Nell’iperspazio con Rocket: il Framework Web di Rust!
Ce ep-ec common-presentation
1. The ordinary legislative procedure step by step – multilingual aspects Luxembourg, 28 March 2011 Ingemar Strandvik Quality manager Directorate A, DGT European Commission Peter Vavrik Coordinator Directorate for Legislative Acts European Parliament John Beaven Quality Coordinator Language Department Council of the European Union
2.
3.
4. Workflow in the Commission: A text is born (…but also Upstreaming coordination: Internal and external – DGs, LS; MS, experts, stakeholder consultations, etc.) ( On the one hand: a very hierarchical structure…) -> many different levels -> many interventions Colleagues, HoU Desk officer Interservice Consultation (ISC) D-G, other directorates Director, Directorate (the other units) Cabinet
31. Language versions Instructions / MEF Questions/ comments Liaison with authors and other services File coordinator Vote Texts Adopted PLENARY Verification of all language versions
32. Council Chef de file Pre-meeting EP File coordinator National experts Members / other services /Elise Committee secr. Council service traitant original Council NE meeting translations Adoption by Council FINALISATION Commission Final version uploaded into Euramis
43. Article 293(3) and (4) of TFEU '3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council. 4. If the Council approves the European Parliament’s position, the act concerned shall be adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.' Way forward: Full implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (1)
44.
45. Point 43 of the Joint declaration on practical arrangements for the codecision procedure of 13 June 2007: 'The European Parliament and the Council shall agree on a common presentation of the texts prepared jointly by those institutions.' Advantage : Transparent and coherent communication of political changes to citizens More effective use of documents originating from other institution Way forward: Common presentation of documents
46.
Editor's Notes
The slide can be repeated later as visual reminder of the context. Order colour copies of this flowchart and include them in handout.
“ Racolage” when Editing Service started – Had to go out looking for work. They are now victims of their success and work comes to them.
Spell out “Chef cab” (John)
This picture should be printed out in colour (A4 size) and included in the handout.
I’m only going to give an overview of something that is explained in Commission and Council’s websites much better than I can hope to do. Remember to order enough handouts in advance, preferably in colour.
Point out that what is shown here as simple “blobs”, e.g. steps 2 and 4, are in fact rather complicated procedures once you look at what goes on inside the institution. This is just an overview.
Why am I starting with the second reading and not with the first? Because I want to show you a straightforward part of the workflow first, so you can better appreciate how messy other parts are
Council (and EP) carries out first reading based on COM proposal. The arrows suggest a sequential reading, but this is not what happens in reality.
Council (and EP) carries out first reading based on COM proposal. The arrows suggest a sequential reading, but this is not what happens in reality.
Same source: Council’s Guide to the ordinary legislative procedure , October 2010 This shows what is happening in practice: first readings in EP and Council do take place in parallel
Take a closer look at this step, which appears as a single blob in overview. This is in fact taking place in parallel with EP’s first reading.
This was the pre-Lisbon situation. The situation was already problematic because of parallel workflow. Things are changing, but we are not too sure how.
I will say a little more about this later on
This is how things stand now
Standard wording in documents from Council Secretariat to Coreper / Council when proposal is heading for first reading agreement. Things are changing right now, but we don’t yet know how.
Refer back to the earlier slide “Council first reading” where I mentioned linguistic and technical changes in language versions
Maybe one could add that the same solutions are likely to be sent over and over again since they will be in the memories? (Ingemar)
Peter takes over at this slide
Print this out in colour (A4) and include in handouts.
Spell out what is MEF
Transition slide – Remind everybody where we are. John takes over from here
The fact that the 1st reading is the messy part is a problem because of these statistics. Source is labelled as a draft, yet strangely there are more files mentioned in it than in EP’s activity report for 2004-2009 used as a source for the next slide. The proportions stay roughly the same though, so the difference isn’t very important.
Same as for preceding slide. (Ingemar)
Over to Ingemar
Ingemar: Second bullet point added
Here I (or whoever speaks) would like to stress the complexity of the workflow, the fact that problems, incidents, errors may occur at any step in the workflow and in any language. There has to be enough flexibility to enable communication between the actors involved. (Ingemar)
Here I (or whoever speaks) would like to stress the complexity of the workflow, the fact that problems, incidents, errors may occur at any step in the workflow and in any language. There has to be enough flexibility to enable communication between the actors involved. (Ingemar)
Over to Peter from here until the end Should we refer to the interinstitutional guidelines for the use of ELISE or even put them in the handout, if we use a handout? (Ingemar)
Should we add any challenges or problems linked to the new procedure? If there are any… (Ingemar)
![Purpose ,[object Object],[object Object]]()