JURI Report

Transcription

JURI Report

JURI Report
ISSUE 24
JULY 2016
At the meeting of 11-12 July 2016
This July 2016 meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs will commence with the presentation
of two studies commissioned by the committee on the reform of the Brussels IIa Regulation,
followed by a debate with the Commission. Kostas Chrysogonos will then present his draft
report on liability for offshore oil and gas operations, his draft report on the application of the
European Order for Payment Procedure and his draft opinion on the EU Action Plan against
Wildlife Trafficking. Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann will then lead an exchange of views on control of
the Comitology Register, and Pavel Svoboda will report back to the committee on the
Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. As the last point before the in camera part
of the meeting, Tadeusz Zwiefka will lead an exchange of views on the amendment of the
annexes to the Insolvency Regulation.
The following morning, following a meeting in camera, the committee will vote on the 2014
report on the application of EU law and on Joëlle Bergeron’s opinion on the recognition of
professional qualifications in inland navigation. The morning will continue with a hearing on
limitation periods for road traffic accidents.
In the afternoon, the committee will hold two exchanges of views, the first with the ministers
representing the Slovak Council Presidency, and the second on the ‘yellow card’ for the posting
of workers with the competent Commissioner. Further debates will focus on Jean-Marie
Cavada’s draft report on the cross-border portability of online services, on the opinion on
contracts for the distance sale of goods, and on disclosure of income tax information by certain
undertakings.
____________________________________________________________________________
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT OPINION
EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking
At this meeting, the rapporteur will present his draft opinion on the EU Action Plan against
Wildlife Trafficking.
All Member States have signed the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the EU itself ratified the
convention in 2015. The protection of endangered
animal and plant species is an issue of global interest
which requires cooperation between all nations,
including the Member States of the EU.
The rapporteur’s opinion is supportive of the
Commission’s proposal for an EU Action Plan against
Wildlife Trafficking, and calls for further cooperation
between the EU and national authorities, including by
means of common standards in the area of criminal
law.
Procedure: 2016/2076(INI)
Rapporteur: Kostas
Chrysogonos
Administrator: Alexander Keys
Committee responsible: ENVI
NEXT MEETING
5 SEPTEMBER 2016
JURI Website
EPRS
LATEST ANALYSES
The Evidentiary Effects
of Authentic Acts in the
Member States of the
European Union, in the
Context of Successions
Cross Border
Acquisitions of
Residential Property in
the EU: Problems
Encountered by Citizens
Cross-Border Restitution
Claims of Art Looted in
Armed Conflicts and
Wars
Cross-border Placement
of Children in the
European Union
Adoption: Cross-Border
Legal Issues
PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE
Draft opinion: 11.07.2016
Deadline for amendments:
14.07.2016
Adoption JURI: September
2016
The Transatlantic Trade
and Investment
Partnership (TTIP): The
Sluggish State of
Negotiations
_________________________________________________________________________________
UPCOMING EVENTS
Hearing on Limitation Periods for Road Traffic Accidents: The state of play and the
way forward, on 12.7.2016
On 12 July 2016, the Committee on Legal Affairs will hold a
public hearing on limitation periods for road traffic accidents
in the EU. This hearing relates to the legislative initiative
report (rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda) on the same topic
(2015/2087 (INL)).
More than 8 years have passed since Parliament’s resolution
on‘Limitation periods in cross-border disputes involving
personal injuries and fatal accidents’ (2006/2014 (INL)), and
despite relevant public consultations and studies, the
Commission has not yet prepared a specific legislative
proposal.
Limitation periods for tort claims vary widely between the
Member States. Specifically, while legal systems in continental
Europe refer to ‘prescription periods’, namely periods of
time after the expiry of which a claim is deemed extinguished;
in common law countries there are only ‘limitation
periods’, which indicate the time after which the right to
lodge a claim is barred, albeit the claim itself is not
extinguished. What is more, discrepancies in national limitation laws exist with regard to the commencement
of the running of time in general, or in the case of minors and disabled persons in particular, as well as with
regard to the capacity to stop or interrupt the running of limitation.
In cross-border accidents, the time limits applicable for instituting a claim are determined based on the law
of the Member State where the accident occurred, in accordance with the Rome II Regulation (Article 15).
National laws on limitation and prescription periods can be very complex, and victims will often not be
familiar with the rules of the Member States they are travelling in. This, combined with the discrepancies
between different limitation laws, can lead to undesirable consequences for the victims, creating
unnecessary obstacles to securing their right to reparation and to timely litigation at reasonable cost.
Limitation periods for claims are essential to ensure legal certainty and the finality of disputes. These
interests should be balanced with the fundamental right to obtain an effective remedy, since unnecessarily
short limitation periods could obstruct effective access to justice across the EU. EU legislation has not
harmonised the rules on limitation and prescription periods, neither in general nor concerning traffic
accidents in particular.
The forthcoming hearing will bring together Members of the European Parliament and a number of experts,
practitioners, academics and stakeholders with a view to discussing the question of the convergence of
limitation periods in Europe through the establishment of common standards concerning cross-border
traffic accidents. It will also offer the possibility to present the findings of a recent European Added Value
Study conducted by the Research Service of the European Parliament regarding the policy options and the
scope of EU competences to create common standards for road traffic accidents in the EU. The Commission,
personal injury and insurance lawyers, insurance and road traffic accidents associations will offer their views
on this matter.
The event will be webstreamed.
2
________________________________________________________________________________
VOTE
Recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation
At this meeting, the committee will vote on the draft opinion. A total of 71
amendments have been tabled. The proposal for a directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional
qualifications in inland navigation covers both freight and passenger
transport by inland waterway, but not private transport and recreational
craft. It applies to the entire EU inland navigation network, albeit with
possible exceptions for inland waterways with no cross-border traffic.
The European inland waterway system is used to transport goods and
passengers on canals, waterways, rivers, lakes, etc. The network has a total
length of roughly 41 000 km and links 12 EU Member States. The carriage
of goods by interconnected European inland waterways accounts for more
than 140 billion tonne-kilometres of freight transport in the EU (Eurostat
2011).
Inland waterway transport also fully meets the requirements of the three pillars
of sustainable development. In terms of cost, inland waterway transport is
competitive with road transport. In environmental terms, it combines fuel
economy with low greenhouse gas emissions, thereby helping to contain global
warming. Lastly, in terms of social costs and benefits, it is a safe form of
transport with a low accident rate and high growth potential, offering major job
creation prospects, in particular in port areas. For all these reasons, steps
should be taken to encourage the development of this alternative mode of
transport.
Procedure: 2016/0050(COD)
This, indeed, is the aim of the proposal for a directive, which seeks, by means
of the recognition of qualifications, to raise the profile of a profession which at
present is characterised by a lack of mobility and labour force shortages in many
EU Member States.
Adoption JURI (possibly):
12.07.2016
Basic doc: COM(2016)0082
Legal basis: Article 91(1) TFEU
Rapporteur: Joëlle Bergeron
Preliminary Timetable
16.06.2016
Workers currently face problems in securing mutual recognition of professional qualifications and overcoming
unnecessary barriers, for example in the form of specific local knowledge requirements. In the light of this, moves
to introduce minimum requirements concerning the qualifications of boat operators and boat owners appear
justified.
Your rapporteur supports the proposal for a directive, albeit with certain amendments.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Monitoring the application of Union law - 2014 Annual Report
The committee will vote on the draft report by Heidi Hautala on
‘Monitoring the application of Union law. 2014 Annual Report’.
Members of JURI tabled 63 amendments to the draft report, and the
committee will also take a position on the suggestions in the opinions of
the Committee on Petitions, the Committee on Employment and Social
Affairs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The
Commission’s Annual Report shows that environment, transport and
internal market and services remained the policy areas in which there
3
_________________________________________________________________________________
were most infringement cases open in 2014. According to the report, the number of formal infringement procedures
has decreased as a result of the effectiveness of the informal 'EU Pilot procedure'. However, in her draft report the
rapporteur points out that on the basis of the limited access to information that Parliament still has regarding the
EU Pilot procedure and pending cases, it is difficult to evaluate to what extent the reduction in formal infringement
procedures actually reflects better compliance with EU law by Member States.
The rapporteur considers that Parliament should play a stronger and more
structured role in analysing legal developments in accession countries and
Legal basis: Rule 52
countries with association agreements, and in developing appropriate
Rapporteur: Heidi Hautala
support in this respect for those countries.
According to Article 22 TEU the Commission has the responsibility for
monitoring the compliance with EU legislation of Member States’ laws and
their practical application. For this purpose, Articles 258 and 260 TFEU
empower the Commission to bring actions, if necessary, against a Member
State before the Court of Justice for infringements. Parliament, in turn, has
both a responsibility to politically 'monitor the monitoring' of the Commission
and an interest in ensuring that the legislation it adopts actually becomes
reality in the Member States.
Administrator: Kjell Sevón
Opinion giving committee:
ECON, EMPL, PETI, AFCO
Adoption JURI: 12.07.2016
Adoption PLENARY: 1215.09.2016
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by
a third country and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom (recast)
Item 23 on the agenda concerns the verification of the formal
correctness of the use of the recast technique, not a vote on the
proposal for a regulation as such. A legislative proposal in the form
of a recast is, in fact, a combination of codifying existing legal texts
and introducing new substantive amendments. The legislator
should, in principle, restrict its amendments to the part of the text
which introduces new elements, and it is thus important to verify that
those elements are correctly indicated.
In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Interinstitutional
Agreement on a more structured use of the recasting technique for
legal acts, the Committee on Legal Affairs as a rule examines the
correctness of the recast on the
basis of an opinion of the
Consultative Working Party of
the legal services of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, with
Legal basis: Rule 104 (recast)
the opinion of the Working Party annexed to a communication to
Rapporteur: Laura Ferrara
Members.
However, in this particular case the Working Party did not reach consensus.
As a result, an essential requirement for the verification of the recast
technique used is lacking. The draft recommendation will therefore
consider the proposal for a regulation as a ‘normal’ proposal, i.e. without
the restrictions applying to recasts.
4
Committee responsible: INTA
________________________________________________________________________________
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORT
Liability, compensation and financial security for offshore and gas operations
According to Article 39 of Directive 2013/30/EU (the 'Offshore
Safety Directive'), the Commission is required to submit reports
on:
a) the availability of financial security instruments, and on the
handling of compensation claims, accompanied, where
appropriate, by proposals;
b) its assessment of the effectiveness of the liability regimes in
the Union in respect of the damage caused by offshore oil and
gas operations and of the appropriateness of broadening
liability provisions, accompanied, where appropriate, by
proposals;
c) its findings regarding the appropriateness of bringing certain
conduct leading to a major accident within the scope of Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment
through criminal law, accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals, subject to appropriate information
being made available by Member States.
The Commission published its findings on all the above aspects in a single report on 14 September 2015 (Report from
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on liability, compensation and financial security for
offshore and gas operations pursuant to Article 39 of Directive 2013/30/EU - COM(2015)0422).
The Offshore Safety Directive defines the elements of a comprehensive EU-wide framework for preventing major
accidents and limiting their consequences. As regards liability for offshore accidents and their consequences, this is
vested unequivocally with offshore licensees, i.e. the individual or joint holders of authorisations for oil/gas prospection,
exploration, and/or production operations issued in accordance with Directive 94/22/EC. It also makes the licensees
strictly liable for any environmental damage resulting from their operations.
The following dilemmas in relation to offshore oil and gas are of particular importance: who is liable for what kinds of
damage and loss and to whom; how to ensure liable parties' sufficient financial capacity to provide rightful
compensation for the damage and loss they are liable for; and how to disburse compensation so as to reach legitimate
claimants quickly, while minimising the risks of cascading impacts on the broader economy.
The publication of the above Commission report in accordance with Article 39 of
the Offshore Safety Directive has thus offered the Committee on Legal Affairs and
its rapporteur, Kostas Chrysogonos, a timely opportunity to make concrete
recommendations for the reinforcement of liability for damage from offshore
accidents in oil and gas prospection, exploration and production in the EU.
At this meeting, the rapporteur, Mr Chrysogonos, will present his draft report on
‘liability, compensation and financial security for offshore oil and gas operations’.
The draft report focuses on the importance of updating existing liability systems
in the Member States to ensure the application of the polluter-pays principle not
only to environmental but also traditional damages, be they bodily injuries,
property damages or economic losses – consequential or pure. The rapporteur is
of the opinion that an incident in European waters, should not adversely affect the
future of the offshore oil and gas operations of the state in question, nor that of
the entire EU – were the incident to occur in an area that was largely dependent
on tourism for revenue- and that as a result compensation and financial security
systems for offshore oil and gas operations in the EU should be brought up to
speed.
Legal basis: Rule 52 RoP
Rapporteur: Kostas
Chrysogonos
Administrator: Zampia
Vernadaki
Opinion giving committee:
ENVI, ITRE
Draft Report: 14.06.2016
21.06.2016
5
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market
Upon taking up his new office in 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker, the
President of the Commission, announced that reform of copyright in
the context of creating the Digital Single Market in Europe would be
one of his top ten priorities during the 2014-2019 legislature. VicePresident Andrus Ansip was given responsibility in the Commission for
the Digital Single Market whereas Günther Oettinger became the
Commissioner in charge of the Digital Economy and Society, which
includes copyright. When the Commission on 6 May 2015 presented
its Digital Single Market strategy (COM(2015)0192) it included a
roadmap for its completion, which among other things listed "legislative proposals for a reform of the copyright
regime" to be presented during 2015.
Of course, these developments, at least as far as copyright is concerned, did not however take place in a vacuum,
but were rather preceded by extensive analytical and legislative work over a number of years in the EU institutions.
The orphan works and collective rights management directives, which were both negotiated and adopted in the last
legislature, constitute, as far as the European Parliament is concerned, but the end results of long discussions and
diverse activities conducted by the working groups on copyright set up by the Committee on Legal Affairs during the
two preceding legislatures, both of which focused primarily on the different consequences of the principle of
territoriality.
In fact, the former Commission came very close to presenting a roadmap
on how to revise copyright rules in Europe by the end of the last
legislature, but it was never formally adopted or made publically
available owing to unresolved conflicts between the different
Commissioners who were then responsible for the relevant policy areas:
internal market and services; digital agenda; research, innovation and
science; and education, culture, multilingualism and youth. Some of
these tensions continue in the current Commission, illustrated by the
fact that Vice-President Ansip has come out publically against the
practice of geo-blocking, whereby access to media content (and more
generally, any product or service) is restricted on the basis of the
location of the consumer, and favors portability cross-border of legally
acquired media content, whereas Commissioner Oettinger has stated
that "we should not throw the baby out with the bath water" and has
enumerated three sectors which would warrant looking into, namely
sports, state-funded television and European film.
Rapporteur: Jean-Marie Cavada
Administrator: Magnus Nordanskog
Opinion giving committee: IMCO
and CULT (associated committees),
ITRE
Consideration of draft report: 1112.07.2016
Deadline for amendments: 15.09.2016
Adoption in JURI: 13.10.2016
Exclusive territorial licensing practices in Europe allow right-holders to apply technical and contractual measures
which limit cross-border portability (ability for a consumer who lawfully subscribes to online services in a country to
access the same service when moving -temporarily- to another country) and access (ability for consumers living in a
MS to access - whether through subscription or not - copyrighted content that is available in another MS and at the
conditions and prices of that MS) of copyrighted works. Geo-blocking practices, which denies access to a website or
re-routes consumers to a local store with different conditions, are not per se a copyright issue. However,
technological measures preventing online consumers from accessing protected online content based on geographic
location are the result of these exclusive territorial licensing practices.
On 9 December 2015, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation on ensuring the cross-border portability
of online content services in the internal market (COM(2015)0627), which is the first proposal on copyright as part
of the Digital Single Market strategy. The Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) is the lead committee on this file and the
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and the Committee on Culture and Education
6
________________________________________________________________________________
(CULT) are associated committees in accordance with Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure. The Committee on Industry,
Research and Energy (ITRE) will also give an opinion on this file. On the same day, 9 December 2015, Commissioner
Oettinger presented the proposal at a JURI meeting and held an exchange with Members. The Working Group on
Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Reform held an exchange with Vice-President Ansip on 16 December
2015.
The Working Group also devoted its meeting on 18 February 2016 to the portability question and heard
presentations from the Commission and the European Parliament Research Service on the proposal and its impact
assessment as well as viewpoints from representatives of public broadcasters, audiovisual producers and
distributors, content service providers, sports bodies and users.
A public hearing was held on portability at the JURI meeting on 20 April 2016, where Members heard the
Commission as well as external experts on the technical perspective of portability and the perspectives of
consumers, authors, producers and content providers.
The Committee held an exchange of views at the meeting on 24 May 2016. At this meeting, the Committee will
consider the draft report prepared by the rapporteur, Mr Jean-Marie Cavada.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The application of the European Order for Payment
Procedure
At this meeting, the rapporteur will present his draft report on the
application of the European Order for Payment Procedure.
The purpose of the European Order for Payment Procedure is to
allow for the easier recovery of sums in cross-border proceedings.
The procedure is optional, meaning that it is available in crossborder cases as an alternative to the various equivalent national
procedures. To put it simply, the procedure allows creditors to
easily obtain an order of recovery on uncontested civil and
commercial claims.
The European Order for Payment is issued automatically, on the sole
basis of the application, but the debtor may make a statement of
opposition within 30 days. In the case of such an opposition, the order is
terminated, and adversarial court proceedings can commence. Some 12
000 applications for European Orders for Payment are made each year.
The rapporteur considers that the Commission should adopt new
versions of certain of the standard forms in order to take into account
various changes that have occurred over the years, as well as to improve
the clarity of the sections on payment of interest. As concerns the
regulation itself, the rapporteur sees no immediate need for changes, but
considers whether some of the restrictions to the scope of the procedure
might be lifted in view of the progress made by EU family law. More work
also needs to be done on applications for review of European Orders for
Payment.
Rapporteur: Kostas
Chrysogonos
Administrator: Alexander
Keys
Presentation of draft report:
11.07.2016
14.07.2016
Adoption JURI: September
2016
The deadline for amendments is 14 July 2016. The committee intends to
vote on the report in September 2016.
7
_________________________________________________________________________________
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS
Disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches
A healthy single market needs a fair, efficient and
growth-friendly corporate tax system, based on the
principle that companies should pay taxes in the
country where their profits are generated.
Aggressive tax planning undermines this principle.
Most companies do not engage in aggressive tax
planning and suffer a competitive disadvantage visà-vis those that do. Small and medium-sized
companies are particularly affected by this
phenomenon.
The Commission considers that public scrutiny can
assist in ensuring that profits are effectively taxed where they are generated. Public scrutiny can reinforce
public trust and strengthen corporate social responsibility, by contributing to the general welfare by ensuring
that taxes are paid in the country where a company is active. It can also promote better-informed debate on
potential shortcomings in tax laws.
Against this background, the Commission submitted a proposal for a
directive (COM(2016)0198) which requires that certain multinational
enterprises disclose publicly in a specific report the income tax they
pay, together with other relevant tax-related information. Having
regard to the strong connection of the initiative with corporate
reporting, the Commission opted for an amendment of the Accounting
Directive and for the use of Article 50(1) TFEU as the legal base for the
proposal. The proposal focuses on corporate groups with a worldwide
consolidated turnover of more than EUR 750 million. The Commission
considers that its proposal is proportionate both in terms of scope and
information to be disclosed, so as to limit compliance and other costs
for affected companies, as well as to avoid jeopardising their
competitiveness or expose them unduly to double taxation risks.
Legal basis: Article 50(1) TFEU
Rapporteur: Evelyn Regner
Administrator: Francisco RuizRisueño
Exchange of views: 12.07.2016
Presentation of a draft report:
12-13.10.2016
At this meeting, the committee will hold a first exchange of views on the Commission proposal.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Insolvency proceedings and insolvency practitioners
Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings
(recast) entered into force on 26 June 2015. The Regulation will apply from 26 June 2017, with the exception of the
part relating to the system for interconnection of national insolvency registers, which will apply from 26 June 2019.
Annex A to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 lists the insolvency proceedings referred to in Article 2(4) of the Regulation.
Annex B lists the insolvency practitioners referred to in Article 2(5).
8
________________________________________________________________________________
In December 2015 Poland notified the Commission on a
substantial reform of its domestic law on restructuring,
taking effect as of 1 January 2016, and requested that the
lists set out in Annexes A and B to the Regulation be
changed accordingly. According to recital 9 and Articles
1(1) and 2(4) of the Regulation, national proceedings
qualify as ‘insolvency proceedings’ in the context of the
Regulation only if they are listed in Annex A thereto. Recital
9 of the Regulation confirms this: ‘This Regulation should
apply to insolvency proceedings which meet the
conditions set
out in it, irrespective of whether the debtor is a natural person or a legal
person, a trader or an individual. Those insolvency proceedings are listed
exhaustively in Annex A. National insolvency procedures not listed in
Legal basis: Article 81 TFEU
Annex A should not be covered by this Regulation’.
Rapporteur: Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
The Commission has analysed Poland’s request with a view to ensuring
compliance of the notification with the requirements of the Regulation,
and has proposed a Regulation replacing the lists of insolvency
proceedings and insolvency practitioners contained respectively in
Annex A and Annex B to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency
proceedings.
Administrator: Francisco RuizRisueño
Deadline for amend: 09.09.2016
At this meeting the committee will hold an exchange of views on the
proposal.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods
At this meeting the Committee on Legal Affairs
will hold a first exchange of views on the
proposal for a directive on certain aspects of
contract rules for online sales of goods.
On 9 December 2015 the Commission adopted
two legislative proposals on harmonised rules
for contracts in the digital environment. These
proposals
were
among
the
initiatives
announced in the Commission’s Digital Single
Market
strategy
of
6
May
2015
(COM(2015)0192). One of these proposals
deals with certain aspects concerning contracts
for the supply of digital content. The other which will be discussed at this meeting - covers certain aspects of contract law for the online and other distance sales
of goods.
The objectives of the proposals are to further harmonise contract law in order to increase consumer confidence
when buying online and across borders, and to create a business-friendly environment and make it easier for
businesses to sell cross-border.
9
_________________________________________________________________________________
These two proposals replace the proposal for a regulation on a
Common European Sales Law (CESL), on which Parliament adopted
Procedure: 2015/0288 (COD)
in February 2014 a first reading position based on a report by the
Committee on Legal Affairs. Instead of following the CESL approach
Legal basis: Article 114 TFEU
of an optional regime for a comprehensive set of rules, the
Commission opted this time for a targeted and fully harmonised set
of rules that deals only with certain aspects of contract rules,
essentially conformity with the contract and remedies in case of nonconformity. The scope is also limited to business-to- consumer
contracts and to contracts concluded online (or via other distance
communication means in the case of proposals for sales of goods).
On the file relating to the proposal for a directive on certain aspects
Rapporteur for opinion (Rule 54):
Heidi Hautala
Administrator: Carine Piaguet
Exchange of views: 11 July
Consideration draft opinion: 12-13
October
Deadline for amend: 26 October
concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of
Consideration amendments: 28-29
November
goods, the Committee on Legal Affairs has been granted associated
Adoption JURI: January 2017
committee status, given that the matter falls almost equally under
its competence and that of the lead committee, namely the
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO).
Adoption Lead Committee:
January/February 2017
Adoption Plenary: 2017
In practical terms, JURI will adopt an opinion consisting of
amendments to the legislative proposal, which will be put to the vote
in IMCO. If they are rejected, JURI will have the possibility to table those amendments directly in plenary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control of the Register and composition of the Commission's expert groups
On 30 May 2016 the Commission adopted a
Decision ‘establishing horizontal rules on the
creation and operation of Commission expert
groups’, thus revising its guidelines concerning the
register
and
composition of its
expert
groups,
Basic doc: C(2016) 3301
something
called
final
for by Parliament in
Rapporteur: Sylvie-Yvonne
the context of the
Kaufmann
budgetary
procedure.
The Committee on Budgetary Control has decided to draw up an owninitiative report on the implementation of the new guidelines, with a view
to ensuring that the aspects emphasised by Parliament are duly taken into
consideration. The Commmittee on Legal Affairs is associated with the
report under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure, with Sylvie-Yvonne
Kaufmann as rapporteur. She will introduce a first exchange of views on the
opinion in the committee on 11 July 2016.
PRELIMINARY
TIMETABLE
Exchange of views:
11.07.2016
Deadline for amend:
30.09.2016
The Commission defines an Expert Group as a ‘consultative entity set up by
the Commission or its services for the purpose of providing them with
advice and expertise as set out in Rule 3, which comprises at least six members and is foreseen to meet
more than once’. In April 2015, 830 such groups were listed on the Register of Expert Groups, with a total
of nearly 25 000 members.
10
________________________________________________________________________________
A coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries
At this meeting Ms Therese Comodini Cachia, will lead the
committee’s first exchange of views on the own initiative report
on ‘A coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries’. The
committees for Industry, Research and Energy and for Culture and
Education are the lead committees (rapporteurs: Christian Ehler
and Luigi Morgano).
The concept of cultural and creative industries is wide and
includes, among others: performing and visual arts, films, music,
publishing, cultural heritage, architecture, design etc. What
cultural industries have in
common is that they all use
creativity, cultural knowledge
and intellectual property to
Rapporteur: Therese
produce products and services
Comodini Cachia
with social and cultural meaning. Those industries have their origin in
Administrator: Zampia
idnvidual creativity, skill and talent and thus have a potential for wealth
Vernadaki
and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual
Lead committees: ITRE, CULT
property.
Cultural and creative industries are faced with a rapidly changing context
characterised in particular by the speed of the development and
deployment of digital information communication technology on a
global scale. This driver has a huge impact on all sectors on the whole
value chain, from creation to production, distribution and consumption
of cultural goods and services. Against this background, the use and
management of intellectual property rights is important to strike a
balance between the necessary protection and sustainability of creation
and the need to foster the development of new services and business
models.
Exchange of views:
12.07.2016
08.09.2016
________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORT BACK TO COMMITTEE
Interpretation and implementation of the interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking
On 13 April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council and the
Commission signed a new interinstitutional agreement (IIA) on
better law-making. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the
Committee on Constitutional Affairs have, therefore, decided to
create a joint Working Group (WG) on the interpretation and
implementation of the IIA with a view to preparing an own-initiative
report on the same topic. Rapporteurs on the latter are Pavel
Svoboda, for the Committee on Legal Affairs, and Richard Corbett,
for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
On 10 May 2016, the WG held its constituent meeting, during which it also adopted its mission statement and an
indicative timetable, and held an exchange of views with Francesca Ratti, Deputy Secretary-General, in charge of
Parliament's Task Force on the implementation of the IIA on Better Law-Making.
11
_________________________________________________________________________________
On 7 June 2016, the WG held its second meeting. In particular, the WG
discussed the possible arrangements to implement the IIA provisions
on programming and verification of legal bases, and considered the
Basic doc: Interinstitutional
Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better
Law-Making
changes to the Rules of Procedure which may be necessary following
the entry into force of the IIA. These issues were discussed in the
presence of Jerzy Buzek, Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs,
and Rainer Wieland, Chair of the AFCO Working Group "Revisiting the
Rules of Procedure", who also contributed to the exhange of views.
On 4 July 2016, the Members of the WG had the opportunity to join an
extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and
to ask questions to First VP Timmermans on Better Law-Making. On the
Legal basis: Rules 52 and 55 RoP
Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda (JURI),
Richard Corbett (AFCO)
Administrator: Andrea Scrimali (JURI),
Annemieke Beugelink (AFCO)
Opinion giving committee: INTA,
EMPL, ENVI, PETI
same day, the WG held its third meeting and, notably, an exchange of
views with Elmar Brok, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
Bernd Lange, Chair of the Committee on International Trade, on the improved practical arrangements for cooperation
and information-sharing in relation to the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements referred to in
paragraph 40 of the new IIA.
At this meeting, the Rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs will report back to the Committee.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exchange of views with Marianne Thyssen, European Commissioner for Employment,
Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility in relation to the yellow card procedure on the
Posting of Workers Proposal
On 8 March 2016, the Commission adopted a Proposal for a Directive of
the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of
services (COM(2016)0128 / 2016/0070(COD)). This proposal amends
Directive 96/71/EC, and the Commission therefore based the proposal on
the same legal basis, i.e. Articles 53(1) and 62 TFEU.
The Commission forwarded all language versions of its proposal to the
national parliaments on Tuesday, 15 March 2016. The deadline (8 weeks)
for the subsidiarity check for this file was therefore Tuesday, 10 May. By
that deadline, 14 national parliaments or parliamentary chambers had adopted documents entitled ‘reasoned
opinions’. Together, these parliaments represent 22 votes, in other words 3 votes over the required threshold of 19
votes.
As the author of the legislative proposal, it is up to the Commission to acknowledge receipt of the reasoned opinions
from national parliaments and confirm that the required threshold for the ‘yellow card’ is reached. The ‘yellow
card’ procedure foresees that the Commission must review its proposal. After such a review, the Commission may
decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision. The EU Treaties do not set
any time limits for the duration of such a review.
The Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible for compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, held a
discussion on the proposal at its meeting of 24 May 2016. It then decided to invite Commissioner Thyssen, as the
commissioner responsible for the file, to a forthcoming meeting. At this meeting, the committee will have an exchange
of views with Commissioner Thyssen about the ‘yellow card’ procedure and the way in which the Commission
intends to move forward in relation to this file. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has been invited to
participate in this meeting.
12
________________________________________________________________________________
PAST EVENTS
Hearing on the Reform of the Judiciary in Ukraine, on 14.06.2016
13
_________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop ‘The Future of European Company Law’, on 14.06.2016
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop on Common minimum standards of civil procedure, on 15.6.2016
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exchange of views with Commissioner Vĕra Jourová
14
________________________________________________________________________________
Visit of the Committee on Legal Affairs to Beijing, China, on 16-20 May 2016
A visit of a delegation of the
Committee on Legal Affairs to
Beijing was organised with the
aim of improving members’
understanding of Chinese law
and practices, as well as
discussing current questions
falling within the Committee's
term of reference, especially
intellectual property issues.
The
five
Members
participating
in
the
delegation, namely Therese
Comodini Cachia (head of
mission), Emil Radev, Mary
Honeyball, Angel Dzhambazki and Kostas Chrysognos, were accompanied by a team composed of Secretariat
staff, political advisors and two interpreters.
The visit started with a briefing at the
EU delegation in Beijing, with the
Ambassador and experts. The
delegation then had a long and
fruitful discussion with the Law
Committee
of
the
Standing
Committee of the National People's
Congress (NPC) - JURI’s counterpart in
China - on the subjects of the
legislative process in the two systems,
the EU-China relationship in the area
of trade, and copyright in the digital
era. The exchange of views was
followed by a dinner on the NPC’s premises - the Great Hall of the People - which allowed the discussion to
continue on a less formal basis.
The following day, the JURI delegation met with the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), and more specifically
the Department of Treaty and Law, as well as representatives of the Office of the National Leading Group on
the Fight against IPR infringement and counterfeiting. A meeting with business representatives then took
place, following which the JURI members met with the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council of the
People's Republic of China, which is concerned with the implementation of law and its supervision and
review in different areas, including IPR.
On the last day, the delegation had the opportunity to meet with the Deputy Commissioner responsible for
international affairs and cooperation and the services of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). The
visit to Beijing ended with a meeting with judges of the Supreme People's Court, at which the delegation was
able to exchange views with the Chief Judge of the Intellectual Property Rights Division on recent progress
in the field of IPR and the ongoing reform, including the setting-up of specialised IP courts.
15
_________________________________________________________________________________
SCRUTINY OF DELEGATED ACTS AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES
Commission Implementing Decision of XXX
amending Decision 2011/30/EU on the
equivalence of certain third country public
oversight, quality assurance, investigation and
penalty systems for auditors and audit entities
and a transitional period for audit activities of
certain third country auditors and audit entities
in the European Union
The Commission has carried out assessments of
the public oversight, quality assurance,
investigation and penalty systems for auditors
and audit entities of the third countries listed in
Annex II to Decision 2011/30/EU. Following such assessments, it appears that some third countries have
public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities that
meet requirements equivalent to those set out in Articles 29, 30 and 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC. Therefore,
it is appropriate to consider those systems equivalent to the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation
and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States. On the other hand, other third
countries have established or are in the process of establishing public oversight, quality assurance,
investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities. However, due to the recent establishment
of those systems, certain information is still missing, rules are not fully implemented, inspections are not
carried out, or sanctions are not imposed.
In order to protect investors, auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or
consolidated accounts of companies that are incorporated in the third countries listed in Annex II to Decision
2011/30/EC and whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of a Member
State should be able to continue their audit activities in the Union without being registered under Article 45
of Directive 2006/43/EC during an additional period running from 1 August 2016 to 31 July 2018, on
condition that they provide the required information.
This draft implementing act has been submitted by the Commission to the Committee established by Article
48(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC for opinion.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that no objection should be raised to the implementing act in question.
Commission Implementing Decision of XXX on the equivalence of the public oversight, quality assurance,
investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of the United States of America pursuant
to Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
Pursuant to Article 45(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, the competent authorities of a Member State are required
to register all third-country auditors and audit entities that provide audit reports concerning the annual or
consolidated financial statements of companies incorporated outside the Union whose transferable
securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of that Member State. Article 45(3) of Directive
2006/43/EC requires Member States to subject such auditors and audit entities to their systems of public
oversight, quality assurance, investigations and penalties.
By Implementing Decision 2013/281/EU , the Commission considered that the public oversight, quality
assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities performed by the competent
authorities of the United States, namely the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of
America and the Public Company Accounting Overisght Board of the United States of America, were
16
________________________________________________________________________________
equivalent to the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and
audit firms of the Member States. That Implementing Decision will cease to apply on 31 July 2016. Therefore,
the equivalence of those systems should be reassessed.
The present draft Implementing Decision extends the assessment of equivalence from 1 August 2016 to 31
July 2022.
Commission Implementing Decision of XXX on the adequacy of the competent authorities of the United
States of America pursuant to Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Under Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, the competent authorities of Member States may allow the
transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms approved by
them and of inspection or investigation reports relating to the audits in question to the competent
authorities of a third country only if those authorities meet requirements that have been declared adequate
by the Commission and there are reciprocal working arrangements between them and the competent
authorities of the Member States concerned.
By Implementing Decision 2013/280/EU, the Commission considered that the competent authorities of the
United States, namely the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States of America and
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America, meet requirements that are
adequate for the purposes of Article 47(1)(c) of Directive 2006/43/EC. That Implementing Decision is
applicable since 1 August 2013 and will cease to apply on 31 July 2016.
The present draft Implementing Decision extends the assessment of adequacy from 1 August 2016 to 31 July
2022.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No …/.. of XXX establishing the forms referred to in Regulation
(EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Account
Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters
In order to ensure the proper application of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate
cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, several forms should be established.
This draft implementing act aims at establishing the forms in question, which are set out in detail in its
annexes. These include the forms to apply, issue or revoke a European Account Preservation Order, to issue
a declaration concerning the preservation of funds, to request the release of over-preserved amounts, to
acknowledge receipt, to apply for a remedy, to introduce an appeal against a decision on a remedy, etc.
The rapporteur is of the view that no objection should be raised to the implementing act in question.
17
_________________________________________________________________________________
SUBSIDIARITY (RULE 42)
The following reasoned opinion received from national
parliaments will be announced in the meeting:
- by Bulgarian Parliament:
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard the
security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No
994/2010 (COM(2016)0052-2016/0030(COD))
- by French Senate, Portuguese Parliament and Maltese
Parliament:

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an information
exchange mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements and non-binding instruments between
Member States and third countries in the field of energy and repealing Decision No 994/2012/EU
(COM(2016)0053-2016/0031(COD))
- by Swedish Paliament:

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2013/34/EU as
regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches (COM(2016)01982016/0107(COD))
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS (RULE 3)
The President has announced to plenary that the competent national authorities have
given notice of the appointment of the following as Member(s) of the European
Parliament, with effect from the dates shown below:
•
Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENE (to replace Mr Gabrielius LANDSBERGIS), as from
30 May 2016.
In accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure, on the basis of a report by the JURI Committee, Parliament
will verify the credentials without delay and rule on the validity of the
Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda
Administrator: Andrea Scrimali
Exchange of views: 11-12.07.2016
Adoption JURI: 11-12.07.2016
mandate of each of its newly elected Members. Parliament will also
rule on any dispute referred to it pursuant to the provisions of the
Act of 20 September 1976, except those based on national electoral
laws.
It is not possible to confirm the validity of the mandate of a Member
unless the written declarations required on the basis of Article 7 of
the Act of 20 September 1976 and Annex I to the Rules have been
made. Until such time as a Member’s credentials have been verified
or a ruling has been given on any dispute, the Member will take his or her seat in Parliament and in its bodies
and enjoy all the rights attaching thereto.
18
________________________________________________________________________________
IN CAMERA
DISPUTES INVOLVING PARLIAMENT
Case C-267/15 Buhagiar e.a.– Possible submission of
observations by the European Parliament
The European Parliament was notified of a request for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Gibraltar which
raises, inter alia, the question of the validity of Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of acquisition and possession
of weapons as amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Firearms
Directive’).
The present referral for a preliminary ruling arises out of a dispute in the Netherlands between Mr Albert Buhagiar and
six other members of the Gibraltar Target Shooting Association, on the one hand, and the Minister for Justice of
Gibraltar, on the other hand. The dispute concerns the question whether the Government of Gibraltar is required to
transpose those aspects of the Firearms Directive that provide for the creation of the European firearms pass (EFP).
The Government of Gibraltar refused to issue an EFP to the claimants on the basis that the Firearms Directive does not
apply to Gibraltar. The claimants argue, amongst other things, that the Directive aims at regulating an aspect of
freedom of movement of persons and was therefore adopted on the wrong legal basis, since Article 100a of the EEC
Treaty, now Article 114 TFEU, explicitly provides (in paragraph 2) that it cannot be used for free movement of persons.
The Supreme Court decided to refer various preliminary questions to the Court of Justice, one of them explicitly dealing
with the validity of the Firearms Directive.
Council Directive 91/477/EEC was amended by Directive 2008/51/EC, of which Parliament is co-author. At this
meeting, the committee will decide, having regard to the Guidelines for the application of Rule 141 of Parliament’s
Rules of Procedure, whether to recommend to the President under Rule 141(4) that Parliament submit observations
in the proceedings pending before the Court of Justice.
Case ase C-304/16 American Express - Possible submission of observations by the European
Parliament
On 29 June 2016 the European Parliament was notified of a reference for a preliminary ruling made by the UK
High Court of Justice - Queen’s bench division (administrative court), which raises, inter alia, a question of validity
of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions (the ‘Interchange Fee
Regulation’ or the ‘Regulation’).
The reference arises out of judicial review proceedings brought by American Express (the ‘claimant in the main
proceedings’) against the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury (the ‘defendants in the main
proceedings’). The Treasury is the government department in the United Kingdom in charge of implementing the
Interchange Fee Regulation in that Member State.
The point in dispute between the parties in the main proceedings is the provision in Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of the
Interchange Fee Regulation that a three party scheme is also ‘considered to be’ a four party scheme where it
‘issues card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent’. The claimant in the
main proceedings contends that this provision of the Interchange Fee Regulation is to be read as applying in full
whenever issuance takes place with a co-branding partner or through an agent and that, for that reason, it should
be declared invalid as lacking valid justification, vitiated by manifest error of assessment and as being
disproportionate. Conversely, the defendants in the main proceeding consider that this provision is not invalid, in
view of their understanding that it has to be read as applying only where the co-branding partner or the agent,
respectively, are issuers themselves, involving a direct contract with the payer.
Regulation 2015/751 was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. At this meeting, the committee will
decide having regard to the Guidelines for the application of Rule 141 of the Rules of Procedure, whether to
recommend to the President under Rule 141(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, that
Parliament submit observations in the proceedings pending before the Court of Justice.
19
_________________________________________________________________________________
IMMUNITIES
Mario Borghezio
Sotirios Zarianopoulos
Rolandas Paksas
CONSIDERATION OF A
DRAFT REPORT
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS +
VOTE (possibly)
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS
ADOPTION OF A DRAFT
REPORT (possibly)
Type of procedure: Waiver of
immunity
Type of procedure:
Procedure: 2016/2083(IMM)
Defence of immunity
Legal basis: RoP Rule 6
Procedure: 2016/2028 (IMM)
Notice to Members: 18/2016
Rapporteur: Gilles Lebreton
Notices to Members: 06/2016,
09/2016, 10/2016, 13/2016,
23/2016, 25/2016
Rapporteur: Angel Dzhambazki
Administrator: Andrea Scrimali
Preliminary Timetable:
Type of procedure:
Waiver of immunity
Procedure: 2016/2070(IMM)
Rapporteur: Angel
Dzhambazki
Administrator: Magnus
Nordanskog
Hearing: none
Vote (possibly): 11.07.2016
Rosario Crocetta
Exchange of views: 15.03.2016,
23.05.2016, 11.07.2016
ADOPTION OF A
DRAFT REPORT
Hearing: 23.05.2016
Adoption JURI: 11.07.2016 (tbc)
Istvan Ujhelyi
Type of procedure:
ADOPTION OF A DRAFT
REPORT
Defence of immunity
Type of procedure:
Waiver of immunity
Notice to Members:
05/2016, 8/2016
Rapporteur: Heidi Hautala
Administrator: Andrea
Scrimali
Rapporteur: Tadeusz Zwiefka
Administrator: Magnus
Nordanskog
Exchange of views: 15.03.2016,
23.05.2016, 13.06.2016
Hearing: 15.03.2016
Vote: 11.07.2016
SUBSCRIPTIONS
CREDITS
JURI Report: [email protected]
European Parliament
JURI Press Releases: [email protected]
Head of Secretariat: Robert BRAY
WATCH LIVE: EP website or EuroparlTV
Responsible Administrator: Alexander KEYS
Re-Watch: EP multimedia library
Editorial/Production Assistant: Natalia EWIAKOVA
20
&
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-
Committee on Legal Affairs

JURI Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Presidente (ES)/Vorsitzender (DE)/Chairperson