Activities of Notis MARIAS related to 2015/2283(INI)
Plenary speeches (3)
Annual report 2014 on subsidiarity and proportionality (A8-0114/2017 - Sajjad Karim) EL
Annual report 2014 on subsidiarity and proportionality (debate) EL
Annual report 2014 on subsidiarity and proportionality (debate) EL
Amendments (13)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
– having regard to the Protocol (No 1) to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the role of National Parliaments in the European Union,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)
Citation 11 b (new)
– having regard to Protocol (No 2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas national parliaments continue to observe that thean increasing number of delegated powers in the Union’s legislative acts makesthat are making it difficult to effectively evaluate whether final rules would comply with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the continued consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which 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 consideared an important tool 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;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotStresses 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 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 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned by 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 forresponsibility of 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;
Amendment 44 #
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; 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; welcomeawaits, in this connection, the implementation of the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which are intended to place new emphasis on subsidiarity and proportionality in the context of impact assessments;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls concerns raised in previous reports regardinggrets 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;
Amendment 63 #
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, 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 should be introduced 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 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that the introduction of a ‘green card’ mechanism cshould 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;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note ofConsiders reasonable 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; considers that a twelve-week period would be more appropriate;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Suggests assessing whetherthat appropriate criteria in the form of non- binding guidelines should be laid down at EU level for the evaluation of compliance 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;
Amendment 108 #
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 checks 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 the closest compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;