Europaudvalget 2017-18
EUU Alm.del Bilag 642
Offentligt
1891197_0001.png
COSAC Working Group Meeting on the Task Force on Subsidiarity,
Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”
Monday 26 March 2018, 10.00 - 13.00, European Parliament, Brussels
Chair: Mr Kristian VIGENIN, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight of the
European Funds, National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria
Opening remarks by Chair
The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming participants to the meeting set up by the Bulgarian
Presidency following the previous COSAC to facilitate discussions related to the work of the Task
Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and “Doing Less More Efficiently”.
Following a video message by Ms Mairead McGUINNESS which put emphasis on the link with the
citizens, the Chair informed participants that it was yet to be decided whether a second meeting was
necessary. If delegates were to agree on such a meeting, it would be held in Sofia on 17 June just
before the plenary COSAC.
The Chair referred to the letters sent by Dr Reinhold LOPATKA, as well as other input submitted by
the Dutch and Danish parliaments and the Czech
Senát,
relating to the work of the Task Force. He
also briefed the participants about some of the main contributions by the Committee of the Regions.
In particular, the Chair outlined some of the ideas found therein:
extending the deadline for subsidiarity scrutiny from 8 to 12 weeks. Eight weeks were not
considered enough, especially during holidays and recession periods. It has been pointed out
that legally speaking, these deadlines cannot be changed without amendment of the
treaties, but exclusion of above periods deserves further consideration.
Experience has also shown that the current thresholds are difficult to reach, with no orange
cards and only three yellow cards submitted: the thresholds may thus need to be lowered.
The possibility of establishing a second subsidiary check, the so-called late card, to take into
account the entire legislative cycle: proposals may change, requiring fresh scrutiny, perhaps
at the end of negotiation between the Commission, the European Parliament and the
Council.
With regard to the green card, it is suggested to extend the possibility for national
Parliaments to make non-binding proposals and thus address the reactive role currently
played by national Parliaments.
Increase focus on proportionality.
Improve how contributions are dealt with. Responses are mostly formally correct but also
slightly dismissive.
Improve the impact assessment which should demonstrate a clear European added value.
Early involvement of national parliaments in the legislative process.
A clear definition of subsidiarity.
Session I on practical ways to improve the procedure outlined in Protocol №2 of the TFEU
Ms Eva KJER HANSEN, Danish
Folketing,
welcomed the great opportunity to meet and discuss how to
improve the participation in the process at EU level, and urged colleagues to respond in a clear and
courageous manner. She questioned whether subsidiarity had been a safeguard to Member States’
powers, and claimed that the establishment of the yellow card has not proved to be a very useful
 EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 642: Referat fra møde i COSAC's følgegruppe til Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe om nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitet 26/3-18 i Bruxelles
tool. Only on three occasions has this been invoked and in all three cases the yellow cards were
rejected.
Ms HANSEN said that a right of initiative would be welcome, and dismissed criticism that this would
threaten the Commission’s own right of initiative. National Parliaments need to have this right that
other bodies like the European Parliament and even citizens themselves have.
Ms HANSEN also called for an extension of the deadline from 8 to 12 weeks which would allow
national Parliaments to conduct a proper examination of the proposals.
She said that national Parliaments must be prepared to engage in EU decision making at the EU
level, and should not hesitate to invite Commissioners to give briefings about legislative proposals.
Ms HANSEN stated that democratic legitimacy was bound to become an important issue as Europe
strived toward further integration and called on the Commission to ensure that national Parliaments
were included in deciding the future of the Union.
Mr Bastiaan VAN APELDOORN, Dutch
Eerste Kamer,
speaking on behalf of both chambers, said it was
important to enhance the legitimacy of EU decision making, and there was much room for
improvement in this area. From the Dutch perspective, the Task Force should not be seen as an end
point, he stressed.
In this regard, there were a number of proposals where value added could be found, such as the
extension of the deadline, which, if not possible to achieve through Treaty change, could take the
form of a
de facto
extension by excluding the recess periods.
With regard to proportionality, this must be included in the scrutiny process but there should also be
political room for interpretation left to national Parliaments.
Mr VAN APELDOORN also said that his Parliament emphasised the need to ensure that the
Commission replied in a timely manner. The Commission should also explain, if and when it comes
up with new proposals, how subsidiarity concerns had been addressed, and these explanations
should be clear and explicit. He also expressed support for the letter sent by the Czech
Senát.
Mr Václav HAMPL, Czech
Senát,
thanked all the Parliaments/Chambers that had signed the letter.
He recalled some of the points brought forth therein, such as not counting the recess periods in the
calculation of the scrutiny deadline, as well as introducing a deadline for the Commission to reply to
national Parliaments, also taking into account recess periods. He lamented the poor impact of
reasoned opinions on proposals, claiming that this demotivated national Parliaments.
In this regard, he stressed the need to have concrete explanations of how a proposal was changed if
a significant number of reasoned opinions had been submitted. The explanations should be included
in the explanatory memoranda since these were translated into all official languages.
Mr HAMPL referred to two points raised in Dr Lopatka’s text: one related to delegated acts, the
frequency of which was too high and in clear conflict with the principle of subsidiarity; and the other
relating to how directives were implemented into national law: often times they were very explicit
and very specific and the Commission insisted on having them reflected almost ad verbatim in
national law. This was not how directives were originally meant to be applied.
Mr Szymon SZYNKOWSKI VEL SEK, Polish
Sejm,
said the EU was in need of strong legitimacy that it
currently lacked. National Parliaments should be able to respond to amendments and solutions not
limited to complaints, but should also be more involved in the whole legislative process, including
 EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 642: Referat fra møde i COSAC's følgegruppe til Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe om nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitet 26/3-18 i Bruxelles
during the preparation of green and white books. Mr SZYNKOWSKI also stressed that the
Commission should reply to reasoned opinions concretely and without delay.
He further argued that the yellow card should not be treated by the Commission as a problem but as
a chance to solve the problem of democratic legitimacy.
National MPs also needed more information on how the opinions of national Parliaments were
being included in the work of the European Parliament.
He concluded by stating that the green card and red card procedures should be introduced.
Mr Marc ANGEL, Luxembourg
Chambre des Députés,
was supportive of the Czech paper which
correctly summarized what had been discussed and decided during previous COSAC meetings.
Mr ANGEL supported the idea that the Task Force should not be an end to the discussion. He also
agreed to an extension of the deadline but this should be a
de facto
extension to take into account
the recession periods. He advised not to focus the debate on possible treaty changes. Rather, efforts
should be increased to ensure better efficacy, and in this regard suggested that IPEX should be used
more.
Mr ANGEL enquired about the European Parliament’s refusal to nominate three members to the
Task Force.
To this Mr VIGENIN replied that no official response had been received in connection with the
European Parliament’s arguments not to participate in the Task Force, but hoped that the latter
would support its work.
Ms Margarida MARQUES, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
welcomed all opportunities to talk
about this subject, and thanked the Czech, Danish and Dutch Parliaments, as well as the current and
future Presidency for their commitment. She agreed that national Parliaments should also be
involved in the preparation of green and white books, and should participate in the early stages of
the legislative process, stating that such exercise democratised the workings of the European Union,
and stressed the need for there to be more efforts toward bringing the EU closer to the citizens.
Ms MARQUES said it was clear that the yellow and orange card procedures were not very efficient,
and that all these efforts needed to be developed within the framework of the treaties. She
informed colleagues that the Portuguese Parliament was planning to set up a committee to follow
the negotiations of the next MFF after 2020. She also pointed out that the Portuguese Parliament
had invited Commissioners to meetings of the committee to discuss the upcoming MFF.
Ms Roxana MINZATU, Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor,
expressed her support for anything
thatpromoted legitimacy and brought the EU closer to the citizens. She said that the Commission
should find a proper tool to discuss subsidiarity issues with national Parliaments, and added that the
exclusion of recess periods could be done as it had a precedence. She also called for a modification
of Article 7 of Protocol 2 (TFEU).
Mr Thorsten FREI, German
Bundestag,
said that extending the deadline was absolutely necessary.
Eight weeks posed problems to many countries as there were public holidays to take into
consideration, as well as the fact that national Parliaments could be busy dealing with internal
affairs, etc. He added that the threshold should change, as 1/3 was too much, and it would be right
to reduce it to 1/4.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 642: Referat fra møde i COSAC's følgegruppe til Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe om nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitet 26/3-18 i Bruxelles
He also called for a better cooperation, because only then could we effectively assert our rights in
the context of subsidiarity.
Mr Guido WOLF, German
Bundesrat,
picked up on the question of why EP Members were not
participating in the Task Force, and expressed his hope that the European Parliament would indeed
support the work of the Task Force. Nevertheless, the lack of participation signalled a problem, since
it came across as if the European Parliament was not committing to the work of national
Parliaments. Mr JUNCKER had already stressed the importance of getting national Parliaments on
board, for instance to commit more resources in the next MFF. However, it would be hard to
convince Parliaments of passing tasks on to the level where they were appropriate. When opening
the discussion of the MFF it would be necessary to make it clear to citizens that Parliaments were
determined to reduce the work of Europe to tasks that are inherently European tasks and to
delegate back tasks that belong to national and regional Parliaments.
Mr WOLF expressed his agreement on extending the deadline, stating that Christmas recess and
summer recess should be left out of the calculation.
Mr Stefan SCHENNACH, Austrian
Bundesrat,
wanted to explore the reasons why the European
Parliament had taken this attitude toward the Task Force. He agreed that the eight week period was
too short to establish communication with different levels of governance. Mr SCHENNACH also
addressed the question of hidden delegated acts whereby he pointed out that it would be unfair to
have to set up a special committee in order to find all these hidden acts. He also called for a
reduction in the threshold, and claimed that COSAC was not doing its work properly: the platform
had to be renewed in order to work as a platform for dialogue.
Mr SCHENNACH said that he had never read a letter by the Commission that properly addressed the
reasoned opinions sent by national Parliaments.
As part of preparations for the Presidency, a number of Austrian MEPs were visiting the Austrian
Parliament. Many were not aware of reasoned opinions submitted by national Parliaments, and
some were not even aware of the positions national Parliaments have with regard to legislative
proposals.
Mr VIGENIN agreed that there was a need to strengthen the role of COSAC and was ready to support
any initiatives as part of the Troika.
Mr Adam KALOUS, Czech
Poslanceká snĕmovna,
expressed his support for the Czech
Senát’s
letter
and for the exclusion of recess periods from the deadline.
He referred to the Visegrád Four meeting on 25 December 2017 in Hungary which stated that since
subsidiarity control was carried out by national Parliaments as political institutions it necessarily had
political and economic content besides purely legal considerations.
Mr Toomas VITSUT, Estonian
Riigikogu,
said the Czech
Senát’s
letter provided a good basis for
discussion. Additional time could be helpful in some instances, and the period from mid-December
to early January should be excluded from the counting of deadline.
He stated that the Commission should concentrate on how subsidiarity concerns were being dealt
with. An additional deadline should be set for the Commission to respond to reasoned opinions.
Mr VITSUT said that subsidiarity should be seen both as a political and legal concept, and agreed
with the views expressed by the Committee of Regions to include different aspects in reasoned
opinions even if they don’t line up with the legal definition of reasoned opinions.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 642: Referat fra møde i COSAC's følgegruppe til Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe om nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitet 26/3-18 i Bruxelles
Mr HAMPL reacted to Ms MARQUES by saying that there were other options available instead of
opening treaties, as most proposals did not need opening of treaties. There was a lot that the
Commission could do to address these concerns unilaterally.
Mr Gerard CRAUGHWELL, Irish
Houses of Oireacthas,
agreed that now was not the time to open
treaties, and said that everything should be done in an informal way.
Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON, Swedish
Riksdagen,
pointed to a number of available tools that should be
used better, and stressed that national Parliaments should do their own homework better.
Ms HANSEN agreed that there should be no talk of treaty change. She stated that the most
important message was that this had to do with substance: a change in the threshold or deadline
meant nothing if there was no impact on the substance. Furthermore, the Commission should treat
the input of national Parliaments in the same manner whether it was a political or legal point.
Mr VAN APELDOORN asked about the procedure to be followed, and also enquired about the work
of the Task Force. He recalled that in Malta Mr Frans TIMMERMANS had already stated that the
treaty was the final point of reference when it came to deadlines.
Mr ANGEL said the biggest challenge during the subsidiarity check was to involve sectoral
committees, to which Mr VIGENIN replied that different Parliaments had different traditions when it
came to working methods.
Ms Soraya RODRIGUEZ, Spanish
Cortes Generales,
hailed this opportunity as an important step for
the contribution on the debate on the future of the EU. She stressed that national Parliaments were
strategic allies of the Commission in achieving the objective of bringing the EU closer to the citizens.
She also agreed that there was room to modify current procedures without opening the treaties.
Mr VIGENIN reminded participants that this was an exchange of views and there was no intention to
vote on any conclusions. Nevertheless, there had been general agreement on some issues which
could therefore be presented at the next meeting of the Task Force, and they could also be included
in the COSAC contributions in June, which would take place before the final two meetings of the
Task Force.
Mr VIGENIN noted that feedback from Task Force members was to be found on the website of the
Task Force, while committing himself to send any additional information as necessary. He also
reminded colleagues of the possibility of a second meeting of the working group.
Session II on possible policy areas where decision-making and/or implementation can be
redelegated to Member States
Mr VIGENIN introduced the topic, welcoming the choice of the Task Force to hold a first meeting (27
April) on the procedure of how to identify policy areas where decision-making and/or
implementation could be redelegated to the national level, followed by a concrete discussion of
each policy area at a subsequent meeting. He recalled the Commission’s willingness to obtain
concrete results and called on national Parliaments to use the current opportunity. The Chair
informed participants that the Commission’s Secretary General informed COREPER I that national
governments were expected by mid-April to present 3 topics/policy areas where decision-making
and/or implementation could be redelegated to the national level; he suggested national
Parliaments could get in touch with their respective governments, and coordinate on this issue,
should an official request be sent.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 642: Referat fra møde i COSAC's følgegruppe til Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe om nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitet 26/3-18 i Bruxelles
Mr HAMPL said that it would be quite difficult to redelegate whole policy areas; rather, aspects that
breeched the principle of subsidiarity within each policy area should be identified.
Mr Vitalino CANAS, Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
questioned the usefulness of addressing
that topic at this point in time and said the majority of his colleagues would not like to see
redelegation, but rather a better functioning of the current distribution of competences.
Mr ANGEL called for clearer definitions of competences, but warned that discussion should not turn
into one which invited less solidarity in Europe.
Mr SCHENNACH informed participants that his Chamber had no concrete proposals either. He referred
to the Task Force’s mandate and the Commission’s commitment to focus on ‘big things’ in the policy
making; he agreed that the Euroskeptical parties could interpret that as taking decision-making rights
back and ask for less solidarity. He contended it was important to guarantee the sovereignty of the EU
and that the current weaknesses in the decision-making, such as the excessive use of delegated acts,
were addressed. Under the current treaties, clear competences remained national.
Mr SZYNKOWSKI VEL SEKL expressed his surprise that so many competences were expanded beyond
the provision of the treaties in the past and stressed that the EU should not act without a proper
legal basis. In his view, the protection of life (abortion and the rights of the unborn child) or the
reform of the legal system should be reserved to the national level, as the Commission was the mere
guardian of the treaties and the ownership of the treaties belonged to the Member States.
Mr GUNNARSSON recalled that the EU was a value-based community, which transcended the
treaties, and this meant that it was right to criticise actions taken by Member States, acknowledging
that there were different approaches in different countries which needed to be respected as long as
the same goal was achieved.
Ms MARQUES, supported that last intervention and argued that the quality and relevance of
legislation was more important than redelegation. In her view the discussion on redelegation should
be embedded in the one of the MFF where new priorities and competences would be added. She
called on COSAC to work more with Mr TIMMERMANS rather than the Secretary General of the
Commission.
Mr CRAUGHWELL agreed the debate could breed euroskepticism. Rather than worrying on policy
areas where competences could be devolved, he called for more efforts to render the negotiation
process more transparent for the EU and quit the blame-game national governments have been
playing at home. He warned that, as Brexit had shown, not including the citizens in the EU project
could lead to the collapse of the Union.
Mr VIGENIN stated that it could be argued that such a discussion could also contribute to improving
the EU, in a pro-European approach. He committed to inform the Task Force on the outcome of the
discussion, namely that: the debate should be on the ‘big issues’ the Commission could focus on;
that the redelegation would concern elements/aspects of particular policy areas, rather than whole
policy areas; that the discussion should avoid fuelling euroscepticism.
On the follow-up of the meeting, he recalled the possibility to hold a second meeting of the working
group, on 17 June, ahead of COSAC. He informed that the point on the Task Force was on the COSAC
agenda and that a panel composed of MEPs, MPs, including MPs of a federal parliament was
foreseen.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 642: Referat fra møde i COSAC's følgegruppe til Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe om nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitet 26/3-18 i Bruxelles
Mr Angel welcomed the proposal as it would enable an exchange of views on the draft report of the
Task Force, due by the end of April. Ms HANSEN stated that given the consensus on the dysfunctions
of the subsidiarity principle and the common difficulty of identifying competences to be devolved,
also shown by the ECJ stance of the matter or the position of the UK, which called for arrangements
for cooperation in all areas, holding a second meeting depended on the outcome of the next two
meetings of the Task Force. She called for involving national Parliaments on the daily legislative
work, beyond subsidiarity which was never a great tool.
Mr VIGENIN suggested to put the matter to the consideration of the Troika, representing national
Parliaments in the Task Force, after its meeting of 27 April. Based on the outcome of that meeting,
the Troika would decide if the working group should be reconvened in June and the details would be
enclosed in the invitation letter to the COSAC meeting.