13 Amendments of Manon AUBRY related to 2023/2079(INI)
Amendment 8 #
B. whereas there is still the need to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens to make sure thatincreasing transperancy, accountability and cooperation between institutions and, Member States and citizens should be a common goal for all; where full respect for fundamental rights, democratic values, rule of law and human rights should be ensured; whereas EU laws must deliver their intended benefits while reducing unnecessary costs, particularly for citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)for citizens; whereas quality law-making cannot only be reduced to quantitative targets and limiting administrative efforts, but should aim to deliver long-term prosperity;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Stresses that a parliamentary right of initiative is an important feature of representative democracy at Member State level and sees the necessity to empower Members of the European Parliament, as the direct representatives of EU citizens, by strengthening their right to shape the EU legislative agenda;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Continues to support the Commission’s commitment to ex ante evaluation before considering possible legislative changes or new initiatives; believes that the EU and the authorities of the Member States should continue to work closely together to ensure better evaluation of the real impact of EU regulations on citizens and businesses, notably SMEs; stresses that this assessment cannot consist only of economic considerations such as growth and corporate profits, and should insteadassess the impact of legislations on the well-being of citizens and long-term sustainability; calls for ex ante evaluations to evaluate the impact of legislations on social justice, fundamental rights, and environmental protection;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Emphasises that the impact assessment is a key instrument to ensure that subsidiarity and proportionality are respected and is used to promote accountability; welcomes the fact that the two principles are part of the quality review performed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to subjecting EU legislative proposals to an SME test; welcomes its increased accessibility; regrets, however, that the test is not conducted systematically and consistently; calls for the test to be binding and updated throughout the whole legislative process; recommends that the SME test differentiate between different size-classes of SMEs;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Considers that the Commission should fully comply with the provisions of Article 6 (4) of the European Climate law, which provides that any draft measures and legislative proposals need to be consistent with the fulfilment of the Union’s climate neutrality objective by 2050; to that end, calls the Commission to assess the consistency of all draft measures or legislative proposals, including impact assessment, with climate neutrality objectives and whether they ensure progress on adaptation to climate change
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that the quality of the EU’s regulatory framework is crucial for the Union’s competitiveness; welcomes the Commission communication entitled ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ and the commitment therein to better assess the cumulative impacts of different policy measures with a view to developing a methodology complementary to the competitiveness check currently used in impact assessments8 ; deplores, however, that the promised methodology has not yet been developed and that the current competitiveness check focuses only on individual legislative proposals; calls, therefore, on the Commission to promptly develop a comprehensive methodology covering the cumulative effects of the relevant policy measures on the EU’s competitiveness; calls, furthermore, for the competitiveness check to not only be performed on the impact assessments of single EU legislative proposals, but also on legislative packages9 and the Commission work programme as a whole; _________________ 8protection of the Union’s environment, social justice, and employment; takes not of the Commission communication of 16 March 2023 entitled ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, p. 17, (COM(2023)0168). 9 For example, the ‘Fit for 55’ package.';
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes with concern that, in 2022, 58 % of the impact assessments provided insufficient quantification of costs relevant to the ‘one in, one out’ approach10 ; calls, therefore, on the Commission to improve the implementation ofthe 'one in, one out' approach to legislative procedures based on a quantification of costs could not be or was not followed in 58 % of the impact assessments; considers that this shows that the ‘'one in, one out’' approach in law-making, to better indicate what costs and benefits were considered and to provide clear information on the reduction of existing regulatory burdens; _________________ 10 Regulatory Scrutiny Board, ‘Annual Report 2022’, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 16 May 2023, p. 25.s a misguided, quantitative approach to law-making that cannot be applied in practice and should be abandonned to focus on the benefits of legislation for citizens, workers, and consumers;