Investigation of informal trilogue negotiations since the Lisbon Treaty
25
This difference in definitions is particularly important for our understanding of what happens at the first
reading of the legislative process. As Figure 3 demonstrates, concluding ordinary legislative files at an early
stage of the legislative process is not the same as concluding files by early agreement. The figure presents
early agreements (as percentage) by parliamentary term and stage of conclusion (excluding codification).
29
Although early agreements represent the majority of the files concluded at first reading in the sixth, seventh
and first half of the eighth term, there are always a few files that are not based on an inter-interinstitutional
agreement reached in trilogue.
To give more insight into the nature of the small number of non-early agreements, it is necessary to take a
closer look at the files concluded in first half of the eighth parliamentary term (2014-2016). In this period, 25
percent of all concluded files are non-early agreements (excluding the JURI committee’s codification files
from the analysis). While 67 percent of the files concluded at first reading are early agreements, 33 percent
are not. These non-early agreements include various types of files that may be described as relatively
uncomplicated. Files concluded at first reading without trilogue meetings tend to be:
a) Acts in which the Commission’s proposal is adopted without amendments, often with a high level of
temporal urgency;
30
b) Acts which introduce only minor amendments to the Commission’s proposal, (again) often with a
high level of temporal urgency;
31
c) Acts which repeal legislation; for instance, in the context of the European Commission’s 2012
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT);
32
d) Act which recast legislation (recasts).
33
Three (eight percent) of all second reading files concluded in the first half of the eighth parliamentary term
are non-early agreements. It is important to note that this does not mean that these files have not been
negotiated in inter-institutional trilogue meetings. In fact, the non-early agreements that are concluded at
second reading all build on a compromise negotiated in trilogue meetings. However, as the acts have not
29
The exact percentages in the figures are the following. In the fifth parliamentary term, 7.7 percent of all files were concluded as early agreement
(5.5 percent at first reading; 2.1 percent at early second reading). In the sixth term, 63.2 percent of all files were concluded as early agreement (56.7
percent at first reading; 6.5 at early second reading). In the seventh term, 83.8 percent were concluded as early agreement (76.9 percent at first
reading; 6.9 percent at early second reading). In the first half of the eighth term, 74 percent were concluded as early agreement (46.3 percent at first
reading; 27.6 percent at early second reading).
30
For instance: Regulation (EU) No 1383/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2014 amending Council Regulation
(EC) No 55/2008 introducing autonomous trade preferences for the Republic of Moldova, OJ L 372, 30 December 2014; Regulation (EU) 2015/1146
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 July 2015 fixing the adjustment rate provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 for direct
payments in respect of the calendar year 2015, OJ L 191, 17 July 2015; Regulation (EU) 2016/1014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
8 June 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards exemptions for commodity dealers (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 171, 29 June
2016.
31
For example: Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 facilitating cross-border exchange of
information on road-safety-related traffic offences (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 68, 13 March 2015; Regulation (EU) 2016/401 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 implementing the anti-circumvention mechanism provided for in the Association Agreement between
the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, OJ L 77,
23 March 2016; Regulation (EU) 2016/580 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016 on the introduction of emergency
autonomous trade measures for the Republic of Tunisia, OJ L 102, 18 April 2016.
32
Examples include: Directive (EU) 2015/254 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2015 repealing Council Directive
93/5/EEC on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food (Text
with EEA relevance), OJ L 43, 18 February 2015; Regulation (EU) 2016/93 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016
repealing certain acts from the Schengen acquis, OJ L 26, 2 February 2016. On the REFIT programme, see: European Commission (2012)
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions on EU Regulatory Fitness, COM (2012) 746 final, 12 December 2012.
33
For example: Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain
third countries, OJ L 123, 19 May 2015; Regulation (EU) 2016/1076 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 applying the
arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in
agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, economic partnership agreements, OJ L 185, 8 July 2016. The former was originally a
codification file, but it was turned into a recast for the reason that some minor substantive amendments were made to the file.