Skip to content
DRAFT OPINION (COM(2017)0085 – C80034/2017 – 2017/0035(COD)

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers

ITRE-PA-604503

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy · Rapporteur: Claude Turmes

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 25 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy's draft opinion responds to the Commission's proposal to amend Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on how member states control the Commission's implementing powers. The rapporteur supports making member state votes public throughout the advisory, examination and appeal committee procedures, and wants member states to give reasons for their votes. The rapporteur opposes the proposed extra appeal levels at ministerial and Council level, and rejects the changes to quorum and vote counting that would exclude abstentions. The draft opinion proposes that, for products and substances affecting health, animals or plants, the Commission must not authorise them if there is no qualified majority in favour. It also proposes that Parliament or the Council may call on the Commission to review the implementing powers in a basic act when positive opinions are systematically hard to obtain.

Committee position. The rapporteur supports the transparency measures and proposes further ones, including reasoned votes. The rapporteur opposes the additional appeal levels and the changes to quorum and vote counting, and proposes that authorisation be refused for health, animal and plant products without a qualified majority in favour.

Key points

  1. The rapporteur fully supports improving transparency and suggests further measures, including requiring member states to justify adopting or rejecting an implementing act.
  2. The rapporteur believes additional appeal levels at ministerial and Council level would not be helpful, as appeal committee votes rarely differ from standing committee votes.
  3. The rapporteur is strongly opposed to the proposed change in quorum and vote counting, calling it unacceptable from a democratic point of view.
  4. For products and substances in health, animals and plants, the Commission would be required to prohibit the substance if there is no qualified majority in favour of authorisation.
  5. Where member states systematically fail to deliver an opinion on the same basic act, the Commission should consider revising that basic act.
  6. Transparency should be increased throughout the advisory, examination and appeal committee procedures, including making individual member state votes and voting intentions public.
  7. Where the basic act concerns health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft act would grant authorisation for a product or substance, each member state representative should record substantive reasons for their vote.
  8. Discussions on sensitive issues relating to health or safety of humans, animals or plants should be web streamed live.
  9. The Commission may adopt a draft implementing act without delay to avoid market disruption in agriculture or a risk to the Union's financial interests only where the basic act does not concern health or safety of humans, animals or plants.
  10. The summary records should include the lists of persons present and the authorities and organisations to which they belong.
  11. Parliament, the Council and the public should have access to information under Article 10(1), and references of documents should be made public in the register.
  12. Parliament or the Council may at any time call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend a basic act if they consider its implementing powers need review.

Who is affected

  • Member states: their representatives' votes and voting intentions would be made public, and they would have to justify votes in sensitive areas.
  • The Commission: it would be barred from authorising products or substances in health, animals and plants without a qualified majority in favour.
  • The public: it would gain access to committee information and live web streaming of sensitive discussions.
  • Parliament and the Council: they could call on the Commission to review implementing powers in a basic act.

Legal basis: Article 291 of the Treaty of Lisbon