MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE XLII COSAC

Stockholm, 5-6 October 2009

AGENDA:

1.

2. Welcoming address

by Mr Per WESTERBERG, Speaker of the SwedishRiksdag

Opening session

by Ms Anna KINBERG BATRA, Chair of the Committee onEuropean Union Affairs of the SwedishRiksdag.

Adoption of the agenda of the XLII COSAC



Presentation of the 12th Bi-annual Report



Subsidiarity checks



Proposals for subjects to be dealt with in 2010

State of play of the Swedish EU Presidency

Guest Speaker: Mr Fredrik REINFELDT, Prime Minister of Sweden

The climate challenge

Guest Speaker: Mr Andreas CARLGREN, Swedish Minister for the Environment

Chairpersons' meeting

Openness and transparency in the EU Institutions and in national parliaments

when handling EU matters

Guest Speakers: Ms Margot WALLSTRÖM, Vice President of the EuropeanCommission, and Mr Björn VON SYDOW, PhD, former Speaker of the SwedishRiksdag,Member of the SwedishRiksdag

The Stockholm Programme

Guest Speakers: Ms Beatrice ASK, Swedish Minister for Justice, and Mr TobiasBILLSTRÖM, Swedish Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy

Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLII COSAC.

PROCEEDINGS:

1. Welcoming address

by Mr Per WESTERBERG, Speaker of the SwedishRiksdagMr Per WESTERBERG, Speaker of the SwedishRiksdag,addressed the participants of theXLII COSAC and extended a particular welcome to the special guests: parliamentarydelegations from Iceland and Norway. He congratulated the Irish delegation on the result ofthe Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon on 2 October 2009. Mr WESTERBERG sharedhis views that as more in-depth European cooperation developed; national parliaments had toplay a more central role as active constructive partners in the EU. National parliaments hadthe fundamental responsibility to put across the citizens’ view and the Treaty of Lisbonshould take this task even further by giving national parliaments a stronger formal role. Thedemocratic legitimacy stemming from parliaments was, according to the Speaker of theRiksdag,asine qua nonof the European project.

2. Opening session

by Ms Anna KINBERG BATRA, Chair of the Committee on EuropeanUnion Affairs of the SwedishRiksdagMs Anna KINBERG BATRA, Chair of the Committee on European Union Affairs of theSwedishRiksdagintroduced the opening session by welcoming the participants, in particularthe new chairpersons, and by solemnly remembering Mr Svend AUKEN, Chair of theCommittee on European Affairs of the DanishFolketing,who had recently passed away. She1

recalled the 20thanniversary of COSAC and drew the attention of all participants to adocument produced for this occasion by Mr Herman DE CROO and Mr Hubert HAENEL,the longest-serving current members of COSAC.Mr Árni Thor SIGURDSSON, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the IcelandicAlþingi,briefed the XLII COSAC on the application of his country for the EU membership.He recognised that certain EU policies remain controversial for Iceland and that a thoroughdebate would follow the process of accession, but assured the participants that Iceland didnot expect any shortcuts to accession and that the IcelandicAlþingiwas ready for a fullscreening. In his view, Iceland could make a valuable contribution to the EU in know-how onrenewable energy, sustainable fisheries, environmental policies, and management of Arcticconditions.Mr Bernard DURKAN, Chair of the Joint Committee on European Affairs of the IrishHouses of the Oireachtas,reported on the positive conclusion of the Irish referendum on theTreaty of Lisbon on 2 October 2009. He reminded the XLII COSAC that more than 95% ofthe Members of the Irish Parliament were in favour of the Treaty and thanked therepresentatives of the EU Institutions for their support in the negotiation of the Irishguarantees and in the referendum campaign. He concluded by saying that a lesson from theIrish referendum was for parliamentarians always to be prepared to listen to the voters. Heexpressed his wish that from now on Members of Parliaments should get together moreoften, allowing for more intensive cooperation,inter alia,within the framework of COSAC.Mr Luděk SEFZIG, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs of the CzechSenát,reported on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Czech Republic. He recalled thatboth houses of the Czech Parliament had finalised their part of ratification while agreeing tochange their Rules of Procedure, which would compensate for transfer of decision-makingpower to the EU level. He explained that a group of 17 Senators had lodged a petition on theTreaty of Lisbon with the Constitutional Court, which prevents the President from signingthe Treaty and concluding its ratification process. Mr SEFZIG expressed his conviction thatthe Court would be able to give its verdict within a short time. He noted that even thoughCzech politicians are well aware of the fact that everybody is waiting for the conclusion ofthe ratification of the Treaty in the Czech Republic, it was to be expected that the EU wouldrespect constitutional rules of each of its Member States as it had done so far.Four other speakers took the floor on the issue of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbonexpressing hope for a successful and fast conclusion of the process. Among them, MrEdmund WITTBRODT, Chair of the Committee on European Union Affairs of the PolishSenat,informed the delegates that the Polish President would sign the Treaty following thepositive result of the Irish referendum.

Adoption of the agenda of the XLII COSAC

The agenda of the meeting was adopted without changes.

Presentation of the 12th Bi-annual Report

The 12thBi-annual Report was presented by Ms Anna KINBERG BATRA who noted thatboth topics dealt with in the report were to be discussed the following day and that theinformation gathered in the report was to serve as a good basis for this.

Subsidiarity checks

The debate on subsidiarity checks was held in two parts: (i.) on the recently completed checkrelated to theProposal for a Council Framework Decision on the right to interpretation andto translation in criminal proceedingsand (ii.) on the future subsidiarity checks.In her introduction to the first part of the debate, the Chair pointed to the conclusions of theReport prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and to the fact that parliaments were dissatisfiedas to the justification of subsidiarity. That result was to be communicated to the EuropeanCommission. She also presented a chart1, which had been prepared at the request of thePresidential Troika, and which gave an overview of all parliaments who had completed theirchecks by the current date, as not all parliaments were able to do so within the 8-weekdeadline. The Chair announced that the COSAC Secretariat would prepare an addendum tothe Report on the Results of the Subsidiarity Check which would include key information onthe subsidiarity checks carried out within an additional 4 weeks,i.e.by 12 October 2009 (notincluding the 4 weeks of August).In the ensuing debate certain delegations spoke against the Proposal and explained the resultsof their subsidiarity check, while other delegations spoke in favour of the Proposal, pointingout the need for a set of clear EU standards in the given matter.The debate on future subsidiarity checks was opened by the Chair’s announcement thataccording to the decision of the XXXIX COSAC, confirmed by the XL COSAC, XLICOSAC and most recently by the Presidential Troika, the next subsidiarity check would beconducted on the soon-to-be-publishedProposal for a regulation of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council on the applicable law, jurisdiction, and recognition ofdecisions and administrative measures in the area of succession and wills.This decision wasconfirmed by the XLII COSAC.Ms KINBERG BATRA introduced the general discussion on continuation of the COSAC-coordinated subsidiarity checks by presenting the suggestion of the Swedish Presidency thatgiven the uncertainty about final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon it was advantageous notto conclude such a debate in Stockholm but to leave it open for the Spanish Presidency.A number of speakers took the floor on this topic. All of them agreed that control of thesubsidiarity principle was an important prerogative of national parliaments and therefore arelevant topic for COSAC. There was, however, no agreement on the question of how muchattention COSAC should pay to this. Some speakers were of the opinion that priority shouldbe given to more substantive questions and topics of current concerns of citizens, whileothers argued that COSAC should play a central role in coordinating subsidiarity control bynational parliaments. Some speakers also pointed out that the debate should rather focus onother powers conferred upon parliaments by the Treaty of Lisbon and how parliaments are toorganise themselves to carry these out effectively. It was also mentioned that the cooperationbetween national parliaments and the European Parliament in this context is of increasedimportance.Mr Miguel ARIAS CANETE, Chair of the Committee on European Union Affairs of theSpanishCongreso de los Diputados,on behalf of the future Presidency, stated that once theTreaty of Lisbon entered into force, the challenges of a proper control of the principle of1

subsidiarity, which national parliaments had experienced during the COSAC-coordinatedchecks, would become real and therefore a permanent task. The Spanish Presidency intendsto open the debate on the role of COSAC under the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon and thecooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament. There will be aquestionnaire to prepare these debates. The discussions should commence at the COSACChairpersons’ meeting on 5 February 2010 with the ambition for the XLIII COSAC to windthem up and open a new chapter in the history of COSAC.Ms Anna KINBERG BATRA concluded the debate by reminding delegations of the resultsof the working group of the national parliaments' representatives to the EU on theimplementation of Protocol 2 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity andProportionality as attached to the Treaty of Lisbon. The working group was created under theSlovenian Presidency. Its findings were presented at the XL COSAC Meeting in Paris inNovember 2008.

Proposals for subjects to be dealt with in 2010

According to article 7.1 of the COSAC Rules of Procedure, delegations could proposesubjects to be dealt with in 2010. The following were put forward: the issue of coordinatedcontrol of subsidiarity including a selection of proposals of special interest according to thenext Legislative and Work Programme of the European Commission; two proposals foradditional COSAC-coordinated subsidiarity checks; follow-up of the debates held in COSACunder the French and Czech Presidencies on the parliamentary oversight of Europol andEurojust; the reform of the EU budget and its financing mechanism; the implementation bynational parliaments of their right provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon to bring an actionbefore the Court of Justice of the European Union on grounds of infringement of theprinciple of subsidiarity by a legislative act. The Spanish and Belgian Presidencies wereencouraged to take those proposals into account.

3. State of Play of the Swedish EU Presidency

In the presence of Her Royal Highness, Crown Princess Victoria of SwedenGuest Speaker: Mr Fredrik REINFELDT, Prime Minister of SwedenMr REINFELDT started his speech with an overview of the state of play of the ratification ofthe Treaty of Lisbon. According to the Prime Minister, the convincing “Yes” by the Irishpeople at the 2 October 2009 referendum was very pleasing news. However, it was importantto listen to criticism expressed during the referendum campaign. He pointed out that Polandand the Czech Republic had not yet finalised the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon.According to the Prime Minister, the next to ratify the Treaty would probably be Poland, thePresident of which had indicated that he would sign the ratification law soon.However, in the Czech Republic, the situation had been complicated by a petition on theconstitutionality of the Treaty lodged by seventeen Senators with the Constitutional Court ofthe Czech Republic. Mr REINFELDT said that according to his information it might take theCourt up to 3 - 6 months to consider the petition and that the signature by the President of theCzech Republic could not be expected until the final decision of the Court had beenpronounced. In this situation, it was not clear which Treaty,i.e.the Treaty of Lisbon or theTreaty of Nice, would be the basis for the forthcoming negotiations on the EU institutionalset-up. Mr REINFELDT also reminded the audience that the Treaty of Lisbon would come

into force on the first day of the month following the deposit of the Instrument of Ratificationby the last Member State to take this step. Under these circumstances, if the President of theCzech Republic had not signed the ratification law by December 2009 the Treaty wouldcome into force only during the Spanish EU Presidency in the first half of 2010.In addition, Mr REINFELDT presented his views on the state of affairs on climate change,on tackling the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis, on enlargement ofthe EU and other important issues to be dealt with during the Swedish Presidency.On the subject of climate change, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of reaching anagreement in the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009.The new agreement aimed at combating global warming would replace the Kyoto Protocol of1997. Mr REINFELDT warned of a possible legal vacuum in the case of failure to reach anew global agreement. Mr REINFELDT noted with satisfaction the changed position of thenew USA administration which had already presented to the US Congress ambitious draftlegislation on cutting US greenhouse gas emissions. However, it was not clear whether thelegislation would be ready by the Copenhagen summit. Also, the Prime Minister noted thechanges in the positions of Australia and Japan, who had also indicated the desire to cut theirgreenhouse gas emissions. The Swedish Prime Minister underscored the necessity ofensuring full participation of the USA and China in the new global agreement as well asreaching decisions on financial commitments of the individual parties to the agreement.As to the financial and economic crisis, Mr REINFELDT underlined that the EuropeanCouncil was planning to debate rules on macro and micro supervision of the internationalfinancial system as well as stimulus for European economy, the high level of debts andconsequences of an aging population. The Prime Minister also informed the Conference thatthe G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, USA, on 25 September 2009 launched a framework that laidout the policies and joint actions to generate strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.The participants of the Pittsburgh summit had,inter alia,committed themselves to raisingcapital standards and to implementing international compensation standards aimed at endingpractices that led to excessive risk-taking. According to Mr REINFELDT, risk distributionwhereby profit went into the pocket of those who had taken risks, was no longer acceptable.On the issue of the enlargement of the EU, the Swedish Prime Minister noted the recentagreement between Slovenia and Croatia which enabled the continuation of membershipnegotiations with Croatia. The Conference was told that the negotiations were well underwayand were expected to be completed by 2010. As to the membership application of Iceland,Mr REINFELDT expressed hopes that the negotiations could start during the SwedishPresidency, after all outstanding issues had been dealt with.The Prime Minister also mentioned the importance of the Baltic Sea Strategy and theStockholm Programme, which were scheduled for debates and adoption at the EuropeanCouncil Meetings in October and December 2009 respectively.The Prime Minister's speech was followed by a debate. Members of Parliament praised theSwedish Presidency for its ambitious goals and effective approach towards numerouschallenges both inside and outside the EU. The speakers raised such issues as: the need toswiftly ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, implementation of the new role of national parliaments inthe EU, the need for proper consultation with national parliaments and the EuropeanParliament in preparations for entry into force of the Treaty, negotiations for the candidates

to the new posts of President of the European Council and High Representative of the Unionfor Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the special responsibility of the Presidency inleading the EU in global talks for combating climate change, dealing with the consequencesof the global financial crisis, ensuring sustainable development, job creation, the StockholmProgramme, the need to move forward with the enlargement of the EU, and so on.In response to the numerous questions by Members of Parliament, the Swedish PrimeMinister underlined that the Treaty of Lisbon would provide not only a necessary EUinstitutional set-up, but also ensure a higher degree of democratic legitimacy andtransparency to the EU, by enhancing the role of the European Parliament and by providingnational parliaments with a direct and decisive role in the EU decision-making process. MrREINFELDT was of the opinion that it was too early to discuss possible types of Presidencyof the European Council or individual candidates for the posts of President of the EuropeanCouncil and High Representative. He underscored that the Swedish Presidency had put inplace all necessary arrangements for the negotiations on the implementation of the Treaty ofLisbon. However, an independent, autonomous Court of a Member State had to be heardfirst. In the opinion of Mr REINFELDT, further clarity was needed before the EU couldproceed, hopefully in December 2009.Mr REINFELDT also agreed with the participants that at the Climate Change Summit inCopenhagen in December 2009 a strong will to resolve the issue was needed, includingfinancial solutions, burden-sharing arrangements and solidarity with least developedcountries. According to the Prime Minister, without financial solutions there would be noglobal agreement.When commenting on the state of play of the ongoing EU enlargement negotiations, MrREINFELDT underscored the importance of adhering to commitments by both parties andthe need for the candidates to ensure their full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

4. The climate challenge

In the presence of Her Royal Highness, Crown Princess Victoria of SwedenGuest Speaker: Mr Andreas CARLGREN, Swedish Minister for the EnvironmentMr Andreas CARLGREN opened the floor by explaining his high expectations for theupcoming meeting regarding climate change in Copenhagen this December. He stated thatthe European Union, and the rest of the world, had achieved much more in fighting climatechange than anyone could expect just three or four years ago. According to the Minister, theworld's view on climate changed in late 2006 and early 2007, mainly due to the Review onEconomics of Climate Change by Sir Nicholas Stern2. The report highlighted the climatechanges to a completely different extent than before. The time between the meeting in Bali inDecember 2007 and the forthcoming meeting in Copenhagen resulted in a global dialogue onclimate change, involving all countries of the world, which was a major positive change.The Minister stressed that environment was one of the most important priorities of theSwedish Presidency. He explained that the Presidency function led to Sweden negotiating,for example, with the USA and China in order to achieve ambitious, globally binding results2

in Copenhagen. In Asia, negotiating conditions had improved: a new higher level ofambitions had been seen in Japan after elections, and some positive developments wereevident in China and India. According to the Minister, the current attitude of the USA wastotally different from before; the new approach of the USA administration was an importantprerequisite, but considerable efforts were still needed.The Minister explained that the industrialised countries had to, both individually and jointly,reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The negotiations had been difficult; all parties needed toincrease their bids, including developed and emerging economies, but also developingcountries. The developed countries had the responsibility to lead the work for two reasons,partly for historical reasons - these countries account for the vast majority of emissions - butalso for economic reasons. Nevertheless, the Minister underlined that developing countriesalso had to take responsibility. According to the Minister, the EU goal - to reduce itsgreenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent if other developed countries make comparablereductions3- could be seen as a lever to get other parts of the world to follow with loftyambitions. In the Minister's opinion the EU had to agree on financing, to align the variousactions and to dispose the necessary technology transfers. According to Mr CARLGREN, itwas important to decide on cost-sharing, especially for developing countries. Next on the EUagenda was therefore an ECOFIN meeting on 20-21 October 2009, which aimed to reach anagreement on the funding issue, to be followed up and confirmed by the European Councilon 29-30 October 2009.Next, the Minister explained the form an agreement in Copenhagen would take. The mostimportant thing was to achieve a comprehensive agreement. Mr CARLGREN said that he didnot believe in partial agreements; only a full agreement would be acceptable as an outcome.This was important not only because of what had been agreed in Bali in 2007, but mainlybecause the climate issue was too important to be postponed and it had been waiting for toolong. The Minister underlined that a successful outcome of the meeting in Copenhagen,where a two-degree target would be within reach4, was a flexible agreement that covered allcountries and that would be flexible enough for future adjustments depending on scientificprogress.The Minister closed his speech by pointing out the importance of both industrialised anddeveloping countries, to demonstrate that adaptation to climate change would give theircountries the opportunity to develop and to increase their economic growth. He said it wasimportant to demonstrate that such actions were in our common interest and that a greensociety was a community that would offer growth and benefit to the public.

The speech was followed by numerous questions from Members of Parliament, for instanceabout the status of the negotiations with China and the USA. The Minister replied that therewere still some problems and that the USA was a key factor in the final negotiations. TheMinister went on to explain that it was important to exert pressure on the USA, but that theEU had to be cautious in doing so. In the case of China, the EU had made tough demandsbilaterally and the Presidency hoped to see efforts on the part of China as well.A few Members pointed out that there were high expectations for a result in Copenhagenand stressed two elements as particularly important: the technology transfer and theallocation of resources. There was also a question about negations within the EU on climatechange. The Minister replied that there was significant support within the EU on the issue;nevertheless some questions remained to be discussed, such as the technical and economicaspects. The Presidency expects decisions and consensus at the ECOFIN meeting in lateOctober, and also at the European Council meeting a week later. The Minister underlined thatthe Presidency expected a full consensus and a clear mandate for the CopenhagenConference.A few Members asked about technical adjustments,e.g.Ms Erna SOLBERG, First DeputyChairp of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the NorwegianStorting,asked whether theEU's climate goal overshadowed the important discussion about technology adaptations.Others stated that today's technical knowledge limited solutions, pointing out that MemberStates had to intensify research on new technology. The Minister replied that he did not thinkthat because of the special focus on the climate targets of the EU the technology debatewould vanish from the agenda. He said that technology was important and necessary, butexisting technology had to be used because it was important to act now. Nevertheless, moreresearch and public investments in the area were required.Some Members were concerned with developing countries, pointing out that poor countrieswhich had contributed least to global emissions suffered most from the consequences ofexcessive emissions and that there had to be some understanding for their situation.The Minister thought that the EU had the responsibility to create the right conditions forgreen investments so that the right action would be possible, also in private businesses. Thetransport sector was important in the case of aviation fuel tax, and this issue, as well as tax onshipping, would be included in the Copenhagen agreement. In the Minister's opinion, acarbon tax could be introduced, but the issue was currently politically unacceptable.Therefore, according to Mr CARLGREN the EU should use other solutions, including thesoon-to-be-introduced global system of emission rights.The Minister ended his speech by encouraging all national parliaments to mobilise theirpowers in standing behind the EU in order to reach this extremely important globalagreement.

5. Chairpersons' meeting

Appointment of the Permanent Member of the COSAC Secretariat and the state of play

of the co-financing issue

Based on the proposal from the Presidential Troika, Ms Loreta RAULINAITYTĖ, candidateput forward by the LithuanianSeimas,was appointed as the Permanent Member for theCOSAC Secretariat for the second term,i.e.until 31 December 2011. Gratitude wasexpressed to theSeimasfor its commitment and appreciation to Ms RAULINAITYTĖ for her

work so far. The Chair informed COSAC that as of the day of the meeting a sufficientnumber of parliaments had committed themselves to the co-financing of the PermanentMember of the COSAC Secretariat and the costs of running the COSAC office and thewebsite. Therefore financing was assured until 31 December 2011. The remaining nationalparliaments were invited to send their letters of intent to the Presidency by the end of 2009.

Debate on the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLII COSAC

Two weeks prior to the XLII COSAC meeting the Swedish Presidency had put forward afirst draft of the Contribution and Conclusions giving delegations the opportunity to submittheir amendments. Based on these, the second draft was prepared. This one was thencompleted taking into account the results of the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon on2 October 2009 and the decision of the Chairpersons on the appointment of the PermanentMember of the COSAC Secretariat. The Chairpersons discussed and agreed on a number ofamendments to the proposed text. (The final draft of the Contribution and Conclusions wasmade available to the plenary immediately before the second day of the XLII COSACMeeting).

6. Openness and transparency in the EU Institutions and in national parliaments when

handling EU matters

Guest Speakers: Ms Margot WALLSTRÖM, Vice President of the European Commission,and Mr Björn VON SYDOW, PhD, former Speaker of the SwedishRiksdag,Member of theSwedishRiksdagMs WALLSTRÖM took the floor to mention the recent Irish referendum, whose lesson maybe summarised by the following catchphrase: “listenbetter, explain better, go local”.As aresult of a working group created after the 2008 referendum and to improve knowledge of theTreaty of Lisbon, the European Commission published a brief “citizen’s summary” of theTreaty, which is now available in all EU languages.On the issue of openness and transparency, Ms WALLSTRÖM considered both elements tobe a citizen’s right, as important as the right to vote, and should include the right of publicaccess to documents and the use of clear language. Thanks to its openness initiative launchedin November 2005, the Commission started an ongoing dialogue with national parliamentswhich in her view brought Europe closer to its citizens. As a result of that initiative, MsWALLSTRÖM mentioned the public online registry for lobbies created in June 2008. TheCommission is currently reviewing the registry’s first year of operation, and plans to set up ajoint registry with the European Parliament, while talks with the Council have begun on theregistration of its lobbies.Regarding public access to documents, Ms WALLSTRÖM informed COSAC that the focuslay with the current review of Regulation 1049/2001, which had worked well for the past 8years, although there was room for modernising a good tool, which was being used mainlyby lawyers and lobbyists, and not enough by citizens and journalists.In its will to lead by example, the Commission was putting transparency into all of itspolicies and was working on the idea of a “citizen’s summary” in plain language toaccompany all strategic and priority initiatives of the Commission.

Ms KINBERG BATRA thanked Ms WALLSTRÖM for her work in fostering cooperationbetween the Commission and national parliaments over the last 5 years and drew attention topoint 1.2 of the Draft Contribution, in which COSAC recognised Ms WALLSTRÖM’s work.This was greeted with applause from the COSAC plenary.Dr VON SYDOW began his intervention by analysing the relationship between democracyand transparency. He stated that at EU level, the development in EU procedures and practiceswas moving towards more transparency, although this general drive towards openness washindered by the speed with which some decisions were being taken.Summing up a complex issue, Dr VON SYDOW stated that most people in the EU identifiedthemselves with their country, not with the EU; that most Europeans were inclined to acceptjoint decision-making at the EU level, especially in a period of crisis; and that the lowturnout at the elections to the European Parliament was partly due to a negative view ofpolitics and politicians.Furthermore, it was open to debate whether the European polity would ever turn into a trulyparliamentary system with a right/left confrontation, or whether this move would have thesupport of the European citizens. On the one hand, the conflict strategy could improve voters'interest in EU affairs, although, on the other hand, the conflict could spill over to the EU as aprinciple, and increase competition between Member States and the EU as a supranationalbody. In this context of absence of a truly parliamentary system, the accessibility todocuments was of great importance, as it increased the openness and transparency relating toEU questions, which was a move towards a more responsible decision-making system.In the ensuing debate, speakers insisted on the need for humility and effectiveness from theEU Institutions, on the need for more understandable language, on transparency of thecomitology procedure and on increasing the involvement of the European Parliament andnational parliaments in strengthening the legitimacy of the decision-making processes.Ms WALLSTRÖM recognised the need to improve communication plans for comitology.After describing the turnout of voters at the European Parliament elections as disappointing,Ms WALLSTRÖM argued that it would be more attractive if Member States were tofacilitate the voting process. In a further move towards transparency, the Commissionermentioned that the new Treaty allowed for some of the Council’s meetings to be open to thepublic.Dr VON SYDOW insisted on the fact that Europeans accepted the EU only as an instance oflast resort, when there was a perception that Member States on their own were powerless totackle certain situations.In the ensuing debate, the following issues were singled out: the focus on openness andtransparency in policies, rather than on procedures; the stress on Council meetings as apolitical forum, whose decisions must be made public but where debates must be held behindclosed doors; the “trialogue” process, where national parliaments have no say; the registry oflobbies at the Commission and the European Parliament; the role of national broadcastersand of education to improve information on EU issues; the early warning mechanism as away for citizens to make themselves heard at the EU level; and the holding of debates on EUissues at national level by national parliaments.

In her final intervention, Ms WALLSTROM reviewed the improvement of information andcommunication between the Commission and national parliaments and underlined the needto invest in a European public space, where debate could be facilitated in all aspects and byall means available. Dr VON SYDOW referred to his argument that the EU was veryunlikely to transform itself into a parliamentary system, and therefore needed transparencyand openness to develop into a form of polity acceptable to EU citizens.

7. The Stockholm Programme

Guest Speakers: Ms Beatrice ASK, Swedish Minister for Justice, and Mr TobiasBILLSTRÖM, Swedish Minister for Migration and Asylum PolicyIn her introductory statement, Ms Beatrice ASK said that the elaboration of the StockholmProgramme was one of the most important tasks for the Swedish Presidency. With theCommission's Communication as the point of departure, an informal Council meeting hadbeen held in July, followed by bilateral meetings as well as discussions with the EuropeanParliament. Ms ASK said that her impression was that there was a large degree of consensuson the main issues. She said the Programme would be "ambitious, long-term and balanced".The citizen's perspective would be kept in focus: The measures included in the Programmeshould be those that citizens consider important and bring "added value".The Swedish Minister for Migration, Mr Tobias BILLSTRÖM, said that the European "Pacton Asylum and Migration", adopted by the European Council in October 2008, had givenpolitical backing to intensifying work in this field. The Commission had carried out a broadconsultation as a basis for that part of its Communication. Mr BILLSTRÖM said that,provided it was well handled, migration could be beneficial to all parties - the countries oforigin and destination as well as the individual migrants themselves. Under usualcircumstances, the EU would need labour immigration, and therefore the EU should standready when the economy turns upward again. Another key element was joint policy andefforts to meet illegal immigration,inter alia,with a more efficient policy of returningimmigrants. However, measures to combat illegal immigration must not lead to diminishedaccess to asylum procedures.In the debate it was pointed out that the Treaty of Lisbon would bring better rules fordecision-making in the area of freedom, security and justice, and thereby better possibilitiesfor implementation of the elements included in the Stockholm Programme. The nationalparliaments should be closely involved in this.Many underlined what the minister had said: that there must be a balance between measuresto increase security and, on the other hand, safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens.Some felt that developments during the last few years had concentrated on the securityaspect, and that therefore it would now be important to "catch up" by looking at betterguarantees for private life.It was also clear that many saw a need for additional rules on the EU level. For instance, itwas mentioned that there was much cooperation between the police forces of differentMember States, but not necessarily sufficient rules on which type of information should beexchanged, who should be entitled to share the information, etc. Another example was familylaw, where the increased mobility tended to increase the number of cases where the legal

situation was not entirely clear (at least not to those concerned). A third field whereharmonised legislation might be necessary was related to new technologies, in particularelectronic communications and "cyber crime". It was said that some of the points where newEU legislation was needed had been mentioned in the preceding Tampere and HagueProgrammes, which were not yet fully implemented.It was pointed out, also, that there was a genuine public interest in the issues concerning thearea of freedom, security and justice. An open discussion was important, as well as thoroughscrutiny of any proposed measures in this field. It should be clearly demonstrated that EUregulation was needed before any legislation was adopted.A number of speakers, in particular from Mediterranean Member States, brought up the issueof inflow of "illegal" immigrants arriving from overseas. It was said that FRONTEX neededto be strengthened, and that some of the most severely affected Member States haddifficulties finding, on their own, sufficient resources to cope with the situation. A commonmigration policy based on solidarity between Member States was therefore a priority atpresent. Many spoke out in favour of establishing, on the EU level, a set of minimum rightsfor asylum seekers. With reference to the historical experience of some of the MemberStates, it was pointed out that the difficult situation should not make the EU deviate fromoffering asylum to those who were in fact in need of it.It was mentioned that the possibility of resettlement of refugees should be considered. In thiscontext the need for more common practices of granting asylum was underlined. It was alsosaid that of course migration flows needed to be handled, but that resources would also beneeded for integration of (legal) immigrants. Although this was mentioned in theCommunication of the Commission, some more thought might be given to this, as it was alsorelated to increased mobility within the EU. The Stockholm Programme should includemeasures that would facilitate such mobility.

8. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLII COSAC

After a debate on additional proposals for amendments from national parliaments and theEuropean Parliament the Conference adopted the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIICOSAC by consensus.

Annex5 October 2009

Information on the participation in the subsidiarity check on

the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision

on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings

(COM(2009) 338 final)

The following 21 parliaments/chambers from 17 Member States completed the subsidiaritycheck

by the 8 week-deadline,

i.e. 14 September 2009:1. the AustrianBundesrat;2. the BulgarianNarodno Sabranie;3. theVouli Ton Antiprosoponof Cyprus;4. the DanishFolketing;5. the DutchTweede Kamer;6. the DutchEerste Kamer;7. the IrishHouses of the Oireachtas;8. the ItalianSenato della Repubblica;9. the FrenchSénat;10. the GermanBundestag;11. the LatvianSaeima;12. the MalteseKamra-tad-Deputati;13. the PolishSejm;14. the PolishSenat;15. the PortugueseAssembleia da República;16. the SlovakianNárodná Rada;17. the SlovenianDržavni zbor;18. the SlovenianDržavni svet;19. the SwedishRiksdag;20. the UKHouse of Commons;21. the UKHouse of Lords.The following 10 parliaments/chambers from 10 Member States

did not complete

thesubsidiarity check

within the set deadline, but completed it by 1 October 2009:

1. the AustrianNationalrat;2. the EstonianRiigikogu;3. the FinishEduskunta;4. the FrenchAssemblée nationale;5. the GermanBundesrat:6. the HungarianOrszággyűlés;7. the LithuanianSeimas;8. the LuxembourgChambre des Députés;9. theParlamentul României;10. the SpanishCortes GeneralesSome parliaments decided to carry out the subsidiarity check but

had not completed it yet,

e.g.the CzechPoslanecká sněmovnaand theSenát.