Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2006-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, gender equality, human rights, women's rights

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.5.2006 
COM(2006) 209 final 

2005/0017 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality 

(presented by the Commission pursuant to  
Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
2005/0017 (COD) 

Amended proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

At  its  meeting  in  Nice  in  2000,  the  European  Council  acknowledged  the  need  for 
greater  awareness  and  exchange  of  experiences,  with  a  view  to  promoting  equality 
between  women  and  men,  in  particular  through  the  establishment  of  a  European 
Gender  Institute,  and  asked  the  Commission  to  carry  out  a  feasibility  study.  This 
study,  which was completed in 2002,  assessed the need for the creation  of such  an 
institute as well as its aims and administrative structure.  

The  European  Parliament  has  also  supported  the  establishment  of  such  an  institute 
since 2002 and commissioned a specific study, which was completed in June 2004. 

The  Employment,  Social  Policy,  Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  Council  of  1  and  2 
June 2004 endorsed the setting-up of such an institute, on the basis of the work done 
by Equality Ministers at a meeting in Limerick during the Irish Presidency, in May 
2004, stressing the importance of a structure that would bring added value and would 
not in any way duplicate existing activities. The need for budgetary neutrality of the 
operation was also mentioned. 

The  European  Council  of  June  2004,  taking  account  of  the  earlier  discussions  and 
reflecting the Lisbon objectives as regards gender equality, expressed its support for 
the establishment of a European Gender Institute and invited the Commission to put 
forward a proposal. 

On  8  March  2005,  the  Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation 
establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality1. The proposal is in line with 
both the communication of December 2002 and the draft interinstitutional agreement 
of February 2005 on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies.2 

The  purpose  of  the  proposed  Institute  is  to  provide  technical  support  both  to  the 
Member  States  and  to  the  Community  institutions,  especially  the  Commission, 
thereby  furthering  the  Community  policy  for  gender  equality.  In  this  connection,  it 
will  collect,  analyse  and  disseminate  objective,  reliable  and  comparable  data  at 
Community  level,  develop  appropriate  methodological  tools  for  incorporating  the 
gender  perspective  into  Community  policies  generally,  facilitate  the  exchange  of 

1 
2 

COM(2005) 81 final 
COM(2002) 718 final and COM(2005) 59 final 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
1.7. 

1.8. 

good  practice,  encourage  dialogue  between  stakeholders,  spread  knowledge  and 
awareness,  and  raise  the  profile  of  this  Community  policy  among  the  citizens  of 
Europe.  

In order to ensure that the Institute operates effectively, bearing in mind its size and 
its  technical  nature,  a  restricted  Management  Board  composed  of  15  members  (six 
representatives  of  the  Council,  six  representatives  of  the  Commission,  and  three 
representatives  of  the  social  partners  and  NGOs  at  European  level  without  voting 
rights) is proposed as the managing structure. An Advisory Forum composed of 25 
representatives  of  competent  bodies  from  all  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  three 
representatives of the social partners and NGOs at European level, is also envisaged 
as  a  support  mechanism  for  the  Director  and  as  a  vehicle  for  the  exchange  of 
information and knowledge.  

The Council adopted a general approach in June 2005. It welcomed the Commission 
proposal,  except  for  the  composition  of  the  Management  Board;  the  Council 
preferred a large Management Board composed of 31 members (25 representatives of 
the  Member  States, 
three 
representatives  of  the  social  partners  and  NGOs  at  European  level  without  voting 
rights), accompanied by a six-member Executive Bureau. Given the representation of 
all  the  Member  States  on  the  Management  Board,  it  saw  no  need  for  the  Advisory 
Forum. 

three  representatives  of 

the  Commission,  and 

1.9. 

The European Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on 27 September 
2005.  It  supported  the  Commission  proposal,  including  the  restricted  Management 
Board,  but  wanted  voting  rights  to  be  given  to  the  representatives  of  the  social 
partners and NGOs at European level.  

1.10. 

The  European  Parliament  adopted  its  position  at  first  reading  on  14  March  2006, 
making  50  amendments,  on  the  basis  of  the  Gröner  -  Sartori  report,  drawn  up  on 
behalf of the "Women’s Rights and Gender Equality" parliamentary committee.  

2. 

EXAMINATION OF THE AMENDMENTS 

The amendments fall mainly into the following categories: 

those which make the text clearer: the Commission can accept them as they stand (nos. 2, 3, 
6,  59/74,  13,  15,  18,  28,  29,  35,  36,  38,  39,  45  and  53)  or  subject  to  slight  reworking 
(amendments 7, 8, 10 and 40); 

- those which reinforce/clarify the tasks of the Institute and its working methods: a vote was 
taken on a large number of amendments in the FEMM Committee, with a view to reinforcing 
the  Institute’s  tasks;  a  softer  line  was  taken  on  these  amendments  in  plenary.  The  clear 
position  of  the  European  Parliament  on  the  technical  nature  of  the  Institute  enables  the 
Commission  to  accept  these  amendments  as  they  stand  (nos.  60/76,  61rev/77,  17,  62/78, 
64/80, 65/81, 42, 48, 67/83 and 68/84), in part or after reworking (nos. 4, 5, 20, 24, 25, 26 
and  63/79).  These  amendments  as  accepted  by  the  Commission  could  in  principle  be 
acceptable to the Council as well. The Commission cannot accept amendment 30, because of 
the need to ensure that duplication is avoided; 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
-  those  which  address  horizontal  issues:  mainly  concerning  the  procedure  for  selecting  the 
Director,  the  extension  of  his/her  term  of  office  and  the  procedure  for  evaluation  of  the 
Institute. Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 54 cannot be accepted by the Commission, since it is 
necessary to maintain a consistent approach for all the agencies. The Council has not called 
these  provisions  into  question.  The  Commission  accepts,  as  they  stand,  amendments  41 
(tenure  of  the  Chairperson  and  Vice-Chairperson  of  the  Management  Board)  and  55 
(clarification of the time limit for setting up the Institute). 

As  regards  the  important  question  of  the  composition  of  the  Management  Board,  the  EP’s 
option  is  for  a  restricted  Management  Board  but  without  Council/Commission  parity, 
composed of 13 members (nine representatives of the Council, only one representative of the 
Commission, and three representatives of the social partners and NGOs without voting rights; 
the appointment of the nine representatives of the Council should be made on the basis of a 
list drawn up by the Commission and after consultation of the EP)3. The Commission accepts 
this position of the EP (amendment 66/82), on the condition that, in a very limited number of 
cases  where  the  Commission  assumes  responsibility  (adoption  of  the  work  programme  and 
the budget), the voting weight of the Commission’s representative is equal to that of the nine 
Council representatives, so as to preserve the balance between the two institutions; 

- those which, although constructive, are not proper to the Regulation, but are relevant to the 
Institute’s rules of procedure (no. 31), fall within the competence of the Management Board 
(nos. 32 and 52) or are covered by other amendments (no. 23), and are not accepted; 

-  those  which  form  part  of  legal  technique:  the  Commission  accepts  amendment  9,  which 
gives greater legal clarity, but does not accept amendment 1, which seeks to include in the 
specific legal bases of the proposal an article which is not a specific basis (Article 3(2)).  

2.1. 

Amendments accepted in full by the Commission 

2.1.1.  Amendment 2 

This amendment adds two aspects to Recital 7 ("network building" and "highlighting 
the  gender  perspective")  in  the  light  of  the  Commission’s  feasibility  study.  It  is 
acceptable, since these elements were emphasised in the study. 

2.1.2.  Amendment 3 

This  amendment  comprises  two  small  additions  to  Recital  10  (linked  to  the 
Institute’s tasks), making the text clearer, and replacement of the word "collection" 
by "documentation" of information and data, so as to make it clear that the Institute 
will  place  greater  emphasis  on  analysing  the  information  and  data  obtained,  thus 
lending  undoubted  added  value.  This  amendment  is  acceptable,  given  that  the 
Institute will have to seek out the information for analysis. 

3 

This option is derived from the Food Safety Authority, established in 2002, the only agency having a 
restricted  Management  Board  composed  of  18  members  (14  representatives  of  the  Council,  only  one 
representative of the Commission and three stakeholder representatives without voting rights). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.3.  Amendment 6 

This  amendment  adds  to  Recital  11  an  explicit  reference  to  the  Institute’s 
cooperation  with  national  and  Community  statistical  bodies.  It  is  acceptable,  as  it 
reflects the provisions of Article 4. 

2.1.4.  Amendment 9 

This  amendment  to  Recital  13  refers  to  Article  3(2)  of  the  Treaty.  It  is  acceptable, 
since it adds precision. 

2.1.5.  Amendment 59/74  

This amendment provides a title for Article 1, "Establishment of the Institute", as for 
the other articles. This title, which is acceptable, is also provided for in the Council’s 
text. 

2.1.6.  Amendment 13 

This  amendment  to  Article  2  (Objectives)  edits  the  text  in  the  interest  of  clarity; 
acceptable. 

2.1.7.  Amendment 60/76  

This  amendment  concerns  Article  3(1)(a)  (Tasks  of  the  Institute)  and  makes  four 
small changes: 

-  deletion  of  "collect,  record",  thus  emphasising  the  analysis  aspect  as  opposed  to 
collection, which is the work of other bodies, including Eurostat: acceptable, given 
that for information to be analysed it first of all has to be collected, even though the 
word "collect" is removed to give greater prominence to analysis; documentation is, 
moreover, explicitly mentioned in Recital 10, see amendment 3; 

- addition of "best practice": acceptable; the amendment helps to clarify the tasks; 

- addition of the social partners to the organisations with which the Institute should 
cooperate: acceptable, being in line with Article 4. 

- as a further task, the Institute should draw attention to sectors where more research 
is  needed  and  suggest  initiatives  for  filling  the  gaps:  acceptable,  because  the 
amendment helps to clarify the Institute’s tasks.  

2.1.8.  Amendment 15  

This amendment to Article 3(1)(b) seeks to reinforce cooperation with Eurostat and 
national statistical bodies. Acceptable, as it makes the tasks more precise and clearer. 

2.1.9.  Amendment 61rev/77  

This amendment to Article 3(1)(c) entails three additions: 

- disseminate and promote the use of methodological tools; 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
-  methodological  tools  should  support  not  only  Community  policies  but  also  the 
resulting national policies; 

- they should also support gender mainstreaming in all Community institutions and 
bodies.  

It is acceptable, as it strengthens/clarifies the tasks. 

2.1.10.  Amendment 17 

This amendment concerning Article 3(1)(d a) (new) makes explicit provision in the 
Regulation  for  the  creation  of  a  Network  for  the  Institute,  involving  all  the 
stakeholders,  in  order  to  optimise  the  use  of  resources,  foster  the  exchange  of 
information,  etc.  It  is  acceptable;  the  Commission  proposal  covers  the  necessary 
budget  for  creating  a  telematic  network,  because  all  the  agencies  have  this.  The 
Council is also in favour of creating a telematic network. 

2.1.11.  Amendment 18 

This amendment to Article 3(1)(e) (publication of the Institute’s annual report on its 
activities)  is  intended  to  move  this  task  to  a  separate  paragraph.  Acceptable,  as  the 
tasks are presented in a clearer manner; same move in the Council’s text. 

2.1.12.  Amendment 62 /78 

This  amendment  to  Article  3(1)(f)  is  more  precise  about  the  purpose  of  meetings 
with researchers. It is acceptable, being also in line with the Council’s text.  

2.1.13.  Amendment 64/80 

This amendment concerning Article 3(1)(g b) (new) provides that the Institute’s tasks 
should  include  cooperation  and  development  of  dialogue  with  the  relevant 
organisations,  which  is  already  stipulated  in  Article  8,  thereby  drawing  more 
attention to this role of the Institute. Acceptable. 

2.1.14.  Amendment 65/81  

This amendment concerning Article 3(1)(h d) (new) envisages that the Institute will 
provide  the  Community  institutions  with  information  on  gender  equality  in  the 
accession and candidate countries. Acceptable, as it highlights an important task: the 
Institute  will  certainly  have  to  help  with  the  collection  of  information  which  will 
enable the Commission to prepare reports on the situation in those countries. 

2.1.15.  Amendment 28  

This amendment concerning Article 3(1)(h e) (new) provides for the dissemination of 
examples  of  good  practice.  Acceptable,  as  it  clarifies  the  tasks,  but  it  should  be 
incorporated in Article 3 (1)(a), in line with the Council’s text. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2.1.16.  Amendment 29 

This  amendment  concerning  Article  3(1a)  (new)  provides  for  the  moving  to  a 
separate  paragraph  of  the  task  of  publishing  the  annual  report  on  the  Institute’s 
activities.  Acceptable,  as  the  moving  of  this  task  within  the  text  improves  the 
presentation (see amendment 18); it is in line with the Council’s text. 

2.1.17.  Amendment 35  

This amendment to Article 7(4) (Access to documents) presents in a neater way the 
reference to Regulation 45/2001. Acceptable, more concise presentation, in line with 
the Council’s text. 

2.1.18.  Amendment 36  

This  amendment  to  Article  8(1)  (Cooperation  with  national/European/international 
includes  cooperation  with  experts  and  universities. 
organisations)  explicitly 
Acceptable, because the concept is enhanced. 

2.1.19.  Amendment 38 

This  amendment  to  Article  10(2)  stipulates  that  the  members  of  the  Management 
Board should, additionally, possess transdisciplinary expertise. It is acceptable, as it 
makes the text clearer. 

2.1.20.  Amendment 39 

Under the terms of this amendment to the second subparagraph of Article 10(2), on 
the  subject  of  equal  representation,  the  three  institutions  must  ensure  that  neither 
women  nor  men  constitute  less  than  40%  of  the  membership  of  the  Management 
Board. Acceptable, being closer to the text of the Council, which calls for balanced 
participation among men and women (instead of equal participation as proposed by 
the Commission).  

2.1.21.  Amendment 41  

This amendment to Article 10(3) (Management Board tenure) introduces a period of 
two and a half years instead of one year for the tenure of the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson. Acceptable, being in line with the Council’s text. 

2.1.22.  Amendment 42  

This  amendment  to  Article  10(5)(b)  envisages  the  publication  of  the  Institute’s 
annual report on its website. Acceptable, as it enhances transparency. 

2.1.23.  Amendment 45  

This  amendment  to  Article  10(11)  makes  it  clear  that  the  purpose  of  having  the 
directors  of  other  agencies  attend  meetings  of  the  Management  Board  is  to 
coordinate  the  respective  working  programmes  as  regards  gender  mainstreaming. 
Acceptable, as it makes the reason for cooperation between the agencies clearer. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2.1.24.  Amendment 48 

This  amendment  to  Article  11(4)  provides  that  the  Director  may  be  called  upon  at 
any time by the Council and the EP to attend a hearing on any matter linked to the 
Institute’s  activities.  It  is  acceptable:  the  Agency  Directors  regularly  present  their 
work programme, balance sheet etc., to the competent parliamentary committees; it 
is  important,  in  the  context  of  a  restricted  Management  Board  where  not  all  the 
Member  States  will  be  represented,  to  have  this  option  available  to  the  Council  as 
well. 

2.1.25.  Amendment 67/83  

This amendment to Article 12(1) (Advisory Forum) limits the Forum participants to 
Member State representatives only, thus removing the three representatives of NGOs 
and the social partners at European level, since they are members of the Management 
Board without voting rights.  

The Commission, in line with amendment 66/82 on the restricted composition of the 
Management  Board,  accepts  that  the  Advisory  Forum  can  be  reduced  to  Member 
State representatives only and considers it sufficient that the three parties concerned 
be involved in the Management Board only.  

2.1.26.  Amendment 68/84 

the  Director 

in  preparing 

This  amendment  to  Article  12(4)  indicates  that  the  Forum  should  additionally 
support 
the  Institute’s  annual  and  medium-term 
programmes of activities. It is acceptable; in the context of a restricted Management 
Board  where  not  all  the  Member  States  will  be  represented,  it  is  important  to 
strengthen the role of the Advisory Forum, which is composed of representatives of 
all the Member States. 

2.1.27.  Amendment 53 

This  amendment  to  Article  20  (Evaluation)  stipulates  that  the  evaluation  of  the 
Institute  should  include  the  financial  implications  not  just  of  the  extension  of  tasks 
but also of any modification of them. Acceptable, as it gives greater clarity and is in 
line with the Council’s text. 

2.1.28.  Amendment 55 

This  amendment  to  Article  23  (Start  of  the  Institute’s  activities)  points  out  that  the 
Institute must be operational as soon as possible within the stipulated twelve-month 
period. Acceptable, as it strengthens the text. 

2.2. 

Amendments  which  can  be  accepted  by  the  Commission  subject  to  slight 
reworking 

2.2.1.  Amendment 4 

This amendment introduces a new Recital 10a concerning harmonious co-existence 
and balanced participation of men and women in society, and the role of the Institute 
in  ensuring  balanced  participation  of  this  kind.  This  will  be  acceptable  after  being 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
reworked along the following lines: “contributing to [this objective] …” rather than 
“attainment of [this objective]”. 

2.2.2.  Amendment 5 

This amendment introduces a new Recital 10b on the importance for the Institute of 
highlighting achievements by women in all walks of life so as to provide a positive 
example  for  other  women  to  follow.  This  will  be  acceptable  after  it  has  been 
reworked  to  include  the  importance  of  highlighting  role  models  for  men  as  well: 
“highlighting achievements by women in all walks of life so as to provide a positive 
example for other women to follow” should therefore be replaced with “highlighting 
positive  gender  roles  in  European  society  in  all  walks  of  life  for  other  men  and 
women to follow…". See also amendment 63/79. 

2.2.3.  Amendment 7 

This  amendment  to  Recital  12  concerning the  Institute’s  working  methods  replaces 
"avoid duplication" with “ensure the best possible use of resources". Acceptable, but 
as  an  addition.  Avoiding  duplication  is  important  and  must  be  mentioned;  the 
working  methods  therefore  include  specific  mechanisms  to  deal  with  this.  See  also 
amendment 30, which is not acceptable.  

2.2.4.  Amendment 8 

This amendment adds a new Recital 12a to reflect the content of Article 8(1) (and of 
Article 3(1)(g b), following amendment 64/80, which has been accepted) concerning 
the Institute’s cooperation with the various key bodies. Acceptable, after inclusion of 
“the social partners and research centres” among the organisations, in order to better 
reflect Article 8. 

2.2.5.  Amendment 10  

This  amendment  to  Recital  19  (subsidiarity)  removes  the  reference  to  the  main 
objectives  because  it  is  considered  to  be  rather  limiting.  The  Commission  has 
highlighted a number of objectives concerning subsidiarity to illustrate the need for 
an instrument at Community level (making comparable and reliable data available at 
Community level). This means that, instead of removing the objectives mentioned in 
this  recital,  which  would  not  be  conducive  to  understanding  its  content  (since  this 
recital justifies the need to set up an Institute at Community level with regard to its 
objectives),  further  text  should  be  added  along  the  following  lines:  “...  namely  the 
provision  of  comparable  and  reliable  information  and  data  at  European  level,  the 
development  of  methodological  tools,  the  promotion  of  dialogue  between  those 
involved, etc. in order to assist the Community institutions …”. The amendment will 
be acceptable if it is reworked in this way. 

2.2.6.  Amendment 20  

This  amendment  to  Article  3(1)(g)  further  clarifies  the  description  of  tasks  and  is 
acceptable apart from the words “and promote”, since the Institute will have a budget 
for  organising  its  own  seminars/conferences  but  not  for  providing  funding  for 
conferences held by other bodies. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
2.2.7.  Amendment 63/79  

This amendment to Article 3(1) adds a new point (g a) to highlight the Institute’s role 
in  promoting  a  positive  image  of  women  and  the  role  of  women  in  contemporary 
society. It will be acceptable after it has been reworked in two ways: (a) to include 
the role of men, which is very important, in order to promote real equality between 
men  and  women;  “achievements  by  women”  should  therefore  be  replaced  with 
“positive  gender  roles  in  European  society"  (see  also  amendment  5),  and  (b)  to 
remove  “propose  policies”,  as  the  Institute  should  simply  “present  its  findings  and 
initiatives…", in view of its role in providing technical support to policy makers.  

2.2.8.  Amendment 24  

This  amendment  concerning  Article  3(1)(h  a)  (new)  indicates  that  the  Institute’s 
tasks  include  providing  expertise  on  gender  mainstreaming  for  public  and  private 
organisations. This will be acceptable after it has been reworked: it should be made 
clear that the Institute cannot respond to ad hoc requests for support from public and 
private  bodies  but  will  make  its  expertise  available  instead:  “make  expertise  on 
gender  mainstreaming  available  to  public  and  private  organisations”  instead  of 
“provide ... for …”. 

2.2.9.  Amendment 25 

This  amendment  concerning  Article  3(1)(h  b)  (new)  indicates  that  the  Institute’s 
tasks include the submission of recommendations and guidelines to the Community 
institutions  so  that  they  may  incorporate  effectively  gender  mainstreaming  into 
legislation.  This  amendment  may  be  accepted  only  after  it  has  been  reworked  and 
inserted  in  Article  3(1)  at  the  end  of  point  (g)  (regarding  the  organisation  of 
conferences/seminars,  etc.)  along  the  following  lines:  “and  submit  conclusions  and 
recommendations to the Community institutions”.  

2.2.10.  Amendment 26 

This  amendment  to  Article  3(1)  adds  a  new  point  (h  c)  on  the  dialogue  which  the 
Institute  should  develop  at  international  level  with  bodies  and  organisations 
responsible for gender equality. Article 8(1) already makes provision for cooperation 
of  this  kind  but  the  European  Parliament  wants  to  give  it  more  weight  by 
incorporating  it  into  the  Institute's  tasks.  Cooperation  with  organisations  at 
international level is important but it should not be excessive, given the size of the 
Institute and its initial budget. In view of this, the amendment will be acceptable after 
it has been reworked to simplify the task and bring it into line with other agencies. 
The text should therefore be replaced with the following wording based on that used 
for the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: "collect and make available 
information on gender equality issues from and to third countries and international 
organisations". 

2.2.11.  Amendment 66/82  

This amendment to Article 10(1) (composition of the Management Board) echoes the 
Commission’s  position  in  favour  of  a  restricted  Management  Board,  but  with  even 
fewer  members,  i.e.  13  (nine  from  the  Council  —  chosen  on  the  basis  of  a  list 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
proposed by the Commission and after the EP has been consulted, only one from the 
Commission,  and  three  representatives  of  the  social  partners  and  NGOs  without 
voting rights)4. The European Parliament’s position is in line with its resolution of 1 
December 2005 on the draft interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework 
for the European regulatory agencies.  

The  Commission  is  in  favour  of  a  restricted  Management  Board  and  accepts  the 
European  Parliament’s  position,  even  though  the  Council  and  the  Commission  are 
not represented in equal numbers, provided that a balance is maintained between the 
two institutions whenever the Commission’s responsibility is exercised (i.e. when the 
work  programme  and  budget  are  adopted).  To  this  end,  the  Commission  proposes 
that  the  following  provision  be  added  to  Article  10(7)  (decision-making  within  the 
Management Board): “In the case of decisions referring to Article 10(5)(a) and (d), 
the vote of the representative of the Commission shall have the same weight as the 
votes of all the members appointed by the Council taken together”. The amendment 
will be acceptable with this addition and it is also proposed that the following recital 
accompany it:  

"With a view to ensuring that the Institute operates effectively, and having regard to 
its  size  and  its  technical  nature,  it  shall  be  managed  by  a  restricted  Management 
Board composed of nine representatives of the Council, a single representative of the 
Commission,  and  three  stakeholder  representatives  without  voting  rights.  The 
balance between the two institutions, Council and Commission, must be preserved in 
cases  where  the  Commission  assumes  responsibility  (in  particular,  when  the  work 
programme and the budget are adopted)”. 

The  composition  of  the  Management  Board  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament 
makes it possible, through a system of rotation, for representatives of all the Member 
States to sit on the Management Board over three terms of office (9 x 3 = 27), thus 
ensuring  the  necessary  geographical  balance.  The  Commission  therefore  proposes 
that the following be added to amendment 66/82: “1. The Management Board … The 
list drawn up by the Commission, on the basis of proposals from the Member States 
and  in  accordance  with  a  system  of  rotation  by  order  of  Presidencies,  shall  be 
forwarded …”. 

The following recital is proposed in support of the above provision: 

“With  a  view  to  ensuring  the  necessary geographical  balance  between  the  Member 
States, the representatives of the Council shall be appointed for each rotating term of 
office in accordance with the order of Presidencies of the Council”. 

Lastly,  the  Commission  proposes  that  the  term  of  office  of  the  members  of  the 
Management  Board  be  reduced  from  five  to  three  years  so  that  the  rotation  of  the 
Member  State  representatives  can  take  place  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time. 
Article  10(2),  fourth  subparagraph,  should  therefore  be  amended  as  follows:  “The 
term of office shall be a non-renewable period of three years”.  

4 

This  option  is  derived  from  the  Food  Safety  Authority,  established  in  2002,  which  has  a  restricted 
Management  Board  composed  of  18  members  (14  representatives  of  the  Council,  only  one 
representative of the Commission and three stakeholder representatives without voting rights). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.12.  Amendment 40  

This amendment to Article 10(2), fifth subparagraph, refers to the publication of the 
list of members of the Management Board on all relevant websites as well as on the 
website of the Institute. Acceptable with slight reworking (“other relevant websites” 
instead of “all relevant websites”). 

2.3. 

Amendments which cannot be accepted by the Commission 

2.3.1.  Amendment 1 

This  amendment  seeks  to  include  Article  3(2)  of  the  Treaty,  which  introduces  the 
principle of incorporating the gender dimension into all Community policies, in the 
legal  bases  of  the  proposal.  This  amendment  cannot  be  accepted,  as  only  the 
provisions  of  the  Treaty  which  constitute  specific  legal  bases  for  the  policy  of 
equality between men and women may be referred to in the context of setting up the 
Institute,  which  is  an  instrument  for  implementing  this  policy.  Article  3(2)  and  its 
objective are, moreover, referred to in Recital 2. 

2.3.2.  Amendment 23  

This  amendment  to  Article  3(1)(h)  makes  explicit  reference  to  the  social  partners’ 
contribution  to  the  Institute’s  documentation  centre.  This  is  not  necessary, 
particularly  in  view  of  the  supplement  to  amendment  64/80  (accepted  as  it  stands), 
which makes explicit reference to the Institute’s cooperation with the social partners.  

2.3.3.  Amendment 30 

This  amendment  to  Article  4(3)  (Areas  of  activity  and  working  methods)  seeks  to 
remove  the  words  “avoid  duplication”  and  retain  only  the  second  part  of  the 
sentence:  “guarantee  the  best  possible  use  of  resources”.  Avoiding  duplication  is 
important  and  the  working  methods  include  specific  mechanisms  to  deal  with  this. 
This amendment is not accepted. See also amendment 7 (accepted with an addition). 

2.3.4.  Amendment 31 

This  amendment  concerning  Article  4(5)(1a)  (new)  makes  provision  for  the 
Institute’s  annual  report  to  include  all  information  on  the  Institute’s  contractual 
relations, the tasks entrusted and the bodies involved. It is not acceptable, because it 
is not necessary to specify in the Regulation that such information be included in the 
annual report. This falls under the Institute’s rules of procedure.  

2.3.5.  Amendment 32  

This  amendment  concerning  Article  4a  (new)  defines  in  detail  the  procedure  for 
creating  a  virtual  network  for  the  Institute  (as  provided  for  in  amendment  17, 
accepted  as  it  stands).  It  is  not  necessary  for  this  procedure  to  be  laid  down  in  the 
Regulation.  The  Management  Board  must  be  left  to  decide  how  to  create  this 
network for the Institute.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
2.3.6.  Amendment 46  

This  amendment  to  Article  11(1)  (appointment  of  the  Director)  makes  two 
adjustments: 

(a) inclusion of the detailed procedure which the Commission will use to draw up the 
list  of  candidates  (open  competition,  after  publication  of  a  call  for  expressions  of 
interest  in  the  OJ/EU  and  in  other  publications),  which  is  not  necessary,  given  that 
the  proposed  procedure  is  the  one  which  is  applied  across  the  board  for  all  the 
agencies; 

(b)  all  candidates  on  the  short  list  proposed  by  the  Commission,  not  just  the 
candidate  selected  by  the  Management  Board,  to  make  a  statement  before  the  EP. 
This amendment is not accepted: the Commission takes the view that the making of 
statements by all the candidates on the short list would hamper the process and could 
even lead to conflict (where the candidate selected by the Management Board, as the 
appointing authority, is not the one proposed by the EP). The procedure proposed by 
the Commission for the appointment of the Director requires the candidate who has 
been  selected  to  be  heard  by  the  European  Parliament  before  being  officially 
appointed.  This  is  a  practice  which  is  followed  and  included  in  the  draft 
interinstitutional agreement. Moreover, this is a horizontal question which is also of 
current  relevance  to  several  existing  agencies,  as  amendments  to  their  rules  of 
procedure are currently being discussed in the Council and the EP, and a consistent 
approach must be taken.  

2.3.7.  Amendment 47 

This amendment to Article 11(2) (extending the Director’s term of office) indicates 
that  the  Commission  does  not  make  a  proposal  and  is  not  solely  responsible  for 
evaluating  the  Director,  and  that  this  responsibility  be  shared  by  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Management  Board.  This  is  not  acceptable:  it  is  for  the 
appointing authority (the Management Board) to decide whether or not to extend the 
term of office of the incumbent Director, on the basis of an evaluation, just as it may 
reject all the candidates on the short list for the appointment of the Director. In the 
same way that the short list is compiled, the evaluation must be carried out by a body 
which  is  independent  of  the  appointing  authority,  in  order  to  ensure  that  the 
evaluation  remains  objective.  The  Commission  has  definite  and  recognised 
knowledge and expertise, and it will follow the evaluation procedure which applies 
to  its  senior  management  posts.  The  provision  proposed  by  the  Commission  is 
horizontal in nature and should be retained for the sake of consistency.  

2.3.8.  Amendment 51 

This amendment to Article 12(8) (Advisory Forum) indicates that the Director may 
invite  experts  to  meetings,  also  following  suggestions  from  the  members  of  the 
Forum. This provision does not need to be included in the Regulation; it falls under 
the rules of procedure of the Institute. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
2.3.9.  Amendment 52  

This amendment to Article 19(1) (Participation of third countries) gives examples of 
areas  in which  the  Institute may cooperate with third counties. This provision  does 
not need to be included in the Regulation; it falls under the rules of procedure of the 
Institute. 

2.3.10.  Amendment 54  

This  amendment  to  Article  21  (Review  clause)  indicates  that  if  the  Commission, 
following an evaluation, deems that the Institute's existence is no longer justified, it 
may propose that it be repealed. This is not acceptable for reasons of consistency; the 
standard formula for all the agencies should be adhered to. 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In  conclusion,  the  Commission  accepts  in  full  amendments  2,  3,  6,  9,  59/74,  13,  60/76,  15, 
61/77, 17, 18, 62/78, 64/80, 65/81, 28, 29, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 67/83, 68/84, 53 and 
55.  The  Commission  accepts,  subject  to  slight  reworking,  amendments  4,  5,  7,  8,  10,  20, 
63/79, 24, 25, 26, 66/82 and 40. It cannot accept amendments 1, 23, 30, 31, 32, 46, 47, 51, 52 
and 54.  

By  virtue  of  Article  250(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty,  the  Commission  is  amending  its  proposal  as 
indicated above. 

EN 

14 

   EN