Report from the Commission on subsidiarity and proportionality (16th Report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2008)
Date: 2009-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: activity report, application of EU law, operation of the Institutions, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.9.2009 
COM(2009) 504 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

ON SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY  

(16th report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2008) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

ON SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY  

(16th report on Better Lawmaking covering the year 2008) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This is the 16th report on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 
which the Commission presents to the European Council and the European Parliament in line 
with the protocol annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community1. As was the 
case  for  the  2007  report,  this  report  does  not  cover  wider  issues  of  better  regulation  which 
were addressed in the Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation2. 

2. 

THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 

2.1. 

The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 

Subsidiarity and proportionality are defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (TEC). Protocol 30 of the TEC provides further details 
on how the two principles should be applied. 

Subsidiarity is a guiding principle for defining the boundary between Member State and EU 
responsibilities - that is, who should act? If the Community has exclusive competence in an 
area,  there  is  no  doubt  about  who  should  act,  and  subsidiarity  does  not  apply.  If  the 
Community and the Member States share the competence, the principle clearly establishes a 
presumption in favour of the Member States taking action. The Community should only act if 
the objectives cannot be achieved sufficiently by the Member States (necessity test) and if the 
Community can achieve them better (value-added test or compared effectiveness). 

Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept, and any assessment of it will evolve over time. It allows 
Community  action  within  the  limits  of  its  powers  to  be  expanded  where  circumstances  so 
require, and conversely, it means that Community action should be restricted or discontinued 
where it no longer meets the subsidiarity test3.  

Proportionality  is  a  guiding  principle  when  defining  how  the  Union  should  exercise  its 
competences, both exclusive and shared (what should be the form and nature of EU action?). 
Both  Article  5  TEC  and  the  Protocol  provide  that  the  action  should  not  go  beyond  what  is 

1 
2 
3 

Protocol (No 30) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (1997) 
COM(2009) 15, 28.01.2009 
Article 3 of the Protocol 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
necessary to achieve the objectives of the TEC. Any decision must favour the least restrictive 
option. 

2.2.  Modes of application, opportunity for comments, and ex-post control 

All institutions of the Union have to comply with both principles. The Protocol and the Inter-
Institutional Agreement of 1993 on subsidiarity4 set out specific obligations, the key elements 
of which are summarised here. 

The Commission must: consult widely before proposing legislation; state in the explanatory 
memorandum  for  each  legislative  proposal  the  reasons  for  concluding  that  the  proposal 
complies with subsidiarity and proportionality; and take into account the burden falling on the 
Community, national governments, local authorities, economic operators and citizens. 

The European Parliament and Council must provide a justification regarding subsidiarity if an 
amendment  they  make  affects  the  scope  of  Community  action5.  If  the  consultation  or 
cooperation  procedure  applies,  the  Council  has  to  inform  Parliament  of  its  position  on 
subsidiarity and proportionality in a statement of reasons6.  

The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  express 
their views either when they are consulted or in own-initiative opinions. The ‘Conference of 
Community  and  European  Affairs  Committees  of  Parliaments  of  the  European  Union’ 
(COSAC) can also express an opinion on the application of the principle of subsidiarity7.  

Since  September  2006,  the  Commission  has  transmitted  new  legislative  proposals  to  the 
national parliaments inviting them to react. Although this exercise goes beyond issues related 
to subsidiarity and proportionality, many of the comments from national parliaments relate to 
these principles. 

Finally, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance can review the legality of acts of 
the institutions for compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.  

3. 

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES BY THE COMMISSION IN 2008 

3.1. 

How the Commission deals with the principles 

The Protocol requires the Commission to state the reasons why it considers that a legislative 
proposal  complies  with  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  The  Commission 
does  this  in  a  number  of  ways:  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  are  examined  as  part  of  the 
impact  assessments  that  the  Commission  produces  for  all  its  major  initiatives,  and  they  are 
dealt with in the explanatory memoranda and in the recitals of legislative proposals. 

A  key  feature  of  the  Commission's  impact  assessment  system  is  the  independent  quality 
control provided by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB). In its opinions the IAB recommends 
improvements  to  core  elements  of  the  impact  assessments,  including  the  assessment  of 

4 
5 
6 
7 

Adopted 17.11.93, OJ C 329, 06.12.1993, p. 132 
Section 2, point 3 of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Subsidiarity of 1993 
Article 12 of the Protocol 
Point 6 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, Treaty of Amsterdam 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  The  IAB's  opinions  are  part  of  the  Commission’s  internal 
decision-making, and are also available to the other institutions and the general public, once 
the Commission has adopted the corresponding initiative. 

The  IAB  Report  for  2008  shows  that  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  IAB 
recommendations on subsidiarity and proportionality (29 cases in 2007, 48 in 2008). On the 
basis  of  the  IAB's  work,  and  drawing  on  the  "evaluation  grid"  that  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions  developed  for  its  own  work  on  subsidiarity8,  the  Commission  has  improved  the 
guidance on how to analyse subsidiarity and proportionality in the revised impact assessment 
guidelines it adopted in January 2009. They now contain two explicit sets of questions9 which 
are  based  on  Protocol  30,  and  which  should  help  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  analyses  in 
impact  assessments.  For  instance,  the  questions  focus  attention  on  the  presence  of 
transnational  aspects  which  could  be  an  indication  that  Member  States  cannot  satisfactorily 
achieve the objectives on their own. 

3.2. 

Examples  of  how  the  Commission  applied  the  principles  through  its  impact 
assessments 

The Reconciliation Package10. This package consisted of revisions of two Directives: one on 
the  protection  of  pregnant  workers  (extending  the  right  to  maternity  leave  from  14  to  18 
weeks, in principle with full salary) and one on assisting spouses and self employed women 
(giving  assisting  spouses,  at  their  request,  the  same  social  security  provisions  as  their  self-
employed partner). The initial results of the impact assessment showed, in particular for the 
latter proposal, that the implementation costs would be significant for several Member States. 
Therefore,  to  make  certain  measures  proportionate  to  the  objectives,  the  Commission 
proposed to make their application voluntary for Member States. 

Reduced VAT rates for local services11. The Commission's proposal to reduce VAT rates for 
local labour intensive services introduces greater flexibility for Member States in setting VAT 
rates  for  services  where  the  internal  market  dimension  is  negligible.  This  is  an  example  of 
how having a renewed look at the application of a piece of legislation can lead to a scaling 
down of the level of EU intervention. 

Directive on equal treatment outside employment12. The proposal to implement the principle 
of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation  contains  a  number  of  safeguards  to  make  clear  where  Member  States  retain 
competence  (e.g.  substance  of  education,  secular  nature  of  the  state  or  not,  recognition  of 
homosexual  marriage  or  not).  In  response  to  concerns  that  the  measures  dealing  with 
disability  would  bring  disproportionate  costs  for  business,  the  Commission  ensured  that  the 
proposal builds on the concept of reasonable accommodation, which is familiar to businesses 
since  it  was  established  in  the  Directive  on  equal  treatment  in  employment13.  The 
Commission  proposal  specifies  the  factors  to  be  taken  into  account  when  assessing  what  is 
'reasonable', and the explanatory memorandum sets out how this complies with the principles 
of subsidiarity and proportionality. 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

http://subsidiarity.cor.europa.eu/Help/tabid/283/Default.aspx 
SEC(2009) 92, 15.1.2009; see section 5.2 for subsidiarity and section 7.2 for proportionality 
COM(2008) 636 and COM(2008) 637, 3.10.2008 
COM(2008) 428, 7.7.2008 
COM(2008) 426, 2.7.2008 
2000/78/EC, 27.11.2000 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Council recommendation on drug related issues in prison. The Commission began work on 
an  initiative  recommending  that  Member  States  take  actions  related  to  the  management  of 
drug related issues in prisons. This would have complemented the general Recommendation 
on drug dependence which already exists. The impact assessment made clear that there was an 
issue  of  proportionality  considering  the  limited  scale  of  the  problem,  and  concerns  about 
proportionality were among the reasons why the Commission did not pursue the initiative. 

In  several  other  cases  the  IAB  requested  an  improved  analysis  of  subsidiarity,  for  example: 
the  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport14, 
proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  energy  performance  of  buildings15,  proposal  for  a  Directive 
facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety16, proposal for a Directive on 
the  protection  of  animals  used  for  scientific  purposes17,  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  food 
distribution  to  deprived  persons18,  proposal  for  a  Regulation  setting  up  a  school  fruit 
scheme19, proposal for a Directive on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during the refuelling of 
passenger cars20. The Commission's impact assessment website has more detailed information 
on these cases21. 

4. 

INVOLVEMENT OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS 

4.1. 

Opinions sent to the Commission 

Since 2006, the Commission has been transmitting all new proposals to national parliaments, 
and has put in place a procedure for replying to their opinions22. The number of opinions the 
Commission has received has roughly doubled each year, from 53 in 2006 to 115 in 2007, to 
200  in  200823.  This  shows  that  national  parliaments  are  progressively  putting  in  place  the 
arrangements  necessary  to  respond  to  Commission  initiatives.  Although  the  scope  of  this 
exercise  is  wider  than  subsidiarity  and  proportionality,  national  parliaments  have  frequently 
raised these issues. For example:  

Proposal  for  patients'  rights  in  cross-border  healthcare24.  The  Commission  received  three 
opinions.  The  French  Senate  stressed  that  to  respect  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  the 
proposal  should  acknowledge  that  the  organisation  of  health  services  is  a  responsibility  of 
Member States. Both chambers of the Dutch Parliament stated that it was unclear why there 
should  be  action  at  European  level.  They  expressed  doubts  about  the  respect  of  national 
sovereignty on the organisation and financing of the health system,  and about the  choice of 
legal instrument (a Directive). The German Bundesrat stressed that social aid services should 
be excluded from the scope. It argued that the use of article 95 of the TEC for the legal basis 
should not be used to circumvent the limits to Community action in the field of health laid out 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

COM(2008) 817, 4.12.2008 
COM(2008) 780, 13.11.2008 
COM(2008) 151, 19.3.2008 
COM(2008) 543, 5.11.2008 
COM(2008) 563, 17.9.2008 
COM(2008) 442, 8.7.2008 
COM(2008) 812, 4.12.2008 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm  
"A Citizens' Agenda - Delivering Results For Europe", COM(2006) 211, 10.05.2006 
Annex 1 provides an overview of the origin of the opinions received by the Commission 
COM(2008) 414, 2.7.2008 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
in  article  152.  The  Bundesrat  also  stressed  that  article  5  of  the  proposal  confirming  the 
responsibility of Member States for the organisation of healthcare systems should be further 
strengthened. In addressing the opinions of national parliaments the Commission stated that, 
in  line  with  Article  152(5)  of  the  TEC,  Member  States  would  remain  responsible  for  the 
organisation and delivery of health services and medical care and in particular for determining 
the entitlements of patients and how healthcare is to be provided. In reply to the opinion of the 
German  Bundesrat  the  Commission  also  stated  that  the  proposed  directive  applies  to  the 
standards  of  health  services  provided,  but  does  not  cover  the  reimbursement  of  social 
assistance and welfare of victims. 

Proposal for a European Private Company25. The German Bundesrat expressed doubts about 
the respect of subsidiarity and about whether the proposed harmonisation would achieve the 
set  objectives.  Both  chambers  of  the  Dutch  Parliament  asked  for  a  clear  justification  of  the 
legal base. They wished to avoid a situation where national rules prohibiting abuses could be 
bypassed  by  European  rules.  They  also  questioned  the  value  added  of  the  initiative  and  the 
Commission's  forecast  on  the  effective  use  of  the  European  enterprise.  In  its  answer  to  the 
German Bundesrat the Commission pointed out that including a cross-border requirement as a 
condition for setting up a European Private Company would be inconsistent with the objective 
of the proposal, notably to contribute to the completing and improving the functioning of the 
internal market and to make it more accessible for SMEs. 

Communication  "Small  Business  Act  for  Europe"26.  The  German  Bundesrat  had  certain 
concerns  about  subsidiarity,  for  example  on  the  issue  of  programs  for  European  schools  to 
promote  the  spirit  of  entrepreneurship.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Italian  Senate  endorsed  all 
principles  of  the  Small  Business  Act.  In  its  responses,  the  Commission  invited  both  the 
German  Bundesrat  and  the  Italian  Senate  to  participate  actively  in  the  follow-up  process, 
especially  to  share  best  practice  from  national  and  regional  SME  policy  and  measures,  for 
example on the issue of benchmarking. 

If  ratified,  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon  would  reinforce  the  role  of  national  parliaments  in  EU 
lawmaking27.  Protocols  1  and  2  of  the  Treaty  provide  for  an  enhanced  system  for  national 
parliaments to express their views on draft legislative proposals as regards their compliance 
with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  They  would  be  informed  of  all  legislative  proposals  and, 
except in duly justified urgent cases, would have eight weeks in which to  make their views 
known28.  They  would  have  the  right  to  send  a  reasoned  opinion  to  the  Commission  if  they 
consider  that  a  legislative  proposal  does  not  comply  with  the  subsidiarity  principle29. 
Depending on the number of parliaments which respond, the Treaty provides two mechanisms 
- the 'yellow card' and the 'orange card' - which lead to a review and possible amendment or 
withdrawal  of  the  proposal.  The  Treaty  also  contains  new  provisions  for  ex-post  judicial 

25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

COM(2008) 396, 25.6.2008 
COM(2008) 394, 25.6.2008 
Protocols Nº1 and 2 
Article 4 of the Protocol on the Role of national Parliaments in the European Union 
This  concerns:  proposals  of  the  Commission;  initiatives  of  a  group  of  Member  States  (cf.  penal 
cooperation);  initiatives  of  the  European  Parliament;  requests  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice; 
recommendations  of  the  European  Central  Bank;  and  requests  of  the  European  Investment  Bank  for 
adoption of a European legislative act. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
control:  national  parliaments30  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  would  be  able  to  bring 
suspected violations of the principle of subsidiarity before the European Court of Justice31. 

4.2. 

Subsidiarity exercises run by the COSAC 

In 2008 the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees  of Parliaments of 
the  European  Union  (COSAC)  conducted  two  new  subsidiarity  exercises  to  simulate  the 
procedures  proposed  under  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon.  Under  these  exercises  the  Commission 
received 27 opinions. 

Council Framework  Decision on combating  terrorism32. In total 12 opinions were received. 
Only the House of Commons of the United Kingdom gave a negative opinion on compliance 
with the subsidiarity principle. 5 chambers of national parliaments asked the Commission to 
clarify certain issues linked to subsidiarity; and 5 others asked for clarifications on the link to 
the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.  

Directive  on  equal  treatment  outside  employment33.  15  opinions  were  received  on  the 
proposal, of which 14 were positive on subsidiarity. The only negative opinion came from the 
Czech Senate. 

5. 

APPLICATION BY THE COUNCIL 

Framework Directive on the protection of soil34. The lively discussion on this directive was 
signalled  in  the  2007  report  on  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  Despite  efforts  of  the 
Presidency, supported by the Commission, the Council failed to reach political agreement on 
this Directive in December 2007. The final compromise, which provided for a large degree of 
flexibility  for  Member  States  and  reduced  costs  for  implementing  the  Directive,  was  not 
acceptable  for  a  blocking  minority  for  reasons  related  to  subsidiarity  and  proportionality. 
Discussions at technical level continued in 2008.  

Directive  on  publication  and  translation  obligations  of  certain  types  of  companies35.  One 
provision  of  this  proposal  abolishes  the  obligation  to  publish  company  acts  in  paper  form, 
providing for the information to be published on a central electronic platform instead, the aim 
being  to  reduce  costs  for  companies.  A  number  of  Member  States,  which  together  form  a 
blocking  minority,  want  to  continue  to  allow  Member  States  to  maintain  requirements  to 
publish  in  the  national  or  local  press  at  the  expense  of  companies.  Two  Member  States, 
arguing on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity, pointed out that publication in national or 
local newspapers has added value for local societies, in particular where internet coverage is 
low. They also referred to the need to maintain this source of financing for the national press. 

30 

31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Via an action notified by the Member State in accordance with its national legal order on behalf of the 
national Parliament or a chamber thereof 
Article 8 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 
COM(2007) 650, 6.11.2007 
COM(2008) 426, 2.7.2008 
COM(2006) 232, 22.9.2006 
COM(2008) 194, 17.4.2008 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
Directive  on  equal  treatment  outside  employment36.  Germany  opposed  this  proposal  on 
grounds  of  subsidiarity.  Ireland  expressed  the  same  doubts  and  the  Czech  Senate  adopted  a 
resolution in the same direction. They consider that the proposal goes beyond what is allowed 
by its legal basis (Article 13 TEC) to be able to encourage, support or supplement the action 
of  the  Member  States.  Other  Member  States  (in  particular  the  Netherlands  and  Italy)  also 
consider that the proposal is not in conformity with the principle of proportionality given the 
administrative  and  financial  costs  that  it  involves.  The  discussions  in  the  Council  on  this 
proposal continue under the Swedish Presidency. 

Directive  on  the  protection  of  pregnant  workers37.  For  several  Member  States  (in  particular 
the  Netherlands),  the  proposal  does  not  conform  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity:  these 
Member States would prefer to remain free to decide certain issues covered by the proposal 
according to their practices and national experiences. 

Reduced  VAT  rates38.  One  Member  State  raised  subsidiarity  in  Council  discussions.  This 
Member State had no subsidiarity concerns about the 2008 Commission proposal; however, it 
objected  on  subsidiarity  grounds  to  an  element  of  the  compromise  proposed  by  the  French 
Presidency  (according  to  which  each  request  for  a  Member  State  to  apply  a  reduced  rate 
would have had to be submitted to an evaluation of its impact, in particular budgetary). This 
element  was  not  included  in  the  political  agreement  reached  at  the  Economic  and  Financial 
Affairs Council of 10 March 2009. 

6. 

APPLICATION BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

In the course of 2008, the European Parliament adopted two resolutions which deal in some 
depth with subsidiarity and proportionality. In October the Parliament adopted a resolution on 
the  Commission's  report  on  "Better  lawmaking  2006  on  the  application  of  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity  and  proportionality"39.  It  addressed  the  new  role  of  national  parliaments  with 
regard  to  the  scrutiny  of  subsidiarity.  The  initiative  of  the  Commission  to  send  its  new 
proposals to national parliaments and seek their reactions was endorsed, but in order to make 
this  dialogue  more  efficient  the  European  Parliament  believes  there  is  a  need  to  develop  a 
common approach to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. 

The second resolution which focuses on subsidiarity issues is the Parliament's response to the 
Commission's  Green  paper  "Towards  a  new  culture  of  urban  mobility"40.  While  Parliament 
considers that urban mobility is the responsibility of local authorities, it acknowledges a role 
for the EU in developing an integrated European approach to the issue. While the EU should 
not legislate in the field of urban mobility, the Parliament argues that the Union should take 
into  account  "particular  needs  of  urban  transport  in  the  policy  areas  where  it  has  legislative 
power (e.g. budget policy, environment policy, social and labour market policy, competition 
policy, industry policy, regional and cohesion policy, transport and road safety policy, energy 
policy)". 

36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

COM(2008) 426, 2.7.2008 
COM(2008) 637, 3.10.2008 
COM(2008) 428, 7.7.2008 
2008/2045(INI), 21.10.2008 
2008/2041(INI), 9.7.2008 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
7. 

APPLICATION BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions’  Subsidiarity  Monitoring  Network  entered  its  second  year  of 
operation in 2008. The network operates through an interactive website41 and is primarily aimed 
at government and parliamentary institutions representing Europe’s regions and cities. National 
parliaments  are  also  invited  to  participate.  Other  EU  and  national  institutions  can  follow  the 
network’s activities as observers. When the Committee of the Regions is issuing an opinion on 
a  new  policy  or  legislative  proposal,  registered  participants  in  the  network  can  use  a 
standardised  electronic  form  to  comment  on  compliance  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  In 
addition, rapporteurs in the Committee can initiate broader consultations of the network when 
they require more input on subsidiarity and proportionality for their work. Three consultations 
were held in 200842. 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions  intends  to  use  its  consultative  networks  and  platforms, 
including the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network, to provide data to the European Commission 
on the possible impacts of its initiatives on the local and regional level. This will allow local 
and regional authorities to participate at an early stage in the (pre)legislative process, and to 
contribute  to  a  better  assessment  of  the  territorial  impacts  of  EU  legislative  and  policy 
proposals. 

8. 

APPLICATION BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE 

Although  there  was  no  new  case  law  of  note  to  record,  there  is  an  on  going  request  for  a 
preliminary  ruling  which  could  result  in  the  Court  pronouncing  on  subsidiarity.  On  13 
February  2008  the  High  Court  of  Justice  (England  &  Wales)  made  a  reference  to  the 
European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the "roaming Regulation"43. In addition 
to  a  question  on  the  legal  base,  the  High  Court  has  asked  the  European  Court  of  Justice 
whether  the  regulation  is  invalid  "on  the  grounds  that  the  imposition  of  a  price  ceiling  in 
respect  of  retail  roaming  charges  infringes  the  principle  of  proportionality  and/or 
subsidiarity." A judgement is expected before 2010. 

9. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  above  analysis  suggests  three  broad  conclusions.  First,  while  the  application  of  the 
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality often exposes a divergence of views in Council, 
this is less the case in the European Parliament where a broader consensus seems to exist on 
the  need  for  and  value  added  of  EU  action.  Second,  the  number  of  opinions  that  the 
Commission receives from national parliaments on its proposals is increasing rapidly, roughly 
doubling every year. This trend can be expected to continue if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified 
and the 'yellow and orange cards' become operational. This should further enrich the debate 
on subsidiarity and proportionality. Third, impact assessments have become the main vehicle 

41 
42 

43 

http://subsidiarity.cor.europa.eu  
(i)  on  Immigration  &  Employment  COM  (2007) 248,  COM  (2007) 249,  COM (2007)  637  and  COM 
(2007) 638; (ii) on patients’ rights in cross border healthcare COM (2008) 414; (iii) on the Green Paper 
on Territorial Cohesion COM (2008) 616. 
Case  C-58/8  Vodafone  Ltd,  Telefónica  O2  Europe  plc,  T-Mobile  International  AG,  Orange  Personal 
Communications  Services  Ltd  v.  Secretary  of  State  for  Business,  Enterprise  and  Regulatory  Reform 
about EC Regulation No. 717/2007 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
to  address  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  issues  within  the  Commission  when  policy 
initiatives  are  being  prepared.  The  Impact  Assessment  Board  is  playing  a  key  role  in  this 
respect, and the revised impact assessment guidelines should lead to further progress in this 
area. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Annex 1: Number of opinions received from national parliaments 

Chambers of national parliaments 

Opinions received

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

PT - Assembleia da República 

DE - Bundesrat 

SE - Riksdag 

FR - Sénat 

UK - House of Lords 

DK - Folketing 

CZ - Senát 

IT - Senato della Repubblica 

IE - Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann 

IT - Camera dei deputati 

NL - Staten Generaal 

PL - Sejm 

AT - Bundesrat 

EL - Vouli ton Ellinon 

DE - Bundestag 

EE - Riigikogu 

LU - Chambre des Députés 

BE – Sénat/Senaat 

CY - Vouli ton Antiprosopon 

LV - Saeima 

UK - House of Commons 

CZ - Poslanecká sněmovna 

BE  -  Chambre  des  Répresentants/  Kamer 
van volksvertegenwoordigers 

24 

BG - Narodno sabranie 

65 

18 

16 

13 

12 

11 

11 

8 

7 

6 

5 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total: 

200 

EN 

11 

   EN