Activities of Virginie ROZIÈRE related to 2016/0404(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions (debate) FR
Amendments (16)
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The results of the mutual evaluation process revealed a lack of clarity as regards the criteria to be used by national competent authorities when assessing the proportionality of requirements restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions, as well as uneven scrutiny of such measures at all levels of regulation. To avoid fragmentation of the internal market and eliminate barriers to taking-up and pursuit of certain employed or self- employed activities, it is therefore necessary to establishthere should be a common approach at Union level, preventing disproportionate measures from being adopted.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The burden of proof of justification and proportionality lies on the Member States. The reasons for regulation invoked by a Member State by way of justification should thus be accompanied by an analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure adopted by that State and by specific evidence substantiating its arguments where such is available.
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Member States should carry out proportionality assessments in an objective and independent manner, including where a profession is regulated indirectly, by giving a particular professional body the power to do so. In particular, while the assessment of the local authorities, regulatory bodies or professional organisations, whose greater proximity to local conditions and specialised knowledge could in certain cases make them better placed to identify the best way of meeting the public interest objectives, there is particular reason for concern in cases where the policy choice made by those authorities or bodies provides benefits to established operators at the expense of new market entrants policy choice made by those authorities or bodies should not be discriminatory.
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Where the taking-up and pursuit of certain employed or self-employed activities are conditional on complying with certain provisions relating to specific professional qualifications, laid down directly or indirectly by the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that such provisions are justified by public interest objectives, such as those within the meaning of the Treaty, namely public policy, public security and public health or by overriding reasons of general interest, such as those recognised as such in the case-law of the Court of Justice. It is important to ensure that public interest objectives are adequately identified in order to determine the intensity of the regulation. For example, in order to ensure a high level of protection of public health, Member States should enjoy a margin of discretion to decide on the degree of protection which they wish to afford to public health and on the way in which that protection is to be achieved. It is also necessary to clarify that among the overriding reasons of general interest, recognised by the Court of Justice, are preserving the financial equilibrium of the social security system; the protection of consumers, recipients of services and workers; the safeguarding of the proper administration of justice; fairness of trade transactions; combating fraud and prevention of tax evasion and avoidance; road safety; the protection of the environment and the urban environment; the health of animals; intellectual property; the safeguarding and conservation of the national historic and artistic heritage, social policy objectives and cultural policy objectives. According to settled case-law, purely economic reasons, having essentially protectionist aims, as well as purely administrative reasons, such as carrying out controls or gathering statistics cannot constitute an overriding reason of general interest.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) To meet the requirement of proportionality, the measure should be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued. A measure should only be considered suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain that objective in a consistent and systematic manner, for instance where similar risks related to certain activities are addressed in a comparable way and where any exceptions to the restrictions involved are applied in line with the stated objective. Furthermore, the national measure should contribute to achieving the objective pursued and therefore, where it has no effect on the ground for justification, it should not be considered as suitable.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The economic impact of the measure, including a cost-benefit analysis with particular regard to the degree of competition in the market and the quality of the service provided, as well as the impact on the right to work and on the free movement of persons and services within the Union should be duly taken into accountconsideration by the competent authorities; Based on tThis analysis, Member States should ascertain, in particular, whether the extent of the restriction of access to or pursuit of regulated professions within the Union is proportionate to the importance of the objectives pursued and the expected gains should not be the sole evaluation criterion for the proportionality of a measure aimed at protecting an objective of general interest.
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Member States should carry out a comparison between the national measure at issue and the alternative and less restrictive solutions that would allow the same objective to be attained but would impose fewer restrictions. Where the measures are justified by consumer protection and where the risks identified are limited to the relationship between the professional and the consumer without negatively affecting third parties, the objective could be attained by less restrictive means than reserving activities to professionals, such as protection of the professional title or enrolment on a professional register. Regulation by way of reserved activities should be used only in cases where the measures aim at preventing a risk of serious harm to public interest objectives.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This Directive lays down rulescriteria on a common framework for conducting proportionality assessments before introducing new legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions, or amending existing ones, with a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Any provision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The reasons for considering that a provision is justified, necessary and proportionate shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative evidence.does not affect the English
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 5
Article 4 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the assessment of proportionality referred to in paragraph 1 is carried out in an objective and independent manner including through involvement of independent scrutiny bodiesmanner.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. When assessing the necessity and the proportionality of the provisions, the relevant competent authorities shall consider in particularscope of the assessment must be proportionate to the nature, content and impact of the provision introduced. The relevant competent authorities shall take into consideration the following elements, among others:
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
b) the suitability of the provision namely as regards its appropriateness to attain the objective pursued and whether it genuinely reflects that objective in a consistent and systematic manner and thus, addresses the risks identified in a similar way as in comparable activities;
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. For the purposes of paragraph 2(k), the relevant competent authorities shall assess in particulartake into consideration the cumulative effect of imposing any of the following requirements: