REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2012 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
Date: 2013-07-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, European Commission, institutional cooperation, national parliament, principle of subsidiarity













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0565 - EN











|



52013DC0565

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2012 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS /* COM/2013/0565 final */









ANNUAL REPORT 2012
ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
1.           Introduction
In 2012, as in the
previous two years, relations between the European Commission and national
Parliaments continued to develop along two tracks: on the one hand the Treaty-based
subsidiarity control mechanism, whereby national Parliaments scrutinise the
Commission by systematically checking the subsidiarity compliance of its newly
adopted legislative proposals, and on the other hand the political dialogue,
which encompasses exchanges of information and opinions on different policy
issues during both the legislative and the non-legislative phase and goes beyond
the question of subsidiarity.
This eighth annual
report on relations between the Commission and national Parliaments focuses on
the political dialogue. Specific aspects relating to the subsidiarity control
mechanism, including the first ‘yellow card’ triggered by national Parliaments
on the Commission proposal for a Regulation on the exercise of the right to
take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and
the freedom to provide services (Monti II), are dealt with in the 2012 Annual
Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, which is published in parallel and
should thus be seen as complementary to this report.
The first ‘yellow card’
certainly was a key feature in the Commission’s relations with national
Parliaments in 2012. However, the broader dialogue on the substance of the
Commission’s policies and proposals, going beyond the control of subsidiarity
compliance and giving national Parliaments the possibility to actively
participate in policy shaping at EU-level, also became a key feature of the EU
landscape, especially in the context of the deepening of the Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU). The dialogue intensified further, hence substantially enriching
the relations between the Commission and national Parliaments.
In 2012, the political
dialogue took the form of (i) general bilateral and multilateral debates and discussions,
often triggered by or held in the context of inter-parliamentary meetings (see chapter
2), (ii) exchange of written opinions from national Parliaments and Commission
replies (see chapter 3) and (iii) numerous other contacts and meetings throughout
the year (see chapter 4).
2.           Main challenges: Growth-friendly fiscal consolidation
and democratic legitimacy
In 2011, in addition to opinions
and exchanges on an array of legislative measures proposed in response to the
economic and financial crisis, national Parliaments were closely involved in
the debate concerning the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-20 in
general, and the sectoral proposals in particular. In 2012, in a context of
economic fragility, national Parliaments focused even more on the European
response to the crisis and backed up the Commission’s endeavours in that
respect.
The Conference of
Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC),
which includes representatives of the European Parliament, continued to be an
important forum for discussions with national Parliaments. The Danish COSAC
Presidency boosted parliamentary activity on the 12 key actions in the Single
Market Act and helped to raise awareness of the importance of the Digital
Agenda for Europe, implementation of the Services Directive and the Roadmap to
a Resource-Efficient Europe. The Cyprus COSAC Presidency maintained these
efforts by keeping Single Market governance and trans-European energy
infrastructure high on its agenda.
In the Annual Growth
Survey for 2013, published in November 2012,[1]
the Commission confirmed that the priorities were to continue with
differentiated, country-specific fiscal consolidation; to contain the
turbulence in the sovereign debt market so as to restore financial stability
and lending; to implement structural reforms, especially in the labour market,
which improve competitiveness and increase price flexibility; and to ensure
efficient public administration.
Throughout the year, the
Commission continued to encourage national Parliaments to get involved in the
European Semester so as to shape the debate on the main lines of EU policy, as
formulated in the Europe 2020 strategy. In reply to a call from the Copenhagen
COSAC in April 2012 to enhance the political dialogue during the European
Semester, the Commission committed itself to intensified dialogue with national
Parliaments at two times in particular:[2] first, early
in the year, following the publication of the Annual Growth Survey and secondly,
once the European Council has endorsed the country-specific recommendations.
This should help to raise awareness in national Parliaments and facilitate their
involvement in the early preparation of the national budget plans
(Stability/Convergence programmes) and National Reform Programmes. It should
also improve understanding of the reasoning behind the country-specific
recommendations, which ultimately rely on national policy-making for their
implementation.
At the same time, the
political dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments in 2012 was
conducted against the background of an emerging consensus across the EU that
Member States’ macro-economic and budgetary policies needed to be more closely
coordinated if the EMU was to remain functional, but also that any further deepening
of the EMU also had to provide for strong democratic control involving national
Parliaments and the European Parliament. Accordingly, in its Blueprint for a
deep and genuine EMU — Launching a European
Debate,[3] in which the
Commission set out its views on what needed to be done to further integrate
European banking, fiscal and economic policies, it also pointed out that
democratic accountability can be ensured only in a system with clear
responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. The Blueprint aimed to
launch a wider public and institutional debate on these issues, and the
Commission has stated repeatedly that it was looking forward to receiving
national Parliaments’ opinions and views.
The Commission emphasised
that, as a general rule, democratic accountability should be ensured at the
level at which the executive decision is taken, while taking due
account of the level at which the decision has an impact. A deeper
integration of policy-making and a greater pooling of competences at European
level should therefore be mirrored by increased involvement of the European
Parliament. New mechanisms to increase the level of cooperation between
national Parliaments and the European Parliament could also be explored, however,
as members of all Parliaments should be fully aware of the interdependencies of
their decisions. Parliaments’ roles at both levels are specific and
complementary. At both levels, their scrutiny powers must be strengthened and
inter-parliamentary cooperation could be deepened. It is for the European
Parliament and national Parliaments together to determine the precise form that
this should take.
Against this background,
the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the European Semester started to
emerge as a key feature of inter-parliamentary dialogue as such, and of national
Parliaments’ dialogue with the Commission. This included informal[4] and more
formal initiatives to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and inter-parliamentary
cooperation in the context of reinforced economic governance, be it generally
through the inter-parliamentary cooperation framed by Article 9 of Protocol 1
of the Treaties, or on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability,
Coordination and Governance (TSCG), as agreed at the European Council meeting
in March 2012 (conference of representatives of the relevant parliamentary
committees) (see also chapter 5).
3.           Written opinions from national Parliaments
Participation and scope
The total
number of opinions received from national Parliaments in 2012 rose to 663;[5] this represented
an increase of 7 % as compared with 2011 (622), a much smaller increase
than in previous years (55 % in 2010, 60 % in 2011).
When looking at the most
active chambers[6], the number
of opinions received from the Portuguese Assembleia da República increased
significantly (from 184 to 227) and accounted for more than 30 % of all
opinions addressed to the Commission in 2012. However, the Italian Senato
della Repubblica (increase from 76 submissions to 96), the German Bundesrat
(from 33 to 59), the French Sénat (from 4 to 19), the
Austrian Bundesrat (from 3 to 12), the Polish Senat (from 4 to
11), the Czech Poslanecká snĕmovna (from 5 to 10), the Irish Houses
of the Oireachtas (from 1 to 7) and the two Spanish chambers, the Congreso
de los Diputados and the Senado, jointly (from 2 to 7) also intensified
their participation in political dialogue with the Commission.
On the other hand, there
was a clear decrease in the number of submissions from a number of chambers, i.e. the
Romanian Camera Deputaţilor (from 40 to 26), the Italian Camera
dei Deputati (from 28 to 15), the Bulgarian Narodno Sabranie (from
19 to 13), the Danish Folketing (from 14 to 8), Luxembourg’s Chambre
des Députés (from 14 to 6) and the Romanian Senat (from 33 to 2).
Overall, 15 chambers
intensified their activities in the context of the political dialogue during
2012, 15 were less active and seven sent exactly the same number of opinions as
in 2011. It is worth noting that the Swedish Riksdag, while almost
doubling the number of reasoned opinions (from 11 to 20), sent 60 % fewer opinions
relating to the content of Commission proposals and initiatives.
The ten most active chambers
in the political dialogue account for more than 80 % of the total number
of opinions received. Six chambers sent no opinions to the Commission and five sent
only one.
In 2012, the 663
opinions sent by national Parliaments related to no fewer than 354 different
(legislative and non-legislative) Commission documents[7]. The 23
Commission documents eliciting most comment, i.e. five or more opinions, accounted
for only 25 % of all the opinions received. The great majority of
Commission documents on which national Parliaments commented elicited one to three
opinions, which reflects the diverse range of topics that attract national
Parliaments’ attention and interest.
The ‘yellow card’
procedure,[8]
an important development in relations between the Commission and national
Parliaments, was triggered for the first time by certain national Parliaments expressing
subsidiarity concerns on the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the
exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the
freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II).[9] This issue is
dealt with in detail in the 2012 Annual Report on Subsidiarity and
Proportionality to which reference is made.
The Commission proposals
and initiatives which provoked most opinions from national Parliaments were the
Monti II Regulation[10]
(17 opinions), the Data Protection Directive[11]
(13), the Data Protection Regulation[12]
(12), the Concession Awards Directive[13]
(11), the Copyright and Licensing Directive[14]
(10), the Roadworthiness Regulation[15],
the Trans-European Transport Network Guidelines[16] (9), the Fund
for European Aid to the Most Deprived[17]
(8), the Directive on Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions[18] (8), the
Regulation on Supervision of Credit Institutions[19] (8), the Electronic
Identification and Trust Services Regulation[20]
(7), the Roadworthiness Directive[21]
(6), the Transparency Directives[22]
(6), the Directive on Medicinal Products subject to Medical Prescription[23] (6), the
Regulation on Medicinal Products subject to Medical Prescription[24] (6)  and the
cohesion policy legislative package 2014-2020[25]
(5).
As in 2011, among the
proposals which attracted most opinions overall from national Parliaments[26] were also
those which elicited the highest number of reasoned opinions under the
subsidiarity control mechanism. In 2012, six policy areas (five in 2011)
accounted for more than half of the opinions received in the context of the
political dialogue (334): internal market and services, justice, home affairs, mobility
and transport, employment and health. In view of the focus of opinions in
previous years, internal market and services, justice, and home affairs seem to
present perennial and key areas of interest for national Parliaments.
2012 saw a continuation
of the trend, which started after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty,
whereby national Parliaments are focusing their political dialogue with the
Commission more and more on legislative, rather than non-legislative, documents.
In fact, only a negligible proportion of the documents on which national
Parliaments’ opinions focused were non-legislative. Among the 23 proposals eliciting
the most opinions (i.e. five or more) from national Parliaments, only one, the
Commission’s Communication on the Energy Roadmap 2050, was
non-legislative. Bucking this trend, however the Swedish Riksdag’s 13
political opinions concerned exclusively non-legislative documents, while the
20 opinions issued on legislative documents were all reasoned opinions.
Key topics in the political
dialogue[27]
The following
initiatives and proposals were among those which attracted particular attention
from national Parliaments in 2012:
·         
Proposal
for a Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement on such data. [28]
Of the eight Commission
proposals that gave rise to three reasoned opinions, the proposal for a
regulation on data protection was the one criticised on the grounds both of
subsidiarity and of proportionality. [29]
·         
Proposal
for a Directive on collective management of copyright and related rights and
multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the
internal market[30]
The Commission received
ten opinions, in general evaluating its proposal positively. However, these included
three reasoned opinions challenging the proposal's compliance with the
principles of subsidiarity and another opinion which raised serious
subsidiarity concerns but was received after the deadline of eight weeks.
·         
Proposal
for a Directive on the award of concession contracts[31]
Of the 11 opinions
received by the Commission, three were reasoned opinions expressing concerns in
relation to the principle of subsidiarity and one questioned the proposal’s compliance
with subsidiarity but was received after the eight-week deadline.
·         
Proposal
for a Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European
transport network[32]
The Commission received
nine opinions on this proposal, including one questioning the latter’s
compliance with the subsidiarity principle but sent after the deadline.
4.           Contacts and Visits
The political dialogue
between the Commission and national Parliaments also took the form of meetings
and contacts at political and administrative level.
All national Parliaments
have meetings on an ongoing basis with members of the Commission, in Brussels and in the respective Member States. The Vice-President for Inter-Institutional Relations,
Maroš
Šefčovič, visited six national Parliaments in 2012 and received a
large number of parliamentary delegations at Commission headquarters in Brussels. Among discussions on specific legislative proposals and policy initiatives,
issues relating to the new economic governance structure, democratic legitimacy
and the European response to the crisis, in all its different aspects, often featured
prominently on the agenda.
The Commission was
represented at political level at all major inter-parliamentary meetings held
during 2012. In particular, President Barroso took part in the COSAC plenary
meeting in Copenhagen in April 2012, along with Vice-President Kroes and Commissioners
Potočnik and Barnier, while the other three COSAC meetings saw the
participation of Vice-President Šefčovič, Commissioners Hedegaard and
Oettinger, and the Deputy Director-General of DG MARKT.
The High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission,
Baroness Ashton, attended the first meeting of the newly established Inter-Parliamentary
Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security
and Defence Policy, as agreed at the Speakers’ Conference on 21-22 April 2012 in
  Warsaw.
Commission officials participated
in meetings of national Parliaments’ committees when requested and ten
different DGs (MARKT, SG, JUST, RTD, JRC, ECFIN, ENTR, COMM, HOME and REGIO) attended
17 meetings with national Parliaments’ Brussels-based permanent representatives
to discuss a variety of upcoming initiatives or ongoing files. Permanent
representatives of national Parliaments met once with Vice-President
Šefčovič and once with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, as well as with
members of President Barroso’s, Vice-President Šefčovič’s and
Commissioners Malmström and Andor’s cabinets.
5.           Outlook
The beginning of 2013
saw several key events at which national Parliaments and the European
Parliament repeatedly expressed their wish for greater involvement in the
deepened EMU and the European Semester. This clearly confirmed that the debate
on democratic legitimacy will stay high on the agenda for inter-institutional
dialogue this year, including the dialogue between the Commission and national
Parliaments. Discussions on democratic legitimacy and accountability are likely
even to intensify in the coming months.
The need to reinforce
the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the European Semester process
and Parliaments’ ownership of it was also one of the key horizontal messages at
the COSAC chairpersons’ meeting of 27-28 January 2013 in Dublin and during the
first European Parliamentary Week on the European Semester for Economic Policy
Coordination, which took place on 28-30 January 2013 in Brussels and was
attended by President Barroso and Vice-President Šefčovič. This
meeting also confirmed a broad awareness of the urgency of tackling the social,
political and institutional implications of the crisis.
At an informal meeting
in Luxembourg on 11 January 2013, the speakers of the national Parliaments of
the founding EU Member States and the European Parliament underlined that any
new steps towards strengthening the EMU will need to be accompanied by further
concrete measures towards stronger legitimacy and accountability, by enhancing
the role of Parliaments in this context.[33]

The Commission will
therefore focus on effective implementation of the strengthened political
dialogue it has offered national Parliaments at two crucial points in the
European Semester process and strongly encourages national Parliaments to take the
opportunity to enter into enhanced discussion with it on the priorities
identified in the Annual Growth Survey and on the most efficient way for
national policy-making to implement the country-specific recommendations.
This is especially
important as the European Semester is becoming a crucial tool in supporting and
accompanying structural reforms in Member States. For instance, the Commission
has introduced the EU Justice Scoreboard into the European Semester.
The Commission has also noted
with great interest, and fully supports, the suggestion made during the first
European Parliamentary Week that national Parliaments should organise a regular
‘Europe Day’ to raise awareness of European affairs. Along with the existing
political dialogue between national Parliaments and the Commission, such an
initiative could become a catalyst for ongoing efforts to strengthen national
Parliaments’ ‘ownership’ for policy shaping at EU level in general and greater
involvement in the institutions’ joint efforts to ensure that structural
reforms are kept up and that the reform process is pursued. They should thus be
able to contribute to solving the problems at the origin of the crisis and help
to put Europe back on a path of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Annex 1
Overall number of
opinions received per national Parliament/chamber (political dialogue and subsidiarity
control mechanism) in 2012
 Member State || Chamber || Total numbers of opinions[34] || Reasoned opinions (Protocol 2) 
 Portugal || Assembleia da República || 227 || 1 
 Italy || Senato della Repubblica || 96 || 1 
 Germany || Bundesrat || 59 || 5 
 Czech Republic || Senát || 46 || 0 
 Sweden || Riksdag || 33 || 20 
 Romania || Camera Deputaţilor || 26 || 0 
 France || Sénat || 19 || 7 
 United Kingdom || House of Lords || 16 || 1 
 Italy || Camera dei Deputati || 15 || 0 
 Bulgaria || Narodno Sabranie || 13 || 0 
 Austria || Bundesrat || 12 || 3 
 Poland || Senat || 11 || 1 
 Czech Republic || Poslanecká sněmovna || 10 || 0 
 Belgium || Chambre des Représentants || 9 || 3 
 Denmark || Folketing || 8 || 3 
 Ireland || Oireachtas || 7 || 0 
 Spain || Congreso de los Diputados and Senado || 7 || 2 
 The Netherlands || Eerste Kamer || 7 || 2 
 Greece || Vouli ton Ellinon || 6 || 0 
 Luxembourg || Chambre des Députés || 6 || 3 
 United Kingdom || House of Commons || 6 || 3 
 Austria || Nationalrat || 3 || 1 
 Poland || Sejm || 3 || 3 
 The Netherlands || Tweede Kamer || 3 || 3 
 Cyprus || Vouli ton Antiprosopon || 2 || 1 
 Estonia || Riigikogu || 2 || 0 
 Germany || Bundestag || 2 || 1 
 Malta || Kamra tad-Deputati || 2 || 1 
 Romania || Senatul || 2 || 0 
 Finland || Eduskunta || 1 || 1 
 Latvia || Saeima || 1 || 1 
 Lithuania || Seimas || 1 || 1 
 Slovakia || Národná Rada || 1 || 1 
 The Netherlands || Tweede Kamer and Eerste Kamer || 1 || 1 
 Belgium || Sénat || 0 || 0 
 France || Assemblée Nationale || 0 || 0 
 Hungary || Országgyűlés || 0 || 0 
 Ireland || Dail Eireann || 0 || 0 
 Slovenia || Državni svet || 0 || 0 
 Slovenia || Državni zbor || 0 || 0 
   || Total || 663 || 70 
Annex 2
Commission proposals and
initiatives generating the highest number of opinions in the context of the
political dialogue in 2012[35]
 Commission document || Title || Total numbers of opinions || Reasoned opinions (Protocol 2) 
 COM(2012) 130 || Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II) || 17 || 12 
 COM(2012) 10 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data || 13 || 3 
 COM(2012) 11 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) || 12 || 4 
 COM(2011) 897 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the award of concession contracts || 11 || 3 
 COM(2012) 372 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market || 10 || 3 
 COM(2012) 380 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC || 9 || 5 
 COM(2011) 650 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network || 9 || 1 
 COM(2012) 617 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived || 8 || 5 
 COM(2012) 280 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directives 77/91/EEC and 82/891/EC, Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC and 2011/35/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 || 8 || 1 
 COM(2012) 511 || Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions || 8 || 1 
 COM(2012) 238 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market || 7 ||   
 COM(2012) 382 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC ||   6 || 3 
 COM(2012) 84 || Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of public health insurance systems || 6 || 2 
 COM(2012) 49 || Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards information to the general public on medicinal products for human use subject to medical prescription || 6 || 2 
 COM(2012) 48 || Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription amending, as regards information to the general public on medicinal products subject to medical prescription, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use || 6 || 2 
 COM(2012) 512 || Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No…/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions || 6 ||   
Annex 3
Number of opinions received per policy area/ Commission service in 2012

 Internal Market and Services || 112 
 Justice || 52 
 Mobility and Transport || 45 
 Home Affairs || 43 
 Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion || 42 
 Health and Consumers || 40 
 Environment || 28 
 Secretariat-General || 28 
 Communication Networks, Content and Technology || 27 
 Agriculture and Rural Development || 25 
 Enterprise and Industry || 25 
 Education and Culture || 22 
 Trade || 22 
 Energy || 19 
 Taxation and Customs Union || 18 
 Economic and Financial Affairs || 17 
 Climate Action || 14 
 Maritime Affairs & Fisheries || 12 
 Research and innovation || 12 
 EuropeAid Development & Cooperation || 11 
 Humanitarian Aid/Civil protection || 9 
 Regional Policy || 9 
 Eurostat || 8 
 Budget || 7 
 Legal Service || 4 
 Competition || 3 
 Enlargement || 3 
 European Anti-Fraud Office || 3 
 Communication || 2 
 External Action Service || 1 
  Total || 663 
[1] COM(2012) 750.
[2] Commission reply to the
Contribution of the XLVII COSAC: http://www.cosac.eu/denmark2012/plenary-meeting-of-the-xlvii-cosac-22-24-april-2012/.
[3] COM(2012) 777 final/2.
[4] In a letter to the President
of the European Council dated 7 December 2012, the chairs of the European
affairs committees of 11 national Parliaments expressed their concern at the ‘worrying
lack of proposals as to how the role of national Parliaments can be
strengthened more concretely’. This was by way of follow-up to a gathering in Copenhagen on 26 November 2012, where discussion centred on how more integrated financial,
budgetary and economic union could be accompanied by strong mechanisms for
democratic legitimacy and accountability.
[5] These include the 70 reasoned
opinions received under the subsidiarity control mechanism.
[6] See Annex 1.
[7] Of the 663 opinions received,
509 concerned legislative documents (draft regulations, directives,
recommendations, decisions etc.) whereas 147 related to consultation documents
(communications, white or green papers or reports). 7 opinions were
own-initiative reports from national Parliaments.
[8] cf. Article 7(2) of Protocol
No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
[9] COM(2012) 131.
[10] COM(2012) 130.
[11] COM(2012) 10.
[12] COM(2012) 11.
[13] COM(2011) 897.
[14] COM(2012)
372.
[15] COM(2012) 380.
[16] COM(2011) 650.
[17] COM(2012) 617.
[18] COM(2012) 280.
[19] COM(2012) 511.
[20] COM(2012) 238.
[21] COM(2012) 382.
[22] COM(2012) 84.
[23] COM(2012) 49.
[24] COM(2012) 48.
[25] COM(2011)
610, COM( 2011) 611, COM(2011) 612, COM(2011) 614 and COM(2011) 615. It should be noted that15
additional opinions received had been received by the end of 2011, making a
total of 20 opinions.
[26] See Annex 2.
[27] Opinions
from national Parliaments and the Commission’s replies can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/relations/relations_other/npo/index_en.htm.
[28] COM(2012) 11.
[29] For more details on the
opinions issued by national Parliaments on this proposal, reference is made to
the Annual Report 2012 on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (COM(2013) 566),
page 8.
[30] COM(2012) 372.
[31] COM(2011) 897.
[32] COM(2011) 650.
[33]
They suggested
that the ‘Article 13 Conference’ provided for by the TSCG should be comparable
in terms of structure and composition to the newly established
Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the CFSP/CSDP. It was suggested that these
issues be further discussed at the EU Parliaments’ Speakers Conference in April
2013 in Cyprus.
[34] The number includes both
opinions and reasoned opinions received from national Parliaments.
[35] The
table ranks all proposals which have elicited at least six opinions from
national Parliaments.