Report from the Commission on the working of committees during 2005 {SEC(2006) 1065}
Date: 2006-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, activity report, comitology, committee (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 09.08.2006 
COM(2006) 446 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the working of committees during 2005 

{SEC(2006) 1065} 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
1. 

GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE COMITOLOGY SYSTEM 

The present report covers the activities of comitology committees during 2005. It contains an 
introductory  section,  a  horizontal  overview  of  committees’  activities  and  an  Annex  with 
detailed statistics regarding the individual comitology committees, organised according to the 
different  departments  of  the  Commission.1  The  Annex  also  provides  textual  comments  on 
changes  regarding  the  number  of  committees  and  on  exceptional  events  relating  to  specific 
draft measures, such as unfavourable opinions, EP resolutions resulting from the exercise of 
its right of scrutiny (see point 1.2 below) and referrals to the Council (see point 1.3 below). 
The negotiations in the Council (and with the European Parliament and the Commission) on a 
revision  of  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC  should  be  formally  concluded  in  the  weeks 
following the adoption of the present report (see point 1.5 below). A detailed reporting on the 
results will follow in the next annual report (covering the year 2006).  

1.1 

Comitology committees and their institutional context  

a) The institutional function of comitology committees  

The  purpose  of  comitology  committees  is  to  assist  the  Commission  in  exercising  the 
implementing powers conferred upon it by the legislator, i.e. the Council acting alone, or with 
the European Parliament under the codecision procedure. Comitology committees share three 
essential features. 

First,  since  the  Maastricht  Treaty they  have  been  created  by  the  legislator  (the  Council  and 
the European Parliament) in accordance with the “legislative” procedures in force at the time 
of adoption of the basic instrument under which they are established, namely the codecision 
procedure.  Hence,  the  legal  basis  of  the  comitology  committees  is  enshrined  in  a  “basic 
instrument”. 

Second,  their  structure  and  working  methods  are  in  several  respects  standardised.  A 
representative  of  the  Commission  chairs  each  committee,  which  consists  of  Member  State 
representatives2. The committees intervene within the framework of the procedures set out in 
the  basic  legislative  instrument,  in  compliance  with  the  Council’s  comitology  decision, 
Decision 1999/468/EC.3 

Third, the committees deliver opinions on draft implementing measures submitted to them by 
the  Commission  pursuant  to  the  basic  legislative  instrument  and  intervene  within  the 
framework of the advisory procedure, the management procedure or the regulatory procedure 
provided for that purpose. 

Comitology committees should be distinguished from other committees and groups of experts 
set  up  by  the  Commission  to  assist  it  in  exercising  its  right  of  initiative  or  in  carrying  out 

1 
2 

3 

The Annex is presented as a separate Commission staff working paper. 
It is the Member States that are legally “members” of the committees and exercising the voting rights, 
not the persons representing them. 
OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
                                        
monitoring,  coordination  or  cooperation  tasks  with  the  Member  States.  These  consultative 
bodies (they are about 1 300 of them) are not covered by this report4.  

b) Comitology and transparency: the register and repository for comitology documents 

Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC, and Council and Commission statements relating to that 
provision  (notably  statements  Nos  4  and  5),  introduce  measures  designed  to  improve  the 
transparency of how comitology committees work. 

Article 7(5) of Decision 1999/468/EC provides that the Commission has to publish a register 
giving  the  references  of  all  documents  sent  to  the  European  Parliament  under  comitology 
procedures. This register has been in operation since December 2003.5  

According to its statement (No 5) on Council Decision 1999/468/EC, the Commission added 
a repository to the register as an additional transparency measure, making many documents 
communicated to the European Parliament directly available to the public, in accordance with 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  regarding 
public  access  to  the  institutions’  documents,6  which  came  into  effect  on  3  December  2001. 
The register indicates the existence of a document and its key reference information, whereas 
the repository contains the document in downloadable format.  

Article  4(3)  of  the  “Transparency”  Regulation  1049/2001)  protects  the  decision-making 
process of the EU institutions, of which the comitology procedures are part. On 17 February 
2005, the Commission decided how it intends to apply this legal protection, to the extent that 
draft implementing measures should normally become publicly accessible after a committee 
has  voted  on  them.7  Only  where  “specific  interests”,  as  defined  in  Article  4(1)  and  (2)  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001,  are  concerned  (i.e.  matters  of  security  or  commercial 
interests)  should  direct  access  be  delayed  until  final  adoption  of  the  measures  by  the 
Commission.8 After final adoption, the measures are accessible via the common databases and 
registers  of  the  Commission  (see  Minutes  of  the  Commission  meetings  in  the  Register  of 
Commission documents9). 

As an accompanying measure to the reform of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (see point 1.5 
below) the Commission is currently studying further improvements to the register to give the 
European Parliament more transparent and coherent access to the documents contained in the 
repository. 

1.2 

The European Parliament’s right of scrutiny 

The Commission is obliged to inform the European Parliament of the work of the committees 
and  to  send  it  all  draft  implementing  measures  pursuant  to  a  basic  legal  acts  adopted  in 
conformity  with  the  codecision  procedure  (Article  251  of  the  Treaty),  so  that  the  European 

4 

5 

6 
7 

8 
9 

The  Commision  has  established  a  Register  of  Expert  Groups,  accessible  via  the  EUROPA  server: 
http://ec.europa.eu/secretariat_general/regexp/ 
See the Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/regcomito/registre.cfm?CL=en 
The register covers documents as of mid 2003. 
OJ L 145, 31.05.2001, p. 43. 
The vote can take place in a regular committee meeting or by written procedure, in accordance with the 
Rules of Procedure of the committee. 
Or even refused for reasons of confidentiality. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/regdoc/registre.cfm?CL=en 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
                                        
Parliament  can  exercise  its  right  of  scrutiny  as  enshrined  in  Article  8  of  Decision 
1999/468/EC. 

In February 2000, the European Parliament and the Commission concluded an Agreement on 
procedures  for  implementing  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC,  designed  specifically  to 
regulate the procedures for implementing the obligations incumbent on the Commission.10 

Except  in  emergencies,  the  agreement  stipulates  a  period  of  one  month  from  receipt  of  a 
“definitive”  draft  implementing  measure11  under  a  legal  act  adopted  through  codecision  to 
allow the European Parliament, where appropriate, to adopt a resolution (in plenary session), 
pursuant  to  Article  8  of  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC,  where  it  considers  that  the  draft 
measure exceeds the implementing powers enshrined in the basic instrument.12 

In  practice,  and  in  accordance  with  point  1  of  the  above-mentioned  Agreement,  the 
Commission departments upload the draft implementing measure into the register at the same 
time as they send it to the Member States in preparation of a committee meeting. If a vote is 
launched by written procedure, without a committee meeting being held in accordance with 
the Rules of Procedure of a committee, the same applies. Once the vote has taken place, the 
Commission departments – since mid-2004 – are instructed to complete a voting form, which 
indicates the global result of the vote in respect of the specific draft implementing measure. 
They also indicate whether the draft implementing measure has been amended as a result of 
its examination by the committee or not.  

If the draft implementing measure has been amended, it will be uploaded a second time into 
the  register,  together  with  the  voting  form,  and  sent  to  the  European  Parliament.  Thus,  the 
European Parliament and the public (which will normally be granted direct access to the draft 
measure at this stage of the comitology procedure) receive an unequivocal message indicating 
what is the “definitive” draft of the implementing measure within the meaning of point 6 of 
the  above-mentioned  Agreement.  If  the  draft  implementing  measure  remained  unchanged, 
only the voting form is uploaded and transmitted to the European Parliament. The version of 
the draft implementing measure initially uploaded is then considered to be the final draft. 

a) Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament in 2005 

In  2005,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  two  resolutions13  in  which  it  claimed  that  the 
Commission  exceeded  the  implementing  powers  conferred  on  it  when  adopting  specific 
implementing measures. Both resolutions concerned the Environment sector and in particular 
Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the 
use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive) 
in the field of waste policy (see detailed references in the Annex to this report, in the chapter 
regarding statistics for Environment).  

10 

11 

12 

13 

OJ  L  256,  10.10.2000,  p. 19.  The  agreement  replaces  certain  earlier  agreements:  the  Plumb/Delors 
Agreement of 1988, the Samland/Williamson Agreement of 1996 and the “modus vivendi” of 1994. 
The drafts are first sent before the committee meeting and, if they are substantially amended during the 
meeting, again afterwards.  
This basic instrument must itself have been adopted under the codecision procedure (Article 251 of the 
Treaty) between the Council and the European Parliament. 
The first on 12 April 2005 (B6-0218/2005) and the second on 6 July 2005 (B6-0392/2005). 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
                                        
The Commission responded to the first resolution of 12 April 2005 (B6-0218/2005) that, in its 
view,  justification  for  granting  exemptions  from  the  requirements  established  by  the  RoHS 
Directive was outside the scope of the European Parliament’s right of scrutiny on whether it 
exceeded  its  implementing  powers.After  re-examining  the  work  underpinning  the  draft 
decision  and  studying  the  available  information  (a  study,  stakeholder  consultation  and 
discussions  in  the  Technical  Adaptation  Committee),  the  Commission  concluded  that 
adoption of the draft measure was in accordance with the provisions of the RoHS Directive.  

The  second  resolution  adopted  on  6  July  2005  (B6-0392/2005)  related  to  the  draft  Council 
Decision, adopted by the Commission on 5 June 2005, amending for the purpose of adapting 
to  technical  progress  the  Annex  to  the  RoHS  Directive  to  exempt  DecaBDE,  a  hazardous 
substance of the family of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), from the restrictions on 
use  under  Article  4(1)  of  the  RoHS  Directive.14  Although  not  quoting  Article  8  of  Council 
Decision 1999/468/EC in its resolution, but rather Article 5(5) of the Decision, the European 
Parliament considered that the Commission had exceeded its implementing powers, because, 
in its view, a legislative proposal adopted in conformity with the codecision procedure would 
have  been  needed  for  the  above  measure.  Since  a qualified majority was  not reached in the 
Council  the  original  draft  Decision  was  finally  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  13  October 
2005  despite  the  Parliament’s  resolution,  which  led  to  the  European  Parliament  bringing  an 
action  before  the  European  Court  of  Justice  against  the  Commission  to  declare  the 
Commission Decision invalid (case C-14/06; see point 1.4 below). The Commission did not 
justify the adoption of the Decision towards the Parliament as the Parliament’s resolution was 
addressed  to  the  Council  (to  whom  the  case  was  referred  at  the  time).  The  Commission 
defends its position before the Court and is waiting for Court’s ruling.  

b) Review of transmissions to the European Parliament 

In the first resolution, adopted on 12 April 2005, the European Parliament also called on the 
Commission  to  undertake  a  careful  review  of  all  transmissions  of  draft  implementing 
measures  since  the  register  went  into  production  in  December  2003.  The  Commission 
reported the result of its review to the European Parliament in a communication dated 20 July 
2005. In certain well-defined policy sectors, a limited number of anomalies had occurred (50 
draft measures in absolute terms) It must be noted that during the year 2005 more than 2 000 
draft  measures  were  adopted;  this  means  that  the  cases  where  irregularities  were  registered 
amounted  to  about  1%  of  all  cases  within  a  year.).  It  appeared  that  the  errors  made  were 
linked to the application of the so-called Alignment Regulations,15 with which about 140 basic 
acts were brought into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC. Indeed, since the entry into 
force in particular of Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 on 20 November 2003, a certain number 
of  legal  acts  had  come  under  the  codecision  procedure  and  all  related  draft  implementing 
measures had therefore to be transmitted fortwith to the EP under the right of scrutiny.16  

14 

15 

16 

OJ  L  271,  15.10.2005,  p.  48.  The  original  draft  Commission  Decision  had  not  been  approved  by  the 
Waste  Committee  on  19  April  2005;  the  implementing  measure  was  subsequently  referred  to  the 
Council. 
In particular, Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1882/2003 of  the  European Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
(OJ  L  284,  31.10.2003,  p.  1)  of  29.9.2003  adapting  to  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC  the  provisions 
relating  to  committees  which  assist  the  Commission  in  the  exercise  of  its  implementing  powers  laid 
down in instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the EC Treaty (codecision). 
This chain of events, whereby the basic legal acts are henceforth considered to come under codecision, 
could  have  been  a  possible  source  of  negligence  in  the  sense  that  the  departments  responsible  might 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
                                        
In all the cases of the anomalies detected, the Commission proposed an “ex-post” control to 
the European Parliament, which gave the parliamentary committees concerned the possibility 
of examining the implementing measures in question. The Commission also offered to repeal 
any  measure  the  European  Parliament  so  requested  and  did  so  with  regard  to  Commission 
Decision  2005/63/EC  of  24  January  2005  amending  Annex  II  to  Directive  2000/53/EC  on 
end-of-life  vehicles  (ELV  Decision).17  In  addition,  the  Commission  implemented  reinforced 
internal control mechanisms within its administrative procedures to avoid similar problems in 
future.  

1.3 

Referrals to the Council 

A total of 11 cases of referrals to the Council were reported in 2005.  

Pursuant  to  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC,  draft  measures  must  be  referred  to  the  Council 
when  the  Commission  fails  to  obtain  the  necessary  majority  for  an  opinion  confirming  the 
draft  implementing  measure  under  the  regulatory  procedure  or  faces  an  opposing  qualified 
majority under the management procedure.  

These 11 referrals in 2005 occurred in four policy sectors: Health and Consumer Protection 
(5), Environment (4), Europe Aid (1) and Statistics (1).  

The  figure  represents  a  small  percentage  of  less  than  0.5  %  of  the  total  number  of 
implementing  measures  adopted  by  the  Commission  under  the  management  or  regulatory 
procedure (2 637).18  

The  total  figure  for  2005  is  -  in  absolute  terms  -  less  than  in  2004  (when  there  were  14 
referrals  to  the  Council).  It  is  worth  noting  that  6  of  the  10  referrals  in  2005  were  draft 
Commission decisions regarding the authorisation to place genetically modified products on 
the  market  (in  the  sectors  of  Health  and  Consumer  Protection  and  Environment).  This  high 
concentration of referrals in the policy field of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can 
be  explained  by  the  divided  views  of  the  Member  States  on  the  standards  to  apply  to  the 
scientific evaluation of new products (see specific remarks in the Annex to this Report, in the 
chapters regarding statistics for Health and Consumer Protection and Environment).  

1.4 Case-law19 

a) Judgment of 25 October 2005 (“FETA” cheese) 

In its judgment of 25 October 200520 on joined cases C-465/02 and C-466/02, Germany and 
Denmark  as  applicants  (supported  by  France  and  the  United  Kingdom)  versus  the 
Commission (supported by Greece), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismissed the action 

have  overlooked  the  new  obligation  to  transmit  draft  measures  for  those  basic  legal  acts  which  have 
been aligned in their policy sectors by the above “omnibus” Alignment Regulation.  
OJ  L 25 of  28  January  2005,  p. 73.  Legal  Act  repealing the  ELV  Decision: 2005/437/EC,  OJ 152 of 
15.06.05 p. 18; Legal Act readopting the ELV Decision: 2005/438/EC, OJ 152 of 15.06.05 p.19 
2  654  implementing  measures  in  total  (see  comments  on  Table  II)  minus  17  implementing  measures 
which were adopted under the Advisory procedure. 
From 2005 on, all judgments pronounced by the ECJ and new actions brought before the Court within 
the reporting year will be reported. 
Not yet published in the Court Reports; see notice in OJ C 86 of 8.4.2006, p. 1. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
                                                                                                                         
against  the  validity  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1829/2002  of  14  October  200221 
amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name “FETA”. The 
Commission thus duly registered the name “FETA” as a protected designation of origin under 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  692/2003  of  8  April  2003  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2081/92  on  the  protection  of  geographical  indications  and  designations  of  origin  for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs (the basic legal act).22 

One  of  the  arguments  brought  by  the  German  Government  was  that  there  had  been 
infringement of the rules of procedure of the regulatory committee, as established pursuant to 
Article 15 of the basic legal act. The documents, which were to be examined at the meeting of 
the  regulatory  committee  on  20  November  2001,  had  not  been  notified  to  the  German 
Government 14 days prior to that meeting; nor were they notified in German.  

Since the committee had not adopted its own rules of procedure at the time of that meeting, 
the Court examined the relevant provisions of the Standard Rules of Procedure, adopted by 
the  Commission  on  31  January  2001,23  instead.  Article  3(1)  of  these  Standard  Rules  of 
Procedure provides that the Chairman must invite delegations to the meeting and send other 
related documents no later than 14 calendar days before the date of the meeting.  

However,  whilst  it  was  common  ground  that  the  German  Government  did  not  receive  the 
documents  in  German,  and  later  than  the  required  14  calendar  days,24  the  Court  applied 
established case-law to the situation to the effect that a procedural irregularity of this nature 
could entail annulment of the Commission’s act ultimately adopted only if, were it not for that 
irregularity, the procedure could have led to a different result.25 This was not the case in the 
present litigation because at the meeting in question the members of the committee were only 
asked  to  submit  their  comments  on  the  results  of  a  Commission  questionnaire,  whereas  the 
draft  regulation  of  the  Commission  was  examined  only  subsequently  at  its  meeting  in  May 
2002.26 

b) Action by the European Parliament against the Commission (“DecaBDE”)  

On 11 January 2006, the European Parliament brought action against the Commission before 
the ECJ claiming annulment of Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 (see 
point  1.2  a)  above).  The  European  Parliament  claims  that  the  Commission  has  failed  to 
comply  with  the  conditions  laid  down  in  the  RoHS  Directive  for  exempting  DecaBDE  in  a 
specific  application  from  the  ban  contained  in  that  Directive  and  has  therefore  exceeded  its 
implementing  powers.  In  the  view  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Commission  had  also 
committed  a  manifest  error  in  assessing  the  scientific  evidence,  had  failed  to  abide  by  the 
precautionary principle and, by extending the exemption to all the polymeric applications of 
DecaBDE,  without  exception,  was  in  breach  of  the  principle  of  proportionality.27  The 
Commission  contests  the  arguments  put  forward.  The  case  is  pending  before  the  European 
Court of Justice. 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

OJ L 277 of 15.10.2002, p. 10. 
OJ L 99 of 17.4.2003, p. 1. 
OJ C 38 of 6.2.2001, p. 3. 
On 9 November 2001, see point 35 of the judgment. 
See point 37 of the judgment. 
See point 38 of the judgment. 
See notice in OJ C 86 of 8.4.2006, p. 11. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
                                        
1.5 

Wider developments 

a) Reform of the current Comitology system  

The Commission’s proposal for a revised regulatory procedure28 set out to place the European 
Parliament and the Council on an equal footing when supervising the exercise of some of the 
implementing  powers  conferred  on  the  Commission  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  under  the  codecision  procedure  (Article  251  of  the  Treaty).  The  implementing 
measures concerned are those adapting or widely implementing codecision acts. 

Under Article 202 of the EC Treaty, consultation of the European Parliament and unanimity 
are  required  within  the  Council  to  revise  the  Comitology  Decision  (1999/468/EC).  The  UK 
Presidency of the Council (second half of 2005) set up a “Friends of the Presidency” group in 
September 2005 to discuss this proposed reform This group met regularly under both the UK 
and the following Austrian Presidency of the Council(first half of 2006).  

The European Parliament mandated two of its Members, Joseph Daul (FR/PPE, Chair of the 
Conference  of  Committee  Chairmen)  and  Richard  Corbett  (UK/PSE,  rapporteur  on 
comitology in the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO)) to conduct political talks with 
the Council Presidency and the Commission. 

As a result of these negotiations, the three institutions reached an agreement at the end of the 
Austrian  Presidency  to  modify  Council  Decision  1999/468/EC  so  as  to  introduce  a  new 
“regulatory  procedure  with  scrutiny”.  This  new  procedure  will  apply  to  implementing 
measures of a general scope which amend non-essential elements of basic legal acts adopted 
under codecision. The European Parliament obtains a right of veto on the substance of such 
implementing  measures  and  therefore  greatly  improves  its  control  powers  over  the 
implementing powers conferred on the Commission by comitology procedures.  

b) Enlargement 

On 25 April 2005, the Accession Treaty with Bulgaria and Romania was signed. Similar to 
the  approach  for  the  ten  new  Member  States  during  the  period  preceding  their  accession  in 
May 2004, Bulgaria and Romania have been granted active observer status as from 26 April 
2005  and  may  participate  in  committee  meetings.29  For  the  remaining  candidate  countries 
Turkey  and  Croatia30  and  since  December  2005  also  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia, participation continues to be organised on the basis of the “Communication from 
the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the  participation  of  candidate  countries  in  Community 
programmes, agencies and committees”.31  

28 

29 
30 
31 

Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the 
exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (COM (2002) 719 final, adopted 
11.12.2002. This proposal was amended in April 2004 - COM (2004) 324 final, dated 22.4.2004 - to 
include the European Parliament’s technical amendments (Resolution adopted on 2.9.2003 (P5-
TA(2003)0352)). 
Commission Decision of 23 March 2005 - C(2005)874 (Article 7). 
Bulgaria and Romania have now the status of acceding countries. 
COM (1999) 710 final, adopted 20.12.1999. See also the “Communication from the Commission to the 
Council and Parliament on preparing for the participation of the Western Balkan countries in 
Community programmes and agencies” (COM (2003) 748 final, adopted 3.12.2003). 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
                                        
2. 

2.1 

HORIZONTAL OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES 

Number of committees  

It is important to distinguish between the comitology committees, on the one hand, and other 
entities,  in  particular  “expert  groups”  created  by  the  Commission  itself,  on  the  other.  The 
latter  are  concerned  with  preparing  and  implementing  policy,  whereas  the  comitology 
committees are involved in the context of implementing legislative acts. This report focuses 
exclusively  on  comitology  committees.  The  number  of  comitology  committees  has  been 
calculated by sector of activity (Table I) as at 31.12.2005. The figures for the previous year 
(status as at 31.12.2004) are given for comparison. 

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
TABLE I – TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMITTEES 

Policy Sector  

Enterprise (ENTR) 

2004 

29* 

Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) 

Agriculture (AGRI) 

Transport/Energy/Trans-European 
(TREN) 

Networks 

Environment (ENV) 

Research (RTD) 

Information Society (INFSO) 

Fisheries (FISH) 

Internal Market (MARKT) 

Regional Policy (REGIO) 

Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD) 

Education and Culture (EAC) 

Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO) 

Justice, Liberty and Security (JLS) 

External Relations (RELEX) 

Trade (TRADE) 

Enlargement (ELARG) 

EuropeAid (AIDCO) 

Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) 

Statistics (ESTAT) 

Budget (BUDG) 

Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 

6 

30 

39 

35 

3 

9* 

3 

11 

2 

10 

9 

13 

10 

3 

11 

2 

9 

1 

7 

2 

1 

2005 

32 

6 

31 

38 

32 

3 

10 

3 

10 

2 

10 

7 

15 

13 

3 

12 

3 

8 

1 

8 

2 

1 

TOTAL 

245 

250 

*The number of committees for ENTR and INFSO in 2004 had to retroactively be reduced by 1, because configurations listed 
under these policy sectors belong to two committees in the policy sector RESEARCH. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
The figures indicate the relative importance of comitology procedures in the different policy 
sectors.  Transport/Energy  (38),  Enterprise  (32),  Environment  (32)  and  Agriculture  (31) 
continue  to  have  by  far  the  largest  number  of  committees.  With  133  out  of  a  total  of  250 
committees,  these  policy  sectors  alone  account  for  more  than  half  of  the  committees.  The 
Commission’s  efforts  in  recent  years  to  stabilise  the  number  of  committees  has  brought 
results. Whilst the overall number of committees at the end of 2005 is slightly higher than in 
2004, it still meets the objective of the Commission to limit the number at around 250. While 
the legislator has established new committees in some policy areas with increased activities 
(for  example,  Justice,  Liberty  and  Security  and  Health  and  Consumer  Protection),  in  other 
policy  sectors  the  number  has  decreased  as  a  consequence  of  the  restructuring  of  the  legal 
framework.  Certain  increases  or  reductions  in  the  number  of  committees  in  a  given  policy 
sector result from the transfer of responsibilities from one Commission department to another. 
Detailed reporting on the creation, abolition, transfer and merger of committees is given in the 
annotations to the table for each policy sector in the Annex. 

2.2 

Number of opinions and implementing measures 

As in previous reports, the present report gives global figures on formal opinions delivered by 
the committees32 and the subsequent implementing measures (= legal acts, administrative and 
financing  decisions)  adopted  by  the  Commission.  These  figures  describe  the  concrete 
“output”  of  the  committees  (Table  II).  The  total  number  of  opinions  delivered  by  the 
committees in 2005 was 2.582 (compared with 2.777 in 2004); the number of implementing 
measures adopted by the Commission was 2.654 (compared with 2.625 in 2004).  

32 

Including favourable and unfavourable opinions, following a formal vote in the case of regulatory and 
management procedures. Cases of “no opinions” (or “absence of opinions”), i.e., where a formal vote 
took place but the necessary (qualified) majority was not reached, are not included in the figures. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
                                        
TABLE II – NUMBER OF OPINIONS AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES (2005) 

Opinions 

Implementing 
measures 

Opinions 

Implementing 
measures 

ENTR 

EMPL 

AGRI 

TREN  

ENV 

RTD 

INFSO 

FISH 

MARKT 

REGIO 

TAXUD 

36 

50 

202 

86 

19 

13 

12 

61 

69 

9 

55 

EAC 

1 

SANCO 

1.321 

1.481 

JLS 

32 

47 

RELEX 

TRADE 

202 

ELARG 

56 

303 

16 

2 

14 

83 

55 

303 

15 

2 

12 

83 

85 

AIDCO  

139 

124 

9 

ECHO 

12 

12 

47 

ESTAT 

BUDG 

OLAF 

50 

30 

7 

2 

50 

21 

6 

0 

The  large  number  of  implementing  measures  adopted  in  certain  policy  sectors  -  Agriculture 
(1.481),  Health  and  Consumer  Protection  (303),  Research  (202),  EuropeAid  (124)  and 
Information Society (85) - again reflect the intensity of work delegated to the Commission in 
these  areas  via  the  comitology  procedures.33  When  compared  with  the  previous  year,  a 
significant  increase  can  be  noted  for  Information  Society  (34  implementing  measures  in 
2004),  whereas  a  decrease  can  be  noted  in  the  sector  of  Education  and  Culture  (55 
implementing measures in 2005, compared with 115 in 2004). 

Further  horizontal  tables  are  shown  in  the  Annex  (table  III:  number  of  committees  by 
procedure and table IV: number of meetings). 

33 

It has to be noted that the sheer number of instruments adopted as such does not indicate the political, 
economic or financial importance of the decisions taken. 

EN 

12 

  EN