16 Amendments of Doris PACK related to 2012/2308(INI)
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A a (new)
Paragraph A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Parliament has had its seat in Strasbourg since 1952, a situation confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, and not altered by the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A b (new)
Paragraph A b (new)
Ab. whereas the real annual cost of retaining the Strasbourg seat in 2010 was EUR 51.5 million, i.e. 0.04 % of the annual budget of the European Union or 10 cents per citizen per year;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A c (new)
Paragraph A c (new)
Ac. whereas the gross cost of holding plenary sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and whereas 80 % of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where a given part-session is held (equipment, publications, translation, etc.);
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A d (new)
Paragraph A d (new)
Ad. whereas mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of an MEP, requiring at least a large number of journeys between the European Parliament, the MEP’s Member State of origin and the constituency in which the MEP was elected;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that only the Member States have the power to amend the Treaties, the substance of which is binding on the Institutions and their members, and that a vote on this subject can only be carried unanimously;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that, on this basis, twelve monthly plenary part-sessions, including the budgetary part-session, must be held at the Strasbourg seat, while additional part-sessions are held in Brussels;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses that the additional part- sessions entail a substantial additional cost, which could be reduced by extending ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Points to the tradition of geographical diversity in the siting of EU institutions;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Stresses that concentrating EU powers in the city of Brussels would adversely effect the way the European public views the EU;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Emphasises that Strasbourg has come to be viewed by the public as the European capital of democracy and human rights owing to the institutions that are based there, among them the European Parliament;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Emphasises that the public associates the city of Brussels with the European Commission, while the city of Strasbourg continues to be associated with the European Parliament;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underscores the symbolic and historical importance of the European Parliament’s location in Strasbourg as part of the process of European reconciliation;
Amendment 134 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Recognises the educational and civic value of Parliament’s Strasbourg seat, which attracts 100 000 visitors a year outside part-session periods, as well as 10 000 students on the Euroscola programme;
Amendment 138 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Recognises that efforts are needed to improve working conditions during ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 145 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4