19 Amendments of Tatjana ŽDANOKA related to 2016/0404(COD)
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The burden of proof of justification and proportionality lies on the Member States. The reasons for regulation invoked by a Member State by way of justification should thus be accompanied by an analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure adopted by that State and by specific evidence substantiating its arguments. This should not prevent Member States from taking immediate measures which they consider necessary to protect public health or where they consider measures necessary to pursue other overriding reasons of public interest.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) It is appropriate to monitor the proportionality of the provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions on a regular basis and with a frequency appropriate to the regulation concerned and to a degree commensurate with the complexity of the regulations in place and the extent of the new measures proposed. A review of the proportionality of restrictive national legislation in the area of regulated professions should be based not only on the objective of that legislation at the time of its adoption, but also on the effects of the legislation, assessed after its adoption. The assessment of the proportionality of the national legislation should be based on developments found to have occurred in the area since the legislation was adopted.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12 a) This Directive seeks to strike a balance between securing public interest objectives and quality of services on the one hand, and improving access to, and exercise of, regulated professions, which is in the interests of the professionals themselves, on the other.It is clear from settled case law of the Court of Justice that when one Member State imposes less strict rules than another Member State, this does not necessarily mean that the latter Member State's rules are disproportionate.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The economic impact of the measure, including a cost-benefit analysis with particular regard to the degree of competition in the market and the quality of the service provided, as well as the impact on the right to work and on the free movement of persons and services within the Union should be duly taken into account by the competent authorities. Based on this analysis, Member States should ascertain, in particular, whether the extent of the restriction of access to or pursuit of regulated professions within the Union is proportionate to the importance of the objectives pursued and the expected gains.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive shall apply to requirements under the legal systems of the Member States restricting access to a regulated profession or its pursuit, or one of its modes of pursuit, including the use of professional titles and the professional activities allowed under such title, falling within the scope of Directive 2005/36/EC. It does not affect Member States' competence to decide whether and how, in accordance with the principles of non- discrimination and proportionality, to regulate a profession.
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that beforewhen introducing new legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions, or amending existing ones, the relevant competent authorities undertake an assessment of their proportionality in accordance with the rules laid down in this Directive, taking full account of the specific nature of each profession. The extent of this assessment shall be commensurate to the content and impact of the provisions in question. .
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Any provision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a detailed statement making it possible to appraise the provision's compliance with the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The reasons for considering that a provision is justified, necessary and proportionate shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative evidence.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions they intend to introduce and amendments they intend to make to existing provisions are justified by public interest objectives.
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The relevant competent authorities shall consider in particular whether those provisions are objectively justified on the basis of public policy, public security or public health, or by overriding reasons in the public interest, such as for example but not limited to: preserving the financial equilibrium of the social security system, the protection of consumers, recipients of services and workers, the safeguarding of the proper administration of justice, fairness of trade transactions, combating fraud and prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, road safety, the protection of the environment and the urban environment, the health of animals, intellectual property, the safeguarding and conservation of the national historic and artistic heritage, social policy objectives and cultural policy objectives.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point f
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point g
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point h
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point h
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point i
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point i
(i) the economic impact of the measure, with particular regard to the degree of competition in the market and on the quality of the service provided, as well as the impact on the free movement of persons and services within the Union;
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
These requirements shall not be considered disproportionate restrictions per se, nor shall any restrictive effect resulting from their implementation.
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Member States shall, by appropriate means, inform citizens, service recipients, representative associations and relevant stakeholders other than the members of the profess and in addition to the members of the profession, inform all relevant stakeholders, including service recipients, representative associations before introducproposing new legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions, or amending existing ones, and give them the opportunity to make known their views which shall then be given due consideration. This requirement may be fulfilled, for example, by means of a public consultation whose results inform the content of the adopted provisions.