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

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

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

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

Number of decisions taken by the College

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

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”)

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

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

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

Conciliation and trilogue meetings (hosted by EP)

Distribution of agreements over the past years Developments since 1999

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

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

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

More efficient and flexible than it looks… Joint Declaration – 1999 (revised in 2007) (OJ C 145, 30.06.2007, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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