The European Parliament and the European Commission have been negotiating the so-called Framework Agreement, which will govern their relation for the 2010-2015 period. Taking into account that the Lisbon Treaty has conferred new powers to the European Parliament, the new framework agreement will enhance the role of the Parliament in EU decision-making. Both European Parliament and Commission negotiators have reached, last January, “a common understanding on the key principles to be included in the revised agreement.” In fact, Jose Manuel Barroso has agreed to grant more powers to the European Parliament, under the new framework agreement, in exchange of having the new Commission confirmed by the MEPs.

On 20 October, the European Parliament adopted the revised framework agreement on co-operation between Parliament and Commission, which was then immediately signed by both institutions' Presidents, Jerzy Buzek and José Manuel Barroso. Then, the revised framework agreement has come into effect. According to the MEPs the Framework Agreement “reflects the Lisbon Treaty balance of powers, in which Parliament and Council are equal legislators.” However, according to the Council’s legal adviser the text of the framework agreement should not be accepted by it because “it does not comply fully with the provisions of the Treaties;”


In a Statement issued on 21 October, the Council has shown its disappointed for the European Parliament and the Commission, during their negotiations, have not taken into account its concerns. The Council was not party to the negotiations of the framework agreement, nevertheless, it stressed that the powers conferred on the Institutions are “define exhaustively” in the Treaties consequently may “not be modified or supplemented by the Institutions themselves either unilaterally or by agreement between them.” According to the Council the text of the framework agreement signed by the Commission and the European Parliament has the effect of “modifying the institutional balance set out in the Treaties in force”, confers on the European Parliament powers not provided for in the Treaties and limits the autonomy of the Commission and its President. The Council was particularly advised to reject the provisions on international agreements, and the provisions granting access to classified information to the European Parliament.

The Council has made clear that such Framework Agreement does not apply to it, and stressed that it “will submit to the Court of Justice any act or action of the European Parliament or of the Commission performed in application of the provisions of the Framework Agreement that would have an effect contrary to the interests of the Council and the prerogatives conferred upon it by the Treaties.” In fact, the Council has threatened to bring proceedings for annulment before the Court of Justice.

According to the EUobserver, Michael Mann, European Commission spokesman said that the agreement stays "clearly within the limits set out in the treaty in terms of the competences and respective roles of each institution.” In the other hand, Paulo Rangel, European Parliament’s rapporteur said, "Every institution interprets in its own way their new powers given by the Lisbon Treaty and tries to maximise their positions."

The framework agreement refers to a “new ‘special partnership’ between Parliament and the Commission….” The Council has pointed out that such partnership is not provided in the Treaties and its main aim is “to establish privileged relations between two institutions to the exclusion of the Council.” The European Parliament was able to include in the text the “basic principle of equal treatment” for Parliament and the Council by the Commission “especially as regards access to meetings and the provision of contributions or other information, in particular on legislative and budgetary matters;” The Council has also noted that the Treaties do not provide for such principle, stressing that “the European Parliament cannot claim a general principle of equal treatment with the Council as a basis for imposing on the Commission new obligations over and above those in the Treaties.”

It was agreed that there would be “a regular dialogue” between the President of the Commission and the President of the European Parliament “on key horizontal issues and major legislative proposals.” Hence, the President of Parliament is able to attend meetings of the College of Commissioners and the President of the Commission or a Vice-President is able to attend meetings of the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs when “legislative and budgetary matters are discussed;” Aiming at ensuring a regular flow of information between the two Institutions, the Secretaries-General of Parliament and of the Commission will meet on a regular basis. They also agreed to introduce a regular Question Hour with the President of the Commission, at the request of Parliament, as well as a Question Hour with Members of the Commission, including the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Moreover, the Commission has committed to provide the European Parliament with “information and documentation on its meetings with national experts” as well as to “invite Parliament experts to attend those meetings;” The Council’s legal service has noted that such provisions are not provided in the Treaties and it recalled that the European Parliament “has no competence regarding implementation of EU legislation.” Consequently, such provision would confer on the European Parliament a prerogative, which is not provided in the Treaties.

It is important to recall that the Lisbon Treaty has increased substantially the policy areas subject to co-decision (ordinary legislative procedure). Hence, the European Parliament becomes a co-legislator for the majority of the EU legislation. It is well known that the co-decision procedure entails a flood of informal meetings in which legislative decisions are taken behind closed doors with no scope for public supervision. Such informal trialogues are aiming at reaching an agreement before the Council adopts its common position or the European Parliament adopts its position. If the European Parliament and the Commission will start having “a regular dialogue”, behind closed doors, on legislative proposals, this will facilitate the adoption of “early agreements,” meaning the possibility of bringing co-decision dossiers to a conclusion at the end of the first reading without the need for the Council to adopt a common position. We have been assisting to the proliferation of informal meetings and early agreements through the co-decision procedure and this is set to get worse under the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Commission detains the power to initiate EU legislation, hence Jose Manuel Barroso has rejected the MEPs demand to the Commission to be obliged to put forward EU legislation if requested to do so by the European Parliament. Nevertheless, the Commission has committed to respond to “any legislative initiative requests” by the European Parliament within three months following its adoption. According to the European Parliament’s resolution the Commission shall put forward “a legislative proposal at the latest after one year” or include it "in the next year's Annual Work Programme;” Moreover, if the Commission does not present such proposal, “it shall give a detailed explanation of the reasons to the European Parliament;” The Council legal service also noted that such provisions go beyond the provisions of TFEU and modify the balance of powers between Parliament and Council, affecting the Commission's autonomy and power of legislative initiative.

As regards the procedures for the adoption of acts, according to the European Parliament's resolution the Commission has committed to “examine amendments to its legislative proposals adopted by Parliament, with a view to taking them into account in any amended proposal.” Moreover, the Commission will have to “provide a detailed explanation in due time before withdrawing any proposals on which Parliament has already expressed a position at first reading.” As regards special legislative procedures, where Parliament is consulted, the Commission has committed to involve Parliament so that its views are taken into account “as far as possible.” Moreover, the European Parliament was able to introduce the requirement that the Commission would only use soft law “on a duly justified basis” and after having consulting the MEPs. In fact, the Commission has committed to “ provide a detailed explanation to Parliament on how its views have been taken into account when it adopts its proposal.” The Council legal service pointed out that there is no provision in the Treaty requiring the Commission to consult the Parliament before adopting such acts.

The President of the Commission has the power, under the EU Treaty, to request a member of the Commission to resign. Under the framework agreement Barroso will have to “seriously consider whether he should request that Member to resign” if asked by the MEPs to withdraw confidence in a commissioner. Thus, if the President of the Commission refuses to require such resignation he must explain his refusal to do so before the Parliament. The Council legal adviser noted that such provisions would diminish the autonomy of the President of the Commission.

As regards the relationship with regulatory agencies, there is a new obligation whereby nominees for the post of Executive Director of regulatory agencies will have to come before the relevant parliamentary committees for a hearing. The Council legal service recall that “the legislative acts setting up regulatory agencies make exhaustive procedural provision for nominations for the posts in question and the European Parliament is not involved in such procedure.” Consequently, such provision does not comply with existing legislation. Moreover, both institutions said that they “will aim at a common approach on the role and position of decentralised agencies in the Union's institutional landscape, accompanied by common guidelines for the creation, structure and operation of those agencies, together with funding, budgetary, supervision and management issues.” However, the Council has pointed out that such provision “prejudges action by the legislator, in accordance with the legislative procedures specified by the respective legal bases applicable.”

The European Parliament was able to ensure access to confidential information, including classified documents. The Commission is therefore required to ensure that Parliament is given access to confidential information. The President of Parliament, the chairs of the parliamentary committees, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents, and the head of Parliament's delegation may request confidential information from the Commission. According to the Council such provision confers powers on the European Parliament not provided for in the Treaties. Moreover, the Council stressed that “the possibility of access to classified information for unauthorised Members of the European Parliament are not in accordance with the texts applicable and are likely to undermine confidence in the system of management of classified information that has been agreed at Union level.”

Furthermore, the Commission has agreed to provide the European Parliament with information on infringement procedures and procedures relating to competition. The Council has pointed out that such right is not provided for in the Treaties and that “any application of such a provision would be detrimental to the legitimate interests and rights of the Member States concerned.”

The European Parliament was able to ensure the Commission commitment that it will take measures “to better involve” Parliament so that its views are taken into account “as far as possible in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.”

The European Parliament will also have better access to information about international agreements, including confidential information. In fact, the European Parliament has called on the Commission to provide it “ with all information concerning the negotiation of international agreements, including ‘confidential information’” and “considers that this applies also to confidential documents from Member States or third countries, subject to the originator's consent;” Moreover, the Commission will have to provide such information “in sufficient time” so that the MEPs are “able to express its point of view if appropriate, and for the Commission to be able to take Parliament's views as far as possible into account.” Moreover, it was agreed that where the Commission is to represent the European Union in international conferences, at the request of the European Parliament, it “ shall facilitate the participation of Members of the European Parliament as observers in all relevant meetings under its responsibility before and after negotiation sessions.” The Commission shall also undertake “to systematically inform the Parliament delegation about the outcome of negotiations.” The Commission shall grant therefore observer status to Members of Parliament in all international conferences as well as facilitate their presence in all relevant meetings and inform the Parliament of the negotiations. The Commission is required to “ facilitate access as observers for Members of the European Parliament forming part of Union delegations to, meetings of bodies set up by multilateral international agreements involving the Union, whenever such bodies are called upon to take decisions which require the consent of Parliament or the implementation of which may require the adoption of legal acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.”

In its resolution the European Parliament has pointed out that the Commission may only refuse to grant observer status to Members of Parliament “only in exceptional cases, on the basis of a lack of legal, technical or diplomatic possibilities.” Moreover, the European Parliament has interpreted ‘international conferences’, as including multilateral and bilateral agreements, such as trade and fisheries.

According to the EuropeanVoice the European Commission has accused the European Parliament of misinterpreting parts of the framework agreement. According to the Commission the MEPs participation international negotiations would be considered on a “case-by-case basis” and such participation would only be allowed if “politically, diplomatically and logistically possible." 

The Council has pointed out that the Commission is not obliged under the Treaty to take into account the Parliament's comments in the entire process of negotiation as well as to provide MEPs with a whole range of documents relating to international negotiations. The Treaty does not provide either for the Commission to take into account of the European Parliament's views and report to it of the way it has incorporated them in the texts negotiated.

Furthermore, according to the Council the provision requiring the Commission to “facilitate the participation of Members of the European Parliament as observers in all relevant meetings under its responsibility before and after international negotiation sessions” would entail the MEPs participation in the Union's internal coordination meetings, and, consequently would modify the procedure laid down in Article 218(4) TFEU, whereby "The Council may address directives to the negotiator and designate a special committee in consultation with which the negotiations must be conducted." Hence, the Council has stressed that it “is the only Institution competent to decide which committee will be consulted and who will participate” consequently the application of such provision will undermine the Council's prerogatives.