ࡱ> |}{{`DbjbjFFf,,ya    88 (_7<!@ BDDDDDD$MhZh ~_~~h, , (a~b, l: (B~Bb  , f( @M˺lw0Xf fpAD@\Rm { ADADADhhNADADAD~~~~ DG  , , , , , ,    Responses to the Questionnaire for the 4th COSAC biannual report on developments in EU procedures and practices relevant to parliamentary scrutiny  TOC \o "1-1" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646658" Austria  PAGEREF _Toc114646658 \h 3  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646659" Belgium - House of Representatives  PAGEREF _Toc114646659 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646660" Belgium - Senate  PAGEREF _Toc114646660 \h 13  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646661" Cyrprus  PAGEREF _Toc114646661 \h 18  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646662" Czech Republic - Senate  PAGEREF _Toc114646662 \h 21  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646663" Czech Republic - Chamber of Deputies  PAGEREF _Toc114646663 \h 26  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646664" Denmark  PAGEREF _Toc114646664 \h 31  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646665" Estonia  PAGEREF _Toc114646665 \h 38  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646666" Finland  PAGEREF _Toc114646666 \h 43  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646667" France - Senate  PAGEREF _Toc114646667 \h 48  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646668" France - National Assembly  PAGEREF _Toc114646668 \h 53  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646669" Germany - Bundesrat  PAGEREF _Toc114646669 \h 58  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646670" Germany - Bundestag  PAGEREF _Toc114646670 \h 61  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646671" Greece  PAGEREF _Toc114646671 \h 65  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646672" Hungary  PAGEREF _Toc114646672 \h 69  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646673" Ireland - Houses of the Oireachtas  PAGEREF _Toc114646673 \h 71  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646674" Italy - Senate  PAGEREF _Toc114646674 \h 76  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646675" Italy - Chamber of Deputies  PAGEREF _Toc114646675 \h 78  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646676" Latvia  PAGEREF _Toc114646676 \h 79  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646677" Lithuania  PAGEREF _Toc114646677 \h 84  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646678" Luxembourg  PAGEREF _Toc114646678 \h 89  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646679" Malta  PAGEREF _Toc114646679 \h 92  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646680" Netherlands - Senate  PAGEREF _Toc114646680 \h 94  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646681" Netherlands - House of Representatives  PAGEREF _Toc114646681 \h 96  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646682" Poland - Senate  PAGEREF _Toc114646682 \h 100  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646683" Poland - Sejm  PAGEREF _Toc114646683 \h 102  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646684" Portugal  PAGEREF _Toc114646684 \h 107  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646685" Slovakia  PAGEREF _Toc114646685 \h 111  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646686" Slovenia - National Assembly  PAGEREF _Toc114646686 \h 115  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646687" Slovenia - National Council  PAGEREF _Toc114646687 \h 119  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646688" Spain  PAGEREF _Toc114646688 \h 124  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646689" Sweden  PAGEREF _Toc114646689 \h 126  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646690" United Kingdom - House of Lords  PAGEREF _Toc114646690 \h 131  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646691" United Kingdom - House of Commons  PAGEREF _Toc114646691 \h 137 _____________________________________________  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc114646692" Turkey  PAGEREF _Toc114646692 \h 142  Austria I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). The standard procures are applied. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? X Yes o No Common Positions? X Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? X Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) As for all EU-projects the procedure is the same according to Art. 23f of the Austrian Federal Constitution. An EU-project is understood in a rather wide sense and government is obliged to inform parliament on all EU-issues. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). The Hauptausschuss (Main Committee) of the Nationalrat is the only committee of the Austrian Parliament which is entitled to authorize the delegation of peace keeping forces in the framework of international organizations like the UN, OSCE and explizitely the ESDP. It authorized Proxima on Nov. 3 and March 17, 2004 and on Dec. 9, 2003 EUPM on Sept. 22, 2004 and Sept. 17, 2002 EUJUST Lex on June 10, 2005 Austria does not participate in other civilian ESDP operations. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? X Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. In case of operations on humanitarian aid of catastrophies government may decide without authorization of parliament to send personnel abroad but the Hauptausschuss may raise an objection within 2 weeks (then the operation has to be stopped). In addition the Hauptausschuss is one of a few committees of the Nationalrat that may hold sessions also during the general parliamentary recess. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? X Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes X No This has only implications on whether the debate has to be considered confidential. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? As mentioned in the answer to question 5 also a political agreement can already be understood as an EU-project. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes x No What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) It can be very useful in the future, when really every proposal mentioned in the work programme will contain an impact assessment, up to now it is quite difficult to find it. It is not transparent, why some proposals contain impact assessments, some not. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? x Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? We had our first official subsidiarity scrutinising procedure during the subsidiarity test recommended by COSAC this April. Our deputies tried to do the scrutinising on the basis of the Commissions Explanatory Memorandum, but they did not succeed, because there were only a few standard phrases. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) As early as possible. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? There should be impact assessments in case of major amendments, if possible done by the author of the amendment. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? An evaluation would be useful for legal acts with major impact on a big amount of people or interest groups. It should be done after 2-5 years by the competent executive organ (like in Austria: here several laws oblige government to evaluate the legal act and to report about it to parliament). An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Up to now not. Belgium - House of Representatives I. Contrle parlementaire de la de la Politique trangre et de Scurit Commune (PESC) et de la Politique Europenne de Scurit et de Dfense (PESD) par les parlements nationaux: Votre parlement soumet-il la PESC et/ou la PESD un contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Est-ce que le systme de contrle parlementaire utilis pour les affaires europennes en gnral (comme dcrit au premier chapitre du 3e rapport bisannuel de la COSAC) est le mme que pour le contrle parlementaire des projets de la PESC/PESD? Si tel n'est pas le cas, veuillez indiquer quelles sont les diffrences et comment votre parlement contrle le domaine de la PESC/PESD? (i.e. quelles sont les commissions impliques et quel est leur rle respectif?) Selon larticle 167 de la Constitution belge, cest le Roi (c.--d. le pouvoir excutif) qui dirige les relations internationales, commande les forces armes et conclut les traits. Cest dans ce cadre-l que le contrle parlementaire sur la participation du gouvernement belge la PESC et la PESD se fait. Ce contrle parlementaire a de multiples formes. Les commissions comptentes de la Chambre des reprsentants et du Snat (notamment la Commission des Relations extrieures et de la Dfense et la Commission du suivi des missions ltranger spcifique au Snat) constituent le lieu classique dinformation et de dbat entre le Gouvernement et le Parlement sur les affaires trangres, la dfense et la participation de la Belgique des missions ltranger. Les autres formes de contrle parlementaire restent bien sur dapplication (questions orales, questions crites et demandes dexplication des membres). Il est noter que le gouvernement doit rendre des comptes (responsabilit politique) en matire de politique de dfense et de scurit devant la Chambre des reprsentants. A la Chambre des reprsentants, la forme de contrle la plus svre est linterpellation. Il sagit de linterrogation circonstancie dun ministre, en sance publique, par un dput. Le dbat est suivi dun vote de confiance en sance plnire Enfin, la tche du Comit davis fdral charg des questions europennes est de coordonner et stimuler ce contrle (voir le troisime rapport bisannuel de la COSAC), via, par exemple, des rapports dinitiative et des rsolutions. Au sein du Comit davis la Chambre, les membres du Parlement europen, lus en Belgique, peuvent galement poser des questions au gouvernement Quelles propositions du Conseil europen votre parlement soumet-il au contrle parlementaire? les actions communes? o Oui o Non les positions communes? o Oui o Non les stratgies communes? o Oui o Non Votre parlement soumet-il des propositions pour la PESC et la PESD autres que celles mentionnes dans la question 3 (i.e. conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen) au contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Si la rponse la question 4 est 'oui', comment votre parlement dcide-t-il quelles propositions il examinera? Cest la responsabilit de chaque commission comptente de dcider de faon autonome quelles propositions seront examines et par quel moyen. Il revient galement chaque membre individuellement de dcider de lopportunit dexercer son droit de contrle parlementaire et de linstrument appropri pour le faire. Pour ce qui est des conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen, le Premier ministre participe un change de vues avec les membres du Comit davis fdral charg des questions europennes (les membres dautres commissions comptentes y sont galement invits), avant et aprs chaque runion du Conseil europen. A la Chambre des reprsentants, les commissions doivent galement mettre, une fois par mois, leur ordre du jour, les propositions lgislatives ou les initiatives politiques europennes. Le ministre comptent est cens commenter ces initiatives. Est-ce que c'est votre gouvernement qui dcide quelles propositions (ceux non mentionns sous point 3) sont soumises au parlement pour contrle? Est-ce qu'il existe un accord avec votre gouvernement sur la question quelles propositions non lgislatives doivent tre soumises au contrle parlementaire? (Si oui, veuillez indiquer quand cet accord a t conclu et quel type de propositions il comprend.) Non, le Parlement peut exercer son contrle de faon pleinement autonome, indpendamment du gouvernement ou dune autre instance. Oprations civiles de la PESD: Contexte: Les oprations civiles de la PESD constituent un domaine d'activits de l'UE en plein essor. Les six oprations civiles actuelles sont: Mission de police de l'UE dans l'ancienne Rpublique Yougoslave de Macdoine (Proxima)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission "tat de droit" mene par l'Union europenne en Gorgie (Eujust Themis)  HYPERLINK "http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=g" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne en Bosnie-et-Herzgovine (MPUE)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne Kinshasa (RDC) (EUPOL "Kinshasa")  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission intgre "tat de droit" de l'Union europenne pour l'Iraq (Eujust Lex)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de l'UE en Rpublique dmocratique du Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) Ces missions ont-elles t soumises au contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Si la rponse la question 6 est 'oui', veuillez indiquer quelles oprations votre parlement a soumis au contrle parlementaire, et veuillez spcifier pour chaque opration quelle tape de la procdure le contrle parlementaire a eu lieu (i.e. aprs la publication d'un projet d'action commune, immdiatement avant la runion du Conseil laquelle cette action commune tait dcide; ou aprs un accord au Conseil?) Une commission spciale participation aux missions ltranger a entendu le ministre de la Dfense et a eu un change de vues sur les missions mentionnes. A la Chambre, le contrle sest fait via des questions parlementaires. Votre parlement a-t-il prvu des dispositions spcifiques pour soumettre des oprations civiles de la PESD un contrle parlementaire: a) pour agir en une priode de temps trs courte? o Oui o Non b) pendant l'intersession? o Oui o Non Si vous avez rpondu par 'oui' l'une des questions, veuillez spcifier quelles sont ces procdures (la possibilit de runions extraordinaires des Commissions, la possibilit d'aboutir des accords par correspondance) et combien de reprises elles ont t utilises en pratique? Au Snat, la possibilit davoir une runion extraordinaire de la commission participation aux missions ltranger ou de la commission des Relations extrieures et de la Dfense, existe. A la Chambre des reprsentants, il ny pas de procdure spcifique. Est-ce que les procdures du Conseil concernant les oprations civiles PESD laissent un temps adquat l'excution du contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non La classification des documents du Conseil comme 'restreint' ou comme 'confidentiel' constitue-t-elle une entrave l'excution du contrle parlementaire des oprations ESDP? o Oui o Non Accord politique: Contexte: Le Conseil des Ministres aboutit souvent des 'accords politiques' sur la PESD et la PESC avant la finalisation de l'instrument, c'est--dire que certains dtails sont approuvs lors de runions ultrieures, voire mme aprs la fin du contrle parlementaire. Est-ce que votre parlement a rencontr ce problme? Dans ce cas, quelles procdures ou pratiques utilise votre parlement pour s'occuper de ce problme? Non. II. Contrle des analyses d'impact de la Commission: Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non (Si la rponse est 'non', veuillez passer la question 4) Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire en utilisant la procdure de contrle parlementaire normale (comme dcrite au premier chapitre du 3e rapport bisannuel de la COSAC)? Si tel n'est pas le cas, veuillez indiquer quelles sont les diffrences et comment votre parlement procde? La procdure de contrle parlementaire normale est dapplication. Est-ce que votre parlement utilise des ressources spciales pour le contrle parlementaire des analyses d'impact? Si oui, veuillez indiquer lesquelles. (i.e. Est-ce que le contrle ncessite-t-il des fonds spciaux? Est-ce que des services autres que la commission des affaires europennes sont impliqus? Utilisez-vous des expertises externes?) Non. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement sur les analyses d'impact produites par la Commission? Ces analyses sont-elles utiles au contrle parlementaire? Sont-elles adquates? Si tel n'est pas le cas, quelles sont vos suggestions pour les amliorer? (Quelles informations supplmentaires souhaiteriez-vous y trouver? Sur quelles informations les analyses devraient-elles se concentrer davantage) Les analyses dimpact sont essentielles pour mener une politique cohrente. Les analyses dimpact sont galement essentielles dans le cadre du contrle parlementaire: elles donnent dailleurs une rponse au principe de proportionnalit qui constitue, en fait, la base qui permet de juger de la subsidiarit. Le grand problme est que les parlements nationaux nont pas la capacit institutionnelle dassimiler ces donnes et de les intgrer dans leur propre systme de dcision. Votre parlement contrle-t-il si les projets d'actes lgislatifs respectent les principes de subsidiarit et de proportionnalit? o Oui o Non Selon vous, quand est-ce que la Commission devrait entreprendre une analyse d'impact. (i.e. Avant le premier projet d'un acte lgislatif? Avant l'accord du Collge des Commissaires? Est-ce que l'analyse de l'impact de la lgislation devrait tre un processus continu?) L'analyse de l'impact devrait tre un processus continu. Les analyses d'impact devraient-elles tre rvises au regard des amendements au projet d'acte lgislatif de la Commission, afin de mieux reflter les projets amends? Si oui, quand et par qui ces rvisions devraient-elle tre faites? Est-ce que le Parlement europen et le Conseil devraient produire des analyses d'impact de leurs amendements? Etant donn que nous estimons que l'analyse de l'impact devrait tre un processus continu, nous sommes davis que ces analyses devraient tre rvises par la Commission ds quun amendement le rend ncessaire (en fonction de la nature de lamendement). Le choix de donner la Commission cette responsabilit est inspir par un souci de cohrence concernant la mthode danalyse. La lgislation europenne devrait-elle tre contrle aprs son implmentation pour analyser son impact, et si oui, quand et par qui? Oui, par les autorits comptentes au niveau europen (Commission) et national (gouvernements nationaux), aprs une priode qui doit tre suffisante pour pouvoir effectuer un contrle correct. Lvaluation ex post devrait galement tre une tche qui incombe aux parlements nationaux (tant donn que 80 % du Budget de lUE sont dpenss par les gouvernements nationaux). D'aucuns argumentent en faveur de la cration d'un organisme consultatif indpendant afin de conseiller les institutions europennes pour rduire la charge administrative de la lgislation sur les entreprises et les citoyens (comme par exemple l'Actal aux Pays-Bas et la Task force Mieux lgifrer en Grande-Bretagne). Cet organe pourrait reprendre la tche de la Commission de produire des analyses d'impact. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement face cette proposition? Une analyse dimpact (ex ante et ex post) est beaucoup plus large que la simplification ou la rduction de la lgislation. III. Propositions concernant les sujets traiter par la COSAC en 2006 L'article 7.1 du rglement interne de la COSAC stipule qu'avant la dernire runion ordinaire de chaque anne, les dlgations indiquent les sujets qu'elles proposent d'examiner l'anne suivante. L'article affirme galement que la dernire COSAC de l'anne devrait discuter cette question. L'article 7.1 A ajoute que L'objet principal de chaque projet d'ordre du jour est li au rle de la COSAC comme organe d'change d'informations, en particulier pour les aspects pratiques de l'examen parlementaire. Conformment ces deux articles, il y aura une discussion des sur la question de quels sujets la COSAC devrait s'occuper pendant l'anne suivante la fin de la runion d'octobre Londres. Afin d'alimenter cette discussion, veuillez indiquer les sujets que votre parlement propose comme thmes pour la COSAC en 2006: Comment les parlements nationaux ont-ils t associs llaboration des plans daction nationaux dans le cadre de la stratgie de Lisbonne? Comment les parlements nationaux ont-ils particip au large dbat mobilisateur national sur la construction europenne (cfr. la dclaration du Conseil europen sur la ratification du trait constitutionnel du 18 juin 2005)? Belgium - Senate I. Contrle parlementaire de la de la Politique trangre et de Scurit Commune (PESC) et de la Politique Europenne de Scurit et de Dfense (PESD) par les parlements nationaux: Votre parlement soumet-il la PESC et/ou la PESD un contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Est-ce que le systme de contrle parlementaire utilis pour les affaires europennes en gnral (comme dcrit au premier chapitre du 3e rapport bisannuel de la COSAC) est le mme que pour le contrle parlementaire des projets de la PESC/PESD? Si tel n'est pas le cas, veuillez indiquer quelles sont les diffrences et comment votre parlement contrle le domaine de la PESC/PESD? (i.e. quelles sont les commissions impliques et quel est leur rle respectif?) Selon larticle 167 de la Constitution belge, cest le Roi (c.--d. le pouvoir excutif) qui dirige les relations internationales, commande les forces armes et conclut les traits. Cest dans ce cadre-l que le contrle parlementaire sur la participation du gouvernement belge la PESC et la PESD se fait. Ce contrle parlementaire a de multiples formes. Les commissions comptentes du Snat (notamment la Commission des Relations extrieures et de la Dfense et la Commission du suivi des missions ltranger) constituent le lieu classique dinformation et de dbat entre le Gouvernement et le Snat sur les affaires trangres, la dfense et la participation de la Belgique des missions ltranger. Les autres formes de contrle parlementaire restent bien sur dapplication (questions orales, questions crites et demandes dexplication des membres). Enfin, la tche du Comit davis fdral charg des questions europennes est de coordonner et stimuler ce contrle (voir le troisime rapport bisannuel de la COSAC). Quelles propositions du Conseil europen votre parlement soumet-il au contrle parlementaire? les actions communes? o Oui o Non les positions communes? o Oui o Non les stratgies communes? o Oui o Non Votre parlement soumet-il des propositions pour la PESC et la PESD autres que celles mentionnes dans la question 3 (i.e. conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen) au contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Si la rponse la question 4 est 'oui', comment votre parlement dcide-t-il quelles propositions il examinera? Cest la responsabilit de chaque commission comptente de dcider de faon autonome quelles propositions seront examines et par quel moyen. Il revient galement chaque membre individuellement de dcider de lopportunit dexercer son droit de contrle parlementaire et de linstrument appropri pour le faire. Pour ce qui est des conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen, le Premier ministre participe un change de vues avec les membres du Comit davis fdral charg des questions europennes (les membres dautres commissions comptentes y sont galement invits), avant et aprs chaque runion du Conseil europen. Est-ce que c'est votre gouvernement qui dcide quelles propositions (ceux non mentionns sous point 3) sont soumises au parlement pour contrle? Est-ce qu'il existe un accord avec votre gouvernement sur la question quelles propositions non lgislatives doivent tre soumises au contrle parlementaire? (Si oui, veuillez indiquer quand cet accord a t conclu et quel type de propositions il comprend.) Non. Oprations civiles de la PESD : Contexte: Les oprations civiles de la PESD constituent un domaine d'activits de l'UE en plein essor. Les six oprations civiles actuelles sont: Mission de police de l'UE dans l'ancienne Rpublique Yougoslave de Macdoine (Proxima)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission "tat de droit" mene par l'Union europenne en Gorgie (Eujust Themis)  HYPERLINK "http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=g" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne en Bosnie-et-Herzgovine (MPUE)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne Kinshasa (RDC) (EUPOL "Kinshasa")  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission intgre "tat de droit" de l'Union europenne pour l'Iraq (Eujust Lex)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de l'UE en Rpublique dmocratique du Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) Ces missions ont-elles t soumises au contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Si la rponse la question 6 est 'oui', veuillez indiquer quelles oprations votre parlement a soumis au contrle parlementaire, et veuillez spcifier pour chaque opration quelle tape de la procdure le contrle parlementaire a eu lieu (i.e. aprs la publication d'un projet d'action commune, immdiatement avant la runion du Conseil laquelle cette action commune tait dcide; ou aprs un accord au Conseil?) Une commission spciale Commission du suivi des missions ltranger a entendu le ministre de la Dfense et a eu un change de vues sur les missions mentionnes. Votre parlement a-t-il prvu des dispositions spcifiques pour soumettre des oprations civiles de la PESD un contrle parlementaire: a) pour agir en une priode de temps trs courte? o Oui o Non b) pendant l'intersession? o Oui o Non Si vous avez rpondu par 'oui' l'une des questions, veuillez spcifier quelles sont ces procdures (la possibilit de runions extraordinaires des Commissions, la possibilit d'aboutir des accords par correspondance) et combien de reprises elles ont t utilises en pratique? La possibilit davoir une runion extraordinaire de la Commission du suivi des missions ltranger ou de la Commission des Relations extrieures et de la Dfense, existe. Est-ce que les procdures du Conseil concernant les oprations civiles PESD laissent un temps adquat l'excution du contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non La classification des documents du Conseil comme 'restreint' ou comme 'confidentiel' constitue-t-elle une entrave l'excution du contrle parlementaire des oprations ESDP? o Oui o Non. Il faut toutefois noter que ces documents ne sont pas rendus publics loccasion de lexamen parlementaire; la commission spciale missions ltranger respecte elle aussi leur nature confidentielle. Accord politique: Contexte: Le Conseil des Ministres aboutit souvent des 'accords politiques' sur la PESD et la PESC avant la finalisation de l'instrument, c'est--dire que certains dtails sont approuvs lors de runions ultrieures, voire mme aprs la fin du contrle parlementaire. Est-ce que votre parlement a rencontr ce problme? Dans ce cas, quelles procdures ou pratiques utilise votre parlement pour s'occuper de ce problme? Non. II. Contrle des analyses d'impact de la Commission: Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire? o Oui o Non Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement sur les analyses d'impact produites par la Commission ? Ces analyses sont-elles utiles au contrle parlementaire ? Sont-elles adquates ? Si tel n'est pas le cas, quelles sont vos suggestions pour les amliorer ? (Quelles informations supplmentaires souhaiteriez-vous y trouver ? Sur quelles informations les analyses devraient-elles se concentrer davantage) --- Votre parlement contrle-t-il si les projets d'actes lgislatifs respectent les principes de subsidiarit et de proportionnalit? o Oui o Non Selon vous, quand est-ce que la Commission devrait entreprendre une analyse d'impact. (i.e. Avant le premier projet d'un acte lgislatif? Avant l'accord du Collge des Commissaires? Est-ce que l'analyse de l'impact de la lgislation devrait tre un processus continu?) L'analyse de l'impact devrait tre un processus continu. Les analyses d'impact devraient-elles tre rvises au regard des amendements au projet d'acte lgislatif de la Commission, afin de mieux reflter les projets amends? Si oui, quand et par qui ces rvisions devraient-elle tre faites? Est-ce que le Parlement europen et le Conseil devraient produire des analyses d'impact de leurs amendements? Etant donn que nous estimons que l'analyse de l'impact devrait tre un processus continu, nous sommes davis que ces analyses devraient tre rvises par la Commission ds quune modification du projet dacte lgislatif le rend ncessaire (en fonction de la nature de lamendement). Le choix de donner la Commission cette responsabilit est inspir par un souci de cohrence concernant la mthode danalyse. La lgislation europenne devrait-elle tre contrle aprs son implmentation pour analyser son impact, et si oui, quand et par qui? Oui, par les autorits comptentes au niveaux europen (Commission et Parlement europen) et national (gouvernements et parlements nationaux), aprs une priode qui doit tre suffisante pour pouvoir effectuer un contrle correct de limpact dune norme europenne (tant lgislative que rglementaire). D'aucuns argumentent en faveur de la cration d'un organisme consultatif indpendant afin de conseiller les institutions europennes pour rduire la charge administrative de la lgislation sur les entreprises et les citoyens (comme par exemple l'Actal aux Pays-Bas et la Task force Mieux lgifrer en Grande-Bretagne). Cet organe pourrait reprendre la tche de la Commission de produire des analyses d'impact. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement face cette proposition? Lide de confier cette tche un organisme indpendant est intressante. Reste savoir comment cet organisme serait compos et comment il arriverait un avis. Lidal serait quun avis soit unanime. Sinon, toutes les opinions - tant majoritaire que minoritaire - devraient pouvoir tre exprimes. III. Propositions concernant les sujets traiter par la COSAC en 2006 L'article 7.1 du rglement interne de la COSAC stipule qu'avant la dernire runion ordinaire de chaque anne, les dlgations indiquent les sujets qu'elles proposent d'examiner l'anne suivante. L'article affirme galement que la dernire COSAC de l'anne devrait discuter cette question. L'article 7.1 A ajoute que L'objet principal de chaque projet d'ordre du jour est li au rle de la COSAC comme organe d'change d'informations, en particulier pour les aspects pratiques de l'examen parlementaire. Conformment ces deux articles, il y aura une discussion des sur la questions de quels sujets la COSAC devrait s'occuper pendant l'anne suivante la fin de la runion d'octobre Londres. Afin d'alimenter cette discussion, veuillez indiquer les sujets que votre parlement propose comme thmes pour la COSAC en 2006: Comment les parlements nationaux ont-ils t associs llaboration des plans daction nationaux dans le cadre de la stratgie de Lisbonne? Comment les parlements nationaux ont-ils particip au large dbat mobilisateur national sur la construction europenne (cfr. la dclaration du Conseil europen sur la ratification du trait constitutionnel du 18 juin 2005)? Cyrprus I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): The scrutiny procedures in the House of Representatives are gradually being set in place, though their scope and precise nature are still under consideration. The House does not presently scrutinise CFSP and ESDP matters as such and hence pertinent proposals from the Council in such fields as Joint Actions, Common Positions or recommendations for Common Strategies. However, the competent committees of the House, such as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on Defence can, within the sphere of exercise of parliamentary control, invite Ministers and other officials to appear before them and provide information on issues pertaining to CFSP and ESDP. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? ( Yes ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Yes, as part of the scrutiny system that is adopted, which, however, is not fully developed yet. _______________________________________________________ Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No. ________________________________________________________ What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) They are adequate. ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes ( No ________________________________________________________ In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Before the drafting of a legislative proposal and whenever such proposal has been substantially amended/revised. _____________________________________________________ Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? See above. _____________________________________________________ Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? This issue has not been discussed in the Cyprus Parliament. ________________________________________________________ An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No. _______________________________________________________________ III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: Justice and Home Affairs (particularly terrorism). ______________________________________________________________ Czech Republic - Senate I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Based on the Rules of Procedure the Senate shall determine which Committee or Committees will be responsible for considering proposals of legislative acts and binding measures of European Union bodies the Senate decided by resolution that Committee on EU Affairs will scrutinise I. pillar documents, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security II. and III. pillar documents. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No All these types of proposals are included in a weekly overview of documents, which are transmitted to the Senate in the given period. The committees choose documents for scrutiny from these weekly overviews. Scrutinising of CFSP or ESDP matters has been so far quite rare in practice - primarily because of short terms in which the proposals are agreed, which does not leave sufficient time for scrutiny. Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). That was EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM) following a draft Joint Action being issued. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes o No However, the classification makes access for Senators who want to consult a given document difficult because the restricted - limit documents are accessible from a database operated by the government only with apassword. The confidential documents will be probably in practice virtually inaccessible because the government has opted for an extremely securised system of transmission, which is now being tested and will become operational at the end of 2005. We will therefore be able to answer this question fully only later this year Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? We have never encountered this problem yet. However, we do admit this may be a problem in the future. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes x No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) However impact assessments are studied by experts and information drawn there from is used for drafting of background documents for Senate scrutiny. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) Since the Senate has never specifically discussed the issue of impact assessments, there is no official view on that. Therefore the answers given in this questionnaire reflect the views of officials in the Senate responsible for EU scrutiny. Impact assessments are naturally included in the documentation used in the scrutiny process, though they do not undergo any special procedure. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? x Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? All mentioned documents are taken into account, but independent opinion reflecting the parliamentary perspective (i.e. emphasis on effectiveness of Union action with observance of precise division of competences between EU and national level and view of long-term perspective in the Senate case) should be drawn by the expert background of the chamber as such. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Preliminary impact assessment should be undertaken before the Commission drafts an act, but the issue should be proved in following stages as well. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Impact assessments should be revised every time a significant change is proposed, no matter by which body. As to who should conduct these revisions, a specialized body proposed in question no.9 could be a viable option. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Yes. By the Commission or a specialized body if such is created. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Such idea is worth detailed consideration based on the experience of the countries mentioned. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: No official statement of the Czech Senate concerning the COSAC agenda in 2006 has been passed. On the other hand, there are topics which seem to be useful to discuss at this level: e.g. subsidiarity check, financial perspective, Lisbon strategy. Czech Republic - Chamber of Deputies I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? x Yes Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic considers the field of CFSP/ESDP as an open political process, different from first pillar activities. Accordingly, the procedures for scrutiny differ. The CFSP/ESDP affairs are not a subject to scrutiny on a proposal-by-proposal basis, but on a matter-of-fact basis. The parliament and its specialised bodies (Committee for European Affairs, Committee for Foreign Affairs) constantly monitor all CFSP/ESDP related activities in EU Council bodies (COPS, CIVCOM, specialised working groups). Then, selected items are discussed in the specialised committee in the presence of the government. In the field of CFSP/ESDP the Chamber especially focuses on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and relations of the EU with third parties. The enlargement process is subject to the same scrutiny procedure as the CFSP/ESDP affairs. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? x Yes Common Positions? x Yes recommendations for Common Strategies? x Yes All EU Council activities, including the Joint Actions, Common Positions and recommendations for Common Strategies proposals, are constantly monitored. If the parliament or its specialised body so decides, the EU Council proposal becomes a subject to scrutiny in the presence of the government. Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? x No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? __________________________________________________ Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? x No The Chamber constantly monitors all activities in the field of Civilian ESDP operations. If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). __________________________________________________ Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? x No b) during parliamentary recesses? x No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. ______________________________________________________ Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? x No The procedures of the EU Council on civilian ESDP operations do not allow the Parliament to have an effective discussion on each single matter. For that reason, the Chamber constantly monitors all activities in the field of civilian ESDP operations. When the Chamber considers it necessary, it questions a relevant member of the government on the selected matter. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? x Yes Good accessibility of documents is a primary condition for each effective discussion, especially in the area of CFSP/ESDP. Present system of classification prevents Members of Parliament from immediate access to relevant EU Council documents. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? As already described above, the Czech Chamber of Deputies constantly monitors all activities (both legislative and political) in the EU Council and its bodies and is always ready to discuss the selected matter. Therefore the political agreement in the field of CFSP/ESDP constitutes no problem for the Czech Chamber of Deputies. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? x Yes (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Commission impact assessments are in general scrutinised within the framework of impact assessment of the draft act by the Committee for European Affairs of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. It is an obligatory part of the Committee position on the draft act. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No. Impact assessments are scrutinised by an expert department of the Chamber the Parliamentary Institute, which in some cases co-operates with the executive branch of the government and rarely uses expertises elaborated outside the Parliament. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) Commission impact assessments should comprise an assessment of the implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States. Draft European legislative acts should take account of the need for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators and citizens, to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved (as proposed in the Protocol on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty Establishing the Constitution for Europe). Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? x Yes If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? The principle of subsidiarity is scrutinised on the basis of all the above mentioned documents (i. e. Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by the Czech Government, an Impact Assessment produced by the Czech Government) and on the basis of an expert opinion produced by the expert body of the Chamber the Parliamentary Institute. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) The Commission should undertake an impact assessment before it drafts any legislative proposal! Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Yes, in the case the amendments are of a substantial character. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Yes, an impact assessment should be an ongoing process within the aim to simplify EU legislation as one of the main goals of the new Lisbon Strategy. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? An impact assessment should be done at both EU and national levels. In case any body will be established, national legal experts should be involved in its work. The better solution is to create a network of legal and other experts at the EU and national levels to assist responsible DGs. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: Derogations in the principle of the free movement of workers for the new Member States. Denmark I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X Yes o No ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Reply: 1) In general The European Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament scrutinise CFSP/ESDP policy proposals according to the standard procedure. However - when it comes to issues related to CFSP/ESDP the Government is obliged only to inform the Committee. All Council meetings (GAERC) are presented in the EAC. But the Government is not obliged to present a negotiation proposal ahead of decision-making in the Council as is the case for issues belonging to pillar I (EC) or pillar III (JHA). 2) Also the Foreign Policy Committee discusses EU matters on a current basis. The Government has to consult the Foreign Policy Committee on matters related to CFSP/ESDP as early as possible and on a current basis. This is in accordance with the Danish Constitution in which it is written, that the Government shall consult the For. Pol. Com. prior to making any decision of major importance to foreign policy. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? X Yes Common Positions? X Yes recommendations for Common Strategies? X Yes ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? X Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) Reply: Prior to meetings in the Council (GAERC) the Government shall brief the the European Affairs Committee on questions of major importance. Even though the Government is not obliged to present all the issues on the Agenda, the members of the European Affairs Committee can ask questions related to any issue on the Agenda, including joint actions, common positions, common strategies, Council conclusions and decisions etc. Before every meeting in the European Affairs Committee, the Committee is being provided with topic notes on all issues on the Councils Agenda from the Government according to the standard procedure. In addition it should be mentioned, that The European Affairs Committee in April 2005 has published a comprehensive report describing the development of the CFSP from a historic and a political/legal viewpoint. The publication also describes all the ESDP-operations, EUs common strategies and some of the important common positions and joint actions. (Note: The Report is public and can be ordered at the EU-Information Centre in the Danish Parliament (in Danish only)) Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? X Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Reply: All the operations have been presented by the Government in topic notes and orally in the European Affairs Committee the week before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action has been put on the agenda. Members of the Committee have asked a number of questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All the ESDP-operations have been described in the recently published publication about the development of the CFSP (see question no. 5). Note that Denmark cannot take part in the military operations due to the Danish opt-out on EU-cooperation with defence implications. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? X Yes A reference can be made to answer of question no. 7. Occasionally the European Affairs Committee organises conferences or public hearings on relevant EU-issues including issues related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. b) during parliamentary recesses? X Yes Reply: The Danish opt-out on EU-cooperation with defence implications has been debated in plenary. If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No Reply: In general the Committee find it very important to get all kinds of relevant information on EU-issues as soon as possible, thereby making the Committee able to handle the relevant issues properly. Now and then the Committee receives information at a rather late stage in the process, but this happens within all policy areas, and does not count for CFSP/ESDP issues in particular. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? X No Reply: The EU-Secretariat has not registered any comments on this issue among members of the European Affairs Committee. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? Reply: A reference can be made to answers of questions no. 7 and no. 9. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The Commissions impacts assessments while not scrutinized formally by the committee, are used by parliamentary staff members. The organisation and presentation of the impact assessments should be improved, in order to ensure their accessibility. To this end, it is suggested that the European Commission creates a public database including all proposals in the annual legislative and work program with links to their specific impact assessments as well as any other relevant information. Such a system of linking the various impact assessments with the Commissions annual legislative and work programme will allow the national parliaments the ability to begin a subsidiarity check an early stage. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? As part of the general scrutiny performed on all legislative proposals and in particular on proposals of greater importance as defined by the Danish Government - the European Affairs Committee examines whether or not a given proposal meets the criteria for subsidiarity and proportionality. To this end, the Committee uses explanatory notes from the government called basic memoranda (which must include the Governments assessment on subsidiarity). Since January 2005 the Danish Government is also obliged to send specific subsidiarity notes to the committee on all legislative of a greater importance no later then 14 days after the proposals adoption in the Commission. Committee members are also given access to all relevant documents from EU institutions concerning work in progress, as well as explanatory memorandums from the British House of Commons and the Swedish Riksdag. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) To be useful with regards to the early scrutiny of legislative proposals, Impact assessments should be undertaken before a legislative proposal is placed on the annual legislative work program. This will give the national parliaments the ability to begin the process of a pre-scrutiny at an early stage. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? The European Commission has the right of initiative for most legislation, and should therefore be responsible for performing impact assessments. Requiring the European Parliament and the Council to undertake impact assessments on all amendments might have an adverse affect on the legislative process and therefore should not be made a requirement as such unless such a requirement could be undertaken without delaying the legislative process. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? The European Commission should be required to review existing legislation in order to ensure that the EU legal framework meets basic standards for good governance and to ensure that the existing acqius communautaire continues to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? The Danish Parliament has not published an opinion concerning this proposal. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: After an evaluation on the state of play concerning the ratification of the Constitutional treaty, COSAC should consider what if any actions that might be taken in order to improve COSACs role vis vis subsidiarity within the existing legal framework. An evaluation on the co-decision procedure, with special focus on how national parliaments can benefit by an early scrutiny of legislative proposals might be initiated and debated. Such an evaluation should include the special challenges faced by the national parliaments when legislation is adopted after first reading as well as an analysis on how the inclusion of specialist committees in this scrutiny affects/benefits parliamentary scrutiny. COSAC should consider using the provisions in the Amsterdam Protocol concerning enhanced scrutiny in the area of freedom, security and Justice including convening conferences in this area. Estonia I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act applies also to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals. Point 3 of 18 of the Act states as following: The European Union Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu shall, in matters which concern the common foreign and security policy of the European Union and in co-operation with other standing committees, prepare the opinion of the Riigikogu on draft European Union legislation and shall provide an opinion concerning other affairs of the European Union and exercise supervision over the activities of the Government of the Republic in implementing European Union policies. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? Yes o No Common Positions? Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act states as following: 1521. Submission to Riigikogu of European Union affairs (1) In order to enable the Riigikogu to express its opinion, the Government of the Republic shall submit the following draft European Union legislation to the Riigikogu: 1) draft legislation the scope of application of which requires, pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, the passage, amendment or repeal of an Act or a resolution of the Riigikogu; 2) draft legislation the passage of which would bring about a significant economic or social effect. (2) The Government of the Republic shall, on its own initiative or at the request of the European Union Affairs Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee, also submit other European Union affairs of significance to the Riigikogu for an opinion. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). The National Defence Committee of the Riigikogu meets once of month with the Chief of the Defence Forces. The National Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee has usually a joint sitting when the international missions, there Estonian troops (from both military and civilian structures) are participating, are discussed. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu meets regularly before the GAERC meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If the agenda of the GAERC contains ESDP missions, the Committee discusses them as any other question of the GAERC agenda. The Foreign Affairs Committee also receives a written conclusion about passed GAERC meeting from the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. The Foreign Affairs Committee (as any other committee) has regular sittings and therefore it does not matter if the notice is very short. The chairman of a Riigikogu committee shall convene an extraordinary sitting of the committee on his or her own initiative or at the request of at least one-third of the members of the committee. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? Yes o No The process of decision of the Riigikogu can be very rapid in urgent questions. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes No This has not happened so far in the Riigikogu. (NB: Estonia has been member of the EU only since 01.05.2004!). Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? The Foreign Affairs Committee has very good cooperation with both Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defence. Both Ministries inform the Committee about later agreements. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) ______________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? As a part of normal scrutiny process on the basis of the Memo of the Government In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Before it drafts a proposal Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? ______________________________________________________________ Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? ______________________________________________________________ An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Not yet III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: Experiences of free movement of labour 1,5 years after the enlargement; Free movement of services in the EU Finland I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? x Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). In the Finnish system EU scrutiny of CFDP/ESDP belongs in to the competence of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The procedure is same than in other matters in connection with the Grand Committee. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? x Yes o No Common Positions? x Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? x Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? x Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The constitution gives the competent committee an unrestricted right to require of the government information on any business related to the EU and to issue an opinion that is politically binding on the government. The government has a corresponding right to submit to the competent parliamentary committee any matter it deems appropriate. In practice, all major policy papers are submitted by the government automatically. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? x Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Foreign Affairs Committee scrutinised all of them before Council meetings where Joint Action were agreed. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? x Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? x Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. All MPs can be reached easily by phone and e-mail. Extra committee meetings can be arranged if deemed necessary and also written procedure can also be used in some cases (especially outside normal session period). Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? x Yes o No Decisions can be taken in the tight timeframe when needed. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes x No In Finnish constitutional practice, the government cannot withhold information from the Eduskunta on confidentiality grounds. The Foreign Affairs Committee as well as the Grand Committee can, according the Constitution, declare the matter and the documents confidential when needed. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? The Government is obliged to inform the Foreign Affairs Committee on all major CFSP matters as they evolve not depending on the legal instrument as such. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? x Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Yes. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) When scrutinising Commissions proposals for legislations Specialised Committees hear experts also on impact assessment issues. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) In general, we consider the impact assessments adequate, but we also require impact assessments from ministries especially from the Finnish point of view. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? x Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? By combination of the documents above. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Assessing the impact of legislation should be an on-going process. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Impact assessments should generally be objective, trustworthy by all (institution). The European Parliament and the Council should do some kind of impact assessment while producing their amendments. Especially, in the Council the national differences should be studied carefully. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Impact assessments should be part of the Commission role to examine national implementation. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Not yet. France - Senate I. Contrle parlementaire de la de la Politique trangre et de Scurit Commune (PESC) et de la Politique Europenne de Scurit et de Dfense (PESD) par les parlements nationaux: Votre parlement soumet-il la PESC et/ou la PESD un contrle parlementaire? X Oui o Non (Si la rponse est non, veuillez passer directement la section II) Est-ce que le systme de contrle parlementaire utilis pour les affaires europennes en gnral (comme dcrit au premier chapitre du 3e rapport bisannuel de la COSAC) est le mme que pour le contrle parlementaire des projets de la PESC/PESD? Si tel n'est pas le cas, veuillez indiquer quelles sont les diffrences et comment votre parlement contrle le domaine de la PESC/PESD? (i.e. quelles sont les commissions impliques et quel est leur rle respectif?) Le systme est le mme. Quelles propositions du Conseil europen votre parlement soumet-il au contrle parlementaire? les actions communes? X Oui o Non les positions communes? X Oui o Non les stratgies communes? o Oui X Non Votre parlement soumet-il des propositions pour la PESC et la PESD autres que celles mentionnes dans la question 3 (i.e. conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen) au contrle parlementaire? o Oui X Non Si la rponse la question 4 est 'oui', comment votre parlement dcide-t-il quelles propositions il examinera? ______ Est-ce que c'est votre gouvernement qui dcide quelles propositions (ceux non mentionns sous point 3) sont soumises au parlement pour contrle? Est-ce qu'il existe un accord avec votre gouvernement sur la question quelles propositions non lgislatives doivent tre soumises au contrle parlementaire? (Si oui, veuillez indiquer quand cet accord a t conclu et quel type de propositions il comprend.) Oprations civiles de la PESD : Contexte: Les oprations civiles de la PESD constituent un domaine d'activits de l'UE en plein essor. Les six oprations civiles actuelles sont: Mission de police de l'UE dans l'ancienne Rpublique Yougoslave de Mecdoine (Proxima)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission "tat de droit" mene par l'Union europenne en Gorgie (Eujust Themis)  HYPERLINK "http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=g" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne en Bosnie-et-Herzgovine (MPUE)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne Kinshasa (RDC) (EUPOL "Kinshasa")  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission intgre "tat de droit" de l'Union europenne pour l'Iraq (Eujust Lex)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de l'UE en Rpublique dmocratique du Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) Ces missions ont-elles t soumises au contrle parlementaire? X Oui o Non Si la rponse la question 6 est 'oui', veuillez indiquer quelles oprations votre parlement a soumis au contrle parlementaire, et veuillez spcifier pour chaque opration quelle tape de la procdure le contrle parlementaire a eu lieu (i.e. aprs la publication d'un projet d'action commune, immdiatement avant la runion du Conseil laquelle cette action commune tait dcide; ou aprs un accord au Conseil?) MPUE (sur le projet daction commune) EUPOL-Kinshasa (sur le projet daction commune) Mission de police en Macdoine (sur le projet daction commune) Votre parlement a-t-il prvu des dispositions spcifiques pour soumettre des oprations civiles de la PESD un contrle parlementaire: a) pour agir en une priode de temps trs courte? o Oui X Non b) pendant l'intersession? o Oui X Non Si vous avez rpondu par 'oui' l'une des questions, veuillez spcifier quelles sont ces procdures (la possibilit de runions extraordinaires des Commissions, la possibilit d'aboutir des accords par correspondance) et combien de reprises elles ont t utilises en pratique? La procdure normale dexamen comprend une procdure durgence applicable toute lanne, quel que soit lobjet du texte. Est-ce que les procdures du Conseil concernant les oprations civiles PESD laissent un temps adquat l'excution du contrle parlementaire? X Oui o Non La classification des documents du Conseil comme 'restreint' ou comme 'confidentiel' constitue-t-elle une entrave l'excution du contrle parlementaire des oprations ESDP? o Oui X Non Les informations ncessaires ont toujours pu tre obtenues. Accord politique: Contexte: Le Conseil des Ministres aboutit souvent des 'accords politiques' sur la PESD et la PESC avant la finalisation de l'instrument, c'est--dire que certains dtails sont approuvs lors de runions ultrieures, voire mme aprs la fin du contrle parlementaire. Est-ce que votre parlement a rencontr ce problme? Dans ce cas, quelles procdures ou pratiques utilise votre parlement pour s'occuper de ce problme? Le Snat nest pas saisi des accords politiques. Cela limite la porte du contrle, mais aucune procdure particulire na t mise en place. II. Contrle des analyses d'impact de la Commission : Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire? X Oui o Non (Si la rponse est 'non', veuillez passer la question 4) Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire en utilisant la procdure de contrle parlementaire normale (comme dcrite au premier chapitre du 3e rapport bisannuel de la COSAC)? Si tel n'est pas le cas, veuillez indiquer quelles sont les diffrences et comment votre parlement procde? Les analyses dimpact sont examines dans le cadre de lexamen global du document. Est-ce que votre parlement utilise des ressources spciales pour le contrle parlementaire des analyses d'impact? Si oui, veuillez indiquer lesquelles. (i.e. Est-ce que le contrle ncessite-t-il des fonds spciaux? Est-ce que des services autres que la commission des affaires europennes sont impliqus? Utilisez-vous des expertises externes ?) Non. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement sur les analyses d'impact produites par la Commission ? Ces analyses sont-elles utiles au contrle parlementaire ? Sont-elles adquates ? Si tel n'est pas le cas, quelles sont vos suggestions pour les amliorer ? (Quelles informations supplmentaires souhaiteriez-vous y trouver ? Sur quelles informations les analyses devraient-elles se concentrer davantage) Ces analyses sont utiles dans leur principe, mais leur contenu est souvent de porte limite. Il serait ncessaire de prsenter de manire beaucoup plus prcise: le rapport cot/avantages de la mesure; la justification au regard du principe de subsidiarit. Votre parlement contrle-t-il si les projets d'actes lgislatifs respectent les principes de subsidiarit et de proportionnalit ? X Oui o Non Si la rponse est 'oui', veuillez spcifier si le contrle parlementaire est excut soit sur base d'un expos des motifs ou d'une tude d'impact de la Commission, soit sur base d'un expos des motifs ou d'une analyse d'impact produit par le gouvernement, une combinaison des deux ou par d'autres moyens ? Le contrle nest pas systmatique: il ne concerne que les textes jugs importants. Il sappuie sur les analyses prsentes par la Commission. Selon vous, quand est-ce que la Commission devrait entreprendre une analyse d'impact. (i.e. Avant le premier projet d'un acte lgislatif? Avant l'accord du Collge des Commissaires? Est-ce que l'analyse de l'impact de la lgislation devrait tre un processus continu?) Ce devrait tre un processus continu. Par exemple, les amendements du Parlement europen modifient parfois sensiblement limpact dun texte. Les analyses d'impact devraient-elles tre rvises au regard des amendements au projet d'acte lgislatif de la Commission, afin de mieux reflter les projets amends? Si oui, quand et par qui ces rvisions devraient-elle tre faites? Est-ce que le Parlement europen et le Conseil devraient produire des analyses d'impact de leurs amendements? Oui. La lgislation europenne devrait-elle tre contrle aprs son implmentation pour analyser son impact, et si oui, quand et par qui? Ce rle doit incomber au Parlement europen et aux parlements nationaux. D'aucuns argumentent en faveur de la cration d'un organisme consultatif indpendant afin de conseiller les institutions europennes pour rduire la charge administrative de la lgislation sur les entreprises et les citoyens (comme par exemple l'Actal aux Pays-Bas et la Task force Mieux lgifrer en Grande-Bretagne). Cet organe pourrait reprendre la tche de la Commission de produire des analyses d'impact. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement face cette proposition? Les analyses dimpact doivent demeurer de la responsabilit de la Commission, car elles sont une des bases du dialogue qui devrait sinstaurer entre celleci et les gouvernements, dune part, les parlements dautre part. En outre, le nombre des organismes administratifs est dj plus que suffisant. III. Propositions concernant les sujets traiter par la COSAC en 2006 L'article 7.1 du rglement interne de la COSAC stipule qu'avant la dernire runion ordinaire de chaque anne, les dlgations indiquent les sujets qu'elles proposent d'examiner l'anne suivante. L'article affirme galement que la dernire COSAC de l'anne devrait discuter cette question. L'article 7.1 A ajoute que L'objet principal de chaque projet d'ordre du jour est li au rle de la COSAC comme organe d'change d'informations, en particulier pour les aspects pratiques de l'examen parlementaire. Conformment ces deux articles, il y aura une discussion des sur la questions de quels sujets la COSAC devrait s'occuper pendant l'anne suivante la fin de la runion d'octobre Londres. Afin d'alimenter cette discussion, veuillez indiquer les sujets que votre parlement propose comme thmes pour la COSAC en 2006 : comment exercer le contrle de la subsidiarit dans la construction de lespace de libert, de scurit, de justice? comment associer les parlements nationaux lvaluation des nouveaux tatsmembres pour leur entre dans lespace Schengen? le suivi parlementaire de la politique europenne de scurit et de dfense, et lavenir de lAssemble de lUEO. France - National Assembly I. Contrle parlementaire de la de la Politique trangre et de Scurit Commune (PESC) et de la Politique Europenne de Scurit et de Dfense (PESD) par les parlements nationaux: Votre parlement soumet-il la PESC et/ou la PESD un contrle parlementaire? Oui Est-ce que le systme de contrle parlementaire utilis pour les affaires europennes en gnral (comme dcrit au premier chapitre du 3e rapport bisannuel de la COSAC) est le mme que pour le contrle parlementaire des projets de la PESC/PESD? Si tel n'est pas le cas, veuillez indiquer quelles sont les diffrences et comment votre parlement contrle le domaine de la PESC/PESD? (i.e. quelles sont les commissions impliques et quel est leur rle respectif?) La PESC et la PESD sont soumis au mme mcanisme de contrle parlementaireprvu par larticle 88-4 de la Constitution franaise. En revanche, la transmission des projets dactes en matire de PESC et de PESD se fait directement par lintermdiaire du Ministre des Affaires trangres et non par le biais du SGCI, organe de coordination interministrielle sur les affaires europennes. Quelles propositions du Conseil europen votre parlement soumet-il au contrle parlementaire? les actions communes? Oui les positions communes? Oui les stratgies communes? Oui Votre parlement soumet-il des propositions pour la PESC et la PESD autres que celles mentionnes dans la question 3 (i.e. conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen) au contrle parlementaire? En pratique, non. Toutefois, la clause facultative de larticle 88-4 rend possible, en thorie, la transmission au Parlement de tout autre projet dacte (par exemple les conclusions et dcisions du Conseil europen) en matire de PESC et de PESD. Mais le Parlement na pas la possibilit de contraindre le gouvernement lui soumettre des projets dactes qui nentrent pas dans le champ de la clause obligatoire de larticle 88-4 de la Constitution. Si la rponse la question 4 est 'oui', comment votre parlement dcide-t-il quelles propositions il examinera? Est-ce que c'est votre gouvernement qui dcide quelles propositions (ceux non mentionns sous point 3) sont soumises au parlement pour contrle? Est-ce qu'il existe un accord avec votre gouvernement sur la question quelles propositions non lgislatives doivent tre soumises au contrle parlementaire? (Si oui, veuillez indiquer quand cet accord a t conclu et quel type de propositions il comprend.) La Dlgation pour lUnion europenne peut sautosaisir des propositions de son choix sans pour autant tre autorise adopter des propositions de rsolution sur les textes qui ne sont pas transmis par le Gouvernement au titre de larticle 88-4 de la Constitution. Oprations civiles de la PESD: Contexte: Les oprations civiles de la PESD constituent un domaine d'activits de l'UE en plein essor. Les six oprations civiles actuelles sont: Mission de police de l'UE dans l'ancienne Rpublique Yougoslave de Mecdoine (Proxima)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission "tat de droit" mene par l'Union europenne en Gorgie (Eujust Themis)  HYPERLINK "http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=g" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne en Bosnie-et-Herzgovine (MPUE)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne Kinshasa (RDC) (EUPOL "Kinshasa")  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission intgre "tat de droit" de l'Union europenne pour l'Iraq (Eujust Lex)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de l'UE en Rpublique dmocratique du Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) Ces missions ont-elles t soumises au contrle parlementaire? Oui Si la rponse la question 6 est 'oui', veuillez indiquer quelles oprations votre parlement a soumis au contrle parlementaire, et veuillez spcifier pour chaque opration quelle tape de la procdure le contrle parlementaire a eu lieu (i.e. aprs la publication d'un projet d'action commune, immdiatement avant la runion du Conseil laquelle cette action commune tait dcide; ou aprs un accord au Conseil?) LAssemble nationale a examin lensemble de ces oprations. Dans certains cas, le contrle sest fait selon une procdure dite durgence, la demande du Gouvernement. Lintervention du Parlement intervient alors quasi-simultanment avec la runion du Conseil. Votre parlement a-t-il prvu des dispositions spcifiques pour soumettre des oprations civiles de la PESD un contrle parlementaire: a) pour agir en une priode de temps trs courte? Non b) pendant l'intersession? Non Est-ce que les procdures du Conseil concernant les oprations civiles PESD laissent un temps adquat l'excution du contrle parlementaire? En dpit de trs nombreuses procdures durgence, un effort est fait par le Gouvernement pour tenir le Parlement inform le plus en amont possible. La classification des documents du Conseil comme 'restreint' ou comme 'confidentiel' constitue-t-elle une entrave l'excution du contrle parlementaire des oprations ESDP? Non Le contrle parlementaire exerc dans les domaines de la PESC et de la PESD est un contrle de nature essentiellement politique et non technique qui privilgie une approche globale lgard dun pays ou dune zone du monde. En ce sens, la classification des documents du Conseil comme restreint ou confidentiel nest pas un handicap lexercice du contrle parlementaire. Accord politique: Contexte: Le Conseil des Ministres aboutit souvent des 'accords politiques' sur la PESD et la PESC avant la finalisation de l'instrument, c'est--dire que certains dtails sont approuvs lors de runions ultrieures, voire mme aprs la fin du contrle parlementaire. Est-ce que votre parlement a rencontr ce problme? Dans ce cas, quelles procdures ou pratiques utilise votre parlement pour s'occuper de ce problme? Le problme sest en effet dj pos. Il sexplique par lurgence qui caractrise souvent la prise de dcision dans les domaines de la PESC et de la PESD. Toutefois, la fin de la procdure de contrle parlementaire de larticle 88-4 de la Constitution nempche pas le Parlement dapprofondir son contrle par dautres moyens ds lors quil lestime ncessaire. Il peut notamment sagir des questions dactualit au gouvernement, de la cration dune mission dinformation et de la publication dun rapport dinformation. II. Contrle des analyses d'impact de la Commission: Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire? Non. Si les analyses dimpact ne font pas lobjet dun contrle parlementaire spcifique, il en est tenu compte dans le contrle parlementaire densemble dune proposition dacte europen. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement sur les analyses d'impact produites par la Commission? Ces analyses sont-elles utiles au contrle parlementaire? Sont-elles adquates? Si tel n'est pas le cas, quelles sont vos suggestions pour les amliorer? (Quelles informations supplmentaires souhaiteriez-vous y trouver? Sur quelles informations les analyses devraient-elles se concentrer davantage) Les analyses dimpact de la Commission sont de qualit trs variable selon les projets dactes europens. Elles sont gnralement trs pertinentes dans le secteur de lenvironnement. Les valuations pourraient nanmoins tre plus prcises, notamment sur limpact financier des propositions de la Commission, telles que, par exemple, la proposition de rglement introduisant des lments biomtriques dans les passeports des citoyens de lUE (COM 04/ 116 final). Il est domaines, comme la JAI, o labsence dlments statistiques fiables nuit la pertinence de lvaluation. Votre parlement contrle-t-il si les projets d'actes lgislatifs respectent les principes de subsidiarit et de proportionnalit? Oui Si la rponse est 'oui', veuillez spcifier si le contrle parlementaire est excut soit sur base d'un expos des motifs ou d'une tude d'impact de la Commission, soit sur base d'un expos des motifs ou d'une analyse d'impact produit par le gouvernement, une combinaison des deux ou par d'autres moyens ? Le contrle parlementaire sur le respect du principe de subsidiarit se fonde sur une apprciation politique, au-del du seul expos des motifs ou de ltude dimpact de la Commission. Lapprciation de la conformit au principe de subsidiarit peut galement rsulter des auditions ralises par le parlementaire dsign rapporteur sur la proposition dacte europen. Selon vous, quand est-ce que la Commission devrait entreprendre une analyse d'impact. (i.e. Avant le premier projet d'un acte lgislatif? Avant l'accord du Collge des Commissaires? Est-ce que l'analyse de l'impact de la lgislation devrait tre un processus continu?) Le plus en amont possible, et en tout tat de cause avant laccord du collge des commissaires. Les analyses d'impact devraient-elles tre rvises au regard des amendements au projet d'acte lgislatif de la Commission, afin de mieux reflter les projets amends? Si oui, quand et par qui ces rvisions devraient-elle tre faites? Est-ce que le Parlement europen et le Conseil devraient produire des analyses d'impact de leurs amendements? Dans la mesure du possible, des analyses dimpact simplifies pourraient tre ralises par la Commission en cas de modification substantielle dun projet dacte lgislatif europen. Pour autant, il ne semble ni souhaitable ni raliste de conditionner le droit damendement du Conseil et du Parlement europen au dpt dune analyse dimpact. La lgislation europenne devrait-elle tre contrle aprs son implmentation pour analyser son impact, et si oui, quand et par qui? Oui, conjointement par la Commission europenne et les Etats membres, dans des dlais variables selon la lgislation concerne. Les rapports de mise en uvre du droit communautaire devraient tre prsents lexamen du Conseil. D'aucuns argumentent en faveur de la cration d'un organisme consultatif indpendant afin de conseiller les institutions europennes pour rduire la charge administrative de la lgislation sur les entreprises et les citoyens (comme par exemple l'Actal aux Pays-Bas et la Task force Mieux lgifrer en Grande-Bretagne). Cet organe pourrait reprendre la tche de la Commission de produire des analyses d'impact. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement face cette proposition? Il convient dtre prudent sur la multiplication des structures, ds lors que les directions gnrales de la Commission europenne disposent de lexpertise ncessaire la ralisation des analyses dimpact. III. Propositions concernant les sujets traiter par la COSAC en 2006 L'article 7.1 du rglement interne de la COSAC stipule qu'avant la dernire runion ordinaire de chaque anne, les dlgations indiquent les sujets qu'elles proposent d'examiner l'anne suivante. L'article affirme galement que la dernire COSAC de l'anne devrait discuter cette question. L'article 7.1 A ajoute que L'objet principal de chaque projet d'ordre du jour est li au rle de la COSAC comme organe d'change d'informations, en particulier pour les aspects pratiques de l'examen parlementaire. Conformment ces deux articles, il y aura une discussion des sur la questions de quels sujets la COSAC devrait s'occuper pendant l'anne suivante la fin de la runion d'octobre Londres. Afin d'alimenter cette discussion, veuillez indiquer les sujets que votre parlement propose comme thmes pour la COSAC en 2006: La lutte contre le terrorisme (notamment le contrle parlementaire sur les mesures privatives de libert); La politique dimmigration. Germany - Bundesrat I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes X No, (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) The Act on Cooperation between the Federation and the Federal States in European Union Affairs (EUZBLG) does not apply on these matters. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? X Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? The Bundesrat scrutinises Commission impact assessments as part of its standard EU scrutiny procedures. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) The Bundesrat has no special resources to scrutinise impact assessments. The scrutiny is a part of the standard EU scrutiny procedure. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The view of the Bundesrat on the impact assessments is the following one: The Bundesrat is pleased to note that the Commission wishes to extend deregulation efforts and improved impact assessment to current EU draft legislation and new EU law rather than limiting this to EU legislation already in force for some time. The Bundesrat underscores that particular importance should be given to examining alternatives to new legislative provisions when carrying out impact assessments. Within the context of impact assessments, consideration should be given to whether it would be possible to attain the goal pursued by draft EU legislation whilst avoiding or limiting the burden on the administration and businesses, or indeed whether it would be possible to entirely or partly scrap existing burdensome EU provisions in conjunction with the introduction of new draft legislation. The Bundesrat is of the opinion that effective impact assessment is also of considerable importance for the subsidiarity early warning system envisaged in the Constitutional Treaty. Information from the EU on the advantages and drawbacks to be expected from planned legislation can support national parliaments scrutiny of compliance with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. There is therefore a need for the results of impact assessment to consider the economic, ecological and social impacts, whilst also providing information on the substance of the legislation, alternatives to legislation and the expected benefits, as well as direct and indirect financial and other burdens on the public sector and/or the target group(s) affected by the provisions. A long-term cost-benefit analysis should be taken as the basis for comparing the anticipated advantages and disadvantages of draft EU legislation. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? The Bundesrat scrutinses whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; it is based on the Lnders' own examinations and on the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum included in the proposal. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) In the opinion of the Bundesrat the impact assessment of legislation should be undertaken in a very early stage of an EU-legislative procedure. The Bundesrat demands that the Lnder should be involved in that early stage. The Bundesrat considers that downstream impact assessment at the national level after an EU legislative act has been implemented is of lesser importance, as there is often little scope for national legislative bodies to make their influence felt when implementing EU law. Impact assessment in connection with European legislative instruments is the decisive factor. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? - not yet decided - Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? The Bundesrat supports the Commissions request to Member States to carry out their own impact assessments when implementing EU legal instruments. See also answer to question 6. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? In principle, concerning the creation of new authorities and institutions the Bundesrat has a rather restrictive attitude. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: No proposals will be made. Germany - Bundestag I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes, depending on the subject o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). EU-Documents within the framework of CFSP and ESDP are not formally forwarded to the Bundestag in the same way as EU-documents concerning the first pillar are. But the government does forward all documents to the Bundestag. It is up to the Bundestag and its committees to decide which aspects it/they want to deliberate on. On measures relating to CFSP and ESDP the Bundestag is not expected to offer a statement of opinion as it is the case on issues of the first pillar. Moreover, the committees of the Bundestag, for example the European affairs committee, has other ways of gathering information on these issues. The EU affairs committee invites representatives of EU institutions or other experts to relate on these subjects. The committee on foreign affairs and the defence committee are also responsible for these subjects. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? o Yes, occasionally depending on the issue o No Common Positions? o Yes, occasionally depending on the issue o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes occasionally depending on the issue o No ______________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) According to the Law on cooperation between the Federal Government and the German Bundestag in matters concerning the EU of 12 March 1993, every proposal relating to regulations and directives of the Council of the EU submitted by the Councils Secretariat-General, as well as proposals relating to decisions and other resolutions of the Council, shall be transmitted without delay to the Bundestag. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). The European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima) was subject to a decision of the Bundestag. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes o No Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o Not allways Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes o No Documents classified as restricted or confidential are not forwarded to the Bundestag by the federal Government in any of the ways described above. The qualification thus hinders the Bundestag in its scrutiny of ESDP missions. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? The German Bundestag at all times is empowered to request full briefings from the Federal Government on any and all topics it may choose. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes o Not usually What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) In the present situation the impact assessments produced by the Commission are not forwarded formally to the Bundestag and its committees. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes o Not systematically If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Impact assessments on items of legislation should be carried out both before drafting legislative proposals and as an ongoing process. But on this aspect, a political position by the parliamentary groups of the Bundestag has not been taken yet. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? No political decision on this issue yet. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? No political decision on this issue yet. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No political decision on this issue yet. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: Due to recent political developments in Germany, it is difficult to predict what the specific concerns and priorities of the German Bundestag will be in the year 2006. General concerns, however, are the scrutiny of the Unions budget by the national parliaments, the role of national parliaments in CFSP and EDSP and the co-operation of national parliaments on the matter of subsidiarity. Greece I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X Yes, in principle. o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). All of these matters can be scrutinised under the same procedures that apply for EU affairs. In this case the competent committees are mostly the Committee for National Defence and Foreign Affairs, and European Affairs Committee. In practice the European Affairs Committee has not dealt directly with any CFSP/ESDP matter, except institutional issues related with the future development of defence and security policy or the parliamentary control over CFSP/ESDP, as part of the discussions going on, during the European Convention and IGC . The Committee for National Defence and Foreign Affairs invites quite often the respective ministers to hearings about issues of their competence and current developments, according to article 41a which regulates scrutiny in committee level, and particularly hearings of ministers or other government officials. The Committees also obtain information from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in the form of memoranda. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? X Yes o No Our Committees are entitled to scrutinise any proposal with regulatory content forwarded by the Government. If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) See above. A formalised agreement with the Government does not exist for the time being Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes X No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? X Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. There is no provision that rules out the functioning of Committees during parliamentary recesses. Also, according to our practice, committee meetings are not regular and can be convened any time, even in short notice, when needed. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No In general yes. However council agendas sometimes are not available on time and we have to depend on information from the government. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes Not particularly. This depends on the degree of cooperation between Government and Parliament. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? Yes X No What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) __________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes X No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? ______________________________________________________________ Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? ______________________________________________________________ An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? ______________________________________________________________ Hungary I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes o No What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) Sometimes they can provide assistance to the scrutiny Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes, occasionally in the course of the normal scrutiny procedure o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? Each above-mentioned document may be useful for judging the criteria of subsidiarity and proportionality In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Before drafting the legislative proposal Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Yes, it should be done by the Commission Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? ________________________________________________________ An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? NO III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: Constitutional Treaty Free movement of persons in the EU Freedom to provide services in the EU Ireland - Houses of the Oireachtas I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) YES Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). NO: The Oireachtas handles such measures according to an agreed protocol. A standard Oireachtas Scrutiny information note is provided by Government to the Chairman (and only the Chairman) of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny in advance of the adoption of CFSP measures. (At this stage such proposed measures are confidential. Regulation EC 1049/2001) The Chairman of the Committee can if he/she sees fit involve others in consideration of the matter. When the measure is adopted and is no longer classified as confidential, the Minister concerned submits the text of the measure to the Oireachtas in the normal way for Oireachtas scrutiny. At this stage the proposals would be considered by the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No (The committee may review including such documents in the future) Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? o Yes (Council Decisions) o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) All proposals in those areas Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes o No Scrutiny of such matters would also arise in the context of meetings of the Joint Committee on European affairs with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in advance of each General Affairs and External Relations Council. If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). The majority of the missions mentioned were scrutinised prior to the relevant Council meeting as per Oireachtas procedures for handling confidential documents as detailed above. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No To date there has been no difficulty for the Oireachtas. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes o No Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? They are considered on a case by case basis. Often this arises in respect of annexes to sanction measures. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Yes Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No (As in Q2 they are scrutinised as part of our standard scrutiny procedures) What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) One consideration has been noted during scrutiny ie that they tend to be centred around consultation with a limited number of organisations. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? This is achieved by analysis of the following; the Commissions proposal itself; reference to legal Advice and the view of the Government Department responsible for the proposal. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) The Commission should undertake to carry out impact assessments focussed before the proposal has been drafted, but also on an ongoing basis. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Yes, where amendments are substantial. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Yes. There should be a planned, built-in post implementation assessment point for significant legislative proposals. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Before offering any view it would be useful to learn more about these two existing bodies and other parliaments views. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: This might be best done nearer to (but in advance of) the date of the Plenary in October to ensure that topics are timely and appropriate. However it is possible that the Joint Oireachtas Committee may wish to raise measures to promote debate of EU Affairs in the plenary of national parliaments among other matters. Italy - Senate Le contrle parlementaire de la PESC et de la PESD par les Parlements nationaux Dans le Parlement italien, le contrle sur les matires concernant la PESC et la PESD seffectue travers les lois et les rglements prvus par le processus dappartenance de lItalie lUnion europenne. ce propos, la rcente loi n. 11, du 4 fvrier 2005, tablit que les projets dactes communautaires et de lUnion europenne sont transmis aux Chambres par le Prsident du Conseil des ministres ou bien par le Ministre des politiques communautaires, pour lattribution aux organes parlementaires comptents, en indiquant aussi la date prvue de leur discussion ou adoption. La nouveaut principale par rapport aux dispositions prcdentes concerne la mention explicite des projets dactes de lUnion europenne. En outre, les Commissions des affaires trangres et de la dfense du Snat et de la Chambre des dputs, dans le cadre des pouvoirs gnraux de contrle sur laction du Gouvernement, discutent des questions de politique trangre et de politique de dfense, en considration galement de lappartenance de lItalie lUnion europenne, au cours de sances spciales, convoques sur des thmes spcifiques dactualit ou dintrt essentiel. Cela seffectue travers la procdure, prvue par le Rglement, des Communications du Gouvernement, sur lesquelles se tient un dbat. Le mme mcanisme des Communications du Gouvernement sutilise si lon entend discuter des mmes questions dans lAssemble plnire. Enfin, propos des oprations civiles de la PESD, les Chambres effectuent leur contrle pendant la phase dautorisation lgislative des frais prvus pour lexcution de ces missions. Le contrle des analyses dimpact de la Commission europenne Lanalyse de limpact de la lgislation a t introduite en Italie par la loi n. 50 (Loi de simplification pour lanne 1998) du 8 mars 1999, qui, larticle 5, prvoit que, titre dexpriment, elle soit effectue sur lorganisation des administrations publiques et sur lactivit des citoyens et des entreprises par rapport aux projets de loi adopts par le Gouvernement et aux rglements ministriels et interministriels. Ensuite, larticle 2, premier alina, lettre f), de la loi n. 229, du 29 juillet 2003, a dlgu le Gouvernement adopter des dispositions pour la vrification de limpact de la lgislation travers des instruments efficaces dinformation et de participation des personnes et des catgories concernes. Enfin, le Parlement est en train dexaminer le projet de loi de simplification et de rorganisation lgislative pour lanne 2005, qui, larticle 15, dfinit lanalyse de limpact de la lgislation comme une valuation pralable (ex ante) de ses effets hypothtiques intervenant sur les activits des citoyens et des entreprises et sur lorganisation et le fonctionnement des administrations publiques, travers la comparaison doptions alternatives. La mme loi dfinit galement la vrification de limpact de la lgislation (ex post) comme une valuation, mme priodique, de la ralisation des buts prvus et comme une estime des frais et des effets produits par la lgislation sur les activits des citoyens et des entreprises et sur lorganisation et le fonctionnement des administrations publiques. Lexamen des propositions lgislatives de la Commission europenne, que le Parlement italien mne dans la phase de formation du droit communautaire, se concentre galement sur le thme de limpact de la lgislation europenne. cet gard, sont particulirement importants les rles de marche (road maps) indiqus dans le programme lgislatif et de travail pour lanne 2005, qui fournissent des informations utiles sur lanalyse de limpact - qui doit tre effectue dans une phase initiale et dans une phase successive - de chaque proposition contenue dans lannexe au programme. Italy - Chamber of Deputies Reply to the COSAC questionnaire The Chamber of Deputies carefully scrutinizes all the initiatives and draft acts of the European Union regarding the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Defence Policy. The procedures followed for the scrutiny in this fields are the same as those used for the general scrutiny (which are illustrated in the paper we sent for the preparation of the third six-monthly report of the COSAC Secretariat). The sources of law governing Parliamentary work relating to the scrutiny in EU matters and the implementation of Community law into national legislation, are Law no. 11 of 4 February 2005 (enacting general provisions regarding Italy's participation in the EU decision-making process and procedures for complying with Community obligations) and Parliamentary Rules of Procedure. In the Chamber of Deputies, the European Union Policies Committee has a general responsibility for the scrutiny of EU affairs (in the so-called ascending phase) as well as for transposition of the legislation into Italian law (the so-called descending phase). This Committee acts as a filter, expressing an opinion on drafts and documents relating to the implementation of Community law and on any other draft legislation in terms of compatibility with Community law. The powers of all the other Committees over the examination of draft legislation to transpose and implement Community law, each within their respective fields of competence by subject matter, remain unaffected. Law no. 11/2005 introduced in the " Parliamentary reserve", establishing that if the Parliament has started the scrutiny of EU draft measures or other measures sent by the Government, the latter can proceed to exercise its own law-making functions in the drafting of EU legislation only after Parliament has completed the scrutiny or if after 20 days the Chambers have failed to issue their views. This time limit applies starting from the date in which the Government informed Parliament that it used the parliamentary scrutiny reserve in the Council of Ministers of the EU. The reserve may also be used by the Government for draft measures and provisions of special political, economic or social importance. The new system has not been applied yet. With particular reference to ongoing operations in the matter of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) the scrutiny and policy-setting activities of the Chamber of Deputies is also based on advisories that are specifically submitted to it by the Italian government. The impact assessments drawn up by the European Commission taken into consideration for the generally scrutiny of EU affairs. Latvia I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) However, only issues which are B points on the agenda of ministerial meetings of the Council of Ministers are dealt with. CFSP and ESDP matters are seldom B points. Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Yes, standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs also apply for the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No The above-mentioned proposals are reviewed as governments positions only before being communicated to the meetings of the Council of Ministers. Under current scrutiny procedures, the government should establish positions for all the B points which are on the Councils agenda. Therefore, as the above-mentioned proposals are seldom B points on the agenda of meetings of the Council of Ministers, they are thus not often discussed at the European Affairs Committee level. Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? o Yes o No Only when those proposals are discussed at the ministerial Councils meetings ( designated as B points ). If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) Proposals are reviewed only if they are discussed at the ministerial Councils meetings ( B points ). Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes o No Only brief information notes put out by the ministry in charge are presented to the European Affairs Committee. If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). ______________________________________________________________ Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. ______________________________________________________________ Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No As Latvia has no special procedure for parliamentary scrutiny of civilian ESDP operations, and those operations are not discussed at European Affairs Committee meetings (although information notes may be given out), it is not possible to evaluate the adequacy of the time provided for parliamentary scrutiny by the procedures of the Council. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes o No It is up to the Government to decide whether a position set by them on any specific piece of EU legislation is confidential, and if special admission authority is required for parliamentarians. Should admission authority be needed, this could hinder parliamentary scrutiny, because Members of the European Affairs Committee could have not secured this authority yet. At this time a procedure has been initiated so as to provide special access to confidential files (for the Members of the European Affairs Committee and for the civil servants of the Committee). However, confidentiality of documents within the scope of ESDP missions does not constitute a problem at this time, since ESDP missions are not reviewed by the Committee in Latvia. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has met with? If so, what procedures or practices do you have in place to deal with this issue? The parliament of Latvia has so far not experienced any problems of the kind. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes o No ________________________________________________________ What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you suggest that they be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) Yes, the impact assessments of the Commission are of practical help, especially for our Parliament's sector committees, who are only now starting to involve themselves in discussing EU affairs. So far the impact assessments we have seen were all adequate. The main issue is the lack of impact assessments for a number of pieces of EU legislation. The new Commission has helpfully placed issuance of impact assessments for all EU legislative acts as one of its current priorities. We must work towards this priority being followed through. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? Currently only the legal basis is looked at when a piece of EU legislation is examined at the meetings of the European Affairs Committee. The European Affairs Committee is aware that the subsidiarity principle encompasses more than the mere legal basis. We are currently working on establishing a mechanism for heeding this principle. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) The impact study of a new piece of legislation should not begin before the final version of that piece of legislation is tabled, lest unnecessary but time-consuming work be carried out - that is, work on parts of the legislation that may not be retained in its final form. We believe that impact assessment ought to take place after drafting - when the legislation has jelled in its proposed final form - and before adoption by the College. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? In theory, the revision of impact assessment in the light of amendments to the Commissions proposal would be the most appropriate procedure. However, the EU decision-making process should be consistent with practical needs, and hence not overly complex. An ad hoc analysis should be carried out on a case by case basis as conditions warrant. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? To assess an impact of all EU legislation after implementation would take up too many resources. Therefore, only specific or sensitive areas should be analysed. This could be done by the Commission together with governments of the Member States. Involvement of parliaments would depend on the constitutional systems of each Member State. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? We would need a more detailed proposal to be able to formulate an opinion. As a rule, the creation of new bodies should be avoided. Lithuania I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Under the Lithuanian parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters system, the CFSP/ESDP issues fall under the competence of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (FAC) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. Standard scrutiny procedures as laid out in chapter 3.15 of the 3rd biannual COSAC report apply to the CFSP/ESDP issues. The main difference is that the responsible Committee is FAC instead of the Committee on European Affairs (EAC). The FAC and the EAC, are two Committees of the Seimas with an exceptional right to act on behalf of the Seimas on EU matters. This right has been established by the Constitutional Act on Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union, of 13 July 2004. The FAC: - defines the priority level of the CFSP/ESDP legislative proposals (see reply to the question No 5) emanating from the European Institutions. Priorities are established also for non-legislative documents. National positions on the CFSP/ESDP proposals, which have been defined as very relevant or relevant, are sent through the computerised database LINESIS by the Government to Seimas, and then transferred to FAC. - expresses an opinion on behalf of Seimas to the Government or presents a Committee Conclusion regarding: proposals to adopt legal acts of the EU and other EU documents relating to the issues of the EU CFSP/ESDP. certain aspects of external relations of the European Union related to the external trade and co-operation with the World Trade Organisation. within the limits of its competence FAC may present to the Seimas conclusions on the compliance of the proposals to adopt EU legal acts with the principle of subsidiarity. - considers the national positions presented by the Foreign Affairs Minister, the Minister of Defence and, if relevant, the Minister of Interior (fight with terrorism, migration, asylum, external frontiers), before the relevant Council meetings. The Minister is obliged to report back on the meeting to the Committee both orally and in writting. As laid out in the Seimas Statute, if there is a need, both Committees may organise joint meetings. A specialised committee, after receiving a relevant EU document, related to its competence, adopts its conclusions and forwards it for the consideration to the FAC. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) According to the procedure, the Government overviews all documents emanating form the European Institutions. All very relevant and relevant documents on CFSP/ESDP are sent by the Government to the Seimas and then forwarded to the FAC for consideration. The list of priority documents to be considered in Seimas has been established on the basis of the Commission Annual Legislative and Work Programme. The priority list has been jointly approved by the EAC and FAC Conclusion on 9 March 2005. If the document has not been planned in the Commissions Annual Legislative and Work Programme and the priority level has not been established, the FAC may define the priority level of a non-prioritised document. Otherwise, the priority level for such document is suggested by the institution responsible for the analysis of the document and preparation of the national position. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. During the parliamentary sessions, the FAC meets according to the need. Extraordinary Committee meetings may be convened, by the written request of the Chairman of Seimas, 1/3 of the Committee Members, upon the instruction of the Seimas or the Seimas Board, or by the reasoned decision of the Committee Chairman. In the case of urgency, the Committee Chairman may decide to use the procedure of debating the position in the Committee by questioning the Committee Members, but without convening an official meeting. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes o No Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? No particular problems to this date. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes % No What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania does not scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission, because they are not produced in the Lithuanian language. The Seimas receives impact assessments in English, therefore under domestic legislation the Committees of the Seimas can not deliberate them. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? % Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? This is done on the basis of an Explanatory Memorandum (Position) produced by the Lithuanian Government and an Impact Assessment, if there is such also produced by the Government. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) The assessing the impact of legislation should be an on-going process. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Commissions impact assessments should be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal. Such revisions should be done only if the amendments are substantial as relates to the substance of the draft legislative proposal. Revisions of the impact assessments should be done only by the European Commission, even if the European Parliament and the Council have produced amendments to the draft legislative proposal. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Yes, it should. It should be done by the European Commission. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania has not yet discussed this proposal. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: We will come back with our proposals after 15 July 2005. Luxembourg I. Contrle parlementaire de la de la Politique trangre et de Scurit Commune (PESC) et de la Politique Europenne de Scurit et de Dfense (PESD) par les parlements nationaux: Votre parlement soumet-il la PESC et/ou la PESD un contrle parlementaire? o Non, mais certains aspects sont discuts dans le cadre de la dclaration sur la politique trangre que le Ministre des Affaires trangres prsente une fois par an la Chambre des Dputs. (Si la rponse est non, veuillez passer directement la section II) Oprations civiles de la PESD: Contexte: Les oprations civiles de la PESD constituent un domaine d'activits de l'UE en plein essor. Les six oprations civiles actuelles sont: Mission de police de l'UE dans l'ancienne Rpublique Yougoslave de Mecdoine (Proxima)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission "tat de droit" mene par l'Union europenne en Gorgie (Eujust Themis)  HYPERLINK "http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=g" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne en Bosnie-et-Herzgovine (MPUE)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de police de l'Union europenne Kinshasa (RDC) (EUPOL "Kinshasa")  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission intgre "tat de droit" de l'Union europenne pour l'Iraq (Eujust Lex)  HYPERLINK "http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=fr" \t "_blank" Mission de l'UE en Rpublique dmocratique du Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) Ces missions ont-elles t soumises au contrle parlementaire? Le Luxembourg participe aux missions PROXIMA et MPUE. Aux termes de larticle 1er (2) de la loi du 12 juillet 1992 relative la participation du Grand-Duch de Luxembourg des oprations pour le maintien de la paix (OMP) dans le cadre dorganisations internationales, le Gouvernement consulte les commissions comptentes de la Chambre des Dputs, en loccurrence la Commission des Affaires trangres et europennes, de la Dfense, de la Coopration et de lImmigration. Larticle 2 (3) prcise que pour chaque opration pour le maintien de la paix laquelle le Luxembourg participe, un rglement grand-ducal prendre sur avis obligatoire du Conseil dEtat et de la Confrence des Prsidents de la Chambre des Dputs dtermine les modalits dexcution de la prsente loi. Si la rponse la question 6 est 'oui', veuillez indiquer quelles oprations votre parlement a soumis au contrle parlementaire, et veuillez spcifier pour chaque opration quelle tape de la procdure le contrle parlementaire a eu lieu (i.e. aprs la publication d'un projet d'action commune, immdiatement avant la runion du Conseil laquelle cette action commune tait dcide; ou aprs un accord au Conseil?) La consultation se fait uniquement en cas de participation luxembourgeoise. II. Contrle des analyses d'impact de la Commission: Est-ce que votre parlement soumet les analyses d'impact au contrle parlementaire? o Non Votre parlement contrle-t-il si les projets d'actes lgislatifs respectent les principes de subsidiarit et de proportionnalit? o Non, pas encore. Si la rponse est 'oui', veuillez spcifier si le contrle parlementaire est excut soit sur base d'un expos des motifs ou d'une tude d'impact de la Commission, soit sur base d'un expos des motifs ou d'une analyse d'impact produit par le gouvernement, une combinaison des deux ou par d'autres moyens ? Selon vous, quand est-ce que la Commission devrait entreprendre une analyse d'impact. (i.e. Avant le premier projet d'un acte lgislatif? Avant l'accord du Collge des Commissaires? Est-ce que l'analyse de l'impact de la lgislation devrait tre un processus continu?) Une analyse dimpact devrait tre ralise le plus tt possible dans la procdure, donc de prfrence avant le premier projet dun acte lgislatif, dans la mesure du possible. Les analyses d'impact devraient-elles tre rvises au regard des amendements au projet d'acte lgislatif de la Commission, afin de mieux reflter les projets amends? Si oui, quand et par qui ces rvisions devraient-elle tre faites? Est-ce que le Parlement europen et le Conseil devraient produire des analyses d'impact de leurs amendements? Il serait logique de rviser les analyses dimpact au regard des amendements, cette rvision pouvant tre faite soit par le Parlement europen ou le Conseil, donc par les auteurs des amendements, soit par la Commission europenne, ayant tabli la (premire) analyse dimpact. La lgislation europenne devrait-elle tre contrle aprs son implmentation pour analyser son impact, et si oui, quand et par qui? Limpact de la lgislation europenne pourrait tre contrl par la Commission europenne. D'aucuns argumentent en faveur de la cration d'un organisme consultatif indpendant afin de conseiller les institutions europennes pour rduire la charge administrative de la lgislation sur les entreprises et les citoyens (comme par exemple l'Actal aux Pays-Bas et la Task force Mieux lgifrer en Grande-Bretagne). Cet organe pourrait reprendre la tche de la Commission de produire des analyses d'impact. Quelle est l'opinion de votre parlement face cette proposition? III. Propositions concernant les sujets traiter par la COSAC en 2006 L'article 7.1 du rglement interne de la COSAC stipule qu'avant la dernire runion ordinaire de chaque anne, les dlgations indiquent les sujets qu'elles proposent d'examiner l'anne suivante. L'article affirme galement que la dernire COSAC de l'anne devrait discuter cette question. L'article 7.1 A ajoute que L'objet principal de chaque projet d'ordre du jour est li au rle de la COSAC comme organe d'change d'informations, en particulier pour les aspects pratiques de l'examen parlementaire. Conformment ces deux articles, il y aura une discussion des sur la questions de quels sujets la COSAC devrait s'occuper pendant l'anne suivante la fin de la runion d'octobre Londres. Afin d'alimenter cette discussion, veuillez indiquer les sujets que votre parlement propose comme thmes pour la COSAC en 2006: Les deux sujets suivants pourraient tre approfondis en 2006: critres pour le contrle du respect du principe de subsidiarit espace de libert, de scurit et de justice Malta I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes X No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? No, parliament ensures that the Maltese Government impact assessments consider all aspects, that is, political, legal, economic, social, environmental, etc. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No, we do not draw expertise from outside parliament. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The Commissions impact assessments are valid as a starting point for discussion, however, they do not always reflect the realities of Malta, the smallest EU member, both in population and size. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? Yes, but not always. This is usually based on the Explantory Memorandum produced by Government. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Ideally, it should be an ongoing process. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? as per No 6 above. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Yes; on an ongoing basis by the Commission and national authorities. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Netherlands - Senate I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes X No However, the Senate discusses these matters with the governement in an annual debate on the Defence budget and Foreign Affairs budget. (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No only if the impact assessment is attached to a proposal that is subject to an in-depth study in the Senate will it be studied as well ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? Thisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum and an Explanatory Memorandum produced by our Government In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) In order to avoid any bias in drafting a proposal, an impact assessment can best be undertaken before drafting a proposal. After the proposal had been adopted assessing the impact legislation should be an on-going process. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? It is the responsibility of the European Parliament and the Council to assess the impact of their amendments and with that substantiate their amendments. These arguments should be included with their proposals for amendments. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? It would be advisable for the European Commission to examine the impact of important proposals and review the proposals in cooperation with the European Parliament and the Council. In a draft proposal such a review-clause can be introduced in which is also stated when the review should take place. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? At first glance, we believe this could be looked upon as a positive proposal. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: Follow-up on the report Management and control of the EU- finance that was discussed during the COSAC in Luxembourg The proposal for establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Netherlands - House of Representatives I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Standard procedure applies, i.e. the government and the relevant sectoral committee discuss the Council agenda before each Council meeting, and the results afterwards. Not mandates, but political confidence is the governing principle for parliamentary scrutiny of the governments handling of EU matters. If members want to lay down Parliaments position formally, motions can be tabled in plenary. Sectoral committees involved in CFSP and ESDP matters: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and EU Affairs. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? X Yes o No Common Positions? X Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? X Yes o No a, b, c: Provided they occur on the Council agenda. If not, there is no scrutiny, only discussion afterwards. Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? X Yes o No Provided they occur on the Council agenda. If not, there is no scrutiny, only discussion afterwards. If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) If the issue occurs on the Council agenda, any member of the relevant committee can ask questions or give his/her opinion. A formalised agreement exists in the sense that the agenda of every Council or European Council meeting is discussed in a committee meeting or plenary debate. The government provides an annotation (including the position to be taken) to every agenda item. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? X Yes o No Provided they occur on the Council agenda. Sometimes these missions are discussed in general terms during debates on Dutch policy concerning the area or country in question. If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). See under 6 - an example would be the EU Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, which was also discussed during a debate on Dutch Iraq policy. Joint Actions of the Council are discussed during the regular debates preceding each Council meeting (see above). Then, if and when the government decides to participate in a mission, that decision is discussed in Parliament. For civilian missions, no formal assent is required. However, should Parliament withhold its assent, this would normally mean the decision is cancelled. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes X No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes X No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. General procedures exist to call back Parliament from recess, but no specific arrangements have been made for EDSP missions. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No Not applicable. So far, no parliamentary party has required government to seek formal assent by Parliament. The present speed of EU decision-making leaves enough time for discussion. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes X No No problems so far. Procedures exist which allow government to inform Parliament on a confidential basis. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? No problem, due to the nature of Dutch parliamentary scrutiny of the governments handling of EU matters (political confidence, not mandates, as governing principle) II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No Parliament does not look into the Commissions impact assessments. It does however consider the Dutch governments assessments of the regulatory, financial and other effects Commission proposals would have for Dutch business, society, and local, regional and national government levels. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? The Commissions explanatory memorandum and the Dutch governments position laid down in the position papers it produces for most relevant Commission proposals. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Parliament is in recess members could not be consulted regarding this question. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Parliament is in recess members could not be consulted regarding this question. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Parliament is in recess members could not be consulted regarding this question An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? Parliament is in recess members could not be consulted regarding this question Poland - Senate I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes x Not yet (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes x No What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The question has not been considered in the Polish Senate yet. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes x Not yet If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) The question has not been considered in the Polish Senate yet. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? The question has not been considered in the Polish Senate yet. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? The question has not been considered in the Polish Senate yet. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? The question has not been considered in the Polish Senate yet. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: EUs New Eastern Dimension Cultural and ethnic problems in the Balkans Poland - Sejm I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes (in two cases: Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 concerning the certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan and COM (2005) 182 and Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the certain restrictive measures in respect of Democratic Republic of Congo COM (2005) 228 final) o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). We do not have any special procedures to scrutiny the CFSP/ESDP policy proposals. So far now the EU Affairs Committee have not scrutinised such matters, except two documents: Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 131/2004 concerning the certain restrictive measures in respect of Sudan and COM (2005) 182 and Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the certain restrictive measures in respect of Democratic Republic of Congo COM (2005) 228 final) According to the governments proposal the EU Affairs Committee of the Sejm agreed to modify the rules of cooperation between the government and the Committee in respect of the EU legislative proposals setting up international sanctions, which requires the use of fast legislative track. This means that the government shall present an issue and its position to the Committee even if it does not have the final draft document. Such procedure allows the parliament to take part in the decision making process from the very begining. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes o No Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? Yes. See item 2. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes (If the document contains the impact assessment) o No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? If the document contains the impact assessment, it is a part of the usual scrutiny procedure. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No special procedure. We rely on the Bureau of Research, which is a Sejms service outside the European Union Affairs Committee, whose opinions can also relate to the impact assessment, but this is the regular procedure. No outside expertise has been requested. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) We find them insufficient. They do not present figures allowing to calculate the real impact. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes o No, not yet If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) After drafting legislative proposal and during the entire legislative process. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? YES Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? YES. It would be useful, but we are aware that is would be very complicated and expensive. It would be necessary to specify the list of documents categories to be examined. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? It has not been discussed yet, however we all agree that better regulation is necessary. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: 1. Ukrainian issue and COSAP request in the contest of the EU Neighbourhood policy 2. Future of the Constitutional Treaty 3. Free movement of labours 4. Free movement of services Portugal I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). YES, IN COOPERATION WITH FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND DEFENCE COMMITEE Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? Yes o No Common Positions? Yes o No Recommendations for Common Strategies? Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) OVERALL ASSESSMENT UF CFSP Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes NO If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes No ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? NO II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes o No ________________________________________________________ What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? Yes o No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF COMISSIONS PROPOSALS In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) SHOULD BE AN ON-GOING PROCESS Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? YES Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? YES. BOTH AT EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL LEVEL ACCORDING WITH AGREED GUIDELINES. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? NO III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMIC REFORM AND SOCIAL DIMENSION. SECURITY POLICY. Slovakia I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? % Yes o No (If the answer is  no , please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). The Committee on European Affairs (The Committee) can hold joint meetings with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, at which they discuss the items of the programme of the imminent GAERC/CAGRE session. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? o Yes o No Common Positions? o Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? o Yes o No Not each one separately but if they are put on the GAERC agenda Minister of Foreign Affairs briefs deputies on them as well in the framework of the general discussion about the agenda. The Minister however concentrates particularly on the priorities of the Slovak Republic set by the ministry. The Minister of Foreign Affairs reports also on the dossier of the ESDP. Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? % Yes o No Yes if put on the agenda of GAERC sessions. If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The priorities having been set by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs are discussed in more detail; otherwise deputies decide which points or topics are of more importance to them. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); " EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? % Yes % No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? o Yes % No b) during parliamentary recesses? o Yes % No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? o Yes o No The specific problems concerning the nature of the dossier of the CFSP/ESDP we are confronted with are dealt with above. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? % Yes o No Yes in case deputies are not authorised to be acquainted with classified documents (EU Certificate). Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches  political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? Not yet. The minister shall inform the Committee on the results of the GAERC sessions. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes % No (If the answer is  no , please go to question 4.) What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) Not yet discussed. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes % No but it is expected in the future If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) This question was not yet a special subject of discussions in the Committee on European Affairs. But we would expect that an impact assessment be an integral part of the draft legislative proposal. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? This question was not yet a special subject of discussions in the Committee on European Affairs. But we can agree that the impact assessments be revised on each major amendment to the original proposal, preferably by the Commission itself. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? This question was not yet a special subject of discussions in the Committee on European Affairs. But we can agree with the idea of assessment of a specific group of EU legislation. The Commission can undertake such assessment based on the relevant documentation submitted by the member states. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? This question was not yet a special subject of discussions in the Committee on European Affairs. Slovenia - National Assembly I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? ( Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Yes. The standard procedures set out in the Act on Cooperation between the National Assembly and the Government in EU Affairs and the EU section of the Rules of the Procedure of the National Assembly, also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals before the Committee on Foreign Policy. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? ( Yes o No Common Positions? ( Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? ( Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? ( Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The Act on Cooperation between the National Assembly and the Government in EU Affairs provides that the National Assembly adopts political guidelines (in the form of a declaration) for the activity of the Republic of Slovenia within the institutions of the EU in the coming year. This declaration binds both the government performing its EU activities, as well as parliament's working bodies in their scrutiny of particular EU affairs. Under the above mentioned Act, the government has the obligation to promptly inform the National Assembly about the EU affairs under parliament's jurisdiction and report on the decisions taken and its actions in relation to such in EU institutions. The Government has to inform the National Assembly also of other documents that are relevant for the exercise of its constitutional powers and concern the political and programme aspects of the activity of the European Union. The Government therefore informs the parliament about the decisions that are to be taken at each GAERC meeting and about government's positions towards them. The Committee on Foreign Policy does not have the power to bind the government in its positions in these cases, unless the particular matter falls under parliament's jurisdiction. However, the government has the authority to submit the proposed position to the parliament (Committee on Foreign Policy), which then formally adopts the position of the Republic of Slovenia. The government is formally bound by this decision, and is required to immediately inform the National Assembly, if it decides otherwise, because it assessed that the enforcement or full enforcement of the adopted positions would not be in favour of the Republic of Slovenia. The government has to state the circumstances that have led to such decision. Since the National Assembly has the constitutional and statutory authority to set the national foreign policy guidelines, the government must, if a particular government position in the area of CFSP/ESDP policy derives from the guidelines, which have been defined by the parliament, submit a proposal to the parliament (Committee on Foreign Policy) and request a confirmation. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? ( Yes o No If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex): following a draft Joint Action being issued. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? ( Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? ( Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Extra (urgent) committee meetings. Usually convened before GAERC meetings, but not solely for the purpose of scrutinising civilian EDSP missions. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? ( Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes ( No Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? No problems encountered. The government always informs the parliament about the final decisions taken at the Council of the European Union. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes x No In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Preferably before it drafts a legislative proposal. Should the legislative proposal change during the legislative procedure, the Commission's task is to reassess its impact. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Yes by the Commission. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? ______________________________________________________________ An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No Slovenia - National Council I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). ___Yes__________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following - Joint Actions? X Yes o No Common Positions? X Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? X Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? X Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The National Council (or its Commission) may convey to the National Assembly (or its Committee) its opinion on all matters within the competence of the National Assembly. The International Relations and European Affairs Commission scrutinises those documents which are at the agenda of the Committee on EU Affairs and Committee on Foreign Policy of the National Assembly. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? o Yes X No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? X Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. We can arrange extra meetings either of the National Council or the Commission within very short time periods. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? X Yes o No Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes X No __________________________________________________________ Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? No problems encountered. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) This question has not been discussed in the National Council. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes X No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: We have no suggestions. Spain I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? o Yes X No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? o Yes X No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The Spanish Parliament has not expressed any views on the impact assessment produced by the Commission. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes X No If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? Please be aware that the Joint Commission on EU Affairs has the intention of creating a working group in order to analyse the parliamentary implications of the subsidiarity control as established in the Protocol annexed to the Constitutional Treaty. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) ______________________________________________________________ Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? ______________________________________________________________ Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? ______________________________________________________________ An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? The Cortes have not expressed any views on the subject. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: The Joint Commission on EU Affairs has not yet forwarded a proposal in relation to the subjects to be proposed to COSAC during 2006. Sweden I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Yes Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? X Yes o No Common Positions? X Yes o No recommendations for Common Strategies? X Yes o No Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? X Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The pre-Council scrutiny in the Swedish Committee on EU Affairs covers all items on the agenda of every Council Meeting and furthermore also important issues decided by the Council via written procedure. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? X Yes o No ________________________________________________________ If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). The EU Committee has scrutinised all the above mentioned missions sometimes in full meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs at a stage when the Joint Action is preceeded by Council conclusions and/or later in connection with the preparation for the Joint Action itself (sometimes these Joint Actions have been handled by he Committee in written procedure; there is normally a Governmental formal decision that has to be taken since Joint Actions are regarded as international agreements and the Committee has to give its mandate prior to the Governments decision. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? X Yes o No b) during parliamentary recesses? X Yes o No If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. We can within very short time periods (once within 30 minutes thanks to SMS !) arrange extra meetings either in Parliament or by telephone conference. This has been the case during the last stages of all IGC:s since our own accession IGC (then it was the task of a special Committee which was the predecessor of the EU Committee). Regarding ESDP-missions we have normally discussed the preparation of the mission with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister for defence and the Committee is then able to scrutinise the sharp decision by correspondence. This arrangement has been used a couple of times each year. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? X Yes o No Even if the answer here is Yes, there are strong views in the Committee and the Secretariat on the Council procedures as such. There are often too short time-limits between Coreper and Council and this doesnt give enough time for parliamentary scrutiny. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? o Yes X No __________________________________________________________ Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? No problem; the scrutiny quite often is concentrated on political agreement and/or conclusions; see above. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? X Yes o No (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Yes in principle as part of the standard scrutiny process; the system is based on the idea that this is the task of the standing committees and the pre- and post Council scrutiny is a task for the EU Committee. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No special resources What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) This question has not been discussed in the Swedish Parliament_ Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? o Yes X No not specifically If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? __________________________________________________________ In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) We have not discussed these questions Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? See above Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? See above An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: We have not yet discussed these questions United Kingdom - House of Lords I. SCRUTINY IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS OF COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY (CFSP), INCLUDING EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? Yes Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). A sub-committee of the House of Lords EU Select Committee (Foreign Affairs and defence, and Development Policy Sub-Committee C) is tasked with scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP. The sub-committee operates under the same remit as the Select Committee as a whole. However, the sub-committee has found it necessary to develop scrutiny procedures to deal with the fast decision making in the Council. Government officials maintain informal contact with the sub-committees staff to keep the sub-committee briefed on developments on policy proposals before a formal text for a proposal is agreed. This process is at times formalised by the Minister writing to the sub-committee informing them of the state of play on a particular proposal to allow for scrutiny to be performed quickly once a formal text has been agreed. The sub-committee for its part has found it necessary, on occasion, to conduct scrutiny by written procedure or by calling extra meetings in addition to its weekly meetings in order to be able to meet Council deadlines. (Such procedures can be used by any of the Committees seven sub-committees for matters within their own responsibility). Written procedure involves a note being sent to all members of the sub-committee proposing a course of action (e.g. to clear a document from scrutiny or retain it) and setting a deadline for replies. Usually the form is unless any member if the Committee objects the following action will be taken but it is always understood that of any member wants to discuss an item at a formal meeting this must be arranged. Any decisions reached by way of written procedure are formally noted at the next meeting and recorded in the minutes at that point. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? Yes Common Positions? Yes recommendations for Common Strategies? Yes Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? Yes If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The House of Lords EU Select Committees remit is to consider any EU document that the Government deposits in Parliament along with other matters relating to the European Union. However, in the area of CFSP the House of Lords scrutiny reserve resolution of December 1999 only obliges the government to submit for scrutiny the types of documents outlined in question 3 (joint actions, common strategies and common positions). This definition of depositable documents concerns the sub-committee tasked with scrutiny of CFSP and ESDP. For example the UK government did not deposit for scrutiny the Battlegroups initiative, a significant commitment agreed in Council conclusions. The sub-committee is conducting an inquiry into the depositing of such documents, with the aim of arriving at a formal understanding of the types of non-legislative documents the Government should deposit in Parliament. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? Yes If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). The sub-committee scrutinised all of the above missions. The sub-committee aims to examine a proposal for an ESDP mission as far in advance of a Council decision as possible. To facilitate this procedure the Minister writes to the sub-committee at the stage of the fact-finding mission, if there is one. Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? Yes b) during parliamentary recesses? Yes If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. The arrangements outlined in response to question 2 above were in large part developed to respond to the need to scrutinise ESDP missions fast. One extra committee meeting has been called specifically to consider an ESDP mission, while another mission was cleared from scrutiny by written procedure. On the whole, early warning by the Government of impending mission has allowed the sub-committee to consider items in time. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? Yes Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? This question is under consideration by the sub-committee in an on-going inquiry. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? The House of Lords EU Select Committee is concerned, across the board, about the question of political agreement, provisional agreement or agreement to a general approach which the Government may reach in the Council. On CFSP, the Government has given assurances, as part of an on-going inquiry, that items that will be subject to political agreement will be submitted for scrutiny. II. SCRUTINY OF THE COMMISSION'S IMPACT ASSESSMENTS: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? Yes Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Yes Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) In line with the recommendations in the Committees 2002 review of Scrutiny the Committee can draw on extra resources e.g. the appointment of specialist advisers - to help in this work as necessary What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) In its report on the subject of ensuring effective regulation in the EU the Committee: Welcomes the introduction of roadmaps and call for their use to be developed Welcomes the introduction of the revised impact assessment guidelines (issued June 15 2005) and the Commissions decision to make them publicly available. Warns that impact assessments should not merely be a tick-the box exercise but should be conducted fully and in line with the guidelines issued. Concludes that the do-nothing option and the achievement of aims through non-legislative means must always be considered in impact assessment. Calls for Member State initiatives and European Parliament amendments to legislation to be subject to impact assessments Recommends that MEPS should be sent one page summaries of impact assessments to enable them to get to grips with the material quickly and efficiently. Urges the Commission to stand by its pledge to adopt a common European methodology for the measurement of administrative burdens (a pilot phase is currently underway) Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? Yes If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? All of the above In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) In its report on the subject of ensuring effective regulation in the EU the Committee argues that impact assessments should be carried out by the proposer of legislation at an early stage and should be revised as legislation changes through the legislative process Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? Yes - see above: impact assessments should be revised or re-written by the European Parliament if they amend a Commission proposal substantially. Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? Yes by the proposer of the legislation (usually the Commission). In its Report the Committee recommends that such assessment be carried out for the first time not more than one year after the entry into force of the legislation in question. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? In its report the Committee rejects this proposal, fearing that it would lead to a duplication of resources and add another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. III. PROPOSALS FOR SUBJECTS TO BE DEALT WITH BY COSAC IN 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: The House of Lords proposes that COSAC might, in accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, have an exchange of best practice in regard to: methods of enabling national parliaments to assist in the engagement of citizens in the debate on EU affairs methods of scrutiny of the EC budget scrutiny of the Commissions Annual Work Programme scrutiny of how the compatibility of EU legislation with human rights legislation can be assured during the scrutiny process how national parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation can, given the constitutional and political context of each individual Member State, take account of the role, work and views of regional assemblies, in particular regional assemblies with legislative powers, and in particular with regard to the monitoring of subsidiarity how effective scrutiny can be ensured with regard to decisions being taken in comitology committees: noting that many such decisions are highly technical and specialised but nevertheless stressing the need to ensure that politically and legally significant items are subject to proper and effective scrutiny ensuring effective national parliamentary scrutiny during co-decision procedures In addition COSAC might agree to exchange views, by way of pilot projects, on the lessons learned from scrutiny of specific legislation in all the above areas as well as in the area of regulatory impact assessment, which is the subject of an exchange of best practice at the UK COSAC. United Kingdom - House of Commons I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? Yes. ________________________________________________________ Do your standard procedures for scrutiny of EU Affairs (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report) also apply to the scrutiny of CFSP/ESDP policy proposals? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises CFSP and/or ESDP matters (e.g. which committees are involved, and what are their respective roles?). Yes. Does your parliament scrutinise proposals from the Council for the following Joint Actions? Yes. Common Positions? Yes. recommendations for Common Strategies? Yes. Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP or ESDP proposals beyond those covered in question 3 (e.g. conclusions or decisions of the European Council)? Yes. If you answered 'yes' to question 4, how does your parliament decide which such proposals to scrutinise? For example, does your government decide which proposals (other than those mentioned in question 3) to submit to parliamentary scrutiny? Do you have a formalised agreement with your government of the type of non-legislative policy proposals that must be submitted for scrutiny? (And if so, when was it agreed and what types of proposal does it cover?) The Committee agreed with the Government in February 2003 through an exchange of letters that it did not expect to receive documents dealing with operational arrangements. But it would expect to receive non-legislative proposals which might in the future give rise to commitments, especially as the time for scrutiny of legislative proposals is often very limited. There is a great deal of informal consultation between the Committee staff and civil servants about whether particular documents (or an Explanatory Memorandum in advance of a formal text) should be deposited or whether a Ministerial letter updating the Committee will be adequate. Civilian ESDP operations: Background: Civilian ESDP missions are an area of rapid growth of EU activity. The six current civilian ESDP operations are: European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Proxima); European Union Law Mission in Georgia (EU JUST Themis); EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUPM); EU Police Missions in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa); EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST Lex); EU Mission in the DRC (EUSEC DRC). Such missions are sometimes agreed by the Council at short notice. Did your parliament scrutinise any of these missions? Yes; all of them. If you answered 'yes' to question 6, please state which missions your parliament scrutinised, and please specify for each mission at what stage this scrutiny took place (e.g. following a draft Joint Action being issued; immediately before the Council meeting at which the Joint Action for the mission was agreed; or after agreement in the Council?). Generally the Committee was able to scrutinise the proposal (sometimes on the basis of an Explanatory Memorandum rather than a formal text) in advance of a decision being taken by the Council. Even where this was not the case and a scrutiny reserve was overrriden, as in the case of Proxima, the Government provided information to the Committee (e.g. in the form of a letter) in advance of the decision. In some cases the Committee has previously been able to scrutinise a proposal for a Fact Finding Mission (e.g. in respect of Iraq). Does your parliament have arrangements for scrutinising civilian EDSP missions - a) within very short time periods? Yes (as for any other EU proposal). The Committee will consider such proposals (if necessary) at its Wednesday meetings provided it is possible to circulate briefing on Tuesday or (exceptionally) provide it at the meeting itself. The latter happens several times a year. As in the case of other EU proposals, the Government can provide an Explanatory Memorandum in advance of a formal text (or any text) being available; this sets out what the Government expects to be in the proposal and the Governments view of it, and the Committee then scrutinises the proposal on the basis of this EM and can even recommend a debate on it; the Government regularly submits EMs of this type when the time available for parliamentary scrutiny would otherwise be too short. In other cases the Government send information in the form of a Ministerial letter. b) during parliamentary recesses? No (though the Committee could meet during recesses if it chose to). If you answered 'yes' for either question, please specify what these procedures are (e.g. can you arrange extra committee meetings; can you reach agreement by correspondence), and state how often they have been used in practice. Do the procedures of the Council on civilian ESDP operations allow adequate time for parliamentary scrutiny? In general yes. Has the classification by Council of documents as 'restricted' or 'confidential' proven a hindrance to parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions? No. The Committee has agreed with the Department that it does not expect to have access to operationally sensitive material, and would not expect to receive documents which deal only with operational arrangements. The Committee has also suggested that the Council consider issuing separate documents where practicable, so that a document not containing operationally sensitive information could be subject to scrutiny. Political Agreement: Background: The Council of Ministers often reaches political agreement on a CFSP or ESDP policy proposal before the legislative instrument is finalised, in which case certain details will be agreed at a later meeting, possibly after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. Is this a problem that your parliament has encountered? If so, what procedures or practices do you have to deal with this issue? No, for the reasons given above. II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? Yes. Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? Yes. Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) No. What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) The Committee uses the Commissions impact assessments when scrutinising EU proposals, but has not considered how they could be improved. The Committee has occasionally found major differences between the impact assessments produced by the Commission and the UK Government. Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? Yes. If you answered 'yes',please specify whetherthisis done on the basis of the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission's Impact Assessments,an Explanatory Memorandum produced by your Government, an Impact Assessment produced by your Government,some combination of these documents, or by other means? All of these contribute to the Committees decisions. In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) Assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality should take place (and be justified) before an item appears in the Commissions Work programme. Full impact assessment should take place after drafting but before adoption by the College. Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? As amendments can completely change the imact of a proposal, impact assessments should be produced for all amendments which change a proposals impact, whether the amendment was proposed by the Commission, Council or European Parliament. (This would be more manageable if there were rules preventing extension of the scope of legislation after publication by the Commission.) Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? The Committee has not considered this. An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No. III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: methods of scrutiny of EC expenditure; scrutiny of the Commissions Annual Work Programme; ensuring effective national parliamentary scrutiny during co-decision; ways of engaging citizens and organisations outside Parliament in national parliamentary scrutiny. Turkey I. Scrutiny in national parliaments of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP): Does your parliament scrutinise CFSP and/or ESDP matters? X No (for the present) (If the answer is no, please go to Section II on Impact Assessments) ________________________________________________________ II. Scrutiny of the Commission's Impact Assessments: Does your parliament currently scrutinise impact assessments produced by the Commission? X No ( not yet) (If the answer is no, please go to question 4.) ________________________________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise Commission impact assessments as part of your standard EU scrutiny procedures (as set out in Chapter 1 of COSAC's 3rd biannual report)? If not, please state what the differences are and explain how your parliament scrutinises them? _______________________________________________________ Do you have special resources to scrutinise impact assessments? If so, please specify what resources you use. (e.g. Does this scrutiny require additional funding? Are services outside your EU Affairs Committee involved? Do you draw on expertise from outside parliament?) _______________________________________________________ What are the views of your parliament on the impact assessments produced by the Commission? Are they of practical help to your parliament's scrutiny of EU legislation? Are they adequate? If not, how do you propose that they could be improved? (e.g. What further information should they contain? What should they focus on?) This question has not been discussed in the Turkish Grand National Assembly_________________________________ Does your parliament scrutinise whether Commission proposals satisfy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? X No not specifically ________________________________________________________ In your opinion, at what stage should the Commission undertake an impact assessment on an item of legislation? (e.g. before it drafts a legislative proposal? after drafting but before adoption by the College? or should assessing the impact of legislation be an on-going process?) We have not discussed these questions Should Commission impact assessments be revised in the light of amendments to the Commission's proposal, in order to assess the impact of amendments and better reflect the amended proposal? If so, when should such revisions be done and by whom? In particular, should the European Parliament and the Council produce impact assessments of their amendments? See above ________________________________________________________ Should EU legislation be examined after implementation to assess its impact; and, if so, when and by whom? See above An argument is being put forward for the creation of a new independent advisory body to advise the EU institutions on reducing the administrative burden of legislation on businesses and citizens (perhaps along the lines of Actal in the Netherlands or the Better Regulation Task Force in the UK). Such a body could take over from the Commission the task of producing impact assessments. Does your parliament have a view on this proposal? No ________________________________________________________ III. Proposals for subjects to be dealt with by COSAC in 2006 Article 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of COSAC states: "Before the last ordinary meeting of each year the delegations shall indicate the subjects they propose be dealt with the following year." The rule also states that the last ordinary COSAC:;űqhqNqChBmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHuhBjhBUhFVh#mh#m5CJOJQJ&h")h#m5>*CJ OJQJ^JaJ h")5>*CJ OJQJ^JaJ hnn5>*CJ OJQJ^JaJ hM7hnnhnnjhnnUmHnHu     ;gdFV$a$gd#m$a$gd") Wgdnngdnn>sDDD         2 3 4 5 W X Y s t u v w x y z { eUh^hB0JmHnHsH u2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu jwh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu j}h2eUmHnHuhBmHnHujhBUmHnHu! y  s & q  m  e h^M ]X" h           6 7 8 9 P Q R l ¹««¹«f«2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu jkh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHujhBUmHnHu jqh2eUmHnHuhBmHnHu!l m n p q r s t u     ¹««Հ¹«f«U jYh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu j_h2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHuhBmHnHujhBUmHnHu jeh2eUmHnHu! ! # $ % & ' ( D E F G N O P j k l n o p q r s һɻһһɻvһeһ jMh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu jSh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHuhBmHnHujhBUmHnHu'      - . / 0 J K L f g h j k l m n o λ谡vfU jA h2eUmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHsH u2j hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu jG h2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu!          9 : 񹪹Đv񹪹eĐ j5 h2eUmHnHu2j hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu j; h2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2j hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHu!: ; < B C D ^ _ ` b c d e f g źӑőwźfӑő j)h2eUmHnHu2j hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu j/ h2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2j hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu 4567EFGabcefghijŵӁŁgŪVӁŁ jh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu j#h2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHtHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu!   /0øӏӁgӁVӏӁ jh2eUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHsH u$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu 012;<=WXY[\]^_`|}~źӑőwgVӑő jh2eUmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHtHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu j h2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu $*+,FGHJKøӏӁgӁWF jh2eUmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHtHu2j|hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHsH u$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuKLMNOklmn     )*ֱּwֱf jh2eUmHnHu2jphBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHu2jvhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuh^hB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu&*+,9:;UVWZ[\]^_{|}~źӑőwźfӑő jh2eUmHnHu2jdhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jjhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu 456PQRUVWXYZvwźӑőwźfӑő jh2eUmHnHu2jXhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2j^hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu wxy !źӑőwźfӑő jh2eUmHnHu2jLhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jRhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu XMEF'(cin C $^a$gd#m $ & F a$gdU7 5P^5gd#m & F gdU7h^hgd#mgdU7gdtMgdFV" h !"#)*+EFGJKLMNOklmnźӑőwźfӑő jh2eUmHnHu2j@hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhBmHnHu jh2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2jFhBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu FGHdefgmnoźӑőlź[ӑSjhBU j!h2eUmHnHu2j4!hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphuhB0JmHnHuhBmHnHu j h2eUmHnHujhBUmHnHuhBmHnHuh^hB0JmHnHu$jh^hB0JUmHnHu2j: hBh2e>*B*UmHnHphu'(cio CefIKe" p!v!!!!"$$#%(%)%}%~%%&*'''ʸʦʸʸʸʸʸʦʸʔʸʸʸʸʦʸʸʸʔʸh#m>*CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU7h#m5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU7h#m6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU7h#m>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hU7h#mCJOJQJ^JaJh#m5CJaJhxth#m>*CJaJh#mhtMhN?mhB1CDef^gd#m $^a$gd#m 5P^5gdt 5P^5gd#m & F5x^5`gd#m $ & F a$gdU7 $h^ha$gd#mfIJKe;x=! hh^h`hgd#m 5P^5gdt 5P^5gd#m $ & F a$gdU7$0^`0a$gd#m$a$gdU7 $^a$gd#m$a$gd#m^gd#m!", - ; t M!p!v!{!!!!"#$ $^a$gd#m 5P^5gd#m$hh^h`ha$gd#m $ & F a$gdU7 $h^ha$gd#m & Fgd#m^gd#m$$$$$$$%#%(%)%}%~%%&*''''gd#m x^gd$ $ex^ea$gd]$a$gd#m^gd#m 5P^5gd#m $ & F a$gdU7 $h^ha$gd#m$a$gdU7''''2(7(|){****++:,;,<,f-../k0l001333333334°°°™™°°°°™uqjcjShtMh#m>*CJaJmH sH  h$h^P h$h#mh`#htMhtM>*CJOJQJ^JaJ#htMhU7>*CJOJQJ^JaJhtMh#mCJaJhtMh#m>*CJaJ#htMh#m>*CJOJQJ^JaJ htMh#mCJOJQJ^JaJh#mOJQJ^JhU7h#m>*CJaJmH sH #hU7hU7>*CJOJQJ^JaJ '',(2(7(8({)|){*|***++|qqq P^gd#m $ & M + Bh^ha$gd#m $^a$gd#m$ & F & M + Ba$gdU7$ & M + Ba$gd#m 5P^5gd#m $ & F a$gdU7gd#m +;,<,f-g-...//k0l00ii$ & F & M + Ba$gdU7 $ & M + Bh^ha$gd#m$ & F dda$gdU7 $dda$gdU7$dd^a$gdU7 $ & M + B^a$gd#m & F gdU7 00123333444zuph & FgdtMgdtMgdtMgdtM $ & M + B^a$gdtM$ & F & M + Ba$gdU7 $ & M + Bh^ha$gd#m $ & M + B^a$gd#m 4444699`:a:;;<<=====>>"> & FYxgdtM & FYxgd$ $h^ha$gdtM $^a$gdtM $ & Fa$gdtM hh^h`hgdtM 5P^5gdtM4446M8f89T<U<<<===>">(>H>N>???BBDEE6E!F"F{F|F뿦뿦릎x]]4jhtMh#m6CJOJQJU^JaJmH sH +htMh#m5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .htMh#m5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH 1htMh#m56CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH +htMh#m6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh#mCJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH (htMh#mCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH ">(>A>H>N>O>??? ??BCDEE6E^gdtM  M + BgdtM $h^ha$gdtM $^a$gdtM$a$gdtM $ & Fa$gdtMgdtM & FYxgdtM 5P^5gdtM6EE!FFmGHHbIcIIIIISKTKKK?L $^a$gdtM^gdtM 5P^5gdtM ` 5P^5gdtM $ & Fa$gdtM$a$gdtM & FdgdtM $ & Fda$gdtM $d^a$gdtM|FFFFF#G$GkGlGmGnGGGHHHHoHpHHHHHIIOIPI`IaIcIIITKKL>L?L̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶r\r+htM56CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH 1htMh#m56CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH +htMh#mCJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH (htMh#mCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh#m6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 4jhtMh#m6CJOJQJU^JaJmH sH /htMh#m0J6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH $?L@LLLMM"M)M/MLNMNOOUOVOO $ & Fa$gdtM$ h^ha$gdtM $h^ha$gdtM $^a$gdtM^gdtM$hhd^h`ha$gdtM 5d^5gdtM $d^a$gdtM $ & Fda$gdtM$a$gdtM?LMM)M/MMNOOSOVOOOPPPPQjRoRpRRSS뤌vnbQ?#htMh#mOJQJS*^JmH sH  htMh#mOJQJ^JmH sH htMh#m>*mH sH h#mmH sH +htMh#m5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .htMh#m6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH 4htMh#m56CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH sH +htMh#m6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh#mCJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH (htMh#mCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH OOOOOPPPPPQQjRoRpRRR $ & Fa$gd#mgd#mgd#m $x^a$gdtM$ & F^`a$gdtM $^a$gdtM $ & Fa$gdtM $h^ha$gdtM 5P^5gdtMRSSASBSTTT$V)V*VWg$ & M + Ba$gd#m $ & M + B^a$gd. $ & M + Bh^ha$gd#m $^a$gd.$ & F & M + Ba$gd#mgd#m 5P^5gd#m SASTT$V)VW&YFYcYYYYZ Z4[m[\B^^_>`?`bbbܱwbRBhtMh#m>*CJaJmH sH htMh#m5OJQJ\^J)htMh#m56OJQJ\^JmH sH #htMh#mOJQJS*^JmH sH &htMh#m5OJQJ\^JmH sH &h.56OJQJ\]^JmH sH ,htMh#m56OJQJ\]^JmH sH &h.h#m56OJQJ^JmH sH  htMh#mOJQJ^JmH sH #htMh#m6OJQJ^JmH sH WWXXYYZ Z&ZeZZ 5P^5gd#m'$ & F & M + B^`a$gd#m $ & M + B^a$gd#m^gd.gd.!$ ) M + B^a$gd.!$ ) M + B^a$gd#m&Z'Z4[m[n[\B^C^^>`?`ww[$ & M + Ba$gd#m$ & F & M + Ba$gd#m $ & M + B^a$gd#m'$ & F & M + B^`a$gd#m $ & M + Bh^ha$gd#m ?`bbbbbee"f#ffggg[hgd]gd$gd#m$a$gd#m $7$8$H$a$gd#m d7$8$H$gd#mhgdgd#m $ & M + B^a$gd#m$ & F & M + Ba$gd#mb#fgggggggg[h\hhhjnno o(o.oNoļycyM7ycycy+hswh]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh]CJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH (htMh]CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h]mH sH htMh]>*CJmH sH h#mmH sH h]mH sH h$mH sH h.mH sH hVVmH sH h#m6mH sH +htMh#m6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (htMh#mCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH [h\hhhhhjnnnno o!o(o.oGoNoToUo & FJxgd] & FJxgdr $h^ha$gd] $^a$gdsw $ & Fa$gd]gdF 5P^5gd] & Fgd]gd]NoTop%pp stttttuu vv]v^v_v`vvvvvvwYwZwwwwwxxQxRxSxTxxxԾԾԒyybyyybyyybyyybyyy,htMh]0JCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 1jhtMh]CJOJQJU^JaJmH sH +htMh]5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hh]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (htMh]CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +htMh]CJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH &Uopp%p&pp sstttt\uu_vv & Fdd^`gd]$ & Fdd^`a$gd] $d^a$gd]^gd $h^ha$gd] $^a$gd]$a$gd] 5P^5gd] $ & Fa$gd]vwSxxx4y;yAyByz{{|I| $d^a$gd] $ & Fda$gd]$a$gd $^a$gd] $h^ha$gd] 5P^5gd ` 5P^5gd] $ & Fa$gd]$a$gd] & Fdd^`gd] xxxxxxx;y@yAyz{O|U|w|}|}H~~~r.34iԥԏyԥԏԏԥԏԏcԥ[Phh]mH sH h]mH sH +htMh]5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hh]CJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH +htMh]CJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH +htMh]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 1jhtMh]CJOJQJU^JaJmH sH (htMh]CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH ,htMh]0JCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH I|O|U|p|w|}|}H~I~J~~~~~rs$P^`a$gd] 5P^5gd] $ & Fa$gd] $h^ha$gd] $^a$gd] $d^a$gd]$hhd^h`ha$gd] 5d^5gd]st.34jĂʂ˂[|$ & F & M + Ba$gd]$ & M + Ba$gd] 5P^5gd] $ & Fa$gdtMgdxtgd] $x^a$gd] $ & Fa$gd] $^a$gd] ijĂ5)ߊ9{ڮڮڮژzr`K5K+htMh]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (htMh]CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h.h]>*OJQJ^JmH sH hGmH sH h.mH sH +h.h.6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h.h]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hxth]6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hxth]CJOJQJS*^JaJmH sH (hxth]CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hxth]>*CJaJmH sH [_`56)*ߊ 5P^5gd]$ & F & M + Ba$gd] $ & M + Bh^ha$gd] $ & M + B^a$gd]ߊ9:z|phh$a$gd] $7$8$H$a$gd] d7$8$H$gd]$ & M + Ba$gd. $ & M + B^a$gd.$ & F & M + Ba$gd]$ & M + Ba$gd] z{ }~/0efŖ hh^h`hgdG 5P^5gdG $ & Fea$gdGgdG$a$gdGgdG$a$gdGgdGgd]}~./eŖi4GXɝcnL;? ^`nqxųťr h}h]CJOJQJ^JaJh}h]>*CJaJmH sH  h]h]hsF h(C7h]hGOJQJ^JmHsH# jhG5OJQJ^JmHsHhGOJQJ^Jh|2hGOJQJ^JhG5OJQJ^JhGCJaJhG>*mH sH hGhVV*i34G$ & M + Ba$gdG $ & M + Bh^ha$gdG $^a$gdG$ & Fe & M + Ba$gdG>?WXɝcnL$ & Fe & M + Ba$gdG $ & M + Bh^ha$gdG $ & M + B^a$gdG P^gdG;?¢cd _x$a$gd]gdGgdG$a$gdG d7$8$H$gdGgdG $ & M + B^a$gdG$ & Fe & M + Ba$gdG>DI|}̪۪ & FKxgd] & FKxgdr$a$gdxt $^a$gd]^gd] $ & Fa$gd] 5P^5gd] & Fgd]h^hgd]gd]>?@DJǩ*\|۪ܪ*+06ˬ_e⾘ppp[(hxth]CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH&hxth]5CJOJQJS*^JaJ&hxth]5CJOJQJ\^JaJ&hxth]56CJOJQJ^JaJ#hxth]6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hxth]5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hxth]CJOJQJS*^JaJ hxth]CJOJQJ^JaJhm9Yh]5CJaJ*056ˬ̬_ejkԭ45O̯$a$gd]$a$gdxt $^a$gd] $h^ha$gd] h^h`gdxt $ & Fa$gd]^gd] $P^a$gd] 5P^5gd] & FKxgd]efgiԭ45Oj qryqwx|ԾqԭcqqqO&hxth]5CJOJQJS*^JaJhxtCJOJQJ^JaJ.hxth]5CJOJQJS*^JaJmHsH#hxth]5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hxth]6CJOJQJ^JaJ hxth]CJOJQJ^JaJ+hxth]5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(hxth]CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+hxth]CJOJQJS*^JaJmHsH̯%bǰ'jk qró$hh^h`ha$gd]$a$gdxt $h^ha$gd] 5P^5gd] $ & Fa$gd] $^a$gd]$a$gd]$0^`0a$gd]qw|}~89 $P^a$gdxt $h^ha$gd] $ & Fa$gd]$a$gdx) $^a$gd]$hh^h`ha$gd] 5P^5gd]69NdLMNw̻veSeAeSeS#hIh]6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIh]5CJOJQJ^JaJ hIh]CJOJQJ^JaJhm9Yh]OJQJ^JhIh]5>*OJQJ^JhI#h.hI6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h.h]6CJOJQJ^JaJ hxth]CJOJQJ^JaJ#hxth]6CJOJQJ^JaJhxt5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hxth]5CJOJQJ^JaJ9NdMN޺$ & M + Ba$gd] $^a$gd]`gd] 5P^5gd] $ & Fa$gdIgd] $x^a$gdI $ & Fxa$gd]$a$gd] $Pa$gdxtxy89pp $ & M + B^a$gd] $^a$gd] P^gd] $ & M + Bh^ha$gd] $^a$gdt $^a$gd]$ & F & M + Ba$gd] wxy9RSEXYǵǧǵǵǵǵǵvfǵWHDhVVh}5CJOJQJ^JaJh]5CJOJQJ^JaJhIh]>*CJaJmH sH h8h]5OJQJ^J#hx)h]5CJOJQJ^JaJ hIh.CJOJQJ^JaJh]CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIh]5CJOJQJ^JaJ hIh]CJOJQJ^JaJ)hBh]B*CJOJQJ^JaJph3f#hth]5CJOJQJ^JaJSTf & M + B^gd] $ & M + B^a$gdx)$ & M + Ba$gd]$ & F & M + Ba$gd] $ & M + Bh^ha$gd]$DEY_ $ & M + B^a$gd >$ & F & M + Ba$gd] $ & M + Bh^ha$gd] $ & M + B^a$gdx) $ & M + B^a$gd] Y9:ij$hh^h`ha$gd}$a$gd} $ & Fa$gd} 5P^5gd} & Fgd}h^hgd}$a$gd}gd*+c$a$gd] d7$8$H$gd]hgd >ijkDJ o]I&h}h}5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ#h}h}6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h}h}5CJOJQJ^JaJ.h}h}56CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH&h.h}56CJOJQJ^JaJ&h}h}56CJOJQJ^JaJ h}h}CJOJQJ^JaJh}OJQJ h}5CJh}h}>*CJaJmH sH  hIh}h*+ch}DJKrs u $^a$gd}^gd} 5P^5gd} & FZxgd} 5P^5gd. & FZxgd*+c $ & Fa$gd} $h^ha$gd}$hh^h`ha$gd}@;vuv^gd} $h^ha$gd}gd}Pgd} P^gd} $ & Fa$gd}$0^`0a$gd}$a$gd} $^a$gd}u{|4:7=>12G])*+`ƲײײײweP@h}h}>*CJaJmH sH (h}56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h}h}5CJOJQJ^JaJ(h}h}CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h}h}6CJOJQJ^JaJ&h}h}5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h}h}56CJOJQJ^JaJ h >h}CJOJQJ^JaJ h}h}CJOJQJ^JaJ.h}h}56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH Y|4:7h`hgd}P^`gd} $ & Fa$gd > $h^ha$gd}^gd} $^a$gd}$hh^h`ha$gd} 5P^5gd}$hh^h`ha$gd > $ & Fa$gd}7=>12G]*+`a+, hh^h`hgd} $ & Fa$gd}gd}gd}^gd} $ & Fxa$gd}$a$gd} $h^ha$gd}h`hgd}gd} 5P^5gd}`6[nhw|}~Ni0pu*MN߱񖒂zk\h56CJOJQJaJh}56CJOJQJaJh}OJQJh}h}>*CJaJmH sH h}h}h}6CJaJmH sH h}h}CJaJh}h}56CJaJh}h}5CJOJQJaJh}h}6CJOJQJaJ"h}h}56CJOJQJaJh}h}CJOJQJaJ",45[\klhiw$$ & M + Bh^h`a$gd}$ & M + Ba$gd} $ & M + Bh^ha$gd}$ & F & M + Ba$gd} w}~NOgh-/pq$ & M + Ba$gd}$ & F & M + Ba$gd} $ & M + Bh^ha$gd}^gd} P^gd}tu*MN./$a$gdImgdImdgd}gd}$a$gd}$h^h`a$gd}$ & F & M + Ba$gd} $ & M + Bh^ha$gd}'( +\np}9<ййЂйЂйЂughImOJQJ^JmHsHhF#,hImOJQJ^JhhImOJQJ^JhthhIm5OJQJ^JhehIm5OJQJ^JhjF&hIm5OJQJ^JhImOJQJ^JhImhImOJQJ^Jh_4hImOJQJ^JhThIm5CJaJhThIm>*mH sH hIm hImhVV&&' !p & F]xgdIm $h^ha$gdIm $^a$gdIm $ & F\a$gdIm hh^h`hgdIm 5P^5gdIm & F\gdImh^hgdIm;<}UV-.^gdIm $^a$gdIm $ & F\a$gdIm $h^ha$gdIm hh^h`hgdIm & F\gdIm ^gdIm 5P^5gdIm|}Ol.7H ! / < D S d       ؽؤؖ؋}oooobThImOJQJ^JmHsHhY}qhImOJQJ^JhY}qhIm6OJQJ^JhhIm5OJQJ^JhIm5OJQJ^JhNIDhIm5OJQJ^JhEhIm5OJQJ^JhIm6OJQJ^Jh/=hIm6OJQJ^JhF#,hImOJQJ^JhImOJQJ^Jh_4hImOJQJ^J hx|MhImOJQJ^JmHsH.H[ ! d e      > ? ^gdIm $h^ha$gdIm hh^h`hgdIm 5P^5gdIm $ & F\a$gdIm $^a$gdIm$0^`0a$gdIm$a$gdIm ;         ruWYVWXfgh{|}ν鰣yνk`khIm5OJQJ^JhsjhIm5OJQJ^J hImhImOJQJ^JmHsHhIm6OJQJ^Jh=phIm6OJQJ^JhImhImOJQJ^JhF9xhImOJQJ^J hx|MhImOJQJ^JmHsHhImOJQJ^JmHsHhhImOJQJ^JhImOJQJ^JhhImOJQJ^J$? F t       6 qrWXY 5P^5gdIm$hh^h`ha$gdIm $ & F\a$gdIm $h^ha$gdIm $^a$gdIm^gdImWXgh}]^gdtT[gdVV $ & F\xa$gdIm$a$gdIm $ & F\a$gdIm $h^ha$gdIm^gdIm 5P^5gdIm}%&-\]^(+,p;¾zm\XXXhtT[!hBhtT[B*OJQJ^Jph3fh'htT[OJQJ^JhtT[htT[6OJQJ]^J'htT[htT[5B*OJQJ\^JphhtT[htT[OJQJ^JhtT[OJQJ^JhtT[>*mH sH hImhhImOJQJ^JhImOJQJ^JhhImOJQJ^JhIm6OJQJ^JhsjhIm6OJQJ^J"+,op;<^gdtT[ P^gdtT[$ & F^ ^`a$gd'! $h^ha$gdtT[ $^a$gdtT[$a$gdtT[ 5P^5gdtT[$ & F^ ^a$gd'!gdtT[ !?#%t%&V(((( ,////////B0~0000092İmWm+hWChpF6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hWChpFCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hWChpF5>*CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hWChpF5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hpFhpF>*CJaJmH sH hN?mhpFhImhtT[hBhtT[B*ph3fhtT[>*mH sH htT[OJQJ^J!hBhtT[B*OJQJ^Jph3f  !!%&&(((++ , ,$a$gdtT[dgdtT[gdtT[$ & F^ ^a$gd'!$ & F^ ^a$gd'!$ & F^ ^`a$gd'! $h^ha$gdtT[ $^a$gdtT[ ,-.///B0C0~00000092224 $^a$gdpF $ & FHa$gdpF 5P^5gdpF & FHgdpFh^hgdpF$a$gdpFgdVVgdtT[ $ & F_a$gdtT[ $ & F_a$gdtT[92B2Y22|3455!585<5h5l5s56 6y677788$:q::::;;2;M====>:??@ҽҽҽҥҽyҽҽҽҏҽ`1hWChpFB*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH +hWChpFCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH +hWChpF6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hWChpF5>*CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hWChpFCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hWChpF5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hWChpF5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH %4455!5&585<5A5h5l5q5r5s56 666y677 $^a$gdpF^gdpFgdpF & F[xgdpF 5P^5gdpF & F[xgd*+c $ & FHa$gdpF$a$gdpF78J889 :;;;2;;<E<w<<< =M=N==== 5P^5gdpF $ & FHa$gdpF$0^`0a$gdpF$a$gdpF $^a$gdpF $^a$gdpF==>>:@;@AA B/B3B8BZB^BcBHCICCCDD 5P^5gdpF$hh^h`ha$gdpF $h^ha$gdpF $^a$gdpF^gdpF $ & FHa$gdpF$a$gdpF@9@A B/B3BZB^BcBHCDE EcEEEEmFFGHHHII^Iѻѣѣэѻѻѣѻ{k[J hWChpFCJOJQJ^JaJhWChpF>*CJaJmH sH hpFhpF>*CJaJmH sH "hpFCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hWChpF6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hWChpF5>*CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hWChpF5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hWChpFCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 1hWChpFB*CJOJQJ^JaJmH phsH DDE EEEbEcEEEEElFmFFGHHHHIgdpFgdpF $ & FHxa$gdpF$a$gdpF^gdpF 5P^5gdpF $ & FHa$gdpF $h^ha$gdpFII^IdIiIjIJJJJgKmKrK|qq P^gdpF $ & M + Bh^ha$gdpF $^a$gdpF$ & FI & M + Ba$gdpF$ & M + Ba$gdpF 5P^5gdpF $ & FIa$gdpFgdpF ^IiIJJgKlKmKqKLLNNN4NOOOPPP9R:R;RCRDRRVVV#VV޾޾ЭЭЭ|uqjZh@kh9>*CJaJmH sH  h{h9hVV hpFhpFhWChpF>*CJaJmH sH hWChpFCJaJmH sH #h9hpF6CJOJQJ^JaJ hWCh9CJOJQJ^JaJ#hpFhpF6CJOJQJ^JaJhpFCJOJQJ^JaJ hWChpFCJOJQJ^JaJ hpFhpFCJOJQJ^JaJrKLLLLNN4N5N6NOOODPPPP:R$ & FI & M + Ba$gdpF $ & M + Bh^ha$gdpF $ & M + B^a$gdpF^gdpF:R;RCRDRRR$U%UUUVV#VV $ Pa$gd9gd4^^gdpF & FgdpF$a$gdpF d7$8$H$gdpFgdpFgd > $ & M + B^a$gdpF $ & M + Bh^ha$gd9 VVVVV:WsWtWXXYYYYy & FL PxgdCQ$ Ph^ha$gd9$ P^a$gdCQ$ P^a$gd9$ & F Pa$gd9 Phh^h`hgd9 P5P^5gd9 & F Pgd9 Ph^hgd9 VVVVVVV8WXYZZZ Z#Z*Z.Z6ZaZgZkZsZvZwZ [[[[ [[$]%]^^^h_j____`0`2`c`e``ܼܪܘܼܪttttth96CJOJQJ^JaJ(h@kh9CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH"h9CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#h.h96CJOJQJ^JaJ#h@kh96CJOJQJ^JaJh9CJOJQJ^JaJ h@kh9CJOJQJ^JaJ#h@kh95CJOJQJ^JaJ-YZZ"Z.Z9Z`ZkZvZwZ [[ [Y[Z[[[[ Phh^h`hgd9$ & F Pa$gd9$ Ph^ha$gd9 & FL Pxgd9 P5P^5gd9 TP5P^5gd9[$]%]^^^^h___0`c```aa=aEaLa P5P^5gd9$ & F Pa$gd9$ P0^`0a$gd9 $ Pa$gd9 P^gd9$ P^a$gd9``a=aAaEaIaLabccccccccccddeeeff fGffffffhhh1iiOjͻ͔͔͔͔͆͆͆͆͆͆͆͆tc hGgh9CJOJQJ^JaJ#h@kh95CJOJQJ^JaJh9CJOJQJ^JaJ#h.h96CJOJQJ^JaJ(h@kh9CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH"h9CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH h@kh9CJOJQJ^JaJ#h@kh96CJOJQJ^JaJh96CJOJQJ^JaJ&LaMabbcchcccccccddeeef$ P^a$gd9 P5P^5gd9$ Phh^h`ha$gd9 P^gd9$ & F Pa$gd9$ Ph^ha$gd9f f fGfHfffffhhh1iiiOjPj$ & F Pxa$gd9 $ Pa$gd9$ & F Pa$gd9$ Ph^ha$gd9$ P^a$gd9 P^gd9 P5P^5gd9OjPjjjkxmm=ooqqrstu vfvx%x&x'x-x0x7xxx:y;yGyﭻq[q+hh5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hlhmH sH hh>*CJaJmH sH h*+chhVVh.h96OJQJ^J#h.h96CJOJQJ^JaJ#hGgh96CJOJQJ^JaJhGgh95>*OJQJ^J hGgh9CJOJQJ^JaJPjjjjjjjkVkWkXk`lalflglhl $ & M + Bh^ha$gd9 $^a$gd9$ & F & M + Ba$gd9 hh^h`hgd9 5P^5gd9 $ & Fa$gd9gd9 Pgd9hlwmxmmm*CJaJmH sH +hh5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hh6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH $%34͋[\]/0uv$ & F & M + Ba$gd 5P^5gd $ & Fa$gd_gdgd$ekx^e`ka$gd $ & Fxa$gd $^a$gd$a$gd.vɎʎ%&+,`aw[$ & M + Ba$gd $ & M + B^a$gd_ $ & M + B^a$gd$ & F & M + Ba$gd$ & M + Ba$gd_ $^a$gd_ aƒǒJPVwllJ"$ & M + BP^a$gd 5P^5gd$ & F & M + Ba$gd $ & M + Bh^ha$gd$$ & M + B^`a$gd_$$ & M + B^`a$gd'(c$ & M + Ba$gd_$ & F & M + Ba$gd $ & M + Bh^ha$gd $ & M + B^a$gd_ $ & M + B^a$gd ɚʚ?@vj $7$8$H$a$gd d7$8$H$gdgd$ & M + Ba$gd_ & M + B^gdCQ $ & M + B^a$gd$ & F & M + Ba$gd ʚ?  ԾԾ{s{cN8N+hXmh_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hXmh_CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hXmh_>*CJaJmH sH h>mH sH h_mH sH hVVmH sH %h5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h_h>*CJaJmH sH h_h_>*CJaJmH sH +h_h5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hCQh5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH yz  ߣbcgd_ $^a$gd_ $ & Fa$gd_h^hgd_ 5P^5gd_ & FgdXmgd_gd_gd> $`a$gd$a$gdc٥ޥԫijkl­    ef ]^_`AGĮ{{{{{{/hXmh_0J6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 4jhXmh_6CJOJQJU^JaJmH sH +hXmh_6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hXmh_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hXmh_CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  hXmh_CJOJQJ^JaJ0cdå٥ޥߦ^gd_gd_^gd_ $^a$gd_ $ & Fa$gdXmgd_ & FMxgd_gd_ & FMxgdA $ & Fa$gd_ $h^ha$gd_ԫhk _@FGgd_  ` gd_ $ & Fa$gd_ edd^egd_ & Fdd^`gd_$ & Fdd^`a$gd_ $d^a$gd_ $^a$gd_ $^a$gd_|γӳճd5kP^5`kgd_ P^gdXm $ & Fa$gd_ $h^ha$gd_$hhd^h`ha$gd_dgd_ $d^a$gd_ $ & Fda$gd_$a$gd_^gdXm^gd_γӳԳd,-?M,DZأ؍؍؍؍zm]H(h{h_CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hXmh_>*CJaJmH sH hXm>*OJQJmH sH %h_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hXmh_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hXmh_5OJQJ^J+hXmh_6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  hXmh_CJOJQJ^JaJ(hXmh_CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hXmh_5CJOJQJ^JaJ,-?MN,Agd_ hh^h`hgd_ P^gd_ $ & Fa$gd5jgd_^gd_gd_ $^a$gd_ $h^ha$gd_Aν=L]_~տՈՙvvՙvfS@%hj=C5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH %h_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h{h_>*CJaJmH sH #h{h_5CJOJQJ^JaJ h{h_OJQJ^JmH sH (h{h_CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  h{h_CJOJQJ^JaJ+h{h_6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h{h_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h5jh_CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH ABͽνzqQ $ & M + Be^ea$gd_^gd_^gdXm $ & M + B^a$gdXm $ & M + Bh^ha$gd_$ & F & M + Ba$gd_$ & M + Ba$gd_=>lL $ & M + Bh^ha$gd_ $ & M + B^a$gdXm $ & M + B^a$gd_"$ & M + BP^a$gd_`gdXm'$ & F & M + B^`a$gdo1>KL_`jj$ & F & M + Ba$gd_ $ & M + Bh^ha$gd_  ^gdXm $ & M + B^a$gd_'$ & F & M + B^`a$gdo1 ~tu~ygd{gdj=C^gd_ & Fgd_gd_$a$gd_ $7$8$H$a$gd_gd_  ^gdXm $ & M + Bh^ha$gd_$ & F & M + Ba$gd_345pvz}LMN%%jq0ɸpɸ#h.h(5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hXYh(6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hXYh(7CJOJQJ^JaJ#hXYh(5CJOJQJ^JaJ hXYh(CJOJQJ^JaJh(h(>*CJaJmH sH h(hcAh(CJOJQJ^JaJh{5;>*CJ OJQJaJ %345pv|MN $ & Fa$gd(gd( $hx^ha$gd( $h^ha$gd. 5P^5gd( & Fgd(h^hgd(gd($a$gd(gdcA$a$gd{$%%&ii$ & F # M + Ba$gd($ & M + Ba$gd( $ & M + Bh^ha$gd( $h^ha$gd($ & F & M + Ba$gd(gd( 5P^5gd( ij`qr01 $h^ha$gd(^gd( P^gd($ & F & M + Ba$gd( $ & M + Bh^ha$gd( $e^ea$gd(gd( 3fJKLpưƋ{l]YUYUEh.h.>*CJaJmH sH h.hcAh.5CJOJQJ^JaJh(5CJOJQJ^JaJh(h(>*CJaJmH sH #h5jh(5CJOJQJ^JaJ%h(5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hXYh(5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hXYh(5CJOJQJ^JaJ hXYh(CJOJQJ^JaJ+hXYh(CJOJQJ^JaJhnHtH23efh^hgd($a$gd( d^gd( $ & M + Bh^ha$gd($ & F & M + Ba$gd($ & M + Ba$gd( KL,-$a$gd( d7$8$H$gd(gd( $h^ha$gd5jgd($ & F & M + Ba$gd( $ & M + Bh^ha$gd( $h^ha$gd(pq\_#NS & FMxgd. $h^ha$gd.gd. $^a$gd. $ & Fa$gd. 5P^5gd. & Fgd.h^hgd.$a$gd.gdcApq\%Mg*˹˧ܑygggR*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(h*CJOJQJ^JaJ.h.h.6>*CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h.h.6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h.h.6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h.h.>*CJOJQJ^JaJ h.h.CJOJQJ^JaJ h*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(h*CJaJmH sH +h&h.6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h&h.6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h*CJOJQJ^JaJ h.h.CJOJQJ^JaJ h*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(h*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(h*CJOJQJ^JaJ h.h.CJOJQJ^JaJ h*CJaJmH sH OTZo $ & M + B^a$gd.^gd. P^gd.$ & F & M + Ba$gd. $ & M + Bh^ha$gd. $^a$gd} HI   c $ & M + B^a$gddX4 $ & M + Bh^ha$gd.$ & F & M + Ba$gd. $ & M + B^a$gd.$ & M + Ba$gd.   *@A|Gij^ijA̺|j|XIX;|Xh'CJOJQJ^JaJh'5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h06Mh'5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'h'6CJOJQJ^JaJ h'h'CJOJQJ^JaJ h06Mh'CJOJQJ^JaJhTh'5CJaJhTh'>*mH sH h'#h'h.6CJOJQJ^JaJ h*CJaJmH sH #hdX4h.6CJOJQJ^JaJ     )*@A|Gj $^a$gd' $ & Fa$gd' 5P^5gd' & Fgd'h^hgd'$a$gd'gd}$a$gd. d7$8$H$gd.gd.apv{^dij hh^h`hgd' & FNxgd' 5P^5gd' & FNxgdT $ & Fa$gd' $h^ha$gd' $h^ha$gd}A(Z01gmrs $h^ha$gd' 5P^5gd'$0^`0a$gd'$a$gd'^gd} $^a$gd' $ & Fa$gd'A0grFdM N    L!N!O!!!̻̆q[̻Mh'CJOJQJ^JaJ+h'h'5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h'h'CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h'5CJOJQJ^JaJ h'h'CJOJQJ^JaJ(h06Mh'CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH h06Mh'CJOJQJ^JaJ#h06Mh'5CJOJQJ^JaJh'6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h06Mh'6CJOJQJ^JaJ#FMRtzdN O    O!P!!!F"G" 5P^5gd}^gd' $^a$gd' 5P^5gd'$hh^h`ha$gd' $ & Fa$gd' $h^ha$gd'!F"G"\"r###)$$$&&&&****-+-2-3----ʸܪ܉܉܉ܪxtplaUIhTh=R5CJaJh|@h=R>*mH sH h|@h=RmH sH h'h=Rh# h06MhQXDCJOJQJ^JaJ h'h'CJOJQJ^JaJhQXDh'>*CJaJmH sH h'CJOJQJ^JaJ#h06Mh'6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h06Mh'5CJOJQJ^JaJ h06Mh'CJOJQJ^JaJ#h'h'5CJOJQJ^JaJG"\"r###)$*$$$$$% &xl $^a$gd'$ & F & M + Ba$gd'$ & M + Ba$gd' 5P^5gd} 5P^5gd' $ & F a$gdQXDgd'gd'^gd' $ & Fxa$gd'$a$gd' &&&&&&'''((K**k$ & F & M + Ba$gd} $ & M + B^a$gd'^gd' P^gd'$ & F & M + Ba$gd' $ & M + Bh^ha$gd' ***5+6+,*-3----xpg_ & F!gd=Rh^hgd=R$a$gd|@gd# $ & M + Bh^ha$gd' $ & M + B^a$gd}$ & F & M + Ba$gd' $ & M + B^a$gd' --.J.K.......)0*0`0a00$ & M + Ba$gd=R $^a$gd=R$ & F" & M + Ba$gd=R $ & F"a$gd=Rgd=Rgd=R hh^h`hgd=R 5P^5gd=R-....H.J.K...........M/q/z//'0*0`00艹yi\\\Nh=Rh=R6OJQJ^Jht}[h=ROJQJ^Jh=Rh=R5>*OJQJ^Jh=Rh=ROJQJ^Jh=ROJQJ^Jhh=ROJQJ^JhEHh=R>*mH sH h=RCJOJQJ^JaJ#h=Rh=R6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h=Rh=R>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h=Rh=R5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ h=Rh=RCJOJQJ^JaJ00011!1"1[2\2]22233 4}4444444444n5o5555566=6?6T7t7777Ⱦȳ~qqhh_h=ROJQJ^Jh_4h=ROJQJ^Jh yh=ROJQJ^Jhph=ROJQJ^Jh=Rh=R6OJQJ^Jh=R5OJQJ^Jh=ROJQJ^Jh=Rh(h=R5>*h=Rh=R5>*OJQJ^Jh=Rh=ROJQJ^JhA h=ROJQJ^J'01"1\2]22233 4 4n5o5556$ & F" & M + Ba$gd=R $ & M + Bh^ha$gd=R $ & M + B^a$gd=R^gd=R P^gd=R6>6?67777888::b;c;zogggbgd=R$a$gd=R d7$8$H$gd=Rgd=R $ & M + B^a$gd=R$ & F" & M + Ba$gd=R $ & M + Bh^ha$gd=R $ & M + B^a$gd|@ 77 87888c;;;;;;;r<s<<<<==̺wfUCUw#hyhy6CJOJQJ^JaJ hyhyCJOJQJ^JaJ h-XhyCJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Xhy5CJOJQJ^JaJhyhy>*CJaJmH sH h-XhynHtHhLhyh|@hyOJQJ^J#h=Rh=R6CJOJQJ^JaJ h=Rh=RCJOJQJ^JaJhh=ROJQJ^Jh=R>*mH sH h/h=R>*mH sH c;y;;;;;r<s<<<<===n>7@uAvA $h^ha$gdy $x^a$gdy $ & F#xa$gdyeex^e`egd,\ 5P^5gdy & F#gdyh^hgdy$a$gdygdLgd=R==n>tAuAAAAA)B1B3BuB C#C(CCD*EEG|GGG_H`HIrJJJJK KLsLʸܤ܎yggܸVʸyyg hyhyCJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Xhy6CJOJQJ^JaJ(h-XhyCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+h-Xhy5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH&h-Xhy56CJOJQJ^JaJ#hyhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Xhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ h-XhyCJOJQJ^JaJ#h,\hy5CJOJQJ^JaJ!vAAAAAAAA#B)B3BuBvB C#C(C)CCDEE $^a$gdy $x^a$gdy$a$gdy & FOxgdy 5P^5gdy & FOxgd,\ $ & F#a$gdyE*EEF=FoFFFGEGFG|GGG`HaHI $ & F#xa$gdy $h^ha$gdygdy 5Px^5gdy 5P^5gdy $ & F#a$gdy $^a$gdy$0^`0a$gdy$a$gdyIrJsJJJJJKK KLLsLyL~LLLIMOMTM x^gdy $^a$gdy 5P^5gdy$hh^h`ha$gdy $ & F#a$gdy$a$gdy^gdysL~LLIMOMSMUMjMNOoOpOqOOPP P:P*CJaJmH sH hy5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Xhy6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hyhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ h-XhyCJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Xhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ hyhyCJOJQJ^JaJTMUMjMNOOpOqOOOPP P=P>PFQ!$ & F$ & M + Bxa$gdy 5P^5gdVV 5P^5gdy $ & F$a$gdygdygdy $ & F#xa$gdy$a$gdy $h^ha$gdyFQJQKQZRRRSzT{TTTT9VVV x^gdy P^gdy$ & F$ & M + Ba$gdy!$ & F$ & M + Bxa$gdy$ & M + Ba$gdy $^a$gdyT9VVXXXYZZZ\)]*]+]i]`aaaaaaa3b4bhþݕ~iQi.hLhy5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH (hBhyCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hLhyCJaJhLhyhVV hyhyh4hy>*CJaJmH sH #hyhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ hy5hyhy5#hVVhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Xhy5CJOJQJ^JaJ h-XhyCJOJQJ^JaJVXXXYZZZZZ\+]}a}a}$ & M + Ba$gdy $ & M + B^a$gdy $ & M + Bh^ha$gdy $ & M + B^a$gdVV!$ & F$ & M + Bxa$gdy +]i]j] ` ``aaaa3b4beghhhhk $`a$gdygdy $`a$gdy$a$gdygdygdLgdLgdy $xa$gdy$a$gdy d7$8$H$gdygdyhhhhllmmooqqqqq3q4q5qUqssŭ}umemZI5I5&hq~hy5CJOJQJ\^JaJ hq~hyCJOJQJ^JaJhyhymH sH hLmH sH hymH sH h>5mH sH (hy5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH 4hBhy56CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH sH .hBhy5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH (hLhyCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hBhyCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  hLhyCJOJQJ^JaJknqq3q4qVqWqrritwzz{{{{{(|$a$gdi1gd>5$d`a$gdy $da$gdy$ dda$gdygdygdy$a$gdy $`a$gdysGtgt7wQwzJzmz{.{{{{{{{(|)|d|j|p|||1}~ﷳo]H(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hi1hi16CJOJQJ^JaJ&hi1hi15>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJ hi15CJhi1hi1>*CJaJmH sH hOrThi1h>5hyCJOJQJ^JaJ+hq~hyCJOJQJ\^JaJnHtH&hq~hy5CJOJQJ\^JaJ hq~hyCJOJQJ^JaJ(|)|d|j|o|||\}]}~~78 & FOxgdi1 $h^ha$gdi1gdi1 $^a$gdi1 $ & F%a$gdi1gdi1 5P^5gdi1 & F%gdi1h^hgdi1~47ˁ_ekւ@"=z ïïïÙïÇunjÇuïuU(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHhi1 hi1hi1#hi1hi16CJOJQJ^JaJ#hi1hi15CJOJQJ^JaJ+hi1hi15CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH &hi1hi15>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJ(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hi1hi16CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  ˁ́_ejkւׂ@"gdi1$a$gdi1 $h^ha$gdi1h^hgdi1 $ & F%a$gdi1^gdi1gdi1 $^a$gdi1 5P^5gdi15gՆ=>tzO^gdi1 $h^ha$gdi1h^hgdi1 5P^5gdi1 $ & F%a$gdi1 $^a$gdi1$a$gdi1$0^`0a$gdi1 06; _`͋Ӌ؋ً/0ƍˍ̍gdi1gdi1 $ & F%a$gdi1 $h^ha$gdi1^gd. $^a$gdi1 5P^5gdi1$hh^h`ha$gdi1 6; ً/ƍˍ̍ɐߑgMRʔuucSKhi1OJQJhi1hi1>*CJaJmH sH "hi1hi15>*CJaJmH sH #hi1hi15CJOJQJ^JaJ&hi1hi15>*CJOJQJ^JaJ(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJ#hi1hi16CJOJQJ^JaJ(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH.hi1hi15>*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH̍ɐߑfgGMR 5P^5gdi1 $ & F&a$gdi1gdi1h^hgdi1`gdi1gdi1 $ & F%xa$gdi1$a$gdi1 $h^ha$gdi1 $^a$gdi1^gdi1Rɔʔaglzzq^gdi1 P^gdi1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdi1gdi1 $^a$gdi1$ & F& & M + Ba$gdi1$ & M + Ba$gdi1 hh^h`hgdi1 ʔafgklɜ.Ʊƙp^pH=.hi1hi1CJaJmH sH hi1hi1CJaJ+hi1hi15CJOJQJ^JaJnHtH#hi1hi15CJOJQJ^JaJ(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH &hi1hi15>*CJOJQJ^JaJ.hi1hi15>*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hi1hi1CJOJQJ^JaJ#hi1hi16CJOJQJ^JaJ+hi1hi16CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH ɜʜ-.~$ & M + Ba$gdi1 $ & M + B^a$gdi1$ & F& & M + Ba$gdi1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdi1gdi1 DEQWwod 5P^5gd;. & F(gd;.h^hgd;.$a$gd;.gd.gdi1^gdi1gdi1$ & F& & M + Ba$gdi1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdi1 & M + B^gdi1 QRW]רz{RxdL7L(h;.56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h;.h;.56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH &h,*Oh;.5CJH*OJQJ^JaJ#h;.h;.6CJOJQJ^JaJ h;.h;.CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;.h;.5CJOJQJ^JaJ&h;.h;.57CJOJQJ^JaJ h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ^JaJh,*Oh;.>*CJaJmH sH hyhi1h.W\ ̨ͨ֨רz|S & F'  hM + B88^8gdN?mgd;.^gd;. $^a$gd;. $h^ha$gd;. $ & F(a$gd;.h^hgd;. 5P^5gd;.CRX]ouz@Fgd;. & FPxgd;. 5P^5gd;. & FPxgdU( $ & F(a$gd;. $h^ha$gd;. $^a$gd;.$ & F' h88^8a$gdN?mRSXopu@AFKӹԹٹ޹ɱttɆɱcO&h;.h;.57CJOJQJ^JaJ h;.h;.CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,*Oh;.6CJOJQJ^JaJ(h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH.h,*Oh;.57CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ^JaJ&h,*Oh;.57CJOJQJ^JaJFKL  xUz$0^`0a$gd;.$a$gd;.^gd;. $^a$gd;. $ & F(a$gd;. $h^ha$gd;. 5P^5gd;.^_ӹٹ޹ :;,-^gd;.$hh^h`ha$gd;. $h^ha$gd;. 5P^5gd;. $ & F(a$gd;. $^a$gd;.  ;,-fglqʸxgO9$g(h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH.h,*Oh;.57CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJ+h;.h;.5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h;.h;.56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,*Oh;.6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;.h;.7CJOJQJ^JaJ h;.h;.CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;.h;.5CJOJQJ^JaJ -flqr $:02gd;.gd;.h^hgd;.^gd;. $ & F(xa$gd;.$a$gd;. 5P^5gd;. $ & F(a$gd;. $h^ha$gd;.gd;.  $:0ɸoW?+&h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ\^JaJ.h;.h;.5CJOJQJ\^JaJmHsH.h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ\^JaJmHsH(h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHh;.h;.>*CJaJmH sH #h,*Oh;.6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ^JaJ h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJ#h;.h;.5CJOJQJ^JaJ&h;.h;.57CJOJQJ^JaJ h;.h;.CJOJQJ^JaJ2vvm^gd;. P^gd;. $ & M + Bh^ha$gd;. $^a$gd;.$ & F) & M + Ba$gd;.$ & M + Ba$gd;. 5P^5gd;. $ & F)a$gd;. i/J?hSCh;.h;.>*CJaJmH sH )h,*Oh;.5>*CJOJQJ\^JaJ4h;.h;.56CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH sH h,*Oh;.CJaJh,*Oh;.5CJ\aJ#h,*Oh;.>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ\^JaJ.h,*Oh;.5CJOJQJ\^JaJmHsH(h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH h,*Oh;.CJOJQJ^JaJij./Jzm  ^gd;. & M + Bgd;.$ & F) & M + Ba$gd;. $ & M + Bh^ha$gd;. $^a$gd;. $ & M + B^a$gd;. J>?pqqeee $^a$gd;.d7$8$H$^gd;. ^`gd;. $ & M + B^a$gd;. $ & M + Bh^ha$gd;.$ & F) & M + Ba$gd;.h`hgd;.`gd;. 34?BJKjU$ & Fdd[$^`a$gd GY$d[$^a$gd GY $^a$gd GY 5P^5gd GY $5P^5a$gd GY & F+gd GYgd GYgd[Lgd GY `gd;. 23?BJKjUV͸tX@X&2h|h GY0J6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH .h|h GY6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH 7jh|h GY6CJOJQJU]^JaJmH sH +h|h GY5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h|h GY6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h|h GY56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h|h GYCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h|h GY>*CJaJmH sH h GYnHtHh;.CJaJmH sH h;.h;.CJaJmH sH WXGHIJOP(˱˛nn.h|h GY56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h|h GYCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h|h GY6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 2h|h GY0J6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH .h|h GY6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH 7jh|h GY6CJOJQJU]^JaJmH sH !UIgd GY $xa$gd GY $^a$gd GY $h^ha$gd GY $ & F+a$gd GY$a$gd GY & Fdd\$^`gd GY(*bh>LaE$%m[]^dιιιιιιιog_OhDhD>*CJaJmH sH hDmH sH h4.mH sH (hD56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hQh GY>*CJaJmH sH (h GYh GYCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h|h GY>*CJaJmH sH (h|h GYCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h|h GY56CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 1h|h GY56CJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH bhi01>?g $ & M + B^a$gd GY"$ & M + BP^a$gd GY$ & F, & M + Ba$gd GY $ & M + Bh^ha$gd GY 5P^5gd GY $ & F,a$gdQ KL`aEF%mnzo d7$8$H$gd GYgd GY$ & F, & M + Ba$gdQ $ & M + B^a$gd GY $ & M + Bh^ha$gd GY$ & F, & M + Ba$gd GY n+,/\]d)/4{|gdD 5P^5gdD & F-gdDh^hgdD$a$gdDgd4.$a$gdD $ & F*a$gdD $ & F*a$gd GY$a$gd GY $7$8$H$a$gd GY/05yz{|E)9ow56?Rܼܬܔܔܔܐuho1ho1nHtHho1nHtHhLho1h4.hDhDCJaJhhDOJQJ^JhDhD>*CJaJmH sH hDCJOJQJ^JaJ#hDhD6CJOJQJ^JaJ hDhDCJOJQJ^JaJ#hDhD5CJOJQJ^JaJ) H()89$ & M + Ba$gdD $^a$gdD$ & F. & M + Ba$gdD hh^h`hgdD 5P^5gdD $ & F.a$gdDgdD 9opwx6o $ & M + Bh^ha$gdD^gdD P^gdD$ & F. & M + Ba$gdD$ & M + Ba$gdD $ & M + B^a$gdD ?RSaa $ & M + B^a$gdD $ & M + Bh^ha$gdD!$ ) M + B^a$gdD$ & M + Ba$gdD$ & F. & M + Ba$gdD YZ(o7= $ & F0a$gdo1gdo1gdo1 hh^h`hgdo1 5P^5gdo1 & F/gdo1h^hgdo1$a$gdo1gdL$ & F. & M + Ba$gdDYZ')m=>D~D̺̬xxxfP:+hho16CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hh6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hho16CJOJQJ^JaJ#ho1ho15CJOJQJ^JaJ ho1ho1CJOJQJ^JaJho1OJQJho1>*mH sH ho1CJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Tho16CJOJQJ^JaJ h-Tho1CJOJQJ^JaJ#h-Tho15CJOJQJ^JaJho1ho1>*CJaJmH sH ~DE]^>?^gd^gd^gdo1 P^gdo1$ & F0 & M + Ba$gdo1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdo1DE^;> %c  T U V W c e ~ įįڠ~fPLHDHDhqHhLho1+ho1ho1CJOJQJ^JaJhnHtH.ho1ho15CJOJQJ^JaJhnHtH#ho1ho15CJOJQJ^JaJhho1>*CJaJmH sH ho1ho1CJaJmH sH (ho1ho1CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hho16CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  ho1ho1CJOJQJ^JaJ(ho1hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  !%cd   yyy$a$gdo1 d7$8$H$gdo1gdo1^gdo1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdo1$ & F0 & M + Ba$gdo1gdo1 $ & M + B^a$gdo1    U V ~   C I N    8j) $^a$gdqH $ & F1a$gdqH hh^h`hgdqH 5P^5gdqH & F1gdqHh^hgdqH$a$gdqHgdLgdo1gdo1~   O  8)OPQ !"2ch k  !"""""̺̺̺̺ݺ̝̝̺̺̺̺ݺ̏}k#hEhE6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hEhqH6CJOJQJ^JaJhECJOJQJ^JaJhqHCJOJQJ^JaJhqH6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hqHhqH6CJOJQJ^JaJ hqHhqHCJOJQJ^JaJ#hqHhqH5CJOJQJ^JaJhqHhqH>*CJaJmH sH ()*yPQTU $^a$gdqH^gdqH & FQxgdqH 5P^5gdqH & FQxgd4. $ & F1a$gdqH $h^ha$gdqH2-h   $h^ha$gdqH 5P^5gdqH $ & F1a$gdqH$0^`0a$gdqH$a$gdqH $^a$gdqH^gdqH !"#t23cd $^a$gdqH 5P^5gdqH$hh^h`ha$gdqH $ & F1a$gdqH $h^ha$gdqH^gdqH$a$gdqHdj k  !""""""N#T#Y#Z# $^a$gdqH $ & F2a$gdEgdqHgdqH $ & F1xa$gdqH$a$gdqH $h^ha$gdqH^gdqH 5P^5gdqH $ & F1a$gdqH""Y#Z#y$7&8&9&&'''F())))))h*i*j***p,q,r,,оްްޑpްaްYh4.hqH6h2G6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h2Gh2G6CJOJQJ^JaJhqH6CJOJQJ^JaJh2GCJOJQJ^JaJ hqHh2GCJOJQJ^JaJhqHCJOJQJ^JaJ#h2GhqH6CJOJQJ^JaJhECJOJQJ^JaJ hqHhqHCJOJQJ^JaJhEhqH>*CJaJmH sH Z#y$z$$$$8&9&&&' $ & M + B^a$gdqH^gdqH P^gdqH$ & F2 & M + Ba$gdqH $ & M + Bh^ha$gdqH $^a$gd2G ''F(G()))i*j***_ $ & M + Bh^ha$gdqH$ & F2 & M + Ba$gdqH $ & M + B^a$gd2G $ & M + B^a$gdqH $ & M + Bh^ha$gd2G *q,r,,,^-_-----).*.ttt 5P^5gd,1 & F3 gdN?mgd,1$a$gd,1gdjU $ & M + B^a$gd2G $ & M + Bh^ha$gd2G$ & F2 & M + Ba$gdqH ,,,,,,,\-^-_------).*.....//0000ξ|o``P`Eh,1h,1CJaJh,1h,16CJOJQJaJh,1h,1CJOJQJaJh,1h,1OJQJ^J#h,1h,16CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,1h,15CJOJQJ^JaJ h,1h,1CJOJQJ^JaJhk"h,1OJQJ^Jh,1h,15CJaJmH sH h,1h,1>*CJaJmH sH  h,1ho1hQhjU#h4.hqH6CJOJQJ^JaJ*.....//000000112^gd,1 P^gd,1$^`a$gd,1"$ & F5 + M + Ba$gdN?m$ & M + Ba$gd,1 5P^5gd,1 $ & F5a$gd,10011222438344444I5J5K55B7C7D77777;9;:;A;C;H;;;µµµµ•܇{kbhY5CJaJhYhY>*CJaJmH sH hjUhYhKhYCJOJQJ^JaJh,1h,1>*CJaJmH sH h,1h,16CJOJQJaJh,16CJOJQJaJh,1h,1CJOJQJaJh,1h,1CJaJ h,1h,1CJOJQJ^JaJ#h,1h,15CJOJQJ^JaJ2273834444I5J555B7C7777 d7$8$H$gd,1$a$gd,1"$ & F5 + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + B^a$gd,1$ & M + Ba$gd,17d:e::: ;8;9;H;;; <P=U===?$ & F6 a$gdN?m 5P^5gdY & F6gdYh^hgdY$a$gdYgdjU <gdY & F4 W<^`WgdN?m$a$gd,1;<<V==AA+CJCbCeCwCyC}CCCCCCHDPDSDTDDFFzzeM.hYhY5>*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH.hYhY5>*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJmHsHhYCJOJQJ^JaJ&hYhY56CJOJQJ^JaJ#hYhY6CJOJQJ^JaJ&hYhY5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJ???S@@@BBKCZC`CeCwC}CCCCCCHD^gdY & FRxgdY & FRxgdK$ & F6 a$gdN?m$5^5`a$gdY 5P^5gdY $h^ha$gdYHDNDSDTDDFF8FFGKG}GGGHSHTHHHHH $h^ha$gdY$0^`0a$gdY $^a$gdY$ & F6 a$gdN?m$a$gdY 5P^5gdYF8FSHHHHHiJqJtJJJJKKKLLLMYNZN[NNNN!O"O(OVOQʵʵʵ~qaMM&hYhY5>*CJOJQJ^JaJhYhY>*CJaJmH sH hYhYOJQJ^JhYOJQJ^J(hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH.hYhY5>*CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJ#hYhY6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hYhY5CJOJQJ^JaJHIIFJiJoJtJJJJKKKKKLLLLLLM $^a$gdY 5P^5gdY$hh^h`ha$gdY$a$gdY$ & F6 a$gdN?mMHNYNZN[NNNNN"O'OYOZObPcPP $^a$gdY $^a$gdY"$ & F7 + M + Ba$gdN?m 5P^5gdY $ & F7a$gdYgdYgdY^gdY$ & F6 xa$gdN?mPPQQRRTT}T~TTT Uuu P^gdY $^a$gdY $^a$gdY^gdY $ & M + Bh^ha$gdY"$ & F7 + M + Ba$gdN?m$ & M + Ba$gdY QRTU U`WaWYYG\\e`f`g`h`q````7a=aƴڦڦږڦpeYH6#hthhth5CJOJQJ^JaJ hthhthCJOJQJ^JaJhThth5CJaJhThthCJaJhthhth>*CJaJmH sH hthhKhthCJOJQJ^JaJhYhY>*CJaJmH sH hYCJOJQJ^JaJ#hYhY>*CJOJQJ^JaJ&hYhY5>*CJOJQJ^JaJ hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJ(hYhYCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  U UFVGV_W`WWWYYYYYY $ & M + B^a$gdY"$ & F7 + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdY^gdY Y6Z7Z[[G\\\'_(___}xmeee`gdY$a$gdY d7$8$H$gdYgdY $ & M + B^a$gdY"$ & F7 + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdY $ & M + B^a$gdY _`-`I`f`g`q````7a=aBaaaa,c-cvc $^a$gdth$ & F8 a$gdN?m hh^h`hgdth 5P^5gdth & F8gdthh^hgdthgdth$a$gdthgdKgdY=aCaa,c-cucvccccc#d)ddddpefffffg"iYi_idijj>kϽo]L hthhJ*CJOJQJ^JaJ#hthhth5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hthhth>*CJOJQJ^JaJ(hthhthCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+hthhth5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hJ*hthCJOJQJ^JaJ#hJ*hth5CJOJQJ^JaJhJ*CJOJQJ^JaJ#hthhth6CJOJQJ^JaJ hthhthCJOJQJ^JaJvcwcccccccc#d)d.d/ddddeepe $h^ha$gdth hh^h`hgdth^gdth & FSxgdth 5P^5gdth & FSxgdZ$ & F8 a$gdN?m$a$gdJ*peffffggghLhhhh"i#iYi_idieij $h^ha$gdth 5P^5gdth$ & F8 a$gdN?m$0^`0a$gdth$a$gdth^gdth $^a$gdthjjk8k>kCkekkkpkUlVlllll_memjmmm^gdth$a$gdJ* $^a$gdth 5P^5gdth$hh^h`ha$gdth$ & F8 a$gdN?m $h^ha$gdth>kCkkkpkUlllemjmmm oooooooo%p*p!r'rܵܣunaPP:+hJ*hth5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hJ*hthCJOJQJ^JaJhhthOJQJ^J hJ*hthhJ*hth5>*OJQJ^JhJ*hJ*OJQJ^J hJ*hJ*CJOJQJ^JaJ#hJ*hth5CJOJQJ^JaJ(hthhthCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#hthhth6CJOJQJ^JaJ hthhthCJOJQJ^JaJ#hthhth5CJOJQJ^JaJmm oooooop%p*pcpdpqq"$ & F9 + M + Ba$gdN?m$ & M + Ba$gdth hh^h`hgdth 5P^5gdth $ & F9a$gdJ*gdthgdJ*^gdth$ & F8 xa$gdN?m$a$gdth qq!r'r,r-rgssssvv $ & M + B^a$gdJ*^gdthP^`gdth5kP^5`kgdth"$ & F9 + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdth 'r,rsssttttIvJvKvLvOvPvQvv̺کtc̺Q?#hJ*hJ*6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hJ*hth6CJOJQJ^JaJ hJ*hJ*CJOJQJ^JaJhthCJOJQJ^JaJ$hJ*hth@CJOJQJ^JaJ'hJ*hth5@CJOJQJ^JaJ!hJ*5@CJOJQJ^JaJ#hJ*hth5CJOJQJ^JaJhJ*CJOJQJ^JaJ hJ*hthCJOJQJ^JaJ(hJ*hthCJOJQJ^JaJmHsHsttttJvKv|\ $ & M + B^a$gdJ*"$ & F9 + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdth ) M + B^gdth"$ & F9 + M + Ba$gdN?mKvPvQvvv w wxxya\gdth $ & M + B^a$gdJ*$ & M + Ba$gdJ* $ & M + B^a$gdJ*"$ & F9 + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + B^a$gdth vvv wxxxxy-|1|X|^| } }}}}}}Ŵr_O?;73hjUh*LhZhy[_@CJOJQJ^JaJhth@CJOJQJ^JaJ$hJ*hth@CJOJQJ^JaJ!hJ*5@CJOJQJ^JaJhJ*hth>*CJaJmH sH #hJ*hth5CJOJQJ^JaJhJ*hth5 hJ*hJ* hJ*hthCJOJQJ^JaJ'hJ*hth5@CJOJQJ^JaJ'hJ*hJ*5@CJOJQJ^JaJ$hJ*5>*@CJOJQJ^JaJyy{{-||}}}}}} ~~~$ & F@ a$gdN?m hh^h`hgd*L 5P^5gd*L & F@gd*Lh^hgd*L$a$gd*LgdZgdth$a$gdth d7$8$H$gdth}}}}~~~~yh 25OԊBVXZdɸɒɒɸɀɒڀkPkɸɸ5jh0h*L0J!CJOJQJU^JaJmHsH(h0h*LCJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#h0h*L6CJOJQJ^JaJ&h0h*L56CJOJQJ^JaJ#h*Lh*L6CJOJQJ^JaJ h*Lh*LCJOJQJ^JaJ h0h*LCJOJQJ^JaJ#h0h*L5CJOJQJ^JaJh*Lh*L>*CJaJmH sH h*L$);AFmsxy^gd*L & FTxgd*L 5P^5gd*L & FTxgdZ$ & F@ a$gdN?m $h^ha$gd*L $^a$gd*Lln 45Ö%bljNԊ֊B$0^`0a$gd*L$a$gd*L^gd*L $^a$gd*L$ & F@ a$gdN?m hh^h`hgd*LBNZ\  ^ NZd ^gd*L $^a$gd*L$hh^h`ha$gd*L $h^ha$gd*L$ & F@ a$gdN?m$a$gd*L 5P^5gd*L ޒvxy(JzB.GHIde۸ۙw۸۸۸۸plhlhjUhy[_ h*Lh*L#h*Lh*L6CJOJQJ^JaJh*Lh*L>*CJaJmH sH h*Lh*LOJQJ^J#h0h*L6CJOJQJ^JaJ#h0h*L5CJOJQJ^JaJ h*Lh*LCJOJQJ^JaJ h0h*LCJOJQJ^JaJ&h0h*L56CJOJQJ^JaJ"    xy $ & FAa$gd*Lgd*Lgd*Lh^hgd*L$ & F@ xa$gdN?m$a$gd*L^gd*L 5P^5gd*L$ & F@ a$gdN?m $h^ha$gd*L&L`ayv $ & M + Bh^ha$gd*L^gd*L P^gd*L $^a$gd*L"$ & FA + M + Ba$gdN?m$ & M + Ba$gd*L 5P^5gd*L yzܝBC g./G"$ & FA + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gd*L $ & M + B^a$gd*LGHe*05| JK & FUxgdJJ $h^ha$gdy[_ $^a$gdy[_$ & F: a$gdN?mgdy[_ hh^h`hgdy[_ 5P^5gdy[_ & F:gdy[_h^hgdy[_$a$gdy[_gdZgd*Le*+6z| JŨƨD "<W^̳~̳̳̳̳iW~W̳i~#hphy[_6CJOJQJ^JaJ(hphy[_CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#hy[_hy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hy[_hy[_6CJOJQJ^JaJ hy[_hy[_CJOJQJ^JaJ1 jVhphy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hphy[_CJOJQJ^JaJ#hphy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJhy[_hy[_>*CJaJmH sH Ũ˨Шک۩DY5 $^a$gdy[_ $h^ha$gdy[_ hh^h`hgdy[_$ & F: a$gdN?m^gdy[_ & FUxgdy[_ 5P^5gdy[_!"<OWX_^gdy[_ $h^ha$gdy[_ 5P^5gdy[_$ & F: a$gdN?m$0^`0a$gdy[_$a$gdy[_ $^a$gdy[_^_Ըո żGѽӽؿ؊ؿu`خNF? hy[_hy[_hU3hy[_5#hphy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJ(hy[_hy[_CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH(hphy[_CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#hy[_hy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hphy[_6CJOJQJ^JaJ hy[_hy[_CJOJQJ^JaJ1 jVhphy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hphy[_CJOJQJ^JaJ+hy[_hy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH _`Ըڸ߸ ^gdy[_ $^a$gdy[_ 5P^5gdy[_$hh^h`ha$gdy[_$ & F: a$gdN?m $h^ha$gdy[_żFGԽս  djos $ & M + B^a$gdy[_"$ & F; + M + Ba$gdN?m 5P^5gdy[_ $ & F;a$gdy[_gdy[_ $^a$gdU3^gdy[_$ & F: xa$gdN?m$a$gdy[_ ӽս do7/67ۼ۪ۼۼۦui\NhcKhcK5OJQJ^Jh_4hcKOJQJ^JhThcK5CJaJhThcK>*mH sH hhcK hcKhcKh6h=R5OJQJ^Jht:ahy[_5hy[_#hy[_hy[_5CJOJQJ^JaJhy[_CJOJQJ^JaJ hy[_hy[_CJOJQJ^JaJ hphy[_CJOJQJ^JaJhU3hy[_5>*OJQJ^JhU378}]= $ & M + B^a$gdy[_ $ & M + B^a$gdy[_ $ & M + B^a$gdy[_"$ & F; + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdy[_ $ & M + B^a$gdy[_!`a7wod 5P^5gdcK & FagdcKh^hgdcK$a$gdcKgdcK^gd6gdth $ & M + Bh^ha$gdy[_ $ & M + B^a$gdy[_"$ & F; + M + Ba$gdN?m N*+zw} & FbxgdcK $h^ha$gdcK $^a$gdcK$ & Fa a$gd'!h^hgdcK hh^h`hgdcK 5P^5gdcKLN *5fxzvw}$%pwγγγسسئΔΦujhcK6OJQJ^Jh/=hcK6OJQJ^J hx|MhcKOJQJ^JmHsH#hj6hcK5OJQJ^JmHsHhF#,hcKOJQJ^JhhcKOJQJ^Jhj6hcK5OJQJ^JhcKOJQJ^Jh_4hcKOJQJ^JhcKhcK6OJQJ^JhcKhcKOJQJ^J)}%)[$0^`0a$gdcK$a$gdcK $^a$gdcK & F`gdcK^gdcK$&d P ^a$gdcK$ & Fa a$gd'! $h^ha$gdcK hh^h`hgdcK 5P^5gdcKw/05l  1fhinsβ{jXKh_4hcKOJQJ^J#h @hcK5OJQJ^JmHsH h @hcKOJQJ^JmHsH hx|MhcKOJQJ^JmHsHhY}qhcKOJQJ^JhcK6OJQJ^JhY}qhcK6OJQJ^JhhcK5OJQJ^JhJjhcK5OJQJ^JhcK5OJQJ^Jh @hcK5OJQJ^JhcKOJQJ^Jh/=hcK6OJQJ^J12hns  ]$hh^h`ha$gdcK^gdcK $h^ha$gdcK hh^h`hgdcK 5P^5gdcK$ & Fa a$gd'! $^a$gdcK$a$gdcK ;]~  y{#]_|k^hhcKOJQJ^J hx|MhcKOJQJ^JmHsH#hj6hcK5OJQJ^JmHsHhcK5OJQJ^Jhs.hcK5OJQJ^Jhj6hcK5OJQJ^JhcK6OJQJ^Jh=phcK6OJQJ^JhcKhcKOJQJ^JhcKhcK5OJQJ^JhcKOJQJ^JhhcKOJQJ^J  {#^_t  %&\gdcKh^hgdcK$ & Fa xa$gd'!$a$gdcK 5P^5gdcK$ & Fa a$gd'! $h^ha$gdcK^gdcK_rst $    $&'\|橉}pbpTphcKhcK6OJQJ^JhcKhcK5OJQJ^JhcKhcKOJQJ^JhEHhcK>*mH sH "hhcK5>*CJaJmH sH hfhcK5OJQJ^JhhcKOJQJ^JhcKOJQJ^JhhcKOJQJ^JhcK6OJQJ^JhsjhcK6OJQJ^JhcK5OJQJ^JhsjhcK5OJQJ^J \],-56EFy$ & M + Ba$gdcK $ & M + Bh^ha$gdcK"$ & Fc + M + Ba$gd'! hh^h`hgdcK 5P^5gdcK $ & Fca$gdcKgdcK ,-.346CFABGHN"(_bclQܷܜ}܋pcccccch yhcKOJQJ^JhphcKOJQJ^JhcKhcK5OJQJ^JhcKhcKhcKOJQJ^JhA hcKOJQJ^JhhcK5OJQJ^JhcK5OJQJ^Jht}[hcKOJQJ^Jh_hcKOJQJ^JhcKOJQJ^JhhcKOJQJ^Jh_4hcKOJQJ^J&BHNqr',jgdcK^gdcK P^gdcK"$ & Fc + M + Ba$gd'! $ & M + Bh^ha$gdcK $^a$gdcKQRor%',2@j>?;ȿȲ{jXjNh SOJQJ^J#h Sh S6CJOJQJ^JaJ h Sh SCJOJQJ^JaJh S5CJaJh Sh S>*CJaJmH sH  ho1h ShjUh Sh6hcK5OJQJ^JhhcKOJQJ^JhcK>*mH sH h/hcK>*mH sH hcKmH sH hh_hcKOJQJ^Jh yhcKOJQJ^JhcKOJQJ^Jjk  >?z;<gd Sgd S hh^h`hgd S 5P^5gd S & F<gd Sh^hgd S$a$gd Sgd6gdcK$a$gdcK d7$8$H$gdcK<RS~yY $ & M + Bh^ha$gd Sgd S $ & M + B^a$gd S"$ & F= + M + Ba$gdN?m$ & M + Ba$gd S hh^h`hgd S 5P^5gd S $ & F=a$gd S ;QRS5:;?yz{tuopq Hrst﨓̄ssaQshUh S>*CJaJmH sH #hUh S6CJOJQJ^JaJ hF*'hUCJOJQJ^JaJh S6CJOJQJ^JaJ(h Sh SCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h Sh S6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h SCJOJQJ^JaJ#h Sh S6CJOJQJ^JaJ h Sh SCJOJQJ^JaJ hF*'h SCJOJQJ^JaJ5;@z{uv1pi $ & M + B^a$gdU $ & M + Bh^ha$gd S $ & M + B^a$gd S^gd S P^gd S"$ & F= + M + Ba$gdN?m pq HI}xmee$a$gd S d7$8$H$gd Sgd S $ & M + B^a$gdU $ & M + Bh^ha$gd S"$ & F= + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + B^a$gd S stRS $h^ha$gdq>$^`a$gdq> $ & F>a$gdq> hh^h`hgdq> 5P^5gdq> & F>gdq>h^hgdq>$a$gdq>gdJJgd S$a$gd Stu$;Ams ʼ}l[I[l}l}l}l}l#hq>hq>6CJOJQJ^JaJ hq>hq>CJOJQJ^JaJ hIbhq>CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIbhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJhq>hq>>*CJaJmH sH  hF*'hq>hq>hJJhq>CJOJQJ^JaJh SCJOJQJ^JaJ hF*'h SCJOJQJ^JaJ#hUh S6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hUhU6CJOJQJ^JaJ$);AFmsxy PQ^gdq>$&d P ^a$gdq> $h^ha$gdq> hh^h`hgdq> $ & F>a$gdq> & FVxgdq> 5P^5gdq> & FVxgdJJ U[`456=HNSñßßÑÑp_p_ßp___pß hq>hq>CJOJQJ^JaJ#hq>hq>5CJOJQJ^JaJhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJhq>CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIbhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIbhq>6CJOJQJ^JaJ hIbhq>CJOJQJ^JaJ(hIbhq>CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+hIbhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH%H{U[` $h^ha$gdq> hh^h`hgdq> 5P^5gdq> $ & F>a$gdq>$0^`0a$gdq>$a$gdq> $^a$gdq>67=> $h^ha$gdq>^gdq>$&d P ^a$gdq> 5P^5gdq>$hh^h`ha$gdq> $ & F>a$gdq> $^a$gdq> $^a$gdq>$ & F>&d P a$gdq>>HNS; <    gdq>h^hgdq>^gdq> $ & F>xa$gdq>$a$gdq> $h^ha$gdq> $^a$gdq> 5P^5gdq> $ & F>a$gdq><      9 E s v       7[ʻܫweeeSe#hq>hq>5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hUUhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hq>hq>6CJOJQJ^JaJ hq>hq>CJOJQJ^JaJ hUUhq>CJOJQJ^JaJhq>hq>>*CJaJmH sH hq>5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIbhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJ hIbhq>CJOJQJ^JaJ#hIbhq>6CJOJQJ^JaJ  9 ? D v        } $ & M + Bh^ha$gdq> $^a$gdq> $^a$gdq>"$ & F? + M + Ba$gdN?m hh^h`hgdq> 5P^5gdq> $ & F?a$gdq>gdq>    89zzq^gdq> P^gdq> $ & M + Bh^ha$gdq> $^a$gdq>"$ & F? + M + Ba$gdN?m$ & M + Ba$gdq>$^`a$gdq> CD\]_}]] $ & M + B^a$gd3 $ & M + B^a$gdq>"$ & F? + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdq> $ & M + B^a$gdq> [\]^^_`ij "#a򲠑򑠀teUFh S5CJOJQJ^JaJhUUhq>>*CJaJmH sH hUUhq>CJaJmH sH h3CJaJmH sH  hUUh3CJOJQJ^JaJh35CJOJQJ^JaJ#h3h35CJOJQJ^JaJh3CJOJQJ^JaJ#hUUhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJhq>5CJOJQJ^JaJ hUUhq>CJOJQJ^JaJhq>CJOJQJ^JaJ_jk #ab|||wwwgd3$a$gdq> d7$8$H$gdq>gdq>^gd3"$ & F? + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdq> $ & M + B^a$gd3 bc"##)#-#T#X####[$%%B)C)])Ͼr`L&hU3hU35>*CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU3hU36CJOJQJ^JaJ(hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHhU35CJOJQJ^JaJ+hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJ hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJh6lhU3CJaJhU3hU3>*CJaJmH sH hjUhU3hJJhU3OJQJ^Jbc9:""##-# & FWxgdU3 & FWxgd@$ & FF a$gdN?m $h^ha$gdU3 $ & FFa$gdU3 ^gdU3 & FF gdN?mh^hgdU3$a$gdU3gdjU-#X#Y###[$%%j'k'B)C)]))3*p**$0^`0a$gdU3$a$gdU3^gdU3 $^a$gdU3$ & FF a$gdN?m $h^ha$gdU3$ & FF a$gdN?m 5P^5gdU3 & FWxgdU3**+5+x+y+++-C.D..../p1q11$hh^h`ha$gdU3 $h^ha$gdU3^gdjU$ & FF a$gdN?m hh^h`hgdU3$ & FF a$gdN?m $^a$gdU3$a$gdU3])x++++-#.B.C...../p111u22223t455+6,6Ʊܟ~ܟܟܟjܟaQDhhU3OJQJ^JhU3hU3>*CJaJmH sH hU3>*mH sH &hU3hU35>*CJOJQJ^JaJ#hjUhU35CJOJQJ^JaJhjU5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJ(hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH+hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU3hU36CJOJQJ^JaJ11t2u22223t4O555+6,666 $ & FGa$gdU3gdU3gdU3 $ex^ea$gdU3$ & FF xa$gdN?m$a$gdU3$ & FF a$gdN?m $h^ha$gdU3,666778o9:>K?N?O?@@AB"DD"EFGlHHKQQQQQQFRGRRR*T5TTTTTTTsUwUﵪ˚˪hThU35CJaJhjUhU3h@hU3hU3>*CJaJmH sH hU3hU3CJaJ+hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJ#h@hU35CJOJQJ^JaJ hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJ+6778o9p9:: ;aU $^a$gdU3 $ & M + B^a$gdU3$ & M + Ba$gdU3 $ & M + B^a$gdU3 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdU3"$ & FG + M + Ba$gdN?m ;X;;<==*>>>O?P?@@@AB $ & M + B^a$gdU3^gdU3"$ & FG + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdU3 $ & FDa$gdU3BB"DDD"EFFGlHHKKKK|ttt$a$gdU3gdU3$ & M + Ba$gdU3 $ & M + B^a$gdU3"$ & FG + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & M + Bh^ha$gdU3 KKkLLL0MMN)PzP{PQQQFRGRRRRR hh^h`hgdU3 5P^5gdU3 & FBgdU3h^hgdU3$a$gdU3gdjUgdU3 $ & FEa$gdU3$a$gdU3R*T6T7TTTTTTTTTsUxUyUUBWYYY^gdU3 & FXxgdU3 5P^5gdU3 & FXxgd@ $h^ha$gdU3 $^a$gdU3$ & FB a$gdN?mwUxUUBWCWYYY\9\:\K\]_<`cccdFeGeVeegggh=i]i^i_i`ibiiiiiiڶڶڶڶڶڶڶڶڶڶڒ}m}`ڶhhU3OJQJ^JhU3hU3>*CJaJmH sH hEHhU3>*mH sH hU3>*mH sH hU3CJOJQJ^JaJ+hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH#hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJ#hU3hU36CJOJQJ^JaJ hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJ(hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJmHsH%YYdZZZ,[_[[[\\9\L\M\]__` $h^ha$gdU3^gdU3 hh^h`hgdU3$ & FB a$gdN?m $^a$gdU3$0^`0a$gdU3$a$gdU3`;`MacccdFeWeXeegggh;i_i`igdU3h^hgdU3$ & FB xa$gdN?m$a$gdU3 $h^ha$gdU3^gdU3$ & FB a$gdN?m 5P^5gdU3$hh^h`ha$gdU3`iiiiijkklll_msntnun~$ & M + Ba$gdU3 $ & M + Bh^ha$gdU3 $^a$gdU3"$ & FC + M + Ba$gdN?m $ & FCa$gdU3gdU3gdU3iikkll`msnnn.pcp~qjrsHuuuwwwww{|| | | | ||ؿƧƙvdRNh-1#ho1h_5CJOJQJ^JaJ#ho1hu 5CJOJQJ^JaJ ho1h(CJOJQJ^JaJ#ho1h.5CJOJQJ^JaJhU3CJOJQJ^JaJhU3hU3>*CJaJmH sH hU3hU35 hU3hU3#hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJ hU3hU3CJOJQJ^JaJ+hU3hU35CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHunnn-pdpep}qjrkrsHuIuuuuw $ & M + Bh^ha$gdU3 $ & M + B^a$gdU3^gdU3 P^gdU3"$ & FC + M + Ba$gdN?mwwwwxzyz{({\{{||| | | | | |$a$gd_gdu $a$gd{ $^a$gd(gd(gd3 & FgdU3$a$gdU3 d7$8$H$gdU3gdU3 $ & M + B^a$gdU3 ||||||8}q}r}}}~~C~|~}~"$ & Fi + M + Ba$gd-1 $ & Fia$gd-1gd-1gd-1 hh^h`hgd-1 5P^5gd-1 & Fggd-1h^hgd-1$a$gd-1gd|||||||||6}8}r}}}}}}~~~~~@~C~|~}~~~ˀ̀m´§ҍvvv§Ҁvivvivv\ht}[h-1OJQJ^Jh_h-1OJQJ^Jh-1OJQJ^Jhh-1OJQJ^JhEHh-1>*mH sH h-1h-16OJQJ^Jh-1h-1OJQJ^Jh-1h-15OJQJ^Jh-1h-156OJQJ^Jh_4h-1OJQJ^JhTh-15CJaJhTh-1>*mH sH h5o5h-1CJ$̀IJ1Gj $ & M + B^a$gd-1 P^gd-1$ & M + Ba$gd-1"$ & Fi + M + Ba$gd-1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gd-1 $^a$gd-1 mGIJv01FGs3=AG~$(-_}І҆ֆۆ܆ކuuhh_h-1OJQJ^Jh yh-1OJQJ^Jhph-1OJQJ^Jh|{h-156h-1h-156OJQJ^JhA h-1OJQJ^Jh_4h-1OJQJ^Jhh-15OJQJ^Jh-15OJQJ^Jht}[h-1OJQJ^Jh-1OJQJ^J.$g݆҆ކψd $ & M + B^a$gd-1 $ & M + Bh^ha$gd-1 & M + B^gd-1"$ & Fi + M + Ba$gd-1$ & M + Ba$gd-1 ψՈ <>>>>>>>>>??0@qDrDsDtD˿yme`eYNJBjhX-'UhX-'h0%hN?mmHsH h+=hN?m hN?m6hPhN?m6hPhN?m6mHsHhN?mmHsHhN?mjhN?m0J!U h-1h]CJOJQJ^JaJ ho1hUhh-1OJQJ^Jh-1>*mH sH h/h-1>*mH sH h-1OJQJ^Jh_4h-1OJQJ^Jh:h-16OJQJ^Jh:h-156OJQJ^Jψ ==7>>>>rDsDuDvDxDyD{D|D~DDDDDD ]^ $ & #$a$d gd*L$a$gdgd-1$a$gd-1 $xa$gd-1gd-1 meeting of the year should discuss this matter. Article 7.1A adds that the "principal business on every draft Agenda shall be derived from COSAC's role as a body for exchanging information, in particular on the practical aspects of parliamentary scrutiny." In accordance with these two rules, at the end of the XXIV COSAC meeting in London in October there will be a discussion about which topics COSAC should deal with in 2006. In order to inform this discussion, please indicate here the subjects that your parliament proposes COSAC should deal with during 2006: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  During EU Affairs Scrutiny we abide by the Constitutional law on the Cooperation between the National Council of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Slovak Republic in the Affairs concerning the European Union. This stipulates that for a member of the Slovak Government representing the Slovak Republic in the bodies of the European Communities and the European Union it is binding to hold a position that has been approved by the National Council of the Slovak Republic. A member of the Government of the Slovak Republic is obliged to present a draft position to the National Council of the Slovak Republic two weeks prior to the session of the Council of the European Union which can afterwards approve the draft of the position. Having this in regard deputies are not able too much intervene in the draft text of the ESDP missions since most of them are agreed upon in the earlier stage of the discussions relating to them (e.g. COPS, Relex, COREPER, etc.). The other problem we face with regard to the dossier of the CFSP is concerned with the nature of confidentiality of such documents. We are confronted with the database access problems (COREU database is accessible only at the premises of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). In addition to that deputies are not yet authorised to be acquainted with classified documents and therefore it might cause a difficulty to discuss the issue in depth if the issue is pertaining to the classified category.     PAGE 1  EMBED Word.Document.8 \s   EMBED Word.Document.8 \s   EMBED Word.Document.8 \s  tDvDwDyDzD|D}DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDxtc h-1h]CJOJQJ^JaJh'!j'hnnUjF hnnCJUVaJj$hnnUjF hnnCJUVaJj."hnnUj1F hnnCJUVaJhnnjhnnUhsOJQJ^JmHnHuhN?mOJQJ^JjhN?mOJQJU^JhN?mjhX-'UhX-'$DDDDDDDDDDgdnn ,1h. A!"#$% `!@6_,ES,C|0 Q(xڝTOA3h)4HRaKȇ-֚ &`PғNu[K /у /r21xjbC}3m*ݗ7;͛РӰ1>T e͓ۘaA^BJ'Hߞq ϲ c_SB8* $*mLۄ>?Qev*F0FMW4MW> ^*3]ix-a{eHAEPz[qXR:EȢpřYW~؏| 2g3hπDI|ڼ6E 'r_3 yB*6/9v]® س-oAUyXE 8JcPͷ((#0D"$'WT1u4:,HYmNyCr{͋i-E&B&NѬBPqDZk=+C>-4惷AW0K0 ۰ Uמ̙;/ѻnŒQ%My"PNG  IHDRw}| PLTEh`jJHL3.L"!(:2tD;3-eOEC?chc1'?63,t+'V.*kh:6*'u)'eEq u }"\$" J! u#!%#&$|/-%$s%$n$#j#"f$#h#"e#"b4)'o%$f$#`fecxrmi  !!g44 # dd݉琐ʱ  deu7+Ρѥ ڮ$թ$)޳+002ڴ:Z_hP|_ sY n[F 'hyrI9 ͢%֫*ѧ)'Τ*ɟ)ҧ,ͣ+ۯ/ͣ,Ц-ϥ-Х.Ц.ݱ2ۯ1֫0ѧ/)ʡ.ԩ1ө1Υ0׬3Ϧ1ڰ4ٮ4֫3ի3ө3׭5ի5ڰ7ٯ7Ҫ5;ڰ8׭7ϧ5;ܲ9?ߴ;ܲ:۱:=޴<ܲ<>ߵ=@?AAA8CBDCEDӭ@GGIKJMMPܶIURPv2JiU/VE,wc<53 #bKGD1IDATx XSg#YǎSƲB51$ix)թJ" `$MA/`^fgKRƶ vf۰.rOt-=9 bg֗|9{Xcz{n{1tϹ]|S{O=}}}}?#Wv"AXDD]g+Zd~Ÿwc0֛%畧S7_:epܽ<™,:S^Vzp2L0}.;Ț%~*Ԣʈ)s6}Y%ߙ,[o(///~}v^칶;絝Ps,?Wf|OU\ *7YpŹ55,-ȕ!ys}g ҂qުD5E+g9ݍ^U_͗2Q-W zsf샙 U *L](aB}R[ziQ1[9`)EՠQ׫\ҡ[]  $Ysfm]f_\7`u}=Q|RU+/e4S^czAXZ??W`+2rkj|H-֪jkTu5 .DjH0w7\CvhVV21e+vy#ZcF>&i]Vժ"k趑)EO#W@JYSתPq *6Itl ,"|^Vh5tAV܈U7 hz:*,j4V+Oż~#Á. A&!V}iXJk7's ׮n=.5/­}ͪ[%1O:5W6EZ4R V֬cl Wt龦&F&>̒7gؓřƦM44Q\$u gHhQzamkccSc#]UVVө+.hǞmWл-@n Dr%C((+Cѐd$t]2ri`\w^!Pq9-ϗb <Wp垮VF3_n]%Iid?}<}3pa;ZmHnm4 0դqX`eedn⃏{zzt=:ٍz05*aROi,᧤L -M._urWt"3nGTMVO+.S\ZZRZRX 優)UUaQ\ǟޞ^]]$ʤfMw5m}Qwן^,E"(///+;377s1\Zh۵XODp^1b ,yYY@dｗj!+ af?MucvŘa; }Mԓ#[;p 7\TG=:]dWjfjRH{:!^7110r;>Kq`p ~H~el^-L& S#E}l^ݾ6d #ـx(tn*=0z Ҏ# V;J[ 2FP2=}p~tjEhfieelj x^ pwNO  a0g?*EAbFz`uYo̷cKC7g@:+4&=16>aqq! jnWEa{[ٮW=<LOKy.HaBL[ME \$_(4"=~W`Qc[۸:̤P_#'Ousl|ˊrM9_e)na!$ijbf9?;KApWTv$HLRo~$$@O^713\pMJOufpIW oE΄2N #ő{=ObtXykj'rE''xnٕ6i,=rg+&MaV}TD+.4:ܽpڵ=+yKdGd.OjLu@ "˱- 5yunZ~_=e؅K3I KE,Byw\o 9\Guvss(ӮWӭ_g;rQ#% ??/ii|@NaElnɉA KB}}:lW\|N\smAsW\?I(L+uer ?Mŕ >|Wv:sRW  tYd$xnDd=P] ^zB(?C4jΖ:wuqsqr$t1-w8Qs\GgWnKiNukujQZ:Lr|gW'gT%>iɘ O J JҊi靸j<^77gg7Wt5FENC Dʬ}\7TjhYKA es_ 2E֖N+'& 1}m9tsWR:s@pEF:԰VFd(,zlDxxX(ԓ} $!ur \ǥnAvrqr#!"_ץ>V*~ 0@@__JOh];N7(+81\8 \{YYDqz>[k3OLBEɰP:;z>)hr@kMBD#$<4^W,z= o㩓s`,lP/?oo/?'idAvz6-i]]%E 8qqfO4h!_;A zdC\Ʀ=֤w>={;g<"T..8SsE "{'rO+d ^23~>c||i pۖc?_؛UAvLrw<Ɲ0Җ}AZ.7GQ(s8R7;e|sAq$4H5 #܀=1`1!Bm!#aZgɾ8 }‰6ik/_n;մEdFD^-~hɪz[0ثիe+Zmۂ#wDml6{n~G6?zDj606s+V;<:23f%%BX H"_ؾ p`^\r+PMqgWTsnI+VLRЂ/7tClJMR{$wh @LŢx/L*.L6b"}Hf)vE%ѿݖr dI& '[};9 L 6|p_"rp,%c䨔v.,.a-l.رx/dzZv…ڜ?$5.cJM1H^ef 㟌ٴyuc w;݆f }ڼy]]cOO;`K"IENDB``!O?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~iRoot Entry  F`94N˺Data *WordDocumentfObjectPool"tM˺`94N˺_1187787238 FtM˺M˺Ole 1TablevCompObjq   FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q     ! h#$%&'()+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgsklmnopqruvwxyz{~,8@8 Normal_HmHsHtH@ Heading 1W$$ & F & M + B<&d @&P a$5CJ$KHmH sH u@ Heading 2P$ & F & M + BB<@&^B`5;CJmH sH u~@~ Heading 3@$ & F & M + B<@&5CJmH sH u@ Heading 4F$$ & F & M + B<@&a$5CJmH nHsH tHuH@H Heading 6 & F<@&6CJH@H Heading 7 & F<@&OJQJL@L Heading 8 & F<@& 6OJQJL @L Heading 9 <@&56CJOJQJDA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List HB@H Body Text $xa$CJnHtHuN&N Footnote ReferenceCJH*mH sH u||  Balloon Text1$ & M + Ba$CJOJQJmH sH uv"v  Footnote Text1$ & M + Ba$CJmH sH u4OA24 Typografi4CJ6OB6 Fodnote tekstPOQP Brdtekst TegnCJ_HmHnHsHtHu<ORa< Fodnote tekst TegnROqR Fodnotetekst TegnCJ_HmH sH tHu4 @4 Footer  %.)@.  Page Number8OA8 Typografi1CJaJ8OA8 Typografi2CJaJ8OA8 Typografi3CJaJTOT Overskrift 3 Tegn5CJ_HmH sH tHu,X@, Emphasis6(W@( Strong588 TOC 1 xx 5;\22 TOC 2 !^:44 TOC 3 "^6]66 TOC 4 #X^XCJaJ66 TOC 5 $ ^ CJaJ66 TOC 6 %^CJaJ66 TOC 7 &^CJaJ66 TOC 8 'x^xCJaJ66 TOC 9 (@^@CJaJ6U@6  Hyperlink >*B*ph<P@<  Body Text 2 *dx>Q@>  Body Text 3+xCJaJ  z! y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0TT 8@0(  B S  ?   /b8 Y}m~H7~ PCv'O F= > zc *#ffmvAy3 u&d |mf  Jd(qzE:-ڈ|".@j>. IC06`B1Hv8`J8149X24; ?lj27@ zEgBPq[DrDPDgI=M O*2O cd mPjWAy4_.Y}7~ Jd(kn2OW3=wE:-\Q|0?IC0u&d a#149'sef 3b824;F=c> nEgBrDdnf".4_27@DgIM~*}fO M OmvjWHv8fkg//D-DN @t@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"pLL  !r4d pCHX  ?DN2ycarlycarl/                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . ObjInfo OlePres000$WordDocument *SummaryInformation( ` bjbj * LLLLLLL8 " rh:::::qqqqqqq$shu>qLqLL::q[[[L:L:q[q[[&lLLiq:. 1G+pdqq0rqd,v;,viq,vLiq [qqQ rD`tLLLLLL October 2005      hDNjhDNU hDNCJ  $a$  (/ =!"#$% Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`ycarlNormalycarl2Microsoft Office Word@@0:N@ZG@ZG DocumentSummaryInformation8"_1188220180 FM˺M˺Ole 1Table*5{՜.+,0 hp  European Parliament   Title,8@8 Normal_HmHsHtH Heading 1W$$ & F & M + B<&d @&P a$5CJ$KHmH sH u Heading 2P$ & F & M + BB<@&^B`5;CJmH sH u~~ Heading 3@$ & F & M + B<@&5CJmH sH u Heading 4F$$ & F & M + B<@&a$5CJmH nHsH tHuHH Heading 6 & F<@&6CJHH Heading 7 & F<@&OJQJLL Heading 8 & F<@& 6OJQJL L Heading 9 <@&56CJOJQJDAD Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List HBH Body Text $xa$CJnHtHuN&N Footnote ReferenceCJH*mH sH u||  Balloon Text1$ & M + Ba$CJOJQJmH sH uv"v  Footnote Text1$ & M + Ba$CJmH sH u4A24 Typografi4CJ6B6 Fodnote tekstPQP Brdtekst TegnCJ_HmHnHsHtHu<Ra< Fodnote tekst TegnRqR Fodnotetekst TegnCJ_HmH sH tHu4 4 Footer  %.).  Page Number8A8 Typografi1CJaJ8A8 Typografi2CJaJ8A8 Typografi3CJaJTT Overskrift 3 Tegn5CJ_HmH sH tHu,X, Emphasis6(W( Strong588 TOC 1 xx 5;\22 TOC 2 !^:44 TOC 3 "^6]66 TOC 4 #X^XCJaJ66 TOC 5 $ ^ CJaJ66 TOC 6 %^CJaJ66 TOC 7 &^CJaJ66 TOC 8 'x^xCJaJ66 TOC 9 (@^@CJaJ6U6  Hyperlink >*B*ph<P<  Body Text 2 *dx>Q>  Body Text 3+xCJaJ   z45Tu Z       Z Z45Tu000000000y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0 8@0( k B S  ?"j|#jD$j V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags_*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/  TWuw::5T5:/b8 Y}m~H7~ PCv'O F= > zc *#ffmvAy3 u&d |mf  Jd(qzE:-ڈ|".@j>. IC06`B1Hv8`J8149X24; ?lj27@ zEgBPq[DrDPDgI=M O*2O cd mPjWAy4_.Y}7~ Jd(kn2OW3=wE:-\Q|0?IC0u&d a#149'sef 3b824;F=c> nEgBrDdnf".4_27@DgIM~*}fO M OmvjWHv8fkg//`wV;5YU@p@Unknowngz Times New RomanTimes New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana5& zaTahoma;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"Ltf!24dpCHX* ?`23Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to:ycarlrmclean/                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . CompObjqObjInfoOlePres000 $WordDocumentj*  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qOh+'0t` bjbj * LLLLLLL^^^8  uuuuuuuu$]whyBuLNNNBuLLWuNLLuNu&`pLLt Py7^^(tdt$mu0uttdmz(mztmzLt 0"KBuBuuNNNND^^`tLLLLLL Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to: XXXIV Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union 9-10 October 2005 London, United Kingdom     45h`hwV;jhwV;Uh`CJOJQJmH sH h`CJOJQJmH sH h`OJQJmH sH 45Tu $ da$$a$(. =!"#$% SummaryInformation(tDocumentSummaryInformation8}_1188220161  FM˺M˺Ole  Oh+'0  ( H T ` lx4Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to:ycarlNormalrmclean3Microsoft Office Word@F#@0:N@SG@4h7՜.+,0, hp  European Parliament 4Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to: Title1TablexCompObj qObjInfo OlePres000$,8@8 Normal_HmHsHtH Heading 1W$$ & F & M + B<&d @&P a$5CJ$KHmH sH u Heading 2P$ & F & M + BB<@&^B`5;CJmH sH u~~ Heading 3@$ & F & M + B<@&5CJmH sH u Heading 4F$$ & F & M + B<@&a$5CJmH nHsH tHuHH Heading 6 & F<@&6CJHH Heading 7 & F<@&OJQJLL Heading 8 & F<@& 6OJQJL L Heading 9 <@&56CJOJQJDAD Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List HBH Body Text $xa$CJnHtHuN&N Footnote ReferenceCJH*mH sH u||  Balloon Text1$ & M + Ba$CJOJQJmH sH uv"v  Footnote Text1$ & M + Ba$CJmH sH u4A24 Typografi4CJ6B6 Fodnote tekstPQP Brdtekst TegnCJ_HmHnHsHtHu<Ra< Fodnote tekst TegnRqR Fodnotetekst TegnCJ_HmH sH tHu4 4 Footer  %.).  Page Number8A8 Typografi1CJaJ8A8 Typografi2CJaJ8A8 Typografi3CJaJTT Overskrift 3 Tegn5CJ_HmH sH tHu,X, Emphasis6(W( Strong588 TOC 1 xx 5;\22 TOC 2 !^:44 TOC 3 "^6]66 TOC 4 #X^XCJaJ66 TOC 5 $ ^ CJaJ66 TOC 6 %^CJaJ66 TOC 7 &^CJaJ66 TOC 8 'x^xCJaJ66 TOC 9 (@^@CJaJ6U6  Hyperlink >*B*ph<P@<  Body Text 2 *dx>Q>  Body Text 3+xCJaJq  zq#.brO/ O/ O/ O/  K#.Dbcefhiklnor*0*0*0*0*08y00y00y00y00y00y00y00y00;<br@0 009 qqp8@0(  B S  ?DKcr#%Dacr:.Dabcr.DDK`r/b8 Y}m~H7~ PCv'O F= > zc *#ffmvAy3 u&d |mf  Jd(qzE:-ڈ|".@j>. IC06`B1Hv8`J8149X24; ?lj27@ zEgBPq[DrDPDgI=M O*2O cd mPjWAy4_.Y}7~ Jd(kn2OW3=wE:-\Q|0?IC0u&d a#149'sef 3b824;F=c> nEgBrDdnf".4_27@DgIM~*}fO M OmvjWHv8fkg//cY4katl=i}mI;|br@DD1pDDq@Unknowngz Times New RomanTimes New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"tftfTTA24daag CQHX  ?|2ycarlrmclean/                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . WordDocument*SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation81Table` qbjbj *c LLLLLLLT8: F s^^^^^999's)s)s)s)s)s)s$0uhwBMsL99999MsLL^^bs9L^L^'s9's&cnLLr^R 07U(rdsxs0swrdw}(wrwLr89999999MsMs(999s9999D`tLLLLLL Annex to the 4th biannual report of COSAC: National Parliaments' replies to the questionnaire     +.ABCDK`abcdfgijlmpqh|jh|Uh|5CJ mH sH "hcY4hcY45CJ$\aJ$mH sH h=i}5CJ$mH sH h;5CJ$mH sH hI5CJ$mH sH htl5CJ$mH sH #.Dbcefhiklnopq*$a$gdcY4*$ a$cp(- =!"#$% Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`ycarlNormalrmclean2Microsoft Office Word@@0:N@4h7@4h7T՜.+,0 hp  European Parliamenta  TitlecDҩTs-3XZ Dd b  c $A? ?3"`?2 @6_,ES,C|0c"`!@6_,ES,C|0 Q(xڝTOA3h)4HRaKȇ-֚ &`PғNu[K /у /r21xjbC}3m*ݗ7;͛РӰ1>T e͓ۘaA^BJ'Hߞq ϲ c_SB8* $*mLۄ>?Qev*F0FMW4MW> ^*3]ix-a{eHAEPz[qXR:EȢpřYW~؏| 2g3hπDI|ڼ6E 'r_3 yB*6/9v]® س-oAUyXE 8JcPͷ((#0D"$'WT1u4:,HYmNyCr{͋i-E&B&NѬBPqDZk=+C>-4惷AW0K0 ۰ Uמ̙;/ѻDd b  c $A? ?3"`?2ODks<ܞ^E9+9&`!#Dks<ܞ^E9(B  N76xڝSAN@3Nb(H20-]l "PĆȱI쨩nZvCTTz.?Nyfy<3 <6A=9| fBiQ2_.:Z{ab$|)Nd ow}}6wKe~ґ3չV's'~G@~Q aI0rVT,]t%Vkr H$m)Z\h Wm2vb[~W[\:G)OyŹa DO^ED4Iw[Ԛ8хKs#?U?WXɕcnL;?šcd _x>DI|}̢ۢ*056ˤ̤_ejkԥ45O̧%bǨ'jk qrëqw|}~89NdMN޲xy89ST$DEY9:ijDJKrs u@;vuvY|4:7=>12G]*+`a+,45[\klhiw}~NOgh-/pqtu*MN./&' !p;<}UV-.H[ !de>?Ft6 qrWXYW X     g h }     ] ^      +,op;<   ## $ $%&'''B(C(~((((((9***,,--!-&-8-<-A-h-l-q-r-s-. ...y.//0J001 23332334E4w444 5M5N5555566:8;899 :/:3:8:Z:^:c:H;I;;;<<<= ===b=c=====l>m>>?@@@@AA^AdAiAjABBBBgCmCrCDDDDFF4F5F6FGGGDHHHH:J;JCJDJJJ$M%MMMNN#NNNNNN:OsOtOPPQQQQRR"R.R9R`RkRvRwR SS SYSZS[SS$U%UVVVVhWWW0XcXXXYY=YEYLYMYZZ[[h[[[[[[[\\]]]^ ^ ^G^H^^^^^```1aaaObPbbbbbbbcVcWcXc`dadfdgdhdwexeee*OJQJ^Jh@h #m Overskrift 3$<@&&5CJOJQJ\^JaJmHsHtHP@P (C7 Overskrift 4$<@&5CJ\aJT@T (C7 Overskrift 5 <@&56CJ\]aJN@N (C7 Overskrift 6 <@&5CJ\aJ@@ (C7 Overskrift 7 <@&NA@N Standardskrifttype i afsnitViV Tabel - Normal4 l4a 6k6Ingen oversigt4U@4 #m Hyperlink >*phC@ #mBrdtekstindrykning9$ & M + Bh^ha$mH sH R@ #mBrdtekstindrykning 2<$ ) M + B^a$mH sH S@" #mBrdtekstindrykning 39$ & M + B^a$6]mH sH @/2@ (C7 Opstilling^`D2BD (C7 Opstilling 26^6`D3RD (C7 Opstilling 3Q^Q`P0bP (C7Opstilling - punkttegn  & FT6rT (C7Opstilling - punkttegn 2  & F T7T (C7Opstilling - punkttegn 3  & F T8T (C7Opstilling - punkttegn 4  & F 2B@2 (C7 BrdtekstxN (C7#Brdtekst - frstelinjeindrykning 29$  M + Bx^`a$mH sH @ (Normal indrykning4$ SO dhx1$^a$CJOJQJhmHsHN^@N j=C Normal (Web)dd[$\$ mH%sH%tH%>>@> yTitel$a$5\mHsHtHVP@V i1 Brdtekst 2$a$5CJOJQJ\^JaJtH<@< *L Fodnotetekst CJaJ>&@> *LFodnotehenvisningH*F@F N?mIndholdsfortegnelse 1"~ @` @`cJ ;ys&qmeh^M ] X  M  E F ' ( c i n  CDefIJKe;x=!",-;tMpv{#()}~*, 2 7 8 {!|!{"|"""##;$<$f%g%&&&''k(l((()*++++,,,,,,.11`2a233445555566"6(6A6H6N6O6777 77:;<==6==!>>m?@@bAcAAAAASCTCCC?D@DDDEE"E)E/ELFMFGGUGVGGGGGGHHHHHIIjJoJpJJJKKAKBKLLL$N)N*NOOPPQQR R&R'R4SmSnSTBVCVV>X?XZZZZZ]]"^#^^___[`\`````bffffg g!g(g.gGgNgTgUghh%h&hh kkllll\mm_nnoSppp4q;qAqBqrsstItOtUtptwt}tuHvIvJvvvvvwwrxsxtxxyy.z3z4zjzzzzz[|_|`||||_@FG|Ϋӫիd,-?MN,AB͵εʹ˹=>KL_`~tu345pv|MN$%%&ij`qr0123efKL,-pq\_#NSe"*7 J|RSz{"'(;AFG./DZfg  NOTZoHI)*@A|G j   apv{^dijA(Z01gmrs#FMRtzdNOOPFG\r)*   K""""5#6#$*%3%%%%%&J&K&&&&&&&)(*(`(a(()")\*]***++ , ,n-o---.>.?.///708022b3c3y33333r4s4444555n678u9v99999999#:):3:u:v: ;#;(;);;<==*==>=>o>>>?E?F?|???`@a@ArBsBBBBBCC CDDsDyD~DDDIEOETEUEjEFGGpGqGGGHH H=H>HFIJIKIZJJJKzL{LLLL9NNNPPPQRRRRRT+UiUjU X XXYYYY3Z4Z]_````cfii3i4iViWijjilorrsssss(t)tdtjtottt\u]uvv7w8wwwwwwwwwwwwy yyy_zezjzkzzz@{||}}"}}}5~g~~~~=>tzO 06; _`̓Ӄ؃ك/0ƅ˅̅Ɉ߉fgGMRɌʌaglɔʔ-.DEQW\ ̠֠͠נz|SCRX]ouz@FKL  xUz^_ӱٱޱ :;,-flqr $:rx}~¹ouzijʾ˾./J>?pq34?BJKjUIbhi01>?KL`aEF%mn+,/\]d)/4{| H()89opwx6?RSYZ(o7=~DE]^>? !%cdUV~CIN8j)*yPQTU      2    - h      !"#t23cdjkNTYZyz89FGi j   q"r"""^#_#####)$*$$$$$%%&&&&&&''((7)8)****I+J+++B-C----d0e000 18191H111 2P3U333555S66688K9Z9`9e9w9}999999H:N:S:T::<<8<<=K=}===>S>T>>>>>??F@i@o@t@@@@AAAAABBBBBBCHDYDZD[DDDDD"E'EYEZEbFcFFFGGHHJJ}J~JJJ K KFLGL_M`MMMOOOOOO6P7PQQGRRR'U(UUUV-VIVfVgVqVVVV7W=WBWWWW,Y-YvYwYYYYYYYY#Z)Z.Z/Z      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~ZZZ[[p[\\\\]]]^L^^^^"_#_Y___d_e_``a8a>aCaeakapaUbVbbbbb_cecjcccc eeeeeef%f*fcfdfgg!h'h,h-hgiiiijjjjJlKlPlQlll m mnnooqq-rrssssssss0titjtuuvvvvwwww$wKwQwVwWwxx[yayfygyyyy^{_{||-||}@}r}}}~H~I~~~~~<_ej|}qr uv"#{| HI Fbcƌnj)$%NOghJPUՒ֒?@jkȕΕӕ"#dĘŘyUȟAB\١2oԢ4wxѥ!',Ϩfg*+WXծ֮A67:W"'nJKƴ̴Ѵ۵ܵE6 I{QR̻ͻ+,}ͽӽؽ-.8>C~+,EF|}LMUVefbhn%&GL,-^_%&[\./rsU[`Q;<*hi  "9rs/>DI[af,27pq:; #6h>?u{VW]^hns[\Y_dXY(cd|}@C#$/ 0   Y Z #7Mxy{bc}S0U2cd!!o"##K#L###$$%&&''+(x())9**J+++o,p,---.//B111B28393455k888899:P::<I===>>>f?g?????JAVAWAAAAAAAABBBBCbDFFFGGGHLHHHH"I#IYIlImIJLL8M[MmNPPQQfRwRxRSTTTU[VVVVVWWX%X&X5Y;Y 0^0^0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^> 0^V 0^0^0^V 0^0^0^V 0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^0^> 0^0^0^0^0^0^> 0 ^0^0^0^0^0^0^> 0 ^0^0^0^(0V0? 000000? 0000? 0000? 0000? 000000? 0000? 000? 000? 0(0V(0V00000000(005F 050505F 0505050505050505F 05W 05W 05W 0505F 0505F 0505050505050505050505050505050505F 0505F 050505F 050505050505F 0505F 0 50505050505F 0 50505(0(00R"G 0R"0R"G 0R"0R"G 0R"0R"0R"G 0R"0R"0R"D 0R"D 0R"D 0R"D 0R"D 0R"D 0R"D 0R"0R"G 0R"0R"0R"0R"0R"G 0R"0R"0R"G 0R"0R"0R"G 0R"0R"0R"G 0R"0R"(00404040404E 04E 04E 04E 04E 04E 04E 040404040(0=0>B 0>0>0>0>B 0>0>0>B 0>X 0>0>X 0>0>X 0>0>0>B 0>0>0>B 0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>B 0>0>0>B 0>0>0>B 0>0>0>0>0>0>0>B 0>0>0>B 0 >0>0>0>0>B 0 >0>(0=(0=0UC 0U0UC 0U0U0UC 0U0U0UC 0U0U0U0UC 0U0U0U0U0UC 0U0U0UC 0U0U0UC 0U0U0UC 0U0U(0=0c0c0c0c 0c 0c 0c 0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0(0ih0qhg 0qh0qh0qh0qh0qh(0ih0ii 0i0i0i0i0ii 0i0i0ii 0i0i0ii 0i0i0i0ii 0i0i0i0ii 0i0i0ii 0i0ii 0i0i0ii 0i0j(0h0vu0vu0vu0vu0vu@ 000@0y00@0y00@0y00@0y00@0@0@0@0y00H 000000 ; ' ( c i n  CDefIJKe;x=!",-;tMpv{#()}~*, 2 7 8 {!|!{"|"""##;$<$f%g%&&&''k(l((()*++++,,,,,,.11`2a233445555566"6(6A6H6N6O6777 77:;<==6==!>>m?@@bAcAAAAASCTCCC?D@DDDEE"E)E/ELFMFGGUGVGGGGGGHHHHHIIjJoJpJJJKKAKBKLLL$N)N*NOOPPQQR R&R'R4SmSnSTBVCVV>X?XZZZZZ]]"^#^^___[`\`````bffffg g!g(g.gGgNgTgUghh%h&hh kkllll\mm_nnoSppp4q;qAqBqrsstItOtUtptwt}tuHvIvJvvvvvwwrxsxtxxyy.z3z4zjzzzzz[|_|`|||||}5~6~)*߂9:z{ x>DI|}̢ۢ*056ˤ̤_ejkԥ45O̧%bǨ'jk qrëqw|}~89NdMN޲xy89ST$DEY9:ijDJKrs u@;vuvY|4:7=>12G]*+`a+,45[\klhiw}~NOgh-/pqtu*MN./     +,op;<   ## $ $%&''#NNNNNN:OsOtOPPQQQQRR"R.R9R`RkRvRwR SS SYSZS[SS$U%UVVVVhWWW0XcXXXYY=YEYLYMYZZ[[h[[[[[[[\\]]]^ ^ ^G^H^^^^^```1aaaObPbbbbbbbcVcWcXc`dadfdgdhdwexeeeKL_`~tu345pv|MN$%%&ij`qr0123efKL,-pq\_#NSe"*7 J|RSz{"'(;AFG./DZfg  NOTZoHI)*@A|G j   apv{^dijA(Z01gmrs#FMRtzdNOOPFG\r)*   K""""5#6#$*%3%%%%%&J&K&&&&&&&)(*(`(a(()")\*]***++ , ,n-o---.>.?.///708022b3c3y33333r4s4444555n678u9v99999999#:):3:u:v: ;#;(;);;<==*==>=>o>>>?E?F?|???`@a@ArBsBBBBBCC CDDsDyD~DDDIEOETEUEjEFGGpGqGGGHH H=H>HFIJIKIZJJJKzL{LLLL9NNNPPPQRRRRRT+UiUjU X XXYYYY3Z4Z]_````cfii3i4iViWijjilorrsssss(t)tdtjtottt\u]uvv7w8wwwwwwwwwwwwy yyy_zezjzkzzz@{||}}"}}}5~g~~~~=>tzO 06; _`̓Ӄ؃ك/0ƅ˅̅Ɉ߉fgGMRɌʌaglɔʔ-.DEQW\ ̠֠͠נz|SCRX]ouz@FKL  xUz^_ӱٱޱ :;,-flqr $:rx}~¹ouzijʾ˾./J>?pq34?BJKjUIbhi01>?KL`aEF%mn+,/\]d)/4{| H()89opwx6?RSYZ(o7=~DE]^>? !%cdUV~CIN8j)*yPQTU      2    - h      !"#t23cdjkNTYZyz89FGi j   q"r"""^#_#####)$*$$$$$%%&&&&&&''((7)8)****I+J+++B-C----d0e000 18191H111 2P3U333555S66688K9Z9`9e9w9}999999H:N:S:T::<<8<<=K=}===>S>T>>>>>??F@i@o@t@@@@AAAAABBBBBBCHDYDZD[DDDDD"E'EYEZEbFcFFFGGHHJJ}J~JJJ K KFLGL_M`MMMOOOOOO6P7PQQGRRR'U(UUUV-VIVfVgVqVVVV7W=WBWWWW,Y-YvYwYYYYYYYY#Z)Z.Z/ZZZZ[[p[\\\\]]]^L^^^^"_#_Y___d_e_``a8a>aCaeakapaUbVbbbbb_cecjcccc eeeeeef%f*fcfdfgg!h'h,h-hgiiiijjjjJlKlPlQlll m mnnooqq-rrssJPUՒ֒?@jkȕΕӕ"#dĘŘyUȟAB\١2oԢ4wxѥ!',Ϩfg*+WXծ֮A67:W"'nJKƴ̴Ѵ۵ܵE6 I{QR̻ͻ+,}ͽӽؽ-.8>C~+,EF|}LMUVefbhn%&GL,-^_%&[\./rsU[`Q;<*hi  "9rs/>DI[af,27pq:; #6h>?u{VXY(*i{00{00{00{00{00{00@0@0 @00@0@0 @0*@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0*@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0 @0*@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0*@0@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>@ 0x>@0x>@0x>*@0@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N @0*@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@ 0S@ 0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@ 0S@ 0S@ 0 S@ 0 S@ 0 S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0 S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0 S@0S@0S*@0S@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@ 0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn@0Jn @0*@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0 @0@0@ 0 @0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0*@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0*@0r@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0 @0@ 0 @0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0*@0r@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0*@0r@0*@0r@0@0@0@0@0@0@0{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00{00@0=P*@0-@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@ 0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz|}~T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0 T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0 T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T@0T@ 0T@0T@0T @0*@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @ 0 @ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0*@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0*@0@0k@0k@0k@0k@0k@0k@0k@0k@0k@0k @0*@0k@0~@ 0~@0~@0~@ 0~@0~@0~@0~@0~@ 0~@ 0~:@0~@ 0M:@0~@ 0j:@0~@0@ 0J@0@0S@ 0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@0S@ 0S@ 0S@ 0S@ 0S@ 0S@ 0S@0S@ 0S:@0~@0 @ 0 @0 @0 @0 @ 0 @0 :@0~@0":@0~@0B@ 0B@0B@ 0 B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B@0B*@0k*@0k@0j@0j@0j@0j@0j@ 0j@0j@0jZ@0jZ@0j@0@ 0:@0j@0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @ 0 @0 @0 @0 @ 0 @0 @0 @0 @ 0 @0 @0 @0 @ 0 @0 @0 *@0k@0(@0(@0(@0(@0(@ 0(@0(@ 0(@0(@0=P@0T @0@0/v*@0/v@0:v@0:v@ 0:v@0:v@0:v@0:v@0:v@0:v@0:v*@0/v@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@0w@ 0w@0w@0w@0w*@0/v@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0*@0n@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@ 0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0 x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0 x@0x@0x*@0n*@0n@0u@ 0u@0u@0u@0u@ 0u@0u@0u@0u@ 0u@0u@0u@0u@0u@0u@ 0u@0u@0u@0u@ 0u@0u@0u@0u@ 0u@0u@0u@0u@ 0u@0u@0u*@0n@0ӱ@0ӱ@0ӱ@0ӱ@0ӱ@0ӱ @0*@0Ķ@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@ 0˶@0˶@0˶@ 0˶@0˶@0˶@ 0 ˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0 ˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@0˶@! 0 ˶@0˶*@0Ķ@0N@" 0N@0N@0N@0N@" 0N@0N@0N@0N@" 0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@" 0N@0N@0N@" 0N@0N@0N@" 0N@0N@0@0@0@# 0@0@0@0@0*@0Ķ@0@$ 0@0@0@0@$ 0@0@0@0@$ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@$ 0@0@0@0@$ 0@0@0@0@$ 0@0@0@$ 0@0@0*@0Ķ@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0*@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@% 0@ 0!@0@0@ 0"@0@0@ 0#@0@0@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@0@% 0@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@% 0@0@0@0@0@% 0 @0@0@0@0@0@% 0 @0@0@0*@0@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D@0D@& 0D@0D*@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0  @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0*@0g#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@ 0$n#@0n#@0n#@ 0%n#@0n#@0n#@ 0&n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0 n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@' 0 n#@0n#@0n#@0n#@0n#*@0g#@0:@( 0:@0:@0:@0:@0:@( 0:@0:@0:@0:@0:@0:@( 0:@0:@0:@0:@0:@0:@0:@( 0:@0:@0:@0:@( 0:@0:@0:@0:@( 0:@0:@0:@0:@( 0:@0:@0:*@0g# @0*@0_K@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@) 0iK@) 0iK@) 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@ 0'iK@0iK@0iK@ 0(iK@0iK@0iK@ 0)iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0 iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@0iK@* 0 iK@0iK@0iK@0iK*@0_K@0g@+ 0g@0g@0g@0g@+ 0g@0g@0g@0g@+ 0g@0g@0g@0g@0g@0g@0g@+ 0g@0g@0_K@0bn@+ 0bn@0bn@0bn@0bn@+ 0bn:@0bn@0*r@+ 0*r@0*r@0*r*@0bn@0pt@0pt@0pt@0pt*@0bn*@0bn@0w @0*@0x@0x@- 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@ 0x@ 0x@ 0x@ 0x@ 0x@ 0x@0x@- 0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@0x@- 0x@0x@0x@0x*@0x@. 0@0@0@. 0@0@0@0@. 0@0@0@0@. 0@0@0@0@. 0@0@0@0@. 0*@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@, 0@, 0@0 @0*@0@@0F@/ 0F@0F@0F@0F@0F*@0@@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0 0_@0_@0_@0_@0 0_ @0*@0@0@1 0@0@0@0@0*@0@0@2 0@0@0@0@0@2 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@2 0@0@0@0@2 0@0@0@0@2 0@0@0@0@2 0*@0*@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0*@0P@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@ 0*i@0i@0i@ 0+i@0i@0i@ 0,i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0 i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@0i@3 0 i@0i@0i@0i*@0P@0@4 0@0@0@0@0@0@4 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@4 0@0@0@0@4 0@0@0@4 0@0@0@0@4 0@0@0 @0*@0@0@5 0@0@0@0*@0@0@7 0@0@0@0@7 0@0@0@0@7 0@0@0@0@0@0@7 0@0@0@0@7 0@0@0@0@7 0@0@0@0@7 0@0@0*@0@0v@0v@0v@0v@0v@6 0v@6 0v@0v @0*@03@08@8 08@08@08@08@08@8 08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@8 08@ 0-8@08@08@ 0.8@08@08@ 0/8@08@08@08@8 08@08@08@08@8 08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@8 08@08@08@08@8 08@08@8 08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@08@8 08@08@08@08@8 0 8@08@08@08@08@08@8 0 8@08@08@08*@03@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N@0N@9 0N@0N@0N*@03@0<@0<@0<@0<@0<@0<@0<@0<@0<@0< @0*@0\@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@ 00e@0e@0e@ 01e@0e@0e@ 02e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0 e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@: 0 e@0e@0e@0e@0e@; 0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@; 0e@0e@; 0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@0e@; 0e@0e@0e@0e@; 0e@0e@0e@0e@; 0e@0e@0e@0e@; 0e@0e*@0\@0o@0o@0o@0o@0o@0o@0o @0*@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@ 03#@0#@0#@ 04#@0#@0#@ 05#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0 #@0#@0#@0#@0#@0#@< 0 #@0#*@0#@09=@= 09=@09=@09=@= 09=@09=@09=@09=@= 09=@09=@09=@09=@= 09=@09=@09=@= 09=@09=@09= @0*@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0 @0@0@0*@0@0y@ 0y@0y@0y@0y@0y@0y@ 0y@0y@ 0y@0y@ 0y@0y@0y@0y@ 0y@0y@0y@0y@0y@ 0y@0y@ 0y@0y@ 0y@0y@ 0y*@0*@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0*@0G@0 G@> 0 G@0 G@0 G@0 G@0 G@0 G*@0G@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H@? 0_H@0_H@0_H*@0G@0jS@0jS@0jS@0jS@0jS@0jS@0jS @0*@0ZW@0bW@@ 0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@@ 0bW@0bW@0bW@@ 0bW@ 06bW@0bW@0bW@ 07bW@0bW@0bW@ 08bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@@ 0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@@ 0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@@ 0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@0bW@@ 0bW@@ 0bW@@ 0bW{00{00{00{00{00@0{000  l : 0K*w!'4|F?LSbNoxiew` }92@^IV`OjGyp*g A!-07=sLThs~ ʔR(D~ ",0;FQ=a>k'rv}e^ӽw_Q;t []),6wUi|mtDDEHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[`ehjmqsvy}   $)+.379<?CGKNQSW\_bfhjlnpswy}XCf!$'+04">6E?LORW&Z?`[hUovI|s[ߊz̯9Y7,w.?  ,47=DIrK:RVY[LafPjhlqfvy}nvacA>iSZO G" &*-06c;vAEITMFQV+]k(|̍RWF-2JUn9 ) dZ#'**.27?HDHMP UY_vcpejmqsKvyB yG_}\j<p>  _-#*16 ;BKRY``iunw |ψDDFIX\]^_abcdfgiklnoprtuwxz{|~   !"#%&'(*,-/0124568:;=>@ABDEFHIJLMOPRTUVXYZ[]^`acdegikmoqrtuvxz{|~DG4Xtvwy8Qmpqs #$&FOknoq   /Kgjkm;C_bce6Fbefh 1<X[\^~+GJKMm  + : V Z [ ] }  5 Q U V X x  " * F J K M m    F f n !>{>>>#?k?m??@@o@@@A`Am n]n_nnnnYooopQpSppp-xxxx/ywyyyyz!z{zzz'{l{ik  e ]_UWGIO X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%̕XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ! ;=@[]c:::_2$@6_,ES,C|0.J$b$ŒQ%My"*M2$O>>>>>>>.i.i  !"#$%&'()/0*+,-.123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ++++++++________nwwwwwww'''''''"N"N"N"N"N-p6p6p6p6p6p6p6p       2%2%2%2%2%2%2%33333333YYYYYYYYi2i2i2i2i2i2i2issssssss>>>>>>>cccccccb}}}}}}}""""""""@1G1G1G1G1G1G1G1pVpVpVpVpVpVpVsssssssiOOOVV!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>4i4i"" TI#" I$" <%" &"  '" I(" 6)" I*" {+" _ ," t؆-" ؆." ؆/" 0" d1" 2" T3" 4" D5" L6" 7" 8" i~9"l~:" l~;" 4n~<" tp~=" p~>" p~?" 4q~@"  A" B" HC" ~ D" $u~E" du~F" u~G" tH" TI" 4J" bK" ,(=L" LM" qN" DO"P" L݃Q" L^R"|NS" T" UU" V" <W" 4نX" dY" ,xZ" e" Yf" lׂg" fh" ;i" 䬂j" ԭk" |Ml" m" n" To" Ttp" \fq" Dr" $2s" d2t" <΂u" |΂v" ,mw"%x" <&y" lz" l{" ${|" d{}" z~" <{" V " \V " ,-" l-" 7" 7" d" " l>" ,9" l9" 9" 9",:" l: " : "ɂ " ɂ " ,ʂ " lʂ" ʂ" ʂ" ,˂" l˂" |o" o" o" 1>LLNNWWWWW X XHXXXXXXXX""VV@@RR44r+%+%y2y233===>>I>I>>>>>>>WWYYss}}} ~ ~A~A~~~~~~~yy66=ʞ7FF6BBԹԹUUa44;;WWJ Y Y      " " I U U Vb""x,,,00:1:1<<<#=#=W=W=======TT]]]]]&^&^d^t^t^^^^DqDqssXxXx_x|||}}L}L}}}}}}}hhQQ]ddpGG{{ɢɢ3??;;˹ڹڹ!!UUʺֺֺBB!!hhC*C*J* 8 8>>>>GGGGG&H&HdHtHtHHHHLLL[[8g8g.i.inxnx{{{{{{{2|2|9|      !"#$%&'()*,+-/.0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{z|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDFEGIHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ ..WW  ))?? nAAuuĨĨ&&MVV_(88^ggii::nn)#)#a1l1l1333$4$4X4X44444448>8>LL"N"NWWWWWXXPX`X`XXXX))]]BBFFYY ;;z2%2%2233===>>P>P>>>>>>>WWYYss}}}~~H~H~~~~~~~<BBƞӞӞ>kkȮȮ=FFܹ]jj>>@@bbQ ~ ~      * * P Y Y ]f"",,, 0 0@1@1<==*=*=^=^=======TT]]]]]-^-^l^|^|^^^^JqJqss^xgxgx|||}}S}S}}}}}}}ppYeelxx%%NNѢѢ:CCCCҹ((\\ѺںںIIFFoo!!I*O*O*88>>>>GGGGG-H-HlH|H|HHHHLLL[[>g>g4i4itxtx{{{{{{{8|A|A|  !"#$%&'()*,+-/.0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{z|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDFEGIHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeZ*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNamehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/_*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ < 0oBACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-xstyletabIndex D      07nt&4MX!;B#1**>>$?k??@@@p@@AOAQA`AcAAASCTCCCD D>D@DE3YZZZZ]]]]"^#^________``[`\``On]nnnZoopQpppppp@qBqssptԃ9:z{Ŏejafgi!X^ sv$)psTYHK-0aeQW$#&27=>Ksv{$$$$$$$$+(2(X(b())9*B*++++,,--m.w.////&0/0e0n000112334;4A444b5l5556777G7N7d7k7`8i899;;1=:=!>*>??@@dIiISSWWWWXXAYDYB_K_FoKox"xxxxx[ypyzzzz}}ߑ ڝݝ[abhRXY\AD)2z5>?IIRjs' @FDK!VY\_`n$il$$/#/33v66668888 ;;;;;!;==3>9>>>$B.BBBBBB C CCCCDDL LLLSSEYOYggiii&i*i2i6u9u?uFuKuQu}}+~1~~~%&.25ŎƎΎώԎՎݎގcf$))/TZ"ޥBEߪKQmtORձرٳ߳hktwƹ̹kqպۺqthmGMAJkv<AUYis    b e !!k,p,00C1G1.72788y9|999J:M:= =A=G===>>k@n@w@}@~@@@@@@AAHHQQYYYY%Z(ZZZ]]^^^^[_^_bb#h&hmm||6}<}}}~~.3'.ek  LO`e?E@Lqv .1,2wzjo36ILtw 5AHO*-k,n,g/o/P2X244c<m<??BBGGHHHHZI]I_IbIcIeIfIjIKKKKOOgRiRrRuRWWaacc/p;pttyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzz}}  ;> F i j <PVvw~, - 2 3 ,!/!""""%%&&,,,,555566"6#6A6B6H6I67777JAOAAAAA.D>DDDEE"E#E)E*EGGGGHHHHJJKKMMRR R!R````ffgg!g"g(g)gGgHgNgOghhh hpp4q5q;q?DEadjpۢܢ*+01_aeg&ƫ̫qswy޲߲,DEv\b|}4978]`wx   #$$((!-"-<-=-A-P-l-m- . .00114 555::3:4:;:A:^:_: = ===^A_A^BaBmCnCoErENNNNQRRR"R#R.R/R9RHR`RaRkRlR S SSSXX=Y>YEYFYk[q[[[[[[[[[[[]]^^^^^^bbbbddffShThYhZhii2j5jAqBqsstt3t4tuuV{[{{{~~~~ȁɁPQpqj#$NOef"$;<ABTVZ\pqvwdegi&,MNU[z{(/? B %%%%&&&&''(())8+;+4444999999999 :#:$:):*: ; ;#;%;>?|?}???BBBBBBBBCCCCsDtDyDzDIEJEOEPEHHHHIIKK>LDLLLLL\O_O3j>jAnossdtetjtktwwwwwwwwwwwwww_z`zezfzzz||~~tuz{  0268̓΃ӃԃƅDžGHMNz}acgigjQRWXџ՟SZRSXYopuvz@BFHUyӱձٱ۱fhln  rtruuwڽݽBC~bc)*  dg ?A78BIIJh   %*w}NOKN####$$$$%%&&&&M(P(P3Q3S6V6Z9[9`9a9w9x9}9~9999999H:J:N:P:=>>>>>I@O@i@k@o@q@w@}@@@@@AAAABBBBDD"E#E2G5GII^JjJJJJJLLaMM=W>WdYuYYYYY)Z*ZZZ^^Y_[_aa8a9aFaLaeafabbbb_c`cf f%f&fXg[g'h)hjjl m1rArr sssvvwwwww w$w3wKwLwQwRwayby}~?E_`ms=E    =@PQΕϕ3ԥڥ'(45۬"#̴ʹѴ ӽԽ89Z]bc#&UV DEabfu24{}16hi_` M\0T'%*%''-.0.F1L1AAHHK`L;MAMPP]V}VXX0Z3Z]]hh&k+kMmPmooqqyyzaj  33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333;XyQs&OqKmCeFh<^+M : ] 5 X  * M  F n Ke-;~&&,,5O67 7==AAGGHHM*NR'R__``fTgh%hll/m\m4qBqvv[|`|||i~4?ɕcL _`x̢6_k5Oq~9NǿK u|2G,8lw~*'p;  h } ''-s-..32355/:3:^:c:BBGGDHHJ9J;JCJN#NNN:OsOQQRR"R9R`RwR S[SXX=YLY[[[[] ^^^cXcadhdDexeo7ps?tuuuuww~~ %,ތ Ýߞ;hAGիuj#Ne" TobagrG\ K"""6#$$+ ,.?.//335593: ;(;=*=BCOEUEFIJI'JZJLLTTYYi5iss1u]uww}"}O `ɈRalǚC@Lӱޱfsr~ozJZ ?4>^cH9?SoV~y  k>"p"""-C-0 191H1K99H:T:>>ABHD[DGGOOQQIVeVhVpVWWY.ZZ[\]Y_d_bbccee*fcf!h-hLlQlnnnnr sss0tjtvWw|-|~~vѐhՒ"B\Ϩ֮A6:WnK۵6̻L2fL.Q:9r/,pu(d  C#y c}$$%%k,p,--44>>??QAVAABBBZIlIPPgRxRTTWW X&XYv  y< rPh t~ P GT<2N#(CP e"r=?OQd>BtVZ1DdpHbP\ TfM)od51Ce 4 !*K@!.!P[t M"h+$A>#`&&<HZ<'TyNf(zDK *ڗ}$L+h~f,&IW|,0 K,V/i|50#֓\]z1(YD1ޤH2@}43\,4",P=$6(*C+6;7TO<:/6e<! >*SBd~DpJ9FeAG&cnLGAn|HF B|&I$oIF9oJs>{*rKDL;MҘJ.OD 2RhGS;g)^U.DhU t KUF-/]  b_Rp0J`nnC`"?e]a*WiR<Q(95jF*jPZOmt(ymOkgbn>inbDkozmo~e;oJ qh\q¹&mSrv{rR3\MsE$(r _Toc11464666878r _Toc11464666772r _Toc1146466667,r _Toc1146466657&r _Toc1146466647 r _Toc1146466637r _Toc1146466627r _Toc1146466617r _Toc1146466607r _Toc1146466597r _Toc114646658r v^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  European Parliament4IwG QUESTIONNAIRE Titel 8@ _PID_HLINKSA`h~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=frr  |@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=frr v@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=frr }L<http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=gr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=frr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=frr  | @http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=frr v@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=frr }L<http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=gr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=frr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=frr  |@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=frr v@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=frr }L<http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=gr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=frr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=frr  |@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=frr v@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=frr }L<http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=gr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=frr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=909&lang=frr  |@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=823&lang=frr v@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=788&lang=frr }L<http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=585&lang=fr&mode=gr ~@http://www.consilium.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=701&lang=frr 7r _Toc1146466927r _Toc1146466917r _Toc1146466907r _Toc1146466897r _Toc1146466887r _Toc1146466877r _Toc1146466867r _Toc1146466857r _Toc1146466847r _Toc1146466837r _Toc1146466827r _Toc1146466817r _Toc1146466807r _Toc1146466797zr _Toc1146466787tr _Toc114646677^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`OJQJo(h pp^p`OJQJo(oh @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h PP^P`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.^`.pL      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghip^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. ^`o() ^`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH. \ \ ^\ `hH. ,L,^,`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`o()h ^`o(hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. ^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. ^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`o()h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.88^8`o(-h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`o()h ^`o(hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHhPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJQJo(hH ^`hH. pp^p`hH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PP^P`hH. ^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h 88^8`o(hH)h ^`hH.h  L ^ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h xx^x`hH.h HLH^H`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h ^`o()h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. ^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h88^8`OJQJo(hH ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. ^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h TT^T`hH.h $ L$ ^$ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h dd^d`hH.h 44^4`hH.h L^`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. 88^8`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h  ^`o(hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.i&Nf( KUBtn~DV&fMsgbnSBf,K,$y(95jTO<ioI$A>#9oJJ.O<29Fb_1D&8 T(CYve]anLGh =$6M50v  2wGW|,3XH2EhFyADK *$fH&nC`,45g#h qy< |&IV/AG}43S1AGo|HHZ<'U x-/]{r M"e Nf(h9+ )^U9+ moqffC+6xUt *rKhUkoZOmS`10 RS`10 hh        R[                                                                                                                          %%%%%%%%%R[        R[        R[                R[                                 R[                                                                R[        R[                R[                                                        R[                                R[                R[                                                         R[                R[        R[                R[                                R[                                                R[                                                                 R[                        R[                        R[                .>5sFu `S '!LKthyE4-")G}LJahC"X-'V5'U(x);.o1i1f23dX46(C7U79!:q>>|@Bj=CQXDpF2GJJcKL*L[L#oL}O^PR=RXjSOrTUFV GYSYtT[,\]4^^y[_`at:a*+c2e5jk(m#mN?mImXmO rxtswEx^RzsZnn@VVT F}U3BOGgT4.Qk& $_#5g_I >=DaCQY ~cA.,1 S>%JrfnsqH-1(c/tMtn,A%TjUQ{#Dg @k'.J*#k78   E?Y<0m$@ stxy}~ee   w@@@~@ @@ @(@0@8@x@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;Wingdings?Wingdings 2?5 z Courier New3z Times"1hbsI4bsI4 4dww Bq HP ?#m2c QUESTIONNAIREycarliamoknh                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g