MEPs to clinch call-back on EU rules set by experts

By Anna McLauchlin

Date: 24/05/06

After months of wrangling, MEPs and the Austrian presidency of the EU have reached informal agreement giving the European Parliament more say in rewriting implementing legislation.

Under the proposal, if the European Commission amends framework legislation in any way and its changes are approved by an expert committee, both the Parliament and national governments will have three months to review the amendments.

If there are objections, the Commission will either have to revise the changes, giving the other institutions another three months to review them, withdraw them or table another legislative proposal.

UK Socialist Richard Corbett, who is involved in negotiating for the Parliament, said: "It's a big step forward for the Parliament, as it will give it the right to call back any implementing measures."

National governments had originally pushed for a shorter review period, arguing that the whole point of so-called comitology legislation is that changes can be made swiftly, but the Parliament would not budge from its demand for three months.

If the expert committee rejects or is unable to come to a conclusion on the proposal, as happened recently with approving genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the Council of Ministers will have two months to review the proposal. If it is approved, or a conclusion is not reached, the Parliament then has a further two months to consider its position.

Parliament has also won the right to reject the Commission's planned measures if they exceed the Commission's competence or if they are not compatible with the original legal act.

The only outstanding point is to which proposals the new rules will apply. Financial legislation passed under the Lamfalussy procedure, some of which has already been held hostage to the inter-institutional battle, will certainly fall under its scope.

An Austrian official said that he was confident that agreement could be reached under the current presidency. "The political stakes are too high if we don't," he said.

Call-back rights became controversial after French and Dutch voters rejected the EU constitution, in which the rights would have been legally enshrined.

MEPs began to worry that they would no longer have the same power in lawmaking and demanded the revival of a 2002 proposal on comitology which was dropped when the drafted constitution rendered it superfluous.

MEPs began blocking funds for comitology meetings to try to galvanise an agreement.

Under the comitology procedure, which aims to speed up lawmaking, the Commission decides on a basic framework directive and the details - or implementing measures - are hammered out by an expert committee without the need for a Parliamentary or government vote.

As it stands, MEPs have no right to review implementing measures whereas national capitals can reject them by a qualified majority vote.

After agreement is reached, MEPs will vote at a plenary session, probably at the beginning of July, and then the Council has to rubber-stamp the details before they can become law.

Article reports that after a dispute of several months, Members of the European Parliament and Austrian Presidency of the EU reached informal agreement giving the European Parliament more say in rewriting implementing legislation. One of the main issues at stake had been the length of the period Parliament was given to review implementing legislation under the comitology procedure.

• Primary Source