1. Introduction

In 2013, relations between the European Commission and national Parliaments continued to evolve through two channels: on the one hand, through the subsidiarity control mechanism, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty to assess whether new Commission legislative proposals (which do not fall into areas of exclusive EU competence) comply with the subsidiarity principle; and on the other hand, through the political dialogue that the Commission launched in 2006 to improve the exchange of information and opinions on policy issues, both on legislative proposals and non-legislative initiatives. Furthermore, many meetings and discussions took place, reflecting the richness of the wider exchange between the Commission and national Parliaments.

This ninth 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 second ‘yellow card’ that was triggered by a number of national Parliaments for the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO),[1] are dealt with in the 2013 Annual Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality which is published in parallel to this report and which should be seen as complementary to it.

This second ‘yellow card’ was a clear expression of the willingness of national Parliaments to make their voices heard in their relations with the Commission on a particular piece of legislation. More broadly, the wider political dialogue on the Commission’s proposals and initiatives continued to allow national Parliaments to play a constructive role in shaping policy at EU level, especially in the context of the deepening Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and implementing the European Semester recommendations.

As in previous years, the political dialogue in 2013 mainly took place through:

i) general bilateral and multilateral debates and discussions, often during inter-parliamentary meetings (section 2);

ii) the exchange of written opinions from national Parliaments and Commission replies (section 3); and

iii) contacts and meetings throughout the year (section 4).

This report closes with a succinct look ahead to the future of relations between the Commission and national Parliaments (section 5).

2. The wider context: main meetings and challenges

In 2012, against a background of continuing economic fragility, national Parliaments focused their attention on the European response to the crisis, including the Europe 2020 Strategy and the 2014-20 multi-annual financial framework. In 2013, while national Parliaments’ opinions continued to focus on justice and home affairs, the internal market and issues concerning European Monetary Union, some more specific issues also featured on the political agenda, such as the Tobacco Directive[2] and the Financial Transactions Tax Directive.[3]

The Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) continued to be a key forum for discussions with national Parliaments.

The COSAC chairpersons met in Dublin in January 2013. At that meeting, discussions on the Irish Presidency’s priorities showed that the future of the EMU and the related issues of democratic legitimacy and accountability will remain on the political agenda for quite some time, with national Parliaments urging that their increasingly important role be taken into account.

The 49th COSAC Plenary was held in Dublin, and was largely devoted to the European Year of Citizens. It therefore focused on issues concerning future European integration and the future of young citizens in Europe. The 50th COSAC Plenary, in Vilnius, continued the discussion on democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU and on the role of national Parliaments. At this plenary, COSAC’s founding father, French Foreign Minister Laurent FABIUS, gave a speech on the creation of COSAC. In this speech, he emphasised that the reasons for COSAC’s creation continued to be valid, and he called for greater policy coordination and improved collaboration between representatives of national institutions. Commission Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ gave a keynote address on implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy, setting out the processes involved and highlighting the remaining challenges, particularly with regard to unemployment, innovation, climate and energy. Two debates were held on democratic legitimacy and the role of national Parliaments, highlighting the apparent disconnect between the EU and its citizens and the importance of national Parliaments using the tools at their disposal to address this.

Throughout 2013, the issue of democratic legitimacy in general, as well as more specifically with regard to the European Semester, remained a key feature of inter-parliamentary discussions and of the dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments. This included informal and more formal initiatives to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and inter-parliamentary cooperation in the context of reinforced economic governance, whether in the general context of inter-parliamentary cooperation (set out in Article 9 of Protocol No 1 of the Treaties), or on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, agreed at the European Council meeting in March 2012 (see also section 5, below).

The wider discussion on democratic legitimacy also increased awareness across the EU that stronger coordination between Member States’ macro-economic and budgetary policies was needed, if the EMU is to remain functional. However, any further deepening of the EMU also needs to provide for strong democratic control, including from national Parliaments and the European Parliament.

One of the key developments in relation to new economic governance involving the national Parliaments was the first ‘European Parliamentary Week’, involving around 100 members from 26 national Parliaments, organised at the initiative of the European Parliament in January 2013. Sessions were organised by the Budget, Economic and Monetary Affairs committee and the Employment committee of the European Parliament. Debates mainly focused on institutional questions such as democratic legitimacy, but also covered concrete policy issues relating to the European Semester and the 2014-20 multi-annual financial framework, such as austerity versus growth, youth employment and the social impact of economic adjustment.

Even though this European Parliamentary Week did not aim at concrete conclusions, it reinforced consensus on the need to strengthen improve the European Semester’s democratic legitimacy by increasing national Parliaments’ ownership of the process and their early involvement in this. This could be achieved by involving their respective governments in the phase that precedes the presentation of the national reform programmes. The Speaker of the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas suggested regularly organising specific debates on European issues (‘European Days’), which would take place on the same day in all national Parliaments; this suggestion was met with interest.

The new economic governance involving national Parliaments in the European Semester process, was also tangibly expressed in the ‘two-pack’ legislation[4]. This provides for economic dialogue between the euro area Member States, supported by Commission opinions on their respective draft budgetary plans and an overall assessment of the budgetary situation and prospects in the euro area as a whole. As part of this, euro area Member States submitted their draft budgetary plans to the Commission for the first time in autumn 2013, and the Commission adopted opinions on these plans on 15 November 2013. These provided national stakeholders (including national Parliaments) with an independent perspective on Member States’ plans.

3. Written opinions from national Parliaments

The total number of opinions received from national Parliaments has increased significantly in recent years but appears to have stabilised at just over 600 per year, of which approximately 14 % were reasoned opinions (see Annex 1). Following changes to its internal procedures, the Commission now usually replies to these opinions within a self-imposed time limit of three months.

The political dialogue with national Parliaments has proved to be a success, with a clear added value. If national Parliaments submit their opinions at an early stage, these can serve as an early warning system, providing the Commission with an outline of the main arguments on the substance of the Commission’s proposals. The Commission can then conduct negotiations with the Council and the European Parliament in full knowledge of the views expressed by national Parliaments. The Commission attaches great importance to the political dialogue and especially invites national Parliaments to respond to public consultations, green papers and communications during the pre-legislative phase. Since December 2013, national Parliaments have been specifically made aware of all Commission public consultations.

Participation and scope

The following figures only reflect national Parliaments’ activity in terms of their participation in the political dialogue in the strict sense, i.e. by way of submitting written opinions to the Commission. As noted throughout this report and particularly in section 4, a national Parliament’s activity on EU affairs cannot only be measured on the basis of the written political dialogue contributions, as national Parliaments are likely to have other scrutiny activities. Furthermore, national Parliaments do not submit comments on all proposals or other Commission documents, but make a selection according to their priorities.

In total, 621[5] opinions were received from national Parliaments in 2013, which represented a decrease of around 6 % compared to 2012 (663). There had been a small increase between 2011 and 2012, and a very significant increase in 2011, compared to 2010 (7 % in 2012, but 60 % in 2011).

The following overall trends can be noted:

· as part of the written political dialogue, 16 chambers sent more opinions in 2013 than in 2012, 18 chambers sent fewer opinions than in 2012, and 2 sent the same number of opinions as in 2012;

· the political dialogue activity is unequally distributed between chambers of national Parliaments (almost 80 % of the total number of opinions came from the ten most active chambers);

· national Parliaments continue to focus their political dialogue with the Commission on legislative documents, with only a limited share of their opinions received relate to other types of initiatives.

In 2013, the 15 Commission proposals that attracted the most national Parliament opinions accounted for 144 (23%) of the total of 621 opinions. As in 2012, however, the great majority of the Commission documents on which national Parliaments commented during 2013 elicited between one and three opinions, reflecting the diverse areas of interest to national Parliaments.

The Commission proposals and initiatives which elicited most opinions from national Parliaments were the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office[6] (20 opinions), the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products[7] (17 opinions), establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management[8] (14 opinions), establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports[9] (10 opinions), and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA[10] (10 opinions); for further details, see Annex 2.

As in 2012, some of the proposals which attracted the largest total number of opinions from national Parliaments also elicited the highest number of reasoned opinions under the subsidiarity control mechanism. In 2013, as in 2012, six policy fields accounted for more than half of the opinions received in the context of the political dialogue (323 out of 596 in 2013). These were justice, the internal single market and services, mobility and transport, home affairs, health and consumers and communications (for further detail, see Annex 3).

In 2012, national Parliaments increasingly focused their political dialogue with the Commission on legislative proposals, with only a small proportion of their opinions being submitted on non-legislative initiatives. In 2013, this trend continued. Among the 15 Commission documents which generated the highest number of opinions (i.e. six or more) from national Parliaments, only two were non-legislative.[11] However, similarly to 2012, all but one of the 15 political opinions from the Swedish Riksdag were on non-legislative documents, although that chamber also sent the highest number of reasoned opinions.

Key topics of the political dialogue

The following legislative proposals were among those which attracted particular attention from national Parliaments in 2013 (for further details, see Annex 2). As the proposals were also among those that elicited most reasoned opinions, reference should also be made to the parallel Annual Report 2013 on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, where a more detailed description in provided.

· Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)[12]

Currently, the Union has virtually no power to intervene in cases of criminal misuse affecting its funds. The figures of detection, investigation and successful prosecution concerning offences against the EU budget vary considerably from one Member State to another (between 19% and 90%). The European Public Prosecutor’s Office would address the fragmentation of prosecutions due to the national character of justice systems and also the problem that fighting European fraud is not always a high priority at national level. The Lisbon Treaty (Article 86 TFEU)[13] provides a specific legal basis for the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The Commission received 20 opinions in 2013 on this proposal, of which 13 were reasoned opinions[14]. Since the number of votes associated with these reasoned opinions passed the threshold of 14 that applies to justice and home affairs proposals, the yellow card procedure was triggered.

· Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (Tobacco Products Directive)[15]

The revised proposal for the Tobacco Products Directive provided new and strengthened rules on how tobacco products can be manufactured and presented for sale in the EU. More specifically, it proposed to ban the use of cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco products with characterising flavours and it would make it mandatory to use large pictorial health warnings on cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. It further proposed to regulate cross-border internet sales and provided for technical features to combat illicit trade. It also proposed measures relating to products that had not been specifically regulated to date, such as e-cigarettes and herbal products for smoking. The proposal[16] responded to requests from the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and reflects the Commission’s own 2005 and 2007 reports on the application of the Tobacco Products Directive (Directive 2001/37/EC).

On this proposal, the Commission received 17 opinions, of which seven were reasoned opinions challenging the proposal’s compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Whilst this proposal attracted significant interest from the national Parliaments, the standard threshold for a yellow card procedure (19 votes) was not reached.

· Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management[17]

The uncoordinated use of coastal and maritime areas currently results in competition for maritime and coastal space, and inefficient use of marine and coastal resources. On-going uncertainty and unpredictable access to the maritime space have created a suboptimal business climate for investors. As a result of rapidly increasing demand for maritime space for new activities, such as renewable energy and aquaculture installations, the EU needs to ensure that activities at sea are coherently planned. Coordination between Member States at this stage is not sufficiently advanced, and the current inconsistencies between existing systems prevent efficient cross-border planning.

On this proposal, the Commission received 14 opinions, of which nine were reasoned opinions challenging the proposal’s compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.

4. Contacts and visits

In addition to exchanging written opinions from national Parliaments and replies from the Commission, the political dialogue also took place less formally, through meetings and contacts at both political and administrative levels. These include the following:

Most national Parliaments have meetings with members of the Commission on a regular basis, both in Brussels and in the respective Member States.

The Vice-President for inter-institutional relations, Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, made eight visits to national Parliaments in 2013 (the German Bundestag, the French Sénat, the Croatian Hrvatski sabor, the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas; the Lithuanian Seimas and the Slovak Národná Rada). In the same year, he received a large number of visitors/delegations from national Parliaments at the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels (the Czech Senát, the Danish Folketing, the French Sénat, the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas, the Italian Senato della Repubblica, the Maltese Kamra tad-Deputati, the Polish Sejm, and the Romanian Camera Deputaților). In addition to discussions on specific legislative proposals and policy initiatives, these meetings covered issues relating to cooperation between the Commission and national Parliaments as well as issues regarding the evolving economic governance, and democratic legitimacy.

The Commission was also represented at political level at most inter-parliamentary meetings in 2013.

Presidents BARROSO (next to Presidents VAN ROMPUY and SCHULZ), Vice-Presidents REHN and ŠEFČOVIČ and Commissioners LEWANDOWSKI and ANDOR took part in the first European Parliamentary Week in January 2013.

Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ attended the COSAC Plenary meeting in Vilnius in October 2013 and the COSAC Chairpersons’ meeting in Dublin in January 2013.

Vice-President REHN attended a discussion with the Budgetary Committee of the Finnish Eduskunta, to present and discuss the Commission assessment of the Finnish draft budgetary plan for 2014.

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Baroness ASHTON, attended two meetings of the inter-parliamentary conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, which aims to encourage inter-parliamentary cooperation in this field. The first of these meetings was held in Dublin in April 2013, and the second was held in Vilnius in September 2013.

Members of the office of Commissioner ŠEMETA and staff from DG BUDG met with a delegation from the Public Accounts Committee of the Danish Folketing in Brussels and with the Dutch Parliament in the Hague on the discharge 2012.

Further to Croatia's accession to the EU on 1 July 2013, Commissioner MIMICA presented the Commission Work Programme 2014 to the Croatian Hrvatski sabor.

Commission officials also attended meetings with national Parliament committees, when requested, and various Commission services (particularly DGs CLIMA, ECFIN, ENER, ENV, HOME, JUST, MARE, MARKT, OLAF, REGIO, SANCO) attended the regular meetings of the permanent representatives of national Parliaments based in Brussels, to discuss a variety of upcoming initiatives or ongoing issues.

In 2013, as in 2012, permanent representatives of national Parliaments also met with Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ as well as with staff in the offices of President BARROSO, Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ and other members of the Commission.

5. Conclusions and outlook

The significant volume of written political dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments continued in 2013, with a total of around 600 opinions being issued by national Parliaments. While nearly all chambers made at least one contribution, the ten most active chambers accounted for almost 80% of all opinions received. The Commission documents that elicited the most opinions were also those on which national Parliaments submitted the highest number of reasoned opinions. In addition to the written dialogue, the Commission continued to have frequent contacts and meetings with national Parliaments, at both political and official levels, in Brussels and in Member States.

At the beginning of 2014, national Parliaments and the European Parliament confirmed their intention to be further involved in EU-level activities, such as the European Semester. Democratic legitimacy will remain a key subject for discussion between the EU institutions and national Parliaments for some time to come.

In the January 2014 COSAC Plenary meeting, the role of national Parliaments and democratic legitimacy and accountability were once again the recurring topics. New specific ideas and proposals on the role and rights of national Parliaments were presented by the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the Danish Folketing.

In April 2014, the European Parliament Committee for Constitutional Affair adopted a report by Carlo CASINI (EPP/IT) on national Parliaments. The report, inter alia, recommends that national Parliaments ‘take steps to improve guidance and scrutiny procedures, with a view to achieving greater consistency’. It also highlights the early warning mechanism as one of the tools to ensure effective cooperation between European and national institutions and welcomes the fact that the mechanism is also used as a channel for consultation and cooperative dialogue between the various institutions in the EU’s multilevel governance system.

The second European Parliamentary Week, held in January 2014, again demonstrated that the European Parliament and national Parliaments have shared interests. The inter-parliamentary conference section of the programme featured four plenary debates on macroeconomic imbalances, the democratic legitimacy of economic adjustment programmes, promoting growth and jobs and enhancing fiscal surveillance in the EMU.

Annex 1

Number of opinions received by the Commission in 2013 per national Parliament/chamber (political dialogue and subsidiarity control mechanism)

Member State || Chamber || Total number of opinions[18] || Number of those which were reasoned opinions (Protocol No 2)[19]

Portugal || Assembleia da República || 192 || 1

Czech Republic || Senát || 64 || 2

Germany || Bundesrat || 40 || 3

France || Assemblée nationale || 40[20] || 1

Romania || Camera Deputaților || 38 || 2

Italy || Senato della Republica || 36 || 2

Romania || Senatul || 26 || 3

Sweden || Riksdag || 24 || 9

United Kingdom || House of Lords || 18 || 3

Spain || Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both chambers) || 17[21] || 5[22]

Ireland || Houses of the Oireachtas (both chambers) || 12[23] || 3[24]

The Netherlands || Eerste Kamer || 10 || 3

Austria || Bundesrat || 9 || 6

Czech Republic || Poslanecká sněmovna || 8 || 2

France || Sénat || 8 || 4

Poland || Senat || 8 || 2

Malta || Kamra tad-Deputati || 7 || 5

The Netherlands || Tweede Kamer || 7 || 5

Italy || Camera dei Deputati || 6 || 0

Lithuania || Seimas || 6 || 6

Poland || Sejm || 6 || 2

Luxembourg || Chambre des Députés || 5 || 2

Slovenia || Državni zbor || 5 || 1

United Kingdom || House of Commons || 5 || 5

Denmark || Folketing || 4 || 1

Greece || Vouli ton Ellinon || 4 || 3

Belgium || Chambre des Représentants || 3 || 1

Austria || Nationalrat || 2 || 0

Estonia || Riigikogu || 2 || 1

Finland || Eduskunta || 2 || 1

Hungary || Országgyűlés || 2 || 1

Belgium || Sénat || 1 || 1

Bulgaria || Narodno Sabranie || 1 || 0

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

Latvia || Saeima || 1 || 1

Slovakia || Národná Rada || 1 || 0

Croatia (since 01/07/2013) || Hrvatski sabor || 0 || 0

Germany || Bundestag || 0 || 0

Slovenia || Državni svet || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 621 || 88

Annex 2

Commission documents generating the highest number of opinions[25] received by the Commission in 2013 (political dialogue and subsidiarity control mechanism)

|| Commission document || Title || Total number of opinions[26] || Number of those which were reasoned opinions (Protocol 2)[27]

1 || COM(2013) 534 || Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office || 20[28] || 13[29]

2 || COM(2012) 788 || Proposal for a Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products || 17 || 7

3 || COM(2013) 133 || Proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management || 14[30] || 9[31]

4 || COM(2013) 173[32] || Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA || 10[33] || 3[34]

5 || COM(2013) 296 || Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports || 10[35] || 7[36]

6 || COM(2013) 28[37] || Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail || 9 || 6

7 || COM(2013) 147 || Proposal for a Regulation on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks || 9 || 2

8 || COM(2012) 614[38] || Proposal for a Directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures || 8 || 5

9 || COM(2013) 627 || Proposal for a Regulation laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 || 8 || 4

10 || COM(2013) 71 || Proposal for a Directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax || 8 || 1

11 || COM(2012) 777 || Communication on A blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union — Launching a European Debate || 6 || 0

12 || COM(2013) 166[39] || Communication on Towards a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union — Ex ante coordination of plans for major economic policy reforms || 6 || 0

13 || COM(2013) 228 || Proposal for a Regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 || 6 || 1

14 || COM(2013) 48[40] || Proposal for a Directive concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union || 6 || 1

15 || COM(2013) 535 || Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) || 6 || 1

Annex 3

Number of opinions received by the Commission in 2013 per lead Commission service (political dialogue and subsidiarity control mechanism)

Lead Commission Service || Total number of opinions[41]

DG Internal Market and Service || 68

DG Justice || 67

DG Mobility and Transport || 61

DG Home Affairs || 52

DG Health and Consumers || 43

DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology || 38

DG Secretariat-General || 32

DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion || 25

DG Climate Action || 24

DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries || 24

DG Environment || 23

DG Taxation and Customs Union || 21

DG Enterprise and Industry || 18

DG Energy || 18

DG Economic and Financial Affairs || 16

DG Eurostat || 12

DG Regional Policy || 11

DG Research and Innovation || 11

DG Agriculture and Rural Development || 8

DG Competition || 8

DG Education and Culture || 7

DG Enlargement || 7

DG Trade || 7

DG EuropeAid Development & Cooperation || 5

DG BUDG || 4

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) || 4

European External Action Service || 3

DG Communication || 1

DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection || 1

DG Human Resources and Security || 1

Legal Service || 1

TOTAL || 621

[1] COM(2013) 534.

[2] COM(2012) 788.

[3] COM(2013) 71.

[4] Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area and Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability.

[5] Including the 88 reasoned opinions received under the subsidiarity control mechanism.

[6] COM(2013) 534.

[7] COM(2012) 788.

[8] COM(2013) 133.

[9] COM(2013) 296.

[10] COM(2013) 173.

[11] The Communication from the Commission on a blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union — launching a European debate (COM(2012) 777) and the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Towards a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union — Ex ante coordination of plans for major economic policy reforms (COM(2013)166).

[12] COM(2013) 534.

[13] Under the EU Treaties, Denmark will not be participating in the EPPO and the United Kingdom and Ireland have decided not to opt-in.

[14] Additional opinions were submitted in 2014.

[15] COM(2012) 788.

[16] The Directive was adopted in April 2014 and entered into force in May 2014 as Directive 2014/40/EU.

[17] COM(2013) 133.

[18] Including both opinions and reasoned opinions received from national Parliaments.

[19] To qualify as a reasoned opinion according to the definition in Protocol No 2, an opinion must clearly state a breach of subsidiarity and be sent to the Commission within eight weeks of the transmission of the proposal to national Parliaments.

[20] Of which 25 were sent without the Assemblée nationale wanting a reply.

[21] Counted as 17 opinions from two chambers.

[22] Counted as five reasoned opinions from two chambers.

[23] Counted as 12 opinions from two chambers.

[24] Counted as three reasoned opinions from two chambers.

[25] The table ranks all Commission documents which were concerned by at least six opinions from national Parliaments.

[26] Including both opinions and reasoned opinions received from national Parliaments.

[27] To qualify as a reasoned opinion according to the definition in Protocol No 2, an opinion must clearly state a breach of subsidiarity and be sent to the Commission within eight weeks of the transmission of the proposal to national Parliaments.

[28] Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses of the Oireachtas — counted as one opinion from two chambers.

[29] Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers. According to Protocol No 2, in the case of a draft legislative act submitted on the basis of Article 76 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the area of freedom, security and justice, where reasoned opinions represent at least one quarter of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments — two votes or, in the case of a bicameral Parliamentary system, one vote for each of the two chambers — the yellow card threshold is reached, i.e. the draft must be reviewed. The 13 reasoned opinions concerning COM(2013) 534 represent 18 votes thus reaching the yellow card threshold of, with the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013, 14 out of 56 votes.

[30] Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses of the Oireachtas — counted as one opinion from two chambers.

[31] Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.

[32] One of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the IT Camera dei Deputati, jointly concerned COM(2013) 172 as well.

[33] Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as one opinion from two chambers.

[34] Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.

[35] Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as one opinion from two chambers.

[36] Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.

[37] One of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the CZ Senát, jointly concerned COM(2013) 25, COM(2013) 26, COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 as well. One of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the PT Assembleia da República, jointly concerned COM(2013) 26, COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 as well. Three of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document, from the NL Eerste Kamer, the NL Tweede Kamer, and the LU Chambre des Députés, jointly concerned COM(2013) 29 as well. One of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document, from the SE Riksdag, jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 as well.

[38] Two of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document, from the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna and the UK House of Lords, jointly concerned COM(2012) 615 as well.

[39] Four of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the CZ Senát, the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna, the IT Camera dei Deputati, and the PT Assembleia da República, jointly concerned COM(2013) 165 as well.

[40] Two of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna and the CZ Senát, jointly concerned JOIN(2013) 1 as well.

[41] Including both opinions and reasoned opinions received from national Parliaments.