EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52013DC0565

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2012 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

/* COM/2013/0565 final */

52013DC0565

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2012 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS /* COM/2013/0565 final */


ANNUAL REPORT 2012 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS

1.           Introduction

In 2012, as in the previous two years, relations between the European Commission and national Parliaments continued to develop along two tracks: on the one hand the Treaty-based subsidiarity control mechanism, whereby national Parliaments scrutinise the Commission by systematically checking the subsidiarity compliance of its newly adopted legislative proposals, and on the other hand the political dialogue, which encompasses exchanges of information and opinions on different policy issues during both the legislative and the non-legislative phase and goes beyond the question of subsidiarity.

This eighth annual report on relations between the Commission and national Parliaments focuses on the political dialogue. Specific aspects relating to the subsidiarity control mechanism, including the first ‘yellow card’ triggered by national Parliaments on the Commission proposal for a Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II), are dealt with in the 2012 Annual Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, which is published in parallel and should thus be seen as complementary to this report.

The first ‘yellow card’ certainly was a key feature in the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments in 2012. However, the broader dialogue on the substance of the Commission’s policies and proposals, going beyond the control of subsidiarity compliance and giving national Parliaments the possibility to actively participate in policy shaping at EU-level, also became a key feature of the EU landscape, especially in the context of the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The dialogue intensified further, hence substantially enriching the relations between the Commission and national Parliaments.

In 2012, the political dialogue took the form of (i) general bilateral and multilateral debates and discussions, often triggered by or held in the context of inter-parliamentary meetings (see chapter 2), (ii) exchange of written opinions from national Parliaments and Commission replies (see chapter 3) and (iii) numerous other contacts and meetings throughout the year (see chapter 4).

2.           Main challenges: Growth-friendly fiscal consolidation and democratic legitimacy

In 2011, in addition to opinions and exchanges on an array of legislative measures proposed in response to the economic and financial crisis, national Parliaments were closely involved in the debate concerning the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-20 in general, and the sectoral proposals in particular. In 2012, in a context of economic fragility, national Parliaments focused even more on the European response to the crisis and backed up the Commission’s endeavours in that respect.

The Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC), which includes representatives of the European Parliament, continued to be an important forum for discussions with national Parliaments. The Danish COSAC Presidency boosted parliamentary activity on the 12 key actions in the Single Market Act and helped to raise awareness of the importance of the Digital Agenda for Europe, implementation of the Services Directive and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe. The Cyprus COSAC Presidency maintained these efforts by keeping Single Market governance and trans-European energy infrastructure high on its agenda.

In the Annual Growth Survey for 2013, published in November 2012,[1] the Commission confirmed that the priorities were to continue with differentiated, country-specific fiscal consolidation; to contain the turbulence in the sovereign debt market so as to restore financial stability and lending; to implement structural reforms, especially in the labour market, which improve competitiveness and increase price flexibility; and to ensure efficient public administration.

Throughout the year, the Commission continued to encourage national Parliaments to get involved in the European Semester so as to shape the debate on the main lines of EU policy, as formulated in the Europe 2020 strategy. In reply to a call from the Copenhagen COSAC in April 2012 to enhance the political dialogue during the European Semester, the Commission committed itself to intensified dialogue with national Parliaments at two times in particular:[2] first, early in the year, following the publication of the Annual Growth Survey and secondly, once the European Council has endorsed the country-specific recommendations. This should help to raise awareness in national Parliaments and facilitate their involvement in the early preparation of the national budget plans (Stability/Convergence programmes) and National Reform Programmes. It should also improve understanding of the reasoning behind the country-specific recommendations, which ultimately rely on national policy-making for their implementation.

At the same time, the political dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments in 2012 was conducted against the background of an emerging consensus across the EU that Member States’ macro-economic and budgetary policies needed to be more closely coordinated if the EMU was to remain functional, but also that any further deepening of the EMU also had to provide for strong democratic control involving national Parliaments and the European Parliament. Accordingly, in its Blueprint for a deep and genuine EMU — Launching a European Debate,[3] in which the Commission set out its views on what needed to be done to further integrate European banking, fiscal and economic policies, it also pointed out that democratic accountability can be ensured only in a system with clear responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. The Blueprint aimed to launch a wider public and institutional debate on these issues, and the Commission has stated repeatedly that it was looking forward to receiving national Parliaments’ opinions and views.

The Commission emphasised that, as a general rule, democratic accountability should be ensured at the level at which the executive decision is taken, while taking due account of the level at which the decision has an impact. A deeper integration of policy-making and a greater pooling of competences at European level should therefore be mirrored by increased involvement of the European Parliament. New mechanisms to increase the level of cooperation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament could also be explored, however, as members of all Parliaments should be fully aware of the interdependencies of their decisions. Parliaments’ roles at both levels are specific and complementary. At both levels, their scrutiny powers must be strengthened and inter-parliamentary cooperation could be deepened. It is for the European Parliament and national Parliaments together to determine the precise form that this should take.

Against this background, the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the European Semester started to emerge as a key feature of inter-parliamentary dialogue as such, and of national Parliaments’ dialogue with the Commission. This included informal[4] and more formal initiatives to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and inter-parliamentary cooperation in the context of reinforced economic governance, be it generally through the inter-parliamentary cooperation framed by Article 9 of Protocol 1 of the Treaties, or on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG), as agreed at the European Council meeting in March 2012 (conference of representatives of the relevant parliamentary committees) (see also chapter 5).

3.           Written opinions from national Parliaments

Participation and scope

The total number of opinions received from national Parliaments in 2012 rose to 663;[5] this represented an increase of 7 % as compared with 2011 (622), a much smaller increase than in previous years (55 % in 2010, 60 % in 2011).

When looking at the most active chambers[6], the number of opinions received from the Portuguese Assembleia da República increased significantly (from 184 to 227) and accounted for more than 30 % of all opinions addressed to the Commission in 2012. However, the Italian Senato della Repubblica (increase from 76 submissions to 96), the German Bundesrat (from 33 to 59), the French Sénat (from 4 to 19), the Austrian Bundesrat (from 3 to 12), the Polish Senat (from 4 to 11), the Czech Poslanecká snĕmovna (from 5 to 10), the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas (from 1 to 7) and the two Spanish chambers, the Congreso de los Diputados and the Senado, jointly (from 2 to 7) also intensified their participation in political dialogue with the Commission.

On the other hand, there was a clear decrease in the number of submissions from a number of chambers, i.e. the Romanian Camera Deputaţilor (from 40 to 26), the Italian Camera dei Deputati (from 28 to 15), the Bulgarian Narodno Sabranie (from 19 to 13), the Danish Folketing (from 14 to 8), Luxembourg’s Chambre des Députés (from 14 to 6) and the Romanian Senat (from 33 to 2).

Overall, 15 chambers intensified their activities in the context of the political dialogue during 2012, 15 were less active and seven sent exactly the same number of opinions as in 2011. It is worth noting that the Swedish Riksdag, while almost doubling the number of reasoned opinions (from 11 to 20), sent 60 % fewer opinions relating to the content of Commission proposals and initiatives.

The ten most active chambers in the political dialogue account for more than 80 % of the total number of opinions received. Six chambers sent no opinions to the Commission and five sent only one.

In 2012, the 663 opinions sent by national Parliaments related to no fewer than 354 different (legislative and non-legislative) Commission documents[7]. The 23 Commission documents eliciting most comment, i.e. five or more opinions, accounted for only 25 % of all the opinions received. The great majority of Commission documents on which national Parliaments commented elicited one to three opinions, which reflects the diverse range of topics that attract national Parliaments’ attention and interest.

The ‘yellow card’ procedure,[8] an important development in relations between the Commission and national Parliaments, was triggered for the first time by certain national Parliaments expressing subsidiarity concerns on the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II).[9] This issue is dealt with in detail in the 2012 Annual Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality to which reference is made.

The Commission proposals and initiatives which provoked most opinions from national Parliaments were the Monti II Regulation[10] (17 opinions), the Data Protection Directive[11] (13), the Data Protection Regulation[12] (12), the Concession Awards Directive[13] (11), the Copyright and Licensing Directive[14] (10), the Roadworthiness Regulation[15], the Trans-European Transport Network Guidelines[16] (9), the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived[17] (8), the Directive on Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions[18] (8), the Regulation on Supervision of Credit Institutions[19] (8), the Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation[20] (7), the Roadworthiness Directive[21] (6), the Transparency Directives[22] (6), the Directive on Medicinal Products subject to Medical Prescription[23] (6), the Regulation on Medicinal Products subject to Medical Prescription[24] (6)  and the cohesion policy legislative package 2014-2020[25] (5).

As in 2011, among the proposals which attracted most opinions overall from national Parliaments[26] were also those which elicited the highest number of reasoned opinions under the subsidiarity control mechanism. In 2012, six policy areas (five in 2011) accounted for more than half of the opinions received in the context of the political dialogue (334): internal market and services, justice, home affairs, mobility and transport, employment and health. In view of the focus of opinions in previous years, internal market and services, justice, and home affairs seem to present perennial and key areas of interest for national Parliaments.

2012 saw a continuation of the trend, which started after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, whereby national Parliaments are focusing their political dialogue with the Commission more and more on legislative, rather than non-legislative, documents. In fact, only a negligible proportion of the documents on which national Parliaments’ opinions focused were non-legislative. Among the 23 proposals eliciting the most opinions (i.e. five or more) from national Parliaments, only one, the Commission’s Communication on the Energy Roadmap 2050, was non-legislative. Bucking this trend, however the Swedish Riksdag’s 13 political opinions concerned exclusively non-legislative documents, while the 20 opinions issued on legislative documents were all reasoned opinions.

Key topics in the political dialogue[27]

The following initiatives and proposals were among those which attracted particular attention from national Parliaments in 2012:

· Proposal for a Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement on such data. [28]

Of the eight Commission proposals that gave rise to three reasoned opinions, the proposal for a regulation on data protection was the one criticised on the grounds both of subsidiarity and of proportionality. [29]

· Proposal for a Directive on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market[30]

The Commission received ten opinions, in general evaluating its proposal positively. However, these included three reasoned opinions challenging the proposal's compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and another opinion which raised serious subsidiarity concerns but was received after the deadline of eight weeks.

· Proposal for a Directive on the award of concession contracts[31]

Of the 11 opinions received by the Commission, three were reasoned opinions expressing concerns in relation to the principle of subsidiarity and one questioned the proposal’s compliance with subsidiarity but was received after the eight-week deadline.

· Proposal for a Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network[32]

The Commission received nine opinions on this proposal, including one questioning the latter’s compliance with the subsidiarity principle but sent after the deadline.

4.           Contacts and Visits

The political dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments also took the form of meetings and contacts at political and administrative level.

All national Parliaments have meetings on an ongoing basis with members of the Commission, in Brussels and in the respective Member States. The Vice-President for Inter-Institutional Relations, Maroš Šefčovič, visited six national Parliaments in 2012 and received a large number of parliamentary delegations at Commission headquarters in Brussels. Among discussions on specific legislative proposals and policy initiatives, issues relating to the new economic governance structure, democratic legitimacy and the European response to the crisis, in all its different aspects, often featured prominently on the agenda.

The Commission was represented at political level at all major inter-parliamentary meetings held during 2012. In particular, President Barroso took part in the COSAC plenary meeting in Copenhagen in April 2012, along with Vice-President Kroes and Commissioners Potočnik and Barnier, while the other three COSAC meetings saw the participation of Vice-President Šefčovič, Commissioners Hedegaard and Oettinger, and the Deputy Director-General of DG MARKT.

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton, attended the first meeting of the newly established Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, as agreed at the Speakers’ Conference on 21-22 April 2012 in Warsaw.

Commission officials participated in meetings of national Parliaments’ committees when requested and ten different DGs (MARKT, SG, JUST, RTD, JRC, ECFIN, ENTR, COMM, HOME and REGIO) attended 17 meetings with national Parliaments’ Brussels-based permanent representatives to discuss a variety of upcoming initiatives or ongoing files. Permanent representatives of national Parliaments met once with Vice-President Šefčovič and once with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, as well as with members of President Barroso’s, Vice-President Šefčovič’s and Commissioners Malmström and Andor’s cabinets.

5.           Outlook

The beginning of 2013 saw several key events at which national Parliaments and the European Parliament repeatedly expressed their wish for greater involvement in the deepened EMU and the European Semester. This clearly confirmed that the debate on democratic legitimacy will stay high on the agenda for inter-institutional dialogue this year, including the dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments. Discussions on democratic legitimacy and accountability are likely even to intensify in the coming months.

The need to reinforce the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the European Semester process and Parliaments’ ownership of it was also one of the key horizontal messages at the COSAC chairpersons’ meeting of 27-28 January 2013 in Dublin and during the first European Parliamentary Week on the European Semester for Economic Policy Coordination, which took place on 28-30 January 2013 in Brussels and was attended by President Barroso and Vice-President Šefčovič. This meeting also confirmed a broad awareness of the urgency of tackling the social, political and institutional implications of the crisis.

At an informal meeting in Luxembourg on 11 January 2013, the speakers of the national Parliaments of the founding EU Member States and the European Parliament underlined that any new steps towards strengthening the EMU will need to be accompanied by further concrete measures towards stronger legitimacy and accountability, by enhancing the role of Parliaments in this context.[33]

The Commission will therefore focus on effective implementation of the strengthened political dialogue it has offered national Parliaments at two crucial points in the European Semester process and strongly encourages national Parliaments to take the opportunity to enter into enhanced discussion with it on the priorities identified in the Annual Growth Survey and on the most efficient way for national policy-making to implement the country-specific recommendations.

This is especially important as the European Semester is becoming a crucial tool in supporting and accompanying structural reforms in Member States. For instance, the Commission has introduced the EU Justice Scoreboard into the European Semester.

The Commission has also noted with great interest, and fully supports, the suggestion made during the first European Parliamentary Week that national Parliaments should organise a regular ‘Europe Day’ to raise awareness of European affairs. Along with the existing political dialogue between national Parliaments and the Commission, such an initiative could become a catalyst for ongoing efforts to strengthen national Parliaments’ ‘ownership’ for policy shaping at EU level in general and greater involvement in the institutions’ joint efforts to ensure that structural reforms are kept up and that the reform process is pursued. They should thus be able to contribute to solving the problems at the origin of the crisis and help to put Europe back on a path of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Annex 1

Overall number of opinions received per national Parliament/chamber (political dialogue and subsidiarity control mechanism) in 2012

Member State || Chamber || Total numbers of opinions[34] || Reasoned opinions (Protocol 2)

Portugal || Assembleia da República || 227 || 1

Italy || Senato della Repubblica || 96 || 1

Germany || Bundesrat || 59 || 5

Czech Republic || Senát || 46 || 0

Sweden || Riksdag || 33 || 20

Romania || Camera Deputaţilor || 26 || 0

France || Sénat || 19 || 7

United Kingdom || House of Lords || 16 || 1

Italy || Camera dei Deputati || 15 || 0

Bulgaria || Narodno Sabranie || 13 || 0

Austria || Bundesrat || 12 || 3

Poland || Senat || 11 || 1

Czech Republic || Poslanecká sněmovna || 10 || 0

Belgium || Chambre des Représentants || 9 || 3

Denmark || Folketing || 8 || 3

Ireland || Oireachtas || 7 || 0

Spain || Congreso de los Diputados and Senado || 7 || 2

The Netherlands || Eerste Kamer || 7 || 2

Greece || Vouli ton Ellinon || 6 || 0

Luxembourg || Chambre des Députés || 6 || 3

United Kingdom || House of Commons || 6 || 3

Austria || Nationalrat || 3 || 1

Poland || Sejm || 3 || 3

The Netherlands || Tweede Kamer || 3 || 3

Cyprus || Vouli ton Antiprosopon || 2 || 1

Estonia || Riigikogu || 2 || 0

Germany || Bundestag || 2 || 1

Malta || Kamra tad-Deputati || 2 || 1

Romania || Senatul || 2 || 0

Finland || Eduskunta || 1 || 1

Latvia || Saeima || 1 || 1

Lithuania || Seimas || 1 || 1

Slovakia || Národná Rada || 1 || 1

The Netherlands || Tweede Kamer and Eerste Kamer || 1 || 1

Belgium || Sénat || 0 || 0

France || Assemblée Nationale || 0 || 0

Hungary || Országgyűlés || 0 || 0

Ireland || Dail Eireann || 0 || 0

Slovenia || Državni svet || 0 || 0

Slovenia || Državni zbor || 0 || 0

|| Total || 663 || 70

Annex 2

Commission proposals and initiatives generating the highest number of opinions in the context of the political dialogue in 2012[35]

Commission document || Title || Total numbers of opinions || Reasoned opinions (Protocol 2)

COM(2012) 130 || Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II) || 17 || 12

COM(2012) 10 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data || 13 || 3

COM(2012) 11 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) || 12 || 4

COM(2011) 897 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the award of concession contracts || 11 || 3

COM(2012) 372 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market || 10 || 3

COM(2012) 380 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC || 9 || 5

COM(2011) 650 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network || 9 || 1

COM(2012) 617 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived || 8 || 5

COM(2012) 280 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directives 77/91/EEC and 82/891/EC, Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC and 2011/35/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 || 8 || 1

COM(2012) 511 || Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions || 8 || 1

COM(2012) 238 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market || 7 ||

COM(2012) 382 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC || 6 || 3

COM(2012) 84 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of public health insurance systems || 6 || 2

COM(2012) 49 || Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards information to the general public on medicinal products for human use subject to medical prescription || 6 || 2

COM(2012) 48 || Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription amending, as regards information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use || 6 || 2

COM(2012) 512 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No…/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions || 6 ||

Annex 3 Number of opinions received per policy area/ Commission service in 2012

Internal Market and Services || 112

Justice || 52

Mobility and Transport || 45

Home Affairs || 43

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion || 42

Health and Consumers || 40

Environment || 28

Secretariat-General || 28

Communication Networks, Content and Technology || 27

Agriculture and Rural Development || 25

Enterprise and Industry || 25

Education and Culture || 22

Trade || 22

Energy || 19

Taxation and Customs Union || 18

Economic and Financial Affairs || 17

Climate Action || 14

Maritime Affairs & Fisheries || 12

Research and innovation || 12

EuropeAid Development & Cooperation || 11

Humanitarian Aid/Civil protection || 9

Regional Policy || 9

Eurostat || 8

Budget || 7

Legal Service || 4

Competition || 3

Enlargement || 3

European Anti-Fraud Office || 3

Communication || 2

External Action Service || 1

Total || 663

[1] COM(2012) 750.

[2] Commission reply to the Contribution of the XLVII COSAC: http://www.cosac.eu/denmark2012/plenary-meeting-of-the-xlvii-cosac-22-24-april-2012/.

[3] COM(2012) 777 final/2.

[4] In a letter to the President of the European Council dated 7 December 2012, the chairs of the European affairs committees of 11 national Parliaments expressed their concern at the ‘worrying lack of proposals as to how the role of national Parliaments can be strengthened more concretely’. This was by way of follow-up to a gathering in Copenhagen on 26 November 2012, where discussion centred on how more integrated financial, budgetary and economic union could be accompanied by strong mechanisms for democratic legitimacy and accountability.

[5] These include the 70 reasoned opinions received under the subsidiarity control mechanism.

[6] See Annex 1.

[7] Of the 663 opinions received, 509 concerned legislative documents (draft regulations, directives, recommendations, decisions etc.) whereas 147 related to consultation documents (communications, white or green papers or reports). 7 opinions were own-initiative reports from national Parliaments.

[8] cf. Article 7(2) of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

[9] COM(2012) 131.

[10] COM(2012) 130.

[11] COM(2012) 10.

[12] COM(2012) 11.

[13] COM(2011) 897.

[14] COM(2012) 372.

[15] COM(2012) 380.

[16] COM(2011) 650.

[17] COM(2012) 617.

[18] COM(2012) 280.

[19] COM(2012) 511.

[20] COM(2012) 238.

[21] COM(2012) 382.

[22] COM(2012) 84.

[23] COM(2012) 49.

[24] COM(2012) 48.

[25] COM(2011) 610, COM( 2011) 611, COM(2011) 612, COM(2011) 614 and COM(2011) 615. It should be noted that15 additional opinions received had been received by the end of 2011, making a total of 20 opinions.

[26] See Annex 2.

[27] Opinions from national Parliaments and the Commission’s replies can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm.

[28] COM(2012) 11.

[29] For more details on the opinions issued by national Parliaments on this proposal, reference is made to the Annual Report 2012 on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (COM(2013) 566), page 8.

[30] COM(2012) 372.

[31] COM(2011) 897.

[32] COM(2011) 650.

[33] They suggested that the ‘Article 13 Conference’ provided for by the TSCG should be comparable in terms of structure and composition to the newly established Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the CFSP/CSDP. It was suggested that these issues be further discussed at the EU Parliaments’ Speakers Conference in April 2013 in Cyprus.

[34] The number includes both opinions and reasoned opinions received from national Parliaments.

[35] The table ranks all proposals which have elicited at least six opinions from national Parliaments.

Top