REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE WORKING OF COMMITTEES DURING 2011
Date: 2012-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, EU statistics, comitology, committee (EU), operation of the Institutions, power of implementation













EUR-Lex - 52012DC0685 - EN











|



52012DC0685

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE WORKING OF COMMITTEES DURING 2011 /* COM/2012/0685 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
ON THE WORKING OF COMMITTEES DURING 2011
In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control
by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers[1] (the ‘Comitology Regulation’), the Commission hereby presents the
annual report on the working of committees for 2011.
This report contains an overview of
developments in the comitology system in 2011 and a summary of the committees’
activities. It is accompanied by a staff working document containing detailed
statistics on the work of the individual committees.
1.           Overview of developments
in the comitology system in 2011
The Comitology Regulation was adopted
by the European Parliament and the Council on 16 February 2011 and entered into
force on 1 March 2011. It repealed the Comitology Decision of 1999[2] and replaced the procedures set out in that Decision by just two procedures
(advisory and examination procedures).
1.1.        New
comitology procedures
Under Article 2 of the Comitology
Regulation, the examination procedure is used in particular for (i) measures of
general scope and (ii) measures with a potentially major impact (e.g. in
taxation or EU agricultural policy), whereas the advisory procedure is
generally used for all other implementing measures.
1.1.1      Examination procedure
(Article 5 of the Comitology Regulation)
Where the basic act refers to the
examination procedure, the committee delivers its opinion on a draft
implementing act by qualified majority:
·                        
Where there is a qualified majority in favour of
the draft implementing act (positive opinion), the Commission adopts it.
·                        
Where there is a qualified majority against the
draft implementing act (negative opinion), the Commission cannot adopt it[3]. In such cases, the Commission can:          
(1) withdraw the draft implementing
act altogether, if it is not deemed necessary;
(2) if it is deemed necessary, amend
the draft implementing act and submit the revised version to the (same)
committee within two months of the delivery of the negative opinion; or,   
(3) if it is deemed necessary, refer
the same draft to the appeal committee (see below) within one month of the delivery
of the negative opinion.
·                        
Where there is no qualified majority for or against
the draft implementing act (‘no opinion’), the Commission can choose to adopt
the draft implementing act, withdraw the draft implementing act, or amend it
and go back to the (same) committee. However, there are certain cases in which
the Commission cannot adopt the draft implementing act[4],
namely:
(1)          where it concerns any of the
following sensitive areas: taxation, financial services, the protection of the
health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or definitive multilateral
safeguard measures; or,
(2)          where the basic legal act
provides that the draft implementing act may not be adopted if no opinion is
delivered; or,
(3)          where a simple majority of the
component members of the committee opposes it.
In those three cases, the Commission has
the same options as under a negative opinion.
1.1.2      Advisory procedure (Article
4 of the Comitology Regulation)
Under the advisory procedure, the committee
delivers its opinion on a draft implementing act, if necessary, by taking a
vote by a simple majority of its component members. The opinion of the
committee under the advisory procedure is not legally binding, but the
Commission must take the utmost account of the conclusions drawn from the
discussions within the committee and of the opinion delivered, before it decides
on the draft implementing act.
1.1.3      Immediately applicable
implementing acts (‘urgency procedure’)
The Comitology Regulation allows a basic
act to give the Commission the option of adopting immediately applicable
implementing acts on imperative grounds of urgency. This ‘urgency procedure’ is
not a separate comitology procedure, but rather a ‘variant’ of the examination
or advisory procedure.
Under the urgency procedure, the Commission
may, without first consulting a committee, adopt an implementing act that
applies immediately and remains in force for a period which will not usually exceed
six months. Only after adoption (at the latest 14 days after adoption), will the
Commission submit the adopted act to the relevant committee in order to obtain
its opinion in accordance with the relevant comitology procedure (advisory or
examination procedure). Where the examination procedure applies, the Commission
must immediately repeal the implementing act concerned if the committee
delivers a negative opinion.
1.2         References to former
comitology procedures
In order to ensure a smooth transition
between the regime provided for in the Comitology Decision and the new
comitology regime, the Comitology Regulation provides for automatic adaptation of
the old procedures to the new procedures (Article 13). In consequence, all
references to the procedures provided for in the Comitology Decision (advisory,
management, regulatory and safeguard) are to be understood as references to the
corresponding procedures of the Regulation (as of 1 March 2011, the former
advisory procedure became the new advisory procedure, the former management and
regulatory procedures became the examination procedure and the former safeguard
procedure became the urgency procedure).
The only exception is the regulatory procedure
with scrutiny. This procedure continues to apply provisionally (in line with
Article 5a of the Comitology Decision) in the basic acts which make reference
to it, until those acts are formally amended and adapted to the Lisbon Treaty.
Since 1 March 2011, therefore,
the comitology committees have been operating under the procedures set out in
the Comitology Regulation: advisory (Article 4 of the Comitology
Regulation) and examination (Article 5 of the Comitology Regulation), as well as
under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny set out in Article 5a of the ‘old’ Comitology Decision).
1.3         Role of the appeal
committee
As part of the examination procedure, the
control mechanism established by the Comitology Regulation includes the possibility
of referral to an appeal committee. The appeal committee is also a comitology
committee, i.e. it is made up of the representatives of the Member States, is
chaired by the Commission and applies the same voting rules (qualified
majority). Unlike the other comitology committees, however, it is not a
permanent body; it is actually a procedural tool, which gives the Member States
the opportunity of a second discussion at a higher level of representation. The
consequences of voting in the appeal committee are as follows:            
(1) if a positive opinion is given, the
Commission adopts the implementing act;       
(2) if no opinion is given, the Commission
may adopt the act[5];         
(3) if a negative opinion is given, the
Commission cannot adopt the act.
1.4         Role of the Parliament and
the Council
Both legislators must be properly and
continuously informed of committee proceedings through the Comitology Register,
which has been adapted to the new procedures. Article 10 of the Comitology
Regulation specifies which documents must be sent to the EP and Council at the
same time as they are sent to the committee members.
The Parliament and Council also have a
right of scrutiny over draft implementing acts based on acts adopted under
co-decision. This means that, at any stage of the procedure, they can indicate
to the Commission that the draft exceeds the implementing powers provided for
in the basic act. In such a case, the Commission has to review the draft and
inform the Parliament and the Council whether it intends to maintain, amend or
withdraw it (Article 11 of the Comitology Regulation). 
1.5         New Standard Rules of
Procedure for committees
The Comitology Regulation provides for the
adoption by the Commission of standard procedural rules (Article 9). The
Commission adopted new Standard Rules of Procedure for comitology committees on
8 July 2011[6]. On this basis, committees are to adopt their individual rules of
procedure, by a simple majority of their members, on a proposal from the chair
of the committee. Where necessary, existing committees must adapt their rules
of procedure to the new standard rules.
2.           Overview of activities
2.1         Number of committees and meetings
It is important to distinguish between the
comitology committees, on the one hand, and other entities, in particular ‘expert
groups’ created by the Commission itself, on the other. The latter provide
expertise to the Commission in preparing and implementing policy[7], whereas comitology committees assist the Commission in the
exercise of the implementing powers that have been conferred upon it by basic
legal acts. This report focuses exclusively on comitology committees. The number
of comitology committees on 31 December 2011 was calculated by sector of
activity (see Table I). The figures for the previous year (on 31 December
2010) are also given for the purposes of comparison.
TABLE I — Total number of committees
(2011)
 Policy sector || 2010 || 2011 
 Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) || 14 || 14 
 Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) || 1 || 1 
 Budget (BUDG) || 2 || 2 
 Climate Action (CLIMA) || 4 || 4 
 Communication (COMM) || 1 || 1 
 Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid (DEVCO) || 6 || 6 
 Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN) || 1 || 1 
 Education and Culture (EAC) || 7 || 7 
 Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL) || 4 || 4 
 Energy (ENER) || 14 || 15 
 Enlargement (ELARG) || 4 || 4 
 Enterprise and Industry (ENTR || 30 || 31 
 Environment (ENV) || 32 || 30 
 Foreign Policy Instruments Service (FPI) || 4 || 4 
 Health and Consumer (SANCO) || 22 || 24 
 Home Affairs (HOME) || 10 || 11 
 Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) || 2 || 2 
 Informatics (DIGIT) || 1 || 1 
 Information Society and Media (INFSO) || 6 || 7 
 Internal Market (MARKT) || 13 || 13 
 Justice (JUST) || 13 || 13 
 Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE) || 4 || 5 
 Mobility and Transport (MOVE) || 29 || 29 
 Regional Policy (REGIO) || 1 || 1 
 Research (RTD) || 6 || 6 
 Secretariat-General (SG) || 0 || 2* 
 Statistics (ESTAT) || 8 || 8 
 Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD) || 10 || 11 
 Trade (TRADE) || 10 || 11 
 TOTAL: || 259 || 268 
* Including the appeal committee (for
the needs of the Comitology Register, the appeal committee is registered as a
committee under the responsibility of SG; in practice, it is managed by all
services concerned).
In 2011, the comitology committees could
generally be broken down according to the type of procedure under which they
operated (advisory procedure, examination procedure, regulatory procedure with
scrutiny — see Table II). Because certain committees applied multiple
procedures, they have been separated from committees operating under a single
procedure.
TABLE
II — Number of committees by procedure (2011)
   || Type of procedure ||   
 Advisory || Examination || Regulatory with scrutiny || Operates under several procedures || TOTAL: 
 AGRI ||   || 11 ||   || 3 || 14 
 BUDG || 1 || 1 ||   ||   || 2 
 CLIMA ||   ||   ||   || 4 || 4 
 COMM ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 1 
 DEVCO ||   || 5 ||   || 1 || 6 
 DIGIT ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 1 
 EAC || 1 || 2 ||   || 4 || 7 
 ECFIN || 1 ||   ||   ||   || 1 
 ECHO ||   || 1 ||   || 1 || 2 
 ELARG || 1 || 3 ||   ||   || 4 
 EMPL || 1 ||   || 2 || 1 || 4 
 ENER || 1 || 8 || 1 || 5 || 14 
 ENTR || 7 || 4 || 5 || 15 || 31 
 ENV ||   || 5 || 4 || 21 || 30 
 ESTAT ||   || 2 ||   || 6 || 8 
 FPI ||   || 4 ||   ||   || 4 
 HOME || 1 || 4 ||   || 6 || 11 
 INFSO ||   || 3 ||   || 4 || 7 
 JUST || 2 || 1 || 4 || 6 || 13 
 MARE ||   || 5 ||   ||   || 5 
 MARKT ||   || 1 || 4 || 8 || 13 
 MOVE || 3 || 4 || 4 || 18 || 29 
 OLAF ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 1 
 REGIO ||   ||   ||   || 1 || 1 
 RTD ||   || 5 ||   || 1 || 6 
 SANCO || 1 || 10 || 1 || 12 || 24 
 SG ||   || 2 ||   ||   || 2* 
 TAXUD || 1 || 9 ||   || 1 || 11 
 TRADE || 2 || 6 ||   || 3 || 11 
 TOTAL: || 23 || 99 || 25 || 121 || 268 
* Including the appeal committee.
The figures
indicate that around 37 % of the committees (99 out of 268) worked
exclusively under the examination procedure, while only about 8 % of the
committees (23 out of 268) worked exclusively under the advisory procedure.
However, most committees (121 out of 268 or 45 %) operated under several
procedures. The breakdown by policy sector shows that use of different types of
procedures varies from one policy sector to another.
The number
of committees is not the only indicator of activity at comitology level. The number
of meetings held, as well as the number of written procedures[8] used in 2011 also reflects the intensity of work in general, at
sector level and also in individual committees (Table III).
TABLE III — Number of meetings and
writen procedures (2011)
   || Number of committees || Meetings || Written procedures 
 2010 || 2011 || 2010 || 2011 
 AGRI || 14 || 148 || 142 || 1 || 3 
 BUDG || 2 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 0 
 CLIMA || 4 || 15 || 14 || 3 || 0 
 COMM || 1 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 4 
 DEVCO || 6 || 28 || 17 || 44 || 55 
 DIGIT || 1 || 1 || 2 || 0 || 0 
 EAC || 7 || 17 || 18 || 50 || 52 
 ECFIN || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ECHO || 2 || 5 || 5 || 29 || 12 
 ELARG || 4 || 5 || 8 || 15 || 12 
 EMPL || 4 || 4 || 3 || 10 || 9 
 ENER || 14 || 19 || 13 || 3 || 2 
 ENTR || 31 || 56 || 56 || 35 || 32 
 ENV || 30 || 48 || 41 || 18 || 16 
 ESTAT || 8 || 16 || 14 || 8 || 6 
 FPI || 4 || 5 || 4 || 2 || 3 
 HOME || 11 || 23 || 24 || 23 || 27 
 INFSO || 7 || 24 || 20 || 13 || 20 
 JUST || 13 || 6 || 6 || 16 || 15 
 MARE || 5 || 11 || 9 || 6 || 11 
 MARKT || 13 || 34 || 18 || 14 || 12 
 MOVE || 30 || 60 || 53 || 13 || 12 
 OLAF || 1 || 2 || 3 || 1 || 1 
 REGIO || 1 || 9 || 5 || 0 || 5 
 RTD || 6 || 60 || 61 || 174 || 201 
 SANCO || 24 || 131 || 146 || 278 || 314 
 SG || 2 || - || 6* || - || 1 
 TAXUD || 11 || 107 || 81 || 0 || 7 
 TRADE || 11 || 18 || 15 || 7 || 6 
 TOTAL: || 268 || 859 || 783 || 766 || 838 
* Including 5
meetings of the appeal committee.
2.2         Number
of opinions and implementing acts/ measures
As with previous reports, this report provides
overall figures on the formal opinions delivered by the committees and
the subsequent implementing acts/measures adopted by the
Commission[9]. These figures quantify the tangible ‘output’ of the committees
(see Table IV). A total of 1 868 opinions were delivered by
the committees in 2011 (compared with 1 904 in 2010); a total of 1 788
implementing acts/measures were adopted by the Commission (compared with 1 812
in 2010).
TABLE IV — Number of opinions and
implementing acts/measures adopted (2011)
   || Opinions || Acts adopted || Measures adopted according to RPS 
 AGRI || 271 || 271 || 1 
 BUDG || 1 || 1 || 0 
 CLIMA || 10 || 6 || 10 
 COMM || 6 || 5 || 0 
 DEVCO || 128 || 128 || 0 
 DIGIT || 1 || 1 || 0 
 EAC || 100 || 85 || 0 
 ECFIN || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ECHO || 15 || 16 || 0 
 ELARG || 58 || 58 || 0 
 EMPL || 11 || 3 || 0 
 ENER || 15 || 7 || 5 
 ENTR || 59 || 34 || 25 
 ENV || 55 || 14 || 35 
 ESTAT || 11 || 7 || 12 
 FPI || 2 || 1 || 0 
 HOME || 33 || 15 || 1 
 INFSO || 41 || 40 || 1 
 JUST || 14 || 4 || 0 
 MARE || 23 || 22 || 0 
 MARKT || 13 || 3 || 3 
 MOVE || 65 || 49 || 24 
 OLAF || 0 || 0 || 0 
 REGIO || 6 || 6 || 0 
 RTD || 206 || 200 || 0 
 SANCO || 625 || 574 || 46 
 SG || 9* || 1 || 0 
 TAXUD || 84 || 69 || 0 
 TRADE || 6 || 5 || 0 
 TOTAL: || 1 868 || 1 625 || 163 
* Including 8
opinions delivered by the appeal committee.
2.3         Meetings
of the appeal committee
On 29 March 2011, the appeal committee met
for the first time in order to adopt its Rules of Procedure[10] in line with Article
3(7) of the Comitology Regulation. The appeal committee met four more times during
2011, and discussed eight draft implementing acts altogether (in the area of
Health and Consumers (SANCO)) which were referred by the Commission. In two
cases, the appeal committee delivered a positive opinion, in five cases no opinion,
and in one case a negative opinion. In the five cases in which no opinion was
delivered, the Commission decided to adopt the implementing acts.
2.4         Use
of the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny (RPS)
As mentioned
under 1.2, the RPS procedure has not been affected by the comitology reform of
2011. This procedure can no longer be used in new legislation, but it still
appears in several existing basic acts and will continue to apply under those
acts until they are formally amended.
The number of
implementing measures adopted according to RPS in 2011 stands at 163 (see Table
IV).
In 2011, the right of veto was used in two
cases:
–     
In May 2011 the Council opposed the adoption of
a draft Commission Directive amending Directive 98/79/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. The draft
measure was consequently not adopted. A revised measure was adopted by the
Commission on 20 December 2011 (OJ L 341/50 of 22.12.2011). 
–     
In October 2011 the Council opposed the adoption
of a draft Commission Directive amending Directive 2009/43/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of defence-related products.
The draft measure was consequently not adopted. A revised measure was adopted
by the Commission on 22 March 2012 (OJ L 85, 24.3.2012, p. 3).
In 2010, by comparison, the European
Parliament made use of the right of veto on draft measures in one case and the
Council in two cases.
TABLE V — Number of implementing
measures adopted according to the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny (RPS) (2011)
   || Measures adopted according to RPS || EP opposed adoption of draft measures under RPS || Council opposed adoption of draft measures under RPS 
 AGRI || 1 || 0 || 0 
 BUDG || 0 || 0 || 0 
 CLIMA || 10 || 0 || 0 
 COMM || 0 || 0 || 0 
 DEVCO || 0 || 0 || 0 
 DIGIT || 0 || 0 || 0 
 EAC || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ECFIN || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ECHO || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ELARG || 0 || 0 || 0 
 EMPL || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ENER || 5 || 0 || 0 
 ENTR || 25 || 0 || 1 
 ENV || 35 || 0 || 0 
 ESTAT || 12 || 0 || 0 
 FPI || 0 || 0 || 0 
 HOME || 1 || 0 || 0 
 INFSO || 1 || 0 || 0 
 JUST || 0 || 0 || 0 
 MARE || 0 || 0 || 0 
 MARKT || 3 || 0 || 0 
 MOVE || 24 || 0 || 0 
 OLAF || 0 || 0 || 0 
 REGIO || 0 || 0 || 0 
 RTD || 0 || 0 || 0 
 SANCO || 46 || 0 || 1 
 SG || 0 || 0 || 0 
 TAXUD || 0 || 0 || 0 
 TRADE || 0 || 0 || 0 
 TOTAL: || 163 || 0 || 2 
3.           Detailed information on
the activities of the Committees
The working document accompanying this report provides detailed
information about the work of the individual committees in 2011, broken down on
the basis of the different Commission departments concerned.
[1]               OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
[2]               Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 (OJ L
184, 17.7.1999, p. 23), as amended by Council Decision 2006/512/EC (OJ C 255,
21.10.2006, p. 4).
[3]               Except in very exceptional cases set out in Article 7
of the Comitology Regulation.
[4]               But see footnote no. 3.
[5]               With the exception of definitive multilateral
safeguard measures (Article 6(4) of the Comitology Regulation).
[6]               OJ C 206, 12.7.2011, p. 11.
[7]               See for more details:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/faq.cfm?aide=2.
[8]               The committee voting can take place in a regular
committee meeting or, in duly justified cases, by written procedure, in
accordance with Article 3(5) of the Comitology Regulation.
[9]               It is to be noted that there can be discrepancies
between the number of opinions and the number of implementing acts/measures in
any given year. The reasons for these are explained in the introduction to the
accompanying staff working document.
[10]             OJ C 183, 24.6.2011, p. 13.