Activities of Virginie ROZIÈRE related to 2014/2150(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (A8-0208/2015 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) FR
Amendments (16)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the smart regulation agenda constitutes an attempt to consolidate efforts to introduce better lawmaking, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essenimportant role without being a substitute for political roledecisions and assessments;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to negotiate a newproposal for an interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking thatregulation, takesing account of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission, and towhich consolidates best practices in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, systematic ex-post checks of EU legislation and the implementation and handling of delegated and implementing acts;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to enhancing the transparency of its decisions, particularly with regard to delegated acts; is disappointed, however, at the insufficient time to be made available for submitting comments to the Commission;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the REFIT agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding or circumventing agreements reached between the social partners;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is convinced that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; remainspoints out, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are notmust never be a substitute for political assessments and decisions;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional economic, social and environmental costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own, given that it should at least assess any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on all EU institutthe Commissions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of any legislationve proposal; believes that, while the focus of suchthe Commission’s impact assessments is primarily on economic and monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators’ costs, the long-term value of legislationoo often ignoring the social and environmental impacts, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, iswhich are often difficult to quantify, and; believes, therefore, that, as a consequence,dequate account is not taken of the social and environmental costs and benefits are not taken into adequate account;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Believes that alleach EU institutions should develop a common methodological approach to impact assessments, and calls on them to include this as a priority in the upcoming negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreementbe responsible for developing its own methodology for impact assessments; stresses the fact that the legislative prerogatives of Parliament and the Council to amend a proposal from the Commission must remain undiminished;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Points out that the Commission, in consequence of its right of legislative initiative, may at any time in the course of a procedure for the adoption of a Union act under the ordinary legislative procedure amend or withdraw a proposal as long as the Council has not yet taken any decision on it, as emphasised by the ECJ in paragraph 74 of its judgment of 14 April 2015; points out that the Court also stressed that the right of initiative conferred on the Commission does not constitute a right of veto over the legislative process; stresses, however, that the Commission’s readiness to take into account the views of the Parliament in questions relating to the withdrawal or amendment of legislative proposals, constitutes an essential element of the political trust between the two institutions;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Welcomes the ECJ judgment of 14 April 2015, which stresses that the Commission must state to Parliament and the Council the grounds for any withdrawal of a legislative proposal;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Stresses that the ECJ, in a judgment of 14 April 2015, reminded the Commission that in the event of the withdrawal of a legislative proposal it must comply with the principle of conferral of powers, the principle of institutional balance and the principle of sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 13(2) TEU, and with the principle of democracy, as laid down in Article 10(1) and (2) TEU;