Activities of Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN related to 2014/2252(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Annual reports 2012-2013 on subsidiarity and proportionality (debate) DE
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Annual reports 2012-2013 on subsidiarity and proportionality PDF (178 KB) DOC (132 KB)
Amendments (18)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes continued consideration ofObserves that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are guiding are fundamental principles for the European Union when it chooses to act;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. BelievesObserves furthermore that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality represent the starting point for policy formulation; considers that it is not always the case that European action can achipolicy objectives can be achieved better at European level the policy objectives better thanan by means of national or regional initiatives may do, or even global efforts where the will for joint action exists;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the Commission’s annual reports are on an appropriate scale and that the aim of reporting on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality is suitably achieved;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Questions some ofNotes the assumptions made in the 2012 and 2013 Annual reports, such as that of classifying reasoned opinions submitted by national parliaments on a package of proposals as only one reasoned opinion, rather than a reasoned opinion on each of the individual proposals; believes that this is an inappropriate assumption, as objections raised on a package should be considered as an objection on each legislative proposal;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ConsiderNotes that, when taken as a whole, the proportion of reasoned opinions has increased significantly as a percentage of total submissions when compared to 2010 and 2011; notes that in 2012 reasoned opinions represented 25 % of all submissions, while in 2013 they accounted for 30 % of submissions from national parliaments under the Protocol 2 process; expresses concern that an increasing proportion of the submissions made by national parliaments are raising strong reservations about compliance with subsidiarity;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls concerns raised in previous European Parliament reports regarding instances where subsidiarity had not been adequately addressed in impact assessments (IAs) prepared by the Commission; further recalls that the Annual Reports of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) have raised this issue; expresses concernnotes that the IAB considered more than 30 % of IAs reviewed by them in 2012 and 2013 to have included an unsatisfactory analysis of the principle of subsidiarity; expresses serious concernnotes that this number rose to 50 % in 2014, and urges the Commission in its revision of the guidelines applying to IAs to address this issue and reverse this trend;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. StressNotes that thorough impact assessments which thoroughlyinter alia evaluate subsidiarity compliance are essentiala procedure to improve the trust of citizens, who often consider the subsidiarity principle a key aspect of the democratic process; highlights, therefore, that enhanced subsidiarity checks could be considered an important tool for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Expresses disappointment at the response of the Commission to national parliaments in instances where yellow cards have been issued; believes that it is necessary forConsiders that the Commission tocould respond comprehensively to anyto concerns raised by national parliaments, and on an individual basis as part of a dialogue in addition to any published opinion; considers that it is also necessary for the Commission to appear before the relevant committee or committees of the Parliament to explain its position in detail;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that political dialogue is increasingly important in ensuring that subsidiarity is respected; considers that political dialogue should be improved not only in instances of a yellow or orange card, but as a general rule; welcomes in this regard the Juncker Commission’s undertaking to appear before more national parliaments, and calls for the Parliament to consider undertaking similar initiatives; believes that rapporteurs could be encouraged to engage more often with national parliaments, particularly as video-conferencing and other methods of online engagement are made easier and more effective;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that the adoption of legal acts requires the agreement of a large majority within the Council, comprising the national ministers of all EU Member States, who are politically accountable to their national parliaments, and thus in that way too the principle of subsidiarity is fully respected;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Stresses that, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the ‘yellow card’ procedure has been used in two cases and the ‘orange card’ procedure not at all when national parliaments have examined the compliance of proposals with the subsidiarity principle; considers that what is of prime interest is rather the substance of proposals than the subsidiarity aspect; observes that many national parliaments are making greater use of the available scope for influencing the positions of the respective ministers within the Council;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that the European institutions and the national parliaments still have much to do to creahould continue to work to promote a ‘subsidiarity culture’ across the European Union; recommends twoa particular initiatives which would aid better consideration of subsidiarity in the legislative process at present, namely facilitating greater inclusion of positions, perspectives or other suggestions made by national parliaments in the political dialogue, in particular in the course of preparatory work such as Green Papers or White Papers produced by the Commission, and undertaking to extend the period for consultation of national parliaments under the subsidiarity check contained in Protocol 2; considers that this could be achieved through a political undertaking agreed by the institutions and the national parliaments, in advance of any change to the Protocol itself;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Considers that the eight-week time limit for the delivery of a reasoned opinion by national parliaments has essentially proven justified;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that a stronger approach is needed to fully recognise the principle of subsidiarity; considers therefore that the introduction of a stronger ‘red card’ procedure could be a positive first step; suggests that consideration should be given to what the appropriate number of national parliament responses should be in order to trigger such a procedure, whether it should be limited to subsidiarity alone or include proportionality grounds, and what its effect should be; views such a discussion as a useful stage in the evolution of the power given to national parliaments, aligning incentives to exercise scrutiny with effects at European levelthe approach adopted to date is sufficient to fully recognise the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that legislative proposals may change dramatically in the lead-up to adoption by the institutions; recalls that a check on compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is only undertaken at the outset and not at the conclusion of the legislative process; further recalls that impact assessments more generally are only prepared for the initial rather than the final stages of the legislative processof the legislative process, thus enabling national parliaments to become involved at an early stage;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. CRecalls therefore for a furat ther subsidiarity check and full impact assessment to be undertaken at the conclusion of the legislative negotiations and in advance of the adoption of a final text, in order that compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made; believes that such a ‘cooling off’ period would help policy-makers in assessing whether legislation complies with the principles of the Union, and would increase transparency about the results of periods of often rather intense negotiationby the Commission is absolutely essential in order to guarantee compliance with subsidiarity and proportionality before a legislative initiative is launched;