REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2013 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
Date: 2014-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, European Commission, exchange of information, interinstitutional relations, legislative procedure, national parliament, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0507 - EN











|



52014DC0507

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2013 ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS /* COM/2014/0507 final */









1.           Introduction
In 2013, relations between the European
Commission and national Parliaments continued to evolve through two channels:
on the one hand, through the subsidiarity control mechanism, introduced by the
Lisbon Treaty to assess whether new Commission legislative proposals (which do
not fall into areas of exclusive EU competence) comply with the subsidiarity
principle; and on the other hand, through the political dialogue that the
Commission launched in 2006 to improve the exchange of information and opinions
on policy issues, both on legislative proposals and non-legislative
initiatives. Furthermore, many meetings and discussions took place, reflecting
the richness of the wider exchange between the Commission and national Parliaments.
This ninth 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 second ‘yellow card’ that was triggered by a number of national Parliaments
for the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of
the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO),[1]
are dealt with in the 2013 Annual Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality
which is published in parallel to this report and which should be seen as
complementary to it.
This second ‘yellow card’ was a clear
expression of the willingness of national Parliaments to make their voices
heard in their relations with the Commission on a particular piece of
legislation. More broadly, the wider political dialogue on the Commission’s
proposals and initiatives continued to allow national Parliaments to play a
constructive role in shaping policy at EU level, especially in the context of
the deepening Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and implementing the European
Semester recommendations.
As in previous years, the political
dialogue in 2013 mainly took place through: 
i)      
general bilateral and multilateral debates and
discussions, often during inter-parliamentary meetings (section 2); 
ii)    
the exchange of written opinions from national Parliaments
and Commission replies (section 3); and 
iii)    contacts and meetings throughout the year (section 4). 
This report closes with a succinct look
ahead to the future of relations between the Commission and national
Parliaments (section 5).
2.           The wider context: main
meetings and challenges
In 2012, against a background of continuing
economic fragility, national Parliaments focused their attention on the
European response to the crisis, including the Europe 2020 Strategy and the
2014-20 multi-annual financial framework. In 2013, while national Parliaments’
opinions continued to focus on justice and home affairs, the internal market
and issues concerning European Monetary Union, some more specific issues also featured
on the political agenda, such as the Tobacco Directive[2] and the Financial
Transactions Tax Directive.[3]

The Conference of Parliamentary Committees
for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) continued to be
a key forum for discussions with national Parliaments.
The COSAC chairpersons met in Dublin in January 2013. At that meeting, discussions on the Irish Presidency’s priorities
showed that the future of the EMU and the related issues of democratic
legitimacy and accountability will remain on the political agenda for quite
some time, with national Parliaments urging that their increasingly important
role be taken into account.
The 49th COSAC Plenary was held in Dublin, and was largely devoted to the European Year of Citizens. It therefore focused on
issues concerning future European integration and the future of young citizens
in Europe. The 50th COSAC Plenary, in Vilnius,
continued the discussion on democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU
and on the role of national Parliaments. At this plenary, COSAC’s founding
father, French Foreign Minister Laurent FABIUS, gave a speech on the creation
of COSAC. In this speech, he emphasised that the reasons for COSAC’s creation continued
to be valid, and he called for greater policy coordination and improved collaboration
between representatives of national institutions. Commission Vice-President
ŠEFČOVIČ gave a keynote address on implementing the Europe 2020
Strategy, setting out the processes involved and highlighting the remaining challenges,
particularly with regard to unemployment, innovation, climate and energy. Two
debates were held on democratic legitimacy and the role of national Parliaments,
highlighting the apparent disconnect between the EU and its citizens and the
importance of national Parliaments using the tools at their disposal to address
this.
Throughout 2013, the issue of democratic
legitimacy in general, as well as more specifically with regard to the European
Semester, remained a key feature of inter-parliamentary discussions and of the dialogue
between the Commission and national Parliaments. This included informal and
more formal initiatives to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and
inter-parliamentary cooperation in the context of reinforced economic
governance, whether in the general context of inter-parliamentary cooperation (set
out in Article 9 of Protocol No 1 of the Treaties), or on the basis of Article
13 of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, agreed at the
European Council meeting in March 2012 (see also section 5, below).
The wider discussion on democratic
legitimacy also increased awareness across the EU that stronger coordination
between Member States’ macro-economic and budgetary policies was needed, if the
EMU is to remain functional. However, any further deepening of the EMU also needs
to provide for strong democratic control, including from national Parliaments
and the European Parliament.
One of the key developments in relation to
new economic governance involving the national Parliaments was the first ‘European
Parliamentary Week’, involving around 100 members from 26 national
Parliaments, organised at the initiative of the European Parliament in January
2013. Sessions were organised by the Budget, Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee and the Employment committee of the European Parliament. Debates mainly
focused on institutional questions such as democratic legitimacy, but also covered
concrete policy issues relating to the European Semester and the 2014-20 multi-annual
financial framework, such as austerity versus growth, youth employment and the
social impact of economic adjustment.
Even though this European Parliamentary Week
did not aim at concrete conclusions, it reinforced consensus on the need to
strengthen improve the European Semester’s democratic legitimacy by increasing
national Parliaments’ ownership of the process and their early involvement in
this. This could be achieved by involving their respective governments in the
phase that precedes the presentation of the national reform programmes. The
Speaker of the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas suggested regularly
organising specific debates on European issues (‘European Days’), which would
take place on the same day in all national Parliaments; this suggestion was met
with interest.
The new economic governance involving
national Parliaments in the European Semester process, was also tangibly
expressed in the ‘two-pack’ legislation[4].
This provides for economic dialogue between the euro area Member States,
supported by Commission opinions on their respective draft budgetary plans and
an overall assessment of the budgetary situation and prospects in the euro area
as a whole. As part of this, euro area Member States submitted their draft budgetary
plans to the Commission for the first time in autumn 2013, and the Commission
adopted opinions on these plans on 15 November 2013. These provided national
stakeholders (including national Parliaments) with an independent perspective on
Member States’ plans.
3.           Written opinions from
national Parliaments
The total
number of opinions received from national Parliaments has increased
significantly in recent years but appears to have stabilised at just over 600
per year, of which approximately 14 % were reasoned opinions (see Annex
1). Following changes to its internal procedures, the Commission now usually replies
to these opinions within a self-imposed time limit of three months.
The political dialogue with national
Parliaments has proved to be a success, with a clear added value. If national Parliaments
submit their opinions at an early stage, these can serve as an early warning
system, providing the Commission with an outline of the main arguments on the
substance of the Commission’s proposals. The Commission can then conduct
negotiations with the Council and the European Parliament in full knowledge of
the views expressed by national Parliaments. The Commission attaches great
importance to the political dialogue and especially invites national Parliaments
to respond to public consultations, green papers and communications during the
pre-legislative phase. Since December 2013, national Parliaments have been
specifically made aware of all Commission public consultations.
Participation and scope
The following figures only reflect national
Parliaments’ activity in terms of their participation in the political dialogue
in the strict sense, i.e. by way of submitting written opinions to the
Commission. As noted throughout this report and particularly in section 4, a
national Parliament’s activity on EU affairs cannot only be measured on the
basis of the written political dialogue contributions, as national Parliaments
are likely to have other scrutiny activities. Furthermore, national Parliaments
do not submit comments on all proposals or other Commission documents, but make
a selection according to their priorities.
In total, 621[5] opinions were received
from national Parliaments in 2013, which represented a decrease of around 6 %
compared to 2012 (663). There had been a small increase between 2011 and 2012,
and a very significant increase in 2011, compared to 2010 (7 % in 2012,
but 60 % in 2011).
The following
overall trends can be noted:
·                   
as part of the written political dialogue, 16 chambers
sent more opinions in 2013 than in 2012, 18 chambers sent fewer opinions than
in 2012, and 2 sent the same number of opinions as in 2012;
·                   
the political dialogue activity is unequally
distributed between chambers of national Parliaments (almost 80 % of the
total number of opinions came from the ten most active chambers);
·                   
national Parliaments continue to focus their
political dialogue with the Commission on legislative documents, with only a
limited share of their opinions received relate to other types of initiatives.
In 2013, the 15 Commission proposals that attracted
the most national Parliament opinions accounted for 144 (23%) of the total of 621
opinions. As in 2012, however, the great majority of the Commission documents
on which national Parliaments commented during 2013 elicited between one and
three opinions, reflecting the diverse areas of interest to national
Parliaments.
The Commission proposals and initiatives
which elicited most opinions from national Parliaments were the establishment
of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office[6]
(20 opinions), the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and
sale of tobacco and related products[7]
(17 opinions), establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and
integrated coastal management[8]
(14 opinions), establishing a framework on market access to port services and
financial transparency of ports[9]
(10 opinions), and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA[10] (10 opinions); for
further details, see Annex 2.
As in 2012, some of the proposals which
attracted the largest total number of opinions from national Parliaments also
elicited the highest number of reasoned opinions under the subsidiarity control
mechanism. In 2013, as in 2012, six policy fields accounted for more than half
of the opinions received in the context of the political dialogue (323 out of
596 in 2013). These were justice, the internal single market and services, mobility
and transport, home affairs, health and consumers and communications (for
further detail, see Annex 3).
In 2012, national Parliaments increasingly
focused their political dialogue with the Commission on legislative proposals,
with only a small proportion of their opinions being submitted on non-legislative
initiatives. In 2013, this trend continued. Among the
15 Commission documents which generated the highest number of opinions (i.e.
six or more) from national Parliaments, only two were non-legislative.[11] However, similarly to
2012, all but one of the 15 political opinions from the Swedish Riksdag were
on non-legislative documents, although that chamber also sent the highest
number of reasoned opinions.
Key topics of the political dialogue
The following legislative proposals were
among those which attracted particular attention from national Parliaments in
2013 (for further details, see Annex 2). As the proposals were also among those
that elicited most reasoned opinions, reference should also be made to the
parallel Annual Report 2013 on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, where a more
detailed description in provided.
·        
Proposal for a Council Regulation on the
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)[12]
Currently, the Union has virtually no power to intervene in cases of criminal misuse affecting its funds.
The figures of detection, investigation and successful prosecution concerning
offences against the EU budget vary considerably from one Member State to another (between 19% and 90%). The European Public Prosecutor’s
Office would address the fragmentation of prosecutions
due to the national character of justice systems and also the problem that
fighting European fraud is not always a high priority at national level. The
Lisbon Treaty (Article 86 TFEU)[13]
provides a specific legal basis for the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Commission
received 20 opinions in 2013 on this proposal, of which 13 were reasoned
opinions[14].
Since the number of votes associated with these reasoned opinions passed the
threshold of 14 that applies to justice and home affairs proposals, the yellow
card procedure was triggered.
·        
Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture,
presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (Tobacco Products Directive)[15]
The revised proposal for the
Tobacco Products Directive provided new and strengthened rules on how tobacco
products can be manufactured and presented for sale in the EU. More
specifically, it proposed to ban the use of cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco
and smokeless tobacco products with characterising flavours and it would make it
mandatory to use large pictorial health warnings on cigarettes and roll-your-own
tobacco. It further proposed to regulate cross-border internet sales and provided
for technical features to combat illicit trade. It also proposed measures
relating to products that had not been specifically regulated to date, such as
e-cigarettes and herbal products for smoking. The proposal[16] responded to requests from the European
Parliament and the Council of Ministers and reflects the
Commission’s own 2005 and 2007 reports on the application of the Tobacco
Products Directive (Directive 2001/37/EC).
On this proposal, the Commission
received 17 opinions, of which seven were reasoned opinions challenging the
proposal’s compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Whilst this proposal
attracted significant interest from the national Parliaments, the standard
threshold for a yellow card procedure (19 votes) was not reached.
·        
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial
planning and integrated coastal management[17]
The uncoordinated use of coastal
and maritime areas currently results in competition for maritime and coastal
space, and inefficient use of marine and coastal resources. On-going uncertainty
and unpredictable access to the maritime space have created a suboptimal
business climate for investors. As a result of rapidly increasing demand for
maritime space for new activities, such as renewable energy and aquaculture
installations, the EU needs to ensure that activities at sea are coherently
planned. Coordination between Member States at this stage is not sufficiently
advanced, and the current inconsistencies between existing systems prevent
efficient cross-border planning.
On this proposal, the Commission received
14 opinions, of which nine were reasoned opinions challenging the proposal’s
compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. 
4.           Contacts and visits
In addition to exchanging written opinions from
national Parliaments and replies from the Commission, the political dialogue
also took place less formally, through meetings and contacts at both political
and administrative levels. These include the following:
Most national Parliaments have meetings
with members of the Commission on a regular basis, both in Brussels and in the
respective Member States. 
The Vice-President for inter-institutional
relations, Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, made eight visits to national Parliaments
in 2013 (the German Bundestag, the French Sénat, the Croatian Hrvatski
sabor, the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas; the Lithuanian Seimas
and the Slovak Národná Rada). In the same year, he received a large number
of visitors/delegations from national Parliaments at the Commission’s headquarters
in Brussels (the Czech Senát, the Danish Folketing, the French Sénat,
the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas, the Italian Senato della
Repubblica, the Maltese Kamra tad-Deputati, the Polish Sejm, and
the Romanian Camera Deputaților). In addition to discussions on
specific legislative proposals and policy initiatives, these meetings covered
issues relating to cooperation between the Commission and national Parliaments
as well as issues regarding the evolving economic governance, and democratic
legitimacy. 
The Commission was also represented at
political level at most inter-parliamentary meetings in 2013.
Presidents BARROSO (next to Presidents VAN
ROMPUY and SCHULZ), Vice-Presidents REHN and ŠEFČOVIČ and Commissioners
LEWANDOWSKI and ANDOR took part in the first European Parliamentary Week in
January 2013.
Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ attended
the COSAC Plenary meeting in Vilnius in October 2013 and the COSAC Chairpersons’
meeting in Dublin in January 2013.
Vice-President REHN attended a discussion with
the Budgetary Committee of the Finnish Eduskunta, to present and discuss
the Commission assessment of the Finnish draft budgetary plan for 2014.
The High Representative for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Baroness ASHTON, attended
two meetings of the inter-parliamentary conference for the Common Foreign and
Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, which aims to
encourage inter-parliamentary cooperation in this field. The first of these
meetings was held in Dublin in April 2013, and the second was held in Vilnius in September 2013.
Members of the office of Commissioner
ŠEMETA and staff from DG BUDG met with a delegation from the Public Accounts
Committee of the Danish Folketing in Brussels and with the Dutch
Parliament in the Hague on the discharge 2012.
Further to Croatia's accession to the EU on
1 July 2013, Commissioner MIMICA presented the Commission Work Programme 2014
to the Croatian Hrvatski sabor. 
Commission officials also attended meetings
with national Parliament committees, when requested, and various Commission
services (particularly DGs CLIMA, ECFIN, ENER, ENV, HOME, JUST, MARE, MARKT,
OLAF, REGIO, SANCO) attended the regular meetings of the permanent representatives
of national Parliaments based in Brussels, to discuss a variety of upcoming
initiatives or ongoing issues.
In 2013, as in 2012, permanent
representatives of national Parliaments also met with Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ as well as with staff in
the offices of President BARROSO, Vice-President ŠEFČOVIČ and other members
of the Commission.
5.           Conclusions and outlook
The significant volume of written political
dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments continued in 2013,
with a total of around 600 opinions being issued by national Parliaments. While
nearly all chambers made at least one contribution, the ten most active
chambers accounted for almost 80% of all opinions received. The Commission
documents that elicited the most opinions were also those on which national Parliaments
submitted the highest number of reasoned opinions. In addition to the written
dialogue, the Commission continued to have frequent contacts and meetings with
national Parliaments, at both political and official levels, in Brussels and in Member States.
At the beginning of 2014, national
Parliaments and the European Parliament confirmed their intention to be further
involved in EU-level activities, such as the European Semester. Democratic
legitimacy will remain a key subject for discussion between the EU institutions
and national Parliaments for some time to come.
In the January 2014 COSAC Plenary meeting,
the role of national Parliaments and democratic legitimacy and accountability were
once again the recurring topics. New specific ideas and proposals on the role
and rights of national Parliaments were presented by the Dutch Tweede Kamer
and the Danish Folketing.
In April 2014,
the European Parliament Committee for Constitutional Affair adopted a report by
Carlo CASINI (EPP/IT) on national Parliaments. The report, inter alia,
recommends that national Parliaments ‘take steps to improve guidance and
scrutiny procedures, with a view to achieving greater consistency’. It also highlights
the early warning mechanism as one of the tools to ensure effective cooperation
between European and national institutions and welcomes the fact that the
mechanism is also used as a channel for consultation and cooperative dialogue
between the various institutions in the EU’s multilevel governance system.
The second European
Parliamentary Week, held in January 2014, again demonstrated that the European
Parliament and national Parliaments have shared interests. The inter-parliamentary
conference section of the programme featured four plenary debates on
macroeconomic imbalances, the democratic legitimacy of economic adjustment
programmes, promoting growth and jobs and enhancing fiscal surveillance in the
EMU.
Annex 1
Number
of opinions received by the Commission in 2013 per national Parliament/chamber
(political dialogue and subsidiarity control mechanism)
 Member State || Chamber || Total number of opinions[18] || Number of those which were reasoned opinions (Protocol No 2)[19] 
 Portugal || Assembleia da República || 192 || 1 
 Czech Republic || Senát || 64 || 2 
 Germany || Bundesrat || 40 || 3 
 France || Assemblée nationale || 40[20] || 1 
 Romania || Camera Deputaților || 38 || 2 
 Italy || Senato della Republica || 36 || 2 
 Romania || Senatul || 26 || 3 
 Sweden || Riksdag || 24 || 9 
 United Kingdom || House of Lords || 18 || 3 
 Spain || Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both chambers) || 17[21] || 5[22] 
 Ireland || Houses of the Oireachtas (both chambers) || 12[23] || 3[24] 
 The Netherlands || Eerste Kamer || 10 || 3 
 Austria || Bundesrat || 9 || 6 
 Czech Republic || Poslanecká sněmovna || 8 || 2 
 France || Sénat || 8 || 4 
 Poland || Senat || 8 || 2 
 Malta || Kamra tad-Deputati || 7 || 5 
 The Netherlands || Tweede Kamer || 7 || 5 
 Italy || Camera dei Deputati || 6 || 0 
 Lithuania || Seimas || 6 || 6 
 Poland || Sejm || 6 || 2 
 Luxembourg || Chambre des Députés || 5 || 2 
 Slovenia || Državni zbor || 5 || 1 
 United Kingdom || House of Commons || 5 || 5 
 Denmark || Folketing || 4 || 1 
 Greece || Vouli ton Ellinon || 4 || 3 
 Belgium || Chambre des Représentants || 3 || 1 
 Austria || Nationalrat || 2 || 0 
 Estonia || Riigikogu || 2 || 1 
 Finland || Eduskunta || 2 || 1 
 Hungary || Országgyűlés || 2 || 1 
 Belgium || Sénat || 1 || 1 
 Bulgaria || Narodno Sabranie || 1 || 0 
 Cyprus || Vouli ton Antiprosopon || 1 || 1 
 Latvia || Saeima || 1 || 1 
 Slovakia || Národná Rada || 1 || 0 
 Croatia (since 01/07/2013) || Hrvatski sabor || 0 || 0 
 Germany || Bundestag || 0 || 0 
 Slovenia || Državni svet || 0 || 0 
 TOTAL || 621 || 88 
Annex 2
Commission
documents generating the highest number of opinions[25]
received by the Commission in 2013 (political dialogue and subsidiarity control
mechanism)
   || Commission document || Title || Total number of opinions[26] || Number of those which were reasoned opinions (Protocol 2)[27] 
 1 || COM(2013) 534 || Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office || 20[28] || 13[29] 
 2 || COM(2012) 788 || Proposal for a Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products || 17 || 7 
 3 || COM(2013) 133 || Proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management || 14[30] || 9[31] 
 4 || COM(2013) 173[32] || Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA || 10[33] || 3[34] 
 5 || COM(2013) 296 || Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports || 10[35] || 7[36] 
 6 || COM(2013) 28[37] || Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail || 9 || 6 
 7 || COM(2013) 147 || Proposal for a Regulation on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks || 9 || 2 
 8 || COM(2012) 614[38] || Proposal for a Directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures || 8 || 5 
 9 || COM(2013) 627 || Proposal for a Regulation laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 || 8 || 4 
 10 || COM(2013) 71 || Proposal for a Directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax || 8 || 1 
 11 || COM(2012) 777 || Communication on A blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union — Launching a European Debate || 6 || 0 
 12 || COM(2013) 166[39] || Communication on Towards a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union — Ex ante coordination of plans for major economic policy reforms || 6 || 0 
 13 || COM(2013) 228 || Proposal for a Regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 || 6 || 1 
 14 || COM(2013) 48[40] || Proposal for a Directive concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union || 6 || 1 
 15 || COM(2013) 535 || Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) || 6 || 1 
Annex 3
Number
of opinions received by the Commission in 2013 per lead Commission service
(political dialogue and subsidiarity control mechanism)
 Lead Commission Service || Total number of opinions[41] 
 DG Internal Market and Service || 68 
 DG Justice || 67 
 DG Mobility and Transport || 61 
 DG Home Affairs || 52 
 DG Health and Consumers || 43 
 DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology || 38 
 DG Secretariat-General || 32 
 DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion || 25 
 DG Climate Action || 24 
 DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries || 24 
 DG Environment || 23 
 DG Taxation and Customs Union || 21 
 DG Enterprise and Industry || 18 
 DG Energy || 18 
 DG Economic and Financial Affairs || 16 
 DG Eurostat || 12 
 DG Regional Policy || 11 
 DG Research and Innovation || 11 
 DG Agriculture and Rural Development || 8 
 DG Competition || 8 
 DG Education and Culture || 7 
 DG Enlargement || 7 
 DG Trade || 7 
 DG EuropeAid Development & Cooperation || 5 
 DG BUDG || 4 
 European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) || 4 
 European External Action Service || 3 
 DG Communication || 1 
 DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection || 1 
 DG Human Resources and Security || 1 
 Legal Service || 1 
 TOTAL || 621 
[1]     COM(2013) 534.
[2]     COM(2012) 788.
[3]     COM(2013) 71.
[4]     Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary
plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in
the euro area and Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of
Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious
difficulties with respect to their financial stability.
[5]     Including the 88 reasoned opinions received under the
subsidiarity control mechanism.
[6]     COM(2013) 534.
[7]     COM(2012) 788.
[8]     COM(2013) 133.
[9]     COM(2013) 296.
[10]    COM(2013) 173.
[11] The Communication from the Commission on a
blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union — launching a
European debate (COM(2012) 777) and the Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament and the Council: Towards a Deep and Genuine Economic
and Monetary Union — Ex ante coordination of plans for major economic
policy reforms (COM(2013)166).
[12]    COM(2013) 534.
[13]    Under the EU Treaties, Denmark will not be participating in the EPPO
and the United Kingdom and Ireland have decided not to opt-in.
[14]    Additional opinions were submitted in 2014.
[15]    COM(2012) 788.
[16]    The Directive was adopted in April 2014 and entered into force
in May 2014 as Directive 2014/40/EU.
[17]    COM(2013) 133.
[18]    Including both opinions and reasoned opinions received from
national Parliaments.
[19]    To qualify as a reasoned opinion according to the definition in
Protocol No 2, an opinion must clearly state a breach of subsidiarity and be
sent to the Commission within eight weeks of the transmission of the proposal
to national Parliaments.
[20]    Of which 25 were sent without the Assemblée nationale
wanting a reply.
[21]    Counted as 17 opinions from two chambers.
[22]    Counted as five reasoned opinions from two chambers.
[23]    Counted as 12 opinions from two chambers.
[24]    Counted as three reasoned opinions from two chambers.
[25] The table ranks all Commission documents which were concerned by at
least six opinions from national Parliaments.
[26]    Including both opinions and reasoned opinions received from
national Parliaments.
[27]    To qualify as a reasoned opinion according to the definition in
Protocol No 2, an opinion must clearly state a breach of subsidiarity and be sent
to the Commission within eight weeks of the transmission of the proposal to
national Parliaments.
[28]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one opinion from two chambers.
[29]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
According to Protocol No 2, in the case of a draft legislative act submitted on
the basis of Article 76 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
on the area of freedom, security and justice, where reasoned opinions represent
at least one quarter of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments —
two votes or, in the case of a bicameral Parliamentary system, one vote for
each of the two chambers — the yellow card threshold is reached, i.e. the draft
must be reviewed. The 13 reasoned opinions concerning COM(2013) 534 represent
18 votes thus reaching the yellow card threshold of, with the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013, 14 out of 56 votes.
[30]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one opinion from two chambers.
[31]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[32]    One of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from
the IT Camera dei Deputati, jointly concerned COM(2013) 172 as well.
[33]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one opinion from two chambers.
[34]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[35]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one opinion from two chambers.
[36]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[37]    One of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from
the CZ Senát, jointly concerned COM(2013) 25, COM(2013) 26, COM(2013)
27, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 as well. One of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from
the PT Assembleia da República, jointly concerned COM(2013) 26,
COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 as well. Three of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document,
from the NL Eerste Kamer,
the NL Tweede Kamer, and the LU Chambre des Députés, jointly
concerned COM(2013) 29 as well. One of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document, from
the SE Riksdag, jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 as
well.
[38] Two of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document,
from the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna and the UK House of Lords, jointly
concerned COM(2012) 615 as well.
[39] Four of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the CZ Senát, the CZ Poslanecká
sněmovna, the IT Camera dei Deputati, and the PT Assembleia da República, jointly concerned COM(2013) 165
as well.
[40] Two of the opinions concerning this Commission document, from the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna and
the CZ Senát, jointly
concerned JOIN(2013) 1 as well.
[41]    Including both opinions and reasoned opinions received from
national Parliaments.