REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2010ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
Date: 2011-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, activity report, interinstitutional relations, national parliament

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 10.6.2011 
COM(2011) 345 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

ANNUAL REPORT 2010 
ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL 
PARLIAMENTS 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Commission’s  relations  with  national  Parliaments  in  2010  were  marked  by  a  series  of 
significant institutional and political events. 

2010 was the first full year of implementation of the new Lisbon Treaty. Following its entry 
into  force  in  late  2009,  the  role  of  national  Parliaments  was  strengthened  considerably,  in 
particular,  with  the  new  subsidiarity  control  mechanism,  which  features  most  prominently 
amongst the new rights of national Parliaments set out in Article 12 TEU (Treaty on European 
Union). 

In addition, 2010 saw the new Commission taking office on 9 February, almost at the same 
time as the subsidiarity control mechanism started to be implemented. When the new College 
had  a  first  thorough  exchange  of  views  on  this  issue,  President  Barroso  and  Vice-President 
Šefčovič underlined the importance of national Parliaments and stressed that this issue would 
be kept high on the Commission’s political agenda1. 

Finally,  2010  was  marked  by  the  economic  crisis  and  by  the  joint  efforts  to  respond 
adequately to it. This issue regularly featured on the agenda of discussions between national 
Parliaments  and  the  Commission,  be  it  in  the  context  of  COSAC,  Joint  Parliamentary 
Meetings  or  the  numerous  visits  by  Vice-President  Šefčovič  to  national  Parliaments. 
Economic governance was another of the key subjects on which national Parliament opinions 
focused in the context of the political dialogue. 

This sixth annual report looks at how the Commission has implemented the above-mentioned 
new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and  presents a first stocktake of the  functioning of the 
subsidiarity control mechanism (section 2)2. In section 3, the report gives an overview of how 
the political dialogue, launched by President Barroso in 2006, has evolved in 2010, as regards 
not only the main topics commented on by national Parliaments, but also the various contacts 
between  national  Parliaments  and  the  Commission.  Finally,  the  report  looks  at  how  the 
Commission sees its relations with national Parliaments developing in the near future (section 
4). 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  LISBON  TREATY:  THE  NEW  SUBSIDIARITY  CONTROL 
MECHANISM 

The  subsidiarity  control  mechanism  ran  very  smoothly  during  2010,  thanks  not  only  to 
thorough  preparation  on  both  sides  during  the  preceding  year,  but  also  due  to  the  excellent 
cooperation  and  constructive  contacts  between  the  Commission  and  national  Parliaments 
throughout  the  year.  Following  on  from  the  letter  of  1  December  20093,  in  which  the 
Commission informed national Parliaments and the other institutions about how it intended to 
put the new mechanism into practice, the Commission, on 6 February, sent the first proposal 

1 
2 

3 

PV (2010) 1920 final 
The  Commission  Report  on  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  –  18th  report  on  Better  Lawmaking 
covering the year 2010, which is adopted in parallel to this report, will look in more detail into some 
cases,  where  subsidiarity  concerns  were  raised  by  national  Parliaments,  and  thus  complements  the 
analysis of the new subsidiarity control mechanism. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
falling within the scope of the subsidiarity control mechanism to national Parliaments4. The 
first  reasoned  opinion  formally  raising  concerns  as  to  compliance  with  the  subsidiarity 
principle was received on 29 April5. 

Participation and focus of national Parliaments 

During  2010,  the  Commission  sent  to  national  Parliaments  82  draft  legislative  acts  falling 
under the subsidiarity control mechanism, and received a total of 211 opinions related to these 
proposals. About three quarters of these opinions were received within eight weeks after the 
formal transmission letter ('lettre de saisine') had been sent, which clearly shows that national 
Parliaments had upgraded their capacities in response to the new Treaty and were in a position 
to react much faster to Commission proposals than had been the case before. Out of these 211 
opinions, 346 (about 15%) were reasoned opinions concluding that a proposal, or some part of 
it,  was  in  breach  of  the  subsidiarity  principle7.  Almost  all  of  these  opinions  (30  out  of  34) 
were received during the last three months of the year. 

Most of the opinions that raised subsidiarity concerns referred to legislative proposals adopted 
in the policy fields of Agriculture (13) 8, Home Affairs (9) and Internal Market and Services 
(7). It should be noted that the opinions received during the first three months of 2011 confirm 
that  the  alignment  exercise  in  the  area  of  Agriculture  is  currently  one  of  the  key  areas  on 
which the national Parliaments raise subsidiarity concerns. The Commission proposal that has 
so  far  elicited  most  reasoned  opinions  on  subsidiarity  is  the  Seasonal  Workers’  Directive9, 
with  a  total  of  nine  chambers10  flagging  subsidiarity  problems.  That  apart,  national 
Parliaments'  focus  has  tended  to  be  more  scattered  and  less  coordinated  than  had  been  the 
case under the COSAC subsidiarity checks, which were discontinued after the entry into force 
of the Lisbon Treaty. 

The chambers that raised most subsidiarity concerns in 2010 were the Polish Senate (4), the 
Swedish  Riksdag  (3),  the  UK  House  of  Commons  (3),  the  French  Senate  (3)  and  the 
Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies (3). The beginning of 2011 also shows that the two Polish 
chambers  (Sejm  and  Senate)  and  the  Luxembourg  Parliament  continue  to  be  particularly 
active in terms of issuing reasoned opinions with regard to compliance with the subsidiarity 
principle. 

Content and form of national Parliaments’ opinions 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 

Proposal  concerning  the  European  Union  financial  contributions  to  the  International  Fund  for  Ireland 
(2007-2010) - COM(2010) 12. 
Opinion  of  the  Polish  Senate  on  the  Commission  proposal  concerning  the  revision  of  the  Frontex 
Regulation - 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/poland/2010_en.htm. 
These include 4 opinions that arrived after the 8 weeks deadline or were not adopted by the respective 
chambers according to their internal rules. 
For a complete list see Commission Report on subsidiarity and proportionality – 18th report on Better 
Lawmaking covering the year 2010. 
Most  of  these  opinions  concerned  proposals  aimed  at  aligning  the  agricultural  acquis  to  Articles  290 
and 291 of the Lisbon Treaty. 
COM(2010) 379. 
The  two  Dutch  chambers  sent  a  joint  opinion,  which  makes  a  total  of  eight  opinions  from  nine 
chambers. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As to the content of opinions given in the context of the subsidiarity control mechanism, the 
34 reasoned opinions received during 2010 reflect, apart from very specific concerns, certain 
horizontal or institutional concerns. These relate on the one hand to the lack of or insufficient 
subsidiarity  justification  in  the  explanatory  memoranda  of  the  relevant  proposals11,  which 
some  national  Parliaments  see  as  a  formal  breach  of  the  subsidiarity  principle;  and  on  the 
other  hand  to  the  new  regime  of  delegated  acts.  On  this  matter,  the  national  Parliaments 
question  the  objectivity  of  criteria  underlying  the  choice  of  this  empowerment  to  the 
Commission.  They  consider  that  in  certain  cases  the  use  of  delegated  acts  would  transfer 
powers  to  the  Commission  which  according  to  them  should  be  kept  under  the  control  of 
Member  States.12  These  comments  have  been  reiterated  in  several  of  the  reasoned  opinions 
received during the first three months of 2011. 

While  some  national  Parliaments  would  rather  send  opinions  under  the  subsidiarity  control 
mechanism only in those limited cases where they see a breach of the subsidiarity principle 
(for example UK House  of  Commons and House of Lords, Swedish Riksdag, Polish  Senate 
and  Sejm,  and  French  Senate),  others  (for  example  the  Portuguese  and  the  Romanian 
Parliament  as  well  as  the  Italian  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies)  also  inform  the 
Commission about their positive opinions.  

Scope of the subsidiarity control mechanism 

During the first half of 2010, several exchanges, both written and oral, took place between the 
Commission  and  national  Parliaments  as  regards  the  scope  of  the  subsidiarity  control 
mechanism. In reply to specific questions raised by national Parliaments, the Commission was 
able to clarify that the new mechanism covers only draft legislative acts, i.e. proposals subject 
to either the ordinary or a special legislative procedure13, provided they do not fall within the 
Union’s exclusive competence14. This interpretation is shared by the European Parliament and 
the Council.  

However, the Commission, in its replies to national Parliaments, has made it very clear that in 
the context of the political dialogue it would, of course, also consider opinions on proposals 
which are not draft legislative acts, and would provide a political assessment and a reply to 
them also. 

Cooperation between the institutions 

As  regards  the  other  European  institutions,  close  contacts  and  exchanges  have  been 
established  with  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament,  who  have  both  set  up  their  own 
procedures  to  implement  the  subsidiarity  control  mechanism  and  to  deal  with  opinions 
received  from  national  Parliaments.  Although 
institutions  deal  relatively 
independently  with  the  new  mechanism  and  maintain  very  specific  relations  with  national 
Parliaments, it should be highlighted that in the revised Framework Agreement between the 

three 

the 

11 
12 

13 

14 

Protocol 2, Article 5. 
See  also  Commission  Report  on  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  –  18th  report  on  Better  Lawmaking 
covering the year 2010. 
Article  289  establishes  that  legislative  acts  are  legal  acts  adopted  by  legislative  procedure,  whereas  a 
legislative  procedure  may  be  an  ordinary  legislative  procedure  or  a  special  legislative  procedure. 
Therefore,  where  the  Treaty’s  legal  basis  makes  no  explicit  mention  of  one  of  the  legislative 
procedures, either ordinary or special, the act in question is formally speaking not a legislative act. 
Article 3 TFEU. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commission  and  the  European  Parliament  of  October  2010,  both  institutions  commit 
themselves to cooperating on the implementation of Protocol 2 to the Lisbon Treaty. 

Overlap between the subsidiarity control mechanism and the political dialogue 

Given  that  in  all  the  cases  mentioned  above  the  thresholds  indicated  in  Protocol  2  for 
triggering  the  so-called  'yellow  card'  or  'orange  card'  were  far  from  being  reached,  the 
Commission replied to each of the opinions, which raised subsidiarity concerns, individually, 
in  the  context  of  the  political  dialogue.  The  experience  gained  with  the  subsidiarity  control 
mechanism  during  its  first  year  of  implementation  shows  that  the  Treaty  requirements  for 
national  Parliaments  to  trigger  the  'yellow  card'  or  the  'orange  card'  are  quite  stringent,  and 
confirms what has already been observed during past years: a relatively small percentage of 
opinions  sent  to  the  Commission  raise  subsidiarity  issues,  with  the  national  Parliaments 
continuing above all to be interested in engaging into a dialogue with the Commission on the 
substance of its proposals and initiatives. 

This  clearly  shows  the  importance  and  added  value  of  continuing  the  political  dialogue, 
which, as long as the Protocol 2 thresholds are not reached and the formal Treaty mechanism 
for  reviewing  proposals  is  not  triggered,  represents  the  main  framework  for  the  exchanges 
between the Commission and national Parliaments. 

3. 

POLITICAL DIALOGUE 

3.1. 

Opinions from national Parliaments and Commission replies 

Participation 

The  Commission's  relations  with  national  Parliaments  continue  to  centre  on  the  political 
dialogue,  of  which  the  subsidiarity  control  mechanism  is  only  one  part.  Launched  by 
President Barroso in 2006, the process of written exchange of opinions and replies has been 
steadily  intensifying  over  the  years.  The  total  number  of  opinions  received  from  national 
Parliaments  in  2010,  including  opinions  sent  in  the  context  of  the  subsidiarity  control 
mechanism,  reached  387.  This  represents  an  increase  of  more  than  55%  compared  to  the 
previous  year.  This  clear  upward  trend  has  continued  into  2011,  with  over  250  opinions 
received by the end of May 2011. 

As  regards  the  degree  of  national  Parliaments'  participation  in  this  dialogue  during  201015, 
and compared to the situation before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, about one third 
of  the  chambers  participated  more  actively  in  exchanges  with  the  Commission,  including 
some chambers that had not participated at all during the previous year (for example the two 
Polish chambers, the UK House of Commons and the Finnish Parliament). It should be noted 
that opinions, in particular from the Italian Senate, but also the Italian Chamber of Deputies 
and the Austrian Nationalrat, have multiplied during 2010, which also saw the Romanian and 
the Spanish national Parliaments participating for the first time in the political dialogue. 

For  another  third  of  the  chambers,  the  level  of  participation  did  not  change  considerably  in 
2010,  while  the  remaining  third  participated  less  actively  than  before.  The  Commission 
continues to encourage those Parliaments which, for different reasons, have so far chosen not 

15 

See table in Annex 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  participate  very  actively  in  a  direct  exchange  with  the  Commission,  to  engage  in  this 
political dialogue, which serves to complement the scrutiny of their own governments with a 
new dimension of communication and debate at European level. 

Scope 

The  387  opinions  received  in  2010  related  to  over  170  different  Commission  documents, 
which  confirms  what  has  already  been  noted  in  previous  years,  namely  that  the  focus  of 
national Parliaments is broad. The majority of documents elicited between 1 and 3 opinions, 
with  only  25  proposals  or  initiatives  being  commented  on  by  more  than  four  chambers  and 
only 10 by six or more chambers16. 

In  the  context  of  the  political  dialogue,  the  most  commented  upon  in  2010  included  those, 
which also elicited the highest numbers of reasoned opinions in the context of the subsidiarity 
control  mechanism,  namely  the  seasonal  workers  directive17  and  the  directive  on  deposit 
guarantee schemes18. Other initiatives on which national Parliaments’ opinions focused were, 
for instance, the Citizens' Initiative19, the Green Paper on the European pensions system20 and 
Europe 202021. Economic governance was another key issue on which national Parliaments' 
opinions focused in 2010, and equally in early 201122. 

The policy fields which, in 2010, were subject to the majority of the opinions from national 
Parliaments  in  the  context  of  the  political  dialogue  were  Justice  and  Home  Affairs,  Internal 
Market and Services, and Agriculture23. A little less than 10% of the 387 opinions referred to 
documents covering programming, institutional issues or interinstitutional relations, with very 
few national Parliaments expressing their views on the Commission Work Programme. 

It should be  noted  that since the entry into force of the  Lisbon  Treaty, national Parliaments 
seem to pay more attention to legislative documents. The share of non-legislative documents 
(such  as  Communications,  Green  Papers  or  White  Papers)  has  dropped  to  less  than  a  third 
compared to a half in previous years. The Czech Senate, the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the 
German Bundesrat and Bundestag, the UK House of Lords as well as the Swedish and Danish 
Parliaments  however  still  comment  more  often  on  non-legislative  documents  than  on 
legislative  ones.  The  Commission  explicitly  invites  national  Parliaments  to  express  their 
views  also  on  pre-legislative  documents,  as  well  as  to  participate  actively  in  open 
consultations24,  as  it  sees  this  as  a  particularly  effective  way  for  national  Parliaments  to 
contribute constructively and positively to the shaping of future EU initiatives and legislation. 
The  Commission  reiterates  its  commitment  to  take  national  Parliaments’  contributions 
received during the pre-legislative phase into account. 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

See table in annex 2. 
COM(2010) 379. 
COM(2010) 368. 
COM(2009) 622 and COM(2010) 119. 
COM(2010) 365. 
COM(2009) 647 and COM(2010) 2020. 
COM (2010) 250, COM(2010) 367 and COM(2010) 522-527. 
See table in annex 3. 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  2010  the  Commission  continued  to  reply,  according  to  its  well-established  internal 
procedures25,  to  all  national  Parliament  opinions  raising  substantive  comments  or  questions. 
The  replies  are  signed  by  Vice-President  Šefčovič  within 
the  framework  of  his 
interinsitutional  responsibilities.  The  Commission  does  its  utmost  to  reply  within  a  self-
imposed time-limit of three months.  

The political dialogue on key topics: 

Bearing in mind that there are still very few Commission documents on which more than four 
or  five  chambers  have  commented  in  the  context  of  the  political  dialogue,  the  following 
overview  focuses  on  selected  key  initiatives  and  policies  which  particularly  caught  national 
Parliaments’ attention in 2010. 

• 

European Citizens Initiative 

National Parliaments overall expressed strong support for the initiative, both in their opinions 
on  the  Green  paper  and  on  the  legislative  proposal.  As  regards  the  minimum  number  of 
Member States from which signatories of a citizens' initiative must come, all chambers which 
provided  comments  via  the  political  dialogue,  stated  that  the  threshold  of  one  third  was  too 
high, and several of them wanted it to be lowered to one quarter, which was indeed the option 
retained  in  the  final  text.  Moreover,  according  to  a  majority  of  national  Parliaments 
commenting  on  this  initiative,  one  year  for  the  collection  of  signatures  was  sufficient,  with 
only two chambers arguing for 18 months. The final regulation does provide for a deadline of 
one year. A  clear majority of  national Parliaments which  sent opinions on  the  Green paper, 
also thought that a six-month time limit for the Commission to examine a citizens' initiative 
should be provided for, as it was then proposed by the Commission in its legislative proposal 
(including  two  months  for  the  Commission  to  decide  on  the  admissibility  of  the  initiative). 
The  time  limit  to  examine  a  citizens'  initiative  and  to  submit  a  communication  on  intended 
measures has been further reduced by one month in the final regulation. 

• 

Seasonal Workers 

This  is  the  proposal  on  which  the  Commission  has  received  the  highest  overall  number  of 
opinions  from  national  Parliaments.  Nine  chambers  claimed  a  breach  of  the  subsidiarity 
principle,  as  they  found  that  the  subject  matter  is  already  sufficiently  regulated  at  national 
level, that the EU cannot adequately address national specificities and that the proposal may 
not  achieve  the  goal  of  managing  migratory  flows,  given  that  the  Member  States  remain  in 
control  of  the  volumes  of  the  admitted  third-country  nationals26.At  the  same  time,  nine 
chambers  expressed  opinions  in  the  context  of  the  political  dialogue27,  raising  various  other 
comments  and  questions  on  the  substance  of  the  proposal.  These  concerned  mainly  the 
residence  permit  requirements.  One  chamber  called  for  further  legal  provisions,  including  a 
uniform description of the permit and a rule that it would apply only to one Member State. 
Another  chamber  called  for  disassociation  of  the  validity  of  the  residence  permit  from  the 
work  contract.  Some  chambers  questioned  the  need  for  issuing  a  multi-seasonal  permit.  In 

25 

26 

27 

See  Annual  Report  on  relations  between  the  Commission  and  national  Parliaments  of  2009 
(COM(2010) 291). 
See  also  Commission  Report  on  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  –  18th  report  on  Better  Lawmaking 
covering the year 2010. 
The  two  Spanish  chambers  sent  a  joint  opinion,  which  makes  a  total  of  eight  opinions  from  nine 
chambers. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
addition,  two  chambers  favoured  an  extension  of  the  permit  duration  from  6  months  to  a 
maximum  9  months,  while  one  chamber  expressed the view that the third-country  nationals 
should  have  the  right  to  work  in  other  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  the  seasonal  worker 
permit  issued  by  another  Member  State.  One  national  Parliament  highlighted  potential 
incompatibilities with its national labour legislation, employment services and social security 
systems. In the Council and the European Parliament so far only preliminary discussions have 
taken place, at working group and committee level respectively. These have reflected several 
of the issues raised by national Parliaments in their opinions, such as definitions, the duration 
of the permit or documents authorising the stay. Overall, it should be emphasised that some of 
the opinions received from national Parliaments on this proposal have served as an effective 
“early warning” for the Commission as regards issues likely to be raised in the course of the 
legislative process.  

• 

Green Paper on Pensions 

All  six  chambers  commenting  on  this  Green  Paper  pointed  out  that  they  had  exclusive 
competence  for  defining  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  social  security  system,  including 
basic principles of pension systems. Some of them also mentioned that in designing pension 
systems, financial and economic policy aims are not the only considerations to be taken into 
account. With one exception, all chambers rejected any attempt by the Commission to define 
standards  for  an  adequate  pension  in  Europe.  Four  chambers  mentioned  that  their  pension 
systems do not need further adjustments at this stage. One chamber explicitly recognised that 
the EU could have a role to play as far as sustainability is concerned, inviting the Commission 
to  consider  a  system  of  specific  cost  reporting  for  pension  reforms,  which  would  not  be 
included into the overall deficit of public budgets calculation in the Stability and Growth Pact. 
The  idea  of  an  automatic  adjustment  mechanism  related  to  pensionable  age  provoked 
reactions on both sides of the argument, with one Parliament in particular preferring to stress 
the  importance  of  improving  EU  rules  on  health  and  safety  at  work.  All  but  one  chamber 
agreed that ensuring the portability of pension entitlements as well as harmonising regulation 
of undertakings active in the pension market could be addressed at EU level. As a follow-up 
to the public consultation, the Commission has scheduled a White Paper on Pensions for the 
third quarter and a  review of the IORP  (Institutions  for Occupational Retirement Provision) 
Directive for  2012.  In this  context, it will take into account the contributions received from 
national Parliaments. 

• 

Delegated acts 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  in  its  opinions  on  those  proposals,  which  provide  for  delegated 
acts, one chamber systematically questions the fact that the delegated powers are conferred on 
the  Commission  for  an  undetermined  period.  In  its  view  this  is  not  in  line  with  Article  290 
TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Other national Parliaments share 
this  view  on  specific  legislative  files.  The  Commission  in  its  replies  has  stressed  that  the 
objectives of efficiency and speed, which justify the use of delegated acts in the first place, 
should  prevail  and  that  a  too  frequent  review  would  be  against  the  very  purpose  of  the 
delegation.  It  has  also  to  be  noted  that  the  Common  Understanding  agreed  by  the 
Commission, the Council and the European Parliament on delegated acts explicitly refers to 
the possibility to confer on the Commission delegated powers for an indeterminate period of 
time,  which  the  Commission  systematically  proposes  each  time  it  presents  draft  legislation 
containing delegated acts. However, during the legislative process the legislators sometimes 
chose to limit the duration of the delegation to five years with a tacit extension for the same 
period subject to the presentation of a report by the Commission.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Contacts and Visits 

As in previous years, a wide range of personal contacts and meetings, both at political and at 
services  level,  have  complemented  the  exchange  of  written  opinions  and  replies  between 
national  Parliaments  and  the  Commission.  From  the  beginning  of  the  term  of  office  of  the 
new  Commission  in  early  2009,  President  Barroso  and  Vice-President  Šefčovič  have 
encouraged  the  Commissioners  to  step  up  their  contacts  with  representatives  of  national 
Parliaments during their visits to Member States28 and a system has been set up internally to 
ensure  that  they  are  all  kept  informed  of  the  numerous  meetings  taking  place  between 
Commissioners and national Parliaments. 

It should be highlighted that since taking office, all the Commissioners have visited at least 
one  national  Parliament,  with  most  of  them  regularly  attending  meetings  of  the  different 
chambers.  When  he  became  Vice-President  for  interinstitutional  relations,  Mr  Šefčovič 
announced  his  intention  to  meet  all  national  Parliaments  at  least  once  during  his  term  of 
office. By the end of May 2011, he had already visited around half of them. 

The  Commission  was  represented  at  political  level  at  all  the  major  interparliamentary 
meetings held during 2010, including the meetings of the COSAC, the Speakers' Conference 
as  well  as  the  Joint  Parliamentary  Meetings.  As  regards  the  COFACC29,  the  High 
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/ Vice-President of the Commission is 
regularly  invited  to  participate  in  these  meetings.  Commission  services  have  also  continued 
their  practice  of  giving  evidence  before  national  Parliaments'  committees,  when  requested, 
and of regularly meeting with the Brussels-based representatives from national Parliaments to 
discuss a variety of upcoming initiatives or ongoing files. Vice-President Šefčovič met with 
this network of national Parliaments' representatives twice in 2010. 

Building on the already close and constructive contacts between the Commission and IPEX30, 
the  Commission  accepted  in  October  2010  a  formal  invitation  to  become  a  permanent 
observer on the IPEX Board and since then regularly participates in the meetings of this body. 

4. 

OUTLOOK 

The  role  of  national  Parliaments  on  the  European  inter-institutional  scene  is  growing.  2010 
has clearly shown that they are well prepared and ready to assume their new responsibilities. 
The  Commission  very  much  welcomes  this  development.  Not  only  does  it  ultimately 
strengthen  the  democratic  dimension  of  the  EU  but  it  also  supports  better  application  and 
effectiveness of EU law. Thus, the Commission is fully committed to deepening the political 
dialogue with national Parliaments, with due regard for the institutional balance at EU level. 

President Barroso and Vice-President Šefčovič have already made some concrete proposals in 
2010 as to topics which could be the subject of more regular and in-depth discussions between 
the  Commission  and  national  Parliaments  as  well  as  to  a  more  systematic  and  structured 
follow-up, pointing in particular to the issue of economic governance, including the European 
Semester and Europe 2020, but also to the Commission Work Programme. 

28 
29 
30 

PV (2010) 1920 final 
Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairs. 
Interparliamentary EU Information Exchange. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  regards  economic  governance,  the  Commission  welcomes  the  fact  that  the  Hungarian 
COSAC Presidency has agreed to focus discussions and deliberations during the first half of 
2011 on this topic and welcomes the 15th biannual report which was discussed at the COSAC 
plenary  meeting  in  Budapest  in  May.  The  Commission  expects  that  the  results  of  these 
discussions will pave the way for further optimising the cooperation between the Commission 
and national Parliaments, and in particular for strengthening the latter's role, in the context of 
the European Semester. 

The Commission is also encouraged by the interest shown by national Parliaments in the issue 
of  economic  governance  and  Europe  2020,  in  the  context  of  the  political  dialogue,  and  is 
convinced  that  their  role  is  essential  in  making  this  system  work.  National  Parliaments  can 
contribute  to  ensuring  that  national  measures  are  commensurate  and  consistent  with  the 
European  commitments,  and  allow  for  delivering  targets;  they  can  encourage  their  own 
governments to be as ambitious as possible in setting up the National Reform Programmes; 
and  they  could  use  these  programmes  later  on  to  monitor  progress  towards  the  targets,  thus 
using them as a real tool for democratic involvement. 

With regard to its Work Programme, the Commission wishes to reiterate its commitment to 
taking  into  consideration  national  Parliaments'  priorities  in  the  strategic  planning.  It  is 
convinced that national Parliaments should be heard not only downstream, but also upstream. 
Individual  opinions  or  collective  contributions  via  COSAC  should  be  submitted  in  time  to 
feed  into  the  preparations  of  the  Commission's  Work  Programme,  in  parallel  to  the 
Commission's dialogue with the other EU institutions. National Parliaments could thus help to 
build  a  real  consensus  on  where  the  EU  should  focus  its  policy  and  resources  for  the 
upcoming years.  

The Commission also continues to count on the support of national Parliaments as regards the 
transposition  of  EU  directives  into  national  law  and  in  this  regard  has  started  to  raise  their 
awareness  on  the  importance  of  a  proper  transposition  of  EU  law,  so  that  the  rights  and 
obligations set out in a directive can be enforced harmoniously across the EU.  

Finally,  discussions  and  contacts  between  the  Commission  and  national  Parliaments  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  as  regards  the  provisions  concerning  Europol  and 
Eurojust31 will certainly be intensified during 2011 and the following years. The Commission 
Communication  on  the  democratic  scrutiny  of  Europol  of  December  201032,  on  which 
national  Parliaments  started  to  comment  in  early  2011  and  which  was  also  the  subject  of 
discussions during the Speakers' Conference in April 2011, paves the way for the envisaged 
adoption  of  a  regulation  in  2013.  This  Communication  also  confirms  that,  in  the  meantime, 
the Commission intends to already enhance the information of national Parliaments as regards 
the evaluation of Europol. As regards Eurojust, the Commission is expecting, by the end of 
2011,  the  outcome  of  a  study  on  the  strengthening  of  Eurojust,  which  will  also  deal  with 
possible options for the involvement of the European Parliament and national Parliaments in 
the  evaluation  of  Eurojust's  activities.  The  Commission  will  consider  legislative  proposals 
after careful analysis of this study and will keep national Parliaments regularly informed and 
closely involved during this pre-legislative phase. 

31 
32 

Articles 88 and 85 TFEU. 
COM(2010) 776. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 1 

Overall number of opinions received per country/chamber 

National Parliament 

Chamber 

Total number 
of Opinions 
(political 
dialogue)  

Reasoned 
opinions33 
(subsidiarity 
control 
mechanism) 

Portugal 

Assembleia da Republica 

106 

Italy 

Senato della Repubblica 

Czech Republic 

Senát 

Italy 

Germany 

Sweden 

Austria 

Austria 

Camera dei Deputati 

Bundesrat 

Riksdagen 

Bundesrat 

Nationalrat 

United Kingdom 

House of Lords 

Denmark 

Romania 

Folketinget 

Senatul 

Luxembourg 

Chambre des Députés 

Germany 

Poland 

Greece 

Lithuania 

Spain 

Ireland 

Bundestag 

Senat 

Chamber of Deputies 

Seimas 

Congreso de los Diputados and 
Senado (both chambers) 

Oireachtas (both chambers) 

71 

29 

25 

23 

20 

13 

12 

12 

11 

9 

7 

6 

5 

4 

4 

4 

3 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

0 

3 

1 

4 

0 

2 

0 

0 

33 

These  include  four  opinions  that  arrived  after  the  8  weeks  deadline  or  were  not  adopted  by  the 
respective chambers according to their internal rules. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
National Parliament 

Chamber 

Czech Republic 

Poslanecká sněmovna 

France 

Sénat 

United Kingdom 

House of Commons 

The Netherlands 

Eerste Kamer Staten Generaal 

Poland 

Sejm 

The Netherlands 

Both Chambers 

Romania 

Both Chambers 

The Netherlands 

Tweede Kamer Staten Generaal 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Belgium 

Finland 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Estonia 

France 

Hungary 

Malta 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Slovenia 

Romania 

House of Representatives 

Saeima 

Chambre des Représentants 

Eduskunta 

Sénat 

Narodno Sabrania 

Riigikogu 

Assemblée Nationale 

Országgyűlés 

Kamra tad-Deputati 

Národná rada 

Državni svet  

Državni zbor 

Camera Deputaților 

Total number 
of Opinions 
(political 
dialogue)  

Reasoned 
opinions33 
(subsidiarity 
control 
mechanism) 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

3 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total 

387 

34 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 2 

Commission proposals and initiatives receiving the highest number of opinions 
in the context of the political dialogue (2010) 

Title  

Number of 
opinions  

Commission 
document 

COM(2010)379 

COM(2009)622 

COM(2010)119 

Proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  conditions  of  entry 
and  residence  of  third-country  nationals  for  the 
purposes of seasonal employment 

Citizens'  Initiative  (Green  Paper  and  Proposal  for  a 
Regulation) 

COM(2010)368  Proposal  for  a  Directive  on  deposit  guarantee 

schemes 

COM(2010)537  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  support  for  rural 
development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural Development (EAFRD) 

COM(2010)61 

COM(2010)539 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  a  European 
Agency 
the  Management  of  Operational 
Cooperation  at  the  External  Borders  of  the  Member 
States of the European Union (FRONTEX) 

for 

Proposal for a Regulation establishing common rules 
for  direct  support  schemes  for  farmers  under  the 
common  agricultural  policy  and  establishing  certain 
support schemes for farmers 

COM(2010)486 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  as  regards  distribution  of 
food  products  to  the  most  deprived  persons  in  the 
Union 

COM(2009)647 

COM(2010)2020 

Europe 
Communication)  

2020 

(Consultation 

document 

and 

COM(2010)365 

Green  paper  towards  adequate,  sustainable  and  safe 
European pension systems  

COM(2010)289  Proposal for a Regulation on credit rating agencies  

16 

13 

11 

8 

7 

7 

7 

7 

6 

6 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 3 

Number of opinions received per policy area in 2010 

 Policy area 

Total 

Justice and Home Affairs 
Institutional, legal and cross-cutting policies34 

Internal Market and Services 

Agriculture and Rural Development 

Economic and Financial Affairs 

Enterprise and Industry 

Information Society and Media 

Environment 

Health and Consumer Policy 

Mobility and Transport 

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities 

Eurostat 

Education and Culture 

Energy 

Development 

External Relations 

Budget 

Trade 

Competition 

Regional Policy 

Taxation and Customs Union 

Climate Action 

Research and Innovation 

Enlargement 

Total 

88 

53 

45 

30 

18 

16 

16 

14 

13 

13 

11 

10 

10 

9 

7 

7 

5 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

387 

34 

Including Citizens' Initiative and Europe 2020. 

EN 

14 

   EN