Activities of Anne-Sophie PELLETIER related to 2020/2132(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Parliament’s right of initiative
Amendments (9)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Considers that Parliament's role in the Union's political and legislative agenda is crucial and that it has an important role to play in shaping the legislative initiatives to be submitted by the Commission, a role that should be more regularly and consistently fulfilled; stresses the need for the Parliament to put forward an increased number of new legislative proposals in order to gain a stronger role in initiating legislation;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Strongly recommends therefore making further use of Parliament’s powers under the Treaties and for a Treaty revisionand of its crucial democratic role within the Union under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision of Article 225 TFEU, which has almost been overridden by Article 17(2) TEU, to be considered to give Parliament an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplores the fact that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;
Amendment 19 #
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, 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; emphasises that these factors have led to the development of a large asymmetry in the legislative power held by the Council and the European Parliament;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it deeply regrettable 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 the 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 Commission; believes that the Commission must take action on Parliament's legislative initiatives by at least outlining follow-up actions taken and offering a detailed explanation when issuing negative decisions and expects the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report to be automatic, as pledged by the current Commission; reserves its right to consider taking action under Article 265 TFEU against the Commission if it fails to take any action on Parliament's legislative initiatives; regrets that the Commission's communications on the actions taken on own-initiative reports are not public and often lack a detailed response; _________________ 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 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Considers that, were the Commission not to submit a legislative proposal and fail to provide proper reasons as required by Article 225 TFEU, following Parliament’s request, this would constitute a failure to act and Parliament should reserve its right to take action under Article 265 TFEU; is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Parliament’s call for a legislative act in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, its resolution adopted by a majority of members shall form the basis for a legislative procedure to be initiated by Parliament itself;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Condemns the consistent lack of proper response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement as the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic, fundamental rights and rule of law violations; believes that the persistent deterioration of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the Member States has shown the need for interinstitutional cooperation in protecting the principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Believes that, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788, in case the Commission has failed to publish its intentions or has set out in a communication that it intends not to take action on a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) that has met the procedural requirements, Parliament should decide to follow up with an INL report that is based on the ECI; urges the Commission to commit itself to submit a legislative proposal following the adoption of a Parliament’s initiative that is based on an ECI that has met the procedural requirements and that is in line with the Treaties and the core values of the Union enshrined in Article 2 TEU; proposes in that regard to modify the Framework Agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Considers that new EU law- making mechanisms associating EU citizens and their elected representatives in the Parliament should be designed in order to improve citizens participation and the European democracy as a whole; believes, for instance, that the procedural thresholds for ECIs should be lowered where the proposal for an ECI is co- signed by a minimum number of MEPs;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Asks the Commission to study the possibility of introducing mechanisms of direct democracy, such as citizen's assemblies or referendum vote on specific issues, which would grant EU citizens decisional or consultative power in the EU law-making process, without depending on the reform of the Treaties.