Brussels, 04/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - Many agricultural experts are concerned by the general provisions for the implementation of Articles 290 (delegated acts) and 291 (implementing acts) of the Lisbon Treaty. On Monday 2 May, the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) was given the opinion of the Council legal department on implementation of these two Articles and will continue its discussions on aligning two proposals, on rural development and direct aid, with the Lisbon Treaty on 10 May.
The Council legal department delivered a general opinion (not one restricted to the common agricultural policy) on implementation of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty. Article 290 provides an institutional innovation in that it confers powers on the Commission by means of delegated acts. This procedure partially covers the current regulatory procedure with scrutiny. Article 291, however, continues an existing practice conferring implementing powers on the Commission by means of a new “comitology”. In both cases, delegation of power comes into play on non-essential acts drawn up by the legislator. The legal department says that each procedure should be examined case by case, as there is no mathematical formula to determine what comes under Article 290 and what comes under Article 291. It raises two issues. 1) Implementation of emergency measures within the meaning of Article 290 is defined in the “common understanding” which regulates the institutional implementation of these Articles among the Council, European Parliament and Commission and also the new comitology regulation (Article 8). There is no specific provision for these measures in the Treaty, the EU's primary legislation. Such measures are, then, to be used sparingly. 2) In the context of Article 291 of the Treaty, Article 5§4 of the comitology regulation details what happens when no opinion is delivered by a committee. While the general provisions allow the Commission to adopt texts in such instances, there are exceptions. One of these (point b of sub-paragraph 2 of Article 5§4 of the comitology regulation) says that the legislator may state explicitly in the basic act that an implementing act may not be taken by the Commission in the event of no opinion being provided. The legal department encourages the legislator to state in the basic acts, in instances where it is possible for measures to be adopted when no committee opinion is delivered, whether or not the Commission will be allowed to do so.
The Commission broadly shares the opinion of the Council legal department but regrets the restrictive position it takes on emergency measures which have, in the past, demonstrated their usefulness. The Commission believes, too, that systematic use of the provisions (point b of sub-paragraph 2 of Article 5§4 of the comitology regulation) might slow procedures.
In more general terms, several delegations say they are concerned by the provisions and feel that many uncertainties remain in the implementation of these two Articles. Matters must be more clearly specified, according to Spain, the Netherlands and Poland in particular. Several member states (Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Denmark) feel that the consultation of experts (application of Article 290) should be specified in a legislative act and not simply by a Commission “non-paper”. Some delegations (Germany, Austria, France) wonder how the appeals committee (Article 291) will operate, given that there are still uncertainties, for example, on specialist issues (should there be appeals committee sub-groups or configurations?). The legal service says that only concrete experience will remove some of the uncertainties. (L.C./transl.rt)