European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

The 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) was agreed in 2013, during the previous terms of office of the European Parliament and European Commission. Negotiated against a background of economic downturn and fiscal constraints in the Member States, the 2014-2020 MFF was the first to have lower resources than the previous framework (2007-2013). The Parliament, therefore, made its consent to the MFF Regulation conditional on the inclusion of an obligatory mid-term review and revision, so as to enable the new institutions elected in 2014 to assess the implementation of the programmes and adjust the spending priorities to the new challenges. Moreover, the Parliament demanded increased flexibility of the MFF in order to encourage full use of available funds, and improve the EU budget’s ability to react to unforeseen crises and needs. As a result of intensive negotiations, additional provisions making the MFF more flexible were introduced and the compulsory review/revision was stipulated in the legislation. The Parliament gave its consent to the MFF Regulation, but expressed concern that the overall ceilings set by the European Council were low and might not be sufficient to endow the EU with the necessary means to achieve its objectives.

Very early on, the Parliament’s concerns proved to be right. Already in the first two years of the implementation of the 2014-2020 MFF, the need for funding increased dramatically. The EU had to tackle a number of unforeseen challenges, such as the migration and refugee crisis, internal security threats, persistently low level of investment, high youth unemployment, crisis in agriculture, as well as growing pressure on neighbourhood policies and actions in the field of environment policy. In addition, the EU budget had to absorb the abnormal backlog of payments that had built up since 2011. As a consequence, the expenditure ceilings for several headings were pushed to their limits and special ‘last-resort’ flexibility instruments had to be mobilised. The scale of the challenges and their budgetary consequences raised questions about the smooth functioning of the MFF through to 2020.

Given the exceptionally difficult circumstances, the European Parliament was determined to use its power of consent in the legislative procedure and ensure that the opportunity to adjust the MFF, created by the provisions on the mid-term review/revision, was not missed. In an own-inititiave resolution adopted ahead of the Commission’s proposal, the Parliament assessed the first years of functioning of the MFF and concluded that a genuine revision of the 2014-2020 MFF was absolutely indispensable. In particular, Parliament’s requests for the second half of the MFF included the provision of additional resources in key areas of concern, such as competitiveness for growth and jobs, research, internal security and migration; and the strengthening of flexibility provisions and special instruments in order to enable full use of available MFF resources and increase the EU capacity to react to unforeseen challenges.

Subsequently, the Parliament’s assessment of the situation and the changes it demanded were to a large extent reflected in the European Commission’s MFF review and in the subsequent package of legislative and budgetary proposals, including the proposal for the MFF revision. The compromise on the package, reached after the interinstitutional negotiations in early spring 2017, was approved on 5 April 2017. The Council formally adopted the mid-term revision on 20 June 2017.[7]

As a result, a series of changes were introduced to strengthen the capacity of the MFF to react to unforeseen events and to further orient the EU budget towards growth and jobs, and address the migration crisis. The revised MFF increased the resources in the EU priority areas by some €6 billion for the years 2017-2020 without modifying the MFF ceilings. The top-ups would finance the EU actions aimed at job creation and growth (€2.7 billion) and the actions addressing migration, security and external border control (€3.93 billion). The additional resources would stimulate such programmes as Horizon 2020, the Connecting Europe Facility, the Youth Employment Initiative, Erasmus+, the COSME programme for small and medium-sized enterprises, Wifi4EU and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).

As emphasised by Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), co-rapporteur for the procedure, the European Parliament ‘rightly advocated a revision of the multiannual financial framework to meet new challenges the European Union is facing.’ According to him, the revised MFF would guarantee a better budgetary system for the remaining years of the framework, more room for manoeuvre to respond to new challenges, and extra resources for some EU programmes. The other co-rapporteur on the file, Isabelle Thomas (S&D, France), also welcomed the revision as a step in the right direction but stressed that ‘it should have gone even further, which we will endeavour to do in the future budget negotiations’, insisting that efforts would be made to go even further in future budget negotiations.

Budgetary powers

a mapping of EP powers

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are the two arms of the EU budgetary authority. However, their powers differ in the various pieces of legislation underpinning the EU finances system. The legislative powers of the Parliament with regard to the EU budget vary depending on whether it is acting in the context of the annual budgetary procedure, the decision on the design of the EU own resources system or the establishment of a multiannual financial framework (MFF). The Parliament also has powers of scrutiny of the implementation of the budget and is discharge authority.

For the annual budgetary procedure, the European Parliament acts on an equal footing with the Council. The decision on the design of the own resources system requires the unanimity of the Member States in the Council after obtaining the opinion of the European Parliament. In order to adopt the regulation on the MFF, the Council must obtain the European Parliament’s consent beforehand, while the Parliament gives discharge on the implementation of the annual budget after obtaining the recommendation of the Council. Finally, the European Parliament, together with the Council, and in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, decides about the principles and rules governing the establishment, implementation and control of the EU budget. These are included in a regulation known as the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union.

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

The principles of sound financial management, regularity and legality of budget implementation have been present in the EU legal and financial system since the earliest days of the European Communities. Considering EU spending in terms of the European added value, performance, results achieved and impact, on the other hand, has become prominent only comparatively recently. A radical turn towards performance-oriented EU finances was triggered by the financial crisis that hit Europe in 2008. In the context of shrinking public finances and austerity measures applied in many EU Member States, increased attention had to be paid to the added value and impact of EU spending. Since then, much has been done to make the EU financial system more performance-oriented, to measure the results and communicate them to the public and the decision-makers.

The European Parliament has been actively promoting these concepts and on many occasions called for a more consistent and coordinated approach to results-based planning, spending, evaluating and reporting. Its engagement in the promotion of European added value and performance-based budgeting has been particularly visible in the works of the Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) and instrumental in the procedure of the annual decision on budgetary discharge.

In the context of the procedure, the European Parliament has often insisted that the implementation of the EU budget should focus on results and achieving broader positive outcomes and that the structure of the EU budget should be modified to provide for measuring progress and performance. The Parliament cooperated with the European Commission and the Court of Auditors to introduce different measures to strengthen the result-based EU budget. Consequently, while maintaining high standards of scrutiny of the regularity and legality of budget implementation, the discharge procedure has clearly shifted towards performance culture, analysing information on budgetary performance and the objectives achieved. This is reflected in a number of discharge-related documents.

The European Parliament’s strong position on the matter has triggered many changes and initiatives. It was at the request of the Parliament that the Interinstitutional Working Group on Performance-Based Budgeting was established in 2015 and launched its work in 2016. The Group was composed of representatives of the institutions involved in the budgetary process (the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Court of Auditors) and focused on identifying possible improvements in the performance budgeting approach already applied in the EU financial system.

The Parliament supported the European Commission’s initiative ‘Budget Focused on Results’. Introduced in 2015, the initiative forms a set of actions in areas where the Commission is determined to increase the focus on results. It aims at introducing performance budgeting in the EU budget in a more regular and coordinated manner.

The Parliament, along with the European Court of Auditors, called for improved quality of reporting documents produced by the Commission in the budgetary cycle. The changes introduced as a result have helped to develop a comprehensive financial reporting package on performance and results from the Commission to the budgetary authority.

An important opportunity to strengthen the result-based approach to EU spending was the revision of the financial rules applicable to the EU budget, known as the Financial Regulation. The new regulation, approved by the European Parliament and the Council in July 2018, includes a series of measures aimed at focusing the budget more clearly on results, improving the performance framework, enhancing transparency and streamlining reporting.

The Parliament continues to promote principles aimed at sound financial management and performance of the EU budget. In its position on the 2021-2027 MFF, it underlines that increased performance-based budgeting, the focus of future spending on results, based on ambitious and relevant performance targets and a comprehensive and shared definition of European added value, must underpin the next MFF.

Budgetary powers

a mapping of EP powers

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are the two arms of the EU budgetary authority. However, their powers differ in the various pieces of legislation underpinning the EU finances system. The legislative powers of the Parliament with regard to the EU budget vary depending on whether it is acting in the context of the annual budgetary procedure, the decision on the design of the EU own resources system or the establishment of a multiannual financial framework (MFF). The Parliament also has powers of scrutiny of the implementation of the budget and is discharge authority.

For the annual budgetary procedure, the European Parliament acts on an equal footing with the Council. The decision on the design of the own resources system requires the unanimity of the Member States in the Council after obtaining the opinion of the European Parliament. In order to adopt the regulation on the MFF, the Council must obtain the European Parliament’s consent beforehand, while the Parliament gives discharge on the implementation of the annual budget after obtaining the recommendation of the Council. Finally, the European Parliament, together with the Council, and in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, decides about the principles and rules governing the establishment, implementation and control of the EU budget. These are included in a regulation known as the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union.

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

The European Parliament has traditionally been very supportive of EU funding for employment-related programmes. On different occasions, it has expressed concerns about the level of unemployment among young people, calling for the European youth strategy and concrete actions, endowed with adequate financial resources. This view was reiterated in its negotiating positions for each annual budget in the current multiannual financial framework (MFF, 2014-2020). Every year since 2014, the fight against youth unemployment has been one of the top budgetary priorities for the European Parliament. This priority was translated each time into concrete actions and expressed in the Parliament’s financial demands for adequate resources for the purpose.

One of the most important examples of this is the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). Launched in 2014 as part of the agreement on the 2014-2020 MFF, the initiative supports young people living in areas with youth unemployment rates higher than 25 %. It finances the provision of apprenticeships, traineeships, job placements and further education leading to qualifications. Initially planned for the period 2014-2016, its financing was prolonged until 2020.

The Parliament closely followed the implementation and achievements of the initiative. In its position on the 2016 budget, it decided to propose new commitments in 2016 for the continuation of the YEI, whose entire financial envelope was frontloaded in the years 2014-2015. It acknowledged the significant contribution of the YEI to the fight against unemployment and recalled its determination to ensure that the necessary appropriations are made available in order to prevent a funding gap in its implementation. In its resolution on the 2017 budget, it insisted on the need to provide an effective response to youth unemployment across the Union and proposed to increase the YEI by an additional €1 500 million in commitment appropriations to enable its continuation. In the position on the 2018 budget, it decided to reinforce the YEI beyond the level proposed by the Commission. The commitment appropriations totalled €350 million, in line with the Parliament’s reading of the budget and up from the €233.3 million initially proposed by the Commission. Finally, in the negotiations on the EU annual budget for 2019, Parliament stressed that young people are the most at risk of poverty and social and economic exclusion and decided again to reinforce the YEI beyond the level proposed by the Commission. As a result of the Parliament’s efforts, the Commission’s proposed allocation, confirmed in the Council’s position and amounting to €233.3 million, was significantly increased to €580 million.

On the basis of YEI results (around 1.6 million young people included in supported measures by the end of 2016) and in view of the persisting challenges, the mid-term revision of the MFF endowed the YEI with a specific allocation of €1.2 billion (and a corresponding amount from the ESF) for the 2017-2020 period. The continuation of YEI was strongly supported by the Parliament and agreed in the framework of the mid-term revision of the MFF in 2017.

Budgetary powers

a mapping of EP powers

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are the two arms of the EU budgetary authority. However, their powers differ in the various pieces of legislation underpinning the EU finances system. The legislative powers of the Parliament with regard to the EU budget vary depending on whether it is acting in the context of the annual budgetary procedure, the decision on the design of the EU own resources system or the establishment of a multiannual financial framework (MFF). The Parliament also has powers of scrutiny of the implementation of the budget and is discharge authority.

For the annual budgetary procedure, the European Parliament acts on an equal footing with the Council. The decision on the design of the own resources system requires the unanimity of the Member States in the Council after obtaining the opinion of the European Parliament. In order to adopt the regulation on the MFF, the Council must obtain the European Parliament’s consent beforehand, while the Parliament gives discharge on the implementation of the annual budget after obtaining the recommendation of the Council. Finally, the European Parliament, together with the Council, and in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, decides about the principles and rules governing the establishment, implementation and control of the EU budget. These are included in a regulation known as the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union.

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

Development cooperation has been a cornerstone of the EU’s relations with the outside world, contributing to the objectives of EU external action, alongside foreign, security and trade policies. The European Parliament is at the forefront of steering these efforts, especially through its role as the budgetary authority. The EU also recognises that a country’s security is a prerequisite for development.

Consequently, capacity building – including institution building, security sector reform and human capability development – has become a key element in the support the EU offers to non-EU countries. The European Parliament has insisted, however, that capacity building, especially for the military of non-EU countries, should not come at the expense of development assistance in the traditional sense.

The Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) was established in 2014 to make funding available for crisis response, conflict prevention, peace-building and crisis preparedness, and to address global and trans-regional threats. Funding for the IcSP comes from the EU budget. In accordance with the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 (MFF), €2.3 billion was allocated to the IcSP, under Heading IV of the MFF (Global Europe). Under the same Heading IV, €19.6 billion was allocated to the Instrument for Development Cooperation (DCI).

In July 2016, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation amending the IcSP, to be endowed with an additional budget of €100 million. The proposal aimed to adapt the IcSP, mainly to strengthen the EU’s role as a security provider, by introducing new funding opportunities for military capacity-building in third countries, in the form of training, infrastructure and equipment. Funding for these new measures was to come from redeployment of funds under Heading IV of the MFF 2014-2020.

The file was assigned to the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), with an opinion from the Committee on Development (DEVE). The latter insisted in particular that the proposed assistance to build the capacity of military actors in partner countries should not come from funds allocated to development assistance. An amendment to this effect, together with one on monitoring of the use of the instrument and reporting to the European Parliament, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament and successfully defended in trilogue negotiations. As a result, the Council and the Commission agreed not to use appropriations allocated to the DCI to finance the capacity building in support of development and security for development foreseen under Regulation 2017/2306. An interinstitutional declaration to that effect also appears in the annex to Regulation 2017/2306. Another Parliament amendment, concerning monitoring of the use of the instrument and reporting to the European Parliament, was also successfully included in the final act.

The adoption of an instrument providing funding opportunities for military capacity-building in third countries marked an important step for the EU in general, and for the European Parliament in particular, especially given its calls for more efficient and effective EU external action in the context of addressing conflict, and for enhanced capacities in the security sector as a vital contribution to the goal of sustainable development. EU law prohibits the EU budget from being used to provide direct (lethal) military assistance. But the provision of assistance in the form of military capacity-building already marks a first step in the EU’s evolving security policy.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

In April 2016, after five years of legislative work and lengthy negotiations, the co-legislators adopted the Directive on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. The adoption took place on the same day as that of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Police Directive, as insisted on by the European Parliament in order to ensure that data protection safeguards included in the PNR Directive were in line with the new data protection rules.

‘Passenger name record’ (PNR) is information on passengers collected by air carriers for operational purposes. It can include data related to the identity of a person (name, surname, date of birth, nationality, gender, contact details, etc.) and to their travel (itinerary, date of travel/reservation, number of passengers in the same reservation, payment details), but may also contain more sensitive information such as type of meal ordered on board or medical information.

PNR data is considered a valuable tool for combating terrorism and other forms of serious crime, as it allows law enforcement authorities to conduct analysis in order to identify possible high-risk individuals. However, the processing of PNR data for law enforcement purposes interferes with a number of rights, especially those regarding privacy and data protection, enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and must thus respect the principle of proportionality, i.e. to ‘genuinely meet objectives of general interest’.

The EU PNR Directive was proposed by the European Commission in 2011, with the aim of establishing EU-wide rules for the use of PNR data for security purposes. Under the Commission proposal, airlines should transfer PNR data of passengers of extra-EU flights to the competent authorities of the Member State in which the flight will land or from which it will depart. Member States should create dedicated ‘Passenger Information Units’ to store and analyse data. In 2013, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) voted to reject the draft directive, on the basis of privacy and proportionality concerns. However, a few months later, Parliament decided in plenary to refer the file back to committee in order to find a compromise. In 2015, in the context of a growing terrorist threat, the LIBE Committee adopted its second report. The interinstitutional trilogue negotiations were concluded in the same year.

Throughout the legislative process, the European Parliament sought to ensure that the future directive would comply with the proportionality principle and contain strong data protection safeguards. The majority of its proposals were taken on board. The Parliament managed to strike a compromise on the data retention period – data will be stored for a period of six months (instead of two years proposed by the Council) and then up to five years in ‘masked-out’ form.

Several data protection safeguards have been added at the insistence of the Parliament: prohibition to use sensitive data; obligation to appoint a data protection officer in each Passenger Information Unit; obligation to inform passengers about collection of their personal data as well as on their rights; stricter conditions for data transfer to third countries.

The Parliament also insisted on including a stronger review clause: the Commission should review the directive two years after its transposition into national laws and could propose to amend it if appropriate.

Moreover, the Parliament succeeded in ensuring that PNR data would be used only in relation to a fixed list of serious crimes (such as terrorism, drug, weapons or human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, cybercrime, etc.) and that mechanisms are in place for sharing data between Member States and with Europol.

The EU PNR Directive had to be transposed into national laws by 25 May 2018. However, as of December 2018, several Member States still had to notify transposition to the Commission.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada entered into force on a provisional basis on 21 September 2017, and most of the agreement now applies. The ratification process is still ongoing at the Member State level.

CETA aims to increase trade in goods and services, as well as investment between the EU and Canada. Among other things, it improves EU companies’ public tendering opportunities in Canada, provides a framework for the mutual recognition of qualifications in certain professions in the EU and Canada (for example architects or crane operators) and removes customs duties on 98 % of tariff lines of products traded with Canada, except for certain sensitive agricultural products such as poultry and eggs. Statistics from the first period of provisional application of CETA (October 2017 to June 2018) showed that EU exports to Canada were up by over 7 % compared to the previous year.

The CETA negotiations started in May 2009, shortly before the Treaty of Lisbon extended the European Parliament’s competences in trade to require its approval of trade agreements. CETA became one of the early negotiations where the Parliament exercised its stronger monitoring function, tracking the talks actively and voicing its concerns throughout the process.

In June 2011, the European Parliament adopted a resolution setting out its position on key chapters of the CETA negotiations, including investment disputes, the right to regulate, regulatory differences and agriculture. The Parliament was particularly concerned about the investment protection provisions under CETA. With mounting opposition to the investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) system, the Parliament maintained in its resolution that ‘a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism and the use of local judicial remedies are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputes’, given the highly developed legal systems on both sides. In its resolution of July 2015, in the context of the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European Parliament went a step further and asked for the replacement of the ISDS system with a new system that would be more transparent, with independent judges, and respecting the jurisdiction of EU courts. In a letter to European Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, in November 2015, Parliament’s International Trade Committee Chair, Bernd Lange (Germany, S&D), welcomed the fact that the Parliament’s concerns were taken on board in the Commission’s new Investment Court System (ICS) proposal, while suggesting some further changes to the system. In part thanks to the European Parliament’s demands, even after the conclusion of the CETA negotiations, the controversial ISDS system was replaced with a permanent, transparent and institutionalised ICS. The Parliament went on to approve CETA in February 2017.

In its resolution of July 2016, the European Parliament also reiterated the need for a multilateral solution to investment disputes and considered CETA’s ICS as a stepping-stone to this end. Today, this process has been taken even further and active negotiations for the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) are ongoing. CETA also contains a commitment of both the EU and Canada to work towards the creation of the MIC.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

The last overhaul of EU telecommunications rules took place in 2009, which is a very long time ago in a modern digital world that is increasingly reliant on rapid technological development. Given the urgent need to meaningfully adapt the framework so that European businesses can compete globally and citizens have stronger rights and are better protected in the virtual world, in September 2016 the European Commission proposed the directive establishing the new European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). The aim was to boost the infrastructure investment, increase connectivity and bring telecom rules up to date with technological developments and changing consumer demands and habits. This proposal represented a profound overhaul of the telecom framework. The negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council were complex, with the part on spectrum management agreed in March 2018 and the consensus on the rest reached in June 2018. The directive was formally adopted in December 2018.

The European Parliament was successful in achieving important modifications in key areas of the proposed legislation. The overview of the main ones starts with those regarding investment: Parliament has been a long-standing supporter of coordinated spectrum management at the EU level and its ideas were reflected in the EECC proposal. Before the Code, there was no EU harmonisation, but now the Member States must provide operators with regulatory predictability over a period of at least 20 years on spectrum licensing and will release spectrum bands in a timely and coordinated manner. Parliament strengthened the role of national competition authorities and reinforced competition safeguards in the new co-investment model, which encourages agreements between operators based on risk- and cost-sharing, as well as increased use of civil engineering infrastructure such as towers and wiring.

Important amendments to bring the 5G networks to Europe and improve connectivity include the obligation of the EU Member States to make spectrum available for the 5G by 2020. Small cell deployment will become easier by being subject to uniform national level legislation rather than as presently decided on different government levels. The cells will also be deployed on public infrastructure such as on street lamps and traffic lights.

The European Parliament also secured many advantages for European consumers. From May 2019, contacting another Member State will be much cheaper: intra-EU fees have been capped at 19 cents for phone calls and 6 cents for text messages. All consumers are to have guaranteed access to affordable broadband internet. Stronger protection and specific measures are provided for users with disabilities. Providers are obliged to ensure network security and deploy advanced methods, such as encryption, as well as inform users of significant threats. New measures increase transparency of tariffs and available offers, as well as facilitating their comparison. Switching operators and terminating contracts are made easier and, in the case of the former, there will be compensation if problems arise. The EU Member States are obliged to introduce by June 2022 a ‘reverse 112 system’, based on improved geo-localisation tools, which will alert citizens on their mobile phones in case of imminent or ongoing serious emergencies or disasters.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Stefano Spinaci (2nd edition),

© NicoElNino / Fotolia

In March 2018, under its capital markets union project and as part of a broader initiative on sustainable development, the European Commission presented an action plan on sustainable finance, in order to facilitate investments in sustainable projects and assets across the EU. On 24 May 2018, the Commission put forward a package of three proposals, including measures to create a sustainable taxonomy for the EU; provide clarity on how environmental, social and governance factors can be taken into account for investment decisions; and establish low-carbon benchmarks.

The first proposal focuses on establishing a common language for sustainable finance (e.g. a unified EU classification system, or taxonomy) through a framework of uniform criteria, as a way to determine whether a given economic activity is environmentally sustainable. On 11 March 2019, the ECON-ENVI joint committee adopted a report on the Commission proposal, calling for a number of changes. On 28 March 2019, the Parliament adopted its position at first reading. On the other hand, the Council is continuing to review the Commission’s proposal.

Versions

• April 2019:  ‘Sustainable finance – EU taxonomy: A framework to facilitate sustainable investment‘ (2nd edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment Committees responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) (jointly under Rule 55) COM(2018) 353, 24.5.2018. Co-rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland) and
Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, the Netherlands) 2018/0178(COD) Next steps expected: Agreement of Council position and launch of trilogue negotiations Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’)

‘I am an optimist and I believe that we can create AI for the good of the world. That it can work in harmony with us. We simply need to be aware of the dangers, identify them, employ the best possible practice and management, and prepare for the consequences well in advance’

Stephen Hawking, speech at the Web Summit on 6 November 2017.

Written by Elodie Thirion,

fotolia

One of the most pressing issue for researchers, consumers, manufacturers and stakeholders concerning the rise of the robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) sectors lies in the uncertainty surrounding liability and the potential for damages to be incurred.

This ‘Cost of non-Europe’ report on liability and insurance related to robotics and AI aims to provide an insight into the regulatory gaps and challenges of the current liability and insurance frameworks in this field, as well as the potential benefits and opportunities of a harmonised EU regulatory framework. It has been prepared by the European Added Value (EAVA) Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) for the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in support of its legislative initiative resolution on civil law rules on robotics (Rapporteur: Mady Delvaux).

This study starts by providing a brief introduction to robotics and AI. It sets out the definition(s) used for these concepts and presents their emergence and their social potential in the EU, before describing recent EU initiatives in the field. These include recent legal and policy initiatives, from the framework programme for research and innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ to the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI.

Second, the study outlines the current regulatory frameworks regarding liability and insurance applicable to robotics and AI in the EU. The lack of specific EU or national regulatory frameworks regarding liability and insurance in the context of robotics and AI is noted. At EU level, in particular the Product Liability Directive is reviewed. At national level, both civil law and common law regimes are discussed.

Third, the study highlights the existing regulatory gaps and challenges in the current liability and insurance frameworks. In particular, robotics and AI are prevented from reaching their full potential in the single market owing to the absence of a specific regulatory framework regarding liability and insurance in the context of robotics and AI, at EU level as well as at national level, and the consequent need for actors within the field of robotics and AI to fall back upon the Product Liability Directive and national civil law rules regarding liability and insurance.

Several EU policy options are considered in response to the regulatory gaps and challenges identified. First, there could be no additional intervention, entailing the application of the existing regulatory framework to current robotics and AI issues. Second, the EU could intervene by enlarging the scope of the Product Liability Directive to tackle the barriers of the current regulatory framework identified in the limited scope of the Product Liability Directive. Third, a new specific regulatory framework at EU level could be introduced to avoid fragmentation of the single market in robotics and AI. In this context, two policy options are considered: (i) an ‘electronic personhood’ could be created, or (ii) a new specific regulatory framework based on the existing regulatory framework could be introduced, allowing a tailor-made approach to robotics and AI.

The advantages of policy options aimed at introducing a harmonised, EU regulatory framework are to a large extent confirmed by the possible economic benefits and opportunities. A harmonised EU regulatory framework would stimulate greater research and development (R&D) activity by producers and increase the speed of uptake of these two essential new emerging technologies by consumers, resulting in a potentially positive impact in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2030, EU GDP could be 0.04 % higher than it would otherwise be under the current regulatory framework.

However, the quantitative impact on the EU economy of harmonised regulation in the markets considered is highly uncertain, with some factors providing a positive effect and others negative. Overall, analysis of the scenario suggests that harmonised regulation would increase EU trade competiveness, bring a small increase in GDP and employment through increased R&D efforts, and bring a small decrease in GDP and employment once the wider economic impacts of robotics and AI are taken into account.

It is important to note that robotics and AI are wide and multi-faceted domains, crossing multiple legal disciplines. In order to provide EU citizens with an adequate EU regulatory framework relating to robotics and AI, as well as to promote the rise of robotics and AI in the EU, enabling it to become a global leader, coordinated legal action at the EU level would seem to be necessary.

Read the complete study on ‘Cost of non-Europe in robotics and artificial intelligence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

In June 2018, the EU institutions reached agreement on a substantial revision of the Renewables Directive (RED), which sets an ambitious framework for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the EU over the 2021-2030 period. This includes a 32 % binding headline target for the share of renewables in EU energy consumption, as well as more stringent criteria for the environmental sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions savings of biofuels. After formal approval in December 2018, the revised RED entered into force on 24 December 2018. Member States are required to transpose all of its provisions into national law by 30 June 2021.

During the negotiations, the European Parliament pushed for greater ambition in the RED and succeeded in achieving many of its key objectives. As a result, the RED includes: a binding EU headline target of a minimum 32 % share of renewables in EU final energy consumption by 2030 (this is well above the 27 % target set in October 2014 by the European Council, and reiterated in the 2016 European Commission’s original proposal); a 14% target for the share of renewables in the transport sector (a target which the Commission had proposed to remove entirely from the directive). Furthermore, Parliament introduced a review clause in the RED that would allow the Commission to submit a new legislative proposal in 2023 with more ambitious and binding targets. These could be justified on three likely grounds: i) in order to meet global climate change goals, ii) if renewable technologies generate significant cost reductions, or iii) if greater efficiency leads to a substantial decline in energy use.

Parliament also had considerable influence in shaping the details of the revised RED, particularly in: encouraging the decentralised production of electricity from renewable sources; pushing for a detailed enabling framework that would allow the principles of renewable self-consumption and renewable energy communities to be effectively realised; shortening to just one year the permit-granting period for small scale electricity installations, and exempting them from certain market requirements. EU Member States are now required to draw up long-term schedules of their renewable support schemes, and provide information about their contributions on an EU Renewable Development Platform.

Parliament also pushed to phase out the use of certain biofuels such as palm oil that are environmentally unsustainable and lead to natural habitat destruction. It succeeded in obliging the Commission to rapidly develop a certification scheme for biofuels, and phase out entirely the use of biofuels from crops that are damaging for the natural environment.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

At the beginning of 2016, two in three cross-border shopping attempts in the European Union were still failing because of unlawful geo-blocking practices preventing online customers from accessing and purchasing a product or a service from a website based in another Member State, or automatically re-routing them to a local site with different conditions applicable. In November 2017, the EU institutions agreed a new regulation banning unjustified geo-blocking and discrimination practices to foster e-commerce and cross-border access to goods and services in the EU.

The European Parliament has been instrumental in forging the comprehensive and balanced legislation that is applicable since December 2018. Online traders are today prohibited from blocking or limiting access to online interfaces and from re-routing online customers to a different website without their consent for reasons related to the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of the customer. Furthermore, geo-blocking practices are banned (i) when customers buy tangible goods (e.g. clothes) online to be delivered or collected at a specific location, (ii) when they receive electronically supplied services (e.g. cloud services, web hosting), or (iii) when they receive a service outside their place of residence (e.g. hotel booking, car rental). In these situations, online sellers cannot discriminate between customers on the basis of their nationality or place of residence, for instance by blocking some customers on the basis of their IP addresses or charging additional fees to customers from different Member States.

At the insistence of the European Parliament, the regulation clarifies that the regulation is not a one-size-fits all law, and that, in objective circumstances, online traders remain free to differentiate between customers on a specific territory within a Member State or to specific groups of customers on a non-discriminatory basis.

Parliament also had considerable influence on setting the conditions of revision of the regulation. As proposed by the European Commission, the regulation excludes from its scope services provided in various sectors including financial, transport, electronic communication and healthcare. Furthermore, in line with the traditional territorial protection of copyright, the new regulation does not apply to audio-visual services. Less stringent rules are also imposed on non-audiovisual electronically supplied services protected by copyright (such as ebooks, online games and online music) for the time being. However, after lengthy negotiations, Parliament’s negotiators achieved the inclusion in the regulation of a more stringent review clause requiring the Commission to assess (within two years of the entry into force of the regulation and then every five years) whether to extend the new rules to all services, including digital content and audiovisual services subject to copyright protection.

The review clause enhances the Parliament’s oversight of the implementation of the new rules, with the Commission being required to report on the evaluation of the regulation and to amend the geoblocking rules in light of legal, technical and economic developments – especially the increasing expectations of consumers for accessing copyright-protected services. Importantly, at the express request of the Parliament, a very detailed ‘Statement by the Commission’ committing it to perform a substantive and reasoned analysis of the feasibility of amending the regulation already by March 2020, was annexed to the published legislation. This could give the Parliament leverage to push for banning unjustified geoblocking and discrimination practices arising in the field of copyright-protected services including audiovisual services.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Denise Chircop (1st edition),

© Robert Kneschke / Fotolia

The financial allocation for the European Commission proposal for a European Solidarity Corps programme is €1 260 million at current prices. Projected to offer opportunities for 350 000 18 to 30 year olds from 2021 to 2027, the programme is included under Heading 2 ‘Cohesion and Values’ of the multiannual financial framework covering the same period. In its initial phases, the European Solidarity Corps suffered from unsuccessful branding and communication, as it came into direct competition with two similar programmes, the European Voluntary Service and the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative. The new proposal merges these programmes. The distinctive feature of the European Solidarity Corps today is that it brings together volunteering, traineeship and job opportunities for young people with a clear focus on solidarity projects and uses existing management structures to maximise focus on delivery and performance. In view of the importance of solidarity to the wider European project, and the potential of this programme to contribute towards this spirit, a report by Parliament’s Culture and Education Committee adopted in plenary points out that the definition of solidarity should be the unifying principle in the programme’s implementation.

Versions

• April 2019:  ‘European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Solidarity Corps programme and repealing [European Solidarity Corps Regulation] and Regulation (EU) No 375/2014 Committee responsible: Culture and Education (CULT) COM(2018) 440, 11.6.2018. Rapporteur: Michaela Šojdrová (EPP, Czech Republic) 2018/0230(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Silvia Costa (S&D, Italy)
Angel Dzhambazki (ECR, Bulgaria)
María Teresa Giménez Barbat (ALDE, Spain)
Curzio Maltese (GUE/NGL, Italy)
Helga Trüpel (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD, Italy)
Dominique Bilde (ENF, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Launch of trilogue negotiations

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

The food supply chain ensures that food and drink products are delivered to the public. It affects all consumers in the EU. The final price paid by the consumer is impacted by the number of participants in the food supply chain. While the single market has brought benefits to operators in the supply chain, through more market opportunities and a larger customer base, it has also brought challenges. Structural changes have occurred, leading to different levels of bargaining power and imbalances between actors in the chain. The abuse of such differences may lead to unfair trading practices (UTPs).

Over recent years, the European Parliament has actively highlighted imbalances in the food supply chain. It has also made the case very strongly that there is a need to ensure adequate incomes for farmers.

To strengthen the position of smaller producers (such as farmers) in the food supply chain, in April 2018 the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on unfair trading practices. The proposal focuses on the protection of smaller actors in the food supply chain, and aims to protect them from trading practices imposed unilaterally.

The Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) welcomed the proposal as a long-expected legislative instrument to defend the position of agricultural producers in the food supply chain. Following AGRI’s consideration, the European Parliament priorities were to have a clear definition of what constituted an unfair trading practice, extending the scope of suppliers and buyers in the food supply chain and the scope of products to all agricultural products (i.e. not only food products). The Parliament also sought to deliver an increased list of prohibited unfair trading practices. In trilogue negotiations, Parliament and Council negotiators reached an agreement on 19 December 2018, after six meetings. Parliament’s negotiating team achieved important modifications to the legislative text, especially on widening the scope to agri-food businesses bigger than SMEs (up to a certain threshold) and an extension to the list of prohibited unfair trading practices from 8 to 15.

Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain was signed on 17 April 2019.

Thanks in part to Parliament’s efforts, the new legislation will ensure fairness in the market and the food supply chain and will remove the ‘fear factor’ experienced by small-scale operators in the food chain and/or those with less bargaining power. It will lead to a more balanced distribution of consumer spending along the food supply chain and, finally, it will provide for a designated authority to enforce the new rules and sanctions where infringements are proven.

Law-making powers

a mapping of EP powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

Erasmus+ is the European Union’s programme dedicated to education, training, youth and sport. It is one of the best-known EU initiatives, but many think Erasmus+ is only for university students who go to study for a few months in another European university. In fact, other learners and educators participate as well. It is also open to vocational education students, teachers, professors, entrepreneurs, apprentices and grassroots sports people, for example.

One of its special features is that Erasmus+ equips young people with soft skills that they do not necessarily develop in a classroom. These skills, such as adjusting to a different way of life and using a foreign language in day-to-day conversations, can make it easier for them to find a job, start their own business and take an active interest in society later on.

Erasmus+ also creates networks of education institutions, businesses and local authorities.

The European Parliament has monitored how Erasmus+ is put into action on the ground. In its October 2017 mid-term implementation resolution it recommended making the programme more accessible, especially to small organisations, by reducing bureaucratic obstacles’ and reintroducing school exchanges. It also called on the European Commission to recognise that mobility involving people with special needs and people from disadvantaged backgrounds needs additional facilitation.

A bigger budget is necessary given the benefits of this programme. When the Commission published its mid-term evaluation of the programme (2014-2020) in January 2018, it clearly reflected comments made by Parliament. Most notably, it identified simplification as an area that needed continued efforts. It also proposed stepping up mobility among school pupils, vocational education and training participants and young people. It also acknowledged that the programme needed to reach out to more vulnerable learners and smaller organisations with a view to making it more inclusive.

Crucially, the European Parliament secured an extra €240 million for the Erasmus+ budget in 2019, meaning that the programme can be made available to more people and make a bigger difference in helping young people to get an improved start in life.

In its May 2018 proposal for the new Erasmus programme (2021-2027), the European Commission incorporated the recommendations of the European Parliament to reach out more to people with fewer opportunities, including people with disabilities. It intends to become more inclusive, tripling the number of participants and making mobility for school pupils and vocational learners more mainstream. It will also simplify procedures further in order to be accessible to small organisations such as those active in grassroots sports. In its position adopted at first reading on 28 March 2019, the European Parliament proposes that the Commission draws up a strategy with guidelines, measures and indicators to ensure that inclusion is practised. The amendments adopted also seek to promote the excellence of the projects, to make sure that other EU programmes work with Erasmus and to introduce a way to help Parliament systematically monitor the implementation of the programme. While the European Commission had proposed a budget of just €30 billion in current prices for the whole period, the European Parliament proposes an increased envelope of €46.758 billion in current prices to ensure better inclusion. It allocates 83 % to education and training, 10.3 % to youth actions, and 2 % to sport.

Law-making powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Stefano Spinaci (1st edition),

© Cherries / Fotolia

In May 2018, the European Commission presented a package of measures on the financing of sustainable growth. The package includes three proposals aimed at establishing an EU taxonomy on sustainable economic activities, improving disclosure requirements and creating a new category of benchmarks to help investors measure the carbon footprint of their investments.

Financial benchmarks have an important impact on investment flows. Many investors rely on them for creating investment products, measuring their performance and devising asset allocation strategies. The Commission proposes to create a new category of benchmarks comprising low-carbon and positive-carbon-impact benchmarks, by amending the Benchmark Regulation.

As the regulation is directly applicable, amending it would restrict the possibility of divergent measures being taken by the competent authorities at national level. Parliament voted in plenary on 26 March 2019 to approve the compromise text agreed in trilogue negotiations. However, due to the tight timeline for finalisation before the end of the parliamentary term, the Council has not yet adopted the text at first reading as Parliament will first have to approve, through a corrigendum procedure, the final revised text.

Versions

• April 2019:  ‘Sustainable finance and benchmarks: Low-carbon benchmarks and positive-carbon-impact benchmarks‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 on low carbon benchmarks and positive carbon impact benchmarks Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 355, 24.5.2018. Rapporteur: Neena Gill (S&D, United Kingdom) 2018/0180(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Anne Sander (EPP, France)
Kay Swinburne (ECR, United Kingdom)
Lieve Wierinck (ALDE, Belgium)
Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, UK)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Approval of corrigendum by Parliament and final adoption by Council

The power of the European Parliament

The only directly elected European Union (EU) institution; the European Parliament’s (EP) power and influence in pursuit of citizens’ interests have evolved significantly, transforming it into a full-fledged legislative body and forum of discussion and engagement at the heart of representative democracy, whose influence is felt in virtually all areas of EU activity.
What are then the European Parliament’s main powers?

What difference does the Parliament’s work make to how Europeans live their lives? This series highlights some practical examples of EP impact during the 2014-2019 legislative term.

Road transport is responsible for around 20 % of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Transport is the only sector in the EU that did not record any significant decline in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. In 2016, EU transport emissions were 26 % above 1990 levels.

The European Parliament has played an important role in shaping EU legislation to respond to this challenge and in pushing for ambitious but realistic targets. Mandatory CO2 standards for new passenger cars in the EU were introduced in 2009 and strengthened in 2014. Similarly, CO2 standards for vans were introduced in 2011 and reinforced in 2014. Since September 2018, new cars sold in the EU must pass more reliable emissions tests in real driving conditions and an improved laboratory test (WLTP).

In November 2017, the European Commission proposed that average CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and vans registered in the EU would have to be 15 % lower in 2025, and 30 % lower in 2030, compared to their respective limits in 2021.

Parliament put forward a number of amendments to the proposal, which were then the subject of trilogue negotiations with the Council and Commission. Thanks to Parliament’s insistence, the text finally agreed in trilogue negotiations in December 2018 sets a 37.5 % target for reducing EU fleet-wide emissions for new cars by 2030. This is far above the 30 % initially proposed by the Commission and close to the 40 % demanded by the Parliament. For new vans, the 2030 target is raised to 31 %, compared to the 30 % level proposed by the Commission and supported by the Council.

In order to encourage the sale of more zero- and low-emission vehicles, a manufacturer that meets a benchmark of 35 % for cars by 2030 will be rewarded with less strict CO2 targets. This benchmark corresponds to the Parliament’s position and, again, is well above the 30 % benchmark originally proposed by the Commission. With respect to the benchmarks for 2025 and incentives for zero- and low-emission vans, the Commission proposal remained unchanged.

As advocated by the Parliament, there are now specific provisions on in-service conformity testing and on detecting strategies that would artificially improve the CO2 performance of cars and vans.

The agreed text requires the Commission to analyse the measures suggested by Parliament concerning the introduction of real-world CO2 emissions tests using portable equipment, like the one recently introduced for NOx, and to put forward legislative proposals, if appropriate. Parliament’s suggestion that this be done in conjunction with a review of the effectiveness of the regulation in 2023, rather than 2024 as proposed by the Commission, was also taken on board.

The agreed text also includes a requirement for car-makers to report the lifecycle CO2 emissions of new cars put on the market from 2025, and allows for the use of excess emissions premiums for the qualification and reallocation of workers affected by changes in the automotive sector.

As proposed by Parliament, by 2020 the Commission will have to review Directive 1999/94/EC on ‘car labelling’ in order to improve information to consumers, and evaluate options for introducing a fuel economy and CO2 emission label for vans.

Also in line with the Parliament’s position, the Commission must identify a pathway for further CO2 emission reductions after 2030, possibly revise the emission targets for 2030, and introduce new targets for 2035 and 2040 onwards.

The final act – Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and the Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles – was signed on 17 April 2019.

Law-making powers

Together with the Council, the Parliament participates in the shaping of European laws in what may be seen as a bicameral legislature at EU level. The nature of the Parliament’s involvement depends on the area in question and may mean Parliament being consulted (consultation procedure), giving its consent (consent procedure), or legislating on an equal footing with the Council (the ordinary legislative procedure, or co-decision).

The latter procedure consists of the joint adoption of an act by the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal by the Commission. Here, both legislators need to agree on an identical text before it becomes law, which may take up to three readings in each of the two institutions. On average, it takes about 22 months for legislators to agree on a legislative file, starting from the Commission proposal until the signature of the final act.

The number of areas in which the Parliament co-legislates has expanded greatly over time and now includes the EU internal market, environment, consumer protection, food safety, regional development, agriculture, transport, energy and many others. Indeed, most legislative acts are now adopted following the ordinary legislative procedure.

Besides the power of consent with regard to legislative acts, the Parliament’s consent is required in many other instances not related to legislative acts in the strict sense. For example, it is needed before any new country joins the EU (Article 49, Treaty on European Union, TEU), but also before any withdrawal treaty can be concluded when a country decides to leave it (Article 50 TEU). The Parliament’s consent is also required before concluding agreements with third countries, for example association agreements, as well as before the Council determines that an EU Member State is breaching – or is about to breach – EU values (Article 7 TEU).

Read the complete study on ‘The power of the European Parliament: Examples of EP impact during the 2014-19 legislative term‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rafał Mańko (1st edition),

© Yanukit / Fotolia

On 31 May 2018, the Commission proposed a proposal for a new regulation on taking of evidence in civil proceedings. It takes stock of the existing regulation (from 2001), but provides for a number of changes to remove legal uncertainty and to promote electronic communications. Parliament adopted its legislative resolution on the proposal on 13 February 2019. The main points of Parliament’s position include modifying the definition of the term ‘court’, to mean any authority in a Member State that is competent under the laws of that Member State to take evidence according to this regulation (i.e. not only judicial bodies). Parliament also considers that any decentralised information technology (IT) system for cross-border communication of evidence must be based on e-CODEX, and that the use of videoconferencing or any other appropriate distance communication technology should be subject to the consent of the person to be heard. Any electronic systems used to take evidence must also ensure that professional secrecy and legal professional privilege (lawyers’ secrets) are duly protected. The discussion in Council is ongoing, thus trilogue negotiations on the proposal have not yet been able to commence.

Versions

• May 2019:  ‘Revising the Taking of Evidence Regulation‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matter Committee responsible: Legal Affairs (JURI) COM(2018) 378, 31.5.2018. Rapporteur: Emil Radev (EPP, Bulgaria) 2018/0203(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D, Italy)
Angel Dzhambazki (ECR, Bulgaria)
Kostas Chrysogonos (GUE/NGL, Greece) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Launch of trilogue negotiations

Written by Christian Scheinert,

During the September 2019 plenary sitting, the European Parliament is expected to vote on a resolution on the candidate (Christine Lagarde) for the position of President of the European Central Bank (ECB), to succeed Mario Draghi, whose term is due to end on 1 November 2019. The President is appointed by the European Council, while Parliament and the Bank’s Governing Council are consulted. Prior to the vote, the candidate will receive a series of questions for written answer, and be invited to a hearing before the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON). The ECB President is a key figure within the Eurosystem when setting monetary policy for the euro area.

Appointment procedure

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Article 283(2) TFEU stipulates that the ‘President … shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, from among persons of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters, on a recommendation of the Council, after it has consulted the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.’ The article also sets the term of office, which is not renewable, at eight years, and limits membership of the Executive Board to EU nationals.

The Parliament’s Rules of Procedure (RoP), as applicable from the start of the 2019-2024 term, set out the procedure within Parliament in relation to the appointment. Rule 130 provides that the candidate is invited to make a statement before the committee responsible (ECON) and to answer questions put by its Members. In addition, prior to that hearing, it is the ECON committee’s practice to send the candidate a series of questions for written answer. These answers are normally used as a source of inspiration when Members question the candidate. In principle, a candidate is not obliged either to respond to the written questions, or to appear at a hearing. But as good practice, all candidates to date accepted the invitation of the ECON committee – not only to promote themselves and their ideas, but also to build up a sustainable and solid relationship with the Parliament. Rule 130 specifies that the committee responsible makes a recommendation to Parliament as to whether the nomination should be approved, and the plenary vote takes place within two months of receipt of the nomination, unless Parliament, at the request of the committee responsible, a political group or Members reaching at least the low threshold (38 members), decides otherwise. The plenary votes by secret ballot. In case of an unfavourable opinion, the President would ask for the withdrawal of the nomination and for a new nomination. In the latter case, with this being a consultation procedure, the Treaties would not require the Council to recommend a new candidate.

The power to select and appoint a candidate lies de jure (Article 283 TFEU) within the exclusive remit of the European Council which acts in this case by qualified majority. Yet, de facto, the consultation procedure provides significant weight to the European Parliament, due to the visibility of the process and the type of institutional actors involved, to the point that it would be unlikely that the European Council would proceed with an appointment in the case of a rejection vote from Parliament.

On 9 July 2019, the Council of the EU submitted to the European Council, in accordance with Article 283(2) TFEU, a recommendation on the appointment of Christine Lagarde as President of the ECB.

Duties of the ECB President and tasks of the ECB

The ECB President chairs several central bank constellations. They chair the ECB’s Executive Board, which also comprises a Vice-President and four other members (Article 283(2) TFEU). They also chair the Governing Council of the ECB, which comprises the Executive Board of the ECB as well as the governors of the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (Article 283(1) TFEU). Probably most important of all, they chair the Eurosystem, the body that sets monetary policy for the euro area. The Eurosystem comprises the ECB and the national central banks of euro-area Member States (Article 282(1) TFEU). Although the Treaties provide for the possibility of a vote (Article 10, Protocol No 4), it is the practice within the Eurosystem to seek consensus on monetary decisions, and thus, if possible, avoid a formal vote. It is for the President to establish consensus, putting them in a privileged position in monetary decision-making.

Presidents of the European Central Bank (ECB), and its predecessor, the European Monetary Institute (EMI)

According to Article 128 TFEU, the ECB alone may authorise the issue of the euro. According to Article 127 TFEU, the basic tasks of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) comprise, amongst others, to define and implement monetary policy, to conduct foreign-exchange operations, to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States, and to promote the smooth operation of payment systems. Further, it may also be conferred tasks relating to the supervision of credit institutions (Article 127(5) TFEU). According to Articles 127(1) and 282(2) TFEU, the primary objective of monetary policy is to maintain price stability, in addition it supports the general economic policies of the Union on condition that price stability is not jeopardised. According to Article 282(3) TFEU, the ECB is independent in the exercise of its powers. Article 130 TFEU extends that independence to national central banks and any member of their decision-making bodies, and stipulates that they are forbidden to seek instructions from Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. Similarly, the article states that those same institutions, bodies, offices and governments undertake to respect this independence and do not seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies in the performance of their tasks. Article 123 TFEU prohibits overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or national central banks in favour of any level of national government, national authorities or EU institutions and bodies, and prohibits the direct purchase of government debt instruments, thus ruling out the monetisation of public debt.

Two principles set in the Treaties, price stability and independence, are central to the ECB’s duties. However, in 2010, financial supervision powers were conferred on the ECB in the framework of banking union, with the ECB President chairing the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). This complicates ECB independence, as institutions carrying out financial supervision duties are subject to democratic accountability. This is somewhat mitigated, as Article 7 of the ESRB Regulation stipulates that ESRB members perform their supervision duties impartially and without seeking instructions.

Obligations towards the European Parliament

According to Article 284(3) TFEU, the ECB shall address an annual activity report, including on monetary policy, on both the previous and the current year, to the European Parliament and to several other institutions. It is stipulated that the President of the ECB shall present this report to the Council and to the European Parliament (Rule 135 RoP). Apart from this, there are no formal Treaty-based obligations towards the EP, in line with the principle of central bank independence. Article 284(3) TFEU specifies that the EP may hold a general debate on the basis of that annual report, and that the President of the ECB and other members of the Executive Board may be heard by the competent committees of the EP. Most interaction with the European Parliament is therefore dependent on voluntary acceptance by the ECB.

Four times a year, the President of the ECB appears before the ECON committee for testimony known as ‘monetary dialogue’, also covered by Rule 135, which is now an integral part of the ex-post scrutiny process. After an introductory speech by the ECB President, Members have the opportunity to ask questions relating to decisions already taken. Similar meetings on specific topics are held with other members of the Executive Board. Once a year, in December, a small EP delegation travels to the seat of the ECB in Frankfurt (Germany), for an informal in camera meeting with the President of the ECB and other members of the Executive Board. According to Rule 140 RoP, MEPs can introduce, via the chair of the committee responsible, up to six written questions per month to the ECB, for written answer. Both questions and answers are published on Parliament’s website. To stay in line with the requirement of independence, the ECB President needs to carefully avoid even creating the impression that they are taking instructions from, or negotiating with, MEPs.

During the monetary dialogue, debates in plenary or when drafting written questions, MEPs speak in a personal capacity, while Parliament’s official position on the ECB and on monetary policy is expressed through own-initiative reports, most notably Parliament’s report on the annual report of the ECB.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Appointment of the President of the ECB‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Diaz Crego,

© European Union, 2017; Source EP – Pablo Garrigos

The hearings of the Commissioners-designate before the European Parliament’s committees are a necessary ingredient in informing Parliament’s decision to give its consent to, or reject, the proposed College. Each Commissioner-designate appears before a single hearing, involving one or more parliamentary committees, after responding to a written questionnaire and presenting his or her declaration of interests.

In past hearings, the main points of criticism were some candidates’ lack of specialist knowledge of their portfolio, their vague answers and reluctance to make commitments, the existence of possible conflicts of interests in relation to the assigned portfolio and concerns regarding the integrity of the candidate. From the 2004 investiture on, Parliament has used its role in the appointment of the Commission to press for the replacement of certain controversial candidates and to force adjustments to certain portfolios, although it can only reject or accept the College as a whole.

Whilst some experts warn of excessive politicisation of the hearings, others welcome the increased accountability of the Commission to Parliament, and see the deepening political link between the two as a step towards further democratisation of the EU decision-making process. Hearings have become critical for Parliament’s holding the Commission to account, and are gaining in significance as a means for Parliament to take a greater role in agenda-setting at EU level.

This is an updated and expanded version of a 2014 briefing by Eva-Maria Poptcheva.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Parliamentary hearings of the Commissioners-designate: A decisive step in the investiture process‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Sidonia Mazur,

© Marco2811 / Fotolia

The European Parliament (EP) and the Council are the budgetary authority of the European Union. The two institutions, assisted by the European Commission, decide on the budget in the annual EU budgetary procedure.

The annual EU budget funds EU policies and programmes following the Union’s political priorities and legal obligations. The financial year starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December.

The European Parliament amends the Council position through the work of its Committee on Budgets (BUDG) and the specialised parliamentary committees. The EP then adopts the Parliament’s reading in plenary session.

This briefing presents possible scenarios set in the EU Treaties for adoption or non-adoption of the annual budget. It explains differences between the Treaty calendar and the ‘pragmatic calendar’.

The key actors in establishing the Parliament’s position are: the Committee on Budgets and EP specialised committees, in particular the BUDG chair, the annual budget rapporteurs and their shadows, BUDG coordinators and budget rapporteurs in specialised committees.

An amendment to the Council’s position is a tool enabling Members of the European Parliament to modify the annual budget draft. This briefing sketches the life cycle of such an amendment.

The European Parliament and the Council work out an agreement on the annual budget through negotiations consisting of trilogue meetings and conciliation.

Last but not least, this briefing explains what happens if there is no agreement on the EU annual budget.

Read this briefing on ‘Annual EU budgetary procedure: An introduction to the steps in the EP‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.