BETA

Activities of Jean-Marie CAVADA related to 2015/2283(INI)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (22)

Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas in 2014 three, of the 41 national chambers, three (the Danish Folketing, the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the UK House of Lords) issued reports with detailed proposals on how to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the decision- making process;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas by means of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions signed on 5 February 2014 both institutions commit themselves to cooperating in order to ensure the respect of the subsidiarity principleenhance the legitimacy of the European Union;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas national parliaments continue to observe that the increasing number of delegated powers in the Union’s legislative acts makes it difficult to effectively evaluate whether final rules would comply with the principle of subsidiaritydelegated powers in the Union’s legislative acts are conferred where flexibility and efficiency are needed and cannot be delivered by means of the ordinary legislative procedure; whereas the adoption of rules essential to the subject envisaged is reserved to the legislators;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the continuedimportance to consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are guiding principles for the European Union when it chooses to act; stresses that subsidiarity and democratic legitimacy are closely intertwined concepts; highlights that subsidiarity checks can be considered an important tool for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’; points out that national parliaments have a vitaln important role to play in ensuring that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. NotWelcomes the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; points out, however, that such a decrease might be as a result of the declining number of legislative proposals by the Commission and not of a loss of interest on the part of national parliaments; draws attention to the fact that in 2014 no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to triggerwas subject to the ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card procedures’ under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned byNotes the fact that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a number of the Commission’s legislative proposals, the justification of subsidiarity and proportionality is insufficient or non-existent in substance; stresses, in this connection, the need for the European institutions to make it possible for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals by ensuring that the Commission to provides detailed and comprehensive grounds for its legislative decisions, including on subsidiarity and proportionality, in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 2 to the TFEU;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern that the Impact Assessment Board (‘IAB’) considered more than 32 % of impact assessments (‘IAs’) reviewed by them in 2014 to have included an unsatisfactory analysis of the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality, or both; nNotes the crucial importance of impact assessments as tools for aiding decision-making in the legislative process, and stresses the need, in this context, for proper consideration to be given to issues relating to subsidiarity and proportionality; welcomes, in this connection, the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which place new emphasis on subsidiarity and proportionality in the contextthe importance of impact assessments;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls concerns raised in previous reports regarding the somewhat perfunctory character of the annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality prepared by the Commission, which often fail to pay detailed consideration to how the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy-making; calls on the Commission to produce more analytical annual reports;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the reports made by a number of national parliaments as a valuable contribution to the debate on the role of national parliaments in the EU decision-making process and takes note of the proposals included therein; notes, in this connection, that these reports suggest that reasoned opinions should not only concern compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, but also compliance with the principle of proportionality and the legal basis for the proposal; believes that the practicability of these proposals depends on a revision of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto; encourages other national parliaments to share their views on the role that national parliaments should play in the EU decision-making process;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Suggests that in anyerefore that the next review of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto consideration should be given to whether reasoned opinions should be limited to examining subsidiarity grounds, to the appropriate number of national parliament responses required to trigger a ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card’ procedure, and to what the effect should be in cases where the threshold for these procedures is reached; believes that consideration should be given to the introduction of a ‘red card’ mechanism whereby the consideration of a proposal by the EU co- legislators should be stayed if a significant number of national parliaments expresses concern on subsidiarity grounds, unless the proposal is amended to accommodate those concerns or if it should also include the principle of proportionality;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that the introduction of a ‘green card’ mechanism could also be considered, which would afford national parliaments the opportunity to propose the introduction, amendment or repeal of Union legislation; suggests, in this connection, that consideration should be given to the number of national parliaments needed iesent legislative proposals to the Commission forder to trigger such a procedure, and to the extent of its impact examination;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the request from a number of national parliaments to extend the eight-week period in which theyRecalls that the period in which the national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion underis eight weeks according to Article 6 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; notes, in this regard, that the current timeframe for national parliaments to carry out subsidiarity checks is often deemed insufficient; considers that a twelve-week period would be more appropriate;. Stresses that this period is the result of striking a balance between the desire to consult national parliaments and the need to avoid an excessively slow legislative process.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that reasoned opinions issued by national parliaments in accordance with Article 7(1) of Protocol No 2 are to be duly taken into accountconsideration by all institutions involved during the decision- making process of the Union and, in this connection, calls on the EU institutions to make the appropriate arrangements to ensure this;.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires ‘that the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties’; emphasises that the Court of Justice has stated that the principle of proportionality ‘requires that measures implemented through provisions of European Union law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them’ and that ‘in the fields in which the European Union legislature has a broad legislative power’ the lawfulness of a measure adopted in this context can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue, although the European legislator must nonetheless ‘base its choice on objective criteria’ and, when assessing the burdens associated with various possible measures, ‘examine whether objectives pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain operators’;.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to systematically carry out enhanced proportionality assessments with detailed evaluations of the different legislative options at its disposal so as to discard alternatives with a disproportionate impact or which are unnecessarily burdensome on the individuals and undertakings concerned, in particular SMEs, and to provide a sufficiently detailed description of all the different alternatives that had been considered so as to allow better scrutiny of its proposals on proportionality grounds; considers that the enlargement of the scope of reasoned opinions so as to includeRecalls the importance of impact studies, particularly as regards respect of the principle of proportionality would be desirable;.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Suggests assessing whether appropriate criteria in the form of non- binding guidelines should be laid down at EU level for the evaluation of compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; considers that these criteria should not unduly restrict the discretion that national parliaments should enjoy when assessing the compliance of the proposals with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Welcomes the Declaration from the Presidents of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the French National Assembly, the German Bundestag, and the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies, which underlined „that more, not less, Europe is needed to respond to the challenges we face, both internally and externally";
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 1
– suggests that each legislative act published in the Official Journal should contain a note detailing those national parliaments which had responded and those which had raised subsidiarity concerns;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 3
– suggests that guidelines could be prepared outlining criteria for reasoned opinions on subsidiarity issues;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – indent 4
proposes mobilisingencourages national parliaments to undertake comparative evaluations of ex ante assessments which they have conducted and ex postshare their remarks on the assessments drawn up by the Commission;
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that legislative proposals may change substantially in the course of the legislative procedure and, in this connection, reiterates that consideration should be given to the introduction of further subsidiarity checks and impact assessments when a major amendment is likely to be adopted and at the conclusion of the legislative negotiations and in advance of the adoption of the final text, in order that compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;deleted
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that legislative proposals may change substantially in the course of the legislative procedure and, in this connection, reiterates that consideration should be given to the introduction of further subsidiarity checks and impact assessments when a major amendment is likely to be adopted and at the conclusion of the legislative negotiations and in advance of the adoption of the final text, in order that compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;impact assessments at the beginning of the legislative procedure are an important and necessary instrument for compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Stresses that these guiding principles, which ensure that the European Union is close to its citizens, must guarantee the effectiveness of the EU institutions while avoiding excessive bureaucracy.
2016/10/13
Committee: JURI