16 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2015/2283(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the number of reasoned opinions received fell by 76% in 2014 compared to the number received in the previous year (88 in 2013), owing in particular to the decrease in the number of proposals drawn up by the Commission towards the end of its term of office;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas in 2014 three national chambers (the Danish Folketing, the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the UK House of Lords) issued reports with detailed proposals on how to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the decision- making process, containing, inter alia, ideas on how to extend the scope of the subsidiarity control mechanism;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the continued consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which, in accordance with the Treaties1a , are guiding principles for the European Union when it chooses to act; stresses that subsidiarity and democratic legitimacy are closely intertwined concepts; highlights that subsidiarity checks can be considered an, and the exercise of subsidiarity control by the Member States’ national parliaments is among the important tools for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’; points out that national parliaments have a vital role to play in ensuring that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen; __________________ 1aThe importance of respecting and applying the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality is highlighted in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (EU Treaty) and in Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that the control mechanism introduced through the subsidiarity principle represents an important tool for collaboration between European institutions and national institutions;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; points out, however, that such a decrease might be as a result of the declining number of legislative proposals by the Commission and not– which was coming to the end of its term of office – and by no means of a loss of interest on the part of national parliaments; draws attention to the fact that in 2014 no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card procedures’ under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned by the fact that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a numbercertain of the Commission’s legislative proposals, the justification of subsidiarity and proportionality is insufficient or indeed non-existent in substance; stresses, in this connection, the need for the European institutions to make itfacilitate the possibleility for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals efficiently 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;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern that the Impact Assessment Board (‘IAB’) considered more than 32 % of impact assessments (‘IAs’) reviewed by them in 2014 to have included an unsatisfactory analysis of the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality, or both, and that this is similar to the rates recorded in previous years and improvements are necessary; notes the crucial importance of impact assessments as tools for aiding decision-making in the legislative process, and stresses the need, in this context, for proper consideration to be given to issues relating to subsidiarity and proportionality; welcomes, in this connection, the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which place new emphasis on updated guidelines relating to the evaluation of subsidiarity and proportionality in the context of impact assessments;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls concerns raised in previous reports regarding the somewhat perfunctory character of the annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality prepared by the Commission, which often fail to pay detailed consideration to how the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy-making; calls on the Commission to produce more analytical annual reports, based on a complex and appropriate evaluation of the way in which these two principles are observed in the EU’s decision-making process;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
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 or whether they should also cover references to the proportionality principle or the legal basis, 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;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
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 often deemed insufficient, given that the time pressure and pressure on resources facing them when responding to draft legislative acts may contribute significantly to the ‘democratic deficit’ felt in the EU; considers that a twelve- week period would be more appropriate;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to systematically carry out enhanced proportionality assessassessments of the way in which the proportionality principle is being observed and implementsed, with detailed evaluationan appropriate detailed analysis of the different legislative options at its disposal so as to discard alternatives with a disproportionate impact or which are unnecessarily burdensome on the individuals and undertakings and other entities concerned, in particular SMEs, a; calls on the Commission, to this end, to provide a sufficiently detailed description of all the different alternatives that had been considered so as to allow better scrutiny of its proposals on proportionality grounds; considers that the enlargement ofit would be desirable, with a view to ensuring more efficient collaboration between national and European institutions, for the scope of reasoned opinions to be enlarged so as to include an assessment of respect of the principle of proportionality would be desirablein the process of shaping policies at EU level;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Notes that, with a view to ensuring legislative consistency, the examination of respect for the proportionality principle in the case of a draft legislative act should be carried out after the examination of respect for the subsidiarity principle; reiterates, however, that verification of subsidiarity would not be sufficient without verification of proportionality;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Suggests assessing whetherCalls on the Commission to assess the possibility of laying down appropriate criteria in the form of non- binding guidelines should be laid down at EU level for theat EU level, which would make it possible to evaluation ofe the compliance of draft legislative acts with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; considers that these criteria should not unduly restrict the discretion that national parliaments should enjoy when assessing the compliance of the proposals with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles; recommends, however, that the national parliaments should be afforded adequate assistance to enable them to carry out their control tasks efficiently;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – introductory part
Paragraph 14 – introductory part
14. Reiterates that several initiatives could already be introduced to improve the evaluation of European issues by national parliamentscollaboration between the European institutions and national parliaments and make it more efficient, and in particular:
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
– suggests that guidelines couldneed to be prepared outlining criteria for reasoned opinions on subsidiarity issuesrelating to the evaluation of respect for the subsidiarity principle, which would apply to reasoned opinions from national parliaments; believes, however, that the criteria concerned should not encroach on the freedom enjoyed by national parliaments when assessing the compliance of draft legislative acts with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
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 checkverification mechanisms and impact assessments 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;