Activities of Gilles LEBRETON related to 2016/2018(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (43)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the progress achieved and the experience gained in the first year and a half of the application of the new IIA and encourages the Institutions to undertake further efforts to fully implement the agreement, in particular with regard to the interinstitutional negotiations on non- binding criteria for the application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, the alignment of all basic acts that still refer to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS), the interinstitutional negotiations on practical arrangements for cooperation and information-sharing regarding the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, and the establishment of a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the new IIA aims to develop a more open and transparent relationship between the three Institutions with a view to delivering high-quality legislation in the interest of EU citizenMember States; considers that, although the principle of sincere cooperation among Institutions is only mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 32 in relation to specific areas covered by the new IIA, it should be observed throughout the legislative cycle as one of the principles enshrined in Article 13 TEU;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the three Institutions’ agreement to reinforce the Union’s annual and multiannual programming in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU by means of a more structured procedure with a precise timeline; notes with satisfaction that the first exercise of interinstitutional annual programming under the new IIA saw the active participation of the three Institutions, participation that led to a joint declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017, with 59 key legislative proposals identified as priorities for 2017 and, further to a joint declaration on legislative priorities for 2018-2019, 31 key legislative proposals identified as priorities until the end of the current term; particularly welcomes, in this context, the active involvement of the Council and trusts that it will continue in the future, including as regards multiannual programming for the new term; considers, however, that priority treatment for certain legislative files agreed upon in joint declarations should not be used to exert undue pressure on the co-legislators and that greater speed should not be prioritised at the expense of legislative quality;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls onUrges the Commission to present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmes; requests, in particular, that the Commission Work Programmes clearly indicate the legal nature of each proposal with accurate and realistic timeframes; calls on the Commission to ensure that forthcoming legislative proposals – especially key legislative packages – arrive well before the end of this legislative term, namely early in 2018, thereby giving the co- legislators enough time to exercise their prerogatives in full;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the factNotes that the Commission replied to Parliament’s requests for proposals for Union acts under Article 225 TFEU, for the most part within the three-month deadline referred to in paragraph 10 of the new IIA; points outdeplores, however, the fact that the Commission failed to adopt specific communications as foreseen in that provision; calls on the Commission to adopt such communications with a view to ensuring full transparency and providing a political response to requests made by Parliament in its resolutions, and with due regard for Parliament’s relevant European Added Value and Cost of Non- Europe analyses;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. WelcomNotes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including SMEs and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions; stresses the importance of taking into account and paying attention to the needs of SMEs at all stages of the legislative cycle and expresses satisfaction that the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines prescribe that potential impacts on SMEs and competitiveness should be considered and reported systematically in all impact assessments; encourages the Commission to consider how the impact on SMEs can be taken into account even better, including in connection with the European added value of a proposal, and intends to follow this issue closely in the years to come; _________________ 27 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (OJ C 289, 9.8.2016, p. 53), paragraph 16. 28 See Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2016 on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0081), paragraph 4.
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomNotes the inclusion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the scope of impact assessments; stresses, in this regard, that impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Expresses disappointment atDeeply deplores the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficial; points out that in the first phase of application of the new IIA, 20 of the 59 Commission proposals included in the 2017 joint declaration were not accompanied by impact assessments; recalls in this regard that, while it is in any case foreseen that initiatives which are expected to have a significant social, economic or environmental impact should be accompanied by an impact assessment, the initiatives included in the Commission Work Programme or in the joint declaration should, as a general rule, be accompanied by an impact assessment;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is a welcomeonly a first step to achieving an independent board; reiterates that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to political control29; stresses the importance of ensuring that all of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, are made public and accessible at the same time as the relevant impact assessments are published; _________________ 29 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014, cited above, paragraph 12; Parliament decision of 9 March 2016, cited above, paragraph 6.
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that under paragraph 14 of the new IIA, upon considering Commission legislative proposals, Parliament will take full account of the Commission’s impact assessments; recalls in this context that parliamentary committees may invite the Commission to present its impact assessment at a full committee meeting and invites its committees to avail themselves of this opportunity more regularly, and of the possibility to see a presentation of the initial appraisal of the Commission’s impact assessment by Parliament’s own services;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. WelcomNotes the possibility that the Commission complements its own impact assessments during the legislative process; considers that paragraph 16 of the new IIA should be interpreted to the effect that, when requested by Parliament or the Council, the Commission should as a rule promptly provide such complementary impact assessments;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomNotes the fact that in paragraph 17 of the new IIA the three Institutions committed to exchanging information on best practices and methodologies relating to impact assessments; is of the opinion that this should include the sharing of raw data underpinning the Commission’s impact assessment wherever possible, and notably whenever Parliament decides to complement the Commission’s impact assessment with its own further work; encourages, to that end, the services of the three Institutions to cooperate to the maximum possible extent, including with regard to joint training sessions on impact assessment methodologies, with a view, moreover, to achieving a future, common interinstitutional methodology;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Repeats its position that stakeholders should be able to provide effective input to the impact assessment process as early as possible in the consultation phase and encourages the Commission to that end to make a more systematic use of roadmaps and inception impact assessments and publish them in due time at the beginning of the impact assessment process;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. WelcomNotes the commitment made by the Commission, before adopting a proposal, to consult widely and encourage, in particular, the direct participation of SMEs and other end-users in consultations; notes with satisfaction that the Commission’s revised Better Regulation Guidelines take such a direction;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. WelcomesTakes note of paragraph 22 of the new IIA, wherein, in order to support the evaluation process of existing legislation, the three Institutions agree to, as appropriate, establish reporting, monitoring and evaluation requirements in legislation, while avoiding overregulation and administrative burdens, in particular on the Member States; notes the challenges linked to collecting data in the Member States on the performance of legislation and encourages the Commission and the Member States to step up their efforts in this regard;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. WelcomesTakes note of paragraph 23 of the new IIA, wherein the three Institutions agree to systematically consider the use of review clauses in legislation; inviturges the Commission to include review clauses in its proposals whenever appropriate and, if not, to state its reasons for departing from this general rule;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. WelcomNotes the commitments made by the Commission as regards the scope of the explanatory memorandum accompanying each of its proposals; expresstakes particular satisfaction atnote of the fact that the Commission will also explain how the measures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; underlines in this regard the importance of a strengthened and comprehensive assessment and justification regarding compliance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Considers that consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment related to the same proposal is necessary; inviturges the Commission, therefore, to ensure such consistency and to explain the choice made where it deviates from the conclusions of the impact assessment;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Draws attention to the fact that in paragraph 25 of the new IIA, the Commission only committed to taking ‘due account of the difference in nature and effects between regulations and directives’; reiterates its request that, pursuing the same approach as that outlined in the Monti report, greaterinsists that less use should be made of regulations in legislative proposals30, in accordance with the legal requirements established by the Treaties as to their use, in order to ensure consistency, simplicity, and legal certainty across the Union; _________________ 30 See Parliament’s resolution of 14 September 2011 on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation, paragraph 5.
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. WelcomNotes the three Institutions’ commitment to exchanging views on modifications of the legal basis, as referred to in paragraph 25 of the new IIA; stresses the role and the expertise of its Committee on Legal Affairs in verifying legal bases31; recalls Parliament’s position that it will resist any attempt to undermine the legislative powers of Parliament by means of unwarranted modifications of the legal basis; _________________ 31 See Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Annex V, point XVI.1.
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Expresses dissatisfaction at the fact that, in spite of the concessions made by Parliament, the Council is still very reluctant to accept delegated acts when the criteria under Article 290 TFEU are met; recalls that, as laid down in its recital 7, the new IIA should facilitate the negotiations in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure and improve the application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU; points out that in several legislative files the Council, nevertheless, insisted either on the conferral of implementing powers under Article 291 TFEU or on the inclusion of all the elements in abstracto eligible for the delegation of powers or for the conferral of implementing powers in the basic act itself; expresses disappointment at the fact that, in those cases, the Commission did not defend its own original proposalits appreciation that the Council is still very reluctant to accept delegated acts;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. ConsiderNotes that the criteria for the application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU must take account of the rulings of the Court of Justice, such as those issued in the Biocides case, in the CEF delegated act case and in the Visa Reciprocity Mechanism case34; _________________ 34 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014, European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, cited above; judgment of the Court of 17 March 2016, European Parliament v European Commission, cited above; judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 Parliament v Council, cited above.
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. WelcomNotes the Commission’s commitment, should broader expertise be needed for the early preparation of draft implementing acts, to make use of expert groups, consult targeted stakeholders and carry out public consultations, as appropriate; considers that, whenever any such consultation process is initiated, Parliament should be duly informed;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Notes with appreciation the fact that the Commission in paragraph 28 of the new IIA agreed to ensure that Parliament and the Council have equal access to all information on delegated and implementing acts, so that they will receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts; welcomes the fact that experts from Parliament and the Council will systematically have access to the meetings of Commission expert groups to which Member States’ experts are invited and which concern the preparation of delegated acts; calls on the Commission to abide by this commitment genuinely and consistently; notes that such access has already improved significantly;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. CommendNotes the swift progress made at interinstitutional level in the establishment of a joint functional register of delegated acts and welcomestakes note of its official launch of 12 December 2017;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. CommendNotes the swift progress made at interinstitutional level in the establishment of a joint functional register of delegated acts and welcomestakes note of its official launch of 12 December 2017;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Welcomes the factNotes that under paragraph 32 of the new IIA, Parliament and the Council, as the co-legislators, are to exercise their powers on an equal footing, and the Commission must carry out its role as facilitator by treating the two branches of the legislative authority equally; recalls that this principle is already enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Welcomes the factNotes that the interinstitutional negotiations referred to in paragraph 40 of the new IIA began in November 2016; notes with disappointment that after more than one year of discussions, two rounds of negotiations at political level and a number of meetings at technical level, no agreement has yet been reached despite clear and established case law;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Underlines the importance of the principle set out in paragraph 43 of the new IIA, that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents; notes that this information is often still lacking; calls on the Commission and the Member States to act jointly and consistentlyin order to tackle the lack of transparency and other problems related to ‘gold- plating’36; _________________ 36 See Parliament’s resolution of 21 November 2012 on the 28th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2010) (OJ C 419, 16.12.2015, p. 73), paragraph 7.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
Amendment 124 #
49. Recalls that, under paragraph 44 of the new IIA, Member States are called upon to cooperate with the Commission in obtaining information and data needed to monitor and evaluate implementation of Union law; calls, therefore, on the Member States to take all necessary measures to respect their commitments, including by providing correlation tables containing clear and precise information on the national measures transposing directives in their domestic legal order, as agreed in the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents and in the Joint Political Declaration of 27 October 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on explanatory documents;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. WelcomesTakes note of the commitment made in paragraph 46 of the new IIA for a more frequent use of the legislative technique of recasting; reiterates that this technique should constitute the ordinary legislative technique as an invaluable tool to achieve simplification41; considers, however, that in the event of a complete policy overhaul, the Commission should, instead of using the recasting technique, put forward a proposal for an entirely new legal act repealing existing legislation, so that the co-legislators can engage in broad and effective political discussions and see their prerogatives as enshrined in the Treaties fully preserved; _________________ 41 See Parliament’s resolution of 14 September 2011, cited above, paragraph 41.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation, for which it carried out a Flash Eurobarometer survey on business perceptions of regulation, interviewing over 10 000 businesses across the 28 Member States, mainly SMEs and reflecting the distribution of business in the EU; draws attention to the findings of the survey, which confirm that the focus on cutting unnecessary costs remains appropriate and suggest that there is a complex interplay of different factors that influence the perception of businesses, which may also be caused by variations in national administrative and legal set ups concerning the implementation of legislation; points out that gold plating and even inaccurate media coverage can also affect such perception; agrees with the Commission that the only way to identify concretely what can actually be simplified, streamlined or eliminated is to seek views from all stakeholders on specific pieces of legislation or various pieces of legislation that apply to a particular sector; calls onurges the Commission to refine the annual burden survey, on the basis of the lessons learnt from the first edition, to apply transparent and verifiable data collection methods, to pay particular regard to SMEs’ needs, and to include both actual and perceived burdens;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Takes note, furthermore, of the outcome of the Commission’s assessment of the feasibility, without detriment to the purpose of legislation, of establishing objectives to reduce burdens in specific sectors; encourages the Commission to set burden reduction objectives for each initiative in a flexible but evidence-based and reliable manner, and in full consultation with stakeholders, as it does already under REFIT;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. WelcomesTakes note of the first annual interinstitutional high-level political stock- taking meeting on the implementation of the IIA, which took place on 12 December 2017; encourages the Conference of Committee Chairs to provide the Conference of Presidents with any recommendation it deems appropriate on the implementation of the new IIA;