PURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the\nmaking available on the market and use of biocidal products with\nregard to certain conditions for access to the market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil.
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides\nin accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an\nequal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: an analysis of Regulation\n(EU) No 528/2012 on Biocidal Products has shown that certain\nprovisions will lead to unforeseen consequences. The main problem\nidentified is that the transitional rules of the Regulation will\nintroduce an unintended market freeze of up to eleven years for\narticles treated with biocidal substances which are legal on the EU\nmarket, but which have not yet been evaluated at EU level. Other\nunintended market barriers for certain companies have also been\nidentified. Furthermore, the Biocidal Products Regulation fails to\ndefine a protection period for data relating to those products with\nthe most favourable risk profile.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission did not undertake an impact\nassessment. The proposal has received the broad support of\nstakeholders and experts.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union.
\nCONTENT: this proposal seeks to amend the recently adopted\nRegulation (EU) No 528/2012 on Biocidal Products which has not yet\ncome into force. It contains provisions that will remove market\nbarriers for suppliers of new articles treated with biocidal\nproducts and for a large number of suppliers of biocidal active\nsubstances. It also defines the protection periods for the data\nrelating to those biocidal products with the best profile.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: the proposal has no impact of the budget of\nthe European Union.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the\nmaking available on the market and use of biocidal products with\nregard to certain conditions for access to the market.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil.
\nROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides\nin accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an\nequal footing with the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: an analysis of Regulation\n(EU) No 528/2012 on Biocidal Products has shown that certain\nprovisions will lead to unforeseen consequences. The main problem\nidentified is that the transitional rules of the Regulation will\nintroduce an unintended market freeze of up to eleven years for\narticles treated with biocidal substances which are legal on the EU\nmarket, but which have not yet been evaluated at EU level. Other\nunintended market barriers for certain companies have also been\nidentified. Furthermore, the Biocidal Products Regulation fails to\ndefine a protection period for data relating to those products with\nthe most favourable risk profile.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission did not undertake an impact\nassessment. The proposal has received the broad support of\nstakeholders and experts.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union.
\nCONTENT: this proposal seeks to amend the recently adopted\nRegulation (EU) No 528/2012 on Biocidal Products which has not yet\ncome into force. It contains provisions that will remove market\nbarriers for suppliers of new articles treated with biocidal\nproducts and for a large number of suppliers of biocidal active\nsubstances. It also defines the protection periods for the data\nrelating to those biocidal products with the best profile.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: the proposal has no impact of the budget of\nthe European Union.
\nPURPOSE: to derogate temporarily from Directive\n2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\nestablishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading\nwithin the Community with a view to facilitate progress and\nreinforce momentum towards the goal of the global regulation of\naviation emissions.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: significant progress has been made in the\nInternational Civil Aviation Organisation towards the adoption at\nthe 2013 ICAO Assembly of a framework facilitating States'\napplication of market-based measures to emissions from\ninternational aviation, and on developing a global market-based\nmeasure.
\nIn order to facilitate this progress and provide\nmomentum, it is desirable to defer enforcement of requirements\nrelating to flights to and from aerodromes outside the Union\nand areas with close economic connections to the Union and a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change arising prior to the 2013 ICAO\nAssembly.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission did not undertake an\nimpact assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal for a Decision seeks to enhance\nthe chances of a successful outcome of the 2013 ICAO Assembly in\nterms of developing a global market-based measure (MBM) and\nadopting a framework facilitating States' application of\nmarket-based measures to international aviation.
\nThe Decision would \"stop the clock,\" by temporarily\ndeferring enforcement of the obligations of aircraft operators\nin respect of incoming and outgoing flights under the European\nUnion's Emission Trading System (ETS). Action should therefore\nnot be taken against aircraft operators in respect of requirements\nresulting from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for\ngreenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the\nCommunity arising before 1 January\n2014 as regards incoming and outgoing\nflights. The condition for this is that they have either not\nreceived, or have returned, 2012 free allocations granted for such\nactivities to or from aerodromes outside the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate change.\nProper monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions from\nsuch flights is welcomed, but no compliance sanctions will\nbe applied in respect of the non-reporting of such\nemissions.
\nDirective 2003/87/EC continues to apply in full in\nrespect of flights between aerodromes in the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate\nchange.
\nTo provide further momentum to the international\ndiscussions and continue EU leadership in this process, the\nCommission considers it is important that this proposal is agreed\nbetween the European Parliament and Council swiftly and ideally by\nMarch 2013.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Peter LIESE (EPP, DE) on the\nproposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC of the\nEuropean Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for\ngreenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the\nCommunity.
\nThe parliamentary committee recommends that the\nEuropean Parliament’s position adopted at first reading\naccording to the ordinary legislative procedure should be to amend\nthe Commission’s proposal as follows:
\nDerogation from Article 16 of Directive\n2003/87/EC (penalties applicable to\ninfringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to the\nDirective): provisions are contained in the text to give further\nmomentum to the shared commitment of the International Civil\nAviation Organisation (ICAO) Member States to address aviation\nemissions at a global level, it is desirable to defer enforcement\nof requirements arising prior to the 2013 ICAO Assembly relating to\nflights to and from aerodromes outside of the Union and areas with\nclose economic connections to the Union and that have a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change.
\nBy means of their amendments, Members wish\nto:
\nCancellation and auctioning of allowances:\naccording to the amended text, the Member States\nshould cancel all 2012 aviation allowances in respect of\nflights to or from aerodromes referred to in the proposed decision\nthat have either not been issued or, if issued, have been returned\nto them. By way of derogation from Directive 2003/87/EC, Member\nStates shall auction a reduced number of aviation allowances in\nrespect of 2012.
\nMembers consider that the number of aviation\nallowances auctioned by the Member States should be reduced in\naccordance with the calculations of the Commission, resulting in\n15% of the overall amount of 2012 aviation allowances in\ncirculation.
\nUse of the revenues generated from the auctioning of\nallowances: the report calls on the\nMember States to use revenues generated from the auctioning of\nallowances for efforts to (i) tackle climate change, in\nparticular at international level; (ii) reduce greenhouse gas\nemissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change in\ndeveloping countries; and (iii) fund research and\ndevelopment for mitigation and adaptation including in\nparticular in the field of aeronautics and air\ntransport.
\nRevenues generated from auctioning shall also be used:\n(i) on low-emission transport; (ii) to fund contributions to\nthe Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund and\nthe Green Climate Fund under UNFCCC, and (iii) on measures\nto avoid deforestation.
\nRegular information to Parliament: the Commission shall regularly inform the European\nParliament and the Member States concerning the progress of the\nICAO negotiations and submit a report on the results achieved at\nthe ICAO Assembly. If the ICAO Assembly does not achieve\nsubstantial progress on a global market-based mechanism (MBM), the\nEuropean ETS will again include all international flights from and\nto the Union from 2013 onwards. If, however, it succeeds in setting\na framework for global market-based measures, the Commission\nmay propose further actions.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 577 votes to 114\nwith 21 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\ndecision of the European Parliament and of the Council derogating\ntemporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament\nand of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas\nemission allowance trading within the Community.
\nParliament adopted its position in first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. It amended the\nCommission proposal as follows:
\nDerogation from Article 16 of Directive\n2003/87/EC (penalties applicable to infringements of the\nnational provisions adopted pursuant to the Directive):\nthe text provides that to give further momentum\nto the shared commitment of the International Civil Aviation\nOrganisation (ICAO) Member States to address aviation emissions at\na global level, it is desirable to defer enforcement of\nrequirements arising prior to the 2013 ICAO Assembly relating to\nflights to and from aerodromes outside of the Union and areas with\nclose economic connections to the Union and that have a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change.
\nBy means of its amendments, Parliament specifies the\nfollowing:
\n\n· \naction should not be taken against aircraft\noperators in respect of the requirements resulting from\nDirective 2003/87/EC for\nthe reporting of verified emissions for the\ncalendar years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and for the corresponding\nsurrender of allowances for 2012 from flights to and from\nsuch aerodromes;
\n\n· \nthe derogation will only apply to aircraft\noperators who have not been issued free allowances for such\nactivity in respect of 2012 or, if they have been issued such\nallowances, have returned, by the thirtieth day following the\nentry into force of this Decision, to Member States for\ncancellation a number of 2012\naviation allowances corresponding to the share of\nverified tonne-kilometres of such activity in the reference year\n2010.
\nCancellation and auctioning of\nallowances: the amended text states\nthat Member States should cancel all 2012 aviation\nallowances in respect of flights to or from aerodromes\nreferred to in the proposed decision that have either not been\nissued or, if issued, have been returned to them.
\nIn respect of the cancellation, Member States shall\nauction a reduced number of 2012 aviation allowances. That\nreduction shall be proportional to the lower number of total\naviation allowances in circulation. To the extent that the reduced\nnumber of those allowances has not been auctioned prior to 1 May\n2013, Member States shall adjust accordingly the number of aviation\nallowances to be auctioned in 2013.
\nMarket-based measures:\nin a new recital, it is clarified that this derogation is provided\nby the Union to facilitate an agreement at the 38th session of\nthe ICAO Assembly on a realistic timetable for the development of a\nglobal MBM beyond the 38th session of the ICAO Assembly and on\na framework for facilitating the comprehensive application of\nnational and regional MBMs to international aviation, pending the\napplication of the global MBM. On this basis, further steps could\nbe considered. In this respect, the Commission should, when\nassessing the need for further action, also take into account the\npossible impact on intra-European air traffic with a view to\navoiding any distortions of competition.
\nImplementation and keeping Parliament\ninformed: the Commission will: (i)\nissue the guidance necessary for the implementation of this\nDecision; (ii) regularly inform the European Parliament and the\nCouncil on the progress of ICAO negotiations and shall provide a\nfull report to them on the results achieved at the 38th\nsession of the ICAO Assembly.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Peter LIESE (EPP, DE) on the\nproposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC of the\nEuropean Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for\ngreenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the\nCommunity.
\nThe parliamentary committee recommends that the\nEuropean Parliament’s position adopted at first reading\naccording to the ordinary legislative procedure should be to amend\nthe Commission’s proposal as follows:
\nDerogation from Article 16 of Directive\n2003/87/EC (penalties applicable to\ninfringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to the\nDirective): provisions are contained in the text to give further\nmomentum to the shared commitment of the International Civil\nAviation Organisation (ICAO) Member States to address aviation\nemissions at a global level, it is desirable to defer enforcement\nof requirements arising prior to the 2013 ICAO Assembly relating to\nflights to and from aerodromes outside of the Union and areas with\nclose economic connections to the Union and that have a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change.
\nBy means of their amendments, Members wish\nto:
\nCancellation and auctioning of allowances:\naccording to the amended text, the Member States\nshould cancel all 2012 aviation allowances in respect of\nflights to or from aerodromes referred to in the proposed decision\nthat have either not been issued or, if issued, have been returned\nto them. By way of derogation from Directive 2003/87/EC, Member\nStates shall auction a reduced number of aviation allowances in\nrespect of 2012.
\nMembers consider that the number of aviation\nallowances auctioned by the Member States should be reduced in\naccordance with the calculations of the Commission, resulting in\n15% of the overall amount of 2012 aviation allowances in\ncirculation.
\nUse of the revenues generated from the auctioning of\nallowances: the report calls on the\nMember States to use revenues generated from the auctioning of\nallowances for efforts to (i) tackle climate change, in\nparticular at international level; (ii) reduce greenhouse gas\nemissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change in\ndeveloping countries; and (iii) fund research and\ndevelopment for mitigation and adaptation including in\nparticular in the field of aeronautics and air\ntransport.
\nRevenues generated from auctioning shall also be used:\n(i) on low-emission transport; (ii) to fund contributions to\nthe Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund and\nthe Green Climate Fund under UNFCCC, and (iii) on measures\nto avoid deforestation.
\nRegular information to Parliament: the Commission shall regularly inform the European\nParliament and the Member States concerning the progress of the\nICAO negotiations and submit a report on the results achieved at\nthe ICAO Assembly. If the ICAO Assembly does not achieve\nsubstantial progress on a global market-based mechanism (MBM), the\nEuropean ETS will again include all international flights from and\nto the Union from 2013 onwards. If, however, it succeeds in setting\na framework for global market-based measures, the Commission\nmay propose further actions.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 577 votes to 114\nwith 21 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\ndecision of the European Parliament and of the Council derogating\ntemporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament\nand of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas\nemission allowance trading within the Community.
\nParliament adopted its position in first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. It amended the\nCommission proposal as follows:
\nDerogation from Article 16 of Directive\n2003/87/EC (penalties applicable to infringements of the\nnational provisions adopted pursuant to the Directive):\nthe text provides that to give further momentum\nto the shared commitment of the International Civil Aviation\nOrganisation (ICAO) Member States to address aviation emissions at\na global level, it is desirable to defer enforcement of\nrequirements arising prior to the 2013 ICAO Assembly relating to\nflights to and from aerodromes outside of the Union and areas with\nclose economic connections to the Union and that have a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change.
\nBy means of its amendments, Parliament specifies the\nfollowing:
\n\n· \naction should not be taken against aircraft\noperators in respect of the requirements resulting from\nDirective 2003/87/EC for\nthe reporting of verified emissions for the\ncalendar years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and for the corresponding\nsurrender of allowances for 2012 from flights to and from\nsuch aerodromes;
\n\n· \nthe derogation will only apply to aircraft\noperators who have not been issued free allowances for such\nactivity in respect of 2012 or, if they have been issued such\nallowances, have returned, by the thirtieth day following the\nentry into force of this Decision, to Member States for\ncancellation a number of 2012\naviation allowances corresponding to the share of\nverified tonne-kilometres of such activity in the reference year\n2010.
\nCancellation and auctioning of\nallowances: the amended text states\nthat Member States should cancel all 2012 aviation\nallowances in respect of flights to or from aerodromes\nreferred to in the proposed decision that have either not been\nissued or, if issued, have been returned to them.
\nIn respect of the cancellation, Member States shall\nauction a reduced number of 2012 aviation allowances. That\nreduction shall be proportional to the lower number of total\naviation allowances in circulation. To the extent that the reduced\nnumber of those allowances has not been auctioned prior to 1 May\n2013, Member States shall adjust accordingly the number of aviation\nallowances to be auctioned in 2013.
\nMarket-based measures:\nin a new recital, it is clarified that this derogation is provided\nby the Union to facilitate an agreement at the 38th session of\nthe ICAO Assembly on a realistic timetable for the development of a\nglobal MBM beyond the 38th session of the ICAO Assembly and on\na framework for facilitating the comprehensive application of\nnational and regional MBMs to international aviation, pending the\napplication of the global MBM. On this basis, further steps could\nbe considered. In this respect, the Commission should, when\nassessing the need for further action, also take into account the\npossible impact on intra-European air traffic with a view to\navoiding any distortions of competition.
\nImplementation and keeping Parliament\ninformed: the Commission will: (i)\nissue the guidance necessary for the implementation of this\nDecision; (ii) regularly inform the European Parliament and the\nCouncil on the progress of ICAO negotiations and shall provide a\nfull report to them on the results achieved at the 38th\nsession of the ICAO Assembly.
\nPURPOSE: to derogate temporarily from Directive\n2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\nestablishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading\nwithin the Community with a view to facilitate progress and\nreinforce momentum towards the goal of the global regulation of\naviation emissions.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: significant progress has been made in the\nInternational Civil Aviation Organisation towards the adoption at\nthe 2013 ICAO Assembly of a framework facilitating States'\napplication of market-based measures to emissions from\ninternational aviation, and on developing a global market-based\nmeasure.
\nIn order to facilitate this progress and provide\nmomentum, it is desirable to defer enforcement of requirements\nrelating to flights to and from aerodromes outside the Union\nand areas with close economic connections to the Union and a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change arising prior to the 2013 ICAO\nAssembly.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission did not undertake an\nimpact assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal for a Decision seeks to enhance\nthe chances of a successful outcome of the 2013 ICAO Assembly in\nterms of developing a global market-based measure (MBM) and\nadopting a framework facilitating States' application of\nmarket-based measures to international aviation.
\nThe Decision would \"stop the clock,\" by temporarily\ndeferring enforcement of the obligations of aircraft operators\nin respect of incoming and outgoing flights under the European\nUnion's Emission Trading System (ETS). Action should therefore\nnot be taken against aircraft operators in respect of requirements\nresulting from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for\ngreenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the\nCommunity arising before 1 January\n2014 as regards incoming and outgoing\nflights. The condition for this is that they have either not\nreceived, or have returned, 2012 free allocations granted for such\nactivities to or from aerodromes outside the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate change.\nProper monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions from\nsuch flights is welcomed, but no compliance sanctions will\nbe applied in respect of the non-reporting of such\nemissions.
\nDirective 2003/87/EC continues to apply in full in\nrespect of flights between aerodromes in the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate\nchange.
\nTo provide further momentum to the international\ndiscussions and continue EU leadership in this process, the\nCommission considers it is important that this proposal is agreed\nbetween the European Parliament and Council swiftly and ideally by\nMarch 2013.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union budget.
\nPURPOSE: to derogate temporarily from Directive\n2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\nestablishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading\nwithin the Community with a view to facilitate progress and\nreinforce momentum towards the goal of the global regulation of\naviation emissions.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: significant progress has been made in the\nInternational Civil Aviation Organisation towards the adoption at\nthe 2013 ICAO Assembly of a framework facilitating States'\napplication of market-based measures to emissions from\ninternational aviation, and on developing a global market-based\nmeasure.
\nIn order to facilitate this progress and provide\nmomentum, it is desirable to defer enforcement of requirements\nrelating to flights to and from aerodromes outside the Union\nand areas with close economic connections to the Union and a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change arising prior to the 2013 ICAO\nAssembly.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission did not undertake an\nimpact assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal for a Decision seeks to enhance\nthe chances of a successful outcome of the 2013 ICAO Assembly in\nterms of developing a global market-based measure (MBM) and\nadopting a framework facilitating States' application of\nmarket-based measures to international aviation.
\nThe Decision would \"stop the clock,\" by temporarily\ndeferring enforcement of the obligations of aircraft operators\nin respect of incoming and outgoing flights under the European\nUnion's Emission Trading System (ETS). Action should therefore\nnot be taken against aircraft operators in respect of requirements\nresulting from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for\ngreenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the\nCommunity arising before 1 January\n2014 as regards incoming and outgoing\nflights. The condition for this is that they have either not\nreceived, or have returned, 2012 free allocations granted for such\nactivities to or from aerodromes outside the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate change.\nProper monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions from\nsuch flights is welcomed, but no compliance sanctions will\nbe applied in respect of the non-reporting of such\nemissions.
\nDirective 2003/87/EC continues to apply in full in\nrespect of flights between aerodromes in the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate\nchange.
\nTo provide further momentum to the international\ndiscussions and continue EU leadership in this process, the\nCommission considers it is important that this proposal is agreed\nbetween the European Parliament and Council swiftly and ideally by\nMarch 2013.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union budget.
\nPURPOSE: to derogate temporarily from Directive\n2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council\nestablishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading\nwithin the Community with a view to facilitate progress and\nreinforce momentum towards the goal of the global regulation of\naviation emissions.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of\nthe European Parliament and of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: significant progress has been made in the\nInternational Civil Aviation Organisation towards the adoption at\nthe 2013 ICAO Assembly of a framework facilitating States'\napplication of market-based measures to emissions from\ninternational aviation, and on developing a global market-based\nmeasure.
\nIn order to facilitate this progress and provide\nmomentum, it is desirable to defer enforcement of requirements\nrelating to flights to and from aerodromes outside the Union\nand areas with close economic connections to the Union and a shared\ncommitment to tackle climate change arising prior to the 2013 ICAO\nAssembly.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission did not undertake an\nimpact assessment.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: this proposal for a Decision seeks to enhance\nthe chances of a successful outcome of the 2013 ICAO Assembly in\nterms of developing a global market-based measure (MBM) and\nadopting a framework facilitating States' application of\nmarket-based measures to international aviation.
\nThe Decision would \"stop the clock,\" by temporarily\ndeferring enforcement of the obligations of aircraft operators\nin respect of incoming and outgoing flights under the European\nUnion's Emission Trading System (ETS). Action should therefore\nnot be taken against aircraft operators in respect of requirements\nresulting from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for\ngreenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the\nCommunity arising before 1 January\n2014 as regards incoming and outgoing\nflights. The condition for this is that they have either not\nreceived, or have returned, 2012 free allocations granted for such\nactivities to or from aerodromes outside the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate change.\nProper monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions from\nsuch flights is welcomed, but no compliance sanctions will\nbe applied in respect of the non-reporting of such\nemissions.
\nDirective 2003/87/EC continues to apply in full in\nrespect of flights between aerodromes in the EU and closely\nconnected areas with a shared commitment to tackle climate\nchange.
\nTo provide further momentum to the international\ndiscussions and continue EU leadership in this process, the\nCommission considers it is important that this proposal is agreed\nbetween the European Parliament and Council swiftly and ideally by\nMarch 2013.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no\nimplications for the Union budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying\nprovisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas\nallowances.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme\nfor greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\nand amending Council Directive 96/61/EC does not specify how volumes of greenhouse gas\nemission allowances to be auctioned are to be distributed over the\ntrading period.
\nOne of the features of the change from the phase 2\n(period from 2008 to 2012) into phase 3 (period from 2013 to 2020)\nand the implementation provisions adopted so far is that the supply\nof allowances and international credits is expected to temporarily\nincrease significantly in the short term. This exacerbates the\nalready significant, unforeseen impact of the macro-economic\ndevelopments, due to which emissions have decreased considerably\nand are not expected to increase significantly in 2012 and 2013.\nThis combination of increased net supply and reduced demand\nincreasingly affects the orderly functioning of the European carbon\nmarket in the transition to phase 3.
\nIn the light of such exceptional circumstances, the\nCommission is currently reviewing the need for a further change of\nthe auctioning timetable and will invite experts in the Climate\nChange Committee to consider a draft for a future amendment to\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and indicate their view on\nthe appropriate action to be taken before the end of this year. The\nCommission also invites any other interested stakeholders to\nexpress their views on this draft and will actively engage with\nthem in this regard.
\nMeanwhile, the legislative process to clarify the\nscope of the Commission's powers by means of the present\nproposal should proceed swiftly and independently of the result of\nconsultations with the Climate Change Committee.
\nFinally, the Commission reaffirms its commitment, as\nstated in the context of the agreement on the Energy Efficiency\nDirective, to urgently examine and present options for action with\na view to adopting further appropriate structural measures to\nstrengthen the ETS during phase 3, and make it more\neffective.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: for the purposes of legal certainty, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able to adapt the auction\ntimetable laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. The\nproposed amendment would expressly provide such clarification in\nthe relevant provision of the EU ETS Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: this measure does not have any\nimpact on the Union’s budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil amending Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the\ntiming of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances.
\nThe committee recommends that the European\nParliament’s position, adopted at first reading following the\nordinary legislative procedures, should be to amend the Commission\nproposal as follows:
\nAuction timetables: for\nthe purposes of legal certainty and market predictability, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able in exceptional\ncircumstances to adapt the auction timetable pursuant to\nArticle 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC provided that such\nintervention can be justified by an impact assessment\nshowing that impact on sectors exposed to a significant risk of\ncarbon leakage is limited. The Commission should be able to make\nno more than one such adaptation and only during the eight-year\nperiod beginning on 1 January 2013.
\nA new recital stipulates that adapting the auction\ntimetable should be considered to be a short-term action, rather\nthan a structural measure intended to address market imbalances of\nthe EU ETS, and should not undermine the stability and\npredictability of the EU ETS.
\nGuidelines on certain state aids: in the light of potentially higher prices for\ncertificates, the guidelines on certain State aid measures in the\ncontext of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme\npost-2012 and the criteria laid down in Directive 2003/87/EC\n(direct emission costs) should be considered for a revision taking\ninto account the risk of carbon leakage and distortion of\ncompetition between sectors.
\nThe European Parliament rejected by 334 votes\nto 315, with 63 abstentions, the proposal for a Decision of the\nEuropean Parliament and of the Council amending Directive\n2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the timing of auctions of\ngreenhouse gas allowances.
\nThe matter is therefore referred back for\nre-examination by the committee responsible.
\nThe proposal sought to stipulate, for reasons of legal\ncertainty, that the Commission would be empowered to adapt the\ntiming of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances laid down in\nRegulation (EU) 1031/2010 in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying\nprovisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas\nallowances.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme\nfor greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\nand amending Council Directive 96/61/EC does not specify how volumes of greenhouse gas\nemission allowances to be auctioned are to be distributed over the\ntrading period.
\nOne of the features of the change from the phase 2\n(period from 2008 to 2012) into phase 3 (period from 2013 to 2020)\nand the implementation provisions adopted so far is that the supply\nof allowances and international credits is expected to temporarily\nincrease significantly in the short term. This exacerbates the\nalready significant, unforeseen impact of the macro-economic\ndevelopments, due to which emissions have decreased considerably\nand are not expected to increase significantly in 2012 and 2013.\nThis combination of increased net supply and reduced demand\nincreasingly affects the orderly functioning of the European carbon\nmarket in the transition to phase 3.
\nIn the light of such exceptional circumstances, the\nCommission is currently reviewing the need for a further change of\nthe auctioning timetable and will invite experts in the Climate\nChange Committee to consider a draft for a future amendment to\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and indicate their view on\nthe appropriate action to be taken before the end of this year. The\nCommission also invites any other interested stakeholders to\nexpress their views on this draft and will actively engage with\nthem in this regard.
\nMeanwhile, the legislative process to clarify the\nscope of the Commission's powers by means of the present\nproposal should proceed swiftly and independently of the result of\nconsultations with the Climate Change Committee.
\nFinally, the Commission reaffirms its commitment, as\nstated in the context of the agreement on the Energy Efficiency\nDirective, to urgently examine and present options for action with\na view to adopting further appropriate structural measures to\nstrengthen the ETS during phase 3, and make it more\neffective.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: for the purposes of legal certainty, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able to adapt the auction\ntimetable laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. The\nproposed amendment would expressly provide such clarification in\nthe relevant provision of the EU ETS Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: this measure does not have any\nimpact on the Union’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying\nprovisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas\nallowances.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme\nfor greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\nand amending Council Directive 96/61/EC does not specify how volumes of greenhouse gas\nemission allowances to be auctioned are to be distributed over the\ntrading period.
\nOne of the features of the change from the phase 2\n(period from 2008 to 2012) into phase 3 (period from 2013 to 2020)\nand the implementation provisions adopted so far is that the supply\nof allowances and international credits is expected to temporarily\nincrease significantly in the short term. This exacerbates the\nalready significant, unforeseen impact of the macro-economic\ndevelopments, due to which emissions have decreased considerably\nand are not expected to increase significantly in 2012 and 2013.\nThis combination of increased net supply and reduced demand\nincreasingly affects the orderly functioning of the European carbon\nmarket in the transition to phase 3.
\nIn the light of such exceptional circumstances, the\nCommission is currently reviewing the need for a further change of\nthe auctioning timetable and will invite experts in the Climate\nChange Committee to consider a draft for a future amendment to\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and indicate their view on\nthe appropriate action to be taken before the end of this year. The\nCommission also invites any other interested stakeholders to\nexpress their views on this draft and will actively engage with\nthem in this regard.
\nMeanwhile, the legislative process to clarify the\nscope of the Commission's powers by means of the present\nproposal should proceed swiftly and independently of the result of\nconsultations with the Climate Change Committee.
\nFinally, the Commission reaffirms its commitment, as\nstated in the context of the agreement on the Energy Efficiency\nDirective, to urgently examine and present options for action with\na view to adopting further appropriate structural measures to\nstrengthen the ETS during phase 3, and make it more\neffective.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: for the purposes of legal certainty, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able to adapt the auction\ntimetable laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. The\nproposed amendment would expressly provide such clarification in\nthe relevant provision of the EU ETS Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: this measure does not have any\nimpact on the Union’s budget.
\nThe European Parliament rejected by 334 votes\nto 315, with 63 abstentions, the proposal for a Decision of the\nEuropean Parliament and of the Council amending Directive\n2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the timing of auctions of\ngreenhouse gas allowances.
\nThe matter is therefore referred back for\nre-examination by the committee responsible.
\nThe proposal sought to stipulate, for reasons of legal\ncertainty, that the Commission would be empowered to adapt the\ntiming of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances laid down in\nRegulation (EU) 1031/2010 in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying\nprovisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas\nallowances.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme\nfor greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\nand amending Council Directive 96/61/EC does not specify how volumes of greenhouse gas\nemission allowances to be auctioned are to be distributed over the\ntrading period.
\nOne of the features of the change from the phase 2\n(period from 2008 to 2012) into phase 3 (period from 2013 to 2020)\nand the implementation provisions adopted so far is that the supply\nof allowances and international credits is expected to temporarily\nincrease significantly in the short term. This exacerbates the\nalready significant, unforeseen impact of the macro-economic\ndevelopments, due to which emissions have decreased considerably\nand are not expected to increase significantly in 2012 and 2013.\nThis combination of increased net supply and reduced demand\nincreasingly affects the orderly functioning of the European carbon\nmarket in the transition to phase 3.
\nIn the light of such exceptional circumstances, the\nCommission is currently reviewing the need for a further change of\nthe auctioning timetable and will invite experts in the Climate\nChange Committee to consider a draft for a future amendment to\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and indicate their view on\nthe appropriate action to be taken before the end of this year. The\nCommission also invites any other interested stakeholders to\nexpress their views on this draft and will actively engage with\nthem in this regard.
\nMeanwhile, the legislative process to clarify the\nscope of the Commission's powers by means of the present\nproposal should proceed swiftly and independently of the result of\nconsultations with the Climate Change Committee.
\nFinally, the Commission reaffirms its commitment, as\nstated in the context of the agreement on the Energy Efficiency\nDirective, to urgently examine and present options for action with\na view to adopting further appropriate structural measures to\nstrengthen the ETS during phase 3, and make it more\neffective.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: for the purposes of legal certainty, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able to adapt the auction\ntimetable laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. The\nproposed amendment would expressly provide such clarification in\nthe relevant provision of the EU ETS Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: this measure does not have any\nimpact on the Union’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying\nprovisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas\nallowances.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme\nfor greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\nand amending Council Directive 96/61/EC does not specify how volumes of greenhouse gas\nemission allowances to be auctioned are to be distributed over the\ntrading period.
\nOne of the features of the change from the phase 2\n(period from 2008 to 2012) into phase 3 (period from 2013 to 2020)\nand the implementation provisions adopted so far is that the supply\nof allowances and international credits is expected to temporarily\nincrease significantly in the short term. This exacerbates the\nalready significant, unforeseen impact of the macro-economic\ndevelopments, due to which emissions have decreased considerably\nand are not expected to increase significantly in 2012 and 2013.\nThis combination of increased net supply and reduced demand\nincreasingly affects the orderly functioning of the European carbon\nmarket in the transition to phase 3.
\nIn the light of such exceptional circumstances, the\nCommission is currently reviewing the need for a further change of\nthe auctioning timetable and will invite experts in the Climate\nChange Committee to consider a draft for a future amendment to\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and indicate their view on\nthe appropriate action to be taken before the end of this year. The\nCommission also invites any other interested stakeholders to\nexpress their views on this draft and will actively engage with\nthem in this regard.
\nMeanwhile, the legislative process to clarify the\nscope of the Commission's powers by means of the present\nproposal should proceed swiftly and independently of the result of\nconsultations with the Climate Change Committee.
\nFinally, the Commission reaffirms its commitment, as\nstated in the context of the agreement on the Energy Efficiency\nDirective, to urgently examine and present options for action with\na view to adopting further appropriate structural measures to\nstrengthen the ETS during phase 3, and make it more\neffective.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: for the purposes of legal certainty, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able to adapt the auction\ntimetable laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. The\nproposed amendment would expressly provide such clarification in\nthe relevant provision of the EU ETS Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: this measure does not have any\nimpact on the Union’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying\nprovisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas\nallowances.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Decision of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme\nfor greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community\nand amending Council Directive 96/61/EC does not specify how volumes of greenhouse gas\nemission allowances to be auctioned are to be distributed over the\ntrading period.
\nOne of the features of the change from the phase 2\n(period from 2008 to 2012) into phase 3 (period from 2013 to 2020)\nand the implementation provisions adopted so far is that the supply\nof allowances and international credits is expected to temporarily\nincrease significantly in the short term. This exacerbates the\nalready significant, unforeseen impact of the macro-economic\ndevelopments, due to which emissions have decreased considerably\nand are not expected to increase significantly in 2012 and 2013.\nThis combination of increased net supply and reduced demand\nincreasingly affects the orderly functioning of the European carbon\nmarket in the transition to phase 3.
\nIn the light of such exceptional circumstances, the\nCommission is currently reviewing the need for a further change of\nthe auctioning timetable and will invite experts in the Climate\nChange Committee to consider a draft for a future amendment to\nCommission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 and indicate their view on\nthe appropriate action to be taken before the end of this year. The\nCommission also invites any other interested stakeholders to\nexpress their views on this draft and will actively engage with\nthem in this regard.
\nMeanwhile, the legislative process to clarify the\nscope of the Commission's powers by means of the present\nproposal should proceed swiftly and independently of the result of\nconsultations with the Climate Change Committee.
\nFinally, the Commission reaffirms its commitment, as\nstated in the context of the agreement on the Energy Efficiency\nDirective, to urgently examine and present options for action with\na view to adopting further appropriate structural measures to\nstrengthen the ETS during phase 3, and make it more\neffective.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: for the purposes of legal certainty, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able to adapt the auction\ntimetable laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010. The\nproposed amendment would expressly provide such clarification in\nthe relevant provision of the EU ETS Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPACT: this measure does not have any\nimpact on the Union’s budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil amending Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the\ntiming of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances.
\nThe committee recommends that the European\nParliament’s position, adopted at first reading following the\nordinary legislative procedures, should be to amend the Commission\nproposal as follows:
\nAuction timetables: for\nthe purposes of legal certainty and market predictability, it\nshould be clarified that, in order to ensure an orderly functioning\nof the market, the Commission is able in exceptional\ncircumstances to adapt the auction timetable pursuant to\nArticle 10(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC provided that such\nintervention can be justified by an impact assessment\nshowing that impact on sectors exposed to a significant risk of\ncarbon leakage is limited. The Commission should be able to make\nno more than one such adaptation and only during the eight-year\nperiod beginning on 1 January 2013.
\nA new recital stipulates that adapting the auction\ntimetable should be considered to be a short-term action, rather\nthan a structural measure intended to address market imbalances of\nthe EU ETS, and should not undermine the stability and\npredictability of the EU ETS.
\nGuidelines on certain state aids: in the light of potentially higher prices for\ncertificates, the guidelines on certain State aid measures in the\ncontext of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme\npost-2012 and the criteria laid down in Directive 2003/87/EC\n(direct emission costs) should be considered for a revision taking\ninto account the risk of carbon leakage and distortion of\ncompetition between sectors.
\nPURPOSE: recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\non the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating\ntrade therein.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the codification of Council Regulation\n(EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora\nby regulating trade therein has been initiated by the Commission.\nThe new Regulation was to have superseded the various acts\nincorporated in it.
\nIn the meantime the Lisbon Treaty entered into\nforce.
\n\n· \nArticle 290 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows\nthe legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt\nnon-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend\ncertain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated\nacts).
\n\n· \nArticle 291 of\nthe TFEU allows the legislator to confer implementing powers on the\nCommission where uniform conditions for implementing legally\nbinding Union acts are needed (implementing acts).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFUE).
\nCONTENT: Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains\nprovisions for which such a delegation of power or such a conferral\nof implementing powers would be opportune. It is therefore proposed\nto transform the codification of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 into\na recast in order to incorporate the necessary\namendments.
\nThe Commission will be empowered to adopt delegated\nacts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the\nadoption of certain measures regulating trade in species of wild\nfauna and flora, of certain amendments to the Annexes to the\nRegulation and of additional measures to implement resolutions of\nthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention on international\ntrade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES),\ndecisions or recommendations of the Standing Committee of the\nConvention and recommendations of the Convention\nSecretariat.
\nWhen preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, the\nCommission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nto the Council.
\nLastly, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the\nimplementation of the Regulation, implementing powers should\nbe conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in\naccordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\non the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating\ntrade therein.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the codification of Council Regulation\n(EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora\nby regulating trade therein has been initiated by the Commission.\nThe new Regulation was to have superseded the various acts\nincorporated in it.
\nIn the meantime the Lisbon Treaty entered into\nforce.
\n\n· \nArticle 290 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows\nthe legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt\nnon-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend\ncertain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated\nacts).
\n\n· \nArticle 291 of\nthe TFEU allows the legislator to confer implementing powers on the\nCommission where uniform conditions for implementing legally\nbinding Union acts are needed (implementing acts).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFUE).
\nCONTENT: Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains\nprovisions for which such a delegation of power or such a conferral\nof implementing powers would be opportune. It is therefore proposed\nto transform the codification of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 into\na recast in order to incorporate the necessary\namendments.
\nThe Commission will be empowered to adopt delegated\nacts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the\nadoption of certain measures regulating trade in species of wild\nfauna and flora, of certain amendments to the Annexes to the\nRegulation and of additional measures to implement resolutions of\nthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention on international\ntrade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES),\ndecisions or recommendations of the Standing Committee of the\nConvention and recommendations of the Convention\nSecretariat.
\nWhen preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, the\nCommission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nto the Council.
\nLastly, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the\nimplementation of the Regulation, implementing powers should\nbe conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in\naccordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\non the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating\ntrade therein.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the codification of Council Regulation\n(EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora\nby regulating trade therein has been initiated by the Commission.\nThe new Regulation was to have superseded the various acts\nincorporated in it.
\nIn the meantime the Lisbon Treaty entered into\nforce.
\n\n· \nArticle 290 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows\nthe legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt\nnon-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend\ncertain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated\nacts).
\n\n· \nArticle 291 of\nthe TFEU allows the legislator to confer implementing powers on the\nCommission where uniform conditions for implementing legally\nbinding Union acts are needed (implementing acts).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFUE).
\nCONTENT: Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains\nprovisions for which such a delegation of power or such a conferral\nof implementing powers would be opportune. It is therefore proposed\nto transform the codification of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 into\na recast in order to incorporate the necessary\namendments.
\nThe Commission will be empowered to adopt delegated\nacts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the\nadoption of certain measures regulating trade in species of wild\nfauna and flora, of certain amendments to the Annexes to the\nRegulation and of additional measures to implement resolutions of\nthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention on international\ntrade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES),\ndecisions or recommendations of the Standing Committee of the\nConvention and recommendations of the Convention\nSecretariat.
\nWhen preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, the\nCommission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nto the Council.
\nLastly, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the\nimplementation of the Regulation, implementing powers should\nbe conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in\naccordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\non the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating\ntrade therein.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the codification of Council Regulation\n(EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora\nby regulating trade therein has been initiated by the Commission.\nThe new Regulation was to have superseded the various acts\nincorporated in it.
\nIn the meantime the Lisbon Treaty entered into\nforce.
\n\n· \nArticle 290 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows\nthe legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt\nnon-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend\ncertain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated\nacts).
\n\n· \nArticle 291 of\nthe TFEU allows the legislator to confer implementing powers on the\nCommission where uniform conditions for implementing legally\nbinding Union acts are needed (implementing acts).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFUE).
\nCONTENT: Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains\nprovisions for which such a delegation of power or such a conferral\nof implementing powers would be opportune. It is therefore proposed\nto transform the codification of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 into\na recast in order to incorporate the necessary\namendments.
\nThe Commission will be empowered to adopt delegated\nacts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the\nadoption of certain measures regulating trade in species of wild\nfauna and flora, of certain amendments to the Annexes to the\nRegulation and of additional measures to implement resolutions of\nthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention on international\ntrade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES),\ndecisions or recommendations of the Standing Committee of the\nConvention and recommendations of the Convention\nSecretariat.
\nWhen preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, the\nCommission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nto the Council.
\nLastly, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the\nimplementation of the Regulation, implementing powers should\nbe conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in\naccordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\non the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating\ntrade therein.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the codification of Council Regulation\n(EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora\nby regulating trade therein has been initiated by the Commission.\nThe new Regulation was to have superseded the various acts\nincorporated in it.
\nIn the meantime the Lisbon Treaty entered into\nforce.
\n\n· \nArticle 290 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows\nthe legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt\nnon-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend\ncertain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated\nacts).
\n\n· \nArticle 291 of\nthe TFEU allows the legislator to confer implementing powers on the\nCommission where uniform conditions for implementing legally\nbinding Union acts are needed (implementing acts).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFUE).
\nCONTENT: Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains\nprovisions for which such a delegation of power or such a conferral\nof implementing powers would be opportune. It is therefore proposed\nto transform the codification of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 into\na recast in order to incorporate the necessary\namendments.
\nThe Commission will be empowered to adopt delegated\nacts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the\nadoption of certain measures regulating trade in species of wild\nfauna and flora, of certain amendments to the Annexes to the\nRegulation and of additional measures to implement resolutions of\nthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention on international\ntrade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES),\ndecisions or recommendations of the Standing Committee of the\nConvention and recommendations of the Convention\nSecretariat.
\nWhen preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, the\nCommission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nto the Council.
\nLastly, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the\nimplementation of the Regulation, implementing powers should\nbe conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in\naccordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97\non the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating\ntrade therein.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament\nand of the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: the codification of Council Regulation\n(EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora\nby regulating trade therein has been initiated by the Commission.\nThe new Regulation was to have superseded the various acts\nincorporated in it.
\nIn the meantime the Lisbon Treaty entered into\nforce.
\n\n· \nArticle 290 of\nthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows\nthe legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt\nnon-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend\ncertain non-essential elements of a legislative act (delegated\nacts).
\n\n· \nArticle 291 of\nthe TFEU allows the legislator to confer implementing powers on the\nCommission where uniform conditions for implementing legally\nbinding Union acts are needed (implementing acts).
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union (TFUE).
\nCONTENT: Regulation (EC) No 338/97 contains\nprovisions for which such a delegation of power or such a conferral\nof implementing powers would be opportune. It is therefore proposed\nto transform the codification of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 into\na recast in order to incorporate the necessary\namendments.
\nThe Commission will be empowered to adopt delegated\nacts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the\nadoption of certain measures regulating trade in species of wild\nfauna and flora, of certain amendments to the Annexes to the\nRegulation and of additional measures to implement resolutions of\nthe Conference of the Parties to the Convention on international\ntrade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES),\ndecisions or recommendations of the Standing Committee of the\nConvention and recommendations of the Convention\nSecretariat.
\nWhen preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, the\nCommission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate\ntransmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and\nto the Council.
\nLastly, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the\nimplementation of the Regulation, implementing powers should\nbe conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in\naccordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\n\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is\ntoday's main international instrument for addressing biodiversity\nissues. The three objectives pursued by the Convention are the\nconservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its\ncomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising\nfrom the use of genetic resources.
\nThe\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on\nBiological Diversity was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a\nsupplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003.\nThis international treaty provides a framework, based on the\nprecautionary principle, for the safe transfer, handling and use of\nliving modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern\nbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and\nsustainable use of biological diversity, or pose risks to human\nhealth.
\nIn\nJune 2007, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the\nCommission to participate in the liability and redress negotiations\non behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October\n2010, during the fifth Conference of the Parties\nserving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Nagoya,\nJapan, the EU unanimously supported the final compromise\nreached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the final\nplenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In accordance with Council\nDecision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May 2011, subject to its\nconclusion at a later date.
\nThe\nSupplementary Protocol contributes to the achievement of the\nobjectives of the environmental policy of the Union. It is\ntherefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded on behalf of\nthe Union as soon as possible.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributes to the\nconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or pose\nrisks to human health by establishing international rules and\nprocedures in the field of liability and redress for damage\nresulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nAny protocol to\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 34\nthereof, is open for ratification, acceptance or approval by Member\nStates and by regional economic integration organisations. In view\nof the above the Commission proposes that the Council authorizes\nthe President to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the\ninstrument of approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary\npowers thereto.
\nIn\naccordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Convention,\nregional economic integration organisations must declare the extent\nof their competence with respect to the matters governed by the\nrelevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the Commission has\nprepared the Declaration annexed to the present proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe draft Council Decision on the conclusion on behalf of the\nEuropean Union of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety.
\nThe committee recommended that the European Parliament\ngive its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement.
\nThe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,\nadopted on 15 October 2010, at the final plenary of the fifth\nConference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties\n(COP/MOP 5) in Nagoya, was signed by the Union on 11 May\n2011.
\nThe request for consent was submitted by the Council\nin accordance with Article 192 and Article 218(6), second\nsubparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nThe European\nParliament adopted a legislative resolution on the draft Council\ndecision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nParliament gave its\nconsent to the conclusion of the Protocol.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\n\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is\ntoday's main international instrument for addressing biodiversity\nissues. The three objectives pursued by the Convention are the\nconservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its\ncomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising\nfrom the use of genetic resources.
\nThe\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on\nBiological Diversity was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a\nsupplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003.\nThis international treaty provides a framework, based on the\nprecautionary principle, for the safe transfer, handling and use of\nliving modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern\nbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and\nsustainable use of biological diversity, or pose risks to human\nhealth.
\nIn\nJune 2007, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the\nCommission to participate in the liability and redress negotiations\non behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October\n2010, during the fifth Conference of the Parties\nserving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Nagoya,\nJapan, the EU unanimously supported the final compromise\nreached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the final\nplenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In accordance with Council\nDecision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May 2011, subject to its\nconclusion at a later date.
\nThe\nSupplementary Protocol contributes to the achievement of the\nobjectives of the environmental policy of the Union. It is\ntherefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded on behalf of\nthe Union as soon as possible.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributes to the\nconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or pose\nrisks to human health by establishing international rules and\nprocedures in the field of liability and redress for damage\nresulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nAny protocol to\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 34\nthereof, is open for ratification, acceptance or approval by Member\nStates and by regional economic integration organisations. In view\nof the above the Commission proposes that the Council authorizes\nthe President to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the\ninstrument of approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary\npowers thereto.
\nIn\naccordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Convention,\nregional economic integration organisations must declare the extent\nof their competence with respect to the matters governed by the\nrelevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the Commission has\nprepared the Declaration annexed to the present proposal.
\n\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is\ntoday's main international instrument for addressing biodiversity\nissues. The three objectives pursued by the Convention are the\nconservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its\ncomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising\nfrom the use of genetic resources.
\nThe\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on\nBiological Diversity was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a\nsupplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003.\nThis international treaty provides a framework, based on the\nprecautionary principle, for the safe transfer, handling and use of\nliving modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern\nbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and\nsustainable use of biological diversity, or pose risks to human\nhealth.
\nIn\nJune 2007, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the\nCommission to participate in the liability and redress negotiations\non behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October\n2010, during the fifth Conference of the Parties\nserving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Nagoya,\nJapan, the EU unanimously supported the final compromise\nreached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the final\nplenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In accordance with Council\nDecision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May 2011, subject to its\nconclusion at a later date.
\nThe\nSupplementary Protocol contributes to the achievement of the\nobjectives of the environmental policy of the Union. It is\ntherefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded on behalf of\nthe Union as soon as possible.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributes to the\nconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or pose\nrisks to human health by establishing international rules and\nprocedures in the field of liability and redress for damage\nresulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nAny protocol to\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 34\nthereof, is open for ratification, acceptance or approval by Member\nStates and by regional economic integration organisations. In view\nof the above the Commission proposes that the Council authorizes\nthe President to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the\ninstrument of approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary\npowers thereto.
\nIn\naccordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Convention,\nregional economic integration organisations must declare the extent\nof their competence with respect to the matters governed by the\nrelevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the Commission has\nprepared the Declaration annexed to the present proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nThe European\nParliament adopted a legislative resolution on the draft Council\ndecision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nParliament gave its\nconsent to the conclusion of the Protocol.
\nThe European\nParliament adopted a legislative resolution on the draft Council\ndecision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nParliament gave its\nconsent to the conclusion of the Protocol.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe draft Council Decision on the conclusion on behalf of the\nEuropean Union of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety.
\nThe committee recommended that the European Parliament\ngive its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement.
\nThe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,\nadopted on 15 October 2010, at the final plenary of the fifth\nConference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties\n(COP/MOP 5) in Nagoya, was signed by the Union on 11 May\n2011.
\nThe request for consent was submitted by the Council\nin accordance with Article 192 and Article 218(6), second\nsubparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe draft Council Decision on the conclusion on behalf of the\nEuropean Union of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety.
\nThe committee recommended that the European Parliament\ngive its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement.
\nThe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,\nadopted on 15 October 2010, at the final plenary of the fifth\nConference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties\n(COP/MOP 5) in Nagoya, was signed by the Union on 11 May\n2011.
\nThe request for consent was submitted by the Council\nin accordance with Article 192 and Article 218(6), second\nsubparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\n\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is\ntoday's main international instrument for addressing biodiversity\nissues. The three objectives pursued by the Convention are the\nconservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its\ncomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising\nfrom the use of genetic resources.
\nThe\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on\nBiological Diversity was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a\nsupplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003.\nThis international treaty provides a framework, based on the\nprecautionary principle, for the safe transfer, handling and use of\nliving modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern\nbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and\nsustainable use of biological diversity, or pose risks to human\nhealth.
\nIn\nJune 2007, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the\nCommission to participate in the liability and redress negotiations\non behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October\n2010, during the fifth Conference of the Parties\nserving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Nagoya,\nJapan, the EU unanimously supported the final compromise\nreached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the final\nplenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In accordance with Council\nDecision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May 2011, subject to its\nconclusion at a later date.
\nThe\nSupplementary Protocol contributes to the achievement of the\nobjectives of the environmental policy of the Union. It is\ntherefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded on behalf of\nthe Union as soon as possible.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributes to the\nconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or pose\nrisks to human health by establishing international rules and\nprocedures in the field of liability and redress for damage\nresulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nAny protocol to\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 34\nthereof, is open for ratification, acceptance or approval by Member\nStates and by regional economic integration organisations. In view\nof the above the Commission proposes that the Council authorizes\nthe President to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the\ninstrument of approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary\npowers thereto.
\nIn\naccordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Convention,\nregional economic integration organisations must declare the extent\nof their competence with respect to the matters governed by the\nrelevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the Commission has\nprepared the Declaration annexed to the present proposal.
\n\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is\ntoday's main international instrument for addressing biodiversity\nissues. The three objectives pursued by the Convention are the\nconservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its\ncomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising\nfrom the use of genetic resources.
\nThe\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on\nBiological Diversity was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a\nsupplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003.\nThis international treaty provides a framework, based on the\nprecautionary principle, for the safe transfer, handling and use of\nliving modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern\nbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and\nsustainable use of biological diversity, or pose risks to human\nhealth.
\nIn\nJune 2007, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the\nCommission to participate in the liability and redress negotiations\non behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October\n2010, during the fifth Conference of the Parties\nserving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Nagoya,\nJapan, the EU unanimously supported the final compromise\nreached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the final\nplenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In accordance with Council\nDecision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May 2011, subject to its\nconclusion at a later date.
\nThe\nSupplementary Protocol contributes to the achievement of the\nobjectives of the environmental policy of the Union. It is\ntherefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded on behalf of\nthe Union as soon as possible.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributes to the\nconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or pose\nrisks to human health by establishing international rules and\nprocedures in the field of liability and redress for damage\nresulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nAny protocol to\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 34\nthereof, is open for ratification, acceptance or approval by Member\nStates and by regional economic integration organisations. In view\nof the above the Commission proposes that the Council authorizes\nthe President to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the\ninstrument of approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary\npowers thereto.
\nIn\naccordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Convention,\nregional economic integration organisations must declare the extent\nof their competence with respect to the matters governed by the\nrelevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the Commission has\nprepared the Declaration annexed to the present proposal.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: Article 27 of the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nprovides that the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting\nof the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) shall adopt, in its first\nmeeting, a process with respect to the elaboration of international\nrules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for\ndamage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted\na Decision authorising the Commission to participate in the\nnegotiations concerning liability and redress in this field on\nbehalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives. That\nauthorisation was extended in October 2008 to cover the final\nstages of the negotiations
\nDuring the fifth COP/MOP in\nNagoya, Japan, the Union supported the final compromise reached on\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (\"the Supplementary\nProtocol\"), following consideration that it was within the limits\nof the agreed Union positions and negotiating directives addressed\nto the Commission. On 15 October 2010, the final plenary of the\nfifth COP/MOP adopted the Supplementary Protocol and it was then\nsigned by the Union on 12 May 2011, subject to its conclusion at a\nlater date.
\nIt is now appropriate to approve the Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was\nundertaken.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: with this draft decision, it is proposed to\napprove on behalf of the European Union, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur\nSupplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena\nProtocol on Biosafety.
\nThe content of the Protocol is identical to that which\nwas the subject of the Commission’s proposal of June 2012\n(please refer to the summary dated 5 June 2012).
\nThe draft decision also includes a declaration by the\nEuropean Union in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Convention\nion Biological Diversity in which it confirms that, in accordance\nwith the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article\n191), it is competent for entering into international agreements\nand for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which\ncontribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:
\nIt also declares that it has\nalready adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States,\ncovering matters governed by this Supplementary Protocol. The\nexercise of Union competence is by nature subject to continuous\ndevelopment. In order to comply with its obligations, the Union\nwill keep up to date the list of legal instruments already\ntransmitted to the Biosafety Clearing House.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications on the EU’s budget.
\n\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union, the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\n\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\n\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is\ntoday's main international instrument for addressing biodiversity\nissues. The three objectives pursued by the Convention are the\nconservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its\ncomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising\nfrom the use of genetic resources.
\nThe\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on\nBiological Diversity was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a\nsupplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003.\nThis international treaty provides a framework, based on the\nprecautionary principle, for the safe transfer, handling and use of\nliving modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern\nbiotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and\nsustainable use of biological diversity, or pose risks to human\nhealth.
\nIn\nJune 2007, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the\nCommission to participate in the liability and redress negotiations\non behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within Union\ncompetence, in accordance with certain negotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October\n2010, during the fifth Conference of the Parties\nserving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol in Nagoya,\nJapan, the EU unanimously supported the final compromise\nreached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the final\nplenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In accordance with Council\nDecision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May 2011, subject to its\nconclusion at a later date.
\nThe\nSupplementary Protocol contributes to the achievement of the\nobjectives of the environmental policy of the Union. It is\ntherefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded on behalf of\nthe Union as soon as possible.
\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried out.
\nLEGAL BASIS:\nArticle 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) of the\nTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety contributes to the\nconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or pose\nrisks to human health by establishing international rules and\nprocedures in the field of liability and redress for damage\nresulting from transboundary movements of living modified\norganisms.
\nAny protocol to\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, pursuant to Article 34\nthereof, is open for ratification, acceptance or approval by Member\nStates and by regional economic integration organisations. In view\nof the above the Commission proposes that the Council authorizes\nthe President to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the\ninstrument of approval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on behalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary\npowers thereto.
\nIn\naccordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Convention,\nregional economic integration organisations must declare the extent\nof their competence with respect to the matters governed by the\nrelevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the Commission has\nprepared the Declaration annexed to the present proposal.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe draft Council Decision on the conclusion on behalf of the\nEuropean Union of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety.
\nThe committee recommended that the European Parliament\ngive its consent to the conclusion of the\nAgreement.
\nThe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,\nadopted on 15 October 2010, at the final plenary of the fifth\nConference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties\n(COP/MOP 5) in Nagoya, was signed by the Union on 11 May\n2011.
\nThe request for consent was submitted by the Council\nin accordance with Article 192 and Article 218(6), second\nsubparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union (TFEU).
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is today's\nmain international instrument for addressing biodiversity issues.\nThe three objectives pursued by the Convention are the conservation\nof biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and\nthe fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of\ngenetic resources.
\nThe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nwas adopted on 29 January 2000 as a supplementary agreement to the\nCBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003. This international treaty provides a\nframework, based on the precautionary principle, for the safe\ntransfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs)\nresulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects\non the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or\npose risks to human health.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted a Decision\nauthorising the Commission to participate in the liability and\nredress negotiations on behalf of the Union as regards matters\nfalling within Union competence, in accordance with certain\nnegotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October 2010, during the fifth Conference of\nthe Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the\nProtocol in Nagoya, Japan, the EU unanimously supported the\nfinal compromise reached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the\nfinal plenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In\naccordance with Council Decision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May\n2011, subject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nThe Supplementary Protocol contributes to the\nachievement of the objectives of the environmental policy of the\nUnion. It is therefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded\non behalf of the Union as soon as possible.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of\nbiological diversity, or pose risks to human health by establishing\ninternational rules and procedures in the field of liability and\nredress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living\nmodified organisms.
\nAny protocol to the Convention on Biological\nDiversity, pursuant to Article 34 thereof, is open for\nratification, acceptance or approval by Member States and by\nregional economic integration organisations. In view of the above\nthe Commission proposes that the Council authorizes the President\nto designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the instrument of\napproval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nbehalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary powers\nthereto.
\nIn accordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the\nConvention, regional economic integration organisations must\ndeclare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters\ngoverned by the relevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the\nCommission has prepared the Declaration annexed to the present\nproposal.
\nThe European\nParliament adopted a legislative resolution on the draft Council\ndecision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress\nto the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nParliament gave its\nconsent to the conclusion of the Protocol.
\nPURPOSE: to approve, on behalf of the European Union,\nthe Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and\nRedress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Council Decision.
\nBACKGROUND: the Convention on Biological Diversity\n(CBD), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, is today's\nmain international instrument for addressing biodiversity issues.\nThe three objectives pursued by the Convention are the conservation\nof biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and\nthe fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of\ngenetic resources.
\nThe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity\nwas adopted on 29 January 2000 as a supplementary agreement to the\nCBD and entered into force on 11
\nSeptember 2003. This international treaty provides a\nframework, based on the precautionary principle, for the safe\ntransfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs)\nresulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects\non the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or\npose risks to human health.
\nIn June 2007, the Council adopted a Decision\nauthorising the Commission to participate in the liability and\nredress negotiations on behalf of the Union as regards matters\nfalling within Union competence, in accordance with certain\nnegotiating directives.
\nOn 11 October 2010, during the fifth Conference of\nthe Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the\nProtocol in Nagoya, Japan, the EU unanimously supported the\nfinal compromise reached on the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress. On 15 October 2010, the\nfinal plenary of COP/MOP5 successfully adopted the
\nNagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nLiability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. In\naccordance with Council Decision of 6 May 2011, the Nagoya-Kuala\nLumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the\nCartagena Protocol on Biosafety was signed by the Union on 11 May\n2011, subject to its conclusion at a later date.
\nThe Supplementary Protocol contributes to the\nachievement of the objectives of the environmental policy of the\nUnion. It is therefore appropriate that this Protocol be concluded\non behalf of the Union as soon as possible.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: no impact assessment was carried\nout.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 192 (1) TFEU, in conjunction with\nArticle 218(6)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European\nUnion (TFEU).
\nCONTENT: the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary\nProtocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on\nBiosafety contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of\nbiological diversity, or pose risks to human health by establishing\ninternational rules and procedures in the field of liability and\nredress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living\nmodified organisms.
\nAny protocol to the Convention on Biological\nDiversity, pursuant to Article 34 thereof, is open for\nratification, acceptance or approval by Member States and by\nregional economic integration organisations. In view of the above\nthe Commission proposes that the Council authorizes the President\nto designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the instrument of\napproval of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on\nbehalf of the Union and to confer on them the necessary powers\nthereto.
\nIn accordance with Article 34, paragraph 3, of the\nConvention, regional economic integration organisations must\ndeclare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters\ngoverned by the relevant protocol. To fulfill this obligation, the\nCommission has prepared the Declaration annexed to the present\nproposal.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC as regards the powers to\nbe conferred on the Commission (delegated and implanting\nacts.)
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council
\nBACKGROUND: following entry into force of the Treaty\nof Lisbon, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) makes a\ndistinction between the powers delegated to the Commission\nto adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement\nor amend certain nonessential elements of the legislative act as\nlaid down in Article 290(1) of the Treaty (delegated acts),\nand the powers conferred upon the Commission to adopt uniform\nconditions for implementing legally binding Union acts as laid down\nin Article 291(2) of the Treaty (implementing\nacts).
\nThe aim is to align the existing Commission\nimplementing powers in Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC to the differentiation\nbetween delegated and implementing powers of the Commission\nintroduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning\nof the European Union (TFUE) and to confer additional delegated\npowers on the Commission.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: there was no need of impact\nassessment since the proposal is an inter-institutional matter that\nwill concern all Council and/or Council and European Parliament\nacts.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 43 and 114 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT : the proposal aims to identify the\ndelegated and implementing powers that should be conferred upon the\nCommission as regards Directives 1999/4/EC (relating to coffee\nextracts and chicory extracts), 2000/36/EC (relating to cocoa and\nchocolate products intended for human consumption), 2001/111/EC\n(relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption),\n2001/113/EC (relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and\nsweetened chestnut purée) and 2001/114/EC (relating to\ncertain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human\nconsumption) and establish the corresponding procedure for adoption\nof these acts in the new legal context determined by the entry into\nforce of Articles 290 and 291 of the TFUE.
\nThe proposal ensures that the Commission shall be\nempowered to adopt appropriate acts to amend the Annexes to take\naccount of the developments in relevant international\nstandards.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal has no implications for the EU budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil amending Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC, 2001/111/EC,\n2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC as regards the powers to be conferred\non the Commission.
\nThe committee recommends that the European\nParliament’s position adopted at first reading, following the\nordinary legislative procedure, should amend the Commission\nproposal.
\nThe new regulation seeks to allow the Commission to\namend, through delegated acts, the technical characteristics\nrelated to the product descriptions and definitions in the Annexes\nto Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC, 2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and\n2001/114/EC.
\nMembers consider that this explicit delegation\nto amend characteristics that will affect the descriptions,\ndefinitions or names of products - which are essential elements of\nthe Directives – reaches beyond the scope of delegated\nacts according to Article 290 of the Treaty, which limits the\ndelegation to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of\nthe legislative act only.
\nIn order to properly include only non-essential\nelements and avoid ambiguity about the extent to which the\nCommission can adopt delegated acts that will affect essential\nelements such as the definition of products, Members propose\nto:
\n- limit the delegation of powers for:
\n- delete those provisions for delegated acts which\nrelate to technical elements that affect product descriptions,\ndefinitions, names or sales names, and characteristics.
\nThe report also proposes to limit the delegation to\na (renewable) 5-year period and to monitor the delegation of\npowers by requesting the Commission to report in this respect\nbefore the end of each 5-year period.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC as regards the powers to\nbe conferred on the Commission (delegated and implanting\nacts.)
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council
\nBACKGROUND: following entry into force of the Treaty\nof Lisbon, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) makes a\ndistinction between the powers delegated to the Commission\nto adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement\nor amend certain nonessential elements of the legislative act as\nlaid down in Article 290(1) of the Treaty (delegated acts),\nand the powers conferred upon the Commission to adopt uniform\nconditions for implementing legally binding Union acts as laid down\nin Article 291(2) of the Treaty (implementing\nacts).
\nThe aim is to align the existing Commission\nimplementing powers in Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC to the differentiation\nbetween delegated and implementing powers of the Commission\nintroduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning\nof the European Union (TFUE) and to confer additional delegated\npowers on the Commission.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: there was no need of impact\nassessment since the proposal is an inter-institutional matter that\nwill concern all Council and/or Council and European Parliament\nacts.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 43 and 114 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT : the proposal aims to identify the\ndelegated and implementing powers that should be conferred upon the\nCommission as regards Directives 1999/4/EC (relating to coffee\nextracts and chicory extracts), 2000/36/EC (relating to cocoa and\nchocolate products intended for human consumption), 2001/111/EC\n(relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption),\n2001/113/EC (relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and\nsweetened chestnut purée) and 2001/114/EC (relating to\ncertain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human\nconsumption) and establish the corresponding procedure for adoption\nof these acts in the new legal context determined by the entry into\nforce of Articles 290 and 291 of the TFUE.
\nThe proposal ensures that the Commission shall be\nempowered to adopt appropriate acts to amend the Annexes to take\naccount of the developments in relevant international\nstandards.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal has no implications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC as regards the powers to\nbe conferred on the Commission (delegated and implanting\nacts.)
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council
\nBACKGROUND: following entry into force of the Treaty\nof Lisbon, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) makes a\ndistinction between the powers delegated to the Commission\nto adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement\nor amend certain nonessential elements of the legislative act as\nlaid down in Article 290(1) of the Treaty (delegated acts),\nand the powers conferred upon the Commission to adopt uniform\nconditions for implementing legally binding Union acts as laid down\nin Article 291(2) of the Treaty (implementing\nacts).
\nThe aim is to align the existing Commission\nimplementing powers in Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC to the differentiation\nbetween delegated and implementing powers of the Commission\nintroduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning\nof the European Union (TFUE) and to confer additional delegated\npowers on the Commission.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: there was no need of impact\nassessment since the proposal is an inter-institutional matter that\nwill concern all Council and/or Council and European Parliament\nacts.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 43 and 114 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT : the proposal aims to identify the\ndelegated and implementing powers that should be conferred upon the\nCommission as regards Directives 1999/4/EC (relating to coffee\nextracts and chicory extracts), 2000/36/EC (relating to cocoa and\nchocolate products intended for human consumption), 2001/111/EC\n(relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption),\n2001/113/EC (relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and\nsweetened chestnut purée) and 2001/114/EC (relating to\ncertain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human\nconsumption) and establish the corresponding procedure for adoption\nof these acts in the new legal context determined by the entry into\nforce of Articles 290 and 291 of the TFUE.
\nThe proposal ensures that the Commission shall be\nempowered to adopt appropriate acts to amend the Annexes to take\naccount of the developments in relevant international\nstandards.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal has no implications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to amend Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC as regards the powers to\nbe conferred on the Commission (delegated and implanting\nacts.)
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council
\nBACKGROUND: following entry into force of the Treaty\nof Lisbon, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) makes a\ndistinction between the powers delegated to the Commission\nto adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement\nor amend certain nonessential elements of the legislative act as\nlaid down in Article 290(1) of the Treaty (delegated acts),\nand the powers conferred upon the Commission to adopt uniform\nconditions for implementing legally binding Union acts as laid down\nin Article 291(2) of the Treaty (implementing\nacts).
\nThe aim is to align the existing Commission\nimplementing powers in Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC,\n2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC to the differentiation\nbetween delegated and implementing powers of the Commission\nintroduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning\nof the European Union (TFUE) and to confer additional delegated\npowers on the Commission.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: there was no need of impact\nassessment since the proposal is an inter-institutional matter that\nwill concern all Council and/or Council and European Parliament\nacts.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Articles 43 and 114 of the Treaty on the\nFunctioning of the European Union.
\nCONTENT : the proposal aims to identify the\ndelegated and implementing powers that should be conferred upon the\nCommission as regards Directives 1999/4/EC (relating to coffee\nextracts and chicory extracts), 2000/36/EC (relating to cocoa and\nchocolate products intended for human consumption), 2001/111/EC\n(relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption),\n2001/113/EC (relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and\nsweetened chestnut purée) and 2001/114/EC (relating to\ncertain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human\nconsumption) and establish the corresponding procedure for adoption\nof these acts in the new legal context determined by the entry into\nforce of Articles 290 and 291 of the TFUE.
\nThe proposal ensures that the Commission shall be\nempowered to adopt appropriate acts to amend the Annexes to take\naccount of the developments in relevant international\nstandards.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the\nproposal has no implications for the EU budget.
\nThe Committee on the Environment, Public Health and\nFood Safety adopted the report by Matthias GROOTE (S&D, DE) on\nthe proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the\nCouncil amending Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC, 2001/111/EC,\n2001/113/EC and 2001/114/EC as regards the powers to be conferred\non the Commission.
\nThe committee recommends that the European\nParliament’s position adopted at first reading, following the\nordinary legislative procedure, should amend the Commission\nproposal.
\nThe new regulation seeks to allow the Commission to\namend, through delegated acts, the technical characteristics\nrelated to the product descriptions and definitions in the Annexes\nto Directives 1999/4/EC, 2000/36/EC, 2001/111/EC, 2001/113/EC and\n2001/114/EC.
\nMembers consider that this explicit delegation\nto amend characteristics that will affect the descriptions,\ndefinitions or names of products - which are essential elements of\nthe Directives – reaches beyond the scope of delegated\nacts according to Article 290 of the Treaty, which limits the\ndelegation to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of\nthe legislative act only.
\nIn order to properly include only non-essential\nelements and avoid ambiguity about the extent to which the\nCommission can adopt delegated acts that will affect essential\nelements such as the definition of products, Members propose\nto:
\n- limit the delegation of powers for:
\n- delete those provisions for delegated acts which\nrelate to technical elements that affect product descriptions,\ndefinitions, names or sales names, and characteristics.
\nThe report also proposes to limit the delegation to\na (renewable) 5-year period and to monitor the delegation of\npowers by requesting the Commission to report in this respect\nbefore the end of each 5-year period.
\nThe Committee on\nConstitutional Affairs adopted the report by Carlo CASINI (EPP, IT)\non the amendment of Parliament's Rules of Procedure following the\nestablishment by the European Parliament and the Commission of\na joint transparency register.
\nFollowing the ratification\nof the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament's powers have been strengthened\nand it is now co-legislator in almost all areas under the ordinary\nlegislative procedure. As a result, it is the focus of attention of\nan even larger number of lobbyists.
\nIn the light of these\ndevelopments and against this constitutional background, and in\nkeeping with their commitment to transparency, Parliament and the\nCommission have agreed to establish and maintain a joint register\nin order to keep a list of the names of and exercise scrutiny over\nthe organisations and individuals who take part in the drafting and\nimplementation of EU policies. The register will be established and\nkept on the basis of the existing arrangements introduced by\nParliament in 1996 and by the Commission in June 2008.
\nHaving regard to the\ndecision of the Conference of Presidents of 18 November 2010, the\ncommittee proposes to amend its Rules of Procedure as shown\nbelow:
\nThe European Parliament\ndecided to amend its Rules of Procedure following the establishment\nby the European Parliament and the Commission of a joint\ntransparency register.
\nThe main amendments are as\nfollows:
\nThe Committee on\nConstitutional Affairs adopted the report by Carlo CASINI (EPP, IT)\non the amendment of Parliament's Rules of Procedure following the\nestablishment by the European Parliament and the Commission of\na joint transparency register.
\nFollowing the ratification\nof the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament's powers have been strengthened\nand it is now co-legislator in almost all areas under the ordinary\nlegislative procedure. As a result, it is the focus of attention of\nan even larger number of lobbyists.
\nIn the light of these\ndevelopments and against this constitutional background, and in\nkeeping with their commitment to transparency, Parliament and the\nCommission have agreed to establish and maintain a joint register\nin order to keep a list of the names of and exercise scrutiny over\nthe organisations and individuals who take part in the drafting and\nimplementation of EU policies. The register will be established and\nkept on the basis of the existing arrangements introduced by\nParliament in 1996 and by the Commission in June 2008.
\nHaving regard to the\ndecision of the Conference of Presidents of 18 November 2010, the\ncommittee proposes to amend its Rules of Procedure as shown\nbelow:
\nThe European Parliament\ndecided to amend its Rules of Procedure following the establishment\nby the European Parliament and the Commission of a joint\ntransparency register.
\nThe main amendments are as\nfollows:
\nThe Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted the\nreport drafted by Carlo CASINI (EPP, IT) approving the conclusion\nof an interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament\nand the Commission on a common Transparency Register.
\nThe committee regards the agreement as an important\nfirst step towards greater transparency and intends to propose\nin due course that standards be raised so as to ensure the\nconsistent integrity of the public administration of the Union and\nthe strengthening of its institutional rules.
\nMembers are of the opinion that the agreement will\nprovide a strong incentive for registration since it will render it\nimpossible for anyone to procure a badge giving access to\nParliament without first registering. They repeat, however, their\ncall for the mandatory registration of all lobbyists on the\nTransparency Register and call for the necessary steps to be taken\nin the framework of the forthcoming review process in order to\nprepare for a transition to mandatory registration.
\nParliament retains its unfettered right to decide who\nshould be permitted to access its premises.
\nMembers welcome, in particular, the following aspects\ncontained in the agreement:
\nLastly, regretting that the Council has not yet become\na party to the agreement, Members call on the Council to join the\ncommon register as soon as possible.
\nThe European Parliament\napproved the conclusion of the interinstitutional agreement between\nthe European Parliament and the Commission on a common Transparency\nRegister.
\nMembers regards the\nagreement as an important first step towards greater\ntransparency and intend to propose in due course that standards\nbe raised so as to ensure the consistent integrity of the public\nadministration of the Union and the strengthening of its\ninstitutional rules.
\nParliament is of the\nopinion that the agreement will provide a strong incentive for\nregistration since it will render it impossible for anyone to\nprocure a badge giving access to Parliament without first\nregistering. It repeats, however, the call for the mandatory\nregistration of all lobbyists on the Transparency Register and\ncalls for the necessary steps to be taken in the framework of the\nforthcoming review process in order to prepare for a transition to\nmandatory registration.
\nParliament retains its\nunfettered right to decide who should be permitted to access its\npremises.
\nMembers welcome, in\nparticular, the following aspects contained in the\nagreement:
\nThe Bureau is requested to\ndevise a system whereby all lobbyists who fall within the\nscope of the register and who have obtained a meeting with a\nrelevant Member about a specific legislative dossier are recorded\nas having done so in the explanatory memorandum to the report or\nrecommendation relating to the relevant draft legislative\nact.
\nRegretting that the Council\nhas not yet become a party to the agreement, Members call on the\nCouncil to join the common register as soon as possible.
\nThe register shall include\nthe following:
\na) \na set of guidelines on: (i) the scope of the\nregister, eligible activities and exemptions; (ii) sections open to\nregistration (Annex 1); (iii) information required from\nregistrants, including the financial disclosure requirements (Annex\n2);
\nb) \na code of conduct (Annex 3);
\nc) \na complaint mechanism and measures to be applied\nin the event of non-compliance with the code of conduct, including\nthe procedure for the investigation and treatment of complaints\n(Annex 4).
\nThe scope of the\nregister covers all activities\ncarried out with the objective of directly or indirectly\ninfluencing the formulation or implementation of policy and the\ndecision-making processes of the EU institutions, irrespective of\nthe channel or medium of communication used, for example\noutsourcing, media, contracts with professional intermediaries,\nthink-tanks, platforms, forums, campaigns and grassroots\ninitiatives. These activities include, inter alia, contacting\nMembers, officials or other staff of the EU institutions,\npreparing, circulating and communicating letters, information\nmaterial or discussion papers and position papers, and organising\nevents, meetings or promotional activities and social events or\nconferences, invitations to which have been sent to Members,\nofficials or other staff of the EU institutions.
\nVoluntary contributions and\nparticipation in formal consultations on envisaged EU legislative\nor other legal acts and other open consultations are also\nincluded.
\nThe activities excluded\nfrom the scope of the register are as follows:
\nPURPOSE: to reach an\ninterinstitutional agreement on the establishment of a common\ntransparency register for European lobbyists.
\nINTERINSTITUTIONAL\nAGREEMENT: agreement between the European Parliament and the\nEuropean Commission on the establishment of a transparency register\nfor organisations and self-employed individuals engaged in EU\npolicy-making and policy implementation.
\nCONTENT: this text seeks to\nestablish a transparency register common to the three institutions\nfor the registration and monitoring of organisations and\nself-employed individuals engaged in EU policy-making and policy\nimplementation.
\nPrinciples of the\nregister: the establishment and\noperation of the register shall respect the general principles of\nUnion law, including the principles of proportionality and\nnon-discrimination. The establishment and operation of the register\nshall respect the rights of Members of the European Parliament to\nexercise their parliamentary mandate without restriction, and shall\nnot impede access for Members' constituents to the European\nParliament's premises. The establishment and operation of the\nregister shall not impinge on the competences or prerogatives of\nthe parties hereto or affect their respective organisational\npowers. The parties hereto shall strive to treat all operators\nengaged in similar activities in a similar manner, and to allow for\na level playing-field for the registration of lobbyists.
\nStructure of the\nregister: guidelines are laid down in\nregard to i)the scope of the register, eligible activities and\nexemptions; ii) sections open to registration; iii) information\nrequired from registrants, including the financial disclosure\nrequirements. The text also includes a specific code of conduct, as\nwell as a complaint mechanism and measures to be applied in the\nevent of non-compliance with the code of conduct.
\nScope of the\nregister: the scope of the register\ncovers all activities carried out with the objective of directly or\nindirectly influencing the formulation or implementation of policy\nand the decision-making processes of the EU\ninstitutions.
\nExcluded\nactivities: the following activities\nare excluded from the scope of the register: i) activities\nconcerning the provision of legal and other professional advice;\nii) activities of the social partners as participants in the social\ndialogue (trade unions, employers associations, etc.) when\nperforming the role assigned to them in the Treaties ; iii)\nactivities in response to direct and individual requests from EU\ninstitutions or Members of the European Parliament, such as ad hoc\nor regular requests for factual information, data or expertise\nand/or individualised invitations to attend public hearings or to\nparticipate in the workings of consultative committees or in any\nsimilar forums.
\nChurches and religious\ncommunities, political parties, and regional, local and municipal\nauthorities are not concerned by the register. However, networks,\nplatforms or other forms of collective activity which have no legal\nstatus or legal personality but which constitute de facto a source\nof organised influence and which are engaged in activities falling\nwithin the scope of the register are expected to\nregister.
\nBasic rules applicable\nto registrants: by registering,\norganisations and individuals concerned:
\nCode of\nconduct: non-compliance with the code\nof conduct by registrants or by their representatives may lead,\nfollowing an investigation paying due respect to the principle of\nproportionality and the right of defence, to the application of\nmeasures, such as suspension or removal from the register, and, if\napplicable, withdrawal of the badges affording access to the\nEuropean Parliament issued to the persons concerned and, if\nappropriate, their organisations.
\nGeneral\nprovisions: technical implementation\nmeasures are provided for. The Secretaries-General of the European\nParliament and the European Commission shall be responsible for\nsupervision of the system and for all key operational aspects. The\nissue and control of badges affording long-term access to the\nEuropean Parliament's buildings will remain a process operated by\nthat institution. Such badges will only be issued to individuals\nrepresenting, or working for, organisations falling within the\nscope of the register where those organisations or individuals have\nregistered. However, registration shall not confer an automatic\nentitlement to such a badge.
\nThe European Council and\nthe Council are invited to join the register. Other EU\ninstitutions, bodies and agencies are encouraged to use this system\nthemselves as a reference instrument for their own interaction with\nthe organisations and self-employed individuals\nconcerned.
\nFinal\nprovisions: the switchover from the\nexisting registers of the parties hereto to the new common register\nwill take place over a transition period of 12 months from the day\nof entry into operation of the common register.
\nOnce the common register\nhas entered into operation:
\nThe common register shall\nbe subject to review no later than 2 years following its entry into\noperation.
\nThe Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted the\nreport drafted by Carlo CASINI (EPP, IT) approving the conclusion\nof an interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament\nand the Commission on a common Transparency Register.
\nThe committee regards the agreement as an important\nfirst step towards greater transparency and intends to propose\nin due course that standards be raised so as to ensure the\nconsistent integrity of the public administration of the Union and\nthe strengthening of its institutional rules.
\nMembers are of the opinion that the agreement will\nprovide a strong incentive for registration since it will render it\nimpossible for anyone to procure a badge giving access to\nParliament without first registering. They repeat, however, their\ncall for the mandatory registration of all lobbyists on the\nTransparency Register and call for the necessary steps to be taken\nin the framework of the forthcoming review process in order to\nprepare for a transition to mandatory registration.
\nParliament retains its unfettered right to decide who\nshould be permitted to access its premises.
\nMembers welcome, in particular, the following aspects\ncontained in the agreement:
\nLastly, regretting that the Council has not yet become\na party to the agreement, Members call on the Council to join the\ncommon register as soon as possible.
\nThe European Parliament\napproved the conclusion of the interinstitutional agreement between\nthe European Parliament and the Commission on a common Transparency\nRegister.
\nMembers regards the\nagreement as an important first step towards greater\ntransparency and intend to propose in due course that standards\nbe raised so as to ensure the consistent integrity of the public\nadministration of the Union and the strengthening of its\ninstitutional rules.
\nParliament is of the\nopinion that the agreement will provide a strong incentive for\nregistration since it will render it impossible for anyone to\nprocure a badge giving access to Parliament without first\nregistering. It repeats, however, the call for the mandatory\nregistration of all lobbyists on the Transparency Register and\ncalls for the necessary steps to be taken in the framework of the\nforthcoming review process in order to prepare for a transition to\nmandatory registration.
\nParliament retains its\nunfettered right to decide who should be permitted to access its\npremises.
\nMembers welcome, in\nparticular, the following aspects contained in the\nagreement:
\nThe Bureau is requested to\ndevise a system whereby all lobbyists who fall within the\nscope of the register and who have obtained a meeting with a\nrelevant Member about a specific legislative dossier are recorded\nas having done so in the explanatory memorandum to the report or\nrecommendation relating to the relevant draft legislative\nact.
\nRegretting that the Council\nhas not yet become a party to the agreement, Members call on the\nCouncil to join the common register as soon as possible.
\nThe register shall include\nthe following:
\na) \na set of guidelines on: (i) the scope of the\nregister, eligible activities and exemptions; (ii) sections open to\nregistration (Annex 1); (iii) information required from\nregistrants, including the financial disclosure requirements (Annex\n2);
\nb) \na code of conduct (Annex 3);
\nc) \na complaint mechanism and measures to be applied\nin the event of non-compliance with the code of conduct, including\nthe procedure for the investigation and treatment of complaints\n(Annex 4).
\nThe scope of the\nregister covers all activities\ncarried out with the objective of directly or indirectly\ninfluencing the formulation or implementation of policy and the\ndecision-making processes of the EU institutions, irrespective of\nthe channel or medium of communication used, for example\noutsourcing, media, contracts with professional intermediaries,\nthink-tanks, platforms, forums, campaigns and grassroots\ninitiatives. These activities include, inter alia, contacting\nMembers, officials or other staff of the EU institutions,\npreparing, circulating and communicating letters, information\nmaterial or discussion papers and position papers, and organising\nevents, meetings or promotional activities and social events or\nconferences, invitations to which have been sent to Members,\nofficials or other staff of the EU institutions.
\nVoluntary contributions and\nparticipation in formal consultations on envisaged EU legislative\nor other legal acts and other open consultations are also\nincluded.
\nThe activities excluded\nfrom the scope of the register are as follows:
\nPURPOSE: to reach an\ninterinstitutional agreement on the establishment of a common\ntransparency register for European lobbyists.
\nINTERINSTITUTIONAL\nAGREEMENT: agreement between the European Parliament and the\nEuropean Commission on the establishment of a transparency register\nfor organisations and self-employed individuals engaged in EU\npolicy-making and policy implementation.
\nCONTENT: this text seeks to\nestablish a transparency register common to the three institutions\nfor the registration and monitoring of organisations and\nself-employed individuals engaged in EU policy-making and policy\nimplementation.
\nPrinciples of the\nregister: the establishment and\noperation of the register shall respect the general principles of\nUnion law, including the principles of proportionality and\nnon-discrimination. The establishment and operation of the register\nshall respect the rights of Members of the European Parliament to\nexercise their parliamentary mandate without restriction, and shall\nnot impede access for Members' constituents to the European\nParliament's premises. The establishment and operation of the\nregister shall not impinge on the competences or prerogatives of\nthe parties hereto or affect their respective organisational\npowers. The parties hereto shall strive to treat all operators\nengaged in similar activities in a similar manner, and to allow for\na level playing-field for the registration of lobbyists.
\nStructure of the\nregister: guidelines are laid down in\nregard to i)the scope of the register, eligible activities and\nexemptions; ii) sections open to registration; iii) information\nrequired from registrants, including the financial disclosure\nrequirements. The text also includes a specific code of conduct, as\nwell as a complaint mechanism and measures to be applied in the\nevent of non-compliance with the code of conduct.
\nScope of the\nregister: the scope of the register\ncovers all activities carried out with the objective of directly or\nindirectly influencing the formulation or implementation of policy\nand the decision-making processes of the EU\ninstitutions.
\nExcluded\nactivities: the following activities\nare excluded from the scope of the register: i) activities\nconcerning the provision of legal and other professional advice;\nii) activities of the social partners as participants in the social\ndialogue (trade unions, employers associations, etc.) when\nperforming the role assigned to them in the Treaties ; iii)\nactivities in response to direct and individual requests from EU\ninstitutions or Members of the European Parliament, such as ad hoc\nor regular requests for factual information, data or expertise\nand/or individualised invitations to attend public hearings or to\nparticipate in the workings of consultative committees or in any\nsimilar forums.
\nChurches and religious\ncommunities, political parties, and regional, local and municipal\nauthorities are not concerned by the register. However, networks,\nplatforms or other forms of collective activity which have no legal\nstatus or legal personality but which constitute de facto a source\nof organised influence and which are engaged in activities falling\nwithin the scope of the register are expected to\nregister.
\nBasic rules applicable\nto registrants: by registering,\norganisations and individuals concerned:
\nCode of\nconduct: non-compliance with the code\nof conduct by registrants or by their representatives may lead,\nfollowing an investigation paying due respect to the principle of\nproportionality and the right of defence, to the application of\nmeasures, such as suspension or removal from the register, and, if\napplicable, withdrawal of the badges affording access to the\nEuropean Parliament issued to the persons concerned and, if\nappropriate, their organisations.
\nGeneral\nprovisions: technical implementation\nmeasures are provided for. The Secretaries-General of the European\nParliament and the European Commission shall be responsible for\nsupervision of the system and for all key operational aspects. The\nissue and control of badges affording long-term access to the\nEuropean Parliament's buildings will remain a process operated by\nthat institution. Such badges will only be issued to individuals\nrepresenting, or working for, organisations falling within the\nscope of the register where those organisations or individuals have\nregistered. However, registration shall not confer an automatic\nentitlement to such a badge.
\nThe European Council and\nthe Council are invited to join the register. Other EU\ninstitutions, bodies and agencies are encouraged to use this system\nthemselves as a reference instrument for their own interaction with\nthe organisations and self-employed individuals\nconcerned.
\nFinal\nprovisions: the switchover from the\nexisting registers of the parties hereto to the new common register\nwill take place over a transition period of 12 months from the day\nof entry into operation of the common register.
\nOnce the common register\nhas entered into operation:
\nThe common register shall\nbe subject to review no later than 2 years following its entry into\noperation.
\nPURPOSE: to lay down provisions to label tyres with\nrespect to fuel efficiency and other essential\nparameters.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nCONTENT: with as much as 23% of total\nCO2 emissions coming\nfrom road transport, reducing vehicles' energy intensity and\nemissions is a major challenge for the EU. The Energy\nEfficiency Action Plan underlined the possibility of achieving\nthe 20% energy saving potential by 2020 by presenting a list of\ntargeted actions including the labelling of tyres.
\nTyres can play a significant part\nin reducing transport energy intensity and emissions since they\naccount for 20% to 30% of vehicles' total fuel consumption. This\nproportion of fuel is used to overcome rolling resistance (RR) due\nmainly to \"hysteretic loss\" (loss of energy through the heating and\ndeformation of the wheels while rolling). New technologies make it\npossible to reduce RR, so that it currently varies by up to 100%\nacross all tyre categories. For passenger cars, for instance, this\nmeans a difference of up to 10% in fuel consumption between the\nworst- and the best-performing tyre set.
\nStudies show that fuel efficient\ntyres are cost-effective: the price differential of better\nperforming tyres will be compensated by savings over their\nlifetime. There is therefore a direct interest for tyre purchasers\nto reduce their fuel bill and for society as a whole to reduce\nemissions due to road transport. The impact at EU level could be\nimpressive; the external study conducted within the impact\nassessment identified a savings potential of from 0.56 to 1.51 Mtoe\nper year depending on the speed of market transformation. This is\nequivalent to removing 0.5 million to 1.3 million passenger cars\nfrom EU roads (or 3% to 8% of new passenger cars\nregistered).
\nIn addition, tyre performances\nare interrelated, so that acting on one parameter, such as energy\nefficiency, may have an adverse impact on other parameters, such as\nwet grip, whereas optimising wet grip may have an adverse impact on\nexternal rolling noise. A labelling scheme for tyres at EU level\naims to respond to the suboptimal market transformation towards\nfuel efficient tyres arising from lack of information. It would\nallow consumers to make an informed choice, give incentives to tyre\nmanufacturers to upgrade their products and contribute to\nawareness-raising. Market surveys have also shown that consumers\nwould be interested in buying fuel-efficient tyres.
\nThe proposal on tyre labelling is\npart of an integrated approach to reduce fuel consumption and\nemissions in road transport.
\nDirected at the demand side, it\nwill complement the type-approval legislation on tyres which\naddresses the supply side by means of minimum requirements. The\nminimum requirements governing rolling resistance, wet grip and\nexternal rolling noise scheduled to take effect by October 2012 in\nthe proposal for a Regulation on the general safety of motor\nvehicles will guarantee a standard level of tyre quality, while\nfurther improvements above these levels will be driven by the\nlabelling scheme. In a context of increased competition on the tyre\nmarket, it will introduce a level playing field for all; with the\npossibility for producers to benefit from product differentiation\nso that competition will not only be based on prices but also on\nproduct quality. It is also likely to decrease the entry barriers\nfor new entrants based on reputation. The industry will, for its\npart, receive more return on its R&D investment since consumers\nand end-users will have access to objective, reliable and\ncomparable information on tyre parameters.
\nThe labelling proposal follows an integrated approach\non tyres which will ensure that standardised information is\nsupplied not only on fuel efficiency but also on wet grip and\nexternal rolling noise, so that consumers and end-users can make an\ninformed choice. The aim is to promote, through the operation of\nmarket forces, dynamic improvement of all parameters beyond the\nminimum requirements set for type approval (the procedure which\ngrants access to the EU market).
\nMore specifically, this proposal concerns creating a\nlabelling scheme for tyre parameters including fuel efficiency, wet\ngrip and external rolling noise, addressing C1, C2 and C3 tyres\n(tyres fitted on passenger cars, light- and heavy-duty vehicles).\nIt will provide harmonised and easy-to-understand information to\nconsumers, companies and retailers by grading tyre performance\ncharacteristics. It will guarantee that the information is made\navailable to end-users via different media (e.g. electronic,\ncatalogues, stickers).
\nThe proposal is in line with the revised\nCommission strategy on CO2 from passenger cars and light\ncommercial vehicles and the input from the CARS\n21 high-level group. This strategy is based on an integrated\napproach for achieving the 120g/km CO2 target by 2012.
\nThe Committee on Industry, Research and Energy adopted\nthe report drawn up by Ivo BELET (EPP-ED, BE) amending, under the\nfirst reading of the codecision procedure, the proposal for a\ndirective of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nlabelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other\nessential parameters.
\nThe main amendments are as follows:
\nRegulation: according to\nMEPs, a regulation should logically be chosen as an instrument,\ninstead of a directive. This should ensure a standard level of tyre\nquality. The regulation vouches directly for the provisions with\nreference to the labelling obligations, as transposition into\nnational right is not required.
\nSavings calculator: in\norder to increase understanding and awareness about rolling\nresistance, a fuel savings calculator, such as that which already\nexists for C3 tyres, would serve as a meaningful tool to\ndemonstrate potential savings of fuel, money and\nCO2.
\nSnow tyres and Nordic winter tyres: snow tyres and Nordic winter tyres have specific\nparameters that are not fully comparable to normal tyres. In order\nto ensure that end-users make fair and informed decisions, the\nparameters of these tyres should be displayed in a way that puts\nthem on an equal footing with normal tyres.
\nTyrelabelling\nwebsite: according to MEPs, potential\npurchasers should be provided with supplementary standardised\ninformation which explains each of the components of the label -\nfuel efficiency, wet grip and noise emissions. This information\nshould be provided on the EU tyre labelling website, a central\nonline source of explanatory and supplementary information\nadministered by the Commission, regarding each of the components of\nthe tyre label and including a fuel savings calculator. The\nCommission shall establish and administer this website no later\nthan September 2010. Explanatory leaflets and posters with the same\ncore content as the website shall be distributed to points of sale\nfor tyres and vehicles.
\nInforming the public:\nsuppliers shall present measured values from the type approval test\nwith regard to the rolling resistance coefficient, wet grip index\nand noise emissions in a publicly available database. Moreover,\nsuppliers shall present measured values from the type approval test\nmoulded into or onto each sidewall for each model.
\nTesting methods: on\ngrounds of road safety and consumer protection the harmonised\ntesting methods must be implemented under the same conditions as\nthose applying during actual use.
\nVerification procedure:\nto give legal certainty to car- and tyre manufacturers, it has to\nbe clear that controls should not lead to Member States blocking\ntype approved cars and tyres from free circulation in the\nEU.
\nInspections: Member\nStates shall ensure that the competent authorities establish a\nsystem of routine and non-routine inspections of points of sale for\nthe purpose of ensuring compliance with the requirements of this\nRegulation.
\nImplementation and penalties: to ensure a level playing field for all tyre\nmanufacturers, both within the Community and vis-à-vis their\ninternational competitors, MEPs believe that it is of the utmost\nimportance that the provisions of this Regulation will be\nvigorously enforced in each and every Member State. To this end,\nMember States shall, by means of a continuous exchange of\ninformation, ensure close cooperation in market supervision. They\nshall take appropriate measures for regular ex-post controls in\norder to ensure that tyres which are not duly labelled are brought\ninto conformity or taken off the market. They shall also introduce\nmeasures laying down sanctions for infringements of the provisions\nof this Regulation.
\nMember States should strive, in implementing the\nrelevant provisions of this Regulation, to refrain from measures\nthat impose unjustified, bureaucratic and unwieldy obligations on\nsmall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
\nAccording to MEPs, tyre manufacturers, suppliers and\ndistributors should be encouraged to comply with the provisions of\nthis Regulation before 2012 to speed up the recognition of the\nscheme and realisation of its benefits.
\nReview: not later than\nthree years after the date of application of this Regulation, the\nCommission shall review its application, considering inter alia:\n(a) the effectiveness of the label in terms of consumer awareness;\n(b) whether the labelling scheme should be extended to include\nretreaded tyres; (c) whether new tyre parameters or classes should\nbe introduced; (d) the information on tyre parameters provided by\nvehicle suppliers and distributors to end-users.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 642 votes to 23,\nwith 8 abstentions, a legislative resolution amending, under the\nfirst reading of the codecision procedure, the proposal for a\ndirective of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nlabelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other\nessential parameters.
\nThe main amendments are as follows:
\nAdopting a Regulation:\nMEPs recommend choosing a Regulation as the instrument, instead of\na Directive. That should ensure a standard level of tyre\nquality.
\nSavings calculator: in\norder to increase understanding and awareness about rolling\nresistance, a fuel savings calculator, such as that which already\nexists for C3 tyres, would serve as a meaningful tool to\ndemonstrate potential savings of fuel, money and CO2.
\nSnow tyres and Nordic winter tyres: snow tyres and Nordic winter tyres have specific\nparameters that are not fully comparable to normal tyres. In order\nto ensure that end-users make fair and informed decisions, the\nparameters of these tyres should be displayed in a way that puts\nthem on an equal footing with normal tyres.
\nTyrelabelling\nwebsite: according to MEPs, potential\npurchasers should be provided with supplementary standardised\ninformation which explains each of the components of the label -\nfuel efficiency, wet grip and noise emissions. The Commission shall\nestablish and administer, no later than September 2010, the \"EU\ntyre labelling website\" as a reference source of explanatory\ninformation for each component of the label. The website shall\ninclude:
\nThis information should also be provided on\nexplanatory leaflets and posters at all points of sale.
\nInforming the public:\nsuppliers shall ensure that C1 and C2 tyres delivered to\ndistributors or end-users are supplied with a label to be displayed\nby any means or by a sticker on the tyre tread, indicating the fuel\nefficiency and wet grip class and the external rolling noise\nmeasured value. For C2 and C3 tyres, the measured rolling\nresistance coefficient shall also be stated.
\nMoreover, suppliers shall present measured values from\nthe type approval test with regard to the rolling resistance\ncoefficient (expressed in kg/t), wet grip index (expressed as a\nperformance index, G, compared to the standard reference tyre) and\nnoise emissions (expressed in dB) in a publicly available\ndatabase.
\nResponsibilities of vehicle suppliers and vehicle\ndistributors: where end-users are\noffered a choice between different tyre types to be fitted on a new\nvehicle, one of the following points shall apply:
\n\n(a) where end-users are offered a choice between\ndifferent tyre/rim sizes but not between other parameters of the\ntyre type, the information shall mention for each tyre/rim size the\nlowest fuel efficiency class, wet grip class and highest external\nrolling noise measured value of all tyre types within this tyre/rim\nsize;
\n\n(b) except in cases covered by point (a), the\ninformation shall mention the fuel efficiency class, wet grip class\nand external rolling noise measured value of all tyre types which\nmay be chosen by the end-user.
\nTesting methods: the\nharmonised tests shall provide end-users with a reliable and fully\nrepresentative ranking of the characteristics tested.
\nVerification procedure:\nto give legal certainty to car- and tyre manufacturers, it has to\nbe clear that controls should not lead to Member States blocking\ntype approved cars and tyres from free circulation in the\nEU.
\nInspections: Member\nStates shall ensure that the competent authorities establish a\nsystem of routine and non-routine inspections of points of sale for\nthe purpose of ensuring compliance with the requirements of this\nRegulation.
\nImplementation and penalties: to ensure a level playing field for all tyre\nmanufacturers, both within the Community and vis-à-vis their\ninternational competitors, MEPs believe that it is of the utmost\nimportance that the provisions of this Regulation be vigorously\nenforced in each and every Member State. To this end, Member States\nshall, by means of a continuous exchange of information, ensure\nclose cooperation in market supervision. They shall take\nappropriate measures for regular ex-post controls in order to\nensure that tyres which are not duly labelled are brought into\nconformity or taken off the market. They shall also introduce\nmeasures laying down sanctions for infringements of the provisions\nof this Regulation.
\nMember States should strive, in implementing the\nrelevant provisions of this Regulation, to refrain from measures\nthat impose unjustified, bureaucratic and unwieldy obligations on\nsmall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
\nAccording to MEPs, tyre manufacturers, suppliers and\ndistributors should be encouraged to comply with the provisions of\nthis Regulation before 2012 to speed up the recognition of the\nscheme and realisation of its benefits.
\nReview: not later than\nthree years after the date of application of this Regulation, the\nCommission shall review its application, considering inter alia:\n(a) the effectiveness of the label in terms of consumer awareness;\n(b) whether the labelling scheme should be extended to include\nretreaded tyres; (c) whether new tyre parameters or classes should\nbe introduced; (d) the information on tyre parameters provided by\nvehicle suppliers and distributors to end-users.
\nThe Commission shall, on the basis of this review and\nafter an impact assessment and a consumer survey, submit a report\nto the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied if\nappropriate, by a proposal for amendment of this\nRegulation.
\nTransposition: this\nRegulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following\nthat of its publication in the Official Journal of the European\nUnion and shall apply from 1 November 2012. However, Articles\n4 (responsibilities of tyre suppliers) and 5 (responsibilities of\ntyre distributors) shall not apply to tyres produced before\n1 July 2012.
\nThe Commission's amended proposal incorporates the\nmajority of amendments proposed by the European Parliament at its\nfirst reading, along with technical improvements that are necessary\nfor changing the format from a Directive into a\nRegulation.
\nThe main amendments of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nFormat of the proposal:this has been changed from a Directive to a\nRegulation. Taking into account that a\nRegulation will reduce transposal costs and ensure that the\napplication date of the labelling scheme applies to all\nstakeholders at the same time, the Commission acknowledges this\nchange.
\nScope of application and other general\nprovisions
\nResponsibilities of suppliers and\ndistributors
\nCompliance with information requirements
\nComitology and Review
\nDate of application
\nThe Council adopted unanimously its common position\nwith a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European\nParliament and of the Council on labelling of tyres with respect to\nfuel efficiency and other essential parameters.
\nConcerning the 42 amendments adopted by the European\nParliament, the Council has followed the Commission in accepting 28\namendments in part or in their entirety.
\nWith respect to Parliament concerns regarding the\nfuel savings calculator and Commission website (4\namendments), which should help to ensure proper visibility and\ncomprehension of the proposed labelling scheme for tyres, the\nintention is to have them addressed by a statement by the\nCommission when the legislative act is adopted. The Council also\nrejected 4 amendments on grounds of substance and/or of\nform.
\nRegarding the European Parliament amendments where\nthe Council has deviated from the Commission position, the Council\nhas accepted 4 amendments on the following grounds:
\n\n· \na recital encourages tyre manufactures to\noptimise all parameters beyond the standards already\nachieved;
\n