need
to have a full understanding of the EU-level and euro area context if they are
to make fully informed economic policy decisions. The introduction of the European Semester
in 2011 was an important step forward in this regard. The Commission’s Annual
Growth Survey, which launches the Semester each year, sets out cross-cutting
policy guidance with an EU-level and euro-area dimension that Member States are
required to take into account when formulating national policies. The success
of the European Semester is measured by how far the country-specific
recommendations are reflected in national policy-making during the second half
of the year - the national semester - which sees budgets and reform programmes
proposed by governments and adopted by Parliaments. The role of national Parliaments in explaining
often difficult policy choices having an impact beyond national borders is
vitally important, while strong national ownership is necessary to create the
political conditions under which reforms can succeed. Against this background,
and as it stressed throughout 2011, the Commission is fully committed to stepping
up its political dialogue with national Parliaments, particularly in terms of
economic governance. More concretely, and as it said at the Copenhagen
COSAC meeting in April 2012, the Commission sees two particular moments during
the European Semester when an intensified dialogue with national Parliaments
could provide real added value: first, following the publication of the Commission’s
Annual Growth Survey, which sets out broad priorities for the EU as a whole for
the coming year; and second, once the Commission has presented and the European
Council has endorsed country-specific guidance on the basis of the Member
States’ National Reform Programmes and Stability and Convergence Programmes. At
these key stages, the Commission is ready and willing to discuss with national
Parliaments both cross-cutting and country-specific questions related to
economic governance and to provide further clarification. On 30 May 2012, under the 2012 European
Semester, the Commission transmitted country-specific recommendations to the
Council, taking account of the situation of each Member State. The Commission
has also issued recommendations for the euro area as a whole, and set out its vision
for the EU-level policy action needed to complement the national measures to
deliver an ambitious, two-tiered EU growth initiative[12]. In addition to the issue of economic
governance, discussions and negotiations on the MFF 2014 – 2020 will reach an
advanced stage in 2012. The second MFF Conference in March 2012 confirmed the
need for close and effective communication between the Commission and national
Parliaments on the shape of the next multiannual financial framework and thus
on the future scope and impact of EU policies. And finally, preparations for the upcoming legislative
proposal on the democratic scrutiny of Europol based on Article 88 of the TFEU will
intensify throughout 2012. Following national Parliaments’ reactions to the
Commission’s communication of November 2010 (see chapter 3), there was a
constructive high-level meeting between the Commission, national Parliaments
and the European Parliament in April 2012, and the Commission will continue to
involve both closely in ongoing reflections and pre-legislative discussions. As decision-making at European level becomes
more and more complex, and as public support is needed for the profound and
often difficult reforms ahead, the Commission remains committed to encouraging
any initiatives which will help to boost the democratic scrutiny of EU policy processes
and enhance national ownership of our common policy choices. Annex 1
Overall number of opinions received per country/chamber (political dialogue and
subsidiarity control mechanism)
National Parliament || Chamber || Total number of opinions (political dialogue) || Reasoned opinions (Protocol 2) Portugal || Assembleia da República || 184 || 1 Italy || Senato della Repubblica || 76 || 3 Czech Republic || Senát || 43 || 0 Sweden || Riksdag || 42 || 11 Romania || Camera Deputaţilor || 40 || 2 Romania || Senatul || 33 || 2 Germany || Bundesrat || 33 || 1 Italy || Camera dei Deputati || 28 || 2 Bulgaria || Narodno Sabranie || 19 || 2 United Kingdom || House of Lords || 16 || 1 Denmark || Folketing || 14 || 1 Luxembourg || Chambre des Députés || 14 || 7 United Kingdom || House of Commons || 8 || 3 Austria || Nationalrat || 7 || 0 Germany || Bundestag || 6 || 1 The Netherlands || Eerste Kamer || 6 || 0 Poland || Sejm || 5 || 5 Czech Republic || Poslanecká sněmovna || 5 || 0 Poland || Senat || 4 || 4 Lithuania || Seimas || 4 || 0 Belgium || Chambre des Représentants || 4 || 1 France || Sénat || 4 || 1 Greece || Vouli ton Ellnion || 4 || 0 Austria || Bundesrat || 3 || 1 Netherlands || Both Chambers || 3 || 2 Spain || Both Chambers || 2 || 2 Finland || Eduskunta || 2 || 1 Belgium || Sénat || 2 || 1 France || Assemblée nationale || 2 || 1 Malta || Kamra tad-Deputati || 2 || 2 Slovakia || Národná Rada || 2 || 2 Ireland || Dail Eireann || 1 || 1 Romania || Both Chambers || 1 || / Netherlands || Tweede Kamer || 1 || 1 Cyprus || Vouli ton Antiprosopon || 1 || 1 Latvia || Saeima || 1 || 0 Estonia || Riikikogu || 0 || 0 Slovenia || Državni svet || 0 || 0 Slovenia || Državni zbor || 0 || 0 Hungary || Országgyülés || 0 || 0 || Total || 622 || 64 Annex 2
Commission proposals and initiatives generating the highest number of opinions
in the context of the political dialogue (2011) Commission document || Title || Total number of opinions (political dialogue) || Reasoned opinions (Protocol 2) COM(2011) 121 || Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) || 17 || 9 COM(2011) 560 || Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances || 11[13] || 6 COM(2011) 370 || Energy efficiency || 10[14] || 2 COM(2011) 169 || Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity || 10 || 2 COM(2011) 32 || Passenger Name Records || 9[15] || / COM(2010) 776 || Scrutiny of Europol’s activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments || 9 || / COM(2011) 127 || Jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships || 8 || 4 COM(2010) 608 || Towards a Single Market Act for a highly competitive social market economy || 8 || / COM(2011) 608 || Globalisation Adjustment Fund || 7[16] || 3 COM(2011) 635 || Common European Sales Law || 7[17] || 5 COM(2011) 594 || Financial Transaction Tax || 7[18] || 3 [1] COM(2012) 373. [2] See table in Annex 1. [3] See Annex 2. [4] COM(2011) 121. [5] COM(2011) 560. [6] COM(2011) 127. [7] COM(2011) 635. [8] COM(2011) 370. [9] COM(2011) 169. [10] COM(2010) 776. [11] Conference of Chairpersons of Foreign Affairs Committee
and Conference of Chairpersons of Defence Affairs Committees. [12] Communication on Action for Stability, Growth and Jobs
{COM(2012)299} [13] By mid-May 2012, the Commission had received a total of
12 opinions on this proposal. [14] By mid-May 2012, the Commission had received a total of
12 opinions on this proposal. [15] By mid-May 2012, the Commission had received a total of
10 opinions on this proposal. [16] By mid-May 2012, the Commission had received a total of
9 opinions on this proposal. [17] By mid-May 2012, the Commission had received a total of
11 opinions on this proposal. [18] By mid-May 2012, the Commission had received a total of
11 opinions on this proposal.