Brussels, 15/10/2013 (Agence Europe) - According to a vote in the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee on Monday 14 October, the Parliament should have the right to decide on where and when it meets. This has provoked anger among French MEPs. The report will be put to the plenary vote in the November session.
By adopting (22 votes in favour, 4 against) the report by Ashley Fox (ECR, UK) and Gerald Häfner (Greens/EFA, Germany) on determining the seats of the EU institutions, MEPs from the constitutional affairs committee call on the European Parliament to launch an ordinary treaty revision procedure under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) so as to propose an amendment to Article 341 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 6 so that the Parliament might “decide the location of its seat and its internal organisation”. The Treaty of Lisbon allows the Parliament to launch a treaty change procedure.
The European Parliament would be more effective, more cost-efficient and more respectful of the environment if it had just one location, the text states. “The continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue (…) especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful cuts in expenditure in member states”, the text adds.
The report states that the additional annual costs resulting from the Parliament's geographic dispersion have been estimated at between €156 million and €204 million - in other words, around 10% of the Parliament's annual budget. The CO2 emissions linked to moving among the Parliament's three working locations have been estimated at between 11,000 and 19,000 tonnes.
The current working arrangements also impose additional costs and travel on the other EU institutions and on journalists.
The Parliament's constitutional affairs committee calls on the Court of Auditors to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for its budget if the Parliament had only one place of work. This analysis should include budgetary aspects and ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency, the text says.
MEPs insist that it will be necessary to “agree on an appropriate compromise” whereby existing Parliament buildings can continue to be used.
According to Protocol 6 to the treaties, the Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, where 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions are held. The three working places of the Parliament are Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg. Article 341 of the TFEU provides for the seat of the institutions of the European Union to be determined by the member state governments.
Co-rapporteur Häfner stated: “We don't want to revive the age-old debate between Strasbourg and Brussels but we just ask the future European convention to discuss the seat and functioning of the European Parliament as well. It is time for this institution to be able to determine where and when it meets.” He refuses to state his preference for Brussels or Strasbourg at this stage. The Greens point out that the buildings in Strasbourg are only used for 42 days per year - they are therefore vacant for 89% of the time. Häfner believes that a European convention should be convened in 2015 “and we'll see what happens then”, he notes.
The other co-rapporteur, Fox, argues clearly for the choice of Brussels. However, he acknowledges that any changes in the treaty must be ratified by unanimity by the EU's leaders, including the French head of state. “So we are pragmatic. We understand that it is impossible for the French president to sign a treaty change moving the seat away from Strasbourg. We don't mention Strasbourg [in the report] nor Brussels. We don't give details about the place where the single seat should be situated. We only say that a single seat would allow savings of time and CO2”, Fox stated.
The report, “initiated and largely inspired by the One Single Seat campaign, is used by the proponents of a pure and simple centralisation of all the European Parliament's activities in Brussels - proponents who do no cease to challenge Strasbourg as the seat of the Parliament”, criticised Constance Le Grip (EPP, France), who voted against the report.
The French socialist delegation also regrets the vote. “The fact that the European Parliament sits in Strasbourg has never prevented it from increasing its competences - unlike the speeches that describe a Parliament which is reportedly not free to choose its calendar and place of work”, stated Catherine Trautmann (S&D, France). “Since when has self-determination had to lead to concentration? There's a paradox here and it is evident for me that from a democratic point of view we have to ensure that European bodies exist everywhere on the territory”, Trautmann added (our translation throughout). (LC/transl.fl)