Rogalla, D.

Archive of European Integration

European CommunitiesEUR.OPEAN PARLIAMENTWbrking Docuftrentsl98 r - 19825 February 1982 DOCUMENT 1-985/87Reportdrawn up on behalf of the Committee on Energyand Researchon the draft decision of Lhe Commission ofthe European Communities amending DecisionNo. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal andcoke for the iron and steel industry in theCommunity (Doc. I-654/81)Rapporteur: Mr D. ROGALLAHnglish Edition PE 76.392/fin.By letter of 2I October 1981 the Vice-President of the Commission ofthe European Communities, Viscount DAVIGNON, asked the European Parliamentfor its opinion on the draft decision of the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities amending Decision No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal andcoke for the iron and steel industry in the Community.On 3 November 198I the President of the European Parliament referredthis draft to the Committee on Energy and Research as the committee res-ponsible and to the Committee on Budgets for its opinion.On 25 November 1981 the Committee on Energy and Research appointedIvlr ROGAILA rapPorteur.The committee considered the draft report at its meeting of2? January 1982 and adopted it unanimously.The following voted: I,trs WALZ, chairman; Mr GALLAGHER, vice-chairman;Mr NORMANTON, vice-chairman; l,1r ROGAILA, rapporteur; Mr ADAIvI , Mr BEAZLEY,Mr K. FUCHS, I'1r GALLAND, Mr LINKOHR,I4TMARKOPOLOUS, Mr MORELAND, l,1r PETERSEN,MT PETRONIO, MTS PHLIX, I4T SALZER, MT SASSANO, MT SELIGIIIAN, MT VERONESI andMrs VIEHOFF (deputizing for Mr PATTISON).The opinion of the Committee on Budgets is attached.-3- PE 76.392/fin.CONdENTSPqge5A. MOTION FOR A H'ESOf,UTIONB. EXPLANATOny StatElAUWtI. fhe consultation procedure 4...a...a...a{6 l9?9' ...7I9II. Amendments proposedt by the EufOpeen paftiamentIII. The draft Commission deeisionOpinion of the Committee on Budgets 10-4- PE 76,e|iltln.AThe Committee on Energy and Research hereby submits to the EuropeanParliament the following motion for a resolution, together with explanatorystatement:MOTION FOR A RESOLUTIONembodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the draft decision of theCommission of the European Communities amending Decision No 73/287/ECSC concern-ing coking coal and coke for the iron and steel industry in the CommunityThe European Parliament,- having regard to the draft decision of the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities amending Decision No.73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal andcoke for the iron and steel industry in the Community (CoM(gI) 424 final),- having been consulted by the Commission (Doc. t-654/Bl),- having regard to its earlier resorutions on the energy poticy sector,particularly those- on the draft from the Commission of the European Communities for a de-cision concerning coal and coke for the iron and steel industry forthe Community (rBRUccER report, Doc. 69/79)I, and- on asPects and requirements of coal supplies for the European Communities(RINSCHE report, Doc. l-662/81),- having regard to the report of the Committee on Energy and Research and theopinion of the Committee on Budgets (Doc. 1-995/g1 ),I. Stresses the importance it attaches to consultation by the Commission incases where such consultation is not defined as obligatory in theTreaties;2. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is abiding by its 1973 undertaking;3. Notes that in this case there have been delays in the consultatj-onprocedure to which the Commission committed itself, as a result of whichthe Commission has referred the matter to the Council before the opinionof the European Parliament has been delivered;4. Considers that the aim of effective participation by parliament in thelegislative process of the European Community is seriously prejudicedif Parliament is consulted at so tate a stage that its opinions cannotbe taken into account in practice by the Council and Commissioni5. Demands to be consulted in future on cases coming within the terms oftle Ccnmissionrs and tlre Councilts undertakings at a stage early enough to enable iLsopinion to be delivered before the matter is referred to the Council- allowing a suitable period for parliamentary scrutiny and taking intoaccount any amendments proposed by parliament;T-^ OJ No. C 127 , 2L.5.1979, p. 39-5- PE 76.392/tin.8.6 - Notes with satisfaction that the Commission too appears now to havedecided on the rong calred-for complete revision of coar poricy aspart of coherent energy policy; th6 Eur,opean parliament assumes thata decision will be taken on this revision in consultation with theEuropean Parriament during the period of validity of Decisi-onNo 73/287/$CSC which has now been extended;Approves, therefore, the proposed prolongation of the subsidy schemefor coking coal for a limited period to enable the time to,be used forthe announced revision;Trusts that when the Commission is drawing up a comprehensive coal policyit will combine the interests of the coal-producing Member States withthose of the coal-less Member States.-6- PE 76.392/tin.7.BHXP I,,ANATORY STATEIT{ENTI. The consultation procedure1. The lega1 basis for the coking coal subsidy scheme is laid down inArticle 95 of the ECSC Treaty. This states that the High Authority (i.e.the Commission) rnay take a decision, or make a recommendation, with theunanimous assent of the Council and after consulting the ConsultativeCommittee. There is no provision in Article 95 for the involvement of theEuropean Parliament. As part of the endeavours in the early 1970s toincrease the role of the European Parliament and in view of the unsatisfactorynature of this provision in the Treaty, an informal agreement was reached in1973 between the Commissioner responsibLe at the time, Mr Haferkamp, and thethen chairman of the Committee on Energy and Research, Ivlr Springorum. TheCommission voluntarily undertook to consult Parliament in the case of allmeasures based on Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty.2. This informal agreement was taken up in the Communication from theCommission to the European Parliament on practical measures to strengthenthe powers of control of Parliament and improve relations between Parliamentand the Commission (COtl(73) 999, 30 May 1973). Point 8 states: rTheCommission is prepared, as regards the coal and steel sector, to extendconsultation with Parliament beyond the fixing of the ECSC levy to all otherimportant decisions' .3. The Commission has in practice regularly carried out this voluntaryconsultation process as agreed. However, the procedure has not always beenobserved to the satisfaction of Parliament. For instance, the request foran opinion in 1978 on amendment of the decision concerning coal and coke forthe iron and steel industry of the Community (COM(78) final) was receivedonly after the President of the European Parliament had made representationsto the President of the Commission (see Doc. 575/78). Similarly, the presentdraft decision amending Decision No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal andcoke for the iron and steel industry in the Community htas not submitted toParliament in time to enable its opinion to be properly taken into accountin the ('ommr-trriLy' s legislative process.4. The present draft Commission Decision (COM(81) 424 final) dates from28 July 198I. The Commission's request for an opinion, which had beenannounced internally long befc>re, is dated 21 October 1981 (see Doc. L-654/8L)and reached Parliament on 26 October 1981 (see Bu1I. EP, PE 75.950). In theperiod from 28 July to 2I October the Council was actually asked for itsassent pursuant to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. If the Commission wantsto provide the European Parliament, through its own undertaking to consultParliament, with a genuine opportunity to influence Community legislation, itmust consult Parliament early enough Lo ensure that the latEer's opinion -bearing in mind the normal timetable for parliamentary business - is available-t PE'l 6.392/f itt.before the Council is requested for its assent under Article 95. The viewtaken by Parliament in its opinion and proposed amendmenLs to the Commissiondraft can reaListically be taken into account only before the Council hasmade up its mind on the draft.5. rn the specific case of the draft decision (COM(81) 424 final) theCouncil of Energy Ministers gave its assent aL a meeting on 27 October 1981(the French delegation reserving its position), i.e. one day after thereguest for consultation had reached the EuroPean Parliament.6. In principle - and as defined in Article 95 - the ECSC legisl-ativeprocess reserves the final decision to the Commission. However, the ECSCTreaty has been adapted in practice to bring it into Line with procedureunder the EEC and Euratom Treaties, so that the real power of decision in thiscase rests with the Council. The Committee on Energy and Research accordinglyinsists, in the interest of consolidating Parliamentrs role as a consultativebody and hence as an institution of the European Communities effectivelyparticJpating in the legislative process, upon the following improvements inthe procedure to be observed by the Commission in future: After preparationof a draft decision under Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty the EuropeanParliament shall first be consulted in accordance with the undertaking givenby the Commission. The Comrnission sha11 not refer the matter to the Council,requesting its assent under Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, until a suitableperiod for parliamentary consideration has elapsed and it has taken intoaccount any amendments proposed by the European Parliament.II. AI,IENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE EUROPEAN PARIIAIJIENT IN 19797. In its resolution on the last draft amendment of the coking coal subsidy'Iof 25 April 1979- the European Parliament proposed a number of amendments.one of these concerned the duration of the prolongation then being requestedfor the subsidy scheme, which was itself to be maintained as a matter ofprinciple. Largely because the method of financing was practically beyondthe reach of parliamentary scrutj.ny, deriving from three different sources,of which the ECSC budget accounted for the smallest share, Parliament calledfor the operatJ-onal period to run only to 3t December 1980. In the remainingone-and-three-quarter years the Commission vras to devise a new subsidyscheme based on the EEC budget, to be integrated into a new approach for acomprehensive coal policy as part of the Community energy policy. The thenCommissioner, Mr Brunner, rejected the proposed amendment on behalf of the,2comm].ss1on.Tll-*o. a ,-rr, 2t.s.te.e, p.3e2 ,"b.a"=, Annex to oJ 242, p. 64-8- pE 76.392/tin.8. In the present draft calling for a further extension in principle up to31 December 1983 the Commission itself comes to the conclusion that it should'... re-examine, in the context of a coherent energy poricy, arl the probJ-emsrelated to a common coal strategy including those of the suppty of coking coaland coke for the steel industry' (p. 17 of the commission document).This view is by no means premature, in view of the fact that Parliamenthas since 1973 constantly demanded the elaboration of a common energy policy,calling in particular for an overall approach for a neril coal policy (see mostrecently the Rinsche report, Doc. L-662/8L).III. THE DRAFT COMMISSION DECISION9. For an exposition of theis referred to the Commissionforegoing comments.Commission draft anddocunent. The draftits conclusions the readeris approved subject to the"9- PE 76.392 /f in.OPINION OF THE COI4I{ITTEE ON BUDGETSLetter from the Chairnan of the Committee on Budgets tolv1rsWALZ, chairmanof the Committee on Energy and ResearchSubject: Draft decision of the Commission of the European Communitiesamending Decision N" 73/28?/ECSC concerning coking coal andcoke for the iron and steel industry in the CommunityDear Mrs Walz,The Committee on Budgets considered the above draft Commission decision(ECSC) at its meeting of 28 January L982.The committee endorsed the proposals, particularly since the Corunission,as requested by the European Parliament on the occasion of the lastextension, has now announced that it is prepared in principle to proposethat the coking coal fund be financed from the General Budget of theEuropean Communities,'once the requisitepre-conditions are fulfilledl.The Commission therefore recommends that the present subsidy scheme shouldonly be extended by two years.T'he committee also urged the Comrnission to monitor such Community subsidiesclosely and ensure that no covert national aid of any kind is granted.Yours sincerely,Erwin LANGEPresent: Mr LANGE, chaj_rman;Mr NOTENBOOI,I, vice-chairman;MT ABENS, I,1T ANSQUER, MTs BoSERUP, MT GEoRGIADTS, MT GoUTHIER,Mr LOUWES, Mr NEWTON DUNN, Mr PFENNIG, Mr SABY and I{r SIMI{ONDS.- 10 - PE 76 .392/f Ln.

Report
drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Research
on the draft decision of the Commission of the European Communities amending Decision No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal and coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community (Doc. 1-654/81). EP Working Documents, document 1-985/81, 5 February 1982.

European Communities
EUR.OPEAN PARLIAMENT
Wbrking Docuftrents
l98 r - 1982
5 February 1982 DOCUMENT 1-985/87
Report
drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Energy
and Research
on the draft decision of Lhe Commission of
the European Communities amending Decision
No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal and
coke for the iron and steel industry in the
Community (Doc. I-654/81)
Rapporteur: Mr D. ROGALLA
Hnglish Edition PE 76.392/fin.

By letter of 2I October 1981 the Vice-President of the Commission of
the European Communities, Viscount DAVIGNON, asked the European Parliament
for its opinion on the draft decision of the Commission of the European
Communities amending Decision No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal and
coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community.
On 3 November 198I the President of the European Parliament referred
this draft to the Committee on Energy and Research as the committee res-
ponsible and to the Committee on Budgets for its opinion.
On 25 November 1981 the Committee on Energy and Research appointed
Ivlr ROGAILA rapPorteur.
The committee considered the draft report at its meeting of
2? January 1982 and adopted it unanimously.
The following voted: I,trs WALZ, chairman; Mr GALLAGHER, vice-chairman;
Mr NORMANTON, vice-chairman; l,1r ROGAILA, rapporteur; Mr ADAIvI , Mr BEAZLEY,
Mr K. FUCHS, I'1r GALLAND, Mr LINKOHR,I4TMARKOPOLOUS, Mr MORELAND, l,1r PETERSEN,
MT PETRONIO, MTS PHLIX, I4T SALZER, MT SASSANO, MT SELIGIIIAN, MT VERONESI and
Mrs VIEHOFF (deputizing for Mr PATTISON).
The opinion of the Committee on Budgets is attached.
-3- PE 76.392/fin.
CONdENTS
Pqge
5A. MOTION FOR A H'ESOf,UTION
B. EXPLANATOny StatElAUWt
I. fhe consultation procedure 4...a...a...a
{6 l9?9' ...
7
I
9
II. Amendments proposedt by the EufOpeen paftiament
III. The draft Commission deeision
Opinion of the Committee on Budgets 10
-4- PE 76,e|iltln.
AThe Committee on Energy and Research hereby submits to the European
Parliament the following motion for a resolution, together with explanatory
statement:
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the draft decision of the
Commission of the European Communities amending Decision No 73/287/ECSC concern-
ing coking coal and coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the draft decision of the Commission of the European
Communities amending Decision No.73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal and
coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community (CoM(gI) 424 final),
- having been consulted by the Commission (Doc. t-654/Bl),
- having regard to its earlier resorutions on the energy poticy sector,
particularly those
- on the draft from the Commission of the European Communities for a de-
cision concerning coal and coke for the iron and steel industry for
the Community (rBRUccER report, Doc. 69/79)I, and
- on asPects and requirements of coal supplies for the European Communities
(RINSCHE report, Doc. l-662/81),
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Energy and Research and the
opinion of the Committee on Budgets (Doc. 1-995/g1 ),
I. Stresses the importance it attaches to consultation by the Commission in
cases where such consultation is not defined as obligatory in the
Treaties;
2. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is abiding by its 1973 undertaking;
3. Notes that in this case there have been delays in the consultatj-on
procedure to which the Commission committed itself, as a result of which
the Commission has referred the matter to the Council before the opinion
of the European Parliament has been delivered;
4. Considers that the aim of effective participation by parliament in the
legislative process of the European Community is seriously prejudiced
if Parliament is consulted at so tate a stage that its opinions cannot
be taken into account in practice by the Council and Commissioni
5. Demands to be consulted in future on cases coming within the terms of
tle Ccnmissionrs and tlre Councilts undertakings at a stage early enough to enable iLs
opinion to be delivered before the matter is referred to the Council
- allowing a suitable period for parliamentary scrutiny and taking into
account any amendments proposed by parliament;
T-^ OJ No. C 127 , 2L.5.1979, p. 39
-5- PE 76.392/tin.
8.
6 - Notes with satisfaction that the Commission too appears now to have
decided on the rong calred-for complete revision of coar poricy as
part of coherent energy policy; th6 Eur,opean parliament assumes that
a decision will be taken on this revision in consultation with the
European Parriament during the period of validity of Decisi-on
No 73/287/$CSC which has now been extended;
Approves, therefore, the proposed prolongation of the subsidy scheme
for coking coal for a limited period to enable the time to,be used for
the announced revision;
Trusts that when the Commission is drawing up a comprehensive coal policy
it will combine the interests of the coal-producing Member States with
those of the coal-less Member States.
-6- PE 76.392/tin.
7.
BHXP I,,ANATORY STATEIT{ENT
I. The consultation procedure
1. The lega1 basis for the coking coal subsidy scheme is laid down in
Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. This states that the High Authority (i.e.
the Commission) rnay take a decision, or make a recommendation, with the
unanimous assent of the Council and after consulting the Consultative
Committee. There is no provision in Article 95 for the involvement of the
European Parliament. As part of the endeavours in the early 1970s to
increase the role of the European Parliament and in view of the unsatisfactory
nature of this provision in the Treaty, an informal agreement was reached in
1973 between the Commissioner responsibLe at the time, Mr Haferkamp, and the
then chairman of the Committee on Energy and Research, Ivlr Springorum. The
Commission voluntarily undertook to consult Parliament in the case of all
measures based on Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty.
2. This informal agreement was taken up in the Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament on practical measures to strengthen
the powers of control of Parliament and improve relations between Parliament
and the Commission (COtl(73) 999, 30 May 1973). Point 8 states: rThe
Commission is prepared, as regards the coal and steel sector, to extend
consultation with Parliament beyond the fixing of the ECSC levy to all other
important decisions' .
3. The Commission has in practice regularly carried out this voluntary
consultation process as agreed. However, the procedure has not always been
observed to the satisfaction of Parliament. For instance, the request for
an opinion in 1978 on amendment of the decision concerning coal and coke for
the iron and steel industry of the Community (COM(78) final) was received
only after the President of the European Parliament had made representations
to the President of the Commission (see Doc. 575/78). Similarly, the present
draft decision amending Decision No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal and
coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community htas not submitted to
Parliament in time to enable its opinion to be properly taken into account
in the ('ommr-trriLy' s legislative process.
4. The present draft Commission Decision (COM(81) 424 final) dates from
28 July 198I. The Commission's request for an opinion, which had been
announced internally long befc>re, is dated 21 October 1981 (see Doc. L-654/8L)
and reached Parliament on 26 October 1981 (see Bu1I. EP, PE 75.950). In the
period from 28 July to 2I October the Council was actually asked for its
assent pursuant to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. If the Commission wants
to provide the European Parliament, through its own undertaking to consult
Parliament, with a genuine opportunity to influence Community legislation, it
must consult Parliament early enough Lo ensure that the latEer's opinion -
bearing in mind the normal timetable for parliamentary business - is available
-t PE'l 6.392/f itt.
before the Council is requested for its assent under Article 95. The view
taken by Parliament in its opinion and proposed amendmenLs to the Commission
draft can reaListically be taken into account only before the Council has
made up its mind on the draft.
5. rn the specific case of the draft decision (COM(81) 424 final) the
Council of Energy Ministers gave its assent aL a meeting on 27 October 1981
(the French delegation reserving its position), i.e. one day after the
reguest for consultation had reached the EuroPean Parliament.
6. In principle - and as defined in Article 95 - the ECSC legisl-ative
process reserves the final decision to the Commission. However, the ECSC
Treaty has been adapted in practice to bring it into Line with procedure
under the EEC and Euratom Treaties, so that the real power of decision in this
case rests with the Council. The Committee on Energy and Research accordingly
insists, in the interest of consolidating Parliamentrs role as a consultative
body and hence as an institution of the European Communities effectively
particJpating in the legislative process, upon the following improvements in
the procedure to be observed by the Commission in future: After preparation
of a draft decision under Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty the European
Parliament shall first be consulted in accordance with the undertaking given
by the Commission. The Comrnission sha11 not refer the matter to the Council,
requesting its assent under Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, until a suitable
period for parliamentary consideration has elapsed and it has taken into
account any amendments proposed by the European Parliament.
II. AI,IENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE EUROPEAN PARIIAIJIENT IN 1979
7. In its resolution on the last draft amendment of the coking coal subsidy
'I
of 25 April 1979- the European Parliament proposed a number of amendments.
one of these concerned the duration of the prolongation then being requested
for the subsidy scheme, which was itself to be maintained as a matter of
principle. Largely because the method of financing was practically beyond
the reach of parliamentary scrutj.ny, deriving from three different sources,
of which the ECSC budget accounted for the smallest share, Parliament called
for the operatJ-onal period to run only to 3t December 1980. In the remaining
one-and-three-quarter years the Commission vras to devise a new subsidy
scheme based on the EEC budget, to be integrated into a new approach for a
comprehensive coal policy as part of the Community energy policy. The then
Commissioner, Mr Brunner, rejected the proposed amendment on behalf of the
,2comm].ss1on.
Tll-*o. a ,-rr, 2t.s.te.e, p.3e
2 
,"b.a"=, Annex to oJ 242, p. 64
-8- pE 76.392/tin.
8. In the present draft calling for a further extension in principle up to
31 December 1983 the Commission itself comes to the conclusion that it should
'... re-examine, in the context of a coherent energy poricy, arl the probJ-ems
related to a common coal strategy including those of the suppty of coking coal
and coke for the steel industry' (p. 17 of the commission document).
This view is by no means premature, in view of the fact that Parliament
has since 1973 constantly demanded the elaboration of a common energy policy,
calling in particular for an overall approach for a neril coal policy (see most
recently the Rinsche report, Doc. L-662/8L).
III. THE DRAFT COMMISSION DECISION
9. For an exposition of the
is referred to the Commission
foregoing comments.
Commission draft and
docunent. The draft
its conclusions the reader
is approved subject to the
"9- PE 76.392 /f in.
OPINION OF THE COI4I{ITTEE ON BUDGETS
Letter from the Chairnan of the Committee on Budgets tolv1rsWALZ, chairman
of the Committee on Energy and Research
Subject: Draft decision of the Commission of the European Communities
amending Decision N" 73/28?/ECSC concerning coking coal and
coke for the iron and steel industry in the Community
Dear Mrs Walz,
The Committee on Budgets considered the above draft Commission decision
(ECSC) at its meeting of 28 January L982.
The committee endorsed the proposals, particularly since the Corunission,
as requested by the European Parliament on the occasion of the last
extension, has now announced that it is prepared in principle to propose
that the coking coal fund be financed from the General Budget of the
European Communities,'once the requisitepre-conditions are fulfilledl.
The Commission therefore recommends that the present subsidy scheme should
only be extended by two years.
T'he committee also urged the Comrnission to monitor such Community subsidies
closely and ensure that no covert national aid of any kind is granted.
Yours sincerely,
Erwin LANGE
Present: Mr LANGE, chaj_rman;
Mr NOTENBOOI,I, vice-chairman;
MT ABENS, I,1T ANSQUER, MTs BoSERUP, MT GEoRGIADTS, MT GoUTHIER,
Mr LOUWES, Mr NEWTON DUNN, Mr PFENNIG, Mr SABY and I{r SIMI{ONDS.
- 10 - PE 76 .392/f Ln.




Report
drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Energy
and Research
on the draft decision of the Commission of
the European Communities amending Decision
No. 73/287/ECSC concerning coking coal and
coke for the iron and steel industry in the
Community (Doc. 1-654/81). EP Working Documents, document 1-985/81, 5 February 1982

Name not available

http://aei.pitt.edu/95258/1/1981%2D82.82.985.pdf

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration

Archive of European Integration

Archive of European Integration

Name not available