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?