This is an axample of the so called co-decision procedure, according to Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), when the European Parliament has proposed amendments to the common position of the Council of the European Union.
The EP amendments require an absolute majority of the component members (one of the reasons why the European Parliament needs to find consensus solutions rather than seek headline-grabbing confrontation internally). The Commission has to deliver an opinion on the amendments.
***
Social security systems
The Commission has now published two opinions:
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty; Brussels, 5.6.2009 COM(2009) 264 final (available in all the official EU languages).
Procedure number: 2006/0006 (COD)
The complex structure of the European Union extends the consensus approach beyond the walls of the European Parliament, as you can see from the following excerpts. According to Article 250(2) TEC, as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time:
“The Commission accepts all 8 amendments adopted by Parliament. The 8 amendments were agreed following informal contacts between Parliament and Council with a view to a second reading agreement. The amendments are of a technical nature, aiming in particular to ensure that the persons concerned receive a timely answer to their requests from the competent institution and appropriate information, including guidance on administrative procedures.”
“5. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out
above.”
***
The related second matter is:
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and determining the contents of its annexes AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty; Brussels, 5.6.2009 COM(2009) 265 final (available in English, French and German).
Procedure number: 2006/0008 (COD)
***
These are examples of the “institutional triangle” – Commission, Council, European Parliament – in action, following the steps of a choreography called the institutional balance.
Naturally, some readers may be interested in the subject matter – the coordination of social security systems – but having led you to the water, I leave you to drink.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Saturday, 14 March 2009
European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure: Amendments under way
After looking at completed procedures to amend or interpret the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, we turn procedures still unfinished shortly before the June 2009 European elections.
***
MEPs maternity or paternity leave
Procedure REG/2006/2025 has led to a draft report drafted by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo: PE374.264. The draft was tabled on 12 July 2006 and the subject matter is the rules applying to Members in the event of maternity or paternity.
The report is still awaiting the blessing of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and debate by the full Parliament.
***
Petitions process
In procedure REG/2006/2209 the rapporteur Gérard Onesta drafted a report on revision of the Rules of Procedure with regard to the petitions process. The report A6-0027/2009 was adopted by AFCO 27 January 2009, and is awaiting debate in the chamber.
The proposal is described as fine-tuning the petitions procedure, but a number of Rules would be affected.
***
General review of Rules of Procedure
A general review of the EP’s Rules of Procedure is under way. We have presented the areas of interest in the Corbett draft report in an earlier blog post, so here our intention is mainly a quick update.
The procedure file REG/2007/2124 is still waiting for a future AFCO vote. The report comprises questions related to the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon as well as amendments to the Rules of Procedure intended to take effect at the beginning of the new parliamentary term.
Ralf Grahn
***
MEPs maternity or paternity leave
Procedure REG/2006/2025 has led to a draft report drafted by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo: PE374.264. The draft was tabled on 12 July 2006 and the subject matter is the rules applying to Members in the event of maternity or paternity.
The report is still awaiting the blessing of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and debate by the full Parliament.
***
Petitions process
In procedure REG/2006/2209 the rapporteur Gérard Onesta drafted a report on revision of the Rules of Procedure with regard to the petitions process. The report A6-0027/2009 was adopted by AFCO 27 January 2009, and is awaiting debate in the chamber.
The proposal is described as fine-tuning the petitions procedure, but a number of Rules would be affected.
***
General review of Rules of Procedure
A general review of the EP’s Rules of Procedure is under way. We have presented the areas of interest in the Corbett draft report in an earlier blog post, so here our intention is mainly a quick update.
The procedure file REG/2007/2124 is still waiting for a future AFCO vote. The report comprises questions related to the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon as well as amendments to the Rules of Procedure intended to take effect at the beginning of the new parliamentary term.
Ralf Grahn
European Parliament: Amendments Rules of Procedure
The European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure regulate the proceedings in the EP. They build on parliamentary traditions and their aim is the orderly conduct of parliamentary business. But ‘objective’ rules may or may not favour larger groups at the expense of smaller ones or non-attached members. In other words, they can have political consequences.
With a view to serve MEP candidates and campaign groups, journalists, researchers, students and interested citizens, we take a look at some procedures (2008 and 2009) to amend or interpret the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
This overview shows that refining and interpreting the Rules of Procedure is an ongoing work.
***
Interpretations appended
On 2 September 2008 the European Parliament decided to append the following interpretation to Rule 182.
1. Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 182:"
Rule 182(1) does not preclude the chair of the main committee from involving the chairs of the subcommittees in the work of the bureau or from permitting them to chair debates on issues specifically dealt with by the subcommittees in question – indeed, it allows this – provided that this way of proceeding is submitted to the bureau in its entirety for its consideration and that it receives the bureau's agreement.
Source: Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0388 ; procedure REG/2008/2075.
***
On 19 February 2009 the European Parliament approved two interpretations, which were appended to the Rules in question:
1. Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 47:"
For the purposes of examining international agreements under Rule 83, the procedure with associated committees set out in Rule 47 may not be applied in relation to the assent procedure under Rule 75.
"
2. Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 149(4):"
Members who have asked for the quorum to be established must be present in the Chamber when the request is made.
Source: Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2009)0080 ; Procedures REG/2009/2017 and REG/2008/2327.
***
AFCO interpretation
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which had been consulted on the application of Rule 179(3), provided the following interpretation on that provision:
'If Parliament, acting pursuant to Rule 175 of the Rules of Procedure, has conferred a task on a temporary committee, no committees shall be asked for their opinions, unless determined otherwise on the basis of the mandate approved by Parliament or of decisions taken by the temporary committee in the light of that mandate.'
Source: Procedure REG/2008/2076.
***
Amendment of Rule 81 on implementing measures
On 8 May 2008 the European Parliament amended rule 81(4)(a) on implementing measures, by Resolution P6_TA(2008)0190:
(a) the time for scrutiny shall start to run when the draft of measures has been submitted to Parliament in all official languages. Where shorter time-limits apply (Article 5a(5)(b) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission) and in cases of urgency (Article 5a(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC), the time for scrutiny shall, unless the Chair of the committee responsible objects, start to run from the date of receipt by Parliament of the final draft implementing measures in the language versions submitted to the members of the committee established in accordance with Decision 1999/468/EC. Rule 138 shall not apply in this case ;
Sources: Procedure REG/2008/2027; AFCO Report A6-0108/2008 included the justification (explanation), which concerns implementing powers delegated to the Commission.
***
Duties of the EP President
On 31 January 2008 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution interpreting the duties of the President, with the aim to curb the use of procedural means (for minority groups) to prolong the sittings of Parliament. The wording gives its blessing to the decisions already taken by the EP President to refuse demands for time-consuming procedures by “fringe” groups:
1. Adopts the following interpretation of Rule 19:"
'Rule 19(1) can be interpreted as meaning that the powers conferred by that Rule include the power to call an end to the excessive use of motions such as points of order, procedural motions, explanations of vote and requests for separate, split or roll-call votes where the President is convinced that these are manifestly intended to cause and will result in a prolonged and serious obstruction of the procedures of the House or the rights of other Members';
Sources: Resolution P6_TA(2008)0024; procedure REG/2008/2016.
***
Transitional language rules
On 11 March 2009 the European Parliament adopted a resolution to prolong the provisional derogations with regard to the use of especially Irish and Maltese until the end of the parliamentary term from 2009 to 2014.
Because the Resolution is fresh and requires attentive reading, but may be of interest to some of the visitors to this blog, we present the explanatory text as well:
The European Parliament ,
– having regard to Article 290 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community(1) , as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005(2) ,
– having regard to the Code of Conduct on Multilingualism adopted by the Bureau on 17 November 2008,
– having regard to the Bureau's decision of 13 December 2006 on a derogation from Rule 138 and its subsequent decisions extending that derogation until the end of the current parliamentary term,
– having regard to Rules 138 and 139 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas, pursuant to Rule 138, all Parliament's documents are to be drawn up in the official languages, and all Members have the right to speak in Parliament in the official language of their choice, with interpretation into the other official languages,
B. whereas, under Rule 139, derogations from Rule 138 are permissible until the end of the sixth parliamentary term if, and to the extent that, despite adequate precautions, the linguists required for an official language are not available in sufficient numbers; whereas with respect to each official language for which a derogation is considered necessary, the Bureau, on a proposal from the Secretary-General, shall ascertain whether the conditions are fulfilled, and the Bureau shall review its decision every six months,
C. whereas, on 13 December 2006, the Bureau accepted that the difficulties of providing sufficient language cover for Maltese, Romanian, Bulgarian and Irish were such that the conditions were fulfilled for a derogation from Rule 138 in respect of each of those languages; whereas by subsequent Bureau decisions those derogations have been extended such that, from 1 January 2009 until the end of the parliamentary term, a derogation applies in respect of Bulgarian and Romanian (interpretation), Czech (interpretation during the Czech Council Presidency), Maltese (interpretation and translation) and Irish (interpretation, translation and legal-linguistic verification),
D. whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 provides for temporary (renewable) derogation measures for a five-year period in respect of Irish,
E. whereas, despite all adequate precautions, the capacity in Irish and Maltese is not expected to be such as to allow a full interpretation service in those languages from the beginning of the seventh parliamentary term; whereas, for certain other languages, although there will be sufficient capacity to cover the needs arising from the usual activities of Parliament, the number of interpreters may not be sufficient to allow full coverage of all the extra needs expected during the Council Presidencies of the Member States concerned during the seventh parliamentary term,
F. whereas, despite sustained and continuous interinstitutional efforts, the number of qualified translators and lawyer-linguists is still expected to be so limited as regards Irish that, for the foreseeable future, only a reduced coverage of that language can be assured; whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 does not require legislation of the European Union adopted before 1 January 2007 ('the Acquis ') to be translated into Irish; whereas, as a result of the derogation measures laid down in that Regulation, only Commission proposals for codecision regulations are currently being presented in Irish and, as long as this situation persists, it will not be possible for Parliament's services to prepare Irish versions of other types of legal act,
G. whereas, during the seventh parliamentary term, other European States may become members of the European Union; whereas, for the new languages concerned, linguists may not be available in sufficient numbers from the day of accession, which will require transitional measures,
H. whereas Rule 139(4) provides that, on a reasoned recommendation from the Bureau, Parliament may decide, at the end of the parliamentary term, to extend that Rule,
I. whereas, in the light of the foregoing, the Bureau has recommended that Rule 139 be extended until the end of the seventh parliamentary term,
1. Decides to extend the applicability of Rule 139 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure until the end of the seventh parliamentary term;
2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission for information.
Source: Procedure RSO/2009/2563; Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2009)0116.
***
Earlier procedures
Earlier procedures were omitted, but here are some from 2007 in short form:
REG/2007/2272 plenary proceedings; Corbett
REG/2007/2266 Rule 121 on ECJ proceedings; Botopoulos
REG/2007/2240 symbols of the Union; Carnero González
REG/2007/2170 interprettion Rule 116; Corbett
REG/2007/2137 Rule 173 verbatim reports; Corbett
Ralf Grahn
With a view to serve MEP candidates and campaign groups, journalists, researchers, students and interested citizens, we take a look at some procedures (2008 and 2009) to amend or interpret the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
This overview shows that refining and interpreting the Rules of Procedure is an ongoing work.
***
Interpretations appended
On 2 September 2008 the European Parliament decided to append the following interpretation to Rule 182.
1. Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 182:"
Rule 182(1) does not preclude the chair of the main committee from involving the chairs of the subcommittees in the work of the bureau or from permitting them to chair debates on issues specifically dealt with by the subcommittees in question – indeed, it allows this – provided that this way of proceeding is submitted to the bureau in its entirety for its consideration and that it receives the bureau's agreement.
Source: Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0388 ; procedure REG/2008/2075.
***
On 19 February 2009 the European Parliament approved two interpretations, which were appended to the Rules in question:
1. Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 47:"
For the purposes of examining international agreements under Rule 83, the procedure with associated committees set out in Rule 47 may not be applied in relation to the assent procedure under Rule 75.
"
2. Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 149(4):"
Members who have asked for the quorum to be established must be present in the Chamber when the request is made.
Source: Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2009)0080 ; Procedures REG/2009/2017 and REG/2008/2327.
***
AFCO interpretation
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which had been consulted on the application of Rule 179(3), provided the following interpretation on that provision:
'If Parliament, acting pursuant to Rule 175 of the Rules of Procedure, has conferred a task on a temporary committee, no committees shall be asked for their opinions, unless determined otherwise on the basis of the mandate approved by Parliament or of decisions taken by the temporary committee in the light of that mandate.'
Source: Procedure REG/2008/2076.
***
Amendment of Rule 81 on implementing measures
On 8 May 2008 the European Parliament amended rule 81(4)(a) on implementing measures, by Resolution P6_TA(2008)0190:
(a) the time for scrutiny shall start to run when the draft of measures has been submitted to Parliament in all official languages. Where shorter time-limits apply (Article 5a(5)(b) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission) and in cases of urgency (Article 5a(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC), the time for scrutiny shall, unless the Chair of the committee responsible objects, start to run from the date of receipt by Parliament of the final draft implementing measures in the language versions submitted to the members of the committee established in accordance with Decision 1999/468/EC. Rule 138 shall not apply in this case ;
Sources: Procedure REG/2008/2027; AFCO Report A6-0108/2008 included the justification (explanation), which concerns implementing powers delegated to the Commission.
***
Duties of the EP President
On 31 January 2008 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution interpreting the duties of the President, with the aim to curb the use of procedural means (for minority groups) to prolong the sittings of Parliament. The wording gives its blessing to the decisions already taken by the EP President to refuse demands for time-consuming procedures by “fringe” groups:
1. Adopts the following interpretation of Rule 19:"
'Rule 19(1) can be interpreted as meaning that the powers conferred by that Rule include the power to call an end to the excessive use of motions such as points of order, procedural motions, explanations of vote and requests for separate, split or roll-call votes where the President is convinced that these are manifestly intended to cause and will result in a prolonged and serious obstruction of the procedures of the House or the rights of other Members';
Sources: Resolution P6_TA(2008)0024; procedure REG/2008/2016.
***
Transitional language rules
On 11 March 2009 the European Parliament adopted a resolution to prolong the provisional derogations with regard to the use of especially Irish and Maltese until the end of the parliamentary term from 2009 to 2014.
Because the Resolution is fresh and requires attentive reading, but may be of interest to some of the visitors to this blog, we present the explanatory text as well:
The European Parliament ,
– having regard to Article 290 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community(1) , as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005(2) ,
– having regard to the Code of Conduct on Multilingualism adopted by the Bureau on 17 November 2008,
– having regard to the Bureau's decision of 13 December 2006 on a derogation from Rule 138 and its subsequent decisions extending that derogation until the end of the current parliamentary term,
– having regard to Rules 138 and 139 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas, pursuant to Rule 138, all Parliament's documents are to be drawn up in the official languages, and all Members have the right to speak in Parliament in the official language of their choice, with interpretation into the other official languages,
B. whereas, under Rule 139, derogations from Rule 138 are permissible until the end of the sixth parliamentary term if, and to the extent that, despite adequate precautions, the linguists required for an official language are not available in sufficient numbers; whereas with respect to each official language for which a derogation is considered necessary, the Bureau, on a proposal from the Secretary-General, shall ascertain whether the conditions are fulfilled, and the Bureau shall review its decision every six months,
C. whereas, on 13 December 2006, the Bureau accepted that the difficulties of providing sufficient language cover for Maltese, Romanian, Bulgarian and Irish were such that the conditions were fulfilled for a derogation from Rule 138 in respect of each of those languages; whereas by subsequent Bureau decisions those derogations have been extended such that, from 1 January 2009 until the end of the parliamentary term, a derogation applies in respect of Bulgarian and Romanian (interpretation), Czech (interpretation during the Czech Council Presidency), Maltese (interpretation and translation) and Irish (interpretation, translation and legal-linguistic verification),
D. whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 provides for temporary (renewable) derogation measures for a five-year period in respect of Irish,
E. whereas, despite all adequate precautions, the capacity in Irish and Maltese is not expected to be such as to allow a full interpretation service in those languages from the beginning of the seventh parliamentary term; whereas, for certain other languages, although there will be sufficient capacity to cover the needs arising from the usual activities of Parliament, the number of interpreters may not be sufficient to allow full coverage of all the extra needs expected during the Council Presidencies of the Member States concerned during the seventh parliamentary term,
F. whereas, despite sustained and continuous interinstitutional efforts, the number of qualified translators and lawyer-linguists is still expected to be so limited as regards Irish that, for the foreseeable future, only a reduced coverage of that language can be assured; whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005 does not require legislation of the European Union adopted before 1 January 2007 ('the Acquis ') to be translated into Irish; whereas, as a result of the derogation measures laid down in that Regulation, only Commission proposals for codecision regulations are currently being presented in Irish and, as long as this situation persists, it will not be possible for Parliament's services to prepare Irish versions of other types of legal act,
G. whereas, during the seventh parliamentary term, other European States may become members of the European Union; whereas, for the new languages concerned, linguists may not be available in sufficient numbers from the day of accession, which will require transitional measures,
H. whereas Rule 139(4) provides that, on a reasoned recommendation from the Bureau, Parliament may decide, at the end of the parliamentary term, to extend that Rule,
I. whereas, in the light of the foregoing, the Bureau has recommended that Rule 139 be extended until the end of the seventh parliamentary term,
1. Decides to extend the applicability of Rule 139 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure until the end of the seventh parliamentary term;
2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission for information.
Source: Procedure RSO/2009/2563; Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2009)0116.
***
Earlier procedures
Earlier procedures were omitted, but here are some from 2007 in short form:
REG/2007/2272 plenary proceedings; Corbett
REG/2007/2266 Rule 121 on ECJ proceedings; Botopoulos
REG/2007/2240 symbols of the Union; Carnero González
REG/2007/2170 interprettion Rule 116; Corbett
REG/2007/2137 Rule 173 verbatim reports; Corbett
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 13 March 2009
European Parliament: Rules of Procedure
Within the treaty framework, the European Parliament adopts and amends its Rules of Procedure, without binding the other institutions or third parties.
The Rules of Procedure regulate the main part of decision-making and procedures within the European Parliament.
Clearer references to the version in force and amendments, as well as when they enter into force and possibly lapse, could be recommended with a view to making life easier for researchers and students of EU law and politics, if no such needs are felt within the EP.
***
Current treaty
Article 199 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), as published in the consolidated version of the treaties in force in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.12.2006 C 321 E/135, concerns two aspects of the European Parliament:
1) adopting the Rules of Procedure, and
2) publishing the proceedings.
Article 199 TEC
The European Parliament shall adopt its Rules of Procedure, acting by a majority of its Members.
The proceedings of the European Parliament shall be published in the manner laid down in its Rules of Procedure.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
Article 2, point 187 of the original Treaty of Lisbon amended the second paragraph of Article 197 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/103):
187) In the second paragraph of Article 199, the words ‘manner laid down in its Rules of Procedure’ shall be replaced by ‘manner laid down in the Treaties and in its Rules of Procedure’.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
In the consolidated (readable) Treaty of Lisbon the slightly amended provision became Article 232 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/152:
Article 232 TFEU
(ex Article 199 TEC)
The European Parliament shall adopt its Rules of Procedure, acting by a majority of its Members.
The proceedings of the European Parliament shall be published in the manner laid down in the Treaties and in its Rules of Procedure.
***
Autonomy and Rules of Procedure
The adoption of the Rules of Procedure is based on the internal autonomy of the European Parliament, but naturally only within the limits set by the treaties. The Rules of Procedure can only express the EP’s views with regard to interinstitutional relations, but they are not legally binding on the other institutions. (The institutions can bind themselves politically and legally by so called interinstitutional agreements.)
The decision requires a majority of the EP’s members, which is higher than the ordinary rule of a majority of the votes cast (Article 198 TEC; 231 TFEU).
***
Rules of Procedure in force
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 16th edition, have been published in the OJEU 15.2.2005 L 44/1.
The following amendments have been published in the Official Journal:
OJEU 16.12.2006 C 308 E/88-90 Rules 3 and 4
OJEU 23.12.2006 C 317 E/747-748 Rule 81
OJEU 23.12.2006 C 317 E/749 Rules 15 and 182(1), transitional amendments
OJEU 22.12.2006 C 316 E/115-116 Rule 139, transitional amendment
I found no newer consolidated version through Eur-Lex or the Official Journal than the 16th edition mentioned above.
The latest version found through the European Parliament’s web pages is also described as the 16th edition, but dated October 2008:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Supposedly, this is the version in force, but the amendments are not necessarily clearly indicated.
***
Amending the EP’s Rules of Procedure
Adopting the Rules of Procedures is not mentioned, since they already exist, but amendments are regulated by Rule 202
Rule 202 Amendment of the Rules of Procedure
1. Any Member may propose amendments to these Rules and to the annexes thereto accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications.
Such proposed amendments shall be translated, printed, distributed and referred to the committee responsible, which shall examine them and decide whether to submit them to Parliament.
For the purpose of applying Rules 150, 151 and 155 to consideration of such proposed amendments in Parliament, references made in those Rules to the 'original text' or the 'Commission proposal' shall be considered as referring to the provision in force at the time.
2. Amendments to these Rules shall be adopted only if they secure the votes of a majority of the component Members of Parliament.
3. Unless otherwise specified when the vote is taken, amendments to these Rules and to the annexes thereto shall enter into force on the first day of the partsession following their adoption.
***
Applying the Rules of Procedure
Rule 201 lays down the formal rules for application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure if doubts arise. In most organisations advice is sought and given on an informal basis, so formal procedures are more the exception than the norm:
Rule 201 Application of the Rules of Procedure
1. Should doubt arise over the application or interpretation of these Rules of Procedure, the President may refer the matter to the committee responsible for examination.
Committee chairs may do so where such a doubt arises in the course of the committee's work and is related to it.
2. The committee shall decide whether it is necessary to propose an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. In this case it shall proceed in accordance with Rule 202.
3. Should the committee decide that an interpretation of the existing Rules is sufficient, it shall forward its interpretation to the President who shall inform Parliament at its next part-session.
4. Should a political group or at least forty Members contest the committee's interpretation, the matter shall be put to the vote in Parliament. Adoption of the text shall be by a majority of the votes cast provided that at least one-third of Parliament's component Members are present. In the event of rejection, the matter shall be referred back to the committee.
5. Uncontested interpretations and interpretations adopted by Parliament shall be appended in italic print as explanatory notes to the appropriate Rule or Rules.
6. Interpretations shall constitute precedents for the future application and interpretation of the Rules concerned.
7. The Rules of Procedure and interpretations shall be reviewed regularly by the committee responsible.
8. Where these Rules confer rights on a specific number of Members, that number shall be automatically adjusted to the nearest whole number representing the same percentage of Parliament's membership whenever the total size of Parliament is increased, notably following enlargements of the European Union.
***
Committee responsible
According to Annex VI.XVIII, point 8, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the interpretation and application of the Rules of Procedure and proposals for amendments thereto.
***
Interinstitutional agreements
According to Rule 120 interinstitutional agreements may be annexed to the Rules of Procedure, and they may lead to modifications of these rules.
***
Points of order
Rule 166 concerns points of order, when a member alleges failure to respect the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
***
Possible improvements
For instance when amending the Rules of Procedure, clearer references could be made to the version in force and later amendments, as well as when they enter into force and possibly lapse, with a view to making life easier for researchers and students of EU law and politics, if no such needs are felt within the European Parliament.
Ralf Grahn
The Rules of Procedure regulate the main part of decision-making and procedures within the European Parliament.
Clearer references to the version in force and amendments, as well as when they enter into force and possibly lapse, could be recommended with a view to making life easier for researchers and students of EU law and politics, if no such needs are felt within the EP.
***
Current treaty
Article 199 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), as published in the consolidated version of the treaties in force in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.12.2006 C 321 E/135, concerns two aspects of the European Parliament:
1) adopting the Rules of Procedure, and
2) publishing the proceedings.
Article 199 TEC
The European Parliament shall adopt its Rules of Procedure, acting by a majority of its Members.
The proceedings of the European Parliament shall be published in the manner laid down in its Rules of Procedure.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
Article 2, point 187 of the original Treaty of Lisbon amended the second paragraph of Article 197 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/103):
187) In the second paragraph of Article 199, the words ‘manner laid down in its Rules of Procedure’ shall be replaced by ‘manner laid down in the Treaties and in its Rules of Procedure’.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
In the consolidated (readable) Treaty of Lisbon the slightly amended provision became Article 232 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/152:
Article 232 TFEU
(ex Article 199 TEC)
The European Parliament shall adopt its Rules of Procedure, acting by a majority of its Members.
The proceedings of the European Parliament shall be published in the manner laid down in the Treaties and in its Rules of Procedure.
***
Autonomy and Rules of Procedure
The adoption of the Rules of Procedure is based on the internal autonomy of the European Parliament, but naturally only within the limits set by the treaties. The Rules of Procedure can only express the EP’s views with regard to interinstitutional relations, but they are not legally binding on the other institutions. (The institutions can bind themselves politically and legally by so called interinstitutional agreements.)
The decision requires a majority of the EP’s members, which is higher than the ordinary rule of a majority of the votes cast (Article 198 TEC; 231 TFEU).
***
Rules of Procedure in force
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 16th edition, have been published in the OJEU 15.2.2005 L 44/1.
The following amendments have been published in the Official Journal:
OJEU 16.12.2006 C 308 E/88-90 Rules 3 and 4
OJEU 23.12.2006 C 317 E/747-748 Rule 81
OJEU 23.12.2006 C 317 E/749 Rules 15 and 182(1), transitional amendments
OJEU 22.12.2006 C 316 E/115-116 Rule 139, transitional amendment
I found no newer consolidated version through Eur-Lex or the Official Journal than the 16th edition mentioned above.
The latest version found through the European Parliament’s web pages is also described as the 16th edition, but dated October 2008:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Supposedly, this is the version in force, but the amendments are not necessarily clearly indicated.
***
Amending the EP’s Rules of Procedure
Adopting the Rules of Procedures is not mentioned, since they already exist, but amendments are regulated by Rule 202
Rule 202 Amendment of the Rules of Procedure
1. Any Member may propose amendments to these Rules and to the annexes thereto accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications.
Such proposed amendments shall be translated, printed, distributed and referred to the committee responsible, which shall examine them and decide whether to submit them to Parliament.
For the purpose of applying Rules 150, 151 and 155 to consideration of such proposed amendments in Parliament, references made in those Rules to the 'original text' or the 'Commission proposal' shall be considered as referring to the provision in force at the time.
2. Amendments to these Rules shall be adopted only if they secure the votes of a majority of the component Members of Parliament.
3. Unless otherwise specified when the vote is taken, amendments to these Rules and to the annexes thereto shall enter into force on the first day of the partsession following their adoption.
***
Applying the Rules of Procedure
Rule 201 lays down the formal rules for application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure if doubts arise. In most organisations advice is sought and given on an informal basis, so formal procedures are more the exception than the norm:
Rule 201 Application of the Rules of Procedure
1. Should doubt arise over the application or interpretation of these Rules of Procedure, the President may refer the matter to the committee responsible for examination.
Committee chairs may do so where such a doubt arises in the course of the committee's work and is related to it.
2. The committee shall decide whether it is necessary to propose an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. In this case it shall proceed in accordance with Rule 202.
3. Should the committee decide that an interpretation of the existing Rules is sufficient, it shall forward its interpretation to the President who shall inform Parliament at its next part-session.
4. Should a political group or at least forty Members contest the committee's interpretation, the matter shall be put to the vote in Parliament. Adoption of the text shall be by a majority of the votes cast provided that at least one-third of Parliament's component Members are present. In the event of rejection, the matter shall be referred back to the committee.
5. Uncontested interpretations and interpretations adopted by Parliament shall be appended in italic print as explanatory notes to the appropriate Rule or Rules.
6. Interpretations shall constitute precedents for the future application and interpretation of the Rules concerned.
7. The Rules of Procedure and interpretations shall be reviewed regularly by the committee responsible.
8. Where these Rules confer rights on a specific number of Members, that number shall be automatically adjusted to the nearest whole number representing the same percentage of Parliament's membership whenever the total size of Parliament is increased, notably following enlargements of the European Union.
***
Committee responsible
According to Annex VI.XVIII, point 8, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the interpretation and application of the Rules of Procedure and proposals for amendments thereto.
***
Interinstitutional agreements
According to Rule 120 interinstitutional agreements may be annexed to the Rules of Procedure, and they may lead to modifications of these rules.
***
Points of order
Rule 166 concerns points of order, when a member alleges failure to respect the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
***
Possible improvements
For instance when amending the Rules of Procedure, clearer references could be made to the version in force and later amendments, as well as when they enter into force and possibly lapse, with a view to making life easier for researchers and students of EU law and politics, if no such needs are felt within the European Parliament.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
European Central Bank: Procurement amendments
The European Central Bank has aligned its procurement rules with the Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC.
The ECB is going to use the amended EU thresholds, establish lists of suitable suppliers for contracts below the thresholds and exclude bidders guilty of criminal acts or having conflicting interests.
The Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/2 of 27 January 2009 amending Decision ECB/2007/5 laying down the Rules on Procurement has been officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 24.2.2009 L 51/10. The Decision enters into force on 1 March 2009.
The original Decision ECB/2007/5 of 3 July 2007 was published in the OJEU 14.7.2007 L 184/34.
Ralf Grahn
The ECB is going to use the amended EU thresholds, establish lists of suitable suppliers for contracts below the thresholds and exclude bidders guilty of criminal acts or having conflicting interests.
The Decision of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/2 of 27 January 2009 amending Decision ECB/2007/5 laying down the Rules on Procurement has been officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 24.2.2009 L 51/10. The Decision enters into force on 1 March 2009.
The original Decision ECB/2007/5 of 3 July 2007 was published in the OJEU 14.7.2007 L 184/34.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Constitutions: USA versus Europe
The Philadelphia Convention drafted the short and readable Constitution of the United States of America (1787), with little in the way of democratic (Britain, Holland) and republican precedents to follow, and their ability to construct a federal system was revolutionary.
Still, by getting it right the first time and by using broad brush-strokes, the Convention left little to be tinkered with later, although the Bill of Rights was added almost immediately to ensure ratification, and the abolition of slavery, election procedures and civil rights have caused some amendments during more than 200 years of existence.
In spite of being almost perfect at birth, the US Constitution avoided the dangers of petrification by providing for future amendments. Changing the Constitution was made difficult, but not impossible, as laid out in Article V:
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ---
***
The European experience has been different: The texts have been long and unwieldy. Detailed provisions and laborious compromises have been enshrined at the ‘constitutional’ level. Both treaty negotiations and later ratifications have required unanimity.
All this has led to the constant need for treaty revision in order to avoid ossification.
The Irish referendum has, once again, shown how feeble the general interest is in the European context.
***
In an earlier post we saw that the Treaty of Lisbon has to be ratified by 27 member states to enter into force in its present form.
The preceding phase, making the needed amendments, is another source of relative impotence. It does not need a special provision, because it follows from the application of principles of traditional international law and from the requirement that each participating government has to be willing to propose and able to get ratification from its national parliament (as a rule).
The current rule on treaty change is Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union:
Article 48 TEU
The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.
If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
***
Constant tinkering, frequent intergovernmental conferences, proposed half-measures, protracted ratifications, unreadable texts, alienated electorates …
If the European Union is in a hole, it is one it has dug itself.
Ralf Grahn
Still, by getting it right the first time and by using broad brush-strokes, the Convention left little to be tinkered with later, although the Bill of Rights was added almost immediately to ensure ratification, and the abolition of slavery, election procedures and civil rights have caused some amendments during more than 200 years of existence.
In spite of being almost perfect at birth, the US Constitution avoided the dangers of petrification by providing for future amendments. Changing the Constitution was made difficult, but not impossible, as laid out in Article V:
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ---
***
The European experience has been different: The texts have been long and unwieldy. Detailed provisions and laborious compromises have been enshrined at the ‘constitutional’ level. Both treaty negotiations and later ratifications have required unanimity.
All this has led to the constant need for treaty revision in order to avoid ossification.
The Irish referendum has, once again, shown how feeble the general interest is in the European context.
***
In an earlier post we saw that the Treaty of Lisbon has to be ratified by 27 member states to enter into force in its present form.
The preceding phase, making the needed amendments, is another source of relative impotence. It does not need a special provision, because it follows from the application of principles of traditional international law and from the requirement that each participating government has to be willing to propose and able to get ratification from its national parliament (as a rule).
The current rule on treaty change is Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union:
Article 48 TEU
The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.
If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
***
Constant tinkering, frequent intergovernmental conferences, proposed half-measures, protracted ratifications, unreadable texts, alienated electorates …
If the European Union is in a hole, it is one it has dug itself.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 20 January 2008
British resources on EU Lisbon Treaty
The debate on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon starts in earnest in the UK House of Commons tomorrow, Monday. Here is a list of some resources on the EU Reform Treaty from a British perspective:
European Union (Amendment) Bill, 17 December 2007, Bill 48
Explanatory notes to the European Union (Amendment) Bill
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/80, 22 November 2007: The EU Reform Treaty: amendments to the Treaty on European Union
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/86, 6 December 2007: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community
House of Commons Library, Research paper 08/03, 15 January 2008: European Union (Amendment) Bill, Bill 48 of 2007-08
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, Third Report of Session 2007-08
***
The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee was published today. The first media reactions have focused on the essential similarities between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.
This is true, especially concerning the foreign policy parts of the Treaty of Lisbon, and a foregone conclusion for anyone who has read the June 2007 mandate for the intergovernmental conference.
Naturally, the Treaty of Lisbon itself, and the consolidated versions offered by Statewatch, the IIEA and Markus Walther are important materials.
Should I have mentioned other documents or comments?
Ralf Grahn
European Union (Amendment) Bill, 17 December 2007, Bill 48
Explanatory notes to the European Union (Amendment) Bill
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/80, 22 November 2007: The EU Reform Treaty: amendments to the Treaty on European Union
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/86, 6 December 2007: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community
House of Commons Library, Research paper 08/03, 15 January 2008: European Union (Amendment) Bill, Bill 48 of 2007-08
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, Third Report of Session 2007-08
***
The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee was published today. The first media reactions have focused on the essential similarities between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.
This is true, especially concerning the foreign policy parts of the Treaty of Lisbon, and a foregone conclusion for anyone who has read the June 2007 mandate for the intergovernmental conference.
Naturally, the Treaty of Lisbon itself, and the consolidated versions offered by Statewatch, the IIEA and Markus Walther are important materials.
Should I have mentioned other documents or comments?
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
Bill of Rights
As a consequence of American export of popular culture, millions of people in every corner of the world daily watch American television drama based on the Constitution. Lawyers, prosecutors and policemen all use phrases and concepts derived from the Constitution of the United States of America. Naturally, the supreme importance of the Constitution has occurred in the USA itself.
In The Penguin History of the USA Hugh Brogan states:
The degree of one’s understanding of the Constitution is to a large extent the degree of one’s understanding of the United States.
Given their knowledge of the world and their experiences of colonial rule, which freedoms seemed worthy of special protection in the newly independent Union?
The first ten Amendments, additions in practice, known as the Bill of Rights, express the concerns of late 18th Century Americans. Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights still form the nucleus of modern, international declarations of human rights and modern constitutions of the world.
The American Bill of Rights is part of the common legacy of humanity:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ralf Grahn
In The Penguin History of the USA Hugh Brogan states:
The degree of one’s understanding of the Constitution is to a large extent the degree of one’s understanding of the United States.
Given their knowledge of the world and their experiences of colonial rule, which freedoms seemed worthy of special protection in the newly independent Union?
The first ten Amendments, additions in practice, known as the Bill of Rights, express the concerns of late 18th Century Americans. Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights still form the nucleus of modern, international declarations of human rights and modern constitutions of the world.
The American Bill of Rights is part of the common legacy of humanity:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
