BETA

8 Amendments of Lídia PEREIRA related to 2022/2142(INI)

Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that taxation is one of the few areas that remain subject to unanimity voting in Council; stresses that it has become increasingly evident over recent years that stronger coordination and cooperation in the field of taxation is needed at EU and global levels in the light of economic developments and the new challenges created by digitalisation and globalisation; regrets, in this regard, Hungary’s misuse of its veto right to block the Council negotiations on the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational groups in the Union (COM(2021)0823);
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the fact that the current situation often leads to delays and a lack of progress in the harmonisation and coordination of tax rules across the Union, even though such harmonisation and coordination would benefit everyone; nNotes that some legislative proposals, such as the debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) or the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), will be key to supporting the competitiveness of European companies;
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union provides for two general passerelle clauses that allow the decision-making procedures to be changed in order to adopt measures in Council through qualified majority voting (QMV) in areas that are currently subject to unanimity; regrets the fact and, in cases of special legislative procedure, to adopt a decision in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure; underlines that any decision on the use of a passerelle clause must be limited to a specific area or case, according to the same Article 48(7); notes that these passerelle clauses have never been used; recalls that activating the passerelle clauses would in any case require unanimity in the European Council and Parliament’s consent; stresses that national parliaments are entitled to oppose the activation of such clauses;
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Recommends using the two general passerelle clauses for selected Treaty articles concerning the EU’s competences in the area of taxation; recalls that the Commission communication of 15 January 2019 entitled ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ (COM(2019)0008) and the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe both recommended moving from unanimity voting to QMV on tax matters.deleted
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Reminds that there are six special passerelle clauses provisioned in the treaties, namely in the areas of common foreign and security policy (Article 31(3) TEU), family law with cross-border implications (Article 81(3) TFEU), social policy (Article 153(2) TFEU), environmental policy (Article 192(2) TFEU), multiannual annual financial framework (Article 312(2) TFEU), and enhanced cooperation (Article 333 TFEU); notes that the legislator of primary EU Law provisioned these special clauses, signalizing therefore these policy dimensions as the main areas where passerelle clauses must be applied; recalls that taxation is not among such dimensions;
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Recalls that the general passerelle clauses provisioned in Article 48(7) TEU first and second paragraphs "do not envisage the modification of Union competences, but only a change in the decision-making procedure, using existing powers"1a; _________________ 1a C. Callies, M. Ruffert and H.-J. Cremer, EUV/AEUV, Der Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtcharta, 2016, Article 48, mn. 12.
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Recognizes that the specific procedure for the application of general passerelle clauses provisioned in Article 48(7) TEU comprehends a series of requirements that make its activation difficult; understands that the teleology of such provision is the need to create a significant limitation to the use of such clauses as they represent a de facto Treaty change, in the sense that they formally change the legislative procedure and the majority requirements provisioned in the treaties; takes duly note of such originary intention of the primary EU Law legislator;
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4 d. Notes that the use of general passerelle clauses is subject to political, academic and judiciary debate within the European Union; recalls, inter alia, the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 30 June 2009, specifically referring the general passerelle clauses, namely the part that states: "In so far as the general bridging procedure under Article 48.7(3) Lisbon TEU and the special bridging clause under Article 81.3(3) TFEU grant the national parliaments a right to make known their opposition, this is not a sufficient equivalent to the requirement of ratification. It is therefore necessary that the representative of the German government in the European Council or in the Council may only approve the draft decision if empowered to do so by the German Bundestag and the Bundesrat within a period yet to be determined in accordance with the purpose of Article 48.7(3) Lisbon TEU, by a law within the meaning of Article 23.1 second sentence of the Basic Law."2a _________________ 2a https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/ SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2009/06 /es20090630_2bve000208en.html
2023/01/25
Committee: ECON