9 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2017/2010(INI)
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Expresses disappointment at some of the responses of the Commission to national parliaments in instances where yellow cards have been issued;is concerned that a mishandling of the issue at stake might lead to divergence within the EU;believes that it is necessary for the Commission to respond comprehensively to any concerns raised by national parliaments;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Suggests that in a possible review of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto consideration should be given to proportionately extending the period in which national parliaments may send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Calls upon the Commission to change its customary practices of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties in regards to the calculation of the eight-week period in order to allow for more time for the national parliaments to participate more thoroughly in the EU law-making process;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that during the policy development process, in which subsidiarity and proportionality aspects are amongst others analysed in impact assessments and thereafter reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the independence of the RSB should be improved by extending its mandate to the other institutions and by requiring its prior confirmation on impact assessments for these assessments’ presentation to the College of Commissioners;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Considers that during the policy development process, in which subsidiarity and proportionality aspects are amongst others analysed in impact assessments and thereafter reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the independence of the RSB should be improved by extending its mandate to the other institutions and by requiring its prior confirmation on impact assessments for theses assessments’ presentation to the College of Commissioners;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes note of the changes proposed by some national parliaments to the subsidiarity control mechanism; welcomes the conclusion reached by COSAC that any improvement to the subsidiarity control mechanism should not entail Treaty change; notes that an extension of the eight-week time limit in which national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion would require an amendment of the Treaties or the Protocols thereto; notes that exclusions in addition to the month of August for the calculation of the eight- week period would unnecessarily slow down the legislative process and the adoption of important legislation;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Expresses disappointment at some of the responses of the Commission to national parliaments in instances where "yellow cards" procedures have been triggered; is concerned that a mishandling of the issue at stake might lead to divergence within the Union; believes that it is necessary for the Commission to respond comprehensively to any concern raised by national parliaments;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Suggests that in a possible review of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto consideration should be given to proportionately extend the period in which national parliaments may send to the Presidents of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating the reasons why it is considered that the proposal in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)