45 Amendments of Jean-Paul GAUZÈS related to 2012/2308(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A
Paragraph A
A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting that the establishment of the European Parliament in more than one place be discontinued; either that the European Parliament should no longer have its seat in Strasbourg or that Parliament’s seat should continue to be located in Strasbourg in accordance with Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaty on European Union;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A – point 1 (new)
Paragraph A – point 1 (new)
(1) whereas, on the basis of Article 341 TFEU, the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union forms an integral part of the Treaties and thus of EU primary law, having been ratified, as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A – point 2 (new)
Paragraph A – point 2 (new)
(2) having regard to the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 December 2012 in joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11 opposing France and Parliament, which annuls Parliament’s decision of 9 March 2011;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A b (new)
Paragraph A b (new)
Ab. having regard to the requirements set out in the Treaty, which, following the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, has formally laid down for Parliament an arrangement involving a seat in Strasbourg and two other sites in Brussels and Luxembourg;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A c (new)
Paragraph A c (new)
Ac. whereas the seats of some European institutions were chosen on account of their symbolic significance, one such example being Strasbourg, the city which symbolises the process of Franco-German reconciliation which is at the root of the European peace project;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A d (new)
Paragraph A d (new)
Ad. whereas, in accordance with the sole article of Protocol No 6 annexed to the TFEU, the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, the Council has its seat in Brussels, the Commission has its seat in Brussels, the Court of Justice of the European Union has its seat in Luxembourg, the Court of Auditors has its seat in Luxembourg, the Economic and Social Committee has its seat in Brussels, the Committee of the Regions has its seat in Brussels, the European Investment Bank has its seat in Luxembourg, the European Central Bank has its seat in Frankfurt and the European Police Office (Europol) has its seat in The Hague;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A e (new)
Paragraph A e (new)
Ae. having regard to Parliament’s Environmental Statement for 2010, issued in May 2011, and in particular pages 68 to 70;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A f (new)
Paragraph A f (new)
Af. having regard to the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and follow-up to the discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A g (new)
Paragraph A g (new)
Ag. having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 December 2012 in Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B
Paragraph B
B. whereas one of these petitions (0630/2006) does not bears the signatures of more than one million citizens of the EU; one million signatures required for compliance with Rule 201(2) (Rule 191(2) when the petition was deposited) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, and whereas, moreover, its originators are MEPs seeking to circumvent the Treaties;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B a (new)
Paragraph B a (new)
Ba. whereas, pursuant to the former Rule 191(2) and the current Rule 201(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, petitions to Parliament ‘shall show the name, nationality and permanent address of each petitioner’, which ‘petition’ 0630/2006 clearly does not do;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B b (new)
Paragraph B b (new)
Bb. whereas petitions and the more recently introduced European Citizen’s Initiative must not be used for polemical purposes by representatives of EU citizens;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B c (new)
Paragraph B c (new)
Bc. whereas the city of Strasbourg is associated in people’s minds with the European Parliament, and whereas the seating capacity for visitors is much greater in the Strasbourg than in the Brussels Chamber, which represents an asset for the seat of European democracy;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph C – subparagraph 1 (new)
whereas it appreciates that some Members of the European Parliament have difficulties of access to certain institutions or agencies because of certain problems in road, rail or air services, but does not consider that this should be the subject of a report or petition, in view of the difficulties encountered in everyday life by many fellow citizens, which would give the impression that Members of the European Parliament are out of touch with the realities facing the people of Europe;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. whereas petitions are not an instrument for evading the Treaties but an instrument for use by European citizens to improve EU legislation which creates obstacles in their everyday life or to provide them with assistance so as to support them if their rights as citizens are disregarded;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C b (new)
Paragraph C b (new)
Cb. whereas the concept of mobility is inherent in the work of Members of the European Parliament to enable them to come closer to European citizens, whereas the Committee on Petitions regularly invites petitioners to comment on their petitions by inviting them to the European Parliament in Brussels and whereas this work of contact with citizens should not be confined to one direction;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C c (new)
Paragraph C c (new)
Cc. whereas, if a debate is initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it will inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty, and whereas the budgetary discharges of the European agencies could be affected by it;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report on the location of the seats of the European Union’s institutions, bearing in mind that the adoption of such a report lies outside the remit of the European Parliament, as the Treaties do not provide for it;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Considers that the only possible way of amending the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol’ is by means of a Treaty revision pursuant to Article 48 TEU, which requires an initiative by a Member State or the European Commission;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers, however, that it is time to stop the polemics concerning the cost of the Strasbourg seat; calls therefore for the figures provided by official sources within the European Parliament to be quoted clearly in the annexes to the own- initiative report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, including pages 68-70 of the Environmental Declaration of the European Parliament of May 2011 concerning the ‘environmental impact of the Strasbourg seat’ and page 40 of the document of the European Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘REPLIES AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE DISCHARGE FOR 2010’ on the annual cost of the Strasbourg seat;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Does not considers that a majority exists within the Council in favour of altering the seat of any European Institution, bearing in mind that this would send an undesirable message to citizens, which would be interpreted as expressing a desire on the part of the Member States to make the European Union’s decision-making bodies more remote from the European citizen;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes the intention of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report which will make it possible to recall that the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Recalls that European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) have the purpose of securing the adoption of a legal act of the Union which does not amend primary law, whereas any call for amendment of the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Union’ would entail amendment of a primary legal act, which is not compatible with the regulation;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient andConsiders efficiency, cost-effectiveness and the principle of respectful of for the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels andnot to be connected with the place in which Parliament sits, but with its needs; points out that according to figures from the European Parliament’s services, the annual cost of Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg hwas become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputationEUR 51.5 million in 2010, or 0.04% of the annual EU budget, which represents a cost of 10 cents per EU citizen per year, and hence considers the arguments on Parliament’s cost to be exaggerated;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
emphasises that the gross cost of holding part-sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and that 80% of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where the part-session is held, be they for equipment, publications or translation, etc.;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers it inappropriate in the European Year of Citizens to show these selfsame European citizens that the idea is to distance them from EU institution decision-making centres, and also believes that prevailing Euroscepticism would use this is a reason to criticise an over-concentration of decision-making bodies in one set place;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Considers that deciding the seats of EU institutions lies outside the remit of the European Parliament; points out that the ECB in Frankfurt is building new premises for itself, that the Council in Brussels will soon have new buildings, and that investments have been made in the European Parliament in Strasbourg in recent years to make it a parliament worthy of the centre of European democracy;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Emphasises that almost 95% of the EU budget is intended for investment and hence for the public, adding that the European Union, with such a small and deficit-less operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, stands as an example in these times of crisis;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Points to the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its own CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010, meaning that these now represent 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Adds that the carbon footprint for travel for committee, political group and delegation meetings, which increased by 23.8% between 2006 and 2010, is significantly larger (6 350 tonnes of CO2 in 2010) than that for Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg (4 199 tonnes of CO2 en 2010);
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Considers that the success of the open days held every year at the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, the 100 000 visitors each year outside part-sessions and the 10 000 students from the Euroscola Programme indicate that the European public have in no way rejected the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Points out that holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 - ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and Follow-up to the Discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
(1) Adds that all new European agencies and institutions should be created in the new Member States;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Points out that Croatia, as the 28th Member State of the Union as of 1 July 2013, is bound to seek the siting of a future EU agency or institution on its territory;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that Parliament’s initiatives on determining for itself the matter of its seat – which is in Strasbourg – were set aside by the Court of Justice in its ruling of 13 December 2012 and that, therefore, any action on Parliament’s part to establish the seats of the EU institutions is in breach of the very Treaties which it sees itself as defending in its capacity as the democratic voice of Europe’s citizens;
Amendment 137 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Points out that the European Union has developed in a polycentric way, with the EU institutions and agencies located, insofar as possible, throughout all the Member States, so as to bring decision making closer to the people and avoid an unwelcome concentration of power;
Amendment 140 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Points out that it is fundamentally important to Europe’s citizens that decisions are taken in more than one place;
Amendment 146 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 154 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
(1) Considers that the so-called petition No 0630/2006 is not in fact a petition because it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of petitions to Parliament under Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure (formerly Rule 191(2)) inasmuch as it does not show the nationality and permanent address of each petitioner, and that, by implication, electronic signatures on a petition are not admissible and there can be no guarantee as to the real or virtual level of support for this initiative;
Amendment 158 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers, in the light of the foregoing, that the first-named petitioner in petition No 0630-2006 is the only one to meet the admissibility criteria and that this means the so-called petition has received just one signature;
Amendment 160 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Finds it regrettable that this debate should focus on a matter which concerns 0.04% of the EU budget at a time when people want to see an overall Union budget capable of responding adequately to the financial difficulties that Member States are experiencing;
Amendment 161 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Asks Parliament’s Legal Service to specify whether such a report on the location of the seats of the EU institutions is lawful;
Amendment 162 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Considers that petitions about the seats of the EU institutions should be forwarded to the Member States, which alone are empowered to take decisions in the matter;
Amendment 163 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Considers that the own-initiative report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs can have no legal impact;
Amendment 164 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Points out that Parliament may be consulted on the question of the seats of the European institutions only prior to the convening by the Council of an intergovernmental conference and that there are no plans for such a conference.