CODECISION IN PRACTICE

Codecision in practice Bucharest, 26 January 2006

CODECISION IN PRACTICE

Presented by Nikos TZIORKASEuropean Parliament - Conciliations and Codecision

CONCILIATIONS - CODECISION


• Procedure set out in Article 251 EC Treaty

• Parity between the two co-legislators (Parliament and

Council): If no agreement no legislation !

• Scope of the procedure: 43 areas of Community action

(92 areas under the Constitution)

• Up to three readings in each institution, with possibility

to conclude at each stage (different majorities!)

• Strict time limits after adoption of the common position

CODECISION: an overview


INCREASE IN NUMBER OF PROCEDURES

68 6776

87

105

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005


EVOLUTION OF THE STAGE OF CONCLUSION

1999 - 2004

41

48

24

13

19

18

39

28

37

48

1616

15

21

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

1st reading 2nd reading 3rd reading

Source: Activity report 1999-2004


“CUSTOMERS” OF CODECISION 1999 - 2004

OTHER COMMITTEES (29)DEVE (12)

AGRI (13)EMPL (20)

CULT (21)

ECON (32)

ITRE (39)JURI (48)

RETT (72)

ENVI (117)


FIRST READING

• Commission proposal (‘right of initiative’)

• Announcement in Plenary – Referral to committee

• Possibility of joint involvement of several committees

(lead and opinion giving committees)

• Appointment of rapporteur

• Committee report: recommendation for Plenary

• Adoption in Plenary (SIMPLE majority!)

• Possible conclusion at 1st reading

If no agreement: COUNCIL’s Common Position


SECOND READING

• Time limit: 3 months (possible extension to 4 months)

• Only the lead committee deals with the dossier

• Committee report: recommendation for Plenary

• Adoption Plenary (absolute majority: 367 out of 732)

• Possible rejection (e.g. Software patents): end of procedure

• Possible conclusion at second reading

if not COUNCIL: second reading (3/4 months)


ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIAAT SECOND READING

Second reading amendments only admissible if they seek to:

• restore Parliament’s first reading position or

• reach a compromise between Council and Parliament or

• amend a part of the Common Position which is new, compared to the Commission proposal or

• take account of a new fact or legal situation.

Note: Rule applied more flexibly after European elections


CONCILIATION

• Third and final stage of the codecision procedure

• Always applies if Council does not approve all EP second reading amendments

• Negotiations based on Common Position + EP second reading amendments (but, Court ruling in IATA case!)

• Aim is to reach agreement on a joint text

• Commission role: facilitator of agreement


CONCILIATION deadlines and types of meetings

After the Council’s second reading:

• 6/8 weeks to convene the Conciliation Committee

• 6/8 weeks to find an agreement

• 6/8 weeks for approval by EP Plenary and Council

• EP Delegation – COREPER I• Conciliation committee• ‘Trialogues’


EP DELEGATION: 25 MEMBERS

• 3 Vice-Presidents• Committee chairman• Rapporteur

Greens/EFA 1 MEP

GUE/NGL 1 MEP

IND/DEM 1 MEP

UEN 1 MEP

EPP-ED 10 MEPs

PES 8 MEPs

ALDE 3 MEPs


EP DELEGATION


CONCILIATION COMMITTEE

• An interinstitutional body made up of representatives of EP and Council

• Council delegation: 25 Ministers or their representatives

• EP delegation: 25 MEPs nominated by political groups

• A separate Conciliation committee for each conciliation procedure


CONCILIATION COMMITTEE


TRIALOGUE: NEGOTIATORS OF THE THREE INSTITUTIONS

• European Parliament - Vice-President

- Rapporteur

- Committee Chairman

• Council Presidency - chair of COREPER I

• Commission - High-level official

(Director-General/Director)


TRIALOGUE


Tool: 4-COLUMN WORKING DOCUMENT

COUNCILCOMMON POSITION

EP AMENDMENTS(SECOND READING)

COUNCIL'S POSITION(outcome of COREPER meeting of

13 September 2002)

PARLIAMENT'S POSITION(outcome of Delegation meeting of

25 September 2002)Amendment 18

Article 10, paragraph 22. A worker whose noise exposureexceeds the upper exposure actionvalues shall have the right to havehis/her hearing checked by a doctoror by another suitably qualifiedperson under the responsibility of adoctor, in accordance with nationallaw and/or practice. The objectivesof this check are to provide earlydiagnosis of any loss of hearingdue to noise, and to preserve thehearing function.

2. A worker whose noise exposureexceeds the lower exposure actionvalues shall be entitled toappropriate audiometric testingcarried out by a competent person.If the results of this testing showthat it is necessary, and in anycase if the noise exposure exceedsthe upper exposure action values,the worker shall have the right tohave his/her hearing checked by adoctor or by another suitablyqualified person under theresponsibility of a doctor, inaccordance with national lawand/or practice. The objectives of this check are toprovide early diagnosis of any lossof hearing due to noise, and topreserve the hearing function.

"2. A worker whose exposureexceeds the upper exposure actionvalues shall have the right to havehis/her hearing checked by a doctoror by another suitably qualifiedperson under the responsibility of adoctor, in accordance with nationallaw and/or practice. Preventiveaudiometric testing should also beencouraged for workers whoseexposure exceeds the lowerexposure action values, particularlywhere the assessment andmeasurement provided for inArticle 4(1) indicate a risk tohealth.The objectives of these checks areto provide early diagnosis of anyloss of hearing due to noise, and topreserve the hearing function."

(changes to the Council compromise text)2. A worker whose exposureexceeds the upper exposure actionvalues shall have the right to havehis/her hearing checked by a doctoror by another suitably qualifiedperson under the responsibility of adoctor, in accordance with nationallaw and/or practice. Preventiveaudiometric testing shall also bemade available for workers whoseexposure exceeds the lowerexposure action values, particularlywhere the assessment andmeasurement provided for inArticle 4(1) indicate a risk tohealth.The objectives of these checks areto provide early diagnosis of anyloss of hearing due to noise, and topreserve the hearing function.

Suggestion for Compromise Text from the Commission Services (6 September 2002):"2. A worker whose exposure exceeds the upper exposure action values shall have the right tohave his/her hearing checked by a doctor or by another suitably qualified person under theresponsibility of a doctor, in accordance with national law and/or practice. Preventiveaudiometric testing should also be encouraged for workers whose exposure exceeds the lowerexposure action values.The objectives of this check are to provide early diagnosis of any loss of hearing due to noise,

and to preserve the hearing function."


THIRD READING

• Joint text (‘PE-CONS’): must be approved by EP Plenary (SIMPLE majority) and Council

• No new amendments possible!

• Approval of joint text by EP + Council = Act adopted

• Rejection by either EP or Council = Act falls and procedure can be re-launched only with new Commission proposal

• Two cases of rejection by Parliament so far


DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 1st/2nd READING AND CONCILIATION

First and second reading Conciliation (third reading)

Primary responsibility Parliamentary committee EP delegation

Time limit 1st reading: No time limits

2nd reading: Max. 4 months for the EP and another max. 4 months for the Council

Max. 3 x 8 weeks, of which max. 8 weeks devoted to conciliation

Amendments YES - tabled to committees and plenary

NO - approval and rejection of the joint text as a whole

Majority 1st reading: Simple majority

2nd reading: Absolute majority (at least 367 votes)

EP approval of joint text by simple majority in a single vote


PLAYERS ON THE PARLIAMENT SIDE

1st/2nd READING

• Rapporteur• Committee chair

• Shadow rapporteurs + Coordinators

• Members of the committee

CONCILIATION

• Rapporteur• Vice-President chairing

EP delegation• Committee chair

• Members of the EP delegation (incl. shadows)

Documents

CODECISION IN PRACTICE