Report from the Commission - Annual Report 2009 on relations between the European Commission and national parliaments
Date: 2010-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, activity report, interinstitutional relations, national parliament

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 2.6.2010 
COM(2010) 291 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  

ANNUAL REPORT 2009 
ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL 
PARLIAMENTS 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  

ANNUAL REPORT 2009 
ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL 
PARLIAMENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  year  2009  was  marked  by  important  institutional  events,  with  the  election  of  a  new 
European  Parliament  in  June,  the  end  of  the  mandate  of  the  Barroso  I  Commission  and  the 
entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  on  1  December.  As  regards  the  relations  between  the 
Commission  and  national  Parliaments,  2009  saw  a  further  consolidation  of  the  political 
dialogue  (chapter  2),  with  the  number  of  opinions  and  of  participating  chambers  steadily 
increasing;  frequent  and  fruitful  contacts  and  exchanges  between  the  Commission  and 
national Parliaments at all levels (chapter 3); as well as particularly intensive preparations, on 
both sides, with a view to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the implementation of 
its new provisions concerning national Parliaments (chapter 4).  

While  the  previous  annual  report1  presented  a  general  stocktaking  of  the  outgoing 
Commission's  relations  with  national  Parliaments,  this  report  also  takes  the  opportunity  to 
point  to  the  new  Commission's  main  priorities  and  ambitions  as  regards  the  evolution  of 
relations with national Parliaments during the coming mandate. 

2. 

POLITICAL DIALOGUE 

2.1. 

Participation of national Parliaments and focus of opinions 

Varying degrees of participation  

In  2009,  national  Parliaments  sent  250  opinions  to  the  Commission  in  the  context  of  the 
political dialogue (compared to 200 in 2008), which confirmed the clear upward trend. There 
have now been a total of 618 opinions received from 35 national assemblies (out of 40) of 25 
Member States between September 2006 and December 2009. 

As in previous years, there has been a group of particularly active chambers, in particular the 
Portuguese  Assembleia  da  Republica  (47  opinions),  the  Czech  Senate  (27),  the  two  Dutch 
chambers  jointly  (19),  the  Swedish  Riksdag  (18),  the  Italian  Senate  (17),  the  German 
Bundesrat  (16),  the  UK  House  of  Lords  (14),  the  French  Senate  (12),  the  Danish  Folketing 
(12),  the  Austrian  Bundesrat  (10)  and  the  Greek  House  of  Representatives  (10).  These  12 
assemblies  were  responsible  for  around  three  quarters  of  all  national  Parliament  opinions 
received  in  2009.  In  particular  the  number  of  opinions  coming  from  the  Czech  Senate,  the 
Italian  Senate,  the  Austrian  Bundesrat  and  the  Greek  House  of  Representatives  has 
significantly  increased  over  the  year  compared  to  2008,  while  it  is  worth  noting  that  the 
Austrian  Nationalrat  and  the  Maltese  House  of  Representatives  participated  in  2009  for  the 
first time in the political dialogue. 

1 

COM(2009) 343. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
On the other hand, 10 chambers sent no opinions in 2009 and the participation of 13 chambers 
was limited to opinions adopted in the context of the COSAC-coordinated subsidiarity tests. 
Since 2006, five assemblies have not participated at all in this dialogue – the lower and upper 
assemblies in Spain and Romania, and the Slovenian upper chamber (Državni svet). However, 
it should be highlighted that in most of the cases where the chambers participate less actively 
in the political dialogue, they do so deliberately, as they define their role in European affairs 
rather via the scrutiny of their respective governments than of the Commission.  

Scope of national Parliament opinions  

The  250  opinions  issued  by  national  Parliaments  concerned  no  less  than  139  Commission 
documents.  Out  of  these  139,  only  10  documents  were  commented  on  by  4  or  more 
assemblies (without counting the 3 proposals covered by the COSAC-coordinated subsidiarity 
tests).  

The  communications  and  proposals  which  attracted  national  Parliaments'  greatest  attention, 
concerned  the  Stockholm  programme2  (8  opinions),  the  cross-border  healthcare  directive3 
(74),  the  consumer  rights  directive  5(6),  the  framework  decisions  on  trafficking  in  human 
beings6 (6) and on sexual abuse of children7 (5), the Green papers on collective redress8 (5) 
and  on  learning  mobility  of  young  people9  (5),  the  communication  on  European  financial 
supervision10 (4), the directive on minimum norms for asylum seekers11 (4), and the Annual 
Policy Strategy 201012 (4).  

About  half  the  250  opinions  received  during  2009  referred  to  legislative  proposals  and  one 
half  to  Commission  communications  or  consultation  documents.  36  opinions  were  given  on 
Green Papers. It should be noted that, in accordance with their internal procedures, the very 
active Swedish and Danish Parliaments continue to participate in the political dialogue with 
the Commission only with regard to non-legislative documents.  

Overall, the majority of opinions focussed on policy issues, with only 13 opinions referring to 
documents on programming or institutional questions. Those policy fields on which national 
Parliaments  mostly  focused  their  attention  were  Justice,  Liberty  and  Security  (83  opinions, 
including those issued in the context of 2  COSAC subsidiarity tests), Health and Consumer 
Protection  (38,  including  those  issued  in  the  context  of  one  COSAC  subsidiarity  test), 
Transport  and  Energy  (22),  Education  and  Culture  (14),  Environment  (12)  and  Enterprise 
(10). 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

COM(2009) 262. 
COM(2008) 414. 
It should be noted that 3 of the 7 opinions were received in late 2008. 
COM(2008) 614. 
COM(2009) 136. 
COM(2009) 135. 
COM(2008) 794. 
COM(2009) 329. 
COM(2009) 252. 
COM(2008) 815. 
COM(2009) 73. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Publication of Commission opinions 

In  May  2009,  the  Commission  launched  a  dedicated  website  on  Europa13,  on  which  it 
publishes  all  opinions  received  from  national  Parliaments  in  the  context  of  the  political 
dialogue,  as  well  as  the  replies  from  the  Commission.  Currently  the  website  contains  only 
opinions received in 2008 and 2009, but the Commission is working to include progressively 
opinions  received  since  the  start  of  the  political  dialogue  with  the  national  Parliaments  in 
September 2006.  

2.2. 

Evaluation of national Parliaments' opinions and Commission replies  

The vast majority of opinions were in general positive, welcoming the Commission initiatives 
and  proposals  but  at  the  same  time  putting  forward  concrete  remarks,  suggestions  for 
amendment  as  well  as  constructive  criticism.  In  their  opinions,  most  of  the  national 
Parliaments examined substantive political issues, commenting mainly on the broader content 
of a Commission proposal, with relatively few opinions containing remarks on the legal base 
or the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.  

Of 250 opinions received in 2009, less than 25 expressed subsidiarity related concerns. These 
referred to about 15 legislative and non-legislative Commission documents. Those chambers 
with  a  particular  interest  in  subsidiarity  questions  were  the  French  Senate,  the  Austrian 
Bundesrat, the German Bundesrat, as well as the Dutch, Portuguese and Greek Parliaments. 
Although  not  questioning  the  respect  of  subsidiarity  as  such,  some  opinions  also  pointed  to 
what  they  considered  an  insufficient  justification  as  regards  a  given  proposal’s  compliance 
with the principle of subsidiarity.  

As far as bicameral systems are concerned, it is worth noting that, in some instances, the two 
chambers  did  not  always  share  the  same  views  as  regards  the  assessment  of  subsidiarity 
compliance. For example, the two Dutch chambers disagreed on this issue with regard to the 
proposal  on  Critical  Infrastructure  Warning  Information  Network  (CIWIN)14  and  to  the 
directive  on  Energy  performance  of  buildings15,  and  the  two  chambers  of  the  French 
Parliament  presented  diverging  views  on  the  subsidiarity  compliance  of  the  proposal  on 
animal-testing16.  

It should also be mentioned that in 2009 the Commission received several opinions adopted 
by the national Parliaments in the context of three COSAC coordinated subsidiarity tests: the 
first  one  on  the  directive  on  standards  of  quality  and  safety  of  human  organs  intended  for 
transplantation17, launched in December 2008; the second on the framework decision on the 
right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings18, launched in July 2009; and 
the  third  on  the  regulation  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
decisions and authentic instruments in matters of succession19, launched in October 2009. In 
all three exercises, a very large majority of participating chambers confirmed the proposals’ 
compliance  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  As  regards  the  first  case,  only  the  Austrian 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm 
COM(2008) 676. 
COM(2008) 780. 
COM(2008) 543. 
COM(2008) 818. 
COM(2009) 338. 
COM(2009) 154. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Bundesrat  issued  a  negative  subsidiarity  opinion;  in  the  second  exercise,  the  Austrian 
Bundesrat  was  joined  by  the  Irish  and  Maltese  Parliaments  in  contesting  subsidiarity 
compliance, with 11 other chambers finding the Commission's justification in its explanatory 
memorandum not entirely satisfactory; and with respect to the last proposal, only the Belgian 
Senate indicated a breach of subsidiarity.  

The political dialogue on key documents  

Taking into account that the great majority of Commission documents were not commented 
on by more than 3 chambers, the following analysis focuses on the most representative files 
and cites some concrete examples to illustrate certain findings.  

•  Stockholm Programme 

The  Commission  Communication  on  "Area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  serving  the 
citizen"20 (the Stockholm programme) was a particular focus of national Parliaments' attention 
in 2009. 8 opinions were submitted to the Commission, while some others were sent directly 
to  the  European  Parliament,  which  held  a  joint  inter-parliamentary  meeting  on  this  issue  in 
November  2009.  All  opinions 
the  Commission 
Communication. A large majority welcomed that individual rights were placed at the centre of 
the next multiannual programme and that citizens were put at the heart of the project. Among 
individual  rights  raised  by  several  chambers,  the  need  to  protect  the  right  to  privacy  was 
raised  most  often.  Concerns  were  raised  as  to  the  efficiency  of  instruments  of  internal 
resettlement,  the  common  European  Schengen  visa,  the  establishment  of  a  common  system 
for admission of legal migrants, the fact that legal migrants should obtain similar rights to EU 
citizens, as well as regarding the proposed abolition of exequatur. The need to ensure respect 
of the subsidiarity principle in the field of civil protection was equally highlighted.  

received  expressed  support 

for 

•  Consumer rights directive 

A  similar  interest  was  shown  by  national  Parliaments  with  regard  to  the  Commission's 
proposal for a directive on consumer rights21, on which the Commission received 6 opinions, 
many of them voicing important concerns. Five chambers thought the proposal was contrary 
to the principles of subsidiarity on the grounds that the introduction of full harmonisation in 
certain  areas  of  consumer  and  contract  law  would  not  allow  for  the  application  of  national 
law, which, according to them, provided  for a higher  level  of  consumer protection.  Further, 
several  chambers  stated  that  the  proposal  seemed  to  concentrate  on  facilitating  cross-border 
operations rather than on protecting consumer rights. Finally, national Parliaments questioned 
the  choice  of  the  legal  base  and  considered  the  impact  assessment  to  be  insufficient,  in 
particular as far as the lack of concrete statistics underpinning the proposal, and the exclusion 
of digital goods and pure services from its scope were concerned.  

•  Cross-border healthcare directive 

As for the directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare22, 3 out of 
7  opinions23  raised  subsidiarity  concerns  or  commented,  more  generally,  on  subsidiarity 

20 
21 
22 
23 

COM(2009) 262. 
COM(2008) 614. 
COM(2008) 414. 
3 out of 7 opinions were received in late 2008. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
aspects. Several chambers perceived the Commission's proposal as a text that might put into 
question Member States' ability to manage health services' supply and to maintain a financial 
balance  in  their  social  security  systems.  National  Parliaments  pointed  out,  for  instance,  that 
the impact assessment did not emphasise the risk Member States might face due to the loss of 
control  over  patients  flows.  They  also  stressed  that  only  Member  States  could  evaluate  the 
impact of the proposal on the financing and organization of national health care systems, and 
called  to  abolish  the  provision  according  to  which  the  Commission  could  set  guidelines 
facilitating the definition, by the Member States, of quality and security standards for health 
care services.  

•  European Financial Supervision 

Another issue, which was clearly at the centre of national Parliaments' attention during 2009, 
was the financial crisis, with four chambers commenting on the Commission Communication 
on  European  Financial  Supervision24.  Among  the  national  Parliaments,  which  expressed 
themselves  on  this  document,  some  underlined  that  in  the  long  term  financial  supervision 
would have to be handled by a European authority with the power to take binding decisions, 
and that the system proposed by the Commission should be revised within two or three years. 
One  national  Parliament  did  not  share  this  particular  view  and  was  not  willing  to  accept 
reducing national supervisors' responsibilities. Instead, it favoured a regulatory framework for 
transnational activities of large financial operators.  

•  Green papers on collective redress and on learning mobility of young people 

The  Commission  received  opinions  from  five  chambers  concerning  the  Green  Paper  on 
collective redress25, four of them going in the same direction in that they stressed that there 
was  no  need  for  a  Europe-wide  binding  regulation  of  this  matter  and  suggested  only  very 
targeted  legislation  or  even  adoption  of  "soft  law"  measures.  Only  one  national  Parliament 
called  for  the  introduction  of  binding  arrangements  for  collective  redress  (common  EU 
system). To be noted that one national Parliament, after having received a first reply from the 
Commission,  issued  a  second  opinion  on  the  matter  of  mass  claims,  in  which,  although 
maintaining  its  general  reserve  as  regards  EU  legislation  in  this  area,  expressed  its 
appreciation of the Commission's assurance that any future initiative would not lay the ground 
for the development of a litigation "industry" as existed in some non-European countries.  

Five  chambers  expressed  their  views  on  the  Green  Paper  on  learning  mobility  of  young 
people26, broadly supporting the initiative of the Commission and the objectives of the Green 
Paper. National Parliaments considered that transnational mobility shouldn't be reserved only 
to young people, taking into account that the promotion of life-long learning was one of the 
Commission's  key  objectives.  They  also  stressed  that  European  programmes  should  be 
flexible  in  terms  of  length,  timing  and  participating  countries  and  pointed  out  that  special 
attention  should  be  paid  to  the  improvement  of  young  people's  knowledge  of  foreign 
languages  and  to  the  recognition  of  studies  as  a  prerequisite  for  mobility.  Some  chambers 
encouraged  the  Commission  to  integrate  into  the  renewed  Lisbon  strategy  the  promotion  of 
mobility in the context of apprenticeship.  

24 
25 
26 

COM(2009) 252. 
COM(2008) 794. 
COM (2009) 329. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
Commission’s replies to national Parliaments’ opinions 

The Commission's replies to national Parliaments' opinions are signed by the Vice President 
responsible for relations with national Parliaments, after formal adoption by the Commission, 
which is preceded by a preliminary consultation of all cabinets and services involved. In its 
answers  to  national  Parliaments,  the  Commission  often  seeks  to  better  explain  its  initial 
proposals,  where  possible  by  giving  detailed  examples  to  underpin  a  given  position.  Where 
appropriate, the replies also contain reactions to the concrete comments and suggestions made 
by national Parliaments giving indications as to whether or not the Commission can give them 
further  consideration.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the  Commission's  replies  always  have  to 
reflect and respect the institutional balance as set out in the Treaties. They also largely depend 
on the timing of a given opinion and, in the case of legislative files, on the stage reached in 
the interinstitutional procedure. 

Replies to Green Papers and other consultation documents are usually limited in scope for as 
long as the consultations are ongoing or their results have not yet been evaluated.  

3. 

CONTACTS AND VISITS 

As  in  previous  years,  Commissioners  and  their  services  were  particularly  active  and 
committed in their contacts and exchanges with representatives of national Parliaments. Apart 
from  numerous  bilateral  meetings  between  Members  of  the  Commission  and  national 
Parliaments, the Commission was represented at political level in all major interparliamentary 
meetings,  which  were  held  over  the  year  2009,  namely  the  Conference  of  Speakers  of  EU 
Parliaments  in  February  in  Paris,  the  COSAC  Chairpersons’  meeting  in  February  in  Prague 
and in July in Stockholm, the COSAC plenary sessions in May in Prague and in October in 
Stockholm,  as  well  as  the  Joint  Parliamentary  Meetings  in  February  and  November  in 
Brussels. 

Apart  from  this,  Commission  services  regularly  met  their  counterparts  from  national 
Parliaments, be it in the framework of the regular meetings with permanent representatives of 
national  Parliaments  in  Brussels  (12  regular  meetings  in  2009  plus  a  half-day  seminar 
organised  by  the  Commission  in  June),  in  conferences  and  hearings  organised  by  different 
assemblies in the respective capitals, or in the different thematic workshops organised by the 
European Parliament for national Parliaments officials. To be particularly highlighted are the 
first  participation  of  Commission  services  from  the  Secretariat  General  at  the  IPEX  Board 
meeting in October in Copenhagen, as well as the intervention of the Secretary General of the 
Commission  at  the  meeting  of  Secretaries  General  of  EU  Parliaments  in  December  in 
Brussels, a few days after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.  

The  main  focus  of  these  contacts  and  exchanges  between  the  Commission  and  national 
Parliaments  in  2009  was  the  entry  into  force  and  implementation  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty, 
questions  related  to  the  area  of  Freedom,  Liberty  and  Justice  but  also  issues  related  to  the 
economic and financial crisis.  

4. 

LISBON TREATY 

The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, represents a major advance 
as regards the role of national Parliaments at EU level. For the first time, national Parliaments 
are mentioned in the main body of the Treaty. Article 12 TEU states explicitly that "national 

EN 

7 

   EN 

Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union". Thereafter that article 
lists a series of new rights, which underline the central importance of national Parliaments in 
the Union's democratic fabric. 

Featuring  most  prominently  among  national  Parliaments’  new  rights  is  certainly  their 
responsibility to "ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the 
procedure set out in Protocol [No 2]", commonly known as "subsidiarity control mechanism" 
or the "yellow and orange card procedure". This mechanism implies the final possibility for 
the  legislator  to  stop  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  if  a  given  number  of  national 
Parliaments questions the compliance with the subsidiarity principle of a particular legislative 
proposal. 

As regards the implementation of the new Treaty provisions concerning national Parliaments, 
and in particular the subsidiarity control mechanism, the Commission in late November 2009 
established internal arrangements allowing it to effectively apply this new instrument as of the 
day  the  Treaty  entered  into  force.  National  Parliaments  and  the  legislator  were  informed  of 
these procedures by a joint letter of the President and Vice President of the Commission, sent 
on  1  December  to  the  Presidents  of  the  40  chambers  and  of  the  European  Parliament  and 
Council27. The Commission defined these arrangements in the light of numerous discussions 
it has had over the previous years at political and services level with national Parliaments, and 
it ensured that  they  take  into  account all major concerns expressed by national  Parliaments. 
As  experience  is  gained  in  this  regard  in  the  future  months,  some  aspects  of  these 
arrangements may need to be adapted. 

The key message in the letter of 1 December was that the Commission sees the subsidiarity 
control mechanism as a political, and not as a purely accounting exercise, that it is confident 
that national Parliaments will use this instrument in a responsible and constructive way and 
that the Commission intends to put the right measures in place to facilitate the use of this new 
instrument  as  a  practical  tool  for  national  Parliaments.  The  letter  and  the  Commission's 
overall approach were very well received by national Parliaments.  

Given  the  caretaker  role  of  the  outgoing  Commission  between  1  November  2009  and  10 
February 2010, no major legislative proposals were adopted during the two months following 
the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  Treaty.  The  first  proposals  falling  under  the  scope  of  the 
subsidiarity control mechanism were adopted and transmitted to national Parliaments only at 
the beginning of February 2010.  

5. 

OUTLOOK 

The Commission is committed to a smooth and effective implementation of the provisions of 
the  Lisbon  Treaty  regarding  national  Parliaments  and  in  particular  the  subsidiarity  control 
mechanism.  This  will  be  one  of  the  priorities  of  the  current  Commission  when  it  comes  to 
defining its relationship with national Parliaments.  

In  parallel,  and  more  generally,  it  will  be  of  key  importance  to  consolidate  the  partnership 
with  national  Parliaments,  by  enhancing  and  strengthening  the  political  dialogue,  in  full 
respect of the institutional balance at EU level. The continuation of this dialogue will allow 
both  sides  to  engage  in  a  broader,  more  political  exchange  of  views,  not  only  limited  to 

27 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
 
legislative  proposals  and  going  well  beyond  the  issue  of  subsidiarity.  The  Commission  will 
thus  continue  to  examine  carefully  all  opinions  it  receives  from  national  Parliaments, 
convinced  that  this  constructive  and  effective  communication  will  further  strengthen  the 
relationship between European institutions and citizens throughout Europe.  

The  Commission  sees  the  subsidiarity  control  mechanism  and  the  political  dialogue  as  two 
sides of the same coin, with the former being part of a wider political relationship between the 
Commission and national  Parliaments. National Parliaments have very much welcomed this 
approach, given that up until now they have tended to focus their opinions on the substance of 
Commission documents rather than on subsidiarity aspects. 

By strengthening its political partnership with national Parliaments, the Commission aims to 
improve  the  process  of  policy  formulation,  both  as  regards  legislative  and  non-legislative 
measures;  to  involve  national  Parliaments  more  closely  in  European  affairs,  most  of  which 
have become in the course of the last years internal affairs, thereby bringing Europe closer to 
citizens;  and  lastly  to  increase  the  Commission's  understanding  of  national  dynamics  and 
processes.  

As regards the improvement of policy formulation, it is true that it might not always be easy 
to measure the concrete impact of national Parliaments' opinions on a given final legislative 
act. However, it is important to know that each time the Commission is negotiating legislative 
files with the legislators, it is now able to do so in full knowledge of the opinions expressed 
by  national  Parliaments.  Likewise,  when  the  Commission  is  deciding  on  its  position  to  be 
defended  in  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  it  can  be  informed  by  the  views 
expressed by national Parliaments on the relevant dossier. In many cases opinions expressed 
by national Parliaments are reflected in the legislative process by either the Parliament or the 
Council, which clearly points to the added value of national Parliaments opinions: If delivered 
on time, they can act as an early warning system providing an outline of the main positions on 
the  Commission  proposal,  which  are  often  mirrored  later  on  in  the  legislative  process. 
Obviously, if opinions arrive particularly late and only from a few national Parliaments, the 
impact on ongoing interinstitutional discussions remains relatively low.  

In the course of the last five years, the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments have 
fundamentally evolved, becoming closer and more substantial. This trend will continue with 
the Lisbon Treaty. National Parliaments now have a more important role at EU level and can 
therefore  become  key  actors  whose  positions  will  need  to  be  factored  in  by  the  EU 
institutions. In this way, the national Parliaments will quickly become an integral part of the 
decision making processes at EU level.  

However,  further  progress  is  still  possible,  on  both  sides.  Realising  the  potential  of  this 
political  partnership  and  establishing  even  more  constructive  relations  will  remain  a  key 
objective. The Commission will closely monitor the proper implementation of the new Treaty 
provisions  concerning  national  Parliaments,  and  in  this  sense  it  will  be  particularly  vigilant 
that  it  meets  the  subsidiarity  related  requirements  contained  in  Protocol  2.  Furthermore,  the 
Commission would like to encourage those national Parliaments who do not yet participate in 
the political dialogue to engage in an active exchange of views with the Commission. It also 
aims at closely involving national Parliaments in the implementation of Europe 2020 and is 
open  to  examine  possible  methods  of  cooperation  as  regards  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
Budget, and in particular the fight against fraud. In both areas, the Commission counts on the 
active  support  of  national  Parliaments  in  achieving  its  objectives.  Furthermore,  the 
Commission  will  be  particularly  attached  to  regular  and  substantial  information  of  national 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Parliaments  with  regard  to  programming  issues  In  this  regard,  it  will  aim  to  present  the 
Commission  Work  Programme  to  the  permanent  representatives  of  national  Parliaments  as 
soon as possible after its  adoption. The Commission is also committed to  respond in  full to 
COSAC contributions and conclusions.  

With regard to the new Treaty provisions concerning national Parliaments' involvement in the 
political monitoring and evaluation of the activities of Europol and Eurojust, the Commission 
is aware of national Parliaments' requests to be duly consulted by the Commission before it 
presents  proposals  for  the  respective  regulations,  which  have  been  included  in  the 
Commission Work Programme 2010. Before presenting these new proposals, the Commission 
will carefully evaluate the implementation of the existing decisions concerning Eurojust and 
Europol and will consult all parties involved. National Parliaments will be closely associated 
to these preparatory works.  

The Commission is determined to promote further the role of national Parliaments by keeping 
them at the top of its institutional and political agenda.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

Number of opinions received per country/chamber 

Total 

PORTUGAL 
CZECH REP. 
SWEDEN 
ITALY 
GERMANY 
UNITED KINGDOM 
DENMARK 
FRANCE 
GREECE 
AUSTRIA 
ITALY 
THE NEETHERLANDS 
THE NEETHERLANDS 
IRELAND 
THE NEETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
GERMANY 
LATVIA 
LITHUANIA 
LUXEMBOURG 

HUNGARY 
BELGIUM 
BELGIUM 
BULGARIA 
FRANCE 
SLOVENIA 
CZECH REP. 
ESTONIA 
CYPRUS 
MALTA 
SPAIN 
SPAIN 
POLAND 
POLAND 

ROMANIA 
ROMANIA 
FINLAND 
SLOVENIA 
SLOVAKIA 
UNITED KINGDOM 

Assembleia da Republica 
Senát 
Riksdagen 
Senato della Repubblica 
Bundesrat  
House of Lords 
Folketinget 
Sénat 
Vouli ton Ellnion 
Bundesrat 
Camera dei Deputati 
Both Chambers 
Tweede Kamer Staten Generaal 
Oireachtas 
Eerste Kamer Staten Generaal 
Nationalrat 
Bundestag 
Saeima 
Seimas 
Chambre des Députés 
Országgyűlés 
Chambre des Répresentants 
Sénat 
Narodno Sabranie 
Assemblée Nationale 
Državni zbor  
Poslanecká sněmovna  
Riigikogu 
House of Representatives 
House of Representatives 
Congreso de los Diputados 
Senado 
Senat 
Sejm 
Camera Deputaților  
Senatul 
Eduskunta 
Državni svet  
Národná rada 
House of Commons 

TOTAL 

47 
27 
18 
17 
16 
14 
12 
12 
10 
10 
9 
8 
7 
6 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 

3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Total 

250 

EN 

11 

   EN 

  
  
  
  
  
 
Number of opinions received per Directorate General in 2009 

DG responsible 

TOTAL 

Justice, Freedom and Security 

Health and Consumer Protection 

Energy and Transport 

Education and Culture 

Secretariat-General 

Environment 

Enterprise and Industry 

Internal Market and Services 

Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities 

Research 

Legal Service 

Regional Policy 

Agriculture and Rural Development 

Taxation and Customs Union 

Information Society and Media 

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

External Relations 

Economic and Financial Affairs 

Eurostat 

Enlargement 

Budget 

Competition 

Trade 

Development 

83 

38 

22 

14 

14 

12 

10 

9 

7 

7 

6 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total

250 

EN 

12 

   EN 

Commission documents receiving the highest number of opinions in 200928 

Commission 
document 

Title  

Number of 
opinions  

COM(2009)262 

Communication on an area of freedom, security and 
justice serving the citizen 

COM(2008)414  Proposal  for  a  directive  on  the  application  of 

patients' rights in cross-border healthcare 

COM(2008)614  Proposal for a directive on consumers rights  

COM(2009)136 

Proposal  for  a  framework  decision  on  preventing 
and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and 
protecting victims 

COM(2009)135 

Proposal  for  a  framework  decision  on  combating 
the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and 
child pornography 

COM(2008)794  Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress 

COM(2009)329  Green Paper on learning mobility of young people 

COM(2009)252  Communication on European financial supervision  

COM(2008)815 

Proposal  for  a  directive  laying  down  minimum 
standards for the reception of asylum seekers 

COM(2009)73  Communication on Annual Policy Strategy for 2010

8 

7 

6 

6 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

28 

Non including the three proposals on which COSAC-coordinated subsidiarity checks were carried out. 

EN 

13 

   EN