These questionnaires were sent to all Parliaments participating in the Lisbon COSAC.
Questionnaire on the Charter of Fundamental Rights
1. Has the Parliament of your country already pronounced itself about the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
�� YES������� NO
a) If NOT, do you intend to do it? �� YES������� NO
b) If YES, through: �� resolution �� report �� hearing �� debate
c) If you had hearings, who participated? �� members of Government �� academicians �� trade unions and employer organisations �� NGO. Which? __________________________________________________ �� others ________________________________________________________ �
2. In what concerns its legal nature and efficacy, are you for a binding Charter or would you prefer a �� Charter with declarative character?�
�� binding �� declarative
3. Do you consider the Charter as:
�� an instrument to reduce the distance between citizens and community institutions and to �������� have more control on the latter �� a "constitutionalization" of the EU �� other ___________________________________________________________ �
4. How do you find the relationship between the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights?
6. Which is the Charter's contribution concerning the constitutional traditions, which are common to Member ��� States and to the existing international instruments?
�� none �� some __________________________________________________________ �� much �� introduction of new rights �� updating of the European Convention on Human Rights �� other _______________________________________________________ �
7. How do you place the Charter in the evolution of the third Pillar?
How is the circulation of information between the MEPs and their corresponding parties?
Information about the agenda Instructions to vote Reports / Bulletins Exchange of points of view in meetings Informal means (telephone calls or e-mail)
2 . Institutional relations
a) How are the relations established between the MEPs and MNPs?
Dual mandate Right to participate in the committee meetings with right of discussion and vote Right to participate in the committee meetings with no right of discussion and vote Mixed Committee Systematically invited Occasionally invited (How many meetings took place in 1999?)
b) Is there a possibility of approving common positions between MEPs and MNPs?
3 . Which contacts * were established in order to undertake the review of the:
a) creation of the European Central Bank and the democratic accountability of the monetary policy? b) broad guidelines relating to the economic policy of the European Commission? c) environmental directives? d) Agenda 2000 e) Luxembourg process (directives on employment)
* . number of meetings held with the Committee on European Affairs . number of meetings held with other specialized committees . number of meetings held within the party
Questionnaire on Extension of Qualified Majority
Amongst the topics concerning institutional reform under analysis by the Inter-Governmental Conference, the European Council of Helsinki identified "the possible extension of votes by a qualified majority in the Council". In fulfilling the Helsinki mandate the presidency of the IGC submitted a series of notes (documents CONFER 4705/1/00, 4706/1/00, 4707/1/00, 4708/1/00, 4709/1/00, 4710/1/00, 4737/00) on this subject for the appreciation of the Conference. The European Parliament and the European Council, as well as some member States, presented contributions on the subject.
1. Has this question already been debated in your Parliament (through debate, report or resolution), whether in terms of matters likely to become the subject of a decision by qualified majority in the Council, or in terms of the implications of such a step?
�� YES��� NO
2 . Do you agree that in all the current processes of co-decision the Council should vote by qualified majority?
�� YES��� NO
3 . It has been argued that, in all cases where the Council adopts acts of a legislative nature, the decisions should be taken by qualified majority and in co-decision with the European Parliament (according to the procedure set out in article 251 of the European Community Treaty). Do you think the Treaty should be altered in this respect?
�� YES��� NO
4 . Do you think that there are areas, not of a "constitutional" nature, in which reinforced cooperation could be more convenient in European deepening than the extension of votes by qualified majority?
�� YES��� NO
5 . Amongst the areas which have been singled out as being likely to become the subject of a decision by qualified majority, there are specifically the following:
� Tax provisions � Social policy � Social security � Environment � Culture � Industry � Structural funds and the cohesion fund � Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies relating to the free circulation of citizens (Title IV of part III of the European Community Treaty) � Police and judicial co-operation in penal matters (Title VI of the European Union Treaty) � External relations � CSFP � European Monetary Union � Reinforced cooperation (article 11 of the TEC and article 40 of the TEU) � Some autonomous areas in the scope of article 308 of the TEC � Measures against discrimination (article 13 of the TEC) � Serious and persistent violation of fundamental rights in a member State (article 7 of the TEU) � Nominations (President and members of the Commission, Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General of the Council, the Executive Committee of the European Central Bank, members of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance, the Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee).
Do you think it is useful and desirable for decisions in all or some of these areas to be taken by qualified majority?
