do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2153/96 by Ian WHITE to the Council. Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the Council
Date: 1996-08-13
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITE
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, consultation procedure, institutional cooperation, proposal (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E2153 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2153

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2153/96 by Ian WHITE to the Council. Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the Council  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0016 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Council (13 August 1996)Subject: Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the CouncilRule 97(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament give the Council the right to ask Parliament to deal with an item by urgent procedure. As Council and Parliament are now jointly responsible for adopting legislation that falls under the codecision procedure, should Council's Rules of Procedure not provide for a similar possibility for Parliament to ask Council to deal with a matter urgently?Answer (13 December 1996)The Honourable Member will have noted that, as a general rule, the Treaties as they stand at present set no time limits for the first reading of proposals for legislative acts or opinions which the institutions or other bodies are required to deliver.As acknowledged by the case-law of the Court of Justice ((See, for example, the judgment of 30.3.1995, European Parliament v. Council (GSP) Case C-65/93, Case Reports I-643. )) and as established in the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure themselves, situations can arise in the life of the Community which demand urgent decisions, requiring the Council to request the European Parliament to deliver its Opinion as a matter of urgency. However, the Council adopted arrangements on 22 May 1995, which were communicated to the European Parliament, stipulating that requests for application of the urgent procedure must be genuinely exceptional in nature and supported by reasons.The Council is in this respect not in the same position as the European Parliament as it cannot take a decision at first reading until it has obtained the Opinion of the European Parliament. Article 139 of the EC Treaty enables the Council to request the European Parliament to meet in extraordinary session. The option of requesting an emergency debate is a way of speeding up proceedings without recourse to the cumbersome procedure provided for in Article 139.The European Parliament can, however, when it delivers its Opinion, call upon the Council to take a decision or adopt its common position swiftly.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2205/96 by Gijs de VRIES to the Council. Uniform electoral procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament
Date: 1996-08-13
Institutions: DE VRIES, European Parliament
Subjects: EP resolution, European Parliament, European election, European electoral system, government bill













EUR-Lex - 91996E2205 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2205

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2205/96 by Gijs de VRIES to the Council. Uniform electoral procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0007 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (13 August 1996)Subject: Uniform electoral procedure for the election of Members of the European ParliamentOn 10 March 1993, pursuant to Article 138 of the Treaty, the European Parliament adopted resolution A3-0381/92 ((OJ C 115, 26.4.1993, p. 121. )) on the draft uniform electoral procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament, adjuring the Council to adopt a uniform electoral procedure for the 1994 European elections.If the Council agrees with the stance adopted in plenary by the French Presidency that Parliament's resolution is too general to constitute a proposal within the meaning of Article 138 of the Treaty, can it specify the criteria and conditions which must be met by a proposal to comply with this Article?Answer (17 January 1997)In the absence of any judicial interpretation of the word 'proposal' within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 138(3) of the EC Treaty, it is legitimate to ask what precise form should be taken by such proposals for the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.The Council would simply point out that the first three 'proposals' adopted by the European Parliament since its creation (on 17 May 1960, 14 January 1975 and 10 March 1982) took the form of Resolutions to which were explicitly annexed draft Conventions or Acts consisting of a structured text of a legal nature. this was also the form taken by the BOCKLET Report in 1985-1986, which was not put to a vote in plenary.Since the Resolution adopted on 10 March 1993 did not take the same form and merely stated a number of important general principles, it prompted doubts as to its exact nature on the part of the Council.The Council has nevertheless had several exchanges of views of a political nature since that date on the approach set forth in the aforementioned European Parliament Resolution.It could only conclude, as already confirmed to the Parliament on more than one occasion, that it was unable, on the basis of this Resolution, to continue with discussions aimed at adopting a definitive proposal submitted to the European Parliament for assent and to the Member States for ratification.Since the matter is also being examined by the current Intergovernmental Conference, the Council considers that it would be advisable to await the latter's conclusions on this point.