Дахно І.І. Право Європейського Союзу: Англо-Українсько-Російський Глосарій
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
31
cratic nature of Commu-
nit
y
action re
q
uires the
Parliament to
p
artici
p
ate
in exercisin
g
le
g
islative
power. Thus, any legis-
lative instrument adopted
by
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
is
likel
y
to fall within the
sco
p
e of the codecision
procedure. In most cases,
therefore, codecision in
the Parliament goes hand
in hand with
q
ualifie
d
ma
j
orit
y
votin
g
in the
Council. For some provi-
sions of the Treaty, how-
ever, codecision an
d
unanimity still coexist.
The Treaty of Nice par-
tiall
y
p
uts an end to this
situation. The Intergov-
ernmental Conference
(IGC) launched in Feb-
ruar
y
2000 called for an
extension of the scope of
codecision, in
p
arallel
with and as a supplement
to the extension of quali-
fied ma
j
orit
y
votin
g
in
the Council. Seven pro-
visions for which the
IGC
p
lanned to a
pp
l
y
qualified majority voting
are thus also sub
j
ect to
codecision. They are: in-
centives to combat dis-
crimination, judicial co-
o
p
eration in civil
matters, specific indus-
trial su
pp
ort measures,
economic and social co-
hesion actions
(
outside
the Structural Funds), the
statute for European po-
litical parties and meas-
ures relatin
g
to visas,
asylum and immigration.
On the other hand, the
IGC did not extend the
codecision
p
rocedure to
legislative measures al-
)
$,
*
0$)-
#.
; -
% % #-
$ -
% . 4, )-
$ $ ,
$$ *-
), $-
,
*
) $ -
). < ),
) -
)
$
)
; $
-
* )
B. ! -
&
) )
$ ) -
$).
)$ -
$ $ -
%. 6
*
(
IGC
)
,
2000
.,
* -
) $ -
) ) ,
, -
-
* )
B. # ),
IGC -
-
*-
),
, -
) $-
). :
)
, -
) , -
-
>
*
>,
) -
, -
)
, -
*-
> > K-
$ #.
/ -
$ > -
$ # -
-
)$ -
. @, $ -
)>$ , -
>$ *-
> ),
, -
) * -
> -
$. < -
, )
-
$ ;-
*>
) #-
. ; > -
&
-
-
$ .
$ -
J$ . 6-
) -
* (IGC), -
*
2002 .,
*> -
-
$ ) ,
, -
*>
) #-
. #) $,
> IGC -
32
ready subject to qualified
ma
j
orit
y
votin
g
(
such as
agricultural or commer-
cial
p
olic
y)
. There is
therefore no definitive
link yet between quali-
fied ma
j
orit
y
votin
g
an
d
the codecision procedure
for all legislative deci-
sions.
* -
, %
% -
)%
(
*-
), $)-
$
, -
) ,
%. ! -
, IGC
$
)
, -
-
*
)
( ))-
)
$
). ' -
) -
*$ -
)
)
$
).
)
*-
> )-
,
,
-
-
$. @
: >
)> -
$, -
-
, *-
> -
>,
$ J-
)
( #-
> *),
$ -
$ -
,
, -
. # $ -
>, IGC -
> -
$ -
)>
>,
> -
-
*-
> ) (-
)$-
-
)
. '
-
-
*> )-
-
$ -
-
)> $.
Closer
cooperation
To encourage closer co-
operation between coun-
tries of the Euro
p
ean
Union who wish to
g
o
further than the degree of
integration provided for
=+
! -
-
% 0-
$) #
,
) $ , -
%
# )
-
-
K
$
#, > -
),
33
by
the Treaties
(
in the
fields of social affairs,
elimination of borde
r
controls, etc.
)
, various
instruments have been
introduced, such as the
Social Policy Agreement
and the Schengen Ac-
cords. This has allowe
d
Member States who so
wish to make
p
ro
g
ress a
t
a different
p
ace or on
different objectives out-
side the institutional
framework of the Euro-
pean Union.
After the Treaty of Am-
sterdam came into force,
the use of these instru-
ments was put on a more
formal footin
g
with the
introduction of the con-
cept of «closer coopera-
tion» in the Treat
y
on
Euro
p
ean Union
(
EU
Treat
y)
and the Treat
y
establishing the Euro-
p
ean Communit
y
(
EC
Treaty).
The aim of such coop-
eration is to enable a
limited number of Mem-
ber States that are willing
and able to advance fur-
ther to dee
p
en Euro
p
ean
inte
g
ration within the
sin
g
le institutional
framework of the Union.
Closer coo
p
eration mus
t
meet a number of condi-
tions. In
p
articular i
t
must:
x cover an area which
does not fall within the
exclusive com
p
etence of
the Community;
x
b
e aimed at furtherin
g
the ob
j
ectives of the
Union;
res
p
ect the
p
rinci
p
les of
the Treaties and the
%, -
&
(
* ) -
, -
)
,
,
/ )
)
. + -
--
,
),
-
-
$%
0$) #.
; -
1) -
,
*-
) -
-
$ « -
»
&
0
$)$ #
(& EU) &,
0-
$) #-
(& E#).
6 -
-
-
--
,
)
, -
$)
% $% -
#.
< -
)
. ', -
, :
—
*
,
-
#;
— -
$ #;
)
, -
$ &-
( * )-
> $, -
. .), -
> > -
> #-
)$
-
.
G -
-, -
> , -
) -
>
>
-
)$ >
K$ #.
; -
1 -
, )
J >-
*
)
« -
» &
K
$ #
(& EU) &-
,
$
K$ #-
(& K#).
+) -
,
> ) -
>
, -
>
), ) -
$
$ -
)$ -
> #.
{ -
)
$. 4,
, :
— >) *,
34
Community acquis;
x
b
e used onl
y
as a las
t
resort;
x involve a minimum
number of Membe
r
States;
x allow the gradual inte-
g
ration of other Membe
r
States.
Closer cooperation under
the EC Treaty is author-
ised by the Council, act-
ing by a qualified major-
it
y
on a
p
ro
p
osal fro
m
the Commission and af-
ter consulting the Euro-
pean Parliament.
The object of closer co-
o
p
eration under the EU
Treat
y
, accordin
g
to the
p
rovisions of the Treat
y
of Amsterdam, is to de-
velop the area of free-
dom, security and jus-
tice. At the request of the
Member States con-
cerned, it is authorise
d
by the Council, acting by
a qualified majority after
obtaining the Commis-
sion’s o
p
inion and afte
r
submittin
g
the re
q
uest to
the European Parliament.
Accordin
g
to the Treat
y
of Amsterdam, a Mem-
b
er State could alwa
y
s
refuse to allow close
r
cooperation in a particu-
lar area for reasons of
national political impor-
tance. However, a quali-
fied ma
j
orit
y
in the
Council could refer the
matter to the Euro
p
ean
Council, which must ac
t
unanimously.
The Treat
y
of Nice
aimed, in
p
articular, to
simplify the use of closer
cooperation and intro-
duced significant changes:
—
& -
#;
—
$ ;
—
)
)) -;
— -
-.
< -
&
0$) #-
-
) B,
* )-
5% )-
% 0
$)
.
6 -
&
0$)$ #-
, -
) 1
)
,
* ,
.
-
-,
) B-
, *-
)
5-
%
0$)-
.
' 1-
)
,
- -
-
$
*
-
)% %
. '
* )-
B
0$)% B,
) $.
— -
)-
#-
;
—
)
$ #;
—
)
& -
#;
—
))
-
;
— ) -
) -
-;
— ) -
-.
{ -
&
K$ #-
#, $
*>
) -
5
)
K$ -
.
+) -
&-
K
$
#,
1-
,
* >, -
. ;
) -
> -,
J
#, $
*>
)
5-
-
K$$ -
.
' 1-
-
35
x
the minimum numbe
r
of Member States re-
quired for closer coop-
eration has been cut b
y
a
half (Treaty of Amster-
dam) to eight, irrespec-
tive of the total numbe
r
of Member States;
x Member States can no
longer prevent closer co-
o
p
eration: the matte
r
ma
y
be referred to the
Euro
p
ean Council but i
t
is the Council of Minis-
ters that decides b
y
the
ma
j
orit
y
p
rovided for in
the Treaties;
x under the EC Treat
y
,
Parliament’s assent is re-
quired if closer coopera-
tion covers a field sub-
ject to codecision;
x an additional condition
for the im
p
lementation
of closer cooperation has
b
een added: it must no
t
j
eo
p
ardise the internal
market or economic an
d
social cohesion.
The Treaty of Nice in-
troduced the
p
ossibilit
y
of closer coo
p
eration in
the field of the common
forei
g
n and securit
y
p
olic
y
(
CFSP
)
, exce
pt
for matters having mili-
tary or defence implica-
tions. At
p
rocedural
level, decisions are taken
by
the Council, after an
opinion from the Com-
mission, acting by quali-
fied majority on the basis
of a common strategy.
)$ -
,
,
-
-
-
:
— ) ))
-, -
,
(1)$ -
) ), -
)% )-
-;
—
-
) -
: -
-
0
$)%
B, B
6 $ -
), -
&-
;
—
&
0$) #-
) -
, -
*,
)
$ );
—
-
:
-
$
) .
)$ -
) -
* )% -
)% -
(CFSP),
),
) -
. -
,
-
)
-
$
* * -
)$ -
$ . '
, *>
) #
) J
K
$$
#, >$
$) -
.
$ -
, ,
)-
)> :
— ) -
--
,
-
, >
> (1-
$
)
),
-;
— ->
) -
) -
:
-
) K
$$
#, #-
6 -
)-
, -
&;
—
&
K-
$ #
-
-
>, -
> *, -
-
-
$;
36
-
$),
5%, B,
*
)
)% %.
— > -
)
-
: -
)
$
>
J -
) .
$
)
*
$
$
(CFSP), -
,
> -
> .
,
5-
, #, $-
*-
> )
$
.
Comfort letter
Administrative letter sent
to the notif
y
in
g
p
arties
confirmin
g
informall
y
and normall
y
withou
t
an
y
reasonin
g
eithe
r
—
that the Commission sees
no
g
rounds for action
against an agreement un-
der Article 81
(
1
)
of the
EC Treat
y
, because i
t
does not restrict compe-
tition and/or affect trade
b
etween Member states
(
ne
g
ative clearance t
yp
e
comfort letter
)
o
r
— tha
t
the a
g
reement fulfils the
conditions for
g
rantin
g
an exemption under Ar-
ticle 81
(
3
)
of the EC
Treat
y
(
exem
p
tion t
yp
e
comfort letter).
;
1$
, $ -
, -
,
*
)
$
-
, 5
. 1 . 81
& 0$-
) #
%
, )
-
/
% — -
( *
),
-
-
. 3 . 81
;
1
), >
-
, *) -
>
$ — -
, 5-
. 1 . 81 &
K$ #-
-
$ $ -
, -
) -
/
-
-
—
(
)
$
)
,
-
37
& 0$-
) #
( * -
)
-
. 3 . 81 &
K$ #-
(
*
) -
).
Comitology
Under the Treaty estab-
lishin
g
the Euro
p
ean
Communit
y
, it is for the
Commission to imple-
ment le
g
islation a
t
Community level (Arti-
cle 202 of the EC Treaty,
ex-Article 145). In prac-
tice, each legislative in-
strument s
p
ecifies the
scope of the implement-
ing powers granted to the
Commission and how the
Commission is to use
them. Frequently, the in-
strument will also make
provision for the Com-
mission to be assisted by
a committee in accor-
dance with a
p
rocedure
known as «comitology».
The committees which
are forums for discus-
sion, consist of repre-
sentatives from Membe
r
States and are chaired by
the Commission. The
y
enable the Commission
to establish a dialo
g
ue
with national admini-
strations before ado
p
tin
g
im
p
lementin
g
measures.
The Commission ensures
that the
y
reflect as far as
p
ossible the situation in
each country in question.
Procedures which govern
relations between the
Commission and the
committees are base
d
on models set out in
a Council Decision
;
! &, -
0
$)
#
,
5 -
#
(
202 &
0#, -
145). -
$
, -
5% 5-
-
%%. `
) -
,
5% -
, %
«».
5, *-
%,
) -
-
) 5.
+ 5%
) -
-
$ -
) . 5
,
-
, ) -
, -
$ %, -
).
;, -
) 5-
, -
) ,
;
; &, -
K
$
#,
5 -
) )
#
(
) 202 &
K#, J-) 145
)
.
>$ -
)>$ -
) -
, -
5
5 -
) . `
>-
,
5
) -
-
$, $
«».
5>,
* -
$, -
$ --
5$. G -
5 -
) -
)> -
-
$. 5 -
, > -
, -
) J ,
$ -
$ .
;>, -
5$ -
38
(«comitology» Deci-
sion). The first «comitol-
o
gy
» Decision dates
b
ack to 13 Jul
y
1987. In
order to take into account
the chan
g
es in the
Treaty — and, in par-
ticular, Parliament’s new
position under the code-
cision
p
rocedure — bu
t
also to reply to criticisms
that the Communit
y
s
y
stem is too com
p
lex
and too opaque, the 1987
Decision has been re-
p
laced b
y
the Council
Decision of 28 June
1999.
The new Decision en-
sures that Parliament can
keep a eye on the im-
plementation of legisla-
tive instruments ado
p
te
d
under the codesision
p
rocedure. In cases
where le
g
islation comes
under this
p
rocedure,
Parliament can ex
p
ress
its disapproval of meas-
ures
p
ro
p
osed b
y
the
Commission or, where
a
pp
ro
p
riate, b
y
the
Council, which, in Par-
liament’s opinion, go be-
y
ond the im
p
lementin
g
p
owers
p
rovided for in
the legislation.
The Decision clarifies
the criteria to be a
pp
lie
d
to the choice of commit-
tee and simplifies the op-
erational
p
rocedures.
Committees base thei
r
opinions on the draft im-
p
lementin
g
measures
prepared by the Com-
mission. The committees
can be divided into the
following categories:
advisor
y
committees:
they give their opinions
«B-
B» («)-
»
)
. ;
«)»
13 -
1987 . !
&-
, , -
;
)
$
,
-
,
# -
-
, B 1987
B-
B 28
1999 .
B -
,
-
-
, $ -
)
$
). /
, -
, -
-
-
, -
5,
, , B-
, , -
, )
)-
% , %
.
+ «B»
%, ) -
-
-
$
-
. 5 -
) %
) -
,
5. 5 -
-
%:
,
, -
> «B #-
» («»
). ; «-
» -
13 1987 . #
)
& , -
,
; -
-
,
)
, #-
-
$ -
$, B 1987
>
B # 28
1999 .
-
, > -
-
)> , -
> -
-
$. '
,
)
J -
, -
>) -
-
, > 5-
$, , J
, #, -
> -
> -
> $ -
,
$
).
G «B»
, > -
> ) >-
-
>
>. 5 -
>
39
x
to the Commission
which must take the ut-
most account of them.
This straightforward pro-
cedure is
g
enerall
y
use
d
when the matters unde
r
discussion are not ver
y
sensitive politically.
x management commit-
tees: where the measures
adopted by the Commis-
sion are not consisten
t
with the committee’s
o
p
inion
(
delivered b
y
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y)
, the
Commission must com-
municate them to the
Council which, acting by
a
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
, can
take a different decision.
This procedure is used in
p
articular for measures
relating to the manage-
ment of the common ag-
ricultural policy, fisher-
ies, and the main
Community program-
mes.
x regulatory commit-
tees: the Commission
can only adopt imple-
mentin
g
measures if i
t
obtains the a
pp
roval b
y
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
of the
Member States meetin
g
within the committee. In
the absence of such sup-
port, the proposed meas-
ure is referred back to
the Council which takes
a decision b
y
q
ualifie
d
majority. However, if the
Council does not take a
decision, the Commis-
sion finall
y
ado
p
ts the
im
p
lementin
g
measure
provided that the Council
does not ob
j
ect b
y
a
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
. This
p
rocedure is used fo
r
measures relating to
—
&
:
) %
5%, -
) $ -
%. !$ -
) -
$ , -
, -
), -
-
;
— ) -
: ,
5, -
)
($ *-
)), 5-
B, , -
* -
), $-
. +
-
), , -
,
)
)
))
,
)
#;
:
5 $
) -
, -
-
*
)
-, -
)
. !
% -
, -
$
)
B, -
$ *-
). '
, B
$ , 5-
-
$ -
)
,
,
)
B -
-
, >
5$. 5>
)
:
— )> -
>:
5-
, -
> > -
). 4>-
) -
$ ,
>
>
)>.
— -
>:
>,
> 5-
$,
(-
> *-
> )
)
,
5 -
) #
,
>$, $ -
*> )-
, -
) . G
)-
, , ,
-
$ )-
$$ -
$,
>
>
>
#;
— > -
>: 5
)
>, -
*-
> )-
-,
-
. ;
$ , -
#, >$ -
40
Protection of the health
or safet
y
of
p
ersons,
animals and
p
lants an
d
measures amending non-
essential
p
rovisions of
the basic legislative in-
struments.
It also provides the crite-
ria which, de
p
endin
g
on
the matter under discus-
sion, will guide the leg-
islative authorit
y
in its
choice of committee pro-
cedure for the item of
le
g
islation; this is mean
t
to facilitate the ado
p
tion
of the le
g
islation unde
r
the codecision proce-
dure.
Lastly, several innova-
tions in the new «comi-
tology» Decision en-
hance the trans
p
arenc
y
of the committee s
y
stem
to the benefit of Parlia-
ment and the
g
eneral
public: committee docu-
ments will be more read-
ily accessible to the citi-
zen
(
the arran
g
ements
are the same as those ap-
p
l
y
in
g
to Commission
documents
)
. Committee
documents will also be
re
g
istered in a
p
ublic
re
g
ister which will be
available from 2001 on-
wards. The ultimate ai
m
is, with the computerisa-
tion of decision-makin
g
p
rocedures, to
p
ublish
the full texts of non-
confidential documents
transmitted to Parliament
on the Internet. From
2000 onwards, the
Commission will publish
an annual report giving a
summar
y
of committee
activities during the pre-
vious year.
* )-
. + -
) -
,
)
’,
,
,
)
.
; -
% -
, )-
, -
-
)%
-
; )
$
-
) $-
).
, ) -
$ $ «-
%» ) -
) )% -
) ;-
% -
): )
) -
-
(
, -
)
5%
)
. 5)
) -
,
$
2001
. 5
, ’-
-
$ ), -
*$ -
,
«"-
». ! 2000 5-
-
), $
-
*> )-
. ' ,
#
, 5
-
-
,
,
>-
# -
*> )-
. G -
)
, -
> ), -
, -
>
$
,
-
>
> )-
> .
; -
, > -
)
) )
> -
$
>
)-
; J -
)-
-
$.
, )
$ $
«» >-
)
$ >
)
$ -
: -
> -
>
($
>
5-
). 5 -
>