Onderwijscomité Weekly Bijeenkomst van the College

Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:

1. Besluitpunten
2. Vergadering Europese Commissie
3. Europese Commissie (EC)
4. Onderwijscomité
5. College van Commissarissen
6. Meer over...

26. 9. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ON MEASURES TO COMBAT NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, IN PARTICULAR ALZHEIMER'S, THROUGH JOINT PROGRAMMING OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES  i
26. [dossier]
    9. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ON MEASURES TO COMBAT NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, IN PARTICULAR ALZHEIMER'S, THROUGH JOINT PROGRAMMING OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES  i
27. 10. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ­ THE FUTURE COMPETITION LAW FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE SECTOR  i
27. 10. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ­ THE FUTURE COMPETITION LAW FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE SECTOR  i
28. 11. COMMISSION DECISION, UNDER ARTICLE 86(3) OF THE EC TREATY, ESTABLISHING THE SPECIFIC MEASURES TO CORRECT THE ANTI- COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF THE INFRINGEMENT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 5 MARCH 2008 ON THE GRANTING OR MAINTAINING IN FORCE BY THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC OF RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF PUBLIC POWER CORPORATION S.A. FOR EXTRACTION OF LIGNITE (INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE N O 2003/4428)  i
28. 11. COMMISSION DECISION, UNDER ARTICLE 86(3) OF THE EC TREATY, ESTABLISHING THE SPECIFIC MEASURES TO CORRECT THE ANTI- COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF THE INFRINGEMENT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 5 MARCH 2008 ON THE GRANTING OR MAINTAINING IN FORCE BY THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC OF RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF PUBLIC POWER CORPORATION S.A. FOR EXTRACTION OF LIGNITE (INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE N O 2003/4428)  i
29. 12. COMMISSION DECISION CONCERNING A PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 81 OF THE EC TREATY AND ARTICLE 53 OF THE EEA AGREEMENT (CASE COMP/C2/39.396 ­ CALCIUM CARBIDE AND MAGNESIUM BASED REAGENTS FOR THE STEEL AND GAS INDUSTRY)  i
29. 12. COMMISSION DECISION CONCERNING A PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 81 OF THE EC TREATY AND ARTICLE 53 OF THE EEA AGREEMENT (CASE COMP/C2/39.396 ­ CALCIUM CARBIDE AND MAGNESIUM BASED REAGENTS FOR THE STEEL AND GAS INDUSTRY)  i
30. 13. TRENDS IN THE MEMBER STATES  i
30. 13. TRENDS IN THE MEMBER STATES  i
31. 14. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ­ DAIRY MARKET SITUATION 2009  i
31. 14. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ­ DAIRY MARKET SITUATION 2009  i
32. 15. WRITTEN PROCEDURES, EMPOWERMENT AND DELEGATION OF POWERS
32. 15. WRITTEN PROCEDURES, EMPOWERMENT AND DELEGATION OF POWERS
33. 15.1. WRITTEN PROCEDURES APPROVED  i
33. 15.1. WRITTEN PROCEDURES APPROVED  i
34. 15.2. EMPOWERMENT  i
34. 15.2. EMPOWERMENT  i
35. 15.3. DELEGATION AND SUBDELEGATION OF POWERS  i
35. 15.3. DELEGATION AND SUBDELEGATION OF POWERS  i
36. 15.4. SENSITIVE WRITTEN PROCEDURES  i
36. 15.4. SENSITIVE WRITTEN PROCEDURES  i
37. 15.5. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION AMENDING REGULATION (EC) 1083/2006 CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND, THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND AND THE COHESION FUND AS REGARDS SIMPLIFICATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND AS REGARDS CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ­ FORMER WRITTEN PROCEDURE EP/2009/5567 The PRESIDENT spoke of the proposal concerning simplified provisions for financing active measures to boost employment through the European Social Fund, stressing that this proposal followed on from the communication on employment adopted on 3 June. At the June European Council he had stated final (22 July 2009) final 25 that the Commission would present a proposal in this field in order to meet the short-term financing needs of certain measures to boost employment in the current economic crisis. The proposed measures did not entail adjustments to the financial perspectives and one of their main purposes was to offer the option of flexibility in the distribution of payments for the period as a whole. He was convinced of the importance of this proposal in supporting the efforts of the Member States to address the difficulties of the labour market, in particular those States receiving support for the balance of payments. This was therefore a solidarity drive with a social dimension, aimed at meeting immediate needs in an exceptional situation, and was compatible with the rules governing the financial perspectives. He trusted that the proposal would also be duly supported in the interinstitutional process. Mr SPIDLA put the proposal in the context of the economic crisis, pointing out the adverse effects of the crisis on employment and the considerable differences between different Member States and regions. He was convinced that this was the most important issue to be taken into account when defining the response to the crisis and, moreover, that it was vital to maintaining social cohesion in Europe. The aim of the proposal was to facilitate the implementation by the Member States of active policies to boost employment and to favour the necessary investments needed by making it possible for Member States to request repayment of all public expenditure relating to their operational programmes carried out under the European Social Fund. However, these measures did not call into question the principle of co-financing; they were temporary, optional and within the limits of the current financial perspective. He felt sure that the proposal was sound and consistent and was ready to provide any clarifications still necessary. Mr SAMECKI, in turn, provided information on certain additional aspects of the proposal, in particular those aimed at making management of the structural funds simpler, more targeted and more flexible. He referred, for final (22 July 2009) final 26 example, to the harmonisation of thresholds for large projects, the diversification of sources of financing, the use of financial engineering so as to encourage energy efficiency in the housing sector, and the simplification of management of the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund. The Commission then held a brief exchange of views, covering the following points in particular: - the importance of paying particular attention to this proposal and highlighting its exceptional nature in view of the serious impact the crisis was having on employment and the need to adapt industrial production capacities, in particular in the most vulnerable sectors; - the fact that the proposed measures were swift, targeted and temporary and compatible with the European economic recovery plan; the importance of implementing the proposed measures as soon as possible, starting in 2009; - the importance of using this temporary measure to support the most vulnerable Member States in terms of employment resources and institutional structures, in particular those States in receipt of support for the balance of payments; - the need to propose measures aimed at simplifying management of the structural funds and reinforcing support for the beneficiary countries, whether or not they belonged to the euro area, so as to strengthen their absorption capacity; however, it was important to ensure compliance with the procedures and rules for proper management of Community funds with a view to the budget discharge exercise at the end of the period of implementation of these measures; - given the particularly serious impact of the crisis on the labour market, the need to avoid the development of structural unemployment and to prioritise active policies directed at this market; final (22 July 2009) final 27 - the need for ambitious measures and investment in human resources in order to address the current economic crisis; - the importance of promoting lifelong education and vocational training as an essential component of long-term employment policies, and the need for measures to simplify policies in this area and making them more flexible. Mr SPIDLA pointed out the temporary nature of the measures and stressed that they would have no impact on the principle of co-financing of Community funds. His clarifications, which would be added to the proposal, were set out in the amendments below. Concluding, the PRESIDENT expressed the Commission's support for this proposal, stressing the need to explain clearly the principles underlying it, in particular the fact that it was an exceptional measure with no effect on the current financial perspectives, and hoped that it would be supported by the Council. He also stated the support of the Commission as a whole for the following amendments being made to the French language version of : - in Chapter 1, Background to the proposal, of the Explanatory Memorandum, in the section General context, page 3, a new paragraph is inserted after the first paragraph, as follows: "  i
37. [dossier]
    15.5. PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION AMENDING REGULATION (EC) 1083/2006 CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND, THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND AND THE COHESION FUND AS REGARDS SIMPLIFICATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND AS REGARDS CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ­ FORMER WRITTEN PROCEDURE EP/2009/5567 The PRESIDENT spoke of the proposal concerning simplified provisions for financing active measures to boost employment through the European Social Fund, stressing that this proposal followed on from the communication on employment adopted on 3 June. At the June European Council he had stated final (22 July 2009) final 25 that the Commission would present a proposal in this field in order to meet the short-term financing needs of certain measures to boost employment in the current economic crisis. The proposed measures did not entail adjustments to the financial perspectives and one of their main purposes was to offer the option of flexibility in the distribution of payments for the period as a whole. He was convinced of the importance of this proposal in supporting the efforts of the Member States to address the difficulties of the labour market, in particular those States receiving support for the balance of payments. This was therefore a solidarity drive with a social dimension, aimed at meeting immediate needs in an exceptional situation, and was compatible with the rules governing the financial perspectives. He trusted that the proposal would also be duly supported in the interinstitutional process. Mr SPIDLA put the proposal in the context of the economic crisis, pointing out the adverse effects of the crisis on employment and the considerable differences between different Member States and regions. He was convinced that this was the most important issue to be taken into account when defining the response to the crisis and, moreover, that it was vital to maintaining social cohesion in Europe. The aim of the proposal was to facilitate the implementation by the Member States of active policies to boost employment and to favour the necessary investments needed by making it possible for Member States to request repayment of all public expenditure relating to their operational programmes carried out under the European Social Fund. However, these measures did not call into question the principle of co-financing; they were temporary, optional and within the limits of the current financial perspective. He felt sure that the proposal was sound and consistent and was ready to provide any clarifications still necessary. Mr SAMECKI, in turn, provided information on certain additional aspects of the proposal, in particular those aimed at making management of the structural funds simpler, more targeted and more flexible. He referred, for final (22 July 2009) final 26 example, to the harmonisation of thresholds for large projects, the diversification of sources of financing, the use of financial engineering so as to encourage energy efficiency in the housing sector, and the simplification of management of the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund. The Commission then held a brief exchange of views, covering the following points in particular: - the importance of paying particular attention to this proposal and highlighting its exceptional nature in view of the serious impact the crisis was having on employment and the need to adapt industrial production capacities, in particular in the most vulnerable sectors; - the fact that the proposed measures were swift, targeted and temporary and compatible with the European economic recovery plan; the importance of implementing the proposed measures as soon as possible, starting in 2009; - the importance of using this temporary measure to support the most vulnerable Member States in terms of employment resources and institutional structures, in particular those States in receipt of support for the balance of payments; - the need to propose measures aimed at simplifying management of the structural funds and reinforcing support for the beneficiary countries, whether or not they belonged to the euro area, so as to strengthen their absorption capacity; however, it was important to ensure compliance with the procedures and rules for proper management of Community funds with a view to the budget discharge exercise at the end of the period of implementation of these measures; - given the particularly serious impact of the crisis on the labour market, the need to avoid the development of structural unemployment and to prioritise active policies directed at this market; final (22 July 2009) final 27 - the need for ambitious measures and investment in human resources in order to address the current economic crisis; - the importance of promoting lifelong education and vocational training as an essential component of long-term employment policies, and the need for measures to simplify policies in this area and making them more flexible. Mr SPIDLA pointed out the temporary nature of the measures and stressed that they would have no impact on the principle of co-financing of Community funds. His clarifications, which would be added to the proposal, were set out in the amendments below. Concluding, the PRESIDENT expressed the Commission's support for this proposal, stressing the need to explain clearly the principles underlying it, in particular the fact that it was an exceptional measure with no effect on the current financial perspectives, and hoped that it would be supported by the Council. He also stated the support of the Commission as a whole for the following amendments being made to the French language version of : - in Chapter 1, Background to the proposal, of the Explanatory Memorandum, in the section General context, page 3, a new paragraph is inserted after the first paragraph, as follows: "  i
38. 16. REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN BULGARIA UNDER THE COOPERATION AND VERIFICATION MECHANISM
38. 16. REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN BULGARIA UNDER THE COOPERATION AND VERIFICATION MECHANISM
39. 17. REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN ROMANIA UNDER THE COOPERATION AND VERIFICATION MECHANISM The PRESIDENT introduced the two reports on progress in Bulgaria and Romania under the cooperation and verification mechanism (CVM) and tabled them for adoption in agreement with Mr BARROT. He pointed out that these reports reviewed the progress made and the shortcomings that remained, noting that the mechanism, now entering its third year, was producing results and was a useful tool for achieving the common objectives. He stressed that the areas covered by the CVM were particularly sensitive and it would take time to achieve the desired results. He mentioned in this connection that the reports showed that there had been an improvement, although the mechanism needed to remain in place in both countries. Referring to the report on Bulgaria, the PRESIDENT commented on the existence of a dynamic of reforms designed to solve the structural problems and the measures taken to tackle some of the shortcomings identified. However, the authorities at all levels needed to show greater commitment if the technical measures already adopted were to be extended further. final (22 July 2009) final 31 As regards the progress made by Romania, the PRESIDENT noted that a global approach had been adopted and mentioned the major proposals for reform presented by the government, in particular the adoption of civil and penal codes and the tabling in Parliament of draft procedural codes. He also referred to the measures adopted in the legal field to unify jurisprudence. However, the efforts were still fragmented and the reform process was constantly being undermined by over- politicisation. The two reports contained specific recommendations intended to guide Bulgaria and Romania towards priority measures which would be the subject of a follow-up next year; these recommendations should help both Member States to concentrate their efforts on the next key steps. The PRESIDENT went on to discuss the question of whether the reference to the prospect of the accession of the two countries to the Schengen area was appropriate given the discussion in the preparatory meeting of Chefs de cabinet. While emphasising that this reference was not intended to impose additional conditions on the two countries but should rather be seen as a further incentive to carry out the necessary reforms, he was concerned about the way the reference might be received in the interinstitutional process and about the usefulness of the link it created between the cooperation and verification mechanism and membership of the Schengen area. He concluded by highlighting the success of the mechanism and its contribution to the dynamic of reform but also stressed the need for a greater degree of political commitment to reform in judicial matters and the eradication of corruption in the two countries concerned; Bulgaria had the additional problem of combating organised crime. Mr BARROT began by welcoming the significant progress made by the two Member States, which made it unnecessary to implement safeguard measures as it seemed it would be sufficient to continue monitoring until all the criteria had been fully met. final (22 July 2009) final 32 He said that closer cooperation had been achieved with the Bulgarian authorities since the July 2008 report, but also that priority should continue to be given to the fight against organised crime and corruption, as well as to shortening time scales and simplifying criminal proceedings. In the case of Romania, Mr BARROT also mentioned the new penal and civil codes and the codes of procedure which were expected to be adopted in September, while at the same time highlighting the staff shortages affecting the justice sector and the excessive burden of procedural formalities, which delayed the conclusion of cases. He praised the efficiency of the National Integrity Agency but noted that work still remained to be done in the fight against corruption, particularly at local level. As regards the texts of the reports, he mentioned certain final adjustments that ought to be made to the report on Romania, and also agreed not to mention at this stage the prospect of membership of the Schengen area. The Commission then held a discussion during which the following aspects were examined: - the balance of the two reports, the benefits of the cooperation and verification mechanism and the need to keep it in place; - the immediate effect of the recommendations made; - the recognition of the efforts made by Bulgaria since July 2008 to improve its management of Community funds; the steps it had taken in the right direction but also the need for these measures to be implemented in practice and the hope that the new Bulgarian government would continue in the same vein; - the fact that while, for some, mentioning the prospect of membership of the Schengen area could provide a valuable incentive, for the majority the preference was not to link the two exercises; - the extreme sensitivity of the questions of corruption and organised crime and the reminder that similar problems also existed in other Member States; final (22 July 2009) final 33 - the need to make one or two final adjustments to the wording of the two reports; - the importance of adequate communication on the two documents. The PRESIDENT thanked the members of the Commission for their strong support for the two reports. He also noted the Commission's agreement to the following modifications being made to the English language versions of the reports: In the report on the progress made by Bulgaria - The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 3 should read: "The widespread existence of organised crime and corruption is no longer denied and some efforts are being undertaken by the prosecution and the judiciary to combat these problems." - on page 7, the third paragraph, in square brackets, was deleted. In the report on the progress made by Romania  i
39. 17. REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN ROMANIA UNDER THE COOPERATION AND VERIFICATION MECHANISM The PRESIDENT introduced the two reports on progress in Bulgaria and Romania under the cooperation and verification mechanism (CVM) and tabled them for adoption in agreement with Mr BARROT. He pointed out that these reports reviewed the progress made and the shortcomings that remained, noting that the mechanism, now entering its third year, was producing results and was a useful tool for achieving the common objectives. He stressed that the areas covered by the CVM were particularly sensitive and it would take time to achieve the desired results. He mentioned in this connection that the reports showed that there had been an improvement, although the mechanism needed to remain in place in both countries. Referring to the report on Bulgaria, the PRESIDENT commented on the existence of a dynamic of reforms designed to solve the structural problems and the measures taken to tackle some of the shortcomings identified. However, the authorities at all levels needed to show greater commitment if the technical measures already adopted were to be extended further. final (22 July 2009) final 31 As regards the progress made by Romania, the PRESIDENT noted that a global approach had been adopted and mentioned the major proposals for reform presented by the government, in particular the adoption of civil and penal codes and the tabling in Parliament of draft procedural codes. He also referred to the measures adopted in the legal field to unify jurisprudence. However, the efforts were still fragmented and the reform process was constantly being undermined by over- politicisation. The two reports contained specific recommendations intended to guide Bulgaria and Romania towards priority measures which would be the subject of a follow-up next year; these recommendations should help both Member States to concentrate their efforts on the next key steps. The PRESIDENT went on to discuss the question of whether the reference to the prospect of the accession of the two countries to the Schengen area was appropriate given the discussion in the preparatory meeting of Chefs de cabinet. While emphasising that this reference was not intended to impose additional conditions on the two countries but should rather be seen as a further incentive to carry out the necessary reforms, he was concerned about the way the reference might be received in the interinstitutional process and about the usefulness of the link it created between the cooperation and verification mechanism and membership of the Schengen area. He concluded by highlighting the success of the mechanism and its contribution to the dynamic of reform but also stressed the need for a greater degree of political commitment to reform in judicial matters and the eradication of corruption in the two countries concerned; Bulgaria had the additional problem of combating organised crime. Mr BARROT began by welcoming the significant progress made by the two Member States, which made it unnecessary to implement safeguard measures as it seemed it would be sufficient to continue monitoring until all the criteria had been fully met. final (22 July 2009) final 32 He said that closer cooperation had been achieved with the Bulgarian authorities since the July 2008 report, but also that priority should continue to be given to the fight against organised crime and corruption, as well as to shortening time scales and simplifying criminal proceedings. In the case of Romania, Mr BARROT also mentioned the new penal and civil codes and the codes of procedure which were expected to be adopted in September, while at the same time highlighting the staff shortages affecting the justice sector and the excessive burden of procedural formalities, which delayed the conclusion of cases. He praised the efficiency of the National Integrity Agency but noted that work still remained to be done in the fight against corruption, particularly at local level. As regards the texts of the reports, he mentioned certain final adjustments that ought to be made to the report on Romania, and also agreed not to mention at this stage the prospect of membership of the Schengen area. The Commission then held a discussion during which the following aspects were examined: - the balance of the two reports, the benefits of the cooperation and verification mechanism and the need to keep it in place; - the immediate effect of the recommendations made; - the recognition of the efforts made by Bulgaria since July 2008 to improve its management of Community funds; the steps it had taken in the right direction but also the need for these measures to be implemented in practice and the hope that the new Bulgarian government would continue in the same vein; - the fact that while, for some, mentioning the prospect of membership of the Schengen area could provide a valuable incentive, for the majority the preference was not to link the two exercises; - the extreme sensitivity of the questions of corruption and organised crime and the reminder that similar problems also existed in other Member States; final (22 July 2009) final 33 - the need to make one or two final adjustments to the wording of the two reports; - the importance of adequate communication on the two documents. The PRESIDENT thanked the members of the Commission for their strong support for the two reports. He also noted the Commission's agreement to the following modifications being made to the English language versions of the reports: In the report on the progress made by Bulgaria - The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 3 should read: "The widespread existence of organised crime and corruption is no longer denied and some efforts are being undertaken by the prosecution and the judiciary to combat these problems." - on page 7, the third paragraph, in square brackets, was deleted. In the report on the progress made by Romania  i
40. 18. RELATIONS WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES
40. 18. RELATIONS WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES
41. 18.1. FUTURE OF THE TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC COUNCIL  i
41. 18.1. FUTURE OF THE TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC COUNCIL  i
42. 18.2. SITUATION IN MAURITANIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FISHERIES PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT  i
42. 18.2. SITUATION IN MAURITANIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FISHERIES PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT  i
43. 18.3. MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FROM ICELAND  i
43. 18.3. MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FROM ICELAND  i
44. 18.4. VISIT TO SERBIA (BELGRADE, 12 AND 13 JULY)  i
44. 18.4. VISIT TO SERBIA (BELGRADE, 12 AND 13 JULY)  i
45. 19. OTHER BUSINESS
45. 19. OTHER BUSINESS
46. 19.1. IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ON KEY ECONOMIC SECTORS OF THE EU ­ JULY 2009 UPDATE  i
46. 19.1. IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ON KEY ECONOMIC SECTORS OF THE EU ­ JULY 2009 UPDATE  i
47. 19.2. SITUATION REGARDING PANDEMIC FLU A H1N1  i
47. 19.2. SITUATION REGARDING PANDEMIC FLU A H1N1  i

---

Deze instelling van de Europese Unie kan worden beschouwd als het 'dagelijks bestuur' van de EU. De leden van de Europese Commissie worden 'Eurocommissarissen' genoemd. Elke Eurocommissaris is verantwoordelijk voor één of meerdere beleidsgebieden.

Momenteel zijn er, naast de voorzitter, 26 Eurocommissarissen. In principe is er voor iedere lidstaat één. Samen vormen zij het college van Eurocommissarissen. De Eurocommissarissen moeten het belang van de Europese Unie als geheel behartigen, niet dat van hun eigen land.

De voorbereiding van het onderwijsgedeelte in de OJC-raad i gebeurt via het Onderwijscomité, een speciaal soort raadswerkgroep i op hoog ambtelijk niveau, die specifiek op de onderdelen onderwijs tot overeenstemming tracht te komen over voorstellen van de Commissie. Dit Onderwijscomité komt 1 à 2 keer per maand bijeen en wordt voorgezeten door het land dat op dat moment het Voorzitterschap van de EU bekleedt.

De leden van de Europese Commissie i vormen samen het College van Commissarissen. Zij werken op basis van collegialiteit: daarbij wordt uitgegaan van gelijkheid van de leden. Dit betekent dat de besluiten in gezamenlijk overleg worden genomen en dat alle leden collectief verantwoordelijk zijn.

Het College van Commissarissen is dus een collectief besluitvormingsorgaan dat met één enkele stem spreekt en naar buiten treedt.