11 Amendments of Isabel WISELER-LIMA related to 2020/2132(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. BelieveRecalls that the Commission’s use of its right has a near monopoly ofn legislative initiative has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years; believess, and that the samse shoulds true of the frequent use of recast procedures and the lack of respect the principles of proportionality, subsidiarity and better law-making and be accompanied by a proper impact assessment;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the European Parliament, as a democratically elected body, does not have the formal right of legislative initiative like national parliaments; Strongly recommends therefore makingto strengthen and to make further use of Parliament’s powers under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision to be considered to give Parliament an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European peoplecitizens and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplorstresses the fact that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that Treaty revision is a lengthy process; strongly recommends therefore that in the meantime the European Parliament explores all other options to enhance its right to initiate legislation;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Considers that it is worth exploring the possibility to amend the 2010 Framework Agreement on the relations between the European Parliament and the Commission1a and the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on better law-making1b in order to strengthen the European Parliament’s powers to influence the European agenda-setting; _________________ 1ahttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010 Q1120%2801%29 1bhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016 Q0512%2801%29
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Believes that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides the right opportunity to discuss with civil society the powers of the European Parliament;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the European Council has a de facto right of initiative when defining the strategic guidelines for legislative planning within the area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which does not constitute a level playing field between Parliament and the Council; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it dDeeply regrettables that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non- legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful, and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a positive reply from the Commission1 ; considers it regrettable also that theconcrete legislative proposal as follow-up by the Commission1 ; regrets that the three months deadlines for the Commission to react to parliamentary resolutions and to come forward with legislative proposals have consistently not been respected; expects the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report to be automatic, as pledged by the current Commissionfully in line with Article 225 TFEU, with the 2010 Framework Agreement and the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making; _________________ 1 ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, p. 55 and 57.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls that Article 225 TFEU and the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making requires the Commission to give detailed reasons for not following-up on the European Parliament’s request to legislate; considers that the validity of the Commission’s reasons for not following- up with a concrete legislative proposal to a Parliament INL report are subject to interpretation and Parliament should reserve its right to take action under Article 265 TFEU when it considers it necessary;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Believes that INL reports should be accompanied by impact assessments whenever possible and drafted as clearly as possible;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Condemns the consistent lack of properRecalls the 2016 legislative initiative on the EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1a; regrets the insufficient response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; recalls the 2020 resolution on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1b; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement; _________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-8-2016-0409_EN.pdf 1b https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-9-2020-0251_EN.pdf