WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3186/98 by Jan LAGENDIJK to the Commission. Parliamentary scrutiny of decisions under Title IIIA of the Treaty of Amsterdam
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, LAGENDIJK
Subjects: EC Decision, EU law - national law, European treaties, Netherlands, Treaty on European Union, immigration, parliamentary scrutiny, right of asylum

C 142/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1998)

The Commission’s report on the Community’s own resources system (1) includes data on both Commun-
ity expenditure in each Member State and own resources contributed by each Member State to the
Community budget. The data are available on a calendar year basis and the latest available figures relate to
1997.

The various methodologies which can be used for calculating budgetary balances are discussed in annex 3
to the report. None is ideal and the Commission has repeatedly warned against simplistic interpretation of
budgetary balance figures as a measure of the real balance of advantage and disadvantage in membership
of the Community.

The method used for allocating expenditure to individual Member States in calculating the British rebate is
set out in the method of calculation document (2).

(1) COM(98) 560 final available on web.site http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg19/index”_en.htm, choose ‘quoi de neuf?’.
(2) COM(85) 36 final.

(1999/C 142/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3186/98

by Jan Lagendijk (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Parliamentary scrutiny of decisions under Title IIIA of the Treaty of Amsterdam

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Second Chamber is considering declaring in the law
approving the Treaty of Amsterdam that the present requirement of the assent of the States-General,
applying to all decisions under Title VI of the EU Treaty that are legally binding on the Kingdom, will also
apply to decisions taken under the provisions of Title IIIA of the EC Treaty on which (and provided that)
the European Parliament has not obtained the right of codecision, in order to prevent any increase in the
democratic deficit in such fields as immigration and asylum policy? (1)

As guardian of the Treaties, does the Commission agree with the Netherlands Government that ‘any
expansion of assent to include (titles of) the EC Treaty would run into [...] difficulties in European law’ (2),
or does it welcome any move by national parliaments to take responsibility for parliamentary scrutiny of
European policy where the European Parliament’s powers are not sufficient?

If the former, what difficulties does the Commission foresee?

(1) Second Chamber, 1996-1997 parliamentary term, motion 21 501-058, No 20 by De Hoop Scheffer and

Rosenmöller (adjourned), and Second Chamber, 1997-1998 parliamentary term, 25 922 (R1613), No 4.

(2) Second Chamber, 1997 parliamentary term, 25 922 (R1613), No 5, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Under Article 146 of the EC Treaty, the Council consists of a representative of each Member State at
ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. Each Member State is
entitled to lay down its own rules and procedures which determine the position to be adopted by that
representative in the Council. It is not for the Commission to judge these rules and procedures.