MEPs attack Commission over law-screening ‘lapses’

By Andrew Beatty

Date: 22/09/05

A row between the EU institutions is threatening to end up in court as the European Commission this week struggled to explain to MEPs why 50 pieces of legislation had not been reviewed by the Parliament.

The MEPs are holding the Commission to account over the 50 cases, which concern supplementary legal measures to implement previously agreed legislation. Despite a legal obligation to consult the Parliament in most of the cases, some of which date back to 2003, the Commission adopted legislation without informing the assembly.

Some of the areas affected include industry-sensitive areas such as guidelines for good clinical practice and rules on marine pollution, the use of dioxins, the importation of hydrochlorofluorocarbons as well as imports of foods from a host of countries outside the EU, including Romania, Brazil and the US.

Humanitarian aid worth tens of millions of euro to Chechnya, Iran, Iraq and Sudan is also affected. Altogether, there are 19 cases of environmental legislation not going through the correct channels, 18 cases in the area of health and consumer protection, ten in the area of humanitarian aid and one a piece for information society, enterprise, and Europe Aid.

In one case, the Commission released EUR 6.2 million without Parliamentary oversight, in order to help relief efforts in the Iranian city of Bam, which was hit by an earthquake in December 2003.

According to a 1999 review of the EU's rules, the Parliament plays an important role in vetting these 'implementing measures', making sure the Commission does not stray from the remit of the original legislation.

Parliamentarians are now furious that their role in the legislative process has been overlooked and look willing to take the matter further.

In a letter to the Parliament dating from 20 July, the Commission admits that it may have been guilty of "negligence". But, the letter adds, "in 97.5% of the cases, the Commission has fulfilled its obligations towards the European Parliament".

One Commission official said that the lapses resulted from a mixture of human and procedural error, with a new electronic system being brought online in 2003. "Measures have now been taken in order to make people very well aware of the process," he said.

"There have been intense training sessions and there are procedural checks being put in place so that a procedure cannot automatically continue" without going through the necessary stages, he added. But Parliament has not been appeased by a promise from the Commission to set up an internal control mechanism to prevent future lapses.

"We are completely dissatisfied with the Commission's response, it is quite outrageous," said UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas, who is a member of the environment committee. "They were just avoiding real responsibility. This process is undemocratic enough, only giving the Parliament 30 days to give its opinion, without it being abused by such complacency."

Parliamentarians are now calling for Margot Wallström, vice-president of the Commission responsible for institutional relations, to appear before them. Some are also calling for the commissioners responsible for environment, health and consumer protection and enterprise to appear before the Parliament to explain the lapses.

Article reports on a dispute between the European Commission and the European Parliament on 50 cases of supplementary legal measures to implement previously agreed legislation. Despite a legal obligation to consult the Parliament in most of the cases, some of which date back to 2003, the Commission had adopted legislation without informing the assembly. According to a 1999 review of the EU's rules, the European Parliament plays an important role in vetting these 'implementing measures', making sure the European Commission does not stray from the remit of the original legislation.