REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2013 ON SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
Date: 2014-08-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: interinstitutional relations (EU), legislative procedure, national parliament, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0506 - EN











|



52014DC0506

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2013 ON SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY /* COM/2014/0506 final */









1.           Introduction
This is the 21st annual report on the
application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in EU
lawmaking, presented in accordance with Article 9 of the Protocol No 2 on
the application of these principles (hereinafter ‘the Protocol’) attached to
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The report looks at how the EU institutions
and bodies have implemented these two principles and how practice has evolved as
compared with previous years. It also provides a more detailed analysis of a
number of Commission proposals that were the subject of reasoned opinions
submitted by national Parliaments in 2013. Given the close links between the
subsidiarity control mechanism and the political dialogue between national Parliaments
and the Commission, this report should be seen as complementary to the
Commission’s Annual Report 2013 on relations with national Parliaments.[1]
2.           Application
of the principles by the institutions
2.1.        The Commission
When developing policies, the Commission has
introduced procedures to assess compliance with the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality at different stages of the decision making cycle in line
with Smart Regulation principles. Before proposing new initiatives, it checks that
EU-level action is legitimate and necessary. Roadmaps are published for all
major new initiatives.[2] Roadmaps provide a preliminary description of these potential initiatives
and outline the Commission’s plans for policy and consultation work. They also
include an initial justification for action with regard to subsidiarity and
proportionality.
When an impact assessment needs to be
carried out, stakeholders are invited, through a public consultation exercise, to
comment on the need to act and on the possible solutions to the problems
identified. Based on responses to this consultation and other relevant input, impact
assessments analyse subsidiarity and assess the proportionality of the options
examined. The Impact Assessment Guidelines provide guidance on assessing the
need for EU action and the value this would add.[3]
Later in the policy development process, impact
assessments are thoroughly scrutinised by the Impact Assessment Board.[4] In 2013, the Board examined 97 impact assessments and issued 142
opinions. It commented on subsidiarity and proportionality issues in more than a
third (34 %) of the cases it examined. This shows the importance the
Commission ascribes to considering subsidiarity and proportionality when
preparing legislative proposals. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the
legislative proposal also sets out how the proposal complies with the principle
of subsidiarity.
The proposal for a Directive on provisional
legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in
European arrest warrant proceedings[5]
is an example of a case in which subsidiarity aspects were intensely debated.
The Impact Assessment Board gave a positive opinion but yet considered that ‘the
report should more clearly describe what are the fundamental rights problems
not being sufficiently addressed at Member State or ECHR level that require EU
action. It should identify which Member States do not have legal aid frameworks
in place to ensure the correct implementation of the Directive on access to a lawyer,
so that it is clear where Member States fall below the necessary requirements
and EU action is required to ensure minimum rights standards’. As a result,
the relevant sections of the impact assessment were strengthened and the
insufficiency of the existing solutions was explained more clearly.
Another example is the proposal for a
Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value
added tax as regards a standard VAT return.[6]
The Board considered that ‘the report should further develop the
subsidiarity analysis’. More specifically, it asked for more details to show
that VAT returns currently do not work efficiently and create undue burdens for
businesses, and demonstrating that the preferred option will not lead to
additional burdens for Member States with less complex VAT systems. The
relevant sections of the impact assessment were amended in line with these
recommendations, providing a better explanation of why certain minimum
standards are needed to reduce barriers to cross-border trade and reduce administrative
burdens on business.
Proportionality aspects were debated, for
instance, in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Regulation
on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts.[7] The Board recommended that the impact assessment ‘better explain
how proportionality, particularly for smaller or less risky benchmarks’
contributors/producers will be ensured’. As a result, the revised impact
assessment included more detailed explanation, setting out in particular how
requirements would be tailored so that the planned measures would be less
onerous for smaller producers.
Through its recommendations, the Board helps
improve the analysis of compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Its opinions provide key support for the Commission’s political decision-making
process.
Subsidiarity and proportionality are also
key in the context of retrospective evaluation which assess whether the EU
actions remain necessary and are actually delivering the expected
results and ultimately improving conditions for European citizens and
businesses and contributing to the EU's global role at the level that would not
be achieved by Member States alone. The Commission is committed to "evaluate
first", and analysing past performance before considering potential
changes.  By gathering evidence and identifying lessons which
can feed into decision making, the EU is making evaluation of EU
policy an integral and permanent part of its policy making. Indeed EU
added-value, or the assessment of the role played by EU level intervention and
taking a view as to whether continued action is still required at that level,
is one of the five key evaluation issues (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance,
coherence, EU-added value) against which EU policies and legislation are
regularly evaluated.[8] 
2.2.        National Parliaments
In 2013, the Commission received 88 reasoned
opinions[9]
from national Parliaments on respect of the principle of subsidiarity (see annex),
an increase of 25 % from the previous year (70 reasoned opinions in 2012).
The reasoned opinions received in 2013 also accounted for a higher proportion (14 %)
of the overall number of opinions the Commission received in the context of the
broader political dialogue with national Parliaments (621). In 2012 and 2011,
slightly more than 10 % of opinions were reasoned opinions.
2013 saw, for the second time ever, the
triggering of a ‘yellow card’ by national Parliaments in the context of
the subsidiarity control mechanism, namely on the Commission’s proposal for a
Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s
Office (EPPO).[10]
This case will be described in more detail in Chapter 3.
Reasoned opinions continue to vary greatly
in form and in the type of argument put forward by national Parliaments in support
of their conclusion that the principle of subsidiarity has been breached. As in
2012, national Parliaments issued reasoned opinions on a variety of subjects in
2013. The 88 reasoned opinions issued covered 36[11] Commission proposals. The
proposal on the EPPO generated 13 reasoned opinions; the second highest number
of reasoned opinions (nine) were issued in relation to the proposal for a
Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated
coastal management.[12]
National Parliaments issued seven reasoned opinions on the 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[13]
as well as on the proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework on market
access to port services and financial transparency.[14] (For more details, see
the annex to this report.)
As in 2012, the Swedish Riksdag was
the national Parliament which issued by far the highest number of reasoned
opinions (9), although this was much fewer than it issued in 2012 (20). The
Austrian Bundesrat and the Lithuanian Seimas issued the second
highest number of reasoned opinions (6 each), followed by the two Spanish chambers
(the Congreso de los Diputados and the Senado), the Maltese Kamra
tad-Deputati, the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the UK House of Commons (5
each).
2.3.        The European Parliament
and the Council
a) The European
Parliament
As regards subsidiarity
and proportionality issues, the European Parliament consolidated its practice
of support legislative own-initiative reports based on Article 225 TFEU with
evidence based analysis of the potential EU added value. In total, five
assessments accompanying legislative own-initiative reports by the European
Parliament were finalised in 2013. They covered: 
·        
better governance of the single market; 
·        
combating violence against women; 
·        
a Directive on the cross-border transfer of a
company’s registered office (the 14th Company Law Directive); 
·        
the application of the principle of equal pay
for men and women for equal work of equal value; and 
·        
the statute for European mutual societies.
In addition, five
reports on the ‘cost of non-Europe’ were completed in 2013. These were designed
to study the possibilities for gains and/or the realisation of a ‘public good’
through EU-level action in specific policy areas. They covered: 
·        
the European Common Security and Defence Policy;

·        
increasing coordination between EU donors; 
·        
the European code on private international law; 
·        
the single market for energy; and 
·        
promoting the free movement of citizens and
businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU.
In 2013, the European
Parliament’s ex ante Impact Assessment Unit produced 50 initial
appraisals of Commission impact assessments, two detailed appraisals of
Commission impact assessments, three impact assessments on the Parliament’s
amendments (in total, 20 amendments were assessed) and one alternative impact
assessment (in a case where the Commission had not produced one).
b) The Council
In accordance with the
third paragraph of Article 4 of Protocol No 2, the Council forwards to
national Parliaments all draft legislative acts and amended drafts which
originate from a group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the European
Central Bank (ECB) or the European Investment Bank (EIB). As a corollary of that
obligation (under the second paragraph of Article 6 of the Protocol), the
President of the Council forwards any opinion on a draft legislative act
originating from a group of Member States to the governments of those Member
States. Similarly, the President of the Council forwards any opinion on a draft
legislative act originating from the Court of Justice, the ECB or the EIB to
the institution or body concerned (under the third paragraph of Article 6 of
the Protocol).
In addition to these
Treaty obligations, the General Secretariat of the Council keeps Council members
informed of Member State opinions on draft legislative acts originating from
other institutions. In 2013, the Council Secretariat received a high number of
opinions and reasoned opinions from national Parliaments, issued under the
Protocol and in the framework of the political dialogue between national
Parliaments and the Commission. These opinions were forwarded to Council
members for their information.
Furthermore, in the
framework of legislative procedures, the Council checks compliance with the
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality when reviewing the impact
assessments accompanying Commission proposals.
2.4.        The Committee of the
Regions
In 2013, the Committee of the Regions
(CoR) adopted and implemented its first Subsidiarity Work Programme.[15] The programme included
five initiatives,[16]
selected from the European Commission Work Programme on the basis of agreed
criteria,[17]
to be monitored particularly closely with regard to subsidiarity.
Since local and regional authorities are responsible, in most Member
States, for implementing EU waste legislation, the CoR closely monitored the
review of EU waste policy and legislation, consulting the Subsidiarity Expert
Group and the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network. Concerning the Ports Package
initiative, there were concerns that the ports package initiative might not
take sufficient account of local and regional particularities in Europe, and
regional parliaments and governments were therefore consulted on subsidiarity-
and proportionality-related issues in parallel with the early warning mechanism
eight-week period. The consultees all concluded that the initiative complied
with the subsidiarity principle, although some proportionality issues were
raised.
A Quick Scan[18]
territorial impact assessment workshop was held to look at this initiative on
25 September 2013. This was co-organised by the CoR and the European observation
network for territorial development and cohesion (ESPON) on 25 September 2013
in relation to this initiative. This was the first time that the CoR had
conducted a territorial impact assessment using Quick Scan methodology. Regional
parliaments and governments were also consulted on the subsidiarity and
proportionality of the proposal for a Directive on e-invoicing in public
procurement, given the potential impact of this initiative on costs and
administrative burden at local and regional level. The respondents mostly agreed
that the initiative complied with the principle of subsidiarity, but raised
some questions with regard to the principle of proportionality. In particular, responses
highlighted that the perspective of local and regional authorities was not
sufficiently taken into account.
Outside the Commission’s Work
Programme, the Subsidiarity Expert Group was also consulted for the preparation
of the CoR’s own-initiative opinion on devolution in the EU and on the place
for local and regional self-government in EU policy-making and delivery.[19]
To support subsidiarity monitoring, the CoR further upgraded REGPEX
— a web-based tool for regions with legislative powers — by adding an
interactive map of regions with legislative powers, and profiles of each
regional parliament. To help assess experience of the early warning system and
spread best practice, the CoR published a study on ‘the Subsidiarity Early
Warning System of the Lisbon Treaty — the role of regional parliaments with
legislative powers and other subnational authorities’.
Some of the CoR’s opinions in 2013 expressed concerns over the
compliance of EU legislative initiatives with the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality. The opinion on the proposed Directive establishing a
framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management[20] argued that the proposal did not comply with the subsidiarity and
proportionality principles. The CoR also raised concerns over the use of
delegated acts in its opinion on the proposal for a Regulation on official
controls[21] and its opinion on the proposal for a Directive on the manufacture,
presentation and sale of tobacco and related products.[22]
Reference is also made to the Annual Report 2013 on Subsidiarity
issued by the Committee of the Regions.[23]
2.5.        The
Court of Justice
In 2013, the Court of Justice did not
render any key judgments on the principle of subsidiarity, but there were two General Court judgments on the principle.
In Case T-31/07, Du Pont de Nemours and
Others v Commission, a number of companies lodged a case for the
annulment of a Commission Directive which included flusilazole, with certain
limits, as an active substance in plant protection products under Directive
91/414/EC.[24]
One of the grounds for the case was the breach of the principle of
subsidiarity. In its judgment of 12 April 2013, the General Court emphasised
that that principle applies only in areas which do not fall under the EU’s exclusive
competence (paragraph 202). Since Directive 91/414/EC confers on the Union
authorities an exclusive competence for the assessment of the active substances
that may be used in plant protection products and to place restrictions on
their acceptance (paragraphs 203 and 204), the measure adopted in the exercise
of that competence was held not to be covered by the principle of subsidiarity
(paragraph 205). The General Court thus rejected the applicants’ argument,
confirming its case-law on the issue.[25]
In Case T-526/10, Inuit Tapiriit
Kanatami and Others v Commission, the applicants requested the
annulment of a Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules on trade in
seal products,[26]
on grounds including a breach of the principle of subsidiarity. In its
judgment of 25 April 2013, the General Court rejected that claim. It highlighted
case-law according to which the principle of subsidiarity applies to EU measures
based on Article 114 TFEU, ‘inasmuch as that provision does not give [the EU]
exclusive competence to regulate economic activity on the internal market, but
only a certain competence for the purpose of improving the conditions for its
establishment and functioning by eliminating barriers to the free movement of
goods and the freedom to provide services or by removing distortions of
competition’ (paragraph 84).[27]
The General Court held that it was clear that ‘the objective of the basic
regulation [could not] be satisfactorily achieved by action undertaken only in
the Member States and require[d] action at Union level, as the heterogeneous
development of national legislation in this case demonstrates’. Consequently,
the objective of the action envisaged could be better achieved at EU level and
the Regulation was not in breach of the principle of subsidiarity (paragraph
85).
3.           Key
cases where subsidiarity and proportionality concerns were raised
Proposal for a Regulation on the
establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office
The Commission proposal for a European Public
Prosecutor’s Office[28]
was adopted on 17 July 2013. The aim of the proposal is to establish the EPPO
to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of offences affecting the EU’s
financial interests. The EPPO would be an EU body with a decentralised
structure which, for most of its activities, would rely on national
investigation and prosecution authorities, and on national law.
National Parliaments issued 13 reasoned
opinions[29]
on the proposal, representing 18 votes out of a possible 56[30]. Under Article 7(2) of
Protocol No 2, 14 votes were needed to trigger a yellow card procedure in this
case.
In 2013, seven
other chambers of national Parliaments[31]
issued opinions on this proposal in the framework of the political dialogue. These
did not argue that the Commission’s proposal was incompatible with the
principle of subsidiarity, but comment on specific elements of it.[32]
On 6 November
2013, the Commission confirmed that the subsidiarity control mechanism described
in Article 7(2) of Protocol No 2 had been triggered. As a result, it carried
out a review of the proposal, following which it issued a Communication[33] carefully analysing
the reasoned opinions submitted by national Parliaments from the perspective of
the principle of subsidiarity. In analysing the reasoned opinions, the
Commission distinguished between arguments relating to the principle of
subsidiarity, or that could be interpreted as subsidiarity concerns, and other
arguments relating to the principle of proportionality, to policy choices
unrelated to subsidiarity, or to other policy or legal issues. The main
objections by national Parliaments relating to the principle of subsidiarity were
as follows:
·          
The reasoning concerning subsidiarity
A number of chambers of national Parliaments considered that the
Commission had not sufficiently explained how the proposal complied with the
principle of subsidiarity. The reasons given by the Commission were considered insufficient.
Moreover the explanations should be included in the explanatory memorandum as
well as the impact assessment.
After its review, the Commission found that the explanatory
memorandum and the accompanying legislative financial statement did sufficiently
explain why action at Member State level would not achieve the policy objective
and why Union-level action would better achieve this (e.g. because there was a lack
of continuity in enforcement action and a lack of underlying common European
prosecution policy).
·          
The alleged sufficient character of existing
mechanisms
Several chambers expressed the view that investigation and
prosecution action at Member‑State level was sufficient and that the
coordination and investigation
mechanisms existing at the Union level (Eurojust, Europol and OLAF) would also
be sufficient. Some chambers
considered that the Commission should have waited
for its proposed Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial
interests by means of criminal law to be adopted before introducing new
legislation in this area.
The Commission noted that clear statistical information showed that
the Treaty objective of an effective, deterrent and equivalent level of
protection of the EU’s financial interests had not been achieved. It stressed
that none of the existing mechanisms or bodies could address
the shortcomings identified in relation to the admissibility of cross-border
evidence, identifying cross-border links, or getting assistance from
authorities in other Member States, nor could these issues be addressed through
measures taken solely at Member‑State level.
The Commission also noted that improvements to the existing
mechanisms would, at best, have marginal effects because of their inherent limitations. Lastly, it highlighted that
the proposal for a Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s
financial interests by means of criminal law and the proposal to establish the
EPPO have different, though complementary, objectives.
·          
The added value of the EPPO proposal
A number of chambers questioned the added value of the proposal, though
some acknowledged the advantages of setting up the EPPO. National Parliaments
argued that the Commission did
not demonstrate that Union-level action could achieve better results than action
at national level.
In response to these opinions, the Commission explained that the
proposed system was expected to bring significant added value in the fight
against EU fraud. One of the main expected improvements would come from an EU-level
prosecution policy, which would address the wide divergences between Member
States on how EU fraud is investigated and prosecuted. It would also allow the discovery
of cross-border links that might not be noticed in purely national
investigations and would more effectively
direct and coordinate the investigations. In addition,
the creation of a decentralised EPPO would pool expertise and know-how regarding
the investigation and prosecution of EU fraud cases at European level and
ensure that this takes place near the scene of the crime.
·          
Issues relating to the structure of the EPPO and
to the nature and scope of its competences
Concerning the
structure, the Commission noted that creating the EPPO with a fully-fledged
collegial structure, as supported by a number of national Parliaments, could
hamper its efficiency and render its decision-making less efficient. In
response to questions over nature and scope of the EPPO’s competence, the
Commission underlined that the crimes in question, including non-cross-border
cases, have an intrinsic Union dimension. A limitation of the scope would not
only reduce EPPO's added-value but also call into question the Union’s competence in this matter. 
However,
the exclusive competence of the EPPO would not mean that national authorities
would be excluded from dealing with the cases handled by it, in view of the
involvement of national law enforcement authorities and of European Delegated
Prosecutors located in the Member States, who are at the same time national
prosecutors. 
Following
this in-depth review, the Commission concluded that the proposal complies with
the principle of subsidiarity
and decided to maintain it.
Proposal for
a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and
integrated coastal management[34]
The Commission
proposal that elicited the second highest number of reasoned opinions in 2013
was the proposal establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and
integrated coastal management. National Parliaments
issued nine reasoned opinions on the proposal,[35]
representing 13 votes. In addition, in 2013, five more chambers sent opinions
in the framework of the political dialogue; these did not consider the proposal
to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity.[36] 
Some national
Parliaments considered that the Commission had not adequately demonstrated the
added value of EU-level obligations in the field of maritime spatial planning
and integrated coastal management and that the Directive would add significantly
to the administrative burden and to reporting requirements, without adequate
benefits. Furthermore, some reasoned opinions questioned the suggested legal
basis for the proposal.
In its reply to
these reasoned opinions, the Commission emphasised that the proposed Directive
would deliver added value by enabling Member States to reach minimum
commonalities allowing improved cross-border cooperation and supporting the
timely implementation of related legislation. The Commission pointed out that
maritime and coastal activities have a cross-border, and often EU-wide, impact
and national planning processes differ considerably. An EU-level framework to guide
planning processes at sea and integrate management of coastal zones is therefore
needed. The Commission emphasised that the proposed Directive would leave
Member States significant discretion as to how its objectives should be achieved.
It stressed that international cooperation would make it easier to involve
relevant non-EU countries in marine spatial planning and integrated coastal
management. The proposed Directive would allow Member States to choose the
format and the means of this cooperation with third countries, as long as they
would make every effort to coordinate their plans and strategies with those of
the third country. The politically agreed text by the
co-legislators was consistent with these reactions.
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  [37]
The proposed
legislation consists of new and strengthened rules on how tobacco products can
be manufactured and presented for sale in the EU. It elicited seven reasoned
opinions, representing 11 votes.[38]
Eight national Parliaments[39]
also sent opinions in the framework of the political dialogue; these did not
consider the proposal to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity. Two
chambers[40]
sent opinions arguing that the proposal was not in line with the subsidiarity
principle, but these were submitted after the deadline and therefore could not
be included when calculating whether the threshold had been met.
Some chambers considered
that regulating certain types of tobacco products, such as low-risk products,
was a national competence. Others criticised the transfer of power to the
Commission to adopt delegated acts. Furthermore, the
legal basis for this proposal was also questioned, as it would not harmonise
Member States’ laws on tobacco products. National Parliaments also argued that
banning ‘slim’ and menthol cigarettes and packages of rolling tobacco of less
than 40 g would not contribute to the functioning of the internal market.
In its replies,
the Commission emphasised that the proposal would not impose restrictions on
the placing on the market of low-risk products. It also explained that, to make
the Directive fully operational, use of the power to adopt acts in accordance
with Article 290 TFEU had been deemed necessary. The delegations of power set
out in the proposal provided for clear and concise criteria, giving limited
discretion to the Commission. With regard to the legal basis for the proposal,
the Commission noted that the current Directive largely pursues the same aims
as the proposal for its revision, and the European Court of Justice had
confirmed the legality of Article 114 as the legal basis of the current
Directive.[41]
Therefore, the legal basis was appropriate for updating the existing level of
harmonisation, removing obstacles to the internal market because of divergent
regulatory developments in Member States and preventing the circumvention of
internal market rules. In the Commission’s view, Article 114 TFEU provided a
legal basis for full, partial or minimum harmonisation and allowed for certain
matters to be left to Member States to regulate. The Commission pointed out
that Member States had begun to adopt measures to regulate tobacco products
with characterising flavours and, therefore, it proposed harmonisation to
prevent market distortions. It also stressed that the proposal would only
standardise certain aspects of the pack, such as the number of cigarettes it contained
and the size of health warnings, which are beneficial for the circulation of
the products on the internal market whilst ensuring that health warnings are
fully visible.
Proposal for
a Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and
financial transparency of ports[42]
The proposal
intends to improve port operations and onward transport connections at seaports
of the Trans-European Transport network. The legal framework being proposed
would contribute to a genuine legal playing field and create more legal
certainty for port operators and investors. The proposal defines transparent
and open procedures to designate the providers of port services, rules to
prevent possible price abuses by operators with exclusive rights and rules ensuring
the transparency of the use of public funds. National Parliaments issued seven
reasoned opinions on the proposal, representing 11 votes[43]. In addition, three
chambers sent opinions in the framework of the political dialogue which did not
consider the proposal to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity[44].
Some national
Parliaments alleged that the objectives of the proposal could be better
achieved by soft law or by a directive. Others criticised that Member States would lose their right and possibility to continue to
regulate their port sector through their national legal acts and that the
proposed Regulation could have counterproductive effects on the performance of
economies and infrastructure in the areas concerned,
In its replies,
the Commission stated that the proposal for a Regulation applies only to the
ports which form part of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) which the
European Parliament and the Council considered as important for the internal
market and the EU territorial cohesion in the context of the Regulation (EU) N°
1315/2013 on the development of the TEN-T. The Regulation frames existing
Treaty principles already applicable to the port sector by introducing two
basics set of rules: non-discriminatory and transparent market access conditions
for providers of port services and the respect of financial transparency rules
in the use of public funds in ports. The Commission underlined that its
intention was that the provisions of the Regulation should remain neutral in
respect of the internal organisation of the Member States regarding their port
systems, In respect of the choice of legal instrument,
the Commission stressed that it preferred a regulation rather than a directive
since one of the main goals of the proposal was to ensure a level playing field
which requires a uniform implementation of the few but essential rules.
Furthermore,
the Commission stressed that the Regulation would leave to Member States the
necessary flexibility to take account of particular circumstances, and that Member
States would keep the choice between various forms of market access. They would
for instance not be forced to open up to competition services that, according
to their own choice, should remain regulated by duly justified reasons of public
interest. The Commission underlined further that attracting investors requires
undistorted competition between the ports of the TEN-T, notably those located
in different Member States, which in the Commission's view could not be
achieved by the Member States alone.
4.           Conclusions
In 2013, inter-institutional
discussions on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality continued,
and the triggering of the second yellow card procedure by national
Parliaments was a notable event.
The 88 reasoned opinions submitted by
national Parliaments in 2013 concerned 36 different Commission documents. This
seems to confirm a trend which had already been observed in previous years:
national Parliaments have varying political interests and different priorities in
choosing Commission proposals to be scrutinised in the context of the
subsidiarity control mechanism. They also seem to apply different criteria when
assessing a proposal’s compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
All institutions involved in the legislative process were
active in ensuring control of the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission
continued to carry out in-depth assessments of compliance with the principles
of subsidiarity and proportionality at different stages. Before adopting legislative
proposals, it provides assessments (e.g. in roadmaps and impact assessments)
and after adoption, it examines and replies to reasoned opinions from national
Parliaments expressing subsidiarity concerns.
Subsidiarity control and monitoring issues also figured
prominently on the agenda of the European Parliament and the Committee of the
Regions. The European Parliament continued to support its legislative
own-initiative reports with evidence-based analysis of the potential EU added
value. The Committee of the Regions similarly increased its work on
subsidiarity issues, especially by adopting and implementing a subsidiarity work
programme for the first time.  
Annex
List of Commission
documents on which the Commission received reasoned opinions[45]
regarding
compliance with the subsidiarity principle from national Parliaments in 2013
   || Commission document || Title || Number of reasoned opinions (Protocol No 2) || Number of votes (Protocol No 2)[46] || National chamber submitting reasoned opinions 
 1 || COM(2013) 534 || Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office || 13[47] || 18 (reached the yellow card threshold[48]) || CY Vouli ton Antiprosopon (2 votes) CZ Senát (1 vote) FR Sénat (1 vote) HU Országgyűlés (2 votes) IE Houses of the Oireachtas (both chambers — 2 votes) MT Kamra tad-Deputati (2 votes) RO Camera Deputaților (1 vote) SI Državni zbor (1 vote) SE Riksdag (2 votes) NL Eerste Kamer (1 vote) NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote) UK House of Commons (1 vote) UK House of Lords (1 vote) 
 2 || COM(2013) 133 || Proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management || 9[49] || 13 || BE Vlaams Parlement (1 vote) FI Eduskunta (2 votes) DE Bundesrat (1 vote) IE Houses of the Oireachtas (both Chambers — 2 votes) LT Seimas (2 votes) PL Senat (1 vote) SE Riksdag (2 votes) NL Eerste Kamer (1 vote) NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote) 
 3 || 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 || 7 || 11 || CZ Poslanecká sněmovna (1 vote) DK Folketing (2 votes) EL Vouli ton Ellinon (2 votes) IT Senato della Republica (1 vote) PT Assembleia da República (2 votes) RO Camera Deputaților (1 vote) SE Riksdag (2 votes) 
 4 || COM(2013) 296 || Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports || 7[50] || 11 || FR Assemblée nationale (1 vote) IT Senato della Republica (1 vote) LV Saeima (2 votes) MT Kamra tad-Deputati (2 votes) PL Sejm (1 vote) ES Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both chambers — 2 votes) SE Riksdag (2 votes) 
 5 || COM(2013) 28[51] || Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail || 6 || 9 || AT Bundesrat (1 vote) LT Seimas (2 votes) LU Chambre des Députés (2 votes)[52] SE Riksdag (2 votes)[53] NL Eerste Kamer (1 vote)[54] NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote)[55] 
 6 || COM(2013) 29[56] || Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure || 6 || 9 || FR Sénat (1 vote) LT Seimas (2 votes) LU Chambre des Députés (2 votes)[57] SE Riksdag (2 votes)[58] NL Eerste Kamer (1 vote)[59] NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote)[60] 
 7 || COM(2012) 614[61] || Proposal for a Directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures || 5[62] || 5 || CZ Poslanecká sněmovna (1 vote)[63] PL Sejm (1 vote) PL Senat (1 vote) UK House of Commons (1 vote) UK House of Lords (1 vote)[64] 
 8 || 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 || 4[65] || 7 || AT Bundesrat (1 vote) IE Houses of the Oireachtas (both Chambers — 2 votes) MT Kamra tad-Deputati (2 votes) SE Riksdag (2 votes) 
 9 || COM(2013) 27[66] || Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 || 3 || 5 || LT Seimas (2 votes) RO Senatul (1 vote) SE Riksdag (2 votes)[67] 
 10 || COM(2013) 31[68] || Proposal for a Directive on railway safety (Recast) || 3 || 5 || LT Seimas (2 votes) RO Senatul (1 vote) SE Riksdag (2 votes)[69] 
 11 || COM(2013) 173 || 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 || 3[70] || 4 || BE Chambre des Représentants (1 vote) DE Bundesrat (1 vote) ES Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both Chambers — 2 votes) 
 12 || COM(2012) 615[71] || Communication on Gender balance in business leadership: a contribution to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth || 2 || 2 || CZ Poslanecká sněmovna (1 vote)[72] UK House of Lords (1 vote)[73] 
 13 || COM(2013) 30[74] || Proposal for a Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) || 2 || 4 || LT Seimas (2 votes) SE Riksdag (2 votes)[75] 
 14 || COM(2013) 147 || Proposal for a Regulation on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks || 2 || 2 || NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote) UK House of Commons (1 vote) 
 15 || COM(2013) 262 || Proposal for a Regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law) || 2 || 2 || AT Bundesrat (1 vote) NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote) 
 16 || COM(2013) 472 || Proposal for a Regulation on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency for the conduct of pharmaco-vigilance activities in respect of medicinal products for human use || 2[76] || 4 || EL Vouli ton Ellinon (2 votes) ES Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both chambers — 2 votes) 
 17 || COM(2013) 618[77] || Proposal for a Directive amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, as regards the definition of drug || 2 || 2 || UK House of Commons (1 vote)[78] UK House of Lords (1 vote)[79] 
 18 || COM(2013) 619[80] || Proposal for a Regulation on new psychoactive substances || 2 || 2 || UK House of Commons (1 vote)[81] UK House of Lords (1 vote)[82] 
 19 || COM(2013) 721 || Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards a standard VAT return || 2 || 2 || FR Sénat (1 vote) DE Bundesrat (1 vote) 
 20 || COM(2012) 724 || Proposal for a Regulation amending certain legislative acts in the domain of agricultural and fishery statistics || 1[83] || 2 || ES Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both chambers — 2 votes) 
 21 || COM(2013) 48[84] || Proposal for a Directive concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union || 1 || 2 || SE Riksdag (2 votes) 
 22 || COM(2013) 71 || Proposal for a Directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax || 1 || 2 || SE Riksdag (2 votes) 
 23 || COM(2013) 151 || Proposal for a Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing (Recast) || 1 || 2 || EL Vouli ton Ellinon (2 votes) 
 24 || COM(2013) 168 || Amended proposal for a Directive on the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of public health insurance systems || 1[85] || 2 || ES Congreso de los Diputados and Senado (both chambers — 2 votes) 
 25 || COM(2013) 207 || Proposal for a Directive amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups || 1 || 2 || EE Riigikogu (2 votes) 
 26 || 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 || 1 || 1 || RO Senatul (1 vote) 
 27 || COM(2013) 260 || Proposal for a Regulation on animal health || 1 || 1 || AT Bundesrat (1 vote) 
 28 || COM(2013) 265 || Proposal for a Regulation on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant protection || 1 || 2 || LU Chambre des Députés (2 votes) 
 29 || COM(2013) 267 || Proposal for a Regulation on protective measures against pests of plants || 1 || 1 || AT Bundesrat (1 vote) 
 30 || COM(2013) 409 || Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services || 1 || 2 || MT Kamra tad-Deputati (2 votes) 
 31 || COM(2013) 410 || Proposal for a Regulation on the implementation of the Single European Sky (Recast) || 1 || 2 || MT Kamra tad-Deputati (2 votes) 
 32 || COM(2013) 520 || Proposal for a Regulation establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Bank Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council || 1 || 2 || SE Riksdag (2 votes) 
 33 || COM(2013) 535 || Proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) || 1 || 1 || CZ Senát (1 vote) 
 34 || COM(2013) 550 || Proposal for a Regulation on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions || 1 || 1 || FR Sénat (1 vote) 
 35 || COM(2013) 620 || Proposal for a Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species || 1 || 1 || AT Bundesrat (1 vote) 
 36 || COM(2013) 641 || Proposal for a Regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts || 1 || 1 || UK House of Commons (1 vote) 
 Number of reasoned opinions on documents counted individually || 99 
 Number of reasoned opinions jointly concerning more than one document[86] || 11[87] 
 TOTAL of reasoned opinions received || 88 
[1]     COM(2014) 507 final.
[2]     http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/planned_ia_en.htm.
[3]     http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm.
[4]     http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/iab/iab_en.htm.
[5]     COM(2013) 824 final.
[6]     COM(2013) 721 final.
[7]     COM(2013) 641 final.
[8]   Communication "Strengthening the foundations of Smart
Regulation – improving evaluation" - COM(2013) 686 final of 02.10.2013.
[9]     See footnote 44.
[10]    COM(2013) 534 final.
[11]    The Commission received 88 reasoned opinions, some of them relating
to more than one document.
[12]    COM(2013) 133 final.
[13]    COM(2012) 788 final.
[14]    COM(2013) 296 final.
[15]    CdR 2336/2012, adopted by the CoR Bureau on 30 January 2013.
[16]    1. Review of EU waste policy and legislation;         
2. The Ports Package (replaced the ‘Blue Belt’ initiative initially selected);      
3. Urban mobility;         
4. E-invoicing in public procurement; and               
5. Environmental climate and energy assessment framework to enable safe and
secure unconventional hydrocarbon extraction.
[17]    a) initiatives should present a clear political interest for
local and regional authorities;
      b) initiatives should touch on competences of local and
regional authorities; and
      c) initiatives should have a potential subsidiarity dimension.
[18]    This methodology allows quick ex ante analysis of the
potential impact of EU legislation on development of regions. It combines a
standardised indicator-based tool with a means of systematically collecting
expert knowledge through workshops. It covers the potential impacts at a
general level with common indicators for European NUTS 2 regions.
[19]    CdR 2214/2012.
[20]    CdR 3766/2013.
[21]    CdR 5295/2013.
[22]    CdR 2062/2013.
[23]    https://portal.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/news/Pages/Subsidiarity-Annual-Report-2013.aspx.

[24]    Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1).
[25]    Case T-420/05 R, Vischim v Commission [2009] ECR
II‑3841, paragraph 223.
[26]    Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010, of 10 August 2010,
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No
1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal
products (OJ L 216, 17.8.2010, p. 1).
[27]    Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) and
Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paragraph 179.
[28]    COM(2013) 534 final.
[29]    CY Vouli ton Antiprosopon (2 votes), CZ Senát (1
vote), FR Sénat (1 vote), HU Országgyűlés (2 votes), IE
Houses of the Oireachtas (both chambers — 2 votes), MT Kamra
tad-Deputati (2 votes), RO Camera Deputaților (1 vote), SI Državni
zbor (1 vote), SE Riksdag (2 votes), NL Eerste Kamer (1
vote), NL Tweede Kamer (1 vote), UK House of Commons (1 vote) and UK
House of Lords (1 vote).
[30]    Each national Parliament has two votes; where a national
Parliament is bicameral, one vote is allocated to each chamber. Each chamber is
entitled to issue reasoned opinions independently.
[31]    PL Senat, DE Bundesrat, PT Assembleia da
República, RO Senatul, IT Senato della Repubblica, FR Assemblée
nationale, FI Eduskunta. Additional opinions were submitted in 2014..
[32]   The Commission replied to these comments not related to
subsidiarity by individual letters to the national Parliaments.
[33]    COM(2013) 851 final.
[34]    COM(2013) 133 final.
[35]  BE Sénat, FI
Eduskunta, DE Bundesrat, IE Houses of the Oireachtas (both
chambers), LT Seimas, PL Senat, SE Riksdag, NL Eerste
Kamer, NL Tweede Kamer.
[36]    IT Senato della Repubblica, DK Folketing, EE Riigikogu,
RO Senatul and PT Assembleia da República.
[37]    COM(2012) 788.
[38]    CZ Poslanecká sněmovna (1 vote), DK Folketing
(2 votes), EL Vouli ton Ellinon (2 votes), IT Senato della Repubblica
(1 vote), PT Assembleia da República (2 votes), RO Camera
Deputaților (1 vote) and SE Riksdag (2 votes).
[39]    AT Bundesrat, CZ Sénat, DE Bundesrat, FR Assemblée
nationale, PL Senat, RO Senat, SK Národná Rada, HU Országgyűlés.
[40]    BG Narodno Sabranie and IT Camera dei Deputati.
[41]    See Case C-491/01, BAT [2002] ECR I-11453.
[42]    COM(2013) 296.
[43] FR Assemblée nationale (1 vote), IT Senato della
Repubblica (1 vote), LV Saeima (2 votes), MT Kamra tad-Deputati
(2 votes), PL Sejm (1 vote), ES Congreso de los Diputados and Senado
(both Chambers - 2 votes) and SE Riksdag (2 votes).
[44] PT Assembleia da República, PL Senat
and DE Bundesrat.
[45]    To qualify as a reasoned opinion as defined in Protocol No 2,
an opinion must state why the national Parliament considers that a legislative
proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity and be sent to the
Commission within eight weeks of the transmission of the proposal to national
Parliaments.
[46]    Under Protocol No 2, each national Parliament has two
votes; in the case of a bicameral system, each chamber has one vote. Where
reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act’s non-compliance with the
principle of subsidiarity represent at least a third of all votes allocated to
the national Parliaments, the yellow card threshold is reached, i.e. the draft
must be reviewed. With the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013, 19 out of 56
votes represent a third of all votes allocated to the national Parliaments.
[47]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[48]    Under Protocol No 2, in the case of a draft legislative act
submitted on the basis of Article 76 TFEU (on freedom, security and justice),
the yellow card threshold is reached where reasoned opinions represent at least
a quarter of all votes allocated to the national Parliaments. With the
accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013, 14 out of 56 votes represent a quarter of
all votes allocated to the national Parliaments. 
[49]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[50]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[51]    Four of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission
document jointly concerned various other Commission documents as well.
[52]    This reasoned opinion from the LU Chambre des Députés
jointly concerned COM(2013) 28
and COM(2013) 29.
[53]    This reasoned opinion from the SE Riksdag jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28,
COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 — the 4th Railway Package.
[54]    This reasoned opinion from the NL Eerste Kamer jointly concerned COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29.
[55]    This reasoned opinion from the NL Tweede Kamer jointly concerned COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29.
[56]    Four of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission
document jointly concerned various other Commission documents as well.
[57]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion
from the LU Chambre des Députés jointly concerned COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29.
[58]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion
from the SE Riksdag jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28, COM(2013) 29,
COM(2013) 30, and COM(2013) 31 — the 4th Railway Package.
[59]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion
from the NL Eerste Kamer jointly concerned COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29.
[60]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion
from the NL Tweede Kamer jointly concerned COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29.
[61]    Two of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned COM(2012) 615 as well.
[62]    The Commission received three reasoned opinions concerning this
document from the DK Folketing, the SE Riksdag and jointly from
the NL Eerste Kamer and NL Tweede Kamer (both chambers) before 1
January 2013.
[63]    This reasoned opinion from the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna
jointly concerned COM(2012) 614 and COM(2012) 615.
[64]    This reasoned opinion from the UK House of Lords jointly
concerned COM(2012) 614 and COM(2012) 615.
[65]    Of which one came jointly from the two chambers of the IE Houses
of the Oireachtas — counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[66]    One of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned COM(2013) 28, COM(2013) 29,
COM(2013) 30 and COM(2013) 31 as well.
[67]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion
from the SE Riksdag jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28, COM(2013) 29,
COM(2013) 30 and COM(2013) 31 — the 4th Railway Package.
[68]    One of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28,
COM(2013) 29 and COM(2013) 30 as well.
[69]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion from the SE Riksdag jointly concerned
COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30 and
COM(2013) 31 — the 4th Railway Package.
[70]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[71]    The reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned COM(2012) 614 as well.
[72]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion from the CZ Poslanecká sněmovna jointly
concerned COM(2012) 614 and COM(2012) 615.
[73]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion from the UK House of Lords jointly concerned
COM(2012) 614 and COM(2012) 615.
[74]    The reasoned opinion concerning this Commission document jointly
concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28,
COM(2013) 29 and COM(2013) 31 as well.
[75]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion
from the SE Riksdag jointly concerned COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28, COM(2013) 29,
COM(2013) 30 and COM(2013) 31 — the 4th Railway Package.
[76]    Of which one came jointly from the two ES chambers — counted as
one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[77]    The reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned COM(2013) 619 as well.
[78]    This reasoned opinion from the UK House of Commons jointly
concerned COM(2012) 618 and COM(2012) 619.
[79]    This reasoned opinion from the UK House of Lords jointly
concerned COM(2012) 618 and COM(2012) 619.
[80]    The reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned COM(2013) 618 as well.
[81]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion from the UK House of Commons jointly concerned
COM(2012) 618 and COM(2012) 619.
[82]    As noted above, this reasoned opinion from the UK House of Lords jointly concerned
COM(2012) 618 and COM(2012) 619.
[83]    This reasoned opinion came jointly from the two ES chambers —
counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[84]    One of the reasoned opinions concerning this Commission document
jointly concerned JOIN(2013) 1 as well.
[85]    This reasoned opinion came jointly from the two ES chambers —
counted as one reasoned opinion from two chambers.
[86]    As some reasoned opinions jointly concern more than one
document, the table sets out the number of reasoned opinions issued for each
individual document. In order to also show the number of reasoned opinions
received by the Commission, the additional number of reasoned opinions jointly
concerning more than one document is deducted.
[87]    Referring, as noted above, to one
reasoned opinion from the LU Chambre des Députés jointly concerning COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29;
one reasoned opinion from the
SE Riksdag jointly concerning COM(2013) 27, COM(2013) 28, COM(2013) 29, COM(2013) 30
and COM(2013) 31 — the 4th Railway Package; one reasoned opinion from the NL Eerste Kamer jointly concerning COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29;
one reasoned opinion from the
NL Tweede Kamer jointly concerning COM(2013) 28 and COM(2013) 29; one reasoned opinion from the CZ Poslanecká
sněmovna jointly concerning COM(2012) 614 and COM(2012) 615;
one reasoned opinion from the
UK House of Lords jointly concerning COM(2012) 614 and COM(2012) 615;
one reasoned opinion from the
UK House of Commons jointly concerning COM(2012) 618 and COM(2012) 619;
and one reasoned opinion from
the UK House of Lords jointly concerning COM(2012) 618 and COM(2012) 619.