BETA

7 Amendments of Enrico GASBARRA related to 2015/2283(INI)

Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned byNotes the fact that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a number of the Commission’s legislative proposals, the justification of subsidiarity and proportionality is insufficient or non- existent in substance; stresses, in this connection, the need for the European institutions to make it possible for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals by ensuring that the Commission provides detailed and comprehensive grounds for its legislative decisions on subsidiarity and proportionality, in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 2 to the TFEU;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls concerns raised in previous reports regarding the somewhat perfunctory characterthe importance of the annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality prepared by the Commission, which often fail to pay detailed consideration tothe purpose of which should be to consider in detail how the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy- making; calls on the Commission to produce more analytical and detailed annual reports;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the reports made by a number of national parliaments as a valuable contribution to the debate on the role of national parliaments in the EU decision-making process and takes note of the proposals included therein; notes, in this connection, that these reports suggest that reasoned opinions should not only concern compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, but also compliance with the principle of proportionality and the legal basis for the proposal; believes that the practicability of these proposals depends on a revision of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto; encourages other national parliaments to share their views on the role that national parliaments should play in the EU decision-making process;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Suggests that in any review of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto consideration should be given to whether reasoned opinions should be limited to examining subsidiarity grounds, to the appropriate number of national parliament responses required to trigger a ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card’ procedure, and to what the effect should be in cases where the threshold for these procedures is reached; believes that consideration should be given to the introduction of a ‘red card’ mechanism whereby the consideration of a proposal by the EU co-legislators should be stayed if a significant number of national parliaments expresses concern on subsidiarity grounds, unless the proposal is amended to accommodate those concerns;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that the introduction of a ‘green card’ mechanism could also be considered, which would afford national parliaments the opportunity to propose the introduction, amendment or repeal of Union legislation; suggests, in this connection, that consideration should be given to the number of national parliaments needed in order to trigger such a procedure, and to the extent of its impact;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the request from a number of national parliaments to extend the eight-week period in which they can issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; notes, in this regard, that the current timeframe for national parliaments to carry out subsidiarity checks is oftensometimes deemed insufficient; considers that a twelve-week period would be more appropriate;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that legislative proposals may change substantially in the course of the legislative procedure and, in this connection, reiterates that consideration should be given to the introduction of further subsidiarity checks and impact assessments – without, however, altering the timetable for the final adoption of the legislation – when a major amendment is likely to be adopted and at the conclusion of the legislative negotiations and in advance of the adoption of the final text, in order that compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI