Brussels, 24/03/2006 (Agence Europe) - The Inter-institutional Monitoring Group (IIMG) published its first interim report on the "Lamfalussy Process" on 22 March, which aims to create a more efficient system for the EU institutions to prepare, adopt and implement new legislation to integrate financial markets. Notwithstanding the progress made, the IIMG has identified a number of unresolved questions and uncertainties surrounding the procedure. With a view to its second interim report scheduled for early 2007, the Group will conduct specific consultations which will give interested parties the opportunity to make their views known on this report and, in particular, on the identified bottlenecks. The second report will focus on preliminary suggestions for the improvement of the process.
The first interim report notes various problems and bottlenecks in the Lamfalussy Process, like the call back procedure. The call back procedure was outlined in the constitutional treaty. It introduces equivalent powers for the European Parliament and the Council on the right of calling back various implementation measures (Level 2 of the 4-level Lamfalussy Process) adopted by the European Commission using the comitology procedure. Given the uncertainty about whether the treaty will come into force, this equivalence of powers does not exist. The IIMG feels that the inter-institutional problem may have a significant impact on the future of the Lamfalussy Process and therefore urges the EP, Commission and Council to find a balanced solution to this comitology issue asap that is acceptable to all. The 1999/468/EC decision setting out the implementation powers of the European Commission. A draft review of the decision has been at the Council since April 2004. While awaiting its adoption, the EP has negotiated extinction clauses for several EU directives whereby the Commission can only adopt implementation measures using the comitology procedure during a two year period. This is the case for directives on sufficient backing and consolidated accounting of quoted companies (see EUROPE 9038 and 9039).
Other problems with the Lamfalussy Process include cooperation between the European institutions and committees for levels 2 and 3; and among the level 3 committees (the Committee of European Securities Regulators, CESR, the Committee of European Banking Regulators, CEBS, and the Committee of European Instance and Occupational Pensions, CEIOPS). Three other bottlenecks outlined in an earlier report are still causing problems, namely delays in transposing legislation; problems with over-detailed procedures at levels 1 and 2, and language problems.