European Parliament resolution on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator (2005/2214(INI))
Date: 2006-05-16
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU act, drafting of EU law, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions, proposal (EU), simplification of legislation

C 297 E/140

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2006

Tuesday, 16 May 2006

28. Reaffirms in this context that any recourse to the ‘comitology’ procedure would necessitate a complete
revision of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of
implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1), in order to:

a) guarantee greater openness,

b) ensure that any conferral of implementing powers on the Commission was limited to non-essential or
implementing measures and was conditional upon a clear definition of the objective, content, scope and
duration of the delegation of powers, including, where appropriate, ‘sunset clauses’,

c) guarantee the introduction of formal equality between the powers of the European Parliament and those

of the Council in considering these measures, through the introduction of call-back procedures;

29.
Takes note of the list of actions contained in the Commission simplification rolling programme and
will actively cooperate in the achievement of the objective of simplifying pieces of legislation, if appropriate,
in the context of the forthcoming legislative process;

30.
Expects that the various recasting and review proposals emanating from the Commission will contri-
bute to improving the Union's level of economic and social development in the context of the sustainable
development policy, as well as the level of citizens' health protection and the quality of their environment,
in conformity with the objectives laid down in Article 2 of the EC Treaty;

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments

31.
and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

P6_TA(2006)0206

Outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator

European Parliament resolution on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending
before the Legislator (2005/2214(INI))

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission communication of 27 September 2005 to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator
(COM(2005)0462),

— having regard to the letter from its President to the President of the Commission dated 23 January

2006 (1),

— having regard to the letter from the President of the Commission to the President of the Parliament

dated 8 March 2006,

— having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of

the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinion of

the

Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0143/2006), whereas

A.

in its above-mentioned communication, the Commission announced its intention to withdraw 68
proposals that it considers inconsistent with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the principles of
better regulation, while others will be subject to a reviewed economic impact assessment and, if appro-
priate, modified,

(1) Ref. Pres-A-Courrier D(2006)300689).

7.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297 E/141

Tuesday, 16 May 2006

B.

C.

the letter sent by the President of the Parliament to the President of the Commission at the outcome of
the analysis of that communication by the parliamentary committees generally welcomes the intentions
of the Commission, but specifically asks it not to withdraw several of those proposals and objects to the
possible modification of some other proposals,

the reply sent by the President of the Commission to the President of the Parliament states that the
Commission took into due consideration the position of Parliament before adopting its final position
and indicates the specific reasons why the Commission did not follow some of the requests of Parlia-
ment, as well as the possible initiatives that the Commission plans to undertake, in the future, to address
some of those requests,

D.

that communication provides an excellent opportunity for a more thorough analysis of the problems
connected with the withdrawal or the modification of legislative proposals by the Commission,

E. with a few exceptions, most of the Community's legislative acts can only be adopted on the basis of a

proposal from the Commission, which enjoys a quasi-monopoly over the legislative initiative,

F. Article 250(2), of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Commission ‘may alter its proposal’ at any moment
of the procedure leading to the adoption of a Community act, ‘as long as the Council has not acted’,

G. although, for historical reasons, the role of Parliament is not mentioned in Article 250(2), that provision
must be interpreted in conjunction with Article 251 as concerns its application to the codecision proce-
dure, and with Article 252 as concerns the cooperation procedure,

H. whenever a common position is adopted after the first reading, the third indent of the second sub-
paragraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty only allows the Commission to inform Parliament of its
own position and if the common position is subsequently amended by Parliament, point (c) of the third
subparagraph of Article 251(2) only allows the Commission to deliver an opinion, thus making it clear
that the Commission is no longer the ‘owner’ of its proposals,

I.

J.

the Treaties are silent as to the possibility of the Commission withdrawing a legislative proposal,

this absence of provisions concerning the withdrawal of legislative proposals has not prevented the
Commission from regularly withdrawing legislative proposals,

K. Parliament, Council and the Commission seem not to agree on the exact extent to which the Commis-

sion is entitled to withdraw its legislative proposals,

L. despite these disagreements, the withdrawal of legislative proposals has been a regular practice of the

Commission, without ever having given rise to a case brought before the Court,

M. Parliament itself has sometimes in the past asked the Commission to withdraw its proposals,

N.

the Framework Agreement (1) on relations between Parliament and the Commission of 26 May 2005
stipulates that:

— in all legislative procedures,

‘the Commission undertakes to carefully examine amendments to its
legislative proposals adopted by Parliament, with a view to taking them into account in any
amended proposal’ (point 31),

— in all legislative procedures, ‘the Commission shall give Parliament and the Council prior notification

before withdrawing its proposals’ (point 32),

— in legislative procedures not entailing codecision, the Commission undertakes to withdraw legislative
proposals that have been rejected by Parliament, ‘if appropriate’, and also to explain the reasons for
not doing so if it decides to maintain the proposal (point 33),

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0194, Annex.

C 297 E/142

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2006

Tuesday, 16 May 2006

O. an understanding, based on common guidelines between the three institutions, regarding the withdrawal
and, to the extent necessary, the modification of legislative proposals by the Commission would posi-
tively contribute to the smooth running of legislative procedures,

1. Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission communication, and considers that the withdrawal or
modification of the great majority of the proposals mentioned in it will in fact contribute to a simplification
of the Community legislative environment, but insists that the Commission should take into proper consid-
eration the objections raised by the President of the Parliament in his letter of 23 January 2006;

2. Welcomes the fact that, before adopting its final position, the Commission has again reviewed its
proposals in the light of Parliament's objections; acknowledges that, in every case in which the Commission
has not accepted those objections, it has stated reasons for not doing so and that in some cases it has also
indicated possible initiatives by means of which Parliament's wishes could be met;

3.
Stresses that in future proceedings of this nature, the Commission should present specific reasons for
the withdrawal or the modification of each proposal, and not confine itself to invoking general principles
that do not clearly explain the reasons why the Commission believes that a specific proposal should be with-
drawn or modified;

4. Welcomes the fact that the Commission takes account of the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda before
proposing that a legislative proposal should be withdrawn; regrets therefore that the Commission has with-
drawn the proposal for a directive on the Statute for a European mutual society despite the fact that it is one
of the key elements of the Lisbon Strategy; expresses its surprise that the Commission adduces the diversity
of national legislations as an argument against Community initiatives; calls on the Commission, therefore, to
adopt an initiative before the end of the year to enable a Statute for a European mutual society and a Euro-
pean association to be drafted;

5. Asks the Commission, immediately after it has been appointed, to draw up and submit to Parliament
and the Council a list stating which of its predecessor's legislative proposals it intends to retain;

6. Asks the Commission to include in its annual legislative and working programme a list of the proposals
it intends to withdraw or modify, in order to allow Parliament to express its point of view in accordance
with its prerogatives under the Treaties and the procedures laid down in the above-mentioned Framework
Agreement;

7.
Takes note of the fact that the possibility of withdrawing a legislative proposal by the Commission is
not mentioned in any provision of the existing Treaties, while the possibility of modifying a legislative
proposal is covered by the principle that the Commission may modify its proposal during the procedure
leading to the adoption of a Community act, as expressly provided in Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;
acknowledges that that principle is also applicable to the codecision procedure, provided for in Article 251,
and the cooperation procedure, provided for in Article 252;

8. Recognises, however, that, within clear limits, the ability of the Commission to withdraw a legislative
proposal during a procedure leading to its adoption

— flows from its right of legislative initiative and constitutes a logical complement to its ability to modify a

proposal,

— may contribute to enhancing the role of the Commission in the legislative procedure, and

— can be considered as a positive element in ensuring that the procedures leading to the adoption of a
Community act and the interinstitutional dialogue are aimed at promoting the ‘Community interest’;

9. Maintains, however, that this possibility must be viewed in the light of the prerogatives of the various
institutions in the legislative process, as defined in the Treaties, and in compliance with the principle of loyal
cooperation among the institutions;

10.
Stresses that the possibilities of withdrawal or modification must not alter the role of each institution
in the legislative process in a way which would endanger the institutional balance, and that the possibility of
withdrawing proposals does not signify recognition of some kind of ‘right of veto’ by the Commission;

7.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297 E/143

Tuesday, 16 May 2006

11.
Stresses that the withdrawal or modification of legislative proposals must be subject to the same
general principles that guide the presentation of proposals by the Commission, namely, it must be guided by
the Community interest and must be duly justified;

12. Considers, without prejudging the competence of the Court of Justice to define the exact scope and
boundaries of the prerogatives vested in the institutions by the Treaties, that the definition of common
guidelines by the institutions concerning the withdrawal or the modification of legislative proposals by the
Commission, as a complement to the relevant principles already laid down in the Framework Agreement on
relations between Parliament and the Commission and the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-
Making, would constitute a positive step towards facilitating the legislative process and the dialogue between
the institutions;

Puts forward the following guidelines on the withdrawal and the modification of legislative proposals

13.
by the Commission:

a)

the Commission may, in principle, withdraw or modify a legislative proposal at any time during the
procedures leading to its adoption as long as the Council has not acted. This means that in codecision
and cooperation procedures the Commission may no longer do so after the adoption of the common
position by the Council unless, in its decision on the common position, the Council has exceeded its
powers to amend the Commission proposal, so that the decision in reality constitutes a legislative initia-
tive by the Council itself, for which the Treaty does not provide,

b) where Parliament has rejected a legislative proposal or has suggested substantial amendments to it, or
where Parliament has in some other way asked the Commission to withdraw or substantially modify a
legislative proposal, the Commission shall take this position into proper consideration. If, for important
reasons, the Commission decides not to follow the position expressed by Parliament, it shall explain the
reasons for that decision in a statement to Parliament,

c) where the Commission intends to withdraw or modify a legislative proposal on its own initiative, it shall
give Parliament prior notification of its intention. This notification shall be given in good time, allowing
Parliament the opportunity to give its view on the matter, and shall include a clear explanation of the
reasons for which the Commission believes that a specific proposal should be withdrawn or modified.
The Commission shall take the view of Parliament into proper consideration. If, for important reasons,
the Commission decides to withdraw or modify its proposal, against the wishes of Parliament, it shall
explain the reasons for that decision in a statement to Parliament;

Stresses that the extent to which the Commission takes into consideration the views of Parliament in
legislative proposals constitutes an essential

14.
so far as concerns the withdrawal or the modification of
element of the political trust that forms the basis of sound cooperation between the two institutions;

15. Considers that, should the Commission withdraw or substantially modify a legislative proposal in a
way that affects the legislative prerogatives of Parliament, the question should be referred to the appropriate
political bodies of Parliament for political consideration; furthermore, considers that, should the Commission
withdraw a legislative proposal in a way that affects the prerogatives of the two branches of the legislative
authority, these could consider this withdrawal as non-effective and continue the procedure as provided for
in the Treaties up to the eventual adoption of the act in question;

16. Considers that, where a legislative proposal has been formulated in accordance with Article 138 of
the Treaty, the Commission should duly inform the European social partners about its intention to withdraw
or substantially modify the legislative proposal;

17.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.