(2)

The system established by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

(2)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work effectively in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. The main elements of the system can therefore continue to function unchanged . However, the level of added-value provided by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 as regards an appropriate decision-making process has not been entirely satisfactory. Certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee seem, therefore, to be necessary . These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. An additional objective of this amending act is to improve Union citizens' awareness of procedures related to implementing acts. In order to increase trust in the Union’s institutions and bodies, it is essential not only to inform Union citizens about decision-making but also to explain the reasons behind the decisions of those institutions and bodies.

(3)

In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, the appeal committee has been seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products.

(3)

In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, particularly in relation to genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products , the appeal committee has been seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered.

(3a)

As a consequence, only a very limited number of cases have been referred to the appeal committee as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and are therefore concerned by this amending act.

(4)

Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions.

(4)

Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions , or to overcome the absence of opinions in the examination procedure . Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, leaving it to the Commission to determine on behalf of the Member States the need and how to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation.

(5)

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion.

(6)

That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision.

(6)

That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision. In this regard, the European Ombudsman pointed out in his decision on case 1582/2014 that the Commission must respect existing legal provisions regarding the deadlines set for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms.

(7)

While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision-making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote.

(7)

While the Commission has the competence to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also assume greater responsibility in the decision-making process. Where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, and Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority in favour of the draft implementing act providing for the grant of authorisation for a product or substance, that authorisation should be deemed to have been refused .

(8)

In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended.

(8)

In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be of a sufficiently high political level, such as ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended . However, such extension should be for a short period only .

(10)

The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.

(10)

The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the European Parliament and the Council to indicate their positions and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, economic, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the European Parliament and by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, for reasons of urgency, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral. The positions expressed by the European Parliament and by the Council should also be sent to the European Economic and Social Committee, and to the European Parliament and to the Council as appropriate, without undue delay.

(10a)

Where it appears that it would be difficult to obtain positive opinions from the Member States in relation to several similar draft implementing acts, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the relevant basic acts.

(11)

Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public.

(11)

Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives throughout all stages of the advisory and examination procedures should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the protection of the environment, case-specific detailed reasons for votes and abstentions should be given by each Member State representative. The Commission should also provide information on the composition of committees, including the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons belong, as well as the agendas of the meetings and the documents and drafts of texts being discussed.

(11a)

In order to enhance Union citizens’ awareness and understanding of the procedure and enhance the visibility thereof, reasons should be given by each Member State representative for his or her vote or abstention or for any absence of that representative.

(11b)

The accessibility of the register should be further increased and changes to its content should be made in order to ensure that there is greater transparency concerning the decision-making process, in particular by adding more information as regards that process. Improving the search functions of the register to allow searches by policy area would be an essential element in that regard.

(ba)

the following paragraph is inserted:

(bb)

the following paragraph is inserted:

(-a)

(b)

the agendas of committee meetings;

‘(b)

the agendas of committee meetings , including drafts of the texts to be decided upon and documents to be discussed ;’;

(-aa)

(c)

the summary records, together with the lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;

‘(c)

the summary records, together with the lists of the persons present at the meeting and the authorities and organisations to which those persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;’;

‘(e)

the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State;’;

‘(e)

the voting results , including the votes expressed by each Member State representative and any abstentions, accompanied by the reasons for the vote or abstention as well as reasons for absence from the vote, and, where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the accompanying case-specific detailed reasons for the vote or abstention ;’;

(aa)

paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

(ba)

the following paragraph is added:

(3a)