Activities of Damian BOESELAGER related to 2021/2166(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws
Amendments (13)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2a (new)
Paragraph 2a (new)
2a (new) Calls on the institutions to step up efforts for establishing a dedicated and user-friendly joint database on the state of play of legislative files for which work is ongoing as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. RStresses that Article 10(3) TEU recognises participatory democracy as one of the main democratic principles of the EU, thereby highlighting that decisions must be taken as close to citizens as possible, which is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the EU institutions; reiterates that there is a need to fully engage citizens in the EU decision- making process; reiterates its call for the establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms, such as, but not limited to, online policy debate platforms, Youth consultations, a continuation of the Citizens’ Panels, to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms, such as, but not limited to, Commission, Council Presidency and Parliament citizens’ hours and dialogues, and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the acknowledged lack of impact assessments for several key legislative files, which can only partly be attributed to the COVID- 19 pandemic;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the need for the co- legislators to conduct impact legislators to conduct impact assessments when substantially assessments when substantially amending legislative proposals, in amending legislative proposals, in line with paragraph 15 of the line with paragraph 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making2 (IIA on BLM); Better Law-Making3 (IIA on BLM); calls for impact assessments to be published immediately upon their completion, and not only when the policy proposal is presented, thus ensuring greater transparency of how decisions at EU-level are taken, as stated by the CJEU in Case C 57/16P, ClientEarth v Commission;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a (new) Stresses furthermore that impact assessments are a tool to help reaching well-informed decisions in the legislative decision- making process and must not lead to undue delays in decision-making or hinder political decisions in a context of green and digital transition to answer global challenges; highlights that such processes should take into consideration economic, environmental, gender and social impacts in an integrated and balanced way and use both qualitative and quantitative analyses, as well as addressing the costs of non-harmonisation at EU level; recalls that making regulation which is ‘fit for the future’ should entail the adoption of a ‘think sustainability first’ approach in the Better Regulation Guidelines;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to setting up a joint legislative register; insists on the need to make this joint portal fully operational and transparent as soon as possibleby the end of 2022 and to include all publicly disclosed documents under Regulation (EU) 1049/200189 automatically; deplores the persistent lack of transparency in the Council’s decision- making process and the practice of over- classifying documents and applying an 7 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 8 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 9 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001; believes that the use of secrecy exceptions for Council documents should be applied in a coherent system with external oversight and complying with CJEU caselaw;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)
Paragraph 6a (new)
6a (new) Is of the opinion that access to documents rules in Council activities should be as transparent as those of the European Parliament; stresses in this regard that the positions defended by the representatives of the Member States, already at the level of the Working Groups of the Council, should be made public in order for citizens, media and civil society to be able to know what position their government took on their behalf at the EU level and to contribute to the enhancement of scrutiny of EU decision-making by national parliaments, applying to all decisions, from legislative files to implementing and delegated acts; points out that bodies with even less levels of transparency such as the Eurogroup should as a first step be submitted to the Council’s rules of procedure, making available to the public the voting procedures, minutes, results, and explanation of votes and its deliberations;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6b (new)
Paragraph 6b (new)
6b (new) Requests urgent measures to enhance the transparency of decisions taken in infringement procedures;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6c (new)
Paragraph 6c (new)
6c (new) Believes that the EU needs more ambitious access to documents rules, including for documents related to internal, trilogue and international negotiations; recalls that according to the European Ombudsman, restrictions on access to documents, particularly legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; further recalls that transparency and publicity of an ongoing legislative procedure are inherent to the legislative process and can therefore be applied to the access of documents for trilogues as stated by the CJEU in its case-law, case T540/15, De Capitani v Parliament in particular; adds furthermore that openness and transparency confer greater legitimacy and confidence in the democratic legislative process of the European Union;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls the importance of maintaining a close contact between the co-legislators in advance of interinstitutional negotiations, including by inviting representatives of other institutions to informal exchanges of views on a regular basis, in line with the commitment outlined in paragraph 34 of the IIA on BLM;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Council and the Commission to assess jointly with Commission to assess jointly with Parliament the extent to which the Parliament the extent to which the IIA on IIA on BLM should be revised to BLM should be revised to eliminate eliminate possible barriers to possible barriers to Parliament’s ability to Parliament’s ability to exercise its exercise its power to propose legislative power to propose legislative initiatives; reminds the Council and the initiatives; Commission of the recommendations taken by the Focus Groups of the European Parliament underlining the need to revise Rule of Procedure 132 as well as rule 166 on the access to the Chambers of the Council and the European Commission so as to allow members to assist or be questioned during Council Working Group, COREPER or Council meetings;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the need to take into full consideration the Conference on the Future of Europe’s deliberations on the participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, in particularwith a focus on sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers the development of new algorithms and new forms of forms of digitalisation processes in digitalisation processes in the the decision-making of all three decision-making of all three institutions to be an essential institutions to be an essential challenge of the digital era; believes challenge of the digital era; believes that the commitments of the three that the commitments of the three institutions on those developments institutions on those developments should be clearly identified and should be clearly identified and included in a revised IIA on BLM. included in a revised IIA on BLM.