9 Amendments of Monika BEŇOVÁ related to 2018/2114(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the Joint Statement and the Common Approach are of a legally non-binding character;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the Parliament was not fully involved in the procedure to select the new seat of EMA and; Points out that the proceduress followed for the srelecocation of the new location for EMA is not used anymore in this formEMA, which was specific to the situation and did not constitute a precedent, must not be used in the future;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expects the prerogatives of Parliament as co-legislator to be fully respected in future decisions on the location or relocation of agencies; considers that Parliament should be systematically involved from the initial stages of the future processes, and on equal terms with the Council and the Commission;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines the value of enhanced exchange of information from the initial stages of future processes for the location of agencies. Such early exchange of information would make it easier for the three Institutions to exercise their rights and prerogatives;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to provide, by April 2019, an in-depth analysis of the implementation of the Joint Statement and Common Approach as regards the location of the decentralised Agencies in order to launch a revision; In the case that the in-depth analysis identifies shortcomings, calls on the Council to engage, together with the Parliament and the Commission, in a revision of the Joint Statement and Common Approach in a timely manner;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that in case of budgetary decisions regarding decentralised agencies the specificity and workload of the agency has to be taken into account and that possible budgetary cuts cannot be taken on a one size fits all-basis; considers that, in this context, priority should be given to the needs of agencies that are undergoing potentially business-disrupting events and processes such as relocation; furthermore stresses the need to take into account the new climate and sustainability priorities within the next MFF and the tasks attributed to particular agencies for the implementation of the MFF.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that in case of budgetary and staffing decisions regarding decentralised agencies the specificity and workload of the agency has to be taken into account and that possible budgetary and personnel cuts cannot be taken on a one size fits all-basis; furthermore stresses the need to take into account the new climate and sustainability priorities within the next MFF and the tasks attributed to particular agencies for the implementation of the MFF.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Notes that the principles of desirability of geographical spread of agencies' seats and of prioritising new Member States as hosts, as stated in the Joint Statement, were not respected in the case of new seats for EMA and EBA;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Points out that the Joint Statement advises that, when the legislative authority decides to assign additional tasks to agencies as compared to the initial Commission proposal, the repriorisation of their activities should always be considered as an alternative to granting additional resources 1a; believes that the repriorisation of activities in the remit of the European Medicines Agency should be avoided as much as possible due to the fact that its core mission is safeguarding public health in the EU; __________________ 1a Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised agencies, art. 43