Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a European Institute for Gender Equality
Date: 2006-09-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European organisation, gender equality, human rights, women's rights

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 21.9.2006 
COM(2006) 501 final 

2005/0017 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty 

on the 

common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council setting up a European Institute for Gender 
Equality 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2005/0017 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty 

on the 

common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council setting up a European Institute for Gender 
Equality 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date on which the proposal was forwarded to the EP and Council: 
COM(2005) 81 final - 2005/0017(COD) 

Date on  which  the opinion  of  the European Economic  and  Social 
Committee was adopted:  

Date  on  which  the  position  of  the  European  Parliament  was 
adopted at first reading: 

Date  on  which  the  amended  proposal  was  sent  to  the  EP  and  the 
Council:  

Date  on  which  the  Council  came  to  a  political  agreement  on  the 
common position: 

8.3.2005

27.9.2005

14.3.2006

8.5.2006

1.6.2006

Date on which the Council formally adopted the common position: 

21.9.2006

2. 

PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSAL 

The proposed Institute is intended to provide technical support to both the Member 
States  and  the  Community  institutions,  especially  the  Commission,  thereby 
developing and ensuring optimum implementation of Community policy for gender 
equality. To this end, it will collect and analyse objective and reliable data which can 
be compared at Community level; develop suitable methodological tools, particularly 
to  integrate  gender  considerations  into  Community  policies;  facilitate  the  exchange 
of  good  practice,  dialogue  between  the  parties  concerned  and  development  of  the 
knowledge  base;  and  will  give  this  policy  a  higher  profile  vis-à-vis  European 
citizens. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The  proposal  is  in  keeping  with  the  Communication  of  2002  on  the  operating 
framework for the regulatory agencies and the draft Interinstitutional Agreement on 
these  agencies  (proposed  in  February  2005  and  currently  under  discussion) 
particularly with regard to the following points: 

–  the restricted Management Board, which is made up of six representatives of the 
Council (and no longer one representative per Member State), six representatives 
of  the  Commission  and  three  members  representing  employers,  employees  and 
NGOs at European level without voting rights; 

–  an  equal  number  of  representatives  of  the  Council  and  the  Commission:  the 
Institute  is  intended  to  provide  technical  support  to  the  European  institutions, 
especially  the  Commission,  and  the  Member  States  and  equal  representation  on 
the  Management  Board  is  intended  to  strike  a  balance  between  the  pursuit  of 
Community objectives and taking account of national interests; 

–  provision for an Advisory Forum where experts of all the Member States (and also 
three  members  representing  employers,  workers  and  NGOs  at  European  level) 
will  be  represented,  whose  task  it  will  be  to  facilitate  cooperation  and  the 
exchange  of  information  between  the  Institute  and  the  institutions  and  the 
competent bodies in the Member States; 

–  the provisions concerning the procedures for selecting the director and extending 

his contract. 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

3.1. 

General remarks 

The  Commission  takes  the  view  that  the  Council’s  common  position,  adopted 
unanimously,  is  generally  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  initial  proposal  and  its 
amended  proposal  with  the  exception  of  an  important  point  regarding  the 
composition of the Institute’s Management Board.  

The  Council  made  some  improvements  to  the  initial  text  which  do  not  alter  the 
substance of the Commission’s proposal. It also largely abided by the Commission’s 
amended  proposal  and  incorporated  in  the  common  position  the  majority  of  the 
amendments proposed by the European Parliament and accepted by the Commission 
in its amended proposal. The Council did not accept some amendments, which were 
also  rejected  by  the  Commission,  regarding  horizontal  issues  for  all  Community 
agencies in order to maintain a consistent approach. 

As regards the question of the composition of the Management Board, the EP opted 
for  a  more  restricted  Management  Board than that proposed by the Commission of 
13 members (nine representatives of the Council, one of the Commission and three 
of  the  social  partners  and  NGOs  without  voting  rights).  The  Commission  accepted 
this proposal as long as, in the very few cases where Commission’s responsibility is 
involved, the voting rights of its representative are reinforced in order to maintain the 
balance between the two institutions. The Commission also included in its amended 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
proposal  a  rotation  system  for  the  members  of  the  Management  Board  in  order  to 
ensure that there is a geographical balance between the Member States. 

The Commission regrets that the Council opted for a large Management Board made 
up of 31 members, comprising one representative per Member State. It holds that a 
restricted  Management  Board  would  make  the  Institute  more  effective,  given  its 
limited budget and its technical nature. The Commission stood by this position and 
posted a declaration in the minutes of the Council meeting of 1 June 2006. 

The  Commission  also  regrets  that  the  Council  did  not  accept  the  proposal  to  set  a 
minimum level of representation for each sex (at least 40% of men and women) on 
the Management Board as requested by the European Parliament and included in the 
amended proposal (see 3.2.2). 

3.2. 

How the European Parliament’s amendments have been taken into account 

The European Parliament adopted 50 amendments designed to: 

a)  make the text clearer; 

b) 

upgrade/clarify the tasks of the Institute and its working methods; 

c) 

d) 

address horizontal issues; 

introduce  some  clarifications  which,  although  constructive,  have  not  been 
included in the Regulation. 

The Commission accepted 40 of these amendments, 28 of which in their entirety and 
12 after slight rewording. It rejected 10 which fell into the last two categories (c and 
d). 

The Council followed suit and accepted the majority of the amendments either in their 
entirety or as reworded by the Commission or slightly amended by itself (a total of 35 
amendments).  The  Council  rejected  15  amendments  (five  in  addition  to  the  10  not 
accepted by the Commission). One of the five amendments rejected is the amendment 
relating to the composition of the Management Board. The Commission does not agree 
with this rejection. 

3.2.1.  Amendments  of  the  EP  accepted  in  their  entirety,  in  part  or  in  essence  in  the 
amended proposal of the Commission and the Council’s common position. 

The  common  position  includes  the  majority  of  the  amendments  accepted  by  the 
Commission to make the text clearer and to upgrade/clarify the tasks of the Institute 
and its working methods either as they stood (2, 6, 9, 59/74, 18, 64/80, 65/81, 29, 35, 
36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 53 and 55) or as amended by the Commission (3 in part, 4, 5, 7, 8, 
10, 59/74, 13, 15 in part, 60/76 in part, 61rev/77 in part, 17, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 62/78, 
63/79, 40 and 48 in part). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
3.2.2.  Amendments  of  the  EP  accepted  in  their  entirety,  in  part  or  in  essence  in  the 
Commission’s amended proposal but not in the Council’s common position. 

These are as follows: 

Amendment  66/82  (composition  of  the  Management  Board):  this  amendment  to 
Article 10(1) provides for a restricted Management Board of 13 members (nine from 
the Council from a list drawn up by the Commission and after consultation with the 
European Parliament, one only from the Commission and three representatives of the 
social  partners  and  NGOs  without  voting  rights)1.  The  European  Parliament’s 
position  is  in  keeping  with  its  resolution  of  1  December  2005  on  the  draft 
interinstitutional  agreement  on  the  operating  framework  for  future  regulatory 
agencies. 

The Commission  accepted the European Parliament’s position on condition that, in 
cases where the Commission’s responsibility is involved (namely when adopting the 
programme  of  work  and  the  budget),  the  balance  between  the  two  institutions  is 
preserved. To this end the Commission proposed adding the following provision to 
Article 10(7): 

“In  the  case  of  decisions  referring  to  Article  10(5)(a)  and  (d),  the  vote  of  the 
Commission’s  representative  will  have  the  same  weight  as  the  votes  of  all  the 
members appointed by the Council taken together”. 

It suggested accompanying the amendment by the following recital: 

"In order to ensure 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 Commission representative 
and three stakeholder representatives without voting rights. The balance between the 
two  institutions  –  the  Council  and  the  Commission  –  must  be  preserved  in  cases 
where the Commission’s responsibility is involved (when adopting the programme of 
work and the budget)”. 

The Commission, taking into account the request by those Member States that might 
adopt  the  Commission’s  approach  in  favour  of  a  restricted  Management  Board  if 
geographical balance was respected and in view of the fact that the composition of 
the  Management  Board  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament  allows,  through  a 
rotation system, representatives of all the Member States to sit on the Management 
Board  over  a  period  of  three  terms  of  office  (9  x  3  =  27),  proposed  this  rotation 
system as added to amendment 66/82: 

“The Council …. The list drawn up by the Commission on the basis of proposals by 
the Member States and following a rotation system in the order of the Presidencies, 
is forwarded …”. 

1 

This option is inspired by the Food Safety Agency set up in 2002, which has a restricted Management 
Board  made  up of 18  members  (14  Council  representatives,  only  one  Commission  representative  and 
three representatives of interested parties without voting rights). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
And it accompanied this provision by the required recital: 

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

Lastly,  the  Commission  proposed  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. The 
fourth subparagraph of Article 10(2) is therefore amended as follows: 

“The duration of the term of office shall be non-renewable period of three years”. 

Despite  the  proposed  system  of  rotation,  the  Council  rejected  this  amendment  and 
stuck  to  the  formula  adopted  in  the  general  approach  in  June  2005  in  line  with  its 
standard  position  on  the  Management  Boards  of  Community  agencies  (a  large 
Management Board with one representative per Member State, three representatives 
of  the  Commission  and  three  representatives  of  the  social  partners  and  the  NGOs 
without  voting  rights,  accompanied  by  an  executive  bureau  of  six  members,  given 
the large size of the Management Board). 

Amendment 67/83 and 68/84 on the Advisory Forum: Amendment 67/83 to Article 
12(1) restricts the participants in the Forum to representatives of the Member States 
alone,  dispensing  with  the  involvement  of  the  three  representatives  of  NGOs  and 
social partners at European level because they are members without voting rights of 
the Management Board. The Commission, in keeping with Amendment 66/82 on the 
limited  composition  of  the  Management  Board,  accepted  the  reduction  of  the 
Advisory Forum to representatives of the Member States alone and held that it was 
sufficient  for  the  three  stakeholders  simply  to  sit  on  the  Management  Board. 
Amendment 68/84 to Article 12(4) adds that the Forum shall support the director in 
preparing  the  institute's  annual  and  medium  term  programmes  of  activity.  In  the 
context of a restricted Management Board where not all the Member States will be 
represented,  it  is  important  to  reinforce  the  role  of  the  Advisory  Forum,  which  is 
made up of representatives of all the Member States. The Council, which is in favour 
of representation of all the Member States on the Management Board, dispensed with 
the  Advisory  Forum,  adding  an  annual  meeting  of  gender  equality  experts  of  the 
Member States to the Institute’s tasks, see Article 3.1(e). 

Amendment  39:  this  amendment  to  Article  10(2)  subparagraph  2  provides  that  the 
three  institutions  shall  see  that  men  and  women  are  represented  equally  and  that 
neither men nor women have less than 40% of the seats on the Management Board. 
The  Commission  accepted  this  amendment  in  view  of  the  need  to  ensure  that 
decisions taken by the Management Board reflect the needs of the whole of society. 
The Council rejected this amendment, emphasising the problems the Member States 
would  have  in  implementing  this  minimum  threshold.  The  Commission  regretted 
this, as indicated in the declaration annexed to the minutes of the Council meeting of 
1 June 2006. 

Amendment 26: this amendment to Article 3(1) adds a new point (c) on the dialogue 
which  the  Institute  should  develop  at  international  level  with  the  organisations 
responsible for gender equality. This cooperation is already provided for by Article 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
8(1) but the European Parliament wanted to place more emphasis on it by including 
it in the Institute’s tasks too. Cooperation with organisations at international level is 
important but should not be excessive, given the size and the budget of the institute 
in its initial launch phase. 

In  this  context  the  Commission  accepted  the  amendment  after  rewording  it  to 
simplify the task and to bring it into line with other agencies: the text is therefore to 
be  replaced  by  the  following  text  inspired  by  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".  The  Council  did  not 
accept this amendment, not even as amended by the Commission, deeming Articles 
4(3) and 8 to cover this aspect sufficiently. 

Some parts of the following amendments were also rejected by the Council: 

Amendments  3  and  60/76  (on  the  Institute’s  tasks):  Amendment  3  to  recital  10  is 
made up of two additions which make the text clearer and replacement of the word 
“collection”  by  “documentation”  of  information  and  data  in  order  to  make  it  clear 
that  the  Institute  will  concentrate  on  analysis  of  information  and  data  collected  by 
other  institutes  and  research  centres  at  Member  State  level  and  by  Eurostat  which 
will  clearly  give  it  an  added  value;  in  the  same  vein,  Amendment  60/76  to  Article 
3(1)(a) deletes the words “collect, record” to place the emphasis on analysis and not 
on collection. These amendments were accepted by the Commission, since to analyse 
information  it  has  to  be  collected  first,  although  the  word  “collect”  was  deleted  to 
give  greater  prominence  to  analysis;  documentation  is,  moreover  explicitly 
mentioned  in  recital  No  10  through  Amendment  3.  The  Council  did  not  follow  the 
Commission’s  lead  and  reinstated  the  term  “collect”  in  recital  10  and  Article  3, 
emphasising  that  collecting  data  is  an  important  stage  and  already  features  in  the 
tasks of other similar agencies. 

Amendment 15:  this  amendment  to  Article  3(1)(b)  is  intended  to  strengthen 
cooperation with Eurostat and the national statistical services. The Council rejected 
the part concerning cooperation of the Institute with the national statistical services, 
preferring these contacts to be made only via EUROSTAT. 

Amendment 48: This amendment to Article 11(4) provides that the Director may be 
called upon at any time by the European Parliament and by the Council to attend a 
hearing  on  any  matter  linked  to  the  Institute’s  activities.  The  Council  rejected  the 
part referring to the Council, arguing that if all the Member States are represented on 
the Management Board the Council does not need to be informed. 

Amendment  61rev/77:  This  amendment  to  Article  3(1)(c)  provides  for  three 
additions: dissemination and promotion of the use of methodological tools, ensuring 
that  the  methodological  tools  will  support  not  only  Community  policies  but  all 
national  policies  resulting  from  them,  and  support  for  integration  of  the  gender 
dimension  in  all  Community  institutions  and  bodies.  The  Council  rejected  the 
promotion of utilisation of methodological tools, holding this to be a matter for the 
political bodies. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3.3. 

New provisions introduced by the Council which correspond to the Commission 
positions 

The Council warmly welcomed the Commission’s proposal with the exception of the 
issue of the composition of the Management Board and the associated question of the 
Advisory Forum. 

Otherwise  it  made  some  slight  amendments  to  make  the  text  clearer,  especially  in 
Article 2 (aims), Article 5 (definition of the Institute’s independence), etc. 

3.4. 

Problems encountered when the common position was adopted 

At  its  meeting  on  1  June  2006,  the  Council  came  to  a  political  agreement  on  the 
Commission position, including the question of the composition of the Management 
Board, by a unanimous vote. The Commission maintains the position adopted in its 
amended proposal and regrets that the position of the Commission and the European 
Parliament  in  favour  of  a  restricted  Management  Board  was  rejected.  The 
Commission  also  regretted  the  Council’s  rejection  of  a  minimum  threshold  for 
representation  of  each  sex  on  the  Management  Board  (40%).  The  Commission 
posted a declaration on these two points in the minutes of the Council meeting (see 
Annex). 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

On  the  whole,  the  Commission  holds  the  Council’s  common  position  to  be  in  line 
with its proposal and to take account of the amendments proposed by the EP at the 
first reading and the Commission’s amended proposal. 

However,  the  Commission  regrets  that  the  Council  has  unanimously  come  out  in 
favour  of  a  Management  Board  made  up  of  31  members  accompanied  by  an 
Executive Bureau of six members. These cumbersome arrangements are not justified 
by an agency with a staff of 15 persons in 2007 (30 in 2013) and an annual budget of 
approximately  7.5  million  euros.  The  Commission  also  takes  the  view  that  the 
Advisory Forum, which has been dispensed with by the Council, would allow each 
Member State to contribute to preparing and implementing the work programme and 
to making the Institute and the other Member States aware of their own needs. 

The  Commission  also  regrets  that  the  Council  has  rejected  the  minimum  threshold 
for representation of each sex on the Management Board (40%). These various points 
have been included in the statement by the Commission to the Council minutes of 1 
June 2006. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council 

1-2 June 2006 

European Institute for Gender Equality 

Statement by the Commission 

The  Commission  regrets  that  the  Council  has  opted  for  an  enlarged  Management  Board 
composed  of  one  representative  per  Member  State,  three  representatives  from  the 
Commission, and three non-voting members. The Commission disagrees with the Council and 
is in favour of a Management Board of a limited size. 

The Commission recalls that, in line with the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 
14 March 2006 on the proposal establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality and in 
particular  amendment  66/82  on  the  composition  of  the  Administrative  Board,  its  Amended 
Proposal  [COM(2006)209]  provided  for  an  Administrative  Board  composed  of  thirteen 
members: nine members appointed by the Council plus one representative of the Commission 
and  three  non-voting  members  who  would  be  appointed  by  the  Commission  to  represent 
relevant stakeholder groups. 

The  Commission  considers,  in  accordance  with  the  European  Parliament's  resolution  of 
1 December  2005  on  the  draft  Interinstitutional  Agreement  on  a  Framework  for  European 
Regulatory  Agencies,  that  a  Management  Board  of  limited  size  would  ensure  a  better 
functioning of the Institute for Gender Equality, having regard to its mission and size. 

The  Commission  also  regrets  that  the  Council  has  not  accepted  the  proposal  that  the  three 
institutions  must  ensure  that  neither  women  nor  men  constitute  less  than  40%  of  the 
membership of the Management Board. 

EN 

9 

   EN