1. Secretariat General - Codecision Unit
The co-decision procedure from the point of view of the European Commission
European Commission
Secretariat General - Codecision Unit
Joachim D’Eugenio 1 1

2. THE EU: A Union of Peoples and States The “institutional triangle”
European Parliament
The “institutional triangle”
Council of Ministers
Commission

3. The Commission as an Institution: promoting the common interest
The Commission has four main roles:
proposes legislation to the Parliament and the Council
manages and implements EU policies and budget
Execution power given by the Parliament and the Council
Own decision power (ex: competition policy)
enforces European law (with the Court of Justice)
represents the EU on the international stage

4. The functioning of the Commission (1)
Collegiality principle
Decisions are taken by the “College” of 27 commissioners
These decisions and their execution imply the collective responsibility of all its members
Principle of administrative coherence
- All the services of the Commission make up one administrative body serving the College

5. Number of decisions taken by the College

6. The functioning of the Commission (2)
DGs and services
The personnel of the Commission is divided among (36) departments called «general directorates» (DG) or «services» (ex: the Legal Service)
The Secretariat General (SG) has a “special role/status”
Each DG is in charge of (a) particular area(s). Its Director General is responsible in front of the commissioner in charge of the area
The DGs prepare the legislative documents of the Commission. These documents only become official after being “adopted” by the College
The DGs manage the adopted programmes and policies

7. The role of the Secretariat General
Main mission:
Guarantee the realization of the political priorities of the Commission, as defined by the President
Added value :
Work planning
(Inter-)Institutional perspective, coherence (incl. ensuring collegiality)
Help political choices / arbitrage and mediation
Horizontal initiatives / policy strategies (e.g. “packages”)

8. Codecision in a nutshell
Parliament and Council co-decide with equal rights. No agreement --> no act.
Up to three readings with a possibility to conclude at each stage
If no agreement by the end of second reading --> “conciliation”
Commission: initiative, participation, mediation and promotion of EU interest 8 8

9. Codecision: Legal bases covered
LISBON
80?
2009?
All EC policies except agriculture, fisheries, taxation, economic and monetray policy, trade, competition 9 9

10. 1st and 2nd reading agreements
1st reading deal: Institutions agree on a set of amendments voted in committee/plenary and endorsed by Council
2nd reading deal:
EP has no amendment to the Common position (« negotiated common position »)
EP and Council agree on a set of amendments voted in plenary and endorsed by Council
Agreement negotiated in “trilogues” and formalised through exchange of letters 10 10

11. Conciliation and trilogue meetings (hosted by EP)

12. Distribution of agreements over the past years Developments since 1999

13. Length of negotiations
May 2004-December 2006
1st reading
2nd reading
Conciliation
Average time in codecision
15.7 months
32.0 months
36.4 months

14. 1st reading agreements (Development of average duration)
2007
17,3 14 14

15. Differences between 1st and 2nd reading deals
Find right balance between early adoption and protection of original proposal
Possibility of 1st reading deal not to be pursued unadvisedly for sensitive files (e.g. budget, legal, or institutional aspects)
Problem of 1st reading deal: less transparency and accountability between and within institutions
2nd reading: better institutional setting for deal
Propose and draft compromise
Close collaboration with Presidency
Support to Rapporteur
Negotiating power: get support in EP for what Ccil rejects and in Ccil to oppose EP pbtic amendts
If no unanimity Com must agree with deal (Coreper debate before sending letter)
Representation in tripartite meetings: DG experts, SG
Negotiated common position 15 15

16. More efficient and flexible than it looks…
Joint Declaration – 1999 (revised in 2007) (OJ C 145, , p. 5)
Promote fast adoption and avoid conciliation
Work in parallel – Exchange of information
Informal contacts at all stages for identifying positions and reconciling views
Conciliation becoming the exception 16

17. Commission’s (formal) interventions
Original Proposal
Modified Proposal
anytime until common position
Formal modification: after 1s reading (approx. within 6 weeks procedure)
Oral modification with a view to political agreement
Communication on Common Position (CP)
To be prepared as early as political agreement is reached
To be transmitted to EP with CP
Opinion on EP 2nd reading (indicating Commission position)
Oral presentation before plenary to facilitate a 2nd reading agreement
Formal submission, if possible, within 3 weeks after plenary
Preparation of conciliation 17 17

18. Commission’s role in codecision
(Right of) Initiative
Expertise (e.g. impact assessments)
Participation in Council and EP work
Mediator but…
Key role in securing early adoption
Preparation of execution/implementation
“Guardian of the Treaty”
Promotion of EU interest 18 18

19. Commission’s role: 1st and 2nd reading deals
1999 Joint Declaration:
to facilitate tripartite contacts (can take initiative)
“to exercise its right of initiative in a constructive manner with a view to reconciling the positions of the EP and the Council”
Intermediary and (possibly) Mediator but also advocate of its proposal (with Treaty tools to protect it – unanimity in Council if Commission does not accept amendments)
Institutional matters (right of initiative, legal basis, substantial modifications, Commission Declarations, comitology, budgetary issues)
Propose and draft compromise
Close collaboration with Presidency
Support to Rapporteur
Negotiating power: get support in EP for what Ccil rejects and in Ccil to oppose EP pbtic amendts
If no unanimity Com must agree with deal (Coreper debate before sending letter)
Representation in tripartite meetings: DG experts, SG
Negotiated common position 19 19

20. Commission’s role: Conciliation
The Commission proposal is not the basis of the negotiation anymore
Commission = Mediator
(Art 251-4: “…shall take all the necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the positions of the EP and the Council.” --> Opinion on EP’s 2nd reading amendments: may suggest compromise)
But also … “Guardian of the Treaty”
No formal power – No unanimity rule
Presence in all meetings
the Commission plays a mediating role and frequently proposes compromises.
Its main aim is to reconcile the positions of the two co-legislators while defending, as far as possible, the general interest and the requirements of the Treaty in line with its proposal. 20 20

21. Key Commission actors Political Level Lead Commissioner
Lead DG (Director-General/Director)
negotiating in trilogues and Coreper
Administrative Level
Lead DG (Head of Unit, Administrator(s), inter-inst. coordinators)
Secretariat General, Commission’s Legal Service, associated DGs (in particular in cross-cutting files (e.g. climate change))
the Commission plays a mediating role and frequently proposes compromises.
Its main aim is to reconcile the positions of the two co-legislators while defending, as far as possible, the general interest and the requirements of the Treaty in line with its proposal. 21 21

22. Commission’s role: Internal decision making
DG chef de file
Secretariat General Coordination/Collegiality/Coherence
Inter-institutional Relations Group (GRI) (weekly order of events PreGRI->GRI->HEBDO->College)
Empowerment of Commissioners
Internal procedures:
Formal acts :
modified proposal and opinion on 2nd reading’s amdts
Modified proposal prepared by the Commission’s Directorate-General in charge of the dossier, on the basis of the mandate obtained from the College of Commissioners (empowerment) before the plenary. The Legal Service and the Secretariat-General are consulted, and the act is adopted by the College and published in the Official Journal.
the Commission’s opinion is a written reflection of the position expressed by the Commissioner in plenary on the amendments adopted by the European Parliament, accompanied where necessary by texts reformulating the EP amendments accepted partially, in principle or subject to redrafting by the Commission. prepared by the Commission’s Directorate-General in charge of the dossier, on the basis of the mandate obtained from the College of Commissioners (habilitation) before the plenary. The Legal Service and the Secretariat-General are consulted, and the act is adopted by the College and published in the Official Journal.
Communication on CP
Full CIS and Written procedure
Positions to be takaen
Opinion to take in plenary: Fiche GRI (recommend line to take) and GRI/HEBDO/College
Opinion to take in Coreper/Council on PA or 1st rdg 2nd rdg deals (Coreper deciding on letter sending): Fiche GRI and GRI/HEBDO/College
Inter-institutional relations group (GRI) (French acronym): A body within the Commission with the task of coordinating political, legislative and administrative relations with the other institutions and in particular with the European Parliament and the Council. The GRI brings together members from all the Commission cabinets tasked with monitoring inter-institutional affairs. The GRI meets, in principle, once a week. It handles, more specifically, dossiers dealt with by the Council and the European Parliament which are sensitive from an institutional point of view, some of which come under the co-decision procedure.
Role of SG: reporting, presence in negociations, GRI secrétariat 22 22

23. GRI Inter-institutional Relations Group
Collegiality and collective decision making
Information and early warning
Authorization to pursue contacts and negotiate deals (support/suggest compromise, propose declarations, modify proposal, etc)
GRI Fiches
All EP plenary votes in 1st and 2nd reading
(authorization and empowerment)
Council decisions (case by case)
(Presidency compromise package)
Preparation of conciliation committee
Internal procedures:
Formal acts :
modified proposal and opinion on 2nd reading’s amdts
Modified proposal prepared by the Commission’s Directorate-General in charge of the dossier, on the basis of the mandate obtained from the College of Commissioners (empowerment) before the plenary. The Legal Service and the Secretariat-General are consulted, and the act is adopted by the College and published in the Official Journal.
the Commission’s opinion is a written reflection of the position expressed by the Commissioner in plenary on the amendments adopted by the European Parliament, accompanied where necessary by texts reformulating the EP amendments accepted partially, in principle or subject to redrafting by the Commission. prepared by the Commission’s Directorate-General in charge of the dossier, on the basis of the mandate obtained from the College of Commissioners (habilitation) before the plenary. The Legal Service and the Secretariat-General are consulted, and the act is adopted by the College and published in the Official Journal.
Communication on CP
Full CIS and Written procedure
Positions to be takaen
Opinion to take in plenary: Fiche GRI (recommend line to take) and GRI/HEBDO/College
Opinion to take in Coreper/Council on PA or 1st rdg 2nd rdg deals (Coreper deciding on letter sending): Fiche GRI and GRI/HEBDO/College
Inter-institutional relations group (GRI) (French acronym): A body within the Commission with the task of coordinating political, legislative and administrative relations with the other institutions and in particular with the European Parliament and the Council. The GRI brings together members from all the Commission cabinets tasked with monitoring inter-institutional affairs. The GRI meets, in principle, once a week. It handles, more specifically, dossiers dealt with by the Council and the European Parliament which are sensitive from an institutional point of view, some of which come under the co-decision procedure.
Role of SG: reporting, presence in negociations, GRI secrétariat 23 23

24. More info ? http://ec.europa.eu/codecision Thank You Conclusion:
Une procedure qui fonctionne: 403 actes legislatifs adoptés entre 1999 et 2004
Equilibre dans les sources de legitimité propre a l’UE.
Reflete la complexité de la construction européenne
Souplesse et flexibilité. Pas si etrangere (Etats federaux, navettes parelementaire)
Procédure tres ouverte a la représentation des intérets (nombreux point d’entrée et d’influence)
Pb: manque de transparence potentiel (nota accords precoces négociés en petit comité mais les institutions ont mis en place des systemes de controle, de coordination)
Pb: manque de visibilité de la décision, nombreuses etapes, nombreux acteurs, moment clé de la décision n’est pas toujours le plus “visible” (impossible pour le presse)
Thank You 24 24