Sittings · Compare
What changed
Plenary sitting
A8-0414/2018
29.11.2018
***I
REPORT
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoptionproposal offor a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context
(17102/1/2024(COM(2018)0373 – C100057/2025C80228/2018 – 2018/0198(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: secondfirst reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the CouncilCommission positionproposal atto firstParliament readingand (17102/1/2024the –Council C100057/2025),(COM(2018)0373),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and in particular third paragraph of Article 175 of the opinionsTreaty on the Functioning of the European Economic andUnion, Socialpursuant Committeeto ofwhich 19the SeptemberCommission 2018submitted andthe ofproposal 24to AprilParliament 2024,(C80228/2018),
– having regard to theArticle opinions294(3) of the CommitteeTreaty ofon the Regions of 5 December 2018 andFunctioning of 17the AprilEuropean 2024,Union,
– having regard to its position at firstthe readingopinion onof the CommissionEuropean proposalEconomic toand ParliamentSocial andCommittee theof Council19 (COM(2018)0373–September 2018/0198(COD),2018,
– having regard to the amendedopinion Commissionof proposalthe (COM(2023)0790),Committee of the Regions of ... ,
– having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the written and reasoned opinions submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Swedish Parliament, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,
– having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 75(4)59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to Rule 68 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0414/2018),
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Regional Development (A10-0058/2025),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
1. Approves the Council position at first reading;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;
2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Amendment 1
4. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
Proposal for a regulation
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Recital 2 a (new)
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Amendment 2
The Council position at first reading reflects the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council in interinstitutional negotiations at early second-reading stage, after legal-linguistic verification.
Proposal for a regulation
Since the Committee on Regional Development (REGI), with its vote on 28 January 2025, already unanimously confirmed the outcome of those interinstitutional negotiations, as your rapporteur I propose that REGI recommends that the Plenary confirms the position of the Council at first reading, without amending it.
Recital 8
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Amendment 3
The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Justification
The obligation to set up National Cross-border Coordination Points is imposed on all MS's.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Justification
The wording in the proposal raises doubts about the interpretation whether a member state may opt for the ECBM for each single "joint project" or is obliged to decide on the application of the mechanism for all possible "joint projects" along a border. The rapporteur wants to avoid that MS’s that currently have no existing mechanisms, have no other choice then to choose for the ECBM. The application of the ECBM should be on a voluntary basis based on a case-by-case assessment of the MS.
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point c
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Justification
In the proposal of the rapporteur, the CBCPs will be key in order to assess if and how to resolve legal obstacles. The rapporteur therefore proposes the mandatory setting-up of CBCPs in each MS. Since the application of the ECBM will be triggered on a voluntary basis, it is up to the MS’s to decide on how substantial the administrative capacity of these CBCPs has to be.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Justification
The implementation of the Regulation should be accompanied by an information campaign providing clear and practical information that will facilitate its application by stakeholders.
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – title
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Justification
The assessment of the initiative document may be complicated and more time consuming than the proposed three months, especially taking into account summer and/or holiday periods.
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f b (new)
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
In the European Union, cross-border regions make up approximately 40% of the Union’s territory, while harbouring almost a third of its 512 million citizens. At the same time, border regions in Europe generally perform less well economically, have higher unemployment rates and have relatively underdeveloped infrastructure compared to regions that are more centrally located in the Member States. It has been estimated that if 20% of existing border obstacles would be removed, border regions would gain 2% in GDP, amounting to approximately 91 billion EUR per year in GDP. In their past, many border regions in Europe have been stages of war and conflict between countries.
For those reasons, The Lisbon Treaty in article 174 not only lists economic and social cohesion as its explicit objectives, but also territorial cohesion (with particular attention to cross-border regions). From that perspective, the proposal for a European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) should be seen as complementary to Interreg and European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation, EGTCs. The proposed ECBM aims to resolve cross-border obstacles of a legal or administrative nature, by applying for a common cross-border region, in a given Member State, the legal provisions from the neighbouring Member State for a specific joint project.
The European cross-border mechanism
Your rapporteur supports and welcomes the intention of the European Commission’s “proposal on a mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context” (European Cross-Border Mechanism, ECBM). The ECBM could become a tool in a general toolbox to promote effective cross-border cooperation and, as a result, improve the wealth and wellbeing of the inhabitants and their quality of life in the EU’s border regions.
Clarification is needed on a few issues, especially with regards to voluntariness and the scope of the ECBM, as well as the subsidiarity and proportionality of the proposal.
The proposal should aim to add a voluntary tool to the toolbox that Member States have at their disposal to boost cross-border cooperation. Member States should, always have the final say on whether or not to use the mechanism.
In conjunction with this emphasis, it is necessary that Member States are able to choose whether to use the ECBM or an existing mechanism for each individual joint project, on a case-by-case basis. If Member States would have to make such a choice for a total border at once, those that do not currently have existing mechanisms to resolve legal obstacles in a cross-border context, would virtually be obliged to use the ECBM. This undermines the voluntary nature of the proposal.
With the proposed changes, any issues related to proportionality, and subsidiarity are appropriately dealt with. The ECBM becomes a voluntary tool and can be used in an ‘à-la-carte fashion’, where Member States choose every time they have identified a legal obstacle in a cross-border context, whether to use an existing mechanism, set up a new mechanism, or use the ECBM. Member States may also decline to trigger any mechanism to resolve a legal or administrative obstacle, for justified reasons. Triggering the ECBM and allowing one Member State to apply their legal provisions in another Member State asks for serious scrutiny by all parties involved so the deadlines proposed by the Commission might have been too tight, so certain deadlines have been amended.
Finally, the thematic scope of the proposal is kept intact as much as possible. After having strengthened the voluntary basis of the proposal in combination with changing the way Member States choose between the mechanism and existing mechanisms, the scope can remain broad so as to ensure the practical application of the ECBM, for all potential future projects that could be hampered by legal or administrative obstacles in a cross-border region.
Your rapporteur believes that an effective application of the European Cross-border Mechanism can only be feasible if all Member States and all the competent authorities within the Member States embrace the opportunity to resolve legal and administrative obstacles by working together in the spirit of good cooperation and good neighbourship. The voluntary character of the ECBM will contribute to fully unleash the potential of the European border regions.
26.10.2018
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THEIN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention