Activities of Caterina CHINNICI related to 2020/2132(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Parliament’s right of initiative (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Parliament’s right of initiative
Amendments (6)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Commission’s use of its right of legislative initiative has been neithernot always been constructive norand productive in recent years; believes that the same holds true of the frequent use of recast procedures and the lack of proper impact assessment;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Stresses that the European Parliament is the only institution of the Union directly elected by its citizens and that it is the only parliamentary assembly in the world that does not have the power of direct legislative initiative, unlike national parliaments; believes that the current institutional architecture represents a democratic deficit, which is difficult to understand for European citizens;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Recommends that the Commission strengthens transparency and simplifies accessibility to documents, in particular to impact assessments and existing direct participation tools, such as online public consultations available in the 23 Union languages, or other feedback mechanisms on specific issues, as well as to consider introducing new mechanisms of direct democracy, that would allow for a wider participation of European citizens throughout the Union's legislative process;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that Article 68 TFEU recognized a preponderant role to the European Council that has a de facto right of initiative when defining the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, which does not constitute a level playing field, as co- legislators, between Parliament and the Council, as laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on “Better Lawmaking”; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Condemns the consistent lack of proper response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights based on Parliament’s proposal of 2016 and the Commission’s annual report on the rule of law, governed by an interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions, consisting of an annual cycle of monitoring Union values, covering all aspects of Article 2 TEU and applying in an equal, objective and fair manner to all Member States in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its reasoned proposal on the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded; reiterates its deep concern that the standard modalities for hearings do not ensure equal treatment for Parliament, on the one hand, and the Commission and one third of the Member States, on the other, for presenting the reasoned proposal and access to information; expresses its regret that the hearings have not yet resulted in any significant progress on addressing clear risks of a serious breach of the values; considers that the Union remains structurally unprepared to counter the backsliding of democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law and their violations in the Member States and points out that the Council’s failure to make effective use of Article 7 of the TEU continues to undermine the integrity of common European values, mutual trust, and the credibility of the Union as a whole.