JURI ReportAt the meeting of 6 and 7 May 2015

The Committee on Legal Affairs will begin this meeting in camera in order to consider therequest for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Béla Kovács. This will be followed bydebates on the draft reports on geographical indication protection for non-agriculturalproducts and on the 2012-2013 annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality. There willthen be an exchange of views with Farida Shaheed, the United Nations' special rapporteur onCopyright Policy and the right to science and culture. Afterwards, the coordinators will meetin camera.

In the afternoon, the committee will continue to meet in camera to verify credentials,deliberate on disputes involving Parliament, and consider the requests for waiver of theparliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, Jérôme Lavrilleux, Janusz Korwin-Mikke,Theodoros Zagorakis, Dan Nica and Udo Voigt.

In the afternoon, the meeting will resume with a presentation by the Legal Service oncodification and recast procedures. The committee will consider a draft report on the 30thand 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU Law (2012-2013), followed byvotes on shareholder engagement, insolvency proceedings, IPR enforcement, the proceduresand practices regarding Commissioner hearings, and a petition.

Subsequently, the rapporteur will report back to the committee on the negotiations on thecommunity trade mark and laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, followed byexchanges of views on the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a thirdcountry and the European Citizens' Initiative. Finally, the committee will hold a debate withthe Commission on civil and administrative judicial training.

__________________________________________________________________HEARING - Joint Hearing on Accountability, Transparency &

Integrity, March 26 2015

ISSUE 11MAY 2015

NEXT MEETING

15 & 16 JUNE 2015

JURI Website

EPRS

LATEST ANALYSES

Cross-border activities inthe EU - Making lifeeasier for citizens

Legal Instruments andPractice of Arbitration in

the EU

The immunity ofMembers of the

European Parliament(October 2014)

Upcoming issues of EUlaw

Protection of TradeSecrets: Initial Appraisal

of the Commission'sImpact Assessment

Update on the EuropeanCommission's REFIT

Programme

European Small ClaimsProcedure: InitialAppraisal of the

Commission's ImpactAssessment

_________________________________________________________________________________

2

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORTThe possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Unionto non-agricultural products

The rapporteur will present her draft report on the Commission's GreenPaper "Making the most out of Europe's traditional know-how: apossible extension of geographical indication protection of theEuropean Union to non-agricultural products".

Geographical indications (GIs) are indications that identify goods asoriginating in a country, region or locality where a particular quality,reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentiallyattributable to its geographical origin. Examples of this are the Bordeaux(wine), Vetro di Murano (glass) or Prosciutto di Parma.

A GI can, thus, also highlight specific qualities of a product that are dueto human factors, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. AtEU level, unitary protection is provided for certain agricultural productsand foodstuffs, but there is no harmonisation or unitary GI protection inplace for non-agricultural products.

GI's, which are covered also by the TRIPs agreement, is a field ofEuropean potential strength, as the Union is rich in such products and producers. These are not onlyimportant to the cultural heritage of Europe and to the cultural and creative economy, but also have aconsiderable economic potential, given the right conditions of their exploitation are met. The rapporteurproposes that a European title be created for non-agricultural indications of geographical origin, with aEuropean system of registration that would, on the one hand, create necessary legal certainty for producersand adequate guarantees for consumers, while not being overly cumbersome. Transitional arrangements areproposed for Member State that already have a system for national registration in place.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Annual reports 2012-2013 on subsidiarity andproportionality

The rapporteur will present his draft reporton the annual reports from theCommission on the application of theprinciples of subsidiarity andproportionality in 2012 and 2013.

These principles, which are laid down inArticle 5 of the Treaty on the European

Union, set limits to the legitimate scope of action by the EU and,according to Article 9 of protocol No 2 to the Treaties, theCommission shall report annually on the application of Article 5 TEUto the European Council, the European Parliament the Council andnational Parliaments.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fallwithin the exclusive competences of the Union, action shall be takenonly if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be

Procedure: 2015/2053 (INI)

Basic doc: COM (2014) 469 final

Legal basis: Rule 52

Rapporteur: Virginie Rozière

Administrator: Kjell Sevón

Opinion giving committee: INTA,IMCO, CULT

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Presentation of workingdocument: 20.01.2015

Draft report: 06.05.2015

Deadline for AMs: 19.05.2015

Adoption JURI: 14.07.2015

Adoption PLENARY: 7-10.09.2015

Procedure: 2014/2252(INI)

Basic doc: COM(2014)566,COM(2014)506

Legal basis: Article 9 of Prot. No 2

Rapporteur: Sajjad Karim

Administrator: Kjell Sevón

Opinion giving committee: AFET,DEVE, INTA, BUDG, CONT, ECON,EMPL, ENVI, ITRE, IMCO, TRAN,REGI, AGRI, PECH, CULT, LIBE, AFCO,FEMM, PETI

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 23.02.2015

Draft report: 7.05.2015

Deadline for amend: 27.05.2015

Adoption JURI: 14.07.2015

Adoption PLENARY: 7-10.09.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

3

achieved by the Member States (centrally, regionally or locally).

The principle of proportionality, which applies to all EU action, requires that the Union, when acting, does notexceed what is necessary for achieving the objectives of the Treaties. The fact that the two annual reportsfrom the Commission will be dealt with in one parliamentary report is related to the exceptional timetables ofthe election year 2014.

In his draft report, the rapporteur stresses that there is still much to do, both for the European institutionsand for the national parliaments in order to establish a "subsidiarity culture" across the European Union.

Therefore, the rapporteur recommends the following initiatives in order to improve the consideration ofsubsidiarity in the legislative process:

facilitating greater inclusion of positions and suggestions by national parliaments in the politicaldialogue, including in the course of the preparation of legislative action;

the extension of the period for consultation of national parliaments under the subsidiarity checkcontained in Protocol 2, which the rapporteur considers could be achieved through a politicalagreement by the institutions and the national parliaments, in advance of a change to the Protocol.

The draft report also proposes to consider the introduction of a 'green card', which would enable nationalparliaments to propose the introduction, amendment or repeal of Union legislation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXCHANGE OF VIEWSwith Farida Shaheed, United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur in thefield of cultural rights

Ms Farida Shaheed (Pakistan) was appointed as an independent expertin the field of cultural rights in 2009 by the Human Rights Council of theUnited Nations. Her mandate has since been extended to SpecialRapporteur in the field of cultural rights, a mandate which runs until2018. Under this mandate, she is requested to:

(a) Identify best practices in the promotion and protection of culturalrights at the local, national, regional and international levels;

(b) Identify possible obstacles to the promotion and protection of cultural rights, and to submit proposalsand/or recommendations to the Council on possible actions in that regard;

(c) Work in cooperation with States in order to foster the adoption of measures at the local, national,regional and international levels aimed at the promotion and protection of cultural rights through concreteproposals enhancing sub regional, regional and international cooperation in that regard;

(d) Study the relationship between cultural rights and cultural diversity, in close collaboration with States andother relevant actors, including in particular UNESCO, with the aim of further promoting cultural rights;

(e) Integrate a gender and disabilities perspective into his and her work;

(f) Work in close coordination with intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as withother relevant actors representing the broadest possible range of interests and experiences, including byattending and following up on relevant international conferences and events.

Ms Shaheed has submitted two reports to the Human Rights Council in accordance with this mandate whichare of particular relevance in view of the exchange with Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs:

1. The right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity of 14 March 2013 (link)

2. Copyright policy and the right to science and culture of 24 December 2014 (link)

_________________________________________________________________________________

4

CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT REPORT30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU Law (2012-2013)

The rapporteur will present his draft report on the annual reports from theCommission on the monitoring of the application of EU law 2012 and 2013.

The draft report recalls that effective application of EU law is essential if theEuropean Union is to meet its political objectives and that ultimately it is aquestion of respecting the principle of the rule of law.

While Member States are responsiblefor the transposition of directives and

the correct application of EU law, it follows from Article 22 TEU that theCommission has the responsibility for monitoring that the MemberStates’ laws and their practical application complies with theEuropean legislation, which is binding on them.

The rapporteur points out that the Member States' responsibility forthe correct implementation and application of EU law does not absolveEU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when theyproduce secondary EU law, or decide, implement and impose onMember States social, economic or other policies.

The rapporteur expresses his concern that austerity measures imposedon over-indebted EU Member States, in particular the drastic cuts onpublic spending, have had the effect of reducing significantly thecapacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assumetheir responsibility to implement EU law correctly . The rapporteurempahsises that some policies imposed on Member States, such asprivatisation of public assets, are in violation of Article 345 TFEU, whichprovides that Member States' choice of systems of property ownershipis not affected by the Treaties. The report raises particular concernesabout the ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ which establish economicadjustment programmes, as these have required Member States to act in contravention of their obligationsto respect fundamental rights, which development the rapporteur considers as severely jeopardising thelegitimacy of the EU.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

VOTES

ADOPTION OF A DRAFT REPORTRevision of the Shareholders' Rights Directive

As a follow up to its 2012 Action Plan on European company law andcorporate governance, the Commission published a proposal toamend the existing Shareholder Rights Directive (2007/36/EC) on 9April 2014. The objective of the proposed measures is to increaseshareholder engagement and give shareholders a greater say on directors’ remuneration and related partytransactions. It also provides a framework for listed companies to identify their shareholders and proposesmeasures to improve the reliability of proxy advisers as well as increase engagement of asset owners andmanagers with their investee companies

The main elements of the proposal can be summarised as follows:

Procedure: 2014/2253(INI)

Basic doc: COM(2013)726,COM(2014)612

Legal basis: Rule 52

Rapporteur: Kostas Chrysogonos

Administrator: Kjell Sevón

Opinion giving committee: ENVI,AFCO, PETI

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 23.02.2015

Presentation of draft: 7.05.2015

Deadline for amend: 21.05.2015

Adoption JURI: 14.07.2015

Adoption PLENARY: 7-10.09.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

5

Procedure: 2014/0121(COD)

Basic doc: Directive 2007/36/EC

Legal basis: Article 50(2) (g) and 114TFEU

Rapporteur: Sergio Gaetano Cofferati

Administrator: Leticia Zuleta deReales

Opinion giving committee: ECON,IMCO

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 10-11.11.2014

Presentation of DR: 19-20.2015

Deadline for amend: 3.2.2015

Consideartion am: 23-24.2.2015

Adoption JURI: 7.5.2015

1. Identification of shareholder, transmission of information and facilitation of the exercise ofshareholders’ rights: investment intermediaries must allow companies the right to identifyunderlying shareholders. Intermediaries should, at the request of the company, communicatewithout delay the name and contact details of the shareholders. If a listed company chooses not tocommunicate directly with its shareholders, the relevant information should be transmitted to themby the intermediary. In their turn, intermediaries must facilitate the exercise of rights byshareholders, including the right to participate and vote in general meetings and companies mustconfirm the votes cast in general meetings by or on behalf of shareholders. Where the intermediarycasts a vote, it must transmit the voting confirmation to the shareholder.

2. Increased engagement of asset owners and managers with their investee companies:Institutional investors and asset managers must develop and disclose, on a comply or explain basis,an engagement policy and explain how it has been implemented and the results of the policy;several transparency requirements oblige institutional investors to disclose how their investmentstrategy is aligned with the profile and duration of their liabilities and how it contributes to themedium to long term performance of their assets and asset managers must also disclose toinstitutional investors certain information o a half-yearly basis;

3. Improved reliability, transparency and quality of proxy advisors’ recommendations: Proxyadvisors will be required to publicly disclose certain key information related to the preparation oftheir voting recommendations on an annual basis, specifying whether and how they engaged in adialogue with the company in preparing the recommendation. They must adopt and implementadequate measures to guarantee that their voting recommendations are accurate and reliable.

4. Right to vote on remuneration policy: listed companies will be required to publish a remunerationpolicy every three years and a remuneration report every year detailing how they have paid eachdirector in the previous year. The remuneration policy must be put to a shareholder vote every threeyears whereas the report must be put to a shareholder vote every year. The remuneration policymust include maximum amounts of total remuneration and explain the ratio between theremuneration of directors and employees.

5. Improving transparency and influence of shareholderson related party transactions: Shareholder approval willbe required for significant transactions with relatedparties. Significant transactions are those that eitherrepresent more than 5% of a company’s assets orpotentially have a significant impact on a company’sturnover or profits. All related party transactions with avalue of more than 1% of the company’s assets, must bedisclosed at the time the transaction concludes. Suchdisclosure must be accompanied by a statement from anindependent providing insight into the conditions of thetransaction.

The Commission presented its proposal at the meeting of 10-11November 2014. At this meeting, the Commission will present itsproposal.

A hearing on the revision of the Shareholders’ right Directive tookplace on 2 December 2014. Sergio Gaetano Cofferati presentshis draft report on 20 January 2015.

On top of the 83 amendments included in the rapporteur's draftreport, 404 amendments have been tabled. At this meeting, the Committee will vote.

_________________________________________________________________________________

6

Procedure: 2014/2151(INI)

Basic doc: COM(2014)392

Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

Opinion giving committees:IMCO, CULT

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 20.01.2015

Consideration of draft report:23.03.2015

Deadline for AMs: 26.03.2015 at17:00

Consideration of AMs: 16.04.2015

Adoption JURI: 06-07.05.2015

Adoption PLENARY: June 2015

Amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings

On 5 February 2014 the Parliament adoptedits position at first reading by 580 votes infavour, 69 against and 19 abstentions. TheCouncil adopted a general approach on theArticles in June 2014 and it gave a mandatefor negotiations to the Italian Presidency on9 October 2014.

After two trilogues, the negotiating teams of Parliament, Council andCommission reached an agreement. On 12 March 2015, the Council adoptedits position at first reading, fully endorsing the compromise reached with theParliament. The committee will now vote a recommendation to Plenary foran early second reading agreement.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

INI report on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement

Members of the JURI Committee willvote at this meeting on the draftinitiative report of Pavel Svoboda onIntellectual Property RightsEnforcement.

The aim of the report is to discuss theAction Plan presented last summer by

the Commission, which proposes new enforcement tools, including a‘follow-the-money’ approach seeking to deprive commercial-scaleinfringers of the revenue flows that draw them into such activities.

The draft report is broadly supportive of the Commission’s approach. Itinsists on targeted information campaigns and considers it necessaryto support SMEs in enforcing their IP rights. It also considers that allforms of IPR infringements should be tackled, including thoseoccurring in the online environment.

After the Commission presented on 1 July 2014 a Communication onan action plan "Towards a renewed consensus on the enforcement ofintellectual property rights: an EU action plan", the JURI Committee decided to draft an own-initiative report,with Pavel Svoboda as the rapporteur. A first exchange of views took place in January 2015, followed by aconsideration of the draft report in March and of the 124 amendments tabled by Members in April.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Presentation by the Legal Service on codification, recasting and legislative screening

Parliament's Legal Service has been monitoring the Commission's proposals for legislative acts since thebeginning of 2013. In this screening all proposals tabled under the ordinary legislative procedure areanalysed from the point of view of legislative quality and compliance with the requirements set out in theinterinstitutional agreements on "common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation" of1998 and on "better law-making" of 2003. The screening is carried out by the team in the Legal Servicewhich is responsible also for codification and recast procedures. The Committee has decided to invite theteam to present their work to the committee.

Procedure:2012/0360(COD)

Basic doc:COM(2012)0744

Legal basis: Art. 81 TFEU

Rapporteur: TadeuszZwiefka (PL, EPP)

Administrator: LeticiaZuleta de Reales

________________________________________________________________________________

7

Procedure: 2015/2040(INI)

Rapporteur: Jean-MarieCavada

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

Lead committee: AFCO -Richard Corbett

Opinion giving committee:JURI, TRAN, ENVI

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Consideration of draftopinion: 16 April

Deadline for AMs: 20 April at12:00

Vote in JURI: 7 May 2015

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT OPINIONProcedures and practices regarding Commissioner hearings - lessons to be drawnfrom the 2014 process

At this meeting the JURI Committeewill vote on Jean-Marie Cavada’sdraft opinion on ‘Procedures andpractices regarding Commissionerhearings - lessons to be taken fromthe 2014 process’.

The draft opinion aims at givingsuggestions to the lead committee (AFCO) regarding evaluation of theprocedures and methods of the Commissioner hearings in order todraw lessons and improve the process in view of the next mandatestarting in 2019.

The draft report by Richard Corbett (AFCO) proposes that a deadlinebe set for Member States to put forward their candidates in order toleave enough time for the Commission President-elect to allocateportfolios; that each Member State put forward at least two candidates,one male and one female; that the hearings ofvice-presidents-designate whose portfolios would entail horizontalresponsibilities should follow a different format, such as a meeting ofthe Conference of Presidents or of the Conference of Committee Chairs; and that immediate follow-upquestions by Members be allowed so as to give an inquisitorial nature to the hearing. The draft report alsolays down guidelines for the coordinators’ evaluation meetings following the hearings. The draft reportfurther argues that horizontal issues affecting the composition, structure and working methods of theCommission as a whole should be addressed at meetings between the President-elect and the Conference ofPresidents. Finally, the rapporteur is of the opinion that scrutiny of Commissioners’ declarations of interestsshould remain the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs, but that the current scope of thosedeclarations of interests is too limited.

In his draft opinion for the JURI committee, Jean-Marie Cavada insists on the importance of guaranteeingthe independence of Commissioners-designate, and considers it necessary, given the limited scope of thedeclarations of interest, to confer investigative powers on the Legal Affairs Committee, for example thepossibility to request additional information from Commissioners-designate in order to carry out an in-depthassessment of the declarations. The draft report also takes the view that a reduction in the number ofCommissioners, in accordance with the spirit of Article 17(5) TFEU, would help guarantee the independenceof Commissioners-designate.

Twenty-five amendments were tabled on the draft opinion.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

REPORT BACK TO COMMITTEEAgreement on the Trademarks Package

On 27 March 2013, the Commission presented the long-awaited trade mark package, consisting of twolegislative proposals (a suggested revision of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and a recast of theTrade Mark Directive) and a proposal for an implementing act to revise the Commission Regulation on thefees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) the European Union’s intellectual

_________________________________________________________________________________

8

Procedure: 2013/0088(COD)

2013/0088(COD)

Basic doc: COM(2013)0161;COM(2013)0162

Legal basis: Articles 118(1) andArticlet 114 (1) TFEU

Rapporteur for opinion: CeciliaWikström

Administrator: Magnus Nordanskog

property agency based in Alicante.

The overall objective of the package was to implement awell-targeted modernisation of registration systems all over the EUin order to make trade mark protection cheaper, quicker, morereliable and predictable. To achieve this, the Commission’ssuggestions included introducing a principle of ‘one-class-per-fee’that would apply both at European level and nationally, enhancedcooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices, andfurther harmonisation of national procedures. Since the line takenby the rapporteur was to include the proposed provisions in thedraft implementing acts on the fee structure directly in theregulation, the Commission announced that it would not moveforward on that draft in the relevant comitology committee.

At the JURI meeting of 29 May 2013, the Commission introduced its proposals, and a first exchange of viewswas held, focusing primarily on the rapporteur’s suggested timetable and the procedure for drawing up thereport. At the meeting of 19 June 2013, the committee held an exchange of views on the substantive aspectsof the proposals. A mini-hearing was held at the meeting of 8 July 2013, at which the committee heardrepresentatives of Member States, OHIM and trademark users. The rapporteur introduced her draft reportsat the meeting of 17 September 2013, and the reports were considered for a second time at the meeting of14 October 2013, at which time the committee also adopted an opinion on the provisions on delegated actsin the regulation. At the meeting of 4 November 2013, the committee considered the amendments tabled byMembers to the draft reports and voted on an opinion on the proposed recast of the directive. The finalreports, together with a negotiating mandate, were adopted at the meeting of 17 December 2013, with thehope that negotiations with the Council and Commission would start in early 2014.

When it became clear in early 2014 that the Council would not be ready to start negotiations with a view toconcluding them before the end of the seventh legislative term, Parliament adopted its first reading positionon the two files on 25 February 2014.

Two trilogue meetings were held during the Italian Presidency in the second half of 2014 and two trilogueshave been held under the current Latvian Presidency - the fifth Council Presidency to deal with the trademark package. An overall political agreement on the package was reached at the final trilogue held on 21April 2015,.

The main points for discussion at political level has been questions relating to the effects for trade mark lawon private importations of small consignments, the transit of goods in the EU (in particular genericmedicines), the limitations of the effect of EU trade marks (for instance relating to fundamental rights), thechange of the name of OHIM to "the European Union Intellectual Property Office" and governance questionsrelating to the Office, the cooperation between the Office and national Intellectual Property offices, the useof financial resources (in particular the future fee structure and the Agency’s considerable surplus) and thegeneral approach to the Commission’s suggestion to include 63 different delegations of legislative power inthe proposal for a Regulation.

Some drafting at technical level, relating primarily to provisions on delegated and implementing acts, stillremain to be concluded in view of the endorsement of the text of this early second reading agreement,foreseen for the JURI meeting on 16 June 2015.

At this meeting, Ms Wikström will report back to the committee on the results of the negotiations.

________________________________________________________________________________

9

Procedure: 2015/0027(COD)

Basic doc: COM(2015)0048

Legal basis: Articles 64, 207(2)and 352 TFEU

Rapporteur for opinion: HeidiHautala

Rapporteur in INTA: DavidMartin

Administrator: MagnusNordanskog

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 7 May2015

Consideration of draftopinion: June

Deadline for AMs: TBC

Vote in JURI: July orSeptember

Adoption in INTA: September

Plenary vote: 18-21 May

Procedure: 2014/2257(INI)

Basic doc: COM(2015)0145

Rapporteur for opinion:Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann

Rapporteur in AFCO: GyörgySchöpflin

Administrator: MagnusNordanskog

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 7 May2015

Consideration of draftopinion: 15-16 June

Deadline for amendments: 23June, at 12.00

Vote in JURI: July

Adoption in INTA: September

EXCHANGE OF VIEWSProtecting against the effects of the extra-territorialapplication of legislation adopted by a third country andactions based thereon or resulting therefrom (recast)

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of CouncilRegulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 on the above subject.

At the same time, the Commission considers it appropriate to makecertain substantive amendments in order to delegate powers to theCommission for establishing criteria for the application of a provision ofthe Regulation. Therefore, the proposal was presented in the form of arecast.

The coordinators of JURI have decided that the Committee should givean opinion to INTA, the lead committee, on the substance of theproposal, in addition to the opinion that it will give on the recasting inaccordance with Rule 104 of the Rules of Procedure, and appointed MrsHeidi Hautala as rapporteur.

At this meeting, the Committee will hold a first exchange of views on thisdossier.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

European Citizens' Initiative

The European Citizens' Initiative was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, andthe practical rules and procedures were set out in Regulation (EU) No211/20011, which started to apply on 1 April 2012.

The Regulation foresees that by 1 April 2015 and every three yearsthereafter the Commission shall present a report on its application.

The Commission presented this application report on 31 March 2015. On19 March, the Constitutional Affairs Committee considered a draft reporton the subject.

At this meeting, the rapporteur for opinion, Mrs Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann,will present her suggested approach to this dossier and the Committeewill hold a first exchange of views.

&

_________________________________________________________________________________

10

IN CAMERA

VERIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS (RULE 3)The President has announced to plenary that the competent nationalauthorities have given notice of the appointment of the following as

Member(s) of the European Parliament, with effect from the dates shownbelow:

Mr Hannu TAKKULA (to replace Mr Olli REHN), as from 27 April2015;

In accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure, on the basis of a reportby the JURI Committee, Parliament will verify the credentials without delayand rule on the validity of the mandate of each of its newly electedMembers. Parliament will also rule on any dispute referred to it pursuant tothe provisions of the Act of 20 September 1976, except those based onnational electoral laws.

It is not possible to confirm the validity of the mandate of a Member unlessthe written declarations required on the basis of Article 7 of the Act of 20 September 1976 and Annex I tothe Rules have been made. Until such time as a Member's credentials have been verified or a ruling has beengiven on any dispute, the Member will take his or her seat in Parliament and in its bodies and enjoy all therights attaching thereto.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

DISPUTES INVOLVING PARLIAMENT (RULE 141)Case F-53/15, MG v Court of Justice of the European Union - Possibleintervention by Parliament

Parliament was notified of an action brought before the Civil Service Tribunalpursuant to Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. The application includes anobjection of illegality of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, asamended by Regulation (EU) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and theCouncil of 22 October 2013, raised in accordance with Article 277 TFEU.

Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concerns the reimbursement oftravel expenses from the place of employment to the place of origin granted toofficials for the purpose of visiting their home country. The provisionsintroduced by Regulation (EU) No 1023/2013 have significantly reduced, oreven altogether removed in certain cases, the flat-rate payment payable tothose officials whose place of origin is outside the European Union.

Regulation (EU) No 1023/2013 was adopted under the ordinary legislativeprocedure. The Committee is, therefore, to decide whether to recommend tothe President, in accordance with Rule 141(4), that Parliament should intervenebefore the Civil Service Tribunal in order to defend the validity of the provisionin question

Legal basis: Rule 3 RoP

Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda

Administrator: AndreaScrimali

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:6-7.05.2015

Adoption JURI:

6-7.05.2015

Procedure: Rule 141

Rapporteur:

Jean-Marie Cavada

Administrator:

Andrea Scrimali

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:

06-07.05.2015

Adoption JURI:

06-07.05.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

11

Case F-42/15, T v European Commission - Possible intervention by Parliament

Parliament was notified of an action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 91 of theStaff Regulations. The application includes an objection of illegality of Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of theParliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 and of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Article 5(3), ofAnnex XI thereto in its version of 2004 (the equivalent provision in the current version is found in Article 3(5)of Annex XI).

The provisions concerned by the objection of illegality exclude or fail to provide for the application of anycorrection coefficient for salaries and pensions payable to staff employed or pensioners resident in Belgiumor Luxembourg. The applicant considers that these provisions violate the principles of non-discriminationand equality of treatment, insofar as the legislator has failed to recognise that living costs are significantlyhigher in Luxembourg than in (in particular) Brussels.

Regulation (EU) No 1023/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 were adopted under the ordinarylegislative procedure. The Committee is, therefore, to decide whether to recommend to the President, inaccordance with Rule 141(4), that Parliament should intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal in order todefend the validity of the provisions in question.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

IMMUNITIES

Béla KovácsType of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2044 (IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 31/2014

Rapporteur: Tadeusz Zwiefka

Administrator: Robert Bray

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Hearing & Exchange of views:

06.05.2015

Viktor Uspaskich

Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2203 (IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 30/2014 &36/2015

Rapporteur: Laura Ferrara

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 24.02.2015

Hearing: 24.03.2015

Vote: 06.05.2015

_________________________________________________________________________________

12

SUBSCRIPTIONS WATCH LIVE: EP website or EuroparlTV

JURI Report: juri-secretariat@europarl.europa.eu Re-Watch: EP multimedia library

JURI Press Releases: lega-press@europarl.europa.eu

CREDITS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

European Parliament - Committee on Legal Affairs

Head of Secretariat: Robert BRAY - Responsible Administrator: Alexander KEYS

Editorial/Production Assistants: Marcia MAGUIRE and Natalia EWIAKOVA

Jérôme Lavrilleux

Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2015/2014(IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 04/2015

Rapporteur: Heidi Hautala

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 16.04 2015

Hearing: 24.03.2015

Vote: 06.05.2015

Janusz Korwin-MikkeType of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2015/2049 (IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 11/2015

Rapporteur: Kostas Chrysogonos

Administrator: Andrea Scrimali

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 16.04.2015

Hearing: 16.04.2015

Adoption JURI: 06-07.05.2015

Udo VoigtType of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2072(IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 14/2015

Rapporteur: Tadeusz Zwiefka

Administrator: Alexander Keys

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Hearing: 06.05.2015

Vote (possibly): June 2015

Theodoros Zagorakis (II)Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2071(IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 16/2015

Rapporteur: Andrzej Duda

Administrator: Alexander Keys

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views and vote:06.05.2015