32 Amendments of Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN related to 2015/2283(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the package of better regulation measures adopted on 19 May 2015; believes however that material criteria for establishing the existence of a violation of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles should be proposedrecalls that every Commission proposal is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out inter alia how the initiative complies with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas in 2014 three, of the 41 national chambers, three (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;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 16 #
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 considered 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; stresses that, with regard to any new legislative initiative, the Commission is obliged to examine whether the EU has the right to take action and whether this is also justified;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the continued consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are among the 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 important tool for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’; points out that national parliaments can have a vital role to play in ensuring that decisions are taken at the level that is most effective and as closely as possible to the citizen;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RegretNotes the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; takes note of the Commission’s view that, far from reflecting a decrease in interest on their part, this might be the this is a result of the declining number of legislative proposals from the Commission;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes also that only 15 Chambers issued reasoned opinions in 2014 and that this represents a decrease of approximately 50% in the participation of the 41 Chambers in all compared to 2013;
Amendment 27 #
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 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 thewas subject to ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card procedures’ under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; recalls that the fact that the yellow card procedure was triggered twice in the past (2012 and 2013) is a sign that the system is already functional while national parliaments are worried about the subsidiarity principle.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes, nevertheless, that it is important to raise the awareness of national parliaments on subsidiarity issues and to support them with tools permitting information exchange; stresses that, especially since the volume of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014 remained unchanged in proportion to the number of Commission proposals, a mechanism should be developed for the participation of national parliaments in the EU legislative process;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned by the factNotes that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a numbersome 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 ensuringensure 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 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern thatWelcomes 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 ikage of measures aimed at improving regulation which was adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015 and which addresses the concerns raised by the Impact Assues relating tosment Board concerning subsidiarity and proportionality; welcomes, in this connecti the Commission’s new line on, the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which place new emphasisubject which gives greater prominence to the principles onf subsidiarity and proportionality, in the context of impact assessments;cluding in its impact analyses.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. BelievStresses that the period of eight weeks given to national parliamentnational parliaments are given a period of eight weeks to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be extended significantly; recalls that in addition it is possible for the national parliaments to raise subsidiarity concerns at any time under the consultation procedure or in the framework of political dialogue through an opinion addressed to the Commission;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. RecCalls 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 Commission to provide more detailed annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality that provide a thorough analysis of the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy-making; calls on the Commission to produce more analytical annual reports;proportionality.
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 61 #
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 maintaining the threshold for 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;s set by Article (7)2 of Protocol No. 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. 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 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion thatNotes that several national parliaments in COSAC have expressed their interest in proposing 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' as an instrument in the context of improving political dialogue, which would afford national parliaments, having first secured the support of the European Parliament, the opportunity to suggest constructive proposals for the Commission's consideration and with due regard for the Commission's right of initiative;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the request from a number ofcertain 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 appropriatnational parliaments may intervene and consider the question of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity before the presentation of a legislative initiative by the Commission in the form of Green and White Papers or the annual presentation of the Commission’s work programme;
Amendment 74 #
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 theyRecalls that the period in which the national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion underis eight weeks according to 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;. Stresses that this period is the result of striking a balance between the desire to consult national parliaments and the need to avoid an excessively slow legislative process.
Amendment 78 #
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 the Member States, who are politically accountable to their national parliaments, and that this is another way in which the principle of subsidiarity is fully respected;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that reasoned opinions issued by national parliaments in accordance with Article 7(1) of Protocol No 2 are to be duly taken into accountconsideration by all institutions involved during the decision- making process of the Union and, in this connection, calls on the EU institutions to make the appropriate arrangements to ensure this;.
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires ‘that the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties’; emphasises that the Court of Justice has stated that the principle of proportionality ‘requires that measures implemented through provisions of European Union law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them’ and that ‘in the fields in which the European Union legislature has a broad legislative power’ the lawfulness of a measure adopted in this context can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue, although the European legislator must nonetheless ‘base its choice on objective criteria’ and, when assessing the burdens associated with various possible measures, ‘examine whether objectives pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain operators’;.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Welcomes the Declaration from the Presidents of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the French National Assembly, the German Bundestag, and the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies, which underlined „that more, not less, Europe is needed to respond to the challenges we face, both internally and externally";
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 1
Paragraph 14 – indent 1
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 2
Paragraph 14 – indent 2
– proposes forwarding the reasoned opinions of national parliaments sent underrecalls that pursuant to Rule 42(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure ‘If a national parliament sends the President a reasoned opinion in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union and Article 6 of the Protocol No 2 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU to the co- legislators without delay;on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, that document shall be referred to the committee responsible for the subject- matter and forwarded for information to the committee responsible for respect of the principle of subsidiarity’.
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 4
Paragraph 14 – indent 4
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 105 #
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 compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;impact assessments at the beginning of the legislative procedure are an important and necessary instrument for compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Stresses that these guiding principles, which ensure that the European Union is close to its citizens, must guarantee the effectiveness of the EU institutions while avoiding excessive bureaucracy.