EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

Europaudvalget 2015-16
EUU Alm.del Bilag 734
Offentligt

4 November 2015

Twenty-fourth Bi-annual Report:

Developments in European Union

Procedures and Practices

Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny

Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to:

LIV Conference of Parliamentary Committees

for Union Affairs of Parliaments

of the European Union

29 November-1 December 2015

Luxembourg

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs

of Parliaments of the European Union

COSAC SECRETARIAT

WIE 05 U 041, 50 rue Wiertz, B-1047 Brussels, Belgium

E-mail:

[email protected]

| Tel: +32 2 284 3776

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

Table of Contents

Background .......................................................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................

CHAPTER 1: THE FUTURE OF PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EU AFFAIRS

.................... 10

Section 1: Scope and procedural framework of the "green card" (enhanced political dialogue)

..... 10

i. Official position on the "green card" (enhanced political dialogue)................................................ 10

ii. Scope................................................................................................................................................ 13

iii. Existing legislation and rules of procedure ...................................................................................... 13

iv. Threshold ......................................................................................................................................... 14

vi. Amendments.................................................................................................................................... 15

vii. Withdrawal....................................................................................................................................... 15

viii. Specific form .................................................................................................................................... 16

ix. Consultations ................................................................................................................................... 16

Section 2: "Yellow card" procedure................................................................................................

i. Improvement of the "yellow card" procedure................................................................................. 17

ii. Criteria for deciding a breach of the subsidiarity principle.............................................................. 18

iii. Drafting a Reasoned Opinion ........................................................................................................... 19

iv. Criteria to separate the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality ........................................... 20

v. Guidelines for Reasoned Opinions and best practices .................................................................... 21

vi. The 8-week period for issuing a Reasoned Opinion ........................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 2: A EUROPEAN AGENDA ON MIGRATION

.............................................................. 23

Section 1: Preventive measures

....................................................................................................... 24

Section 2: Actions proposed by the European Commission (relocation and resettlement)

............... 26

i. Parliaments' discussions on actions proposed concerning a relocation system to distribute those

in clear need of international protection within the EU ......................................................................... 26

ii. Parliaments' discussions on actions the target of 20.000 resettlement places for the EU per year

by the year 2020...................................................................................................................................... 29

Section 3: New policy on legal migration.........................................................................................

i. Parliaments' discussions on the actions proposed by the European Commission on legal migration

ii. Parliaments'/Chambers' views on legal migration .......................................................................... 31

Section 4: The European common asylum system

........................................................................... 32

i. Parliaments' discussions on the European common asylum system............................................... 32

ii. Notable best practices ..................................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 3: ENLARGEMENT POLICY

........................................................................................ 34

Section 1: Progress in enlargement policy

....................................................................................... 34

i. Examination/scrutiny of the European Commission’s Political Guidelines, particularly the idea that

no further enlargement should take place over the next five years and Parliaments'/Chambers' views

ii. Impact on the procedures put in place by Parliaments/Chambers in relation to Monitoring Reports

/ Annual progress reports or the overall scrutiny on enlargement policy .............................................. 37

Section 2: Parliamentary oversight of the accession negotiations

.................................................... 37

iii

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

Background

This is the Twenty-fourth Bi-annual Report from the COSAC Secretariat.

COSAC Bi-annual Reports

The XXX COSAC decided that the COSAC Secretariat should produce factual

Bi-annual Reports, to be published ahead of each ordinary meeting of the

Conference. The purpose of the Reports is to give an overview of the

developments in procedures and practices in the European Union that are

relevant to parliamentary scrutiny.

All the Bi-annual Reports are available on the COSAC website at:

http://www.cosac.eu/documents/bi-annual-reports-of-cosac/

The three chapters of this Bi-annual Report are based on information provided by the national

http://www.cosac.eu/en/documents/biannual/

Parliaments of the European Union Member States and the European Parliament. The deadline for

submitting replies to the questionnaire for the 24th Bi-annual Report was 14 September 2015.

The outline of this Report was adopted by the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC, held on 13

July 2015 in Luxembourg.

As a general rule, the Report does not specify all Parliaments or Chambers of which the case is

relevant for each point. Instead, illustrative examples are used.

Complete replies, received from 39 out of 41 national Parliaments/Chambers of 28 Member States

and the European Parliament, can be found in the Annex on the COSAC website. The Greek

Vouli

ton Ellinon,

due to recent elections, and the Slovenian

Državni zbor

did not answer the

questionnaire.

Note on Numbers

Of the 28 Member States of the European Union, 15 have a unicameral Parliament

and 13 have a bicameral Parliament. Due to this combination of unicameral and

bicameral systems, there are 41 national parliamentary Chambers in the 28

Member States of the European Union.

Although they have bicameral systems, the national Parliaments of Austria, Ireland

and Spain each submitted a single set of replies to the questionnaire.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 1: THE FUTURE OF PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EU AFFAIRS

The first chapter of the 24th Bi-annual Report of COSAC, building on previous Reports,

explores how to strengthen the role of national Parliaments in the EU decision-making

process by improving the "yellow card" procedure and by introducing a "green card"

(enhanced political dialogue). In this context, the Report, firstly, gives an overview of the

positions regarding the scope and procedural framework of the "green card", while ensuring

its compliance with the existing Treaty provisions and with the inter-institutional balance of

powers. Secondly, building on the Contribution of the LIII COSAC which noted that a

majority of Parliaments/Chambers were in favour of issuing a voluntary, non-binding set of

best practices and guidelines, it collects Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the areas that these

informal guidelines should cover and presents best practices.

Since the publication of the 23rd Bi-annual Report of COSAC, some Parliaments/Chambers

indicated that they had adopted an official position or intended to do so in the near future. On

the scope of the "green card", the 24th Bi-annual Report shows that the views expressed on

favoured two options; there was unanimous support among those responding to include

"suggestions for new legislation" and support by an overwhelming majority of those

responding to include "suggestions to amend existing legislation".

A vast majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers declared that it was not necessary to

amend existing legislation or rules of procedure to participate in a "green card" (enhanced

political dialogue), while some Parliaments/Chambers specified that they wanted to wait until

the "green card" had become more precise.

Regarding the scope and procedural framework of a proposed "green card", the majority of

the respondents supported the introduction of a minimum threshold and the suggestion that

that threshold should always be the same, but only few indicated whether this threshold

should be established at one third or at one quarter. Furthermore, in case a minimum

threshold was fixed but not reached, a majority suggested that the text could still be sent to

the European Commission by the participating the Parliaments/Chambers as a joint text

without considering it as a "green card".

A vast majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers supported the introduction of a

deadline to participate in a "green card", but only about half mentioned that the deadline

should be the same for every green card or that the deadline should be fixed by the initiating

Parliament/Chamber when launching an initiative.

A majority of those responding indicated that a specific timeframe should be introduced for

concluding the process of a "green card", and half of them specified that this timeframe

should be the same for every "green card" between 16 weeks and six months. Almost all the

respondents were of the opinion that it should be possible to suggest amendments to the

initial text prepared by the initiating Parliament/Chamber and that these amendments should

be introduced within a deadline decided by the initiating Parliament/Chamber. Half of the

Parliaments also expressed the view that the initiating Parliament/Chamber alone should

decide whether to accept the amendments and circulate an amended text afterwards.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The vast majority of the respondents stated that it should be allowed to withdraw from a

"green card" at any stage. A small majority of the respondents indicated that they were in

favour of drafting a "green card" according to a set form. A majority of respondents stated

that consultations among interested Parliaments/Chambers should take place according to the

initiating Parliament's/Chamber's choice, while some respondents supported consultation via

e-mail or among the representatives of national Parliaments in Brussels or in cluster meetings

at political level in the initiating

Parliament’s/Chamber’s premises or via videoconferencing.

Regarding the "yellow card" procedure, a vast majority of the responding

Parliaments/Chambers considered that it needed improvement without Treaty change. The

respondents' proposals covered several aspects. The most mentioned element concerned the

improvement of the European Commission's reply to Reasoned Opinions, followed by an

adjustment of the current 8-week deadline to issue such a Reasoned Opinion. Other possible

improvements referred to the justification of the proposal by the European Commission with

regard to subsidiarity, as well as to the communication, exchange of information and

coordination of national Parliaments' on issuing a "yellow card".

Just less than one fourth of the responding Parliaments/Chambers indicated that they had

established criteria for deciding whether the principle of subsidiarity had been breached and

even less had defined criteria for separating the principle of subsidiarity from the principle of

proportionality.

More than half of the respondents drafted Reasoned Opinions according to an internal set

form, but, according to the findings, in most cases an internal set form and a fixed

format/template for a Reasoned Opinion could not be distinguished from each other. When

Parliaments/Chambers used some kind of form/format, there was room for flexibility on how

it was used.

On best practices highlighted by Parliaments/Chambers, it is noted that none of the practices

were mentioned by a majority of the respondents. Those highlighted included, among others,

the practice to clearly indicate the text was a Reasoned Opinion, to include a clear motivation

of the violation, to include scrutiny also of the principle of proportionality, as well as to use

other actors' input.

Nonetheless, the responding Parliaments/Chambers expressed almost unanimously that the

legislative proposal to which the Reasoned Opinion refers to, as well as a clear indication that

a text is a reasoned opinion should be included in a Reasoned Opinion. A translation in

English of the Reasoned Opinion or a summary in English, a summary of the argumentation,

the legal basis, as well as the motivation were also supported by a majority of the responding

Parliaments/Chambers.

A vast majority of the respondents expressed the view that the mid-December to New Year

break should be excluded from the 8-week deadline provided by the treaties for a subsidiarity

check, while a majority stated that the recess periods in the EU institutions should be

excluded as well. According to a majority of Parliaments/Chambers, it was the European

Commission that should define/announce annually the exact dates of periods excluded from

the 8-week period.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

CHAPTER 2: A EUROPEAN AGENDA ON MIGRATION

The second Chapter of the 24th Bi-annual Report of COSAC on European Agenda on

Migration focuses on Parliaments'/Chambers' discussions on the European Commission's

Communication "A European Agenda on Migration" and also presents an overview on the

preventive measures that should be taken and put in place to avoid further humanitarian

tragedies in the Mediterranean. The Chapter highlights Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the

immediate actions proposed by the European Commission, i.e. the temporary European

relocation scheme for asylum seekers who are in clear need of international protection and

the resettlement scheme of migrants from third countries to EU Member States.

It also focuses on the new policy on legal migration in relation to the demographic challenges

most EU countries are facing resulting in shortages of specific skills, which aims at attracting

new talents and also casts light on Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the European common

asylum system, and on the best practices of Parliaments/Chambers in the application of the

asylum rules.

According to the findings of the Report, the vast majority of the responding

Parliaments/Chambers had discussed the Communication "A European Agenda on

Migration" in a committee meeting and in plenary, while a few were planning to hold a

discussion in the near future.

On the preventive measures, according to the findings of this Report, the majority of the

Parliaments/Chambers had a discussion on the matter in a committee meeting and/or in

plenary, while a few intended to hold a discussion.

Several Parliaments/Chambers stressed the need to enforce the fight against illegal migration,

human smuggling and trafficking, to solve the problems in the countries of origin, as well as

to have better cooperation both with the countries of origin and the transit countries. Some

others highlighted the need for better protection and management of the EU external border

and for strengthening the work of the EU agencies, such as FRONTEX, EUROPOL, and

EUROJUST.

According to the findings of the Report, the vast majority of the Parliaments /Chambers had

discussed the actions proposed by the European Commission concerning a relocation system

to distribute those in clear need of international protection within the EU either in a plenary

session or in a committee meeting, some Parliaments/Chambers had issued opinions on the

actions, while some had not yet discussed the proposed actions. A different approach is seen

in the discussion on the target of 20.000 resettlement places for the EU per year by the 2020,

which had been discussed by less than half of the respondents in committee meetings, while

only by some in the plenary; only one Parliament/Chamber communicated that it had issued

an opinion on the issue.

The Report indicates that Parliaments'/Chambers' views vary on the voluntary versus

compulsory participation of the Member States both in the relocation of the asylum seekers

and migrants, as well as on the future targets of the resettlement.

The actions proposed by the European Commission on legal migration had been discussed by

almost half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers in a committee meeting, and only in

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

three cases in a plenary session. No Parliament/Chamber had issued an opinion. All the

different actions proposed by the European Commission had been discussed by the

Parliaments/Chambers.

The discussions concentrated on some of the mentioned actions more than on others. The

action on "An EU-wide scheme for highly qualified third-country nationals", and the action

"A modernisation of European visa policy" had been discussed by almost half of the

responding Parliaments/Chambers. Only the European Parliament had discussed all of the

mentioned actions.

The Parliaments/Chambers which expressed their views on the question of legal migration

tended to highlight the importance of effectively managing it. Some of the

Parliaments/Chambers stressed the need for further legal avenues for migration and safe entry

options for those seeking asylum.

More than half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers had discussed the Common Asylum

System either in plenary or in a committee meeting. In this context, the two actions which

had been debated by the largest number of Parliaments/Chambers were the "Application of

the Dublin system" and the "Implementation of the Common European Asylum system" both

debated by the majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers.

Some of the Parliaments/Chambers submitted concrete proposals in the framework of their

debates like the creation of a standard, shared database for better managing the asylum

applications and resettlement operations, the establishment of a sorting system to allow

moving the migrants to their country of choice for the assessment of their asylum application.

Certain replies reflect different evaluations of the Dublin Regulation by

Parliaments/Chambers; among others, one respondent called for an ambitious reform of the

entire Regulation and another overtly called for the Regulation's repeal as far as the principle

of the first port of entry was concerned.

CHAPTER 3: ENLARGEMENT POLICY

The third Chapter of the 24th Bi-annual Report of COSAC on enlargement policy focuses on

the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission, especially President Juncker's

announcement that ongoing negotiations would continue, and notably that the Western

Balkans would need to keep a European perspective, but that no further enlargement would

take place over the next five years.

Almost half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers had not analysed the European

Commission’s

Political Guidelines, particularly the idea that no further enlargement should

take place over the next five years, while less than half had discussed the topic in a committee

meeting.

A number of Parliaments/Chambers presented their views on enlargement in general, as well

as on the Commission's announcement, while some had not reached a common position.

Nevertheless, a number of those stating that no common position had been reached outlined

their views. The Report shows that Parliaments'/Chambers' views vary and focus on different

aspects of the enlargement policy; in general terms though, the enlargement process was

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

largely supported among the respondents as promoting peace, democracy, security and

prosperity in Europe, while the importance of economic, administrative and legal reforms in

the candidate countries and aspirant countries was notably highlighted in some cases.

Conditionality and a merit-based approach were expressly underlined in a few cases.

The Report also shows that

the European Commission’s approach

had overall neither

changed Parliaments' view on the enlargement policy nor had an impact on the procedures

put in place by Parliaments in relation to Monitoring Reports/Annual progress reports or the

overall scrutiny on enlargement policy. A few Parliaments/Chambers made reference to their

intention to follow their usual procedures on the monitoring of the progress reports.

In addition, according to the Report's findings, in most cases there had not been notable

developments or modifications in Parliaments' practice of oversight of the accession

negotiations since the 19th Bi-annual Report drafted under the Irish Presidency.

--------------------------------------------------------

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

CHAPTER 1: THE FUTURE OF PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EU AFFAIRS

The first Chapter of the 24th Bi-annual Report of COSAC builds upon the 21st, 22nd, 23rd

Bi-annual Reports and the Contribution of the LIII COSAC adopted in Riga. It focuses on

how to strengthen the role of national Parliaments in the European decision-making process

by introducing a "green card" (enhanced political dialogue) and by improving the "yellow

card" procedure.

Section 1 continues the discussion of the 23rd Bi-annual Report on the "green card"

(enhanced political dialogue) aiming at complementing the information given by

Parliaments/Chambers about their positions and views regarding the scope and procedural

framework of the "green card", while ensuring its compliance with the existing Treaty

provisions and with the inter-institutional balance of powers.

Section 2 explores whether the "yellow card" procedure should be improved. Taking into

account the finding that a majority of Parliaments/Chambers are in favour of issuing a

voluntary, non-binding set of best practices and guidelines regarding the subsidiarity check

documented in the Contribution of the LIII COSAC, it presents Parliaments'/Chambers' views

on the elaboration of such informal guidelines and the best practices that could form the basis

of such work.

Section 1: Scope and procedural framework of the "green card" (enhanced political

dialogue)

Official position on the "green card" (enhanced political dialogue)

Since the publication of the 23rd Bi-annual Report of COSAC, in which six

Parliaments/Chambers

, indicated that they had adopted an official position

, another seven

Parliaments/Chambers communicated they had adopted an official position concerning their

participation in the "green card"

. These

indicated that they either adopted an official

position or implicitly approved the "green card" when they decided to co-sign the letter of the

House of Lords'

European Union Committee initiative on food waste, which had

collected 16 signatures and was sent to the President of the European Commission on 22 July

2015.

The Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati

added that it viewed the enhancement of political dialogue

by way of the "green card" initiative as a major step forward for a more positive and stronger

role of national Parliaments in the EU. On this occasion, the Chair of the European Affairs

Committee of the French

Assemblée nationale

underlined that the capacity to take initiatives

was in line with the general aim of the committee, consisting in making positive proposals

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Czech

Senát,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Danish

Folketing

and

Italian

Camera dei deputati.

The Parliamentary Group of AKEL- Left - New Forces represented in the Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

reiterated its position that an amendment to the TFEU constituted a prerequisite in order to establish the right of

Parliaments to the legislative initiative.

Throughout the text, for a better readability, ' "green card" (enhanced political dialogue) ' will be abbreviated

as "green card".

The Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati,

the French

Assemblée nationale

,the Croatian

Hrvatski sabor,

the Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

the Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

and the Luxembourg

Chamber of Deputies.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

instead of giving priority to a blocking capacity. It was pointed out that the "green card"

should not be excessively formalised, concerning the timeframes for example. The

Conference of Presidents of the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

decided to adhere to the

principle, but to let its participation depend on each specific initiative. The Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

decided to support the idea of the introduction of a "green card" in July

2015 in a meeting of the Committee on Foreign and European Affairs, Defence, Cooperation

and Immigration. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

stated that the "green card", in the

general framework of the political dialogue, constituted a useful tool for a constructive

involvement of national Parliaments in the EU integration process, in full respect of the

institutional balance. The Belgian

Sénat

specified that the procedure could have as objective

the introduction on the agenda of the European Commission of a proposal for a legislative act

suggesting the introduction of new legislation or for modifying an existing one when one

third of national Parliaments asked for it. It also mentioned the importance of foreseeing such

a possibility for the European Parliament.

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

recalled a report it adopted in 2014 in favour of the idea of a

"green card", allowing Parliaments to propose new European policies to the European

Commission jointly. As to this point, however, it noted that nothing stood in the way of

Parliaments making such a proposal now. Together with the Belgian

Chambre des

représentants

it indicated that it would like to wait for the results of the Working Group

before taking positions on the details of the "green card".

Four out of 13 responding Parliaments/Chambers

indicated their intention to adopt an

official position in the near future. The French

Sénat

added that it would come back to this

question in the framework of the discussions on the "Better lawmaking" proposals. After its

decision in June 2015 not to support the initiative on food waste in June 2015, the German

Bundesrat

decided not to support the initiative on food waste because, as it had not yet

adopted an opinion on this, it decided that the idea of introducing a "green card" should be

addressed by the Conference of Ministers of European Affairs of the Federal States.

The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

responded that, even if it had not adopted a formal

position, it was supportive of the concept of a "green card". It could provide for structured co-

operation within a given timeframe by a number of Parliaments on specific policy areas and it

did not purport

to be a ‘right of initiative’.

The "green card" was seen by the German

Bundestag,

which had no formal position on

whether or not to introduce a new and formal procedure, as a possible contribution to an

informal dialogue.

Although the UK

House of Lords'

European Union Select Committee had formally endorsed

the introduction of a "green card" and agreed to propose a pilot project on food waste, it

underlined that the procedure for proposing and co-signing such a proposed card had

remained informal, and decisions had been taken by the EU Select Committee, exercising the

powers conferred upon it by the

House of Lords.

The House itself would only be invited

formally to adopt a position on the "green card" once the procedure was more clearly defined.

French

Sénat,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

the German

Bundesrat

and Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The UK

House of Commons

referred to a report debated in March 2015 stating that it looked

forward to the European Commission responding to the call of national Parliaments and the

European Council to strengthen national parliaments’ role in improving EU legislation.

Though the Slovak

Národná rada

and the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

had not

adopted any official position, they participated in the food waste initiative. The latter added

that it agreed with encouraging greater participation of national Parliaments in the European

construction within the scope of enhanced political dialogue, without calling into question the

co-legislator’s

competences or the European Commission's power of initiative.

Whereas the Polish

Sejm

and the Croatian

Hrvatski sabor

indicated that they would return to

the question of introducing a "green card" after the upcoming elections, the Irish

Houses of

the Oireachtas

indicated that it planned to consider a technical motion on the introduction of

a "green card" before the end of the current parliamentary session.

The European Parliament recalled its resolution of 16 April 2014 , in which it stressed that

proper legitimacy and accountability must be ensured at national and EU level by the national

Parliaments and the European Parliament respectively, and recalled the principle, set out in

the conclusions of the December 2012 European Council meeting, that "throughout the

process, the general objective remains to ensure democratic legitimacy and accountability at

the level at which decisions are taken and implemented".

The Swedish

Riksdag

reminded that according to Sweden's constitutional setting, the

Government had the primary responsibility for the task of representing Sweden

internationally and that it was only within the framework of the subsidiarity check

mechanism that the

Riksdag

could, in accordance with the treaties, communicate directly with

the European Commission.

Some other Parliaments/Chambers stated that they were going to follow the discussion on the

introduction of a "green card" closely and that they would take a formal decision as to their

participation at a later stage.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

and the Italian

Camera dei deputati

expressed their doubts concerning

the introduction of a "green card". While the first questioned whether the proposal could be

lawfully adopted without Treaty change, and was not prepared to take a formal position on

this "highly unofficial proposal", the latter stated that the political dialogue should continue to

take place following the now well established practice of bilateral exchanges between the

European Commission and individual Parliaments, without entering into any kind of

collective dialogue between the European Commission and groups of national Parliaments.

The Romanian

Senat

underlined the importance of improving cooperation and

communication between national Parliaments and the European institutions in the frame of

the current treaties, and of fully using the current mechanism before proposing new

instruments. The proposals for introducing a "green card" could lead to a debate on the

change of the current treaties.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

did not support the letter on food waste for various reasons, which

included the appropriateness as such of the matter for a "green card" as well as the "green

card" as an instrument of political dialogue. It added that the discussions concerning the

participation in the "green card" were going on at committee level and would eventually

show whether there was political support for a "green card" on another policy subject and as

an instrument.

ii.

Scope

The respondents unanimously

indicated that under the "green card" Parliaments/Chambers

should be allowed to make "Suggestions for new legislation". An overwhelming majority (22

out of 24) of the Parliaments/Chambers were in favour of including "Suggestions to amend

existing legislation" to the scope of the "green card", with the exception of the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

and the Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie.

Regarding the scope, the proposal to extend it to "Suggestions to repeal existing legislation"

was supported by a majority (19 out of 24).

A small majority of Parliaments/Chambers (11 out of 21) supported that national Parliaments

should be allowed to make "Suggestions to amend or repeal delegated or implementing acts".

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

would like to extent the scope of the "green card"

to include "Suggestions

for measures relating to legislative initiatives included in the

European Commission Work Programme."

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

underlined that

"suggestions

for new legislation"

should not amount to the right of initiative to propose EU

legislation. The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

the Czech

Senát

and the Latvian

Saeima

proposed that the "green card" could also be used to suggest non-legislative initiatives to the

European Commission.

iii.

Existing legislation and rules of procedure

Whereas a vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers (22 out of 25) indicated that it was not

necessary to amend existing legislation or rules of procedure to participate in a "green card",

the Polish

Senat,

the Polish

Sejm

and the UK

House of Commons

replied that a modification

of the rules of procedure would be required. The Polish

Senat

added that the participation in a

"green card" would even require a change to the Polish Constitution or to the Treaties in

order to grant the necessary powers to the

Senat.

Five Parliaments/Chambers (e.g.

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés)

indicated that they did not

intend to amend existing legislation or rules of procedure.

Commenting on the possible modification of existing legislation or rules of procedure, two

Parliaments/Chambers indicated that they wanted to wait until the "green card" had become

more precise. Certain others pointed out that they saw the "green card" as enhanced political

dialogue to which the same procedures applied as to the actual political dialogue.

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

replied that political opinions were adopted by the standing

committees, while reasoned opinions had to be adopted in plenary. As the adoption of a

Only the Green party of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

responded to the question on the scope.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

"green card" would therefore be limited to the standing committees, it suggested not

including in the text of a possible "green card" any formulation stating that it reflected the

point of view of the Parliaments/Chambers as a whole. In the case of the Committee for

European Affairs of the Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

however, the resolutions were deemed

to be the statements of the whole Chamber of Deputies and therefore a modification of the

rules of procedure was not necessary.

iv.

Threshold

A majority (17 out of 21) of the responding Parliaments/Chambers were in favour of setting a

minimum threshold of Parliament/Chambers for introducing a "green card"; however, only

some responded whether this threshold should be established at one fourth (six

Parliaments/Chambers) or at one third (5 Parliaments/Chambers). Some proposed another

number, e.g. the Hungarian

Országgyűlés

who proposed one fifth or the Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor

who indicated that 80% of the Parliaments would be necessary to launch a "green

card". Some Parliaments/Chambers responded that it was not necessary to formalise a fixed

number. The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

added that a "green card" gained power when more

Parliaments, possibly also the European Parliament, supported it. The amount of support was

an important element, but the

Tweede Kamer

had no common position at the moment on how

this should operate. According to the Irish

Houses of Oireachtas,

a threshold should

demonstrate that there was support/preference for action to be taken and that there was a

body of support for the initiative among national Parliaments.

A vast majority of respondents (15 out of 20) underlined that the threshold for launching a

"green card" should always be the same. Only a few Parliaments/Chambers

were of the

opinion that fixing a threshold should be left to the discretion of the initiating

Parliament/Chamber. The French

Sénat

considered that the "green card" should be flexible

and of informal nature, so defining a minimum threshold would not be necessary.

In case a minimum threshold was introduced but not reached, a majority of respondents (16

out of 24) suggested that the text could be sent to the European Commission by the

participating the Parliaments/Chambers as a joint text without considering it as a "green

card". About one third of the respondents considered that the text could be sent to the

European Commission by each participating Parliament/Chamber as a political opinion and

about one fifth of the respondents expressed the opinion that the initiating Parliament/

Chamber should announce the consequences if the threshold was not reached in its initial

communication to Parliaments/Chambers. None of the Parliaments/Chambers was of the

opinion that the text should not be sent to the European Commission at all.

Deadline and timeframe

A vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers supported the introduction of a deadline to

participate in a "green card" (20 out of 22), with two Parliament/Chambers

being against it.

However, the respondents were almost evenly divided over the question whether the deadline

should be the same for every "green card" (10 respondents) or left to the discretion of the

Polish

Senat,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

German

Bundestag

Italian

Senato della Repubblica

and German

Bundestag

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

initiating Parliament/Chamber to inform Parliaments/Chambers on its choice (nine

respondents).

A majority of Parliaments/Chambers indicated that a specific timeframe should be introduced

for concluding the process of a "green card" (17 out of 21), with four Parliaments/Chambers

being against. Almost half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers indicated that this

timeframe should be the same for every "green card" and should be between 16 weeks and

six months (12 out of 25).

The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

suggested that the timeframe should be the same for

every "green card" and should be between two and three months. The Czech

Senát

added that

the timeframe for decisions on the participation in a "green card" should be six months unless

the initiating Chamber had important reasons to set a shorter deadline and argued that

sufficient time for due consideration of proposals by the national Parliaments was one of the

most important features of the process. It also proposed that national Parliaments unable to

join a "green card" within the given deadline should, after consulting the initiating

Parliament/Chamber, still be able to join it by sending a letter to the European Commission.

The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

pointed out that the timeframe should be reasonable.

vi.

Amendments

With the exception of one Parliament/Chamber (Slovak

Národná rada),

all the respondents

(21 out of 22) were of the opinion that it should be possible to suggest amendments to the

initial text prepared by the initiating Parliament/Chamber and that these amendments should

be introduced within a deadline decided by the initiating Parliament/Chamber. This deadline

should be announced prior to circulating the "green card" in order to inform other

Parliaments/Chambers.

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

and the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

indicated that it

should be possible to send amendments at any stage.

Half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (nine out of 18) stated that the initiating

Parliament/Chamber alone should decide whether to accept the amendments and circulate an

amended text afterwards. The French

Assemblée nationale

underlined that, for reasons of

efficiency and flexibility, the initiating Parliament/Chamber needed to fix a deadline. The UK

House of Lords

pointed to the difficulty the issue raised and argued that, on the one hand,

inviting Parliaments/Chambers to amend the text could slow down the process; on the other

hand, it would be unfortunate to exclude the possibility of amendments that might improve

the substance of the text. For this reason, it suggested a limited timeframe for introducing

amendments, with the initiating Parliament deciding whether to accept them; this

Parliament/Chamber would then circulate the amended text to all signatories, inviting them to

agree/disagree with the amended text, without the possibility of further amendments.

vii.

Withdrawal

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

French

Assemblée nationale,

Portuguese

Assembleia da República

and

German

Bundestag

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

A vast majority of the Parliaments/Chambers (20 out of 22) stated that it should be allowed to

withdraw from a "green card" at any stage. The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

added that a clear

timeframe should be set for the withdrawal. The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

underlined

that flexibility was required in order to allow the Parliaments/Chambers first to consider the

amended text and then to decide whether they still wanted to join the "green card". The

Lithuanian

Seimas

proposed ensuring that a participating Parliament/Chamber could only

revoke its decision if it disagreed with the proposed amendments. The Latvian

Saeima

suggested that withdrawal from a "green card" should not be possible after its transmission to

the European Commission.

viii.

Specific form

A small majority of Parliaments/Chambers (12 out of 21) indicated that they were in favour

of drafting a "green card" according to a set form. According to a large majority of

respondents (12 out of 17), this set form should contain a "summary of the reasons behind the

proposed action" as well as "the anticipated benefits". A majority of Parliaments/Chambers

(10 out of 17) have stated that a "green card" should include a reference to a legal base and to

the preferred type of legislation. Only a few Parliaments/Chambers (four respondents) had

given their support to including a deadline for the European Commission’s reply to the

"green card".

For the Latvian

Saeima,

it was essential that a "green card" contained some substantive

elements, while its exact form was of less importance. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

the UK

House of Lords

and the Hungarian

Országgyűlés

underlined that there was no need to

adopt a set form. The UK

House of Lords

added that there should be guidance, ideally agreed

at COSAC level, possibly including the elements listed in the questionnaire. The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

supported a flexible approach and stated that it was up to the initiating

Parliament/Chamber to see which parts should be included. It also pointed out that the

minimum elements to include could be discussed by the COSAC Working Group

ix.

Consultations

A majority of respondents (14 out of 25) stated that consultations among interested

Parliaments/Chambers should take place according to the initiating Parliament's/Chamber's

choice. Just above one third (nine out of 25) of the Parliaments/Chambers responded that the

consultations should take place via e-mail or among the representatives of national

Parliaments in Brussels (eight out of 25). Less than a third of the respondents (seven out of

25) would like to see cluster meetings at political level in the initiating Parliament’s/

Chamber’s premises. Only a few Parliaments/Chambers (six out of 25) wanted to

organise

consultations via videoconference.

The Polish

Senat

and the Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati

suggested organising consultations

among national Parliaments in connection with the COSAC meetings. The UK

House of

Lords

underlined that all the options mentioned could be used, whereas the Hungarian

In response to the invitation by the LIII COSAC addressed to the Luxembourg Presidency "to set up a

working group on Strengthening the political dialogue by introducing a "green card" and improving the

reasoned opinion procedure ("yellow card")" (paragraph 2.13 of the Contribution of the LIII COSAC, the

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

established a working group which held its first meeting on 30 October

2015.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

Országgyűlés

specified that consultations should take place primarily between those MPs and

Secretariat staff working on the dossier. The French Assemblée

nationale

added that, if

physical meetings were to take place, these should be organised at political level and not

among representatives in Brussels and that interpretation should be provided at least into the

EU working languages.

Regarding this point and the procedural aspects above (points iv-ix), the Belgian

Sénat

communicated that, before deciding, it wanted to wait for the results of the COSAC Working

Group

. .

Section 2: "Yellow card" procedure

Improvement of the "yellow card" procedure

A majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (26 out of 32) considered that the

"yellow card" procedure needed improvement without Treaty change.

The improvements proposed could be grouped as follows.

Firstly, the most mentioned (12 Parliaments/Chambers) was that the European Commission

should improve its answers to Reasoned Opinion

(RO) issued by national Parliaments. The

quality as well as the timeliness of the answers by the European Commission should be

improved. Secondly, the adjustment of the current 8-week deadline to issue a RO was

suggested by nine Parliaments/Chambers. The French

Assemblée nationale,

the Swedish

Riksdag,

the Dutch

Tweede Kamer

and the Czech

Senát

specifically mentioned the possibility

to take into account certain recess periods when calculating the deadlines. The Cyprus

Vouli

ton Antiprosopon,

suggested that, in cases of proposals of increased complexity, the 8-week

period should be extended by at least two weeks.

A less mentioned improvement within the "yellow card" procedure was better coordination

(Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna),

cooperation among national

Parliaments (Dutch

Tweede Kamer),

inter-institutional cooperation (Bulgarian

Narodno

sabranie),

as well as communication (Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

Bulgarian

Narodno

sabranie),

more information provided by the Commission on a biannual basis to national

Parliaments regarding the upcoming legislative proposals falling under the scope of Protocol

2 (Hungarian

Országgyűlés)

and exchange of information among national Parliaments

through a consultation forum on IPEX (Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor).

The possibility to

establish guidelines/criteria was specifically pointed out by the European Parliament, the

Latvian

Saeima,

the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

and the Luxembourg

Chambre des

Députés.

The French

Sénat,

the Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

the Swedish

Riksdag

and the Lithuanian

Seimas

underlined the importance of a better justification of the proposal by the European

Commission with regard to subsidiarity; this justification should not be limited to one or a

few arguments concerning the need to take action at the EU level. The Lithuanian

Seimas

added that impact assessments were not translated into all EU official languages, and thus

ibid

Reasoned opinion will be abbreviated as "RO" throughout the following text.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

they did not permit all stakeholders to appraise compliance with the principle of subsidiarity

and in some cases may render the exercise of national Parliaments' right to monitor the

subsidiarity principle more difficult.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

indicated that it did not consider the "yellow card" procedure vital for

parliamentary influence, stating that it even failed to improve national Parliaments' influence,

but demonstrated the need for national Parliaments’ input to be included in the European

legislative procedure. In its view, parliamentary influence could be made real only through

parliamentary control of national Governments’ activities in the Council.

The Belgian

Chambre des représentants

and

Sénat

added that the "yellow card" mechanism

needed to be revised because the non-federal legislative assemblies of the Belgian

parliamentary system were participating in the "yellow card" process.

The European Parliament noted that the current timeframe for national Parliaments to carry

out subsidiarity and proportionality checks had often been considered insufficient and, in its

resolution of 4 February 2014

, considered several initiatives to improve the evaluation of

European issues by national Parliaments. It suggested that each legislative act published in

the Official Journal should contain a note detailing those national Parliaments which had

responded and those which had raised subsidiarity concerns; proposed forwarding national

Parliaments' ROs to the co-legislators without delay; suggested that guidelines could be

prepared outlining criteria for ROs on subsidiarity issues and proposed mobilising national

Parliaments to undertake comparative evaluations of

ex ante

assessments which they had

conducted and

ex post

assessments drawn up by the European Commission.

ii.

Criteria for deciding a breach of the subsidiarity principle

Only nine out of 37 respondents replied that they had established criteria for deciding

whether the principle of subsidiarity had been breached. When specifying these criteria, the

House of Lords,

the Finnish

Eduskunta,

the Lithuanian

Seimas,

as well as the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

referred to the relevant definitions and criteria in Article 5 TEU

and/or Protocol 2.

The Committee on Foreign and European Affairs of the Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

although not having established such criteria, used the guidelines on the application of the

principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as provided in the Treaty of Lisbon and in the

Treaty of Amsterdam.

The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

mentioned that principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the

legal basis would be considered in a RO.

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

explained that it used the "necessity test" and the "EU

added value test", and pointed out that these elements were also described by the European

Commission in its 19th Report on subsidiarity and proportionality. In similar terms the

French

Sénat,

Swedish

Riksdag,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer

and Latvian

Saeima

explained how

and which criteria were being used. The Latvian

Saeima

added that its analysis was also

Resolution of 4 February 2014 on EU Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarity and Proportionality - 19th report on

Better Law-making covering the year 2011 ((2013/2077(INI)) P7_TA(2014)0061

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

based the appropriateness of the choice of the legal basis of the proposal and on the reasoning

provided by the Commission in its proposal as regards the observance of the principle of

subsidiarity.

The French

Sénat

had not established a list of such criteria, but had nevertheless developed

certain principles; among others, it added that a lack of impact assessment was also a ground

to issue a RO, as insufficient analysis did not ensure that the European Commission had

correctly defined the appropriate level of action in accordance with the principles of

subsidiarity and proportionality.

The Swedish

Riksdag

indicated that it used a method of establishing the level at which action

should be taken, the so called two-step method. The main question was at which level a

proposed action should be carried out, not whether the proposed action should be carried out

or not. If it was possible to achieve the objectives of the proposed action by dealing with it at

the national, regional or local level, no action should be taken at EU level. If yes, then the

question had to be asked if the objectives of the measure could be better achieved at EU level.

The European Parliament mentioned that, in its resolution

, it was noted that Protocol No 2

provided national Parliaments with the formal opportunity to advise the EU legislator as to

whether a proposed law fell short of the subsidiarity test since its objectives could not, by

reason of their scale or effects, be better achieved at EU rather than at Member State level. It

further suggested assessing whether appropriate criteria should be laid down at EU level for

the evaluation of compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

iii.

Drafting a Reasoned Opinion

Twenty out of 35 Parliaments/Chambers replied they drafted ROs according to an internal set

form. Parliaments/Chambers were also asked if they had a fixed format/template for a RO,

and which aspects were used in it.

The answers provided showed that in most cases an internal set form and a fixed

format/template for a RO could not be distinguished from each other. In case there was a set

or fixed form/format, it was common practice for several Parliaments/Chambers to work

along the same lines for every RO and to use the same elements every time. When

Parliaments/Chambers used some kind of form/format, there was room for flexibility on how

it was used.

Some Parliaments/Chambers specifically explained that they used a set form. The UK

House

of Lords

mentioned that the ROs were adopted in a set form, which was agreed by the House

in 2010. The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

explained that it used a set form for the

purposes of scrutinising the European initiatives it received, regardless of whether or not they

fell in the scope of scrutiny of the principle of subsidiarity. If a breach of subsidiarity was

found, a RO was issued and approved in plenary in the form of a Resolution. The Polish

Senat

also mentioned that a fix format for a RO was used.

Resolution of 4 February 2014 on EU Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarity and Proportionality - 19th report on

Better Law-making covering the year 2011 ((2013/2077(INI)) P7_TA(2014)0061

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The ways in which some sort of form/format was used varied. Some Parliaments/Chambers

used the form of a resolution, e.g. the Czech

Senát

stated that they used the general form of

resolutions with bullet points. The reasoning of the opinion was clearly distinguished from

other comments on the legislative proposal relevant only to the Government or in the

framework of political dialogue.

A more flexible approach was used by the Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

and the

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon.

In the first case, there was no fixed format and in the second

case it was not obligatory to follow a set form. The Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

stressed that

they did not use any fixed template; it was up to the rapporteur who drafted a RO. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

did not have a format/template either; the previous ROs adopted

were followed as examples. The Romanian

Senat

indicated that although it did not use a

standard form, ROs included legal and technical elements indicating the breach of

subsidiarity.

The Lithuanian

Seimas

explained in more detail the specific elements that could be found in a

RO, as a strict form had not been set. The practice existed that the RO consisted of two

documents; a resolution by the plenary to approve the conclusion of the Committees on

European Affairs or on Foreign Affairs on possible breach of the principle of subsidiarity and

an extract of these committees conclusion, where the motivation was referred to.

The Swedish

Riksdag

used certain guidelines to formulate a statement to the Plenary, which

the committee had to propose in order to submit a RO. ROs were formulated in a uniform

way, with certain set headings. The RO, appended to the statement, should state which

proposal had been examined, that the committee considered that the proposal was in conflict

with the principle of subsidiarity and the reasons it found a breach.

iv.

Criteria to separate the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

Only six Parliaments/Chambers out of 34 stated that they had defined criteria for separating

the principle of subsidiarity from the principle of proportionality. Explaining their answers,

the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

the Swedish

Riksdag

and the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

referred to the relevant definitions and criteria in Article 5 of TEU and/or Protocol

2. The Finnish

Eduskunta,

though it had not established any criteria, explained that it also

used Article 5 TEU.

The Swedish

Riksdag

stressed that the examination of subsidiarity also included a

proportionality criterion. It stated that there was a certain amount of support in literature and

in EU Court of Justice case-law to justify that a certain degree of proportionality assessment

could be regarded as being included within the framework of subsidiarity checks. The

wording in the Treaty "the Union shall act only if and in so far as " meant that the

examination of subsidiarity also included a proportionality criterion, and that the proposed

measures may consequently not go beyond what was necessary to achieve the desired

objectives of the measures.

The Polish

Senat,

Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie

and the Latvian

Saeima

also mentioned the

separation of proportionality and subsidiarity. The Polish

Senat

and Bulgarian

Narodno

sabranie

explained that the principle of proportionality followed that of subsidiarity. The

Polish

Senat

explained that, when attempting to separate proportionality and subsidiarity, it

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

considered that, if a given goal was to be better achieved on a community level, but the

measures proposed by the Commission seemed to be excessive, the proposal was considered

to be in breach of proportionality.

Guidelines for Reasoned Opinions and best practices

On establishing guidelines for ROs, many Parliaments/Chambers highlighted several best

practices. A few (six out of 23)

mentioned the use of a clear indication in the text when a

national Parliament was issuing a RO. The use of a clear motivation in the RO on why a

breach of subsidiarity had been concluded was also mentioned. The Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor

added that an extensive explanation of the motivation for issuing a RO was

needed, as this was not to be used as a mean to counteract core principles in the EU Treaties

or slow down the integration process in the EU.

On the motivation and the elements in a RO, a few Parliaments/Chamber mentioned the

principles of subsidiarity as well as proportionality in relation to the RO. For example, the

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon

highlighted that it considered that the principles of

subsidiarity and proportionality were inextricably interwoven, and thus when conducting a

subsidiarity check, it always considered proportionality aspects as well. Therefore, when

establishing guidelines for ROs, it would support the inclusion of proportionality concerns in

ROs, provided that these guidelines did not separate the two principles or preclude their

examination

in tandem,

or impede national Parliaments from issuing a RO of non-compliance

to the principle of subsidiarity that raised proportionality issues as well.

The Czech

Senát

pointed out that the distinction between the principle of subsidiarity and

proportionality was mostly a matter of formulation of the argumentation in the RO, and that

the two principles overlapped. It was clear that a RO could not be adopted on the grounds of

a breach of the principle of proportionality, but certain arguments were relevant to both

principles; those should not be dismissed by the European Commission as relevant only to

proportionality.

The German

Bundesrat

mentioned it was following a non-binding recommendation, which

described the preconditions for submitting a RO on non-compliance with the principle of

subsidiarity. This also applied to scrutiny of proportionality, which, in the German

Bundesrat's

view, could also be examined within the framework of the subsidiarity check.

The recommendation also contained scrutiny-related questions that could be utilised when

scrutinising the subsidiarity principle in the stricter sense of the term. Finally, the guide

included overviews of how procedures were structured in the

Bundesrat,

as well as

indications of further scope for the

Bundesrat

to take action.

A number of Parliaments/Chambers highlighted the process of issuing a RO, for instance

referring to how to get input from other actors. For example, the Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie

mentioned that the opinion of the Council for Public Consultation to the relevant committee

was also part of the ROs, and that it reflected the viewpoint of various business organisations,

NGOs and academia. The Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

pointed out that consultations

with different stakeholders could improve the quality of ROs, as they worked closely together

French

Assemblée nationale,

Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Czech

Senát,

Latvian

Saeima

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

with the Provincial Parliaments by giving them the opportunity to make comments on all

draft legislative acts and by taking those comments into consideration when voting on a RO.

The Lithuanian

Seimas

also highlighted other actors' input; it may request the Legal

Department of the Office of the

Seimas

as well as the European Law Department under the

Ministry of

Justice of the Republic of Lithuania to submit their opinion on the proposal’s

compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, it stated that a Government

representative always participated in the consideration of a legislative proposal during the

committee meetings, thus ensuring a wide political debate and cooperation between the

parliament and the Government.

Other best practices mentioned included, among others:

- Appointing a member of Parliament in standing committees to follow-up EU matters

regarding their respective committees (Belgian

Chambre des représentants)

- Introducing a specific procedure in case a RO needed to be issued when the Plenary was

not in session (Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés)

- Mandatory translation into English of a full text of every RO issued and publication of

the translated RO on IPEX as soon as possible (Polish

Senat)

- In case of no impact assessment or lack of motivation of the proposal by the European

Commission, this should be mentioned in the RO (French

Sénat)

- Explanation setting out the breach in subsidiarity -

‘subsidiarity test’ (Irish

Houses of the

Oireachtas)

Regarding aspects that should be included in an RO, 32 respondents out of 33 suggested

mentioning the legislative proposal the RO referred, 31 opted for clearly indicating that the

text was a RO, 23 opted for providing a translation of the RO in English or a summary in

English, 22 suggested including a summary of argumentation, 21 suggested including the

legal basis and a motivation, while only nine suggested including information on the internal

procedure applied.

Regarding other proposed aspects, a few Parliaments/Chambers made a remark about the

language to be used for a RO. The French

Sénat

mentioned that a translation of the RO was

desirable, at least into one of the EU working languages. The full translation or summary did

not have to be included in the RO, but could be the subject of a parallel communication. The

French

Assemblée nationale

expressed the view that a translation or a summary in English

and in French should be provided. The European Parliament pointed out that, whereas the

provision of a translation or summary in English could be helpful, the Committee on Legal

Affairs (JURI) considered that requiring the inclusion of a translation into English of ROs or

of a summary in English would be contentious in light of the principle of multilingualism.

The Latvian

Saeima

also suggested adding constructive suggestions to the European

Commission on how to improve the legislative proposal in order for it to comply with the

principle of subsidiarity (e.g. suggestion to choose a different type of legal instrument).

vi.

The 8-week period for issuing a Reasoned Opinion

Regarding the 8-week period for issuing a RO, a vast majority of responding

Parliaments/Chambers (24 out of 33) considered that the mid-December to New Year break

should be excluded from this period. A majority (18 out of 33) expressed the view that recess

periods in the EU institutions should be excluded as well. Other suggested periods to be

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

excluded were the period from mid-July to mid-September, as most Parliaments were in

recess then (Belgian

Chambre des représentants

and

Sénat),

the recess periods of the national

Parliaments (the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor),

as well as January and July-August as

those were the periods of parliamentary holidays (Romanian

Senat).

The Dutch

Tweede

Kamer

mentioned that excluding recces was a minimum option. They preferred extending the

deadline to 12 weeks as many Parliaments had different recess periods; in order to be able to

improve cooperation between national Parliaments, which could improve the quality of ROs,

it was essential to allow enough time.

The Latvian

Saeima

expressed that no further exceptions, in addition to the month of August,

should be added because this could be confusing and potentially lead to legal uncertainty; the

current situation was clear and left no room for confusion as far as the deadlines for

submitting ROs were concerned.

Nineteen out of 28 Parliaments/Chambers stated that the exact dates of periods excluded from

the 8-week-period should be communicated by the European Commission.

CHAPTER 2: A EUROPEAN AGENDA ON MIGRATION

At the time when both the 30th anniversary of the signing of the first Schengen agreement

and the 20th anniversary of the entry into force of the second Schengen agreement are

celebrated, the adoption of a new policy on migration has become one of the urgent

objectives of the European Commission. In this light, the second Chapter of the 24th Bi-

annual Report casts light on Parliaments'/Chambers' discussions on the European

Commission's Communication "A European Agenda on Migration"

adopted on 13 May

2015 aiming both at putting forward concrete actions to respond to the immediate crisis and

save lives at sea, and at proposing structural responses for the medium and long term. The

principle of the Agenda is a coordinated EU response on the refugees and migration.

According to the findings of the Report, the vast majority of the responding

Parliaments/Chambers had discussed the abovementioned Communication; 21 out of 37 in a

committee meeting and six in plenary. Four were planning to hold a discussion in the near

future.

Section 1 of the Report, acknowledging the need to provide an urgent solution to the situation

in the Mediterranean, presents

an overview of the Parliaments’/Chambers’

views on the

preventive measures that should be taken and put in place to avoid further humanitarian

tragedies in the Mediterranean. Section 2 presents Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the

immediate actions proposed by the European Commission, i.e. the temporary European

relocation scheme for asylum seekers who are in clear need of international protection and

the resettlement scheme of migrants from third countries to EU Member States. Section 3

focuses on a new policy on legal migration in relation to the demographic challenges most

EU countries are facing resulting in shortages of specific skills, which aims at attracting new

talents. Section 4 casts light on Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the European common

Communication of the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Affairs Committee, the Committee of the Regions, A European Agenda on

Migration COM(2015) 240.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

asylum system, and the exchange of best practices of Parliaments/Chambers in the

application of the asylum rules.

Section 1: Preventive measures

Only few Parliaments/Chambers had not at all discussed the preventive measures proposed by

the European Commission, while the majority of the Parliaments/Chambers had a discussion

on the matter in a committee meeting and/or in plenary (19 out of 37 in a committee meeting

and nine in plenary). Four communicated they intended to hold a discussion.

Eight Parliaments/Chambers, among others the French

Assemblée nationale,

the Polish

Sejm,

the Estonian

Riigikogu,

the Czech

Poslanecká

sněmovna,

the German

Bundesrat,

the

Romanian

Senat

and the European Parliament, stressed the need to enforce the fight against

illegal migration, human smuggling and trafficking, as well as to solve the problems in the

countries of origin and to have better cooperation both with countries of origin and transit

countries.

The Polish

Sejm,

the Lithuanian

Seimas

and the Czech

Senát

stressed the need for better

border protection and management of the external borders of the EU, as well as better EU

return policy and development of European asylum policy.

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

the French

Assemblée nationale

and the Lithuanian

Seimas

further highlighted the need to strengthen the work of FRONTEX, as well as of

Europol and Eurojust by ensuring maximum coordination of their actions and by making full

use of their capabilities. The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

further proposed possible

measures to be introduced, i.e. the establishment of highly specialised international police

missions, a European intervention to tackle illegal migrations, strengthening of the Triton

operation, the introduction of burden-sharing mechanisms, a diplomatic and political action

towards third countries, overcoming of the Dublin III regulation framework, the possibility to

apply for asylum at the embassy level, an action towards countries of origin and transit and

an intervention of the United Nations Security Council.

While the Slovak

Národná rada

and the Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

pointed out the need

for maintaining voluntary nature for solidarity activities within the EU, the Italian

Senato

della Repubblica

asked to ensure fair and balanced participation of all Member States in the

area of relocation of the asylum seekers and migrants.

The European Parliament in several resolutions specifically highlighted the establishment of

safe and legal avenues for asylum seekers for entering the EU and stressed the need for

Member States to effectively fulfil their search and rescue obligations. It also recalled the

need to examine the overall strategy on cooperation with third countries and to address the

root causes of migration.

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

requested the Government to focus on EU discussions regarding

intensifying cooperation between all countries in the Mediterranean area, among others

regarding better information and counselling, regional protection and supporting African aid

services.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

When asked to indicate concrete preventive measures that had been discussed, the vast

majority of responding Parliaments/Chambers (24 out of 29) indicated that they discussed the

issue of working in partnership with third countries to tackle the migration upstream; at the

same time, only half of those responding had discussed deployment of assets (ships and

aircrafts). The vast majority of those responding (22 out of 29) had discussed FRONTEX

joint-operations Triton and Poseidon. More than half of responding Parliaments/Chambers

looked at capture and destruction of vessels used by smugglers, while less than half of those

responding specifically discussed capture and destruction of vessels used by smugglers

outside the EU territory. Two thirds of responding Parliaments/Chambers discussed support

to a possible Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission on smuggling migrants.

Almost the same number of the respondents has discussed regional development and

protection programmes (North Africa, Horn of Africa, Middle East).

Several Parliaments/Chambers specified other measures which had been discussed and which

covered many aspects of the humanitarian tragedies in the Mediterranean. Among them, the

need for the EU to support more structured intervention for the stabilisation of Libya

(Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati),

the transfer of the FRONTEX Headquarters closer to the

centre of the Mediterranean (Italian

Camera dei deputati)

and reinforcing the protection of

external borders (Czech

Senát)

were highlighted.

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

discussed the possibility of establishing

information centres in the countries of origin, transit and destination to provide clarification

and guidance for migrants on their rights and obligations. The possibility of compensating

private operators, such as the merchant navy, to provide incentives for their cooperation and

solidarity in sea rescue missions, was also mentioned. It expressed its doubts as to the

effectiveness of preventive measures that were not accompanied by political and diplomatic

responses.

The Slovak

Národná rada

discussed the creation of safe zones in the countries of origin and

creation of hotspots at the most affected entry points, securing legal pathways for qualified

migrants. The hotspots were discussed also in the French

Sénat.

The possibilities for migrants to apply for asylum outside the EU borders were also discussed

in several Parliaments/Chambers (e.g. Slovak

Národná rada,

Italian

Senato della

Repubblica).

The Belgian

Chambre des représentants

discussed a new and more flexible

model for asylum seekers in Belgium.

The Lithuanian

Seimas

focused on the importance of having a communication strategy to

prevent the dissemination of negative, populist or false information and to preclude the

shaping of a negative public opinion in the EU.

Only few Parliaments/Chambers presented their opinion on preventive measures that may be

put in place. These included short-term activities, such as the ones listed in the

Communication document: better border management, effective return policy and incentives

to curb illegal migration (Polish

Sejm);

long-term activities to strengthen EU international

role and credibility (Italian

Senato della Repubblica);

better information and counselling,

better regional protection and support for African aid services to prevent migrants from

undertaking a hazardous trip to the EU (Dutch

Tweede Kamer).

The Swedish

Riksdag

emphasised the importance of both emergency measures to save lives and long-term

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

measures to create legal ways of entering the EU

while the Romanian

Senat

encouraged the

Members states to secure the EU borders.

The Polish

Sejm

raised concerns about destroying smugglers’ boats, noting that such

activities would probably require the involvement of military resources, which would require

the consent of the UN Security Council or of the Libyan authorities.

The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

stated that parliamentary discussions, both at plenary and

committee levels, focused on the challenges posed by the Western Balkan migration transit

route.

When asked to provide additional information on the preventive measures, among others, the

House of Lords,

the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor,

as well as the European Parliament

and the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

referred to inquiries having taken place and reports

under preparation. The Swedish

Riksdag

made reference to the labour migration highlighting

also the positive aspect of migration. It welcomed the EU actions towards increasing the EU's

attractiveness for prospective employees, reminding however that it was also important to

prevent the exploitation of people coming to the EU.

Section 2: Actions proposed by the European Commission (relocation and resettlement)

Parliaments' discussions on actions proposed concerning a relocation system to

distribute those in clear need of international protection within the EU

A first implementation package on the European Agenda on Migration adopted on 27 May

2015 included: a proposal to trigger for the first time Article 78(3) of the TFEU in order to

urgently relocate 40,000 asylum seekers for the benefit of Italy and Greece; a

Recommendation for a resettlement scheme for 20,000 persons from outside the EU; an

Action Plan on Smuggling; and the necessary amendments to the EU Budget to reinforce the

Triton and Poseidon operations at sea so that more lives could be saved.

Twenty-nine out of 37 responding Parliaments/Chambers discussed the actions proposed by

the Commission concerning a relocation system to distribute those in clear need of

international protection within the EU either in a plenary session (eight

Parliaments/Chambers) or in a committee meeting (21 Parliaments/Chambers). Two

Chambers (Lithuanian

Seimas

and Slovak

Národná rada)

issued an opinion on the actions,

while three other Parliaments/Chambers announced the intention to discuss these (Spanish

Cortes Generales,

Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie

and Romanian

Camera Deputaților).

Some

Parliaments/Chambers did not discuss the proposed actions (e.g. Slovenian

Državni svet,

Croatian

Hrvatski sabor,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon).

The opinions expressed by the Parliaments/Chambers varied mainly on the issue of voluntary

or compulsory distribution of refugees and on the issue of quotas per country. Six

Parliaments/Chambers did not issue a common opinion. Several Parliaments/Chambers

expressed their support to the voluntary basis of the distribution, as well as to the need for an

allotment scheme that was reasonable and based on actual capabilities of Member States and

Polish

Senat

and

Sejm,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

Estonian

Riigikogu,

Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

and

Senát,

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Latvian

Saeima

and Slovak

Národná rada)

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

their opposition to country quotas defined by the European Commission. Some

Parliaments/Chambers supported however the European Commission's distribution proposal

and quotas

The EU Affairs Committee of the Polish

Sejm

pointed out that the European Commission

exceeded its mandate on the relocation and resettlement programme, established by the

European Council at the extraordinary summit in April. It stressed that the European

Council’s document expressly refers to

voluntariness and not to compulsoriness, and noted

that the principle of voluntariness did not imply lack of solidarity or responsibility.

The Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

referred to a resolution adopted by its Committee on

European Affairs, which rejected the proposal for a Council Decision establishing provisional

measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece

and

which supported the position of the Government on the proposed mechanism; it called on the

Government to do everything possible to block adoption of the draft.

The EU Affairs Committee of the Estonian

Riigikogu

expressed the opinion that Member

States should decide unanimously on the distribution key concerning a relocation system,

reflecting the proportionate size of their population and economy in the EU.

The EU Affairs Committee of the Lithuanian

Seimas

adopted an opinion which stated, among

others, that the principle of solidarity should be based on transparent criteria that were clear

and acceptable to all Member States and on the indisputable principle of voluntary

participation.

The Czech

Senát

referred to its resolution

where it stressed that it did not agree with the

mandatory relocation of migrants between Member States; Member States should bear the

primary responsibility for their asylum and migration policy, including the consequences of

non-compliance with the rules agreed at EU level. It also agreed with the Czech Government

that the proposal for a decision was also legally unclear in many respects, in particular with

regard to the specific procedures, the rules of the Dublin regulation or health aspects.

The Latvian

Saeima

debated the issue in the EU Affairs Committee and, while generally

recognising the need to offer solidarity to Member States facing an unprecedented flow of

refugees, the common opinion was that the relocation system should operate on a voluntary

basis.

The Slovak

Národná rada

referred to its Declaration on Solving Migration Challenges

Currently Faced by the European Union where it highlighted, among others, the need for

solidarity in addressing the current migratory pressure, as well as responsibility for taking

measures to protect the common external borders of the EU. It further expressed the readiness

of the Slovak Republic to assist in resolving the humanitarian crisis, insisting however on the

voluntary nature of individual contributions by the Member States for resettlement and

relocation programs, and rejecting the introduction of mandatory quotas, as well as any

Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati

and

Senato della Repubblica,

European

Parliament, Austrian

Nationalrat

(COM (2015) 286 final)

No.161 of 18 June 2015

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

questioning of the fundamental pillar of the Schengen system, i.e. the principle of free

movement of persons.

The Romanian

Senat

expressed its disagreement with using a standard mechanism that would

not take into consideration the particularities of each Member State and the contribution to

the activities to European Agencies such as FRONTEX. Furthermore, it stressed that the

solutions must be found in adequate policies for migration, border security and not by

introducing controls or affecting the application of the Schengen

acquis.

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

made reference to the need that all Member States

accept to be part of the response and to be willing, within their capabilities, to assume their

share of responsibility. This assumption should, however, be accompanied by the Union

assigning resources to the Member States that have the greatest financial difficulties and/or

those that needed greater investment in their refugee and/or migrant support services, so they

could respond efficiently.

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

referred to its resolution adopted on 24 June 2015 and,

acknowledging the Communication as constituting an innovative approach, stressed the

importance of the relocation and redistribution of asylum seekers already present in Europe.

It called on the Union to undertake unequivocal commitments while ensuring the relocation

plan for asylum seekers already present in Italy and Greece to ease the burden on the

European first ports of call. It instructed its Government to adopt all initiatives to help

secure an agreement on the redistribution of asylum seekers which was ambitious in terms of

the numbers involved, equitable in terms of distribution, binding on the Member States and

operational before the summer season

The German

Bundesrat

supported the European Commission's proposal to establish a

mandatory programme for resettlement and/or re-distribution.

The European Parliament discussed the proposal of the European Commission both in a

Plenary session and in Committees' meeting (LIBE and AFET). It was discussing a new

report

at that time related to the permanent crisis relocation mechanism under the Dublin

system and adopted a resolution

on the Council Decision establishing provisional measures

in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

discussed the proposal in a committee meeting; it agreed with the

Government that relocation and resettlement should take place in the short term, and that it

was necessary to try to improve regional reception of refugees in the long term, as well as to

invest in the improvement of reception in the region and to look for more structural solutions.

In the same resolution, the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

called on the Union to override the Dublin

Regulation principle according to which asylum seekers must be taken in by the first port of entry in order to

introduce the principle of mutual recognition of decisions to grant asylum.

2015/0208(COD)

Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, of 9 September

2015, P8_TA-PROV(2015)0306

COM(2015)0451 - C8-0271/2015 - 2015/0209(NLE).

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

repeatedly discussed at Committee meetings ways to

solve the current situation at European level such as a distribution of asylum seekers among

the EU Member States.

The UK

House of Lords

referred to a report it published

calling on the British Government

to participate in the relocation scheme provided this could be done on a voluntary basis. The

European Scrutiny Committee of the UK

House of Commons

had recommended a separate

debate in September that would

focus specifically on the UK’s Title V opt-in.

The EU Affairs Committee of the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

agreed to keep the European

Agenda on Migration under further scrutiny and to return to this question should the

Government opt into the relevant measures.

ii.

Parliaments' discussions on actions the target of 20.000 resettlement places for

the EU per year by the year 2020

A second implementation package on the European Agenda on Migration was adopted by the

European Commission on 9 September 2015, proposing concrete measures to respond to the

current refugee crisis and to prepare for future challenges. The proposal included: an

emergency relocation proposal for 120,000 persons in clear need of international protection

from Greece, Hungary and Italy; a crisis relocation mechanism to be inserted into the Dublin

Regulation; a common European list of Safe Countries of Origin; making return policy more

effective through a common Return Handbook and an EU Action Plan on Return; a

Communication on Public Procurement rules for Refugee Support Measures; a

Communication on addressing the external dimension of the refugee crisis; an Emergency

Trust Fund for Africa.

Less than half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (16 out of 35) had discussed the

target of 20.000 resettlement places for the EU per year by the year 2020 in committee

meetings, eight had debated the target in a plenary session, two had discussed the objective

both in a plenary session and in a committee meeting, one had issued an opinion on the issue,

five had not discussed it at all, while five intended to discuss it.

The position of the responding Parliaments/Chambers reflected the division between

supporters of the European Commission proposal for a compulsory repartition mechanism

based on fixed country quotas and supporters of voluntariness.

The Polish

Sejm

stressed that, in its Communication document, the European Commission

had not taken account of the situation in Ukraine. In case of a potential influx of refugees

from Ukraine to Poland, Poland would certainly become the destination country. It was also

noted that the European Commission had devoted far too little attention to combatting the so-

called secondary movements within the EU and to required measures aimed to prevent

situations in which persons relocated or resettled to all EU countries would move to a

selected group of the richest EU members, contrary to the relocation principle.

"The UK opt-in to the proposed Council Decision on the relocation of migrants within the EU", EU Home

Affairs Sub-Committee, UK House of Lords, 15 July 2015

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The European Parliament informed that the issue was discussed both at plenary and

committee level (namely in the LIBE and AFET Committees). It also mentioned the Tavares

Reports

underlining its long time support to the creation of a resettlement programme.

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

informed that, following a debate in a Committee meeting, it

supported the view of the Government, which supported resettlement of 20.000 places and

ensuring that every Member States took its fair share. After the new proposals of the

Commission on 9 September, views were divided. However, the majority in the Chamber

supported the view that resettlement should be used as instrument to support reception in the

region in the short term.

The Czech

Senát

adopted a Resolution

in which it stated that it was fundamentally opposed

to the establishment of common mandatory schemes for relocation and resettlement, putting

emphasis on the exclusively voluntary nature of the proposed mechanisms, as these measures

did not address the underlying reasons for massive waves of migration and may, on the

contrary, further stimulate migration.

Section 3: New policy on legal migration

Parliaments' discussions on the actions proposed by the European Commission

on legal migration

Almost half of the Parliaments/ Chambers responding (17 out of 37) discussed the actions

proposed by the European Commission on legal migration in a committee meeting, nine had

not discussed it at any level, while six intended to discuss it in future. Only three had

discussed the European Commission proposed actions in a plenary session. The Romanian

Senat

issued an opinion on the matter.

The responding Parliaments/Chambers had discussed all the different actions. More

specifically, out of 23 respondents, 11 discussed "An EU-wide scheme for highly qualified

third-country nationals", while "A modernisation of European visa policy" and "The future of

the Blue Card directive" were discussed by nine. "A new mobility and job-seeking

opportunities for students", "A new mobility and job-seeking opportunities for researchers"

and "Stronger action to link migration and development policy" were discussed by eight

Parliaments/Chambers. Five Parliaments/Chambers discussed the action on "Re-prioritising

funding for integration policies". The action on "Identification of economic sectors that face

or will face recruitment difficulties or skill gaps" and the action on "A promotion of

permanent dialogue and peer evaluation at European level on labour market gaps,

regularisation and integration" were each discussed by four. Only three

Parliaments/Chambers discussed the "Cheaper, faster and safer remittance transfers" action,

while the action on "A platform of dialogue to include input from business, trade unions and

other social partners" was discussed by only two.

A few Parliaments/Chambers reported having discussed other actions.

2009/0127(COD )- COM(2009)0456, C7-0072/2012) and 2009/2240(INI)

No. 160 of 18 June 2015

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The European Parliament had discussed all the above mentioned actions; the Committee on

Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) reported also ongoing trilogues on the

Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes

of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary

service and au pairing which was to be adopted in codecision

The EU Affairs Committee of the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

stressed that in the

context of the presidency of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean,

the

Assembleia da República

discussed the possibility of portability of social security benefits

for migrant workers with a view to facilitating a sustained return (circular migration), in other

words, ensuring that migrants were not inhibited from returning to their places of origin for

fear of losing their guarantees.

The Czech

Senát

discussed the actions concerning a modernisation of European visa policy

and adopted a Resolution

on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and

of the Council on the Union Code on Visas (Visa Code) (recast)

and on the Proposal for a

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a touring visa and

amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations

The Danish

Folketinget

reported that, although the relevant Minister had informed the

Committee on EU Affairs on these proposals at Committee meetings, due to the Danish opt-

out on Justice and Home Affairs, there had been no in depth discussions or common

positions.

ii.

Parliaments'/Chambers' views on legal migration

Only some Parliaments/Chambers replied to the question whether they had adopted a

common opinion on legal migration.

The EU affairs Committee of the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

affirmed that generally, the

issue of illegal immigration was of concern to the Committee and that it had addressed the

issue of undocumented migrants. The Committee reported having engaged with the Migrant

Rights Council of Ireland and the Immigration Control Platform, representing either side of

the debate.

The European Parliament's LIBE Committee replied underlining that the Parliament, which

had discussed the question both in plenary session and in a committee meeting, had stressed

the need to explore further avenues of legal migration. It supported the Commission’s

proposals granting enhanced intra-EU mobility to legal migrants (e.g. students, researchers,

trainees) and creating a new job-seeking permit. In the past, the European Parliament had

been asking for a horizontal legal migration instrument.

The Czech

Senát

stated its general support to legal migration and its effective management

and emphasised the importance of the fight against illegal immigration and the

implementation of an effective return policy.

2013/0081 (COD)

No. 615 of 22 October 2014 (9th legislative term)

COM (2014) 164

(EC) No 562/2006 and (EC) No 767/2008 (COM(2014) 163)

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The Romanian

Senat

emphasised that legal migration could, under certain conditions, bring

benefits to the EU, namely on the labour market. It also stressed that the revision of the Blue

Card Directive should provide better conditions for the highly qualified. Furthermore, it

underlined the fact that Romania would need the support of the EU both for its education

programmes and for its health system.

Finally, the German

Bundesrat

welcomed

the Commission’s plans to advocate a new

European policy for legal migration and called for further legal and safe entry options to be

created for migrants seeking asylum in the Member States. In the

Bundesrat’s

view,

intensifying efforts to integrate people who were recognised as being entitled to protection

was a shared challenge for the Member States. It requested the Commission to ensure greater

involvement of national Parliaments and other relevant stakeholders from civil society in

further discussions to design and implement the European Migration Agenda and associated

follow-up measures.

A few Parliaments/Chambers gave some notable additional information. Among those, the

House of Lords

mentioned that its Committee on EU Affairs, before the publication of

the EU's Agenda on Migration, had urged the Government to opt into the Draft Directive on

the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of Study and

Research. However, the Government declined to do so.

The Swedish

Riksdag

stressed that in general the visa policy was the subject of continuous

discussion in its Committee on Social Insurance. The

Riksdag

considered that legal migration

was a positive force that contributed to more open and richer societies and that there should

be more legal ways for migration to take place.

Section 4: The European common asylum system

Parliaments' discussions on the European common asylum system

Nine out of thirty-five Parliaments/Chambers had discussed the European common asylum

system in a plenary session, 11 in a committee meeting, while eight had not discussed it at all.

Three (the French

Assemblée Nationale,

the Slovak

Národná rada

and the Swedish

Riksdag)

had issued an opinion and four declared their intention to discuss it. The French

Sénat,

the

Hungarian

Országgyűlés and

the European Parliament discussed the question both in plenary

and in committee meetings.

The "Application of the Dublin system" and the "Implementation of the Common European

Asylum system" were the questions most debated with respectively 19 and 18 out of 28

Parliaments/Chambers having discussed them. Ten had discussed the action on "A more

effective approach to abuses", the action on "Strengthening Safe Country of Origin

provisions of the Asylum Procedure Directive", the action on "Measures to promote

systematic identification and fingerprinting". Eight Parliaments/Chambers debated the action

on "Establishing a single asylum decision process" and the action on "Encouraging more

uniform decisions". Seven discussed the action on "A systematic monitoring process, while

the action on "A common asylum code". The action on "Developing the network of reception

authorities" and the action on "Training of reception authorities" were discussed by five and

three Parliaments/Chambers respectively.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

A number of Parliaments/Chambers had discussed other related questions. Notably, the EU

Affairs Committee of the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

also discussed the creation of

a shared, standardised database to better organise the management of asylum applications and

resettlement operations between the EU, Mediterranean countries of immigration, transit

countries, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International

Organisation of Migration (IOM) and other relevant international organisations.

The Italian

Senato della Repubblica

informed that, during the discussion in plenary, it was

proposed to establish a prompt sorting system, through which migrants could be moved to

their country of choice for the assessment of their application for international protection.

The EU Affairs Committee of the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

stressed that it had

approached this issue from the perspective of undocumented migrants as well as asylum. The

Committee engaged with both sides of the debate and discussed the possibility of a

regularisation scheme for the undocumented.

The Polish

Sejm

reported that, at its meeting in August 2014, the European Union Affairs

Committee discussed the role of the FRONTEX Agency in limiting illegal migration,

particularly with reference to the Mediterranean Sea area.

The German

Bundesrat

expressed its support for the Commission’s view that greater

solidarity and fairer responsibility-sharing were crucial in EU refugee policy.

The European Parliament stressed that it was involved in the revamping of the Common

European Asylum System as co-legislator. Shortcomings in the Dublin system had been

highlighted for many years, but no agreement could be found with the Council in 2013 for a

more ambitious reform. It reminded that negotiations between the institutions were ongoing

for the Dublin amendment on the application of Dublin to unaccompanied minors and

recalled two pending proposals

The EU Policies Committee of the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

informed that in the debate it

endorsed the possibility to reform the Dublin regulation.

ii.

Notable best practices

Very few Parliaments/Chambers chose to highlight their Member States' best practices on the

application of asylum rules.

Among those, the French

Assemblée nationale

mentioned the recently adopted reform of the

asylum law of 29 July 2015, which reinforced the guarantees of asylum seekers in all stages

of the procedure, introduced a new accelerated procedure and a new contentious procedure.

Under the new law, allowances took into account the families' composition, and gender and

sexual orientation were explicitly recognised as possible reasons of persecution.

Amending Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 as regards determining the Member State responsible for examining

the application for international protection of unaccompanied minors with no family member, sibling or relative

legally present in a Member State (2014/0202(COD)) and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European

Parliament and of the Council establishing an EU common list of safe countries of origin.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

Both the Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

and the Slovak

Národná rada

mentioned a strict

observance of the Dublin system rules.

CHAPTER 3: ENLARGEMENT POLICY

In the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission

, the Commission

acknowledges the historic success of enlargement policy, which has brought peace and

stability to the European continent. In this light, President Juncker underlined that ongoing

negotiations would continue, and notably the Western Balkans would need to keep a

European perspective, but that no further enlargement would take place over the next five

years.

In this context, the first section of the third Chapter of the 24th Bi-annual Report presents

information on Parliaments’/Chambers’ views

on these Political Guidelines and particularly

on the Commission's announcement and on its impact on the national discourse in the

Member States. It addresses the question whether this announcement has had an impact on

the procedures introduced in relation to the Monitoring Reports/Annual progress reports or

the overall scrutiny on enlargement policy. The second section focuses on notable

developments or modifications, if any, in the practices and procedures of parliamentary

oversight of the accession negotiations since 2013 when the 19th Bi-annual report was

drafted under the Irish Presidency of COSAC.

Section 1: Progress in enlargement policy

Examination/scrutiny of the European Commission’s Political Guidelines,

particularly the idea that no further enlargement should take place over the next five

years and Parliaments'/Chambers' views

Sixteen out of 37

respondents stated they had not analysed the European Commission’s

Political Guidelines, particularly the idea that no further enlargement should take place over

the next five years, while thirteen stated that the issue had been discussed at a committee

meeting. Five replied that the issue had been discussed at a plenary meeting, while two

intended to hold a discussion. The European Parliament replied that the issue had been

discussed both in a committee meeting and in plenary. According to the European

Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), no formal resolution with a common

position of the European Parliament had been adopted on the issue under discussion. The

Romanian

Senat

was the only Chamber which had issued an opinion on the issue.

Although the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Swedish

Riksdag

had not analysed the

Commission's political guidelines, it had analysed the Commission's view of the enlargement

process in connection with the consideration of the Commission Work Programme (CWP)

2015 and noted that the enlargement process had been given limited scope in the CWP. It

stressed how important it was that enlargement was highlighted more clearly in the work of

the Commission, as it contributed to stability in Europe and to security and prosperity in

Europe. It further emphasised that the EU's commitment would benefit both the EU and the

countries that desired EU membership and advocated that the EU should stand by its

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/pg_en.pdf

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

commitments and established principles. The Committee also welcomed the fact that the

Commission in its enlargement reports clearly stressed the need for fundamental economic,

legal and administrative reforms in the six countries in the Western Balkans and in Turkey.

The Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

specified that enlargement was regularly discussed

during its public annual debate on foreign policy.

A number of Parliaments/Chambers stated their views on the enlargement policy in general

and on the Commission's announcement on enlargement policy.

The Lithuanian

Seimas

referred to the adoption of conclusions on EU enlargement issues

after a discussion held on 26 November 2014 by the Foreign Affairs Committee

in which it

stressed the importance of EU enlargement policy in reaching certain EU strategic aims of

improving stability, security and welfare of people, strengthening EU as a global actor, and

spreading democratic and European values. Lithuania's support to the European perspective,

including the possibility of applying to become a member of the EU, to Georgia, Moldova

and Ukraine was stressed. The Committee also underlined the importance of support of civic

society to further EU enlargement and expressed its intention to further strengthen

interparliamentary cooperation with the Parliaments of the countries seeking EU

membership.

The German

Bundesrat,

noting "the Commission's modest forecast", emphasised, among

others, that the Western Balkans countries needed the EU prospect more than ever, as this

constituted a crucial factor for further stabilisation and for securing peace right across

Europe; this offered scope to make progress on economic reforms, as well as on reform of

administrative and legal systems, and thus to make headway on economic and political

development.

The European Affairs Committee of the Latvian

Saeima

underlined that the enlargement

policy should take a tailor-made and merit based approach and that the EU needed to send a

clear message to the candidate countries as to their accession prospects.

The UK

House of Lords

stated that the Committee had asked the UK Government for its

assessment of the implications of the Commission’s announcement, and what steps were

being taken to ensure that the existing momentum towards accession was maintained.

Mentioning a report by the European Union Committee

published

before the Commission’s

announcement on enlargement policy, it noted that the Committee welcomed the increased

focus on implementing real, lasting changes in aspirant countries ahead of their accession,

and the prominence of the rule of law in ongoing dialogues and also supported the strict use

of conditionality. It further noted the enlargement process should not be exploited by Member

States in order to gain leverage in bilateral disputes with aspirant countries. The report noted

that enlargement fatigue in the EU and accession fatigue in aspirant countries could seriously

threaten the future of the enlargement agenda, but found

that the EU’s capacity to absorb new

members currently sufficed. The Committee did not think that any credible alternatives to

membership existed.

On the Communication titled "Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2014-2015"COM (2014) 700 final

The future of EU enlargement", House of Lords, European Union Committee, 6 March 2013.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

The Committee for European Affairs of the Romanian

Senat

believed that now, more than

ever, a united EU was needed. The EU, it added, had always reconfirmed its fundamental

values; double standards should be avoided. According to its view, the countries making

progress towards implementing reforms must receive substantial support with the final goal

of joining the EU.

At least seven Parliaments/Chambers expressly stated that no common position had been

reached on the Commission's announcement on enlargement.

Nevertheless, a number of Parliaments/Chambers stating that no common position had been

reached outlined their views. The French

Assemblée nationale

stated that, according to recent

discussions held, there was consensus among all political groups in relation to postponing or

delaying enlargement for the next five years. The Joint Committee on EU Affairs of the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

considered that Ireland must continue to act as a champion for EU

enlargement and neighbourhood policy; it was critical, it added, that the prospect of EU

membership was maintained for the Western Balkans and Turkey and that the full potential of

Europe’s neighbourhood policy was realised.

According to the Slovak

Národná rada,

the

Slovak Republic supported the enlargement process, in particular with regard to Western

Balkan countries. The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

informed that, following the publication of

the forthcoming Progress Report in mid-October 2015, the subject would be on the agenda of

the Committee on European Affairs.

The majority of the respondents (19 Parliaments/Chambers) including the European

Parliament, as well as the governing majority SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

expressly gave a negative reply to the question whether the

European Commission’s approach changed their Parliament’s/Chamber’s view on the

enlargement policy.

Among those providing a negative reply, the French

Assemblée nationale

stated that the

European Commission's approach was more or less aligned with the position of the majority

of its members after the crisis in 2008 according to which it was indispensable to better

prepare future accessions so as to ensure integration of the

acquis communautaire

concerning

economic, social and environmental issues, as well as concerning the rule of law and

fundamental freedoms. It added that it envisaged a mission in several countries of the

Western Balkans in the first half of 2016 in order to evaluate their progress referring also to

its permanent parliamentary monitoring through its relations with the Western Balkans. The

Croatian

Hrvatski sabor

said that the Commission's announcement was seen as a reflection of

the current status of accession negotiations and progress made by candidate countries, not as

a sign of the EU's unwillingness to enlarge. While acknowledging that enlargement and

eligibility for EU membership were defined in the treaties, the Grand Committee of the

Finnish

Eduskunta

noted the hostility towards enlargement in certain Member States and saw

sense in not pursuing enlargement policies, when there was no expectation of a favourable

outcome. The Czech

Senát

emphasised that it had been a staunch supporter of enlargement,

recognising at the same time the long and complex nature of the next enlargement and

stressing the principle of conditionality. According to the European Parliament's AFET

Committee, the European Parliament

remained committed to the EU enlargement policy as

Resolution of 10 June 2015 on the 2014 Commission Progress Report on Turkey (2014/2953(RSP) (P8_TA-

PROV(2015)0228 ) and Resolution of 11 March 2015 on the 2014 Progress Report on Serbia

(P8_TA(2015)0065).

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

a key policy to promote peace, democracy, security and prosperity in Europe and supported

accession of well-prepared countries; it further argued that each country should be judged on

its own merits in terms of fulfilling, implementing and complying with the same set of

criteria, and that the speed and quality of necessary reforms determined the timetable for

accession.

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

referring to its existing monitoring of the

enlargement process, understood that the lessons of previous enlargements should not be

forgotten and that the candidate countries should meet the Copenhagen criteria. Therefore,

the intentions expressed by the European Commission in its Political Guidelines, specifically

that no enlargement would take place for the next five years so that the EU could fully digest

the addition of the last thirteen Member States, were welcomed. However, the negotiations

with and necessary reforms in candidate countries should continue. In this context, the

importance of enlargement to the Western Balkans was highlighted, and emphasis was placed

on the fact that the political situation in relation to designations and borders should be

resolved before accession. It would also be important to have effective progress as regards

Turkey's membership.

The UK

House of Lords

cited

the European Union Committee’s

report

and argued, among

others, that Member States should take advantage of the pause in enlargement to engage in a

fundamental reassessment of their strategic interests in the eastern neighbourhood. It noted an

unresolved tension between the offer of membership on the table to Eastern Partnership

countries and the political will of Member States to follow through, which was not uniform

and which complicated

Russia’s relationship both with these countries and with the EU.

ii.

Impact on the procedures put in place by Parliaments/Chambers in relation to

Monitoring Reports / Annual progress reports or the overall scrutiny on enlargement

policy

Twenty-seven Parliaments/Chambers expressly replied negatively to the question whether the

Commission’s announcement had had an impact on the procedures put in place by their

Parliament/Chamber in relation to Monitoring Reports/Annual progress reports or the overall

scrutiny on enlargement policy. A few made reference to their intention to follow their usual

procedures on the monitoring of the progress reports (e.g. Dutch

Tweede Kamer)

and one

stated that the issue was to be discussed (Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie).

The French

Assemblée nationale

underlined that the reports in question were published only in English

and not in all EU working languages, which made regular parliamentary scrutiny impossible.

Section 2: Parliamentary oversight of the accession negotiations

All but two respondents (35 out of 37) replied that there had not been notable developments

or modifications in the practice of

their Parliament’s/Chamber’s oversight of the accession

negotiations since the 19th Bi-annual Report drafted under the Irish Presidency.

The European Parliament's AFET Committee noted that, although no substantial

modifications had taken place in the monitoring of accession negotiations, the membership of

"The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine", House of Lords, European Union Committee,

20 February 2015.

EUU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 734: COSAC-sekretariatets 24. halvårlige rapport

the re-established Working Group on the Western Balkans of the Committee on Foreign

Affairs responsible for providing oversight on the opening, monitoring and concluding of

negotiations concerning the accession of European States had been extended to include also

Chairs of relevant interparliamentary delegations in order to provide better synergies for a

comprehensive monitoring of the accession process including the negotiations.

The Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna,

which gave a positive reply, explained that here had been

closer attention paid to Ukraine and Georgia as a consequence of recent developments in that

region. The Belgian

Sénat

explained that, since the last State reform, it did not have any

competences in the field of accession treaty ratification; the Senators followed the debate on

enlargement through the federal opinion Committee and through their own parliament.