On Thursday 29 October, representatives of the Council of the EU, the European Parliament and the European Commission will be meeting for the fourth time to try to find a compromise on the text linking budget payments to respect for the rule of law in Member States.
After a fairly productive ‘trilogue’ on Tuesday 27 October, a compromise may be found fairly quickly, possibly on Thursday. If this is not the case, the institutions are willing to resume negotiations in November.
Petri Sarvamaa (EPP, Finland), who is a co-rapporteur on ‘Rule of law’ conditionality, told a meeting with a few journalists that Tuesday was “the toughest day”, when negotiations really started.
He wanted to put events into perspective: a few years ago, it would have been impossible to imagine holding a trilogue under the co-decision procedure on introducing budgetary conditionality on the rule of law.
Some progress made, except on the method of voting in the Council of the EU. From the outset, the European Parliament has chosen not to focus on its request for a ‘reverse qualified majority’ vote for failure to comply (to sanction a country), otherwise it would not have achieved much with regard to the other subjects that are important to it in this regulation (scope, definitions, protecting recipients, etc.) Consequently, the issue concerning the decision-making model was deliberately set aside at the start of the negotiations, especially as it is one of the Council of the EU’s ‘red lines’. This tactic will enable the European Parliament to devote its efforts to getting the best possible outcome for each of the other points that it considers crucial.
It is reported that the Council of the EU will agree to include the scope of the mechanism in the Regulation’s articles. It is also reported that the most important consideration for the European Parliament is inclusion of a reference to the independence and impartiality of the judicial system, with a link to Article 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union protecting the budget. The European Parliament is also seeking a preventative mechanism.
It appears too that the Council of the EU has accepted that the European Parliament should have a role in the process (but not a role in the decision-making process).
It is further reported that there has been some movement on the part of the Council of the EU with regard to the panel of experts that the European Parliament has requested as support for the Commission in assessing the situation in Member States.
With regard to the ‘emergency break’ requested by the Council of the EU (which, in ‘exceptional circumstances’, would enable the deadline for adoption to be extended by a maximum of three months and for the involvement of the European Council to be requested), the European Parliament might secure a number of provisions to prevent endless debates at EU country level and an ultimately unproductive mechanism.
With regard to protecting recipients, the European Parliament might secure references in the text to the EU Financial Regulation and to Regulation 1303/2013, which lays down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
The European Parliament’s priorities on this issue. Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain), another co-rapporteur on this issue, told the press that the three trilogues held so far had “gone well”.
“The three institutions really want to find an agreement, even if the positions of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU are very different” to begin with.
She then listed seven of the Parliament’s priorities in the talks on this regulation: - scope and objectives: the European Parliament wants a preventative mechanism and will put forward a list of cases that are considered to be breaches of the Rule of law; - protection for recipients of EU funds; - evaluation: after either “three, four or five years”, the European Parliament wants the Commission to evaluate how the mechanism has been used and how effective it has been, and wants an option to request a change to the system; - the role of the European Parliament: the European Parliament wants to have “its say” in the procedure; - the panel of experts that will assess the situation in a Member State: the European Parliament is calling for the involvement of an independent panel, made up of experts in constitutional law and financial and budgetary matters, to assist the Commission in identifying breaches of the Rule of law that may affect the budget; - timetable: the European Parliament wants a system that allows sanctions to be agreed quickly, if necessary (a period of one to three months for the deadline set by the Commission for a Member State to submit its observations and an indicative period of one month for the Commission's decision after receiving the Member State's observations); - voting procedure: the European Parliament has created a new procedure whereby the Commission adopts measures by means of an implementing act and these measures enter into force unless the Council of the EU (by a ‘reverse’ qualified majority vote) or the European Parliament (by a simple majority vote) rejects a budget transfer. The Council of the EU does not foresee a specific role for the European Parliament and proposes that the Decision be adopted in the Council of the EU by a qualified majority. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)