EUU, Alm.del - 2008-09 - Bilag 401: Referat af COSAC-møde og Trojka-møde i Prag 11.-12. maj 2009

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE XLI COSACPrague, 11-12 May 2009AGENDA:1. Opening Session of the XLI COSAC.Welcome speeches: Mr Miloslav VLČEK, Speaker of thePoslanecká sněmovnaof theCzech Republic; Mr Přemysl SOBOTKA, President of theSenátof the Czech Republic.2. Czech Presidency of the Council of the EUGuest Speaker: Mr Jan FISCHER, President of the European Council, Prime Minister ofthe Czech Republic.3.CurrentEconomic and Financial Situation: Czech Presidency Perspective on itsRecoveryGuest Speakers: Mr Eduard JANOTA, Minister of Finance of the Czech Republic;Mr Miroslav KALOUSEK, former Minister of Finance of the Czech Republic.4. European Commission's Annual Policy Strategy for 2010Guest Speaker: Mr Vladimír ŠPIDLA, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairsand Equal Opportunities.5. Role of the EU in Defending Democracy and Human Rights in the WorldGuest Speaker: Mr Michael KOCÁB, Minister for Human Rights of the Czech Republic.6. Presentation of the 11thBi-annual Report with Special Regard to the NationalParliaments’ Role in the Control of Europol and Evaluation of EurojustIntroduction: Mr Luděk SEFZIG, Chairman of the Committee on EU Affairs of theSenátof the Czech Republic.7. Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood PolicyGuest Speaker: Mr Jan KOHOUT, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.8.Results of the Subsidiarity Check on the Proposal for a Directive on Standards ofQuality and Safety of Human Organs Intended for TransplantationIntroduction: Mr Luděk SEFZIG, Chairman of the Committee on EU Affairs of theSenátof the Czech Republic.9. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLI COSAC.

PROCEEDINGS:1. Opening Session of the XLI COSACWelcome speeches were given by Mr Miloslav VLČEK, Speaker of thePoslaneckásněmovnaof the Czech Republic, and Mr Přemysl SOBOTKA, President of theSenátof theCzech Republic.Mr Miloslav VLČEK, Speaker of thePoslanecká sněmovna,welcomed the participants toPrague and noted the positive developments with regard to the EU parliamentary dimensionduring the Czech Presidency. He underlined the importance and mutual benefit of closecooperation and communication between national parliaments and the European Parliament,stressing that the exchange of information should be further improved. The XLI COSACMeeting was also a good opportunity to share opinions on the current economic crisis, onwhich the EU has to stay united and to act with solidarity.The Speaker of theSenát,Mr Přemysl SOBOTKA, drew the attention of the Conference tothe important role of national parliaments in controlling the application of the principles ofsubsidiarity and proportionality, as a means to ensure that the EU's competences are

exercised within the limits defined by the Treaties. The Speaker informed the participantsthat on 6 May 2009 the CzechSenáthad ratified the Treaty of Lisbon.2. Czech Presidency of the Council of the EUGuest Speaker: Mr Jan FISCHER, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and President of theEuropean Council.In his introduction the Prime Minister, Mr Jan FISCHER, noted the crucial role of the EUparliaments in ensuring the democratic legitimacy of European integration and guarding theprinciple of subsidiarity.Referring to the very recent change of the Government of the Czech Republic, Mr FISCHERunderlined that it is the intention of the new administration to continue fulfilling, in a smoothand efficient manner, the tasks of the Council Presidency. He reaffirmed the three prioritiesof the Czech Presidency: Economy, Energy and Europe in the world, and remindedparticipants of the almost fifty legislative measures that had been adopted this far in thePresidency.On the economic and financial crisis, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the urgent need to tackleits impact in a comprehensive and efficient manner. There was a need to put forwardmeasures which are of immediate relevance for those citizens who are confronted witheconomic and social hardships as a consequence of the crisis. In this context, he made aspecific reference to the discussions held at the Employment Summit on 7 May 2009 inPrague.Referring to the crisis at the beginning of the Czech Presidency, Mr FISCHER underlined theurgent need for the EU and its Member States to work on long-term solutions to improve theEU's energy security. He also stressed that further measures to enhance energy efficiency inthe EU are needed. The Presidency was contributing to the preparation of the EU's position atthe upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on 7-18 December2009, a task that would be taken over by the forthcoming Swedish Presidency.Furthermore, there was a need for the EU to assert its role as a global player in the economicand political spheres. He recalled the importance of the recent summit on Eastern Partnershipin Prague, the relations with the Western Balkans and the official application of Albania forEU membership. Mr FISCHER emphasised the significance of entering into a dialogue withthe new administration of the United States of America and President Barack Obama,especially as far as economic and security issues are concerned.During the following debate the Czech Council Presidency was praised for its handling of anumber of difficult challenges so far. Specific reference was made to the issue of energysecurity, the so-called gas and oil crisis, which affected the EU at the beginning of 2009. Anumber of speakers also referred to the current economic and financial crisis as well as itssocial consequences. Most underlined how well the Presidency had responded to thesechallenges. In this context, speakers underlined the importance of solidarity among EUMember States, of cohesive EU wide action, and warned against national protectionism. Theestablishment of the Eastern Partnership was also debated intensely. Several speakers valuedit as an important foreign policy project which might also yield positive results as far as theEU's future energy security is concerned.With a view to the ratification of the Treaty if Lisbon some speakers made critical remarksthat the signature of the ratification bill by the President of the Czech Republic is still2

pending. Others congratulated the Czech Parliament for the successful conclusion of theratification procedure and stressed the importance of the entry into force of the Treaty ofLisbon as a precondition to deal with the challenges facing the EU and its Member States.3. Current Economic and Financial Situation: Czech Presidency Perspective on itsRecoveryGuest Speakers: Mr Eduard JANOTA, Minister of Finance of the Czech Republic and MrMiroslav KALOUSEK, former Minister of Finance of the Czech Republic.Ms Katerina JACQUES, Chairwoman of the Committee on European Affairs of thePoslanecká snemovnaof the Czech Republic, introduced the debate.The guest speaker, Mr Miroslav KALOUSEK, opened the debate by presenting the CzechPresidency of the Ecofin Council. In his opinion, the Ecofin ministers had taken all necessarysteps to ameliorate the consequences of the current economic and financial downturn. Themeasures taken by the Council will make it possible to reduce the negative consequences forcompanies and households. The minister underlined that the European Union must rememberthat the most important role for ministers of finance was to focus on a sustainable economy ina long term. It was crucial for the future of Europe to continue discussions on sustainablegrowth, including, for instance, demographic problems. Mr KALOUSEK pointed to theimportance of continued debate on a long term sustainable growth during the Councilmeetings. In his opinion, actions that the EU has to take should never be contrary to the tasksin the long run. Ecofin had succeeded in this respect.On specific examples of the work in Ecofin, Mr KALOUSEK mentioned the politicalagreement on the Proposal for a Directive as regards banks affiliated to central institutions,certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements, and crisis managementas well as the work on the Recovery Plan for Europe. In this context, the minister underlinedthe successful negations with the European Commission and the European Parliament. Healso mentioned the positive outcome of the G20 meeting in London in April 2009.Mr KALOUSEK warned against three risks: protectionism, over regulation, and the dangerof postponing the costs to coming generations. The economic situation demanded resources,but there was a large threat that it would be the future generations who would have to pay.The EU must be prudent in all its decisions.The new Minister of Finance of the Czech Republic, Mr Eduard JANOTA, continued theintroduction with his views on the effect of the economic crisis on the Czech Republic. Thecurrent crisis had had a different effect on his country, in comparison to most of the otherMember States. This was because of the Czech banking crisis in 2001, following which theCzech Republic had adopted a new regulatory framework for its banking system. Theminister also mentioning some remaining issues for the Ecofin Council during the CzechPresidency, in particular: the Report on the financial markets, and the discussions concerningtax havens.A number of delegates underlined the importance of adequate social policy measures toimprove the situation of those affected by the economic and financial downturn andexpressed their concerns about rising protectionisms and tax havens, as obstacles to afunctioning Internal Market. National parliaments should be constructive when it comes tothe implementation of the decisions taken both on the EU and international levels.

In answering questions, Mr KALOUSEK pointed out that the economic crisis is global, andthat Member States were affected in different ways. Therefore measures must be adjusted todifferent circumstances. The most important task in the current situation was to renewconfidence in the financial markets. He also pointed out that the responsibility with regard tosocial policy lies at a national level. National governments were responsible for the nationalbudgets and therefore for social policy. Mr KALOUSEK agreed on what had been said aboutprotectionism, tax havens and the role of the EU as a global actor. He concluded bycautioning against establishing new funds or procedures.4. European Commission's Annual Policy Strategy for 2010Guest Speaker: Mr Vladimír ŠPIDLA, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs andEqual Opportunities.Commissioner Vladimír ŠPIDLA emphasised that the cooperation between the EuropeanCommission and national parliaments, on bilateral and multilateral levels, was a crucialelement of the interinstitutional dialogue with a view to building consensus in the frameworkof the European decision-making process He was pleased with the organisation by COSACof a debate on the Annual Policy Strategy for 2010 (henceforth "APS 2010") and underlinedthe necessity of seeking a wide agreement on the APS 2010 which was all the more vital inthe current institutional context where both the European Parliament and the EuropeanCommission were on the verge of a new term.Mr ŠPIDLA highlighted the priorities of the Commission for 2010. He mentioned the follow-up of the Economic Recovery Plan and structural reforms under the Lisbon Growth and JobsStrategy as the highest priority, and referred to actions aiming at enhancing the real economy,overhauling the regulation and supervision of the financial markets and tacklingunemployment and maintaining social cohesion. He pointed out that after focusing its effortsin 2009 on contributing to the success of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference theEU should work in 2010 on the implementation of the Climate and Energy package, adoptedin December 2008. "Putting the citizen first" would be the third priority, under which theEuropean Commission intended to develop policies related to the position and quality of lifeof individuals. It would focus on the area of Freedom, Security and Justice (implementationof the Stockholm Programme, improvement of judicial cooperation in criminal and civilmatters, protection of fundamental rights, in particular as regards children) but would alsodevelop actions in the field of public health (EU Health Strategy). In addition there were anumber of dossiers that the EU would have to deal with as a World partner (the DohaDevelopment Round, reformed international financial architecture, etc). The Commissionerfinally made reference to the continuation of the policy of better regulation and transparency(reduction of the administrative burdens) and the start of a debate on the next EU multi-annual financial framework.The discussion tackled a very broad range of issues: the social consequences of the currenteconomic crisis, the improvement of the business environment for SMEs, the control of theEU long-term budget and the use of the European funds, and the fight against illegalimmigration and the demand for minimum standards of criminal procedural rights in the EU.More specifically, a number of delegations criticised the weakness of the EC's proposals inthe social area and emphasised the disappointing outcome of the recent Employment Summitin Prague. Mr Jan Jacob VAN DIJK (TweedeKamer,Netherlands) asked if the document onAnnual Policy Strategy would in the future become a Green Paper, allowing nationalparliaments to make contributions and consequently to play a more significant role indefining EU legislative priorities.

In his response, Commissioner ŠPIDLA first underlined the complexity of the issue ofimmigration. He referred to the current position of the EU that combined the control of legalimmigration and the setting up of instruments in order to fight illegal immigration in the EU,as the European Border Management Agency FRONTEX which should be strengthened in2010. Regarding the introduction of minimum standards of criminal procedural rights in theEU, the guest speaker indicated that this topic would be dealt with during the incomingSwedish Presidency. Then Mr ŠPIDLA focused on the economic and social crisis. He statedthat, despite the budgetary difficulties arising in a growing number of Member States, theStability Pact and its criteria remain valid in the long term. He emphasised the budgetaryimpact of the European policy on climate change and sustainable development and specifiedthat the EU should be prepared to handle the social consequences of the transition towards alow-carbon economy. On the Employment Summit, he argued that it had to be considered asthe first step of a process in which it was possible to go deeper. Moreover, he recalled thereform of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund whose scope was enlarged in order tocover redundancies caused by global financial and economic crisis. Finally, answering to MrVAN DIJK’s question, he stated that, even if APS did not belong to the category of GreenPapers, there was no major difference in terms of practice, considering that the involvementof national parliaments was useful and welcome in both cases.5. Role of the EU in Defending Democracy and Human Rights in the WorldGuest Speaker: Mr Michael KOCÁB, Minister for Human Rights of the Czech Republic.Ms Kateřina JACQUES introduced this topic by conveying apologies of Mr Václav HAVEL,the former President of the Czech Republic, who was unable to attend this meeting becauseof his state of health. Mr HAVEL had recorded a video address.Mr HAVEL recalled the universal character of human rights and urged emphasis on humanrights and democracy in the conclusions of the meeting. Too often in final statements ofinternational conferences, the topic of human rights was ignored and tended to become anaccessory subject. The argument evoked to justify this approach was always the same:governments which do not pay sufficient respect to human rights should not be provokedbecause of the economic interests at stake. In the opinion of Mr HAVEL, the EU shouldpromote these fundamental values from which it draws its essence and without which itwould not exist.Mr Michael KOCÁB stressed the need for swift and effective action in terms of humanrights. During the recent negotiations which had led to the formation of a new CzechGovernment, it had been stressed that human rights must be protected in times of crisis andthat the Ministry for Human Rights should continue its work in spite of the interim nature ofthe new Government.The minister referred to the European Parliament's Resolution adopted on 7 May 2009 on theAnnual Report on Human Rights in the World 2008 and the European Union’s policy on thematter. He recalled that, according to this Resolution, “the fight for human rights is a long-term one” and that “the EU must maintain its leading role in the fight”. There is an important“demand for Europe” in this area, to which an exemplary immigration policy and rigorousand binding controls on Member States’ practices in the fight against terrorism will respond.The change of administration in the United States of America should enable a neworientation in the framework of the fight against terrorism. Mr KOCÁB welcomed the willexpressed by the President of the United States of America, Mr Barack Obama, to find

solutions to conflicts through dialogue. The EU should be a community that promotes humanrights and democracy in the world alongside the United States of America.Mr KOCÁB highlighted the fact that the EU should never give up emphasising theuniversality of human rights. No economic interest prevailed over solidarity with those whosuffer.During the ensuing debate, several speakers expressed their respect for Mr HAVEL andechoed his speech, recalling the role that the EU had to play in the promotion of human rightsand democracy in the world. In this regard, some parliamentarians stressed the need for theEU to ensure that countries with which it trades respect human rights and democraticstandards. The important role of the Council of Europe in this area, as well as that whichcould be played by national parliaments, have also been underlined. A number of speakersexpressed their concern that the fight against terrorism could undermine protection ofprivacy. It was also underlined that the current economic crisis was actually a moral crisisand that it should not impede efforts in promoting human rights and democracy. According tomany speakers, the Treaty of Lisbon would provide additional tools for promotion andprotection of democracy and human rights.When commenting on the concerns expressed about the increase of extremism, anti-Semitismand xenophobia in Member States, Mr KOCÁB informed the delegations about policymeasures in the Czech Republic to fight neo-Nazism. He cited the three pillars of thecampaign of the Czech Government: (i) setting up of a permanent conference to study thephenomenon; (ii) an agreement of all political parties to act against the surge of extremism;and (iii) specific support measures of the statevis-à-visthe victims of extremism.In response to the comments made by participants about the protection of children's rightsand gender equality, the minister noted that the Czech Republic was not yet in step with someMember States. He mentioned the campaign to "Stop violence against children" which hadbeen reluctantly accepted by the Czech population. As to the concerns on protection ofprivate life, Mr KOCÁB cautioned that we should not give in to the panic created by the fearof terrorism and overdo legislation at Member State level.6. Presentation of the 11thBi-annual Report with Special Regard to the NationalParliaments’ Role in the Control of Europol and Evaluation of EurojustAn introduction was given by Mr Luděk SEFZIG, Chairman of the Committee on EU Affairsof theSenátof the Czech Republic.The 11thBi-annual Report of COSAC consisted of four chapters (i) Parliamentary control ofEuropol and evaluation of Eurojust, (ii) The role of the EU parliaments in the protection andpromotion of human rights in the world, (iii) Representatives of national parliaments to theEU, and (iv) Evaluation of COSAC Bi-annual Reports. The chairman, Mr Luděk SEFZIG,presented them and thanked the COSAC Secretariat for having prepared this document,which had served also as a basis for discussions at the meeting. Mr SEFZIG then went on toopen the debate on parliamentary oversight of Europol and Eurojust. In his speech he drewon findings of the relevant Chapter of the 11thBi-annual Report as well as discussions in theXL COSAC in Paris.Mr SEFZIG underlined that all parliaments seemed to share the conviction that democraticoversight of Europol and Eurojust is of primary importance and are therefore happy to carryit out. The primary question which EU parliaments were facing was on the form of the6

association of national parliaments and the European Parliament in order to scrutiniseEuropol and evaluate Eurojust. The preferred option seemed to be to use one of the existinginterparliamentary meetings rather than creating a new kind of meeting. The exact purpose,remit, content and procedures of such interparliamentary oversight of Europol and Eurojustwould still need to be decided. A logical tool to use would be the annual reports of bothinstitutions. Parliaments would first carry out scrutiny of the activities of the two institutions“at home” and then share their findings in an interparliamentary meeting. The director ofEuropol and president of the College of Eurojust would be present and the findings of themeeting would be made public.It had been stressed that even though parliaments are not yet prepared to take positions on thespecific form of such interparliamentary meetings, the debate on its characteristics shouldcontinue so that parliaments would be ready to carry out the relevant provisions of the Treatyof Lisbon if it enters into force. The chairman also stressed that the European Commissionshould consult national parliaments before adopting a proposal in this context.In the ensuing debate many speakers supported the principle that interparliamentary oversightof Europol and Eurojust should make use of existing forms of interparliamentarycooperation. The oversight must not hinder the work of the organisations and there should beno political interference in the operational activities of Eurojust and Europol. A number ofdelegates were of the opinion that COSAC was a good platform to continue discussions onthe future form of the oversight and they called on parliaments to formulate further theirviews in order to continue discussions in the next COSAC meeting. Some speakers expressedthemselves in favour of a strong role of COSAC, for example to coordinate the meetingswhere Europol and Eurojust issues would be discussed. Other delegates stressed that theorganisation of interparliamentary oversight should be flexible and parliaments should befree to decide the composition of their delegations but at the same time they should strive toachieve certain continuity.As a final point of the debate, Mr Hubert HAENEL (Sénat, France), on behalf of the formerCOSAC Presidency, reminded delegates that both the director of Europol and the president ofEurojust have pronounced themselves in favour of interparliamentary oversight of theirinstitutions.The chairman summarised the debate saying that at this point no form of meeting forinterparliamentary oversight of Europol and Eurojust could be acknowledged as the bestsuited and that the debate could not be concluded. He invited delegations to continuediscussions in their parliaments and the future Swedish Presidency to identify the bestalternatives for such interparliamentary oversight.7. Eastern Dimension of the European Neighbourhood PolicyGuest Speaker: Mr Jan KOHOUT, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.In opening this point the Chairman, Mr Ludek SEFZIG, welcomed the representatives of theParliaments of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Belarusand Georgia. They had been invited as special guests to this COSAC meeting, as this point ofthe agenda was of particular interest to those countries. The Parliaments of the Republic ofMoldova and of Ukraine had also been invited, but had not responded.Mr Jan KOHOUT started his presentation by underlining that the Eastern Partnership wasone of the main priorities for the Czech Presidency. It had been formally established by theSummit held on 7 May 2009 in Prague. The Partnership would further enhance the relations7

between the European Union and the six partner countries. So far, the Union had lacked acoherent policy towards those countries. The joint declaration of the Summit was anexpression of an inclusive policy, and a platform for creating the necessary conditions for acloser relationship.With the joint declaration, including the principles laid down therein, as a platform, thePartnership would develop on the basis of a broad consensus. This was supported by all statesconcerned, as well as the European Parliament. The text of the joint declaration as wellbalanced, ambitious and open to new initiatives. The EU had an interest in stability in theregion on its eastern border, and its policy would be pro-active. The Eastern Partnership wasa message of solidarity in developing the market economy and promoting democracy andhuman rights in the partner countries.Four "thematic platforms" would hold their initial meetings in June 2009. Each platformwould adopt a set of objectives, and a corresponding work programme. Reports will be givento annual meetings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs within the Eastern Partnership.Furthermore, Members of Parliament from the EU and the partner countries were invited tocome up with ideas regarding an "EU-Neighbourhood East Parliamentary Assembly", asproposed by Mr Hans-Gert Pöttering, the President of the European Parliament.Many participants took the floor in the debate that followed. Almost all of them welcomedthe fact that the Eastern Partnership had now become a reality. It would enhance the securityof the region and for the entire EU, helping to create peace and stability. The EU must beready to improve its co-operation with neighbours wishing to move forward in developingdemocracy, human rights, rule of law and freedom for their citizens. In one intervention,however, concern was voiced that there might not be sufficient commitment among EUMember States for yet another initiative.Representatives of the parliaments of the partner countries also warmly welcomed theEastern Partnership. It would bring their bilateral relations with the EU to a new level, as wellas facilitate multilateral co-operation in a number of fields, such as the energy sector, intransport, and in combating terrorism. But other aspects were important too: visa facilitation,association agreements, etc. These would be signals giving confidence that the efforts to“europeanise” would be worthwhile.Among other areas, where the Eastern Partnership could be an important tool for promotingmultilateral co-operation, free trade, increased mobility of persons, solution of minorityissues, parliamentary contacts and contacts with NGO’s were mentioned. A few participantsfelt that social development and human rights issues had not been given adequate attention inthe Commission’s communication on the Eastern Partnership.In some interventions, it was pointed out that in a way, the Eastern Partnership concerned thewhole Black Sea region. Turkey was, of course, a key partner in this region, and would beable – and ready, as representatives of the Turkish Parliament emphasised – to contributeconsiderably. The Partnership should be seen as a complement, and coordination wasimportant to avoid overlapping with the already existing initiatives in the region.It was stressed that the Eastern Partnership, as the “Eastern Dimension” of the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy, should not be seen as a competitor to the “Southern Dimension”.However, sufficient funding was necessary for the Eastern Partnership to bear fruit. Otherparticipants, while agreeing that it should be properly funded, said that this had to be on the

basis of one-third of funds for the Eastern Partnership and two-third for the EURO-MED co-operation. It was underlined that both were needed. One participant suggested that whilethere might be a budgetary dilemma it should be possible to find the necessary means,provided there was a readiness to hold back on other expenditure.Many emphasised that the Eastern Partnership should not be considered to be "against"Russia, or indeed "against" any other state. On the contrary, the initiative could be beneficialto Russia as well as to Turkey, who could, for their part, give positive contributions. Stabilityand economic development in the region, but also safeguarding the rule of law and humanrights should be in the interest of all. It was essential to have good communications with bothRussia and others on this initiative: the success of it might, one speaker pointed out, dependon how relations with Russia and Iran developed.Ms Anna KINBERG BATRA (Riksdagen, Sweden) thanked the Czech Presidency for itsactive pursuit of the Eastern Partnership and expressed a determination to take the projectforward during the upcoming Swedish Presidency.In summing up the debate, Mr KOHOUT said he was glad that it showed that the EasternPartnership had the support of parliaments. There was a need for the EU to define itsrelations to its eastern neighbours. The concerns that had been expressed by some could beanswered, he felt. The Summit had given the Partnership a good start, and it would bepossible for the Czech and the following Presidencies to develop it further. The partnercountries should also put forward their ideas. For the future he considered that contactsconcerning the Eastern Partnership should be pursued not only with the European Parliament,but with national parliaments as well.8. Results of the Subsidiarity Check on the Proposal for a Directive on Standards ofQuality and Safety of Human Organs Intended for TransplantationMr L. SEFZIG, Chairman of the Committee on EU Affairs of the CzechSenát,introducedthis point of agenda by expressing satisfaction with the results of the COSAC-coordinatedsubsidiarity check on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of theCouncil on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation(2008) 818 final). In total 27 parliaments or parliamentary chambers from 20 Member Stateshad concluded the subsidiarity check and had sent their reports to the COSAC Secretariatanswering the questionnaire within the eight-week deadline provided for by Protocol 2 to theTreaty of Lisbon. Additional 4 parliaments or parliamentary chambers from 4 Member Stateshad started the subsidiarity check, but due to the parliamentary recess had had difficulties incompleting it within the set deadline. The overwhelming majority of participatingparliaments or parliamentary chambers, 25 out of 27, had found no breach of the principle ofsubsidiarity. One chamber had found a breach and one parliament had requested additionalinformation from the European Commission to be able to take a final decision.Mr SEFZIG also recalled the decisions of the COSAC Chairpersons’ Meetings in Paris on 7July 2008 and in Prague on 10 February 2009 to conduct two subsidiarity checks in 2009,namely, on (i) the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Councilon the applicable law, jurisdiction, recognition of decisions and administrative measures inthe area of successions and wills (2008/JLS/122), and (ii) the Proposal for a FrameworkDecision on criminal rights in criminal proceedings (2009/JLS/047). The chairman noted thatadoption of the first Proposal had been delayed and that there were indications that the

European Commission may decide not to adopt it during its current term. The incomingSwedish Presidency was asked to clarify the matter during the second half of 2009.During the ensuing debate, speakers expressed concern about inadequate justification of theProposal by the European Commission. This complicated thorough analysis of the Proposalwith regard to its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. One suggestion for improvingthe justification of the Commission’s proposals would be a template indicating a set ofquestions that must be answered by the Commission before a proposal was adopted.With regard to tight time constraints, a number of delegations indicated that the scrutiny ofthe Proposal during a parliamentary recess posed a considerable problem for a number ofparliaments. Some Members recalled the request to suspend the eight-week subsidiaritycheck period during parliamentary recesses, especially, for August.A number of delegations pointed out a need to further improve communication betweennational parliaments and between chambers of bicameral parliaments. IPEX was cited as agood communication tool, but it was stressed that it was too slow to be used effectively.Additional tools were needed. Some delegations pointed out that a common understanding ofthe concept of subsidiarity might be helpful. While another delegation pointed out that thisconcept is essentially a political one and cannot be objectively defined. A proposal was madeto produce a template or procedural guidelines for national parliaments’ comments to theCommission. This was seen as useful in dealing with the issue of time constraints, especiallyfor bicameral parliaments.A number of speakers welcomed the fact that an increased number of parliaments had chosento evaluate the Proposal on grounds beyond those provided for under Protocol 2. Attentionwas drawn to the fact that a number of parliaments had used the informal framework of theCommission's political dialogue with national parliaments and voiced their opinion on theProposal's compliance with the principle of proportionality, on its legal basis and itssubstantive provisions. The "Barroso initiative" was seen as a very useful tool in voicingnational parliaments’ views on European Commission’s initiatives and in promoting theirrelationsvis-a visthe Commission and their national governments.A good partnership between COSAC and the European Commission was seen as a key foreffective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. Therefore, somedelegations called for reinforced bilateral contacts between COSAC and the Commission andsuggested that a Member of the Commission should participate at the COSAC debates on thesubsidiarity checks.9. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLI COSACBefore the XLI COSAC meeting the Czech Presidency put forward a draft Contribution andConclusions of the Conference and called on national parliaments and the EuropeanParliament to submit amendments to the draft. Before the start of the XLI COSAC meetingthe Presidency had submitted a second draft of the Contribution and Conclusions. After adebate on additional proposals of national parliaments and the European Parliament to amendthe second draft, the Conference adopted the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLICOSAC by consensus.Both documents are attached to these minutes.