What changed
The revised agreement strengthens Parliament's oversight role, adding requirements for commissioner presence at Question Time and detailed information on the College. #6#5 New provisions stress compliance with the Treaties and institutional balance, and add commitments on impact assessments and monitoring of the agreement. #1#3#12 Several changes rephrase existing commitments without altering their substance, such as on urgent requests and international agreements. #4#7#8#9 One formal change corrects the addressee of the signing instruction from Council to Commission and renumbers the paragraph. #13
6 changes of substance, plus 1 formaland6 wording-only. Each change below carries a one-line ✦ note from the same model. Written from the two texts only — read the highlighted passages before relying on it.
The changes to the text itself, in document order. Cover page, citations (“having regard to …”), standard resolution paragraphs and punctuation-only edits are left out — they are in “Show every difference”.
Change #1 Substance
Adds a clause stating that interinstitutional agreements must comply with the Treaties and the principle of conferral, which does not allow extension of EU competences.
A. whereas the Treaties provide for an express legal basis for interinstitutional agreements, which allows for the conclusion of such agreements in compliance with the Treaties, including the principle of conferral, which does not allow for any extension of the competences of the EU institutions beyond the scope of the Treaties,
Change #2 Substance
Extends the recital to note that the Framework Agreement seeks to ensure consistency with the Treaties and give practical effect to Parliament's control, scrutiny and budgetary prerogatives.
E. whereas the Framework Agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission dates back to 2010, and interinstitutional cooperation has evolved significantly since then, as reflected in the “Parliament 2024” reform and the subsequent revision of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure adopted in April 2024,2024; and whereas the Framework Agreement seeks to ensure consistency with the Treaties and to give practical effect to the European Parliament’s control, scrutiny and budgetary prerogatives,
Change #3 Substance
Replaces the old recital F and paragraph 1 with new versions emphasizing institutional balance and sincere cooperation, and stating the revised agreement strengthens political responsibility and legitimacy.
F. whereas a joint assessment of the implementation of the Framework Agreement carried out at technical level, in agreement with the President of the Commission, emphasised the need to update and improve some of its provisions in respect of Parliament’s legislative, budgetary and scrutiny prerogatives,
F. whereas the two Institutions attach the utmost importance to the principle of institutional balance and the principle of mutual sincere cooperation, as enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU,
1. Considers the revised agreement a substantive institutional advance for Parliament in its relations with the Commission;
G. whereas a joint assessment of the implementation of the Framework Agreement carried out at technical level, in agreement with the President of the Commission, emphasised the need to update and improve some of its provisions so as to better reflect the institutional balance and to fully implement Parliament’s prerogatives as enshrined in the Treaties, in respect of Parliament’s legislative, budgetary and scrutiny prerogatives,
1. Considers the revised agreement to be an institutional advance for Parliament in its relations with the Commission, while stressing that any such advance must have a basis in the Treaties; considers that the revised agreement strengthens political responsibility and legitimacy, extends constructive dialogue, improves the flow of information between the two Institutions and improves cooperation on procedures and planning, including powers of scrutiny and inquiry;
Change #5 Substance
Adds two new bullet points: one on the President-elect providing detailed information on the incoming College, and one on the Commission's commitment to transparent and independent impact assessments.
– the obligation of the President-elect to present to Parliament detailed information on the composition of the incoming College of Commissioners, including its planned structure;
– the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that its impact assessments are conducted under its responsibility through a transparent procedure that guarantees an independent assessment;
Change #6 Substance
Adds a clause specifying that during Question Time, commissioners with relevant portfolios will be present for up to 90 minutes to ensure meaningful debate.
– the assurance that Members of the Commission will in general be summoned by Parliament as part of its political oversight function, and that Parliament maycan request that a specific commissioner be present in plenary where an agenda item so justifies; in particular, the assurance that, during Question Time, for a duration of up to 90 minutes, Members of the Commission whose portfolios relate to the theme of the questions will be present, in order to ensure a meaningful, open, and democratic debate between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Commission;
Change #12 Substance
Adds three new paragraphs: on democratic scrutiny requiring political responsibility, regretting the Commission's failure to indicate impact assessments, and expecting full compliance with monitoring.
3. Considers that democratic scrutiny over the Commission not only requires an appropriate legal framework, but also a sense of political responsibility and commitment; draws attention to the formal exchange between Members of Parliament and the Commission during the plenary session, including during Question Time, as a cornerstone of European democracy; commits to further invest in and to foster a parliamentary culture so that attendance of those sessions is ensured on both sides, enabling a meaningful and substantive exchange between Parliament and Commission;
4. Regrets the Commission’s failure to indicate whether new legislative initiatives will be accompanied by an impact assessment, and to provide a proper justification where no impact assessment is provided;
5. Expects the Commission to fully comply with both the new and existing provisions of the Agreement. Regular monitoring by the European Parliament of the Agreement’s implementation should be put in place from its entry into force;