Abstract
This chapter proposes an analysis over time of the relationship between the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Parliament (EP). For a consultative body such as the CoR, nurturing connections with other players is a key for influencing the European decision-making process. Despite some initial distrust, the two institutions have achieved to build a strong partnership, materialized most recently by the conclusion of a cooperation agreement. However, concrete evidence shows that the CoR’s work still continues to be overlooked by the EP. Further action will hence be needed if the CoR is to strengthen its position within the European political game.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Already on 9 May 1960, the European Parliamentary Assembly, which would later become the European Parliament, made a proposal to set up a consultative committee on regional economies. This reflection would take shape after the Single European Act with the creation in 1988 of the Consultative Council of Regional and Local Authorities.
- 2.
Pursuant to Article 13 TEU, only the seven following bodies enjoy the status of the Union’s institutions: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the Court of Auditors.
- 3.
It is to be noted that the EESC does not enjoy a similar right of action.
- 4.
The composition varies from Member State to Member State. There are two main models: ‘On the one hand, in the federal states with strong regional systems, such as Germany, Austria, Belgium, Spain and Italy, the representative role of regions is expressly set out in legal acts. In these countries, the national delegations at the CoR are essentially made up of regional representatives and local authorities are only marginally represented. On the other hand, in countries that do not have regional systems, or where these systems are weaker, representatives are mostly or entirely from the local authorities (for example, Portugal, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Cyprus, Sweden and Luxembourg)’ (CoR 2009b, 1).
- 5.
The six commissions are Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs (CIVEX); Cohesion Policy and EU Budget (COTER); Economic Policy (ECON); Environment, Climate Change and Energy (ENVE); Natural Resources (NAT); and Social Policy, Education, Employment, Research and Culture (SEDEC).
- 6.
The five groups are the European People’s Party, the Party of European Socialists, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the European Alliance, and the European Conservatives and Reformists.
- 7.
Consultation is mandatory for all EU laws in the following areas: economic, social, and territorial cohesion; trans-European networks; transport, telecommunications, and energy; public health; education and youth; culture; employment; social policy; environment; vocational training; and climate change.
- 8.
Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, pp. 320–469.
- 9.
In June 2017, 10 of the current MEPs had previously been COR members and 8 of the current CoR members had been MEPs.
- 10.
‘Tourism as a driving force for regional cooperation across the EU’, CDR 6648/2015.
- 11.
ALDE group Secretariat.
- 12.
‘Space Strategy for Europe’, CDR 6726/2016.
- 13.
European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2017 on a Space Strategy for Europe, 2016/2325(INI).
- 14.
Mayor of the Belgian city of Mechelen and President of the ‘Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe’ group in the Committee of the Regions.
- 15.
‘Combatting Radicalisation and Violent Extremism: Prevention mechanisms at local and regional level’, CDR 6329/2015.
References
Christiansen, T., & Lintner, P. (2005). The Committee of the Regions After 10 Years, Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the Future. EIPASCOPE, 1, 7–13.
Committee of the Regions. (2006). Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Guidelines for the Application and Monitoring of the Subsidiarity and Proportionality Principles, 2006/C 115/08.
Committee of the Regions. (2009a). Mission Statement, CdR 56/2009.
Committee of the Regions. (2009b). The selection process for Committee of the Regions members – Procedures in the Member States, CdR 104/2009.
Committee of the Regions. (2014a). Rules of Procedure, OJ L 65/41.
Committee of the Regions. (2014b). Cooperation Agreement between the European Parliament and the Committee of the Region.
Committee of the Regions. (2017a). Annual Impact Report 2016, COR-2017-02424-00-00-ANN-REF.
Committee of the Regions. (2017b). Report on the Implementation of the Cooperation Agreement Between the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions.
Domorenok, E. (2009). The Committee of the Regions: In Search of Identity. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(1), 143–163.
European Parliament. (2014). Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
European Parliament. (2017). Resolution of 16 February 2017 on Improving the Functioning of the European Union Building on the Potential of the Lisbon Treaty.
Hönnige, C., & Panke, D. (2013). The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee: How Influential are Consultative Committees in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(3), 452–471.
Hönnige, C., & Panke, D. (2016). Is Anybody Listening? The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee and Their Quest for Awareness. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(4), 624–642.
Hönnige, C., et al. (2015). Consultative Committees in the European Union. No Vote – No Influence? Colchester: ECPR Press.
McCarthy, R. E. (1997). The Committee of the Regions: An advisory Body’s Tortuous Path to Influence. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 439–454.
Neshkova, M. I. (2010). The Impact of Subnational Interests on Supranational Regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(8), 1193–1211.
Pasquier, R. (2015). La fin de “l’Europe des régions”? Politique européenne, 4(50), 150–159.
Piattoni, S., & Schönlau, J. (2015). Shaping EU Policy from Below: EU Democracy and the Committee of the Regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Warleigh, A. (1999). The Committee of the Regions Institutionalising Multi-Level Governance? London: Kogan Page.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Decoster, F., Delhomme, V., Rousselle, J. (2019). The Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament: An Evolving Relationship?. In: Costa, O. (eds) The European Parliament in Times of EU Crisis. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97391-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97391-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97390-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97391-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)