1 / 24

The co-decision procedure from the point of view of the European Commission European Commission Secretariat General - Co

The co-decision procedure from the point of view of the European Commission European Commission Secretariat General - Codecision Unit Joachim D’Eugenio. 1. THE EU: A Union of Peoples and States. European Parliament. The “institutional triangle”. Council of Ministers. Commission.

lirit
Download Presentation

The co-decision procedure from the point of view of the European Commission European Commission Secretariat General - Co

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The co-decision procedure from the point of view of the European Commission European Commission Secretariat General - Codecision Unit Joachim D’Eugenio 1

  2. THE EU:A Union of Peoples and States EuropeanParliament The “institutional triangle” Council of Ministers Commission

  3. The Commission as an Institution:promoting the common interest The Commission has four main roles: • proposes legislation to the Parliament and the Council • manages and implements EU policies and budget • Execution power given by the Parliament and the Council • Own decision power (ex: competition policy) • enforces European law (with the Court of Justice) • represents the EU on the international stage

  4. The functioning of the Commission (1) Collegiality principle • Decisions are taken by the “College” of 27 commissioners • These decisions and their execution imply the collective responsibility of all its members Principle of administrative coherence - All the services of the Commission make up one administrative body serving the College

  5. Number of decisions taken by the College

  6. The functioning of the Commission (2) DGs and services • The personnel of the Commission is divided among (36) departments called «general directorates» (DG) or «services» (ex: the Legal Service) • The Secretariat General (SG) has a “special role/status” • Each DG is in charge of (a) particular area(s). Its Director General is responsible in front of the commissioner in charge of the area • The DGs prepare the legislative documents of the Commission. These documents only become official after being “adopted” by the College • The DGs manage the adopted programmes and policies

  7. The role of the Secretariat General • Main mission: • Guarantee the realization of the political priorities of the Commission, as definedby the President • Added value : • Work planning • (Inter-)Institutional perspective, coherence (incl. ensuring collegiality) • Help political choices / arbitrage and mediation • Horizontal initiatives / policy strategies (e.g. “packages”)

  8. Codecision in a nutshell Parliament and Council co-decide with equal rights. No agreement --> no act. Up to three readings with a possibility to conclude at each stage If no agreement by the end of second reading --> “conciliation” Commission: initiative, participation, mediation and promotion of EU interest 8

  9. Codecision: Legal bases covered LISBON 80? 2009? All EC policies except agriculture, fisheries, taxation, economic and monetray policy, trade, competition 9

  10. 1st and 2nd reading agreements 10 • 1st reading deal: Institutions agree on a set of amendments voted in committee/plenary and endorsed by Council • 2nd reading deal: • EP has no amendment to the Common position (« negotiated common position ») • EP and Council agree on a set of amendments voted in plenary and endorsed by Council • Agreement negotiated in “trilogues” and formalised through exchange of letters

  11. Conciliation and trilogue meetings (hosted by EP)

  12. Distribution of agreements over the past yearsDevelopments since 1999

  13. Length of negotiations

  14. 1st reading agreements (Development of average duration) 17,3 2007 14

  15. Differences between 1st and 2nd reading deals Find right balance between early adoption and protection of original proposal Possibility of 1st reading deal not to be pursued unadvisedly for sensitive files(e.g. budget, legal, or institutional aspects) Problem of 1st reading deal:less transparency and accountability between and within institutions 2nd reading: better institutional setting for deal 15

  16. More efficient and flexible than it looks… Joint Declaration – 1999 (revised in 2007)(OJ C 145, 30.06.2007, p. 5) Promote fast adoption and avoid conciliation Work in parallel – Exchange of information Informal contacts at all stages for identifying positions and reconciling views Conciliation becoming the exception 16

  17. Commission’s (formal) interventions Original Proposal Modified Proposal anytime until common position Formal modification: after 1s reading (approx. within 6 weeks procedure) Oral modification with a view to political agreement Communication on Common Position (CP) To be prepared as early as political agreement is reached To be transmitted to EP with CP Opinion on EP 2nd reading (indicating Commission position) Oral presentation before plenary to facilitate a 2nd reading agreement Formal submission, if possible, within 3 weeks after plenary Preparation of conciliation 17

  18. Commission’s rolein codecision (Right of) Initiative Expertise (e.g. impact assessments) Participation in Council and EP work Mediator but… Key role in securing early adoption Preparation of execution/implementation “Guardian of the Treaty” Promotion of EU interest 18

  19. Commission’s role: 1st and 2nd reading deals 1999 Joint Declaration: to facilitate tripartite contacts (can take initiative) “to exercise its right of initiative in a constructive manner with a view to reconciling the positions of the EP and the Council” Intermediary and (possibly) Mediator but also advocate of its proposal(with Treaty tools to protect it – unanimity in Council if Commission does not accept amendments) Institutional matters(right of initiative, legal basis, substantial modifications, Commission Declarations, comitology, budgetary issues) 19

  20. Commission’s role: Conciliation The Commission proposal is not the basis of the negotiation anymore Commission = Mediator (Art 251-4: “…shall take all the necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the positions of the EP and the Council.” --> Opinion on EP’s 2nd reading amendments: may suggest compromise) But also … “Guardian of the Treaty” No formal power – No unanimity rule Presence in all meetings 20

  21. Key Commission actors Political Level • Lead Commissioner • Lead DG (Director-General/Director) negotiating in trilogues and Coreper Administrative Level • Lead DG (Head of Unit, Administrator(s), inter-inst. coordinators) • Secretariat General, Commission’s Legal Service, associated DGs (in particular in cross-cutting files (e.g. climate change)) 21

  22. Commission’s role: Internal decision making DG chef de file Secretariat General Coordination/Collegiality/Coherence Inter-institutional Relations Group (GRI) (weekly order of events PreGRI->GRI->HEBDO->College) Empowerment of Commissioners 22

  23. GRIInter-institutional Relations Group Collegiality and collective decision making Information and early warning Authorization to pursue contacts and negotiate deals(support/suggest compromise, propose declarations, modify proposal, etc) GRI Fiches All EP plenary votes in 1st and 2nd reading (authorization and empowerment) Council decisions (case by case) (Presidency compromise package) Preparation of conciliation committee 23

  24. More info ? http://ec.europa.eu/codecision Thank You 24

More Related