Trans-European energy networks: guidelines

Commissioner PAPOUTSIS stated that the Commission could take over Amendments Nos 1 and 4: the first because it introduced a recital to clarify the criteria for the selection of projects and their implementation at the highest possible level; the second because it clarified the route of the ‘Baltic ring’, which was a joint project in the electricity sector. However, the Commission rejected the following amendments: Amendment No 2 because as far as the committee procedure was concerned, there was already an interinstitutional ‘modus vivendi’, which strengthened Parliament’s position in terms of information and consultation in relation to the Commission; the latter preferred the management committee to the advisory committee; Amendments Nos 3 and 6 on Parliament’s participation, according to the codecision procedure in ex-Article 129d of the Treaty on European Union, in the revision of the list of priority projects as the procedure in question would be incompatible with the flexibility required to update the list. Finally, Amendment No 5 on the trans-Scandinavian and Baltic natural gas project should be removed given that the two Member States concerned - Sweden and Finland - would not be ready to get involved the project before its revision in 1996.