838 Amendments of Morten MESSERSCHMIDT
Amendment 73 #
2018/2170(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. In parliamentary debates in plenary, Members shall not resort to language which, in accordance with objective criteria, could be considered to be offensive.
Amendment 1 #
2018/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas agencies play a vital role in the implementation of EU policies, performing a wide variety of tasks;, creating a network between national governments, national agencies and the EU.
Amendment 14 #
2018/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. CPoints to the lack of appropriate instruments of sound financial management and efficient control mechanisms; considers that greater efforts could be made to streamline certain provisions in the founding regulations of agencies relating to their governance and accountability mechanisms, taking into account the various types of agencies that currently exist, grouping them by their nature, specialisations and tasks, and defining the general principles governing the relationship between the institutions of the EU and the agencies; points out that these issues should also be addressed in impact assessments whenever the establishment of an agency is proposed;
Amendment 25 #
2018/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Calls on the Commission to publish an EU anti-corruption report with a chapter on EU institutions including decentralised agencies;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2114(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Considers that there is a need for a stronger and better structured system of reporting to the EP about the functioning of decentralised agencies in order to facilitate regular and closer scrutiny of their activities;
Amendment 1 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, which entrusts the European Commission with definition of the general interest of the Union and the monopoly on taking initiatives 'to that end';
Amendment 2 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to the 55 new fields to which the Lisbon Treaty extended qualified majority voting;
Amendment 7 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas this role is even more essential under the current Treaties as they have enshrined an unprecedented rise in the Union's powers, established qualified majority voting as the general rule and placed 'the general interest of the Union' in the Commission's hands, such that the Commission's monopoly on taking initiatives has expanded and been strengthened to an extraordinary extent, while being denied any truly democratic counterparty;
Amendment 8 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas a response is needed to the grave state of EU democracy, already described by Jacques Delors almost 20 years ago: 'When all is said and done, this technocratic building project moving forward under the aegis of a kind of gentle and enlightened despotism must be transformed into a meaningful project.' (Evangelical spirit and European construction, Conference at Strasbourg Cathedral, 7 December 1999)
Amendment 9 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas a number of these instruments are impracticable (motion of censure) or still only used hesitantly for political purposes (right of inquiry, budgetary discharge, questions) owing to the European Commission continuing to have the monopoly on taking initiatives and on defining what the general interest is, but also because of its mode of composition and the refusal so far by the dominant parliamentary groups to turn their institution into a counterbalance, that is, a genuine European Parliament;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, in addition to these instruments, Parliament has an array of tools for steering oversight, thanks to which it can proactivelin theory shape the European political agenda, without however having the right of initiative as has any other parliament in the world;
Amendment 11 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Spitzenkandidaten process has substantially changed the relationship between Parliament and the Commission and hasby strengtheneding the link between the two institutions, thus leading to a greater politicisation of the Commission which shouldand increased subordination of Parliament, instead of resulting in increasedgenuine and unconditional parliamentary scrutiny of itboth the Commission's executive functions and its legislative and judicial powers, and also of how it functions internally;
Amendment 16 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Treaties give Parliament the right in theory to vote on a motion of censure against the Commission as a whole but not to withdraw its confidence in an individual Commissioner;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas despite the collective responsibility in theory of the College of Commissioners, Parliament should ensure effective political oversight of the individual work of each Commissioner;
Amendment 19 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the recent appointment ofconditions under which the new Secretary-General of the Commission hwas raised serious concerns over the role andappointed recently have confirmed the serious concerns, which have been expressed ever since the Community began, over the political role and influence exercised by senior Commissionintentionally left in the hands of senior officials;
Amendment 22 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas with the adoption of the Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, Parliament has gained additional leverage in the shaping of the legislative agenda as proposed by the Commission every year in the Commission Work Programme (CWP), while still being the only parliament in the world that does not have the right of legislative initiative;
Amendment 24 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the extent of Parliament’'s scrutiny rights varies greatly between delegated acts and implementing acts; whereas Parliament has, namely 2 500 acts per year, 500 of which are in fact legislative, produced with a lack of transparency by committees and groups of experts whose independence is questionable; whereas Parliament cannot for much longer be content with the right to veto a delegated act and/or to revoke the delegation, bugiven that in the case of implementing acts its involvement is even much less far- reaching;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the current institutional structure of the Union, the absence of any separation of powers and the lack of a precise definition of the executive in the Treaties make the concept of EU executive complex and scattered across the European, national and regional levels;
Amendment 29 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas stronger cooperation between the European Parliament and national and regional parliaments, in line with their respective constitutional competences on the one hand and enabling them to perform together, through networking, real EU legislative, budgetary and scrutiny functions on the other, is necessary to address the issue of multi-layered executive functions when it comes to the implementation of European legislation and to strengthen their democratic legitimacy;
Amendment 31 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 36 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the stronger political link created between Parliament and the Commission as a result of the Spitzenkandidaten process should not make the Commission subject to less stringent parliamentary oversight nor exempt the European Parliament from henceforth acting as a counterbalance to the Commission ;
Amendment 46 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the Treaties do not separate properly powers and functions in the Union, do not set out clearly and definitively how federal and sovereign competences are to be shared out, do not ensure that the indissociable principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality are respected in practice and do not provide a clear definition of the EU executive, and that the institutions responsible differ across the various policy areas, depending on whether they are considered to belong to the shared or to the exclusive competences of the Union;
Amendment 47 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers it necessary to establish a genuinely bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executiv, Parliament and national parliaments acting as a network, with the Commission acting as an executive body at the service of the political authorities and not the reverse;
Amendment 51 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls that the Treaties do not confer any legislative functions or right of legislative initiative on the European Council; is concerned that in recent years the European Council has, against the spirit of the Treaties, taken a number of important political decisions outside of the Treaty framework, thereby de facto excluding those decisions from the oversight of Precalls that only the European Council, each representative of which remains subject to the will of its national parliament and its people expressing themselves through referenda, can say what the 'spirit of the Treaties' is, that is to say, the intention of the states signatory to it; points out that parliamentary oversight by national parliaments and undermining the democratic accountability which is essential withthe European Parliament of a number of important political decisions taken in an attempt to address successive crises was too limited as regards to such European policieshe requirements of democratic accountability;
Amendment 56 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that the instruments for calling the Commission to account and those for steering scrutiny should be combined, and that the national parliaments be closely associated with this, in order to maximise the effectiveness of both;
Amendment 58 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Insists that Parliament’s and the national parliaments' legislative powers and rights of oversight must be guaranteed, consolidated and strengthened, including through interinstitutional agreements and through the use of the corresponding legal basis by the Commission;
Amendment 60 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls onDemands that the Commission to take more serious account ofconsider the legislative initiativeproposals launched by Parliament under Article 225 TFEU, and wishes to see more initiatives result in legislative proposalthe reasoned opinions adopted by national parliaments, as binding political instructions; at the same time, commends the Commission for its positive follow-up to Parliament’s recommendations expressed in its resolution of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 65 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Proposes that, in line with common constitutional practice as existing in all parliamentary democracies, the European Parliament, as the only institution directly elected by the citizens, and national parliaments in accordance with arrangements to be established, should be given the right of legislative initiative, without prejudice to the legislative prerogatives of the Commission;
Amendment 66 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Encourages the exchange of best practices in parliamentary scrutiny among national parliaments, such as the holding of regular debates between the respective ministers and the specialised committees in national parliaments before and after Council meetings, and with Commissioners in an appropriate setting and timeframe, as well as meetings between the European Parliament and national parliaments; encourages the establishment of regular exchanges of officials of institutions and political group staff between the administrations of the European Parliament and national parliaments, the European Committee of the Regions and the Member State regions having legislative competences; calls on all national parliaments to draw inspiration from the Nordic negotiating mandate practice in which the parliamentary committee on EU affairs gives its government, well ahead of the EU legislative procedure, a proper mandate at the end of which ministers report back;
Amendment 71 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Calls on the Commission to take note of reasoned opinions issued by the parliaments of the Member States which state that all or part of a draft legislative act or a judgment by the Court is not compatible with 'their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and self-government' nor with their 'essential state functions' (Article 4(2) TEU) ; only an internal assessment by the competent legal and political bodies of the Member States may justify any such review of constitutional identity;
Amendment 72 #
2018/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Calls on the Commission to consider reasoned opinions from national parliaments on the principle of subsidiarity to be politically binding once the threshold laid down in the Treaties of one third of the votes allocated to Member State parliaments is reached; calls furthermore for Member State parliaments to have the right to exercise proper subsidiarity and proportionality checks on delegated acts and implementing acts, to recall them and where appropriate revise them;
Amendment 2 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union has a particular interest in implementing enhanced cooperation in certain areas of non- exclusive EU competences in order to move forward the European projects and to facilitate the life of citizens;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas enhanced cooperation should not be seen as an instrument of exclusion or division of the Member States, but as a pragmatic solution to advance European integrationthe achievement of objectives, the preservation of common interests and even supranational integration itself, but in the latter case only if the peoples concerned clearly express their desire for it by referendum;
Amendment 5 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the sensitive nature of certain policy areas makes it difficult to follow the ordinary legislative procedure, not only because of the unanimity requirement but also due to the established practice in the Council of always seeking consensus among the Member States, even when a qualified majority would be sufficient to take a decision; whereas the search for a consensus between the democracies that make up our Union is infinitely preferable and more in keeping with the very nature of Europe than any decision or standard devised circuitously by expert groups or comitology, pushed forward by a technocratic body and imposed on countries that reject it;
Amendment 8 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the European Union cannot legitimately turn itself into a state federation by stealth, i.e. without the issue being solemnly put to the peoples directly concerned; whereas also the constitutional case-law in particular of the German Constitutional Court in its 'Lisbon' judgment of 30 June 2009 is totally clear in this respect and that many of its legal grounds have clear European ramifications: 'Integration requires the willingness to joint action and the acceptance of autonomous common opinion-forming. However, integration into a free community neither requires submission removed from constitutional limitation and control nor the forgoing (of) one’s own identity. The Basic Law does not grant powers to bodies acting on behalf of Germany to abandon the right to self-determination of the German people in the form of Germany’s sovereignty under international law by joining a federal state. Due to the irrevocable transfer of sovereignty to a new subject of legitimation that goes with it, this step is reserved to the directly declared will of the German people alone.' (Section 228); whereas the European Union is not, so far, a federal state, and that the comparison with federal states in the rest of the world, which are all first and foremost nations, even composite ones, is therefore completely irrelevant here;
Amendment 9 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas it seems likely in the future that the Member States would need to resort more and more often to the provisions on enhanced cooperation in order to address common problems and to attain common goals provided that the provisions of the Treaty are interpreted in such a way that cooperation is based on freedom of choice of partners, freedom of commitments and freedom of structures;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that even though enhanced cooperation has not been used extensively since its inception in the Treaty of Amsterdam, it seems to be gaining importance and delivers tangible results, provided that it is free, flexible, sectoral and open;
Amendment 17 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that even though enhanced cooperation is considered as a second-best scenario, it is still a viable tool for problem-solving on the Union level and a tool to overcome some of the institutional deadlockthe supranationalist dead-end by finally facilitating the differentiated forms of cooperation that form the basis of the best European achievements, which exclude any forced unification from above, are in keeping with a modern Europe organised according to the principle of networks and would make it possible to launch joint European scientific, energy, industrial and even cultural projects;
Amendment 18 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that the political impetus for enhanced cooperation should come from the Member States, but discussions on its contents should be based on a Commission proposal;
Amendment 20 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes that in order to promote the freedom, flexibility and thus multiplicity of differentiated forms of cooperation needed to face the common challenges facing us, the very broad objectives of cooperation, as set out in Article 20 TEU, must be understood as so many different possible objectives, i.e. they are not cumulative but alternatives;
Amendment 21 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that the period covering two consecutive Council presidencies should be the maximum time period to conclude that the alternative objectives of cooperation cannot be attained by the Union as a whole, as required by the wording of Article 20 TEU;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 30 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 32 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Affirms that the unity of EU institutions should be maintained andbut that enhanced cooperation should notmay lead to the creation of parallelad hoc, case-by-case institutional arrangements, but could allow specific bodies to be established where appropriate, without prejudice to the competences and role of the Union institutions and bodies;
Amendment 43 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Believes that enhanced cooperation shouldmay be under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice unless the establishment of a special court required for the functioning of a particular case of enhanced cooperation is necessary, in which case this should be specified in the legal act establishing the enhanced cooperation;
Amendment 45 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 49 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Believes that clear rules should be laid down in all cases of enhanced cooperation on the withdrawal of a Member State that no longer wishes to participate and on the expulthe voluntary suspension ofby a Member State that no longer fulfils the conditions of the enhanced cooperof its participation; advises that the terms and conditions of the possible withdrawal or expulvoluntary suspension of a Member State should be specified in the act establishing the enhanced cooperation;
Amendment 51 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Recalls that the Economic and Monetary Union of the countries sharing the single currency is, de facto, the very first instance of enhanced co-operation; that countries that have joined the euro have accepted equitably shared sacrifices to maintain the parities that have been fixed; recalls also, therefore, that where a euro Member State is no longer able to assume the burden, it must be able to suspend its participation and return when its economy has recovered; that the rights of voluntary suspension or non- participation should be generalised in order to avoid making unilateral withdrawal as provided for in Article 50 TEU the only ultimate course of action;
Amendment 53 #
2018/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Urges Member States participating in enhanced cooperation to work towards integrating enhanced cooperation into the acquis communautairethe generalisation of differentiated, free, flexible, sectoral, open and democratically controlled cooperation so that the Union no longer develops on the basis of the 'limited' sovereignty principle formerly postulated by Leonid Brezhnev, but according to the principle of sovereignty based on partnership;
Amendment 11 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the values and principles on which the Union is based, which are highlighted in Articles 2 and 6 TEU, put the citizen at the very centre of the European project; whereas thein order to debate on the future of Europe therefore also implies a reflection on the strength of our common identityit is necessary to acknowledge that there is not, and never can be a European demos, because Europe is a continent with diverse cultures and identities and the EU is a union of nation states;
Amendment 16 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the current revision of the ECI aims to improve its effectiveness and enhance participative democracy and active citizenship; whereas the EU has had difficulties in facing numerous crises with important socio-economic consequences and implications regarding migration, which have led to the emergence of populist and nationalist ideologies based on exclusive identities and supremacist criteria which contradict European valuesunderstandably led to increased support for political parties which aim to protect their national democracy, culture and identities by refraining from further supranational integration and which aspire for a reformed EU which follows the 'doing less more efficiently' scenario of the Commission's White Paper on the Future of the EU;
Amendment 24 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the prospect of Brexit has highlighted the importance of EU citizenship rights, especially among young Europeans, and their role in the lives of millions of EU citizens, and has also raised awareness in the EU concerndemocratic choice of the British people to leave the EU has raised awareness of EU citizenship rights, especially among young people; whereas the UK Government has committed to protecting the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, even ing the potential loss of such rights on both sidesevent of a no-deal outcome;
Amendment 32 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that EU citizenship is additional to citizenship of a Member State; underlines that EU citizenship enables the complementarity of different identities for the citizen, and that nationalwas artificially constructed in the Treaty of Maastricht and has no resonance with many EU citizens because they feel dist and populist ideologies undermine that capacity; is of the opinion that exercising active citizenship is key to building open, inclusive and resilient societiest from the political ideology which is the driving force behind the deeply concerning vision of greater political integration at the expense of national sovereignty;
Amendment 45 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned at the trend to decline in voter turnout in both national and European Parliament elections; is convinced that European citizenship has the potential to help reverse that decline by increasing citizens’ sense of belonging to a European community and boosting representative democracythe way to re-engage citizens with the European project is by restructuring the EU so it focuses solely on areas in which it can add value, namely the single market, internal security, trade and the environment, as well as by restoring trust in the European institutions in the light of recent scandals such as the appointment of Martin Selmayr as Commission Secretary- General;
Amendment 51 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores once againRegrets the fact that some EU citizens are disenfranchised in their Member State of nationality and cannot participate in national parliamentary elections in their Member State of residence; underlines that the loss of electoral rights arising from residence in another Member State could discourage citizens from moving to anoreminds however that voting rights and national electoral law are competences for ther Member State and therefore could constitute a potential violation of Article 18 TFEUs;
Amendment 91 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. ProposesRejects the proposal for establishing a European public holiday on 9 May in order to reinforce a European feeling of belonging and create space for civic movements and activ; reminds that there is no provision for the EU to do so across its Member States and that only national parliaments can establish public holidays in line with their nations history and traditieons;
Amendment 93 #
2018/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates its call on the Commission to come forward with a proposal for the implementation of Parliament’s recommendations on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rightscognises that, in the absence of a solid basis in the Treaties, continuing to push for the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights runs contrary to the principles and values on which the Union is founded, particularly that of conferral and subsidiarity; stresses that the establishment of such a mechanism would usurp existing competences under Articles 7 TEU and 258 TFEU, and would also constitute an abuse of the interinstitutional agreement instrument under Article 295 TFEU;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the creation of the EII, the establishment of PESCO and the reinforcement of the EDF as important steps towards strengtheningnd demands that the Union’s security and defence, policies must be conducted in close cooperation and full complementarity with NATO;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that several Member States have recently called2. Rejects the call by several Member States for an EU Security Council, an EU Battle Group and a European intelligence unit acting as a database; meanwhile, endorses and does not support the inauguration of a permanent operational headquarter and the increase of the EDA’s budget;
Amendment 16 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. 3. Recommends the establishment of a permanent Council of Defence Ministers, chaired by the VP/HR; underlines the need to strengthen the EP’s role in this field, namely through a fully-fledged Committee on Security and Defence, complemented byjects calls for joint inter- parliamentary meetings between representatives from national parliaments and MEP in the field of security and defence;
Amendment 19 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 26 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 33 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. NoteInsists that close cooperation between the Union and its closest allies, such as the UK and the USA, remains of the utmost importance.
Amendment 34 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Reminds that defence policy must remain a matter of national sovereignty, with NATO as the cornerstone of Europe’s defence and security objectives.
Amendment 35 #
2018/2099(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Welcomes the communique of the July 2018 NATO summit in Brussels and the commitment to ongoing cooperation between the Alliance and the European Union in addressing common security challenges;
Amendment 9 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)
Citation 25 a (new)
- having regard to the statement on the Future of Europe made by the Visegrad Group countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) on 26 January 2018;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union is an example unique experiment of supranational integration without equal and has brought last the aims of bringing peace, prosperity and welfare to its peoples; whereas these goals are being threatened by the political drive for an ever closer union which has led to a European Union which is too centralised, too overreaching and too out of touch with ordinary citizens;
Amendment 19 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas over the past few years the Union has facedstruggled to cope with multiple crises which have tested its resilience and capacity to act in a decisive and united mannerdemonstrated that the EU's 'one size fits all' approach to all policy areas has created a Union which is too bureaucratic and over-centralised;
Amendment 24 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas although Europe has managed to overcome the most critical moments of the economicfinancial crisis, important and urgent reforms still lie ahead in the area of economic governance in general and in the euro area in particular, as well as in terms of recovery of the social standards of our welfare statets structural causes are yet to be tackled and significant economic challenges remain which can only be solved by the Member States building dynamic competitive economies and through improving levels of productivity and innovation to create jobs and prosperity;
Amendment 33 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in view of the multiple current and future challenges facing the Union in a hostile global world, in particular those concerning migration, terrorism, security, completing the EMU, globalisation, climate change, international trade, foreign affairs and defence, the development of the social pillar, and the fight against anti-EU populism, the objective enshrined the Lisbon Treaty of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe should continue to inspire the actUnion needs to avoid becoming overreached by focusing on doing less more efficiently as outlined in scenario four of the Commission's taken by the Union; whereas these clear challenges can only be addressed if tackled togetherWhite Paper on the Future of the European Union;
Amendment 40 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the referendum in the UK of June 2016 leading to the UK’s announcement on 29 March 2017 of its intention to leave the European Union has intensified the debate on the future of the Union; whereas this is reflected, besides in Parliament’s own resolutions on the future of Europe of 16 February 2017, in the Bratislava Declaration and Roadmap, the Commission White Paper on the Future of Europe, the Rome Declaration, the Leaders’ Agenda adopted by the European Council in October 2017, and various contributions by individual Member States or groups of them; whereas the decision of the British people demonstrates the discontent of citizens with current state of the European Union;
Amendment 47 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. Whereas the results of recent elections, referenda and opinion polls consistently show that the citizens of the European Union reject the supranationalist model of a centralised European Union driven by ideology which undermines the principles of subsidiarity and democracy as highlighted by the German constitutional court;
Amendment 50 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the upcoming elections to the European Parliament present an opportunity to take stock of the debate on the future of Europe, also in view of the principal institutional priorities of the three institutions for the new term; whereas the views of all political groups in the European Parliament need to better be taken into account in the next term;
Amendment 52 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the EU is facing a particularly important period in its construction processat a critical juncture point, given the nature and dimension of its challenges, and whereas these can only be solved by working together and through greater and better integrationhallenges cannot be solved by undertaking more supranational integration but only by a far more free and differentiated cooperation between Member States and a restoration of a genuine democratic control by national parliaments;
Amendment 65 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the Meseberg Declaration proposes putting in placein February 2018, Parliament voted comprehensively against the introduction of a transnational lists for the European elections as of 2024;
Amendment 68 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recallgrets that Parliament’s resolutions on the future of Europe of 16 February 2017 emphasised the importance of the single institutional framework and the Community method and suggested several flawed proposals and initiatives of particular importance for European integration that can contribute to building Europe’s futurethat will lead to further centralisation whilst deconstructing European democracies and diversity; instead proposes reforming the European Union by taking an intergovernmentalist approach that allows for common action to be taken between Member States only when it fully respects the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 73 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that the Union must tackle the challenges of its future with greater and better political integration, with full respect for fundamental and democratic values, and by working togetherby reforming to become a community of nations cooperating in shared confederal institutions in areas in which the nations have common interests; agrees with the heads of state and government who addressed Parliament in plenary during the debates on the future of Europe who stated that citizens want a Europe that protects are concerned by the federalist vision behind the call for furtheir rights and their social model on the basis of shared sovereignty, and that the problems we face in Europe can only be solved togetherintegration but remain determined to continue working together on the basis of shared sovereignty in areas which are mutually beneficial to do so;
Amendment 80 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates its belief that differentiated integcooperation must remain open to all Member States and continue to act as an example of deeper European integration, not as a way to facilitate à la carte soluprovide an option to both Member States and citizens which wish to remain part of the European project whilst simultaneously protecting their national democracy, culture and identities by refraining from further supranational integrations;
Amendment 89 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses that the Commission, when exercising its right of initiative, should act only after conducting thorough impact assessments, and should seek formal authority from the Member States to the principle of proposing a legislative initiative in advance;
Amendment 92 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates that the unanimity, which the Treaties require in some fundamental matters, is an almost insurmountable obstacle in important moments and decisions, and advocates therefore, with regard to decision-making procedures, the principle of qualified majority voting (QMV) in Council and the use of the ordinary legislative procedure; recalls that under the current Treaties this can be achieved by using the various passerelle clauses or, in the case of enhanced cooperation, by using Article 333 TFEUintentionally high requirement in the decision-making procedure in order to ensure that all Member States have a strong voice in the Council and can protect their national interest with the use of a veto; stresses that the introduction of qualified majority voting (QMV) in Council would further weaken the EU's respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality whilst isolating Member States who are opposed to further integration;
Amendment 97 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes in this regardRegrets the announcement by President Juncker in his State of the Union address of 13 September 2017 of the intention to propose using QMV in the Council for matters such as the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCTB), VAT and taxation of the digital economy, but regrets that the MFF regulation is not among the subjects listed; reminds that the ability for citizens to elect national representatives to set taxes is a fundamental part of a modern democracy and that any taxes set at an EU level would further exacerbate the problem of the EU's democratic deficit;
Amendment 102 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes in particularExpresses serious concerns with the fact that the Commission and somea few Member States are also contemplating using QMV for the common foreign and security policy, given the importance of speeding up decision-making and making iat such policies must remain a national competence as an independent mfore effective, and the need for the Union to speak with one voiceign policy is a key requirement for a nation to be sovereign;
Amendment 111 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Underlines its support to modernise the Luxembourg Compromise where any government raising a “very important interest”, mandated by its parliament, would demand a unanimity- based decision at the Council of Ministers and European Council on strategic matters;
Amendment 129 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomNotes the joint proclamation endorsing the European Pillar of Social Rights; points out that the competences and tools required to deliver on the pillar are and must remainly in the hands of local, regional and national authorities, as well as social partners and civil society, while progress in its implementation should receive particular attention within the economic policy coordination of the European Semester; recalls in this context that social dialogue has proven to be an indispensable instrument to improve EU policy- and law-making;
Amendment 153 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the Commission communicationStrongly rejects the proposal onf a European Minister of Economy and Finance; points out that merging the posithis and any harmonisations of Commission Vice-President for Economic Affairs and Chair of the Eurogroup could improve parliamentary accountability at European leveltaxation policies would imprison the member states in a 'fiscal cage'; recalls how Europe needs fair fiscal competition between its Member States;
Amendment 155 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Stresses the need to aim to reduce the economic costs of regulatory burden which have resulted from excessive existing Union regulations by 25% by 2020, with a more ambitious and longer term target of 50% by 2030, taking particular regard for the effects of such over-regulation on SMEs;
Amendment 165 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. WelcomeRejects the Commission proposal on own resources introducing new real own resources, as requested by Parliament; expresses concern at the Commission proposal for the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027, and regres it fails to take into account the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union and the necessary reduction in EU spending that must coincide with it; supports the positions taken by somethe many Member States that refuse to provide more resources to the EU, despite unanimous recognition of the need to face new challenges and responsibilities, and therefore the need for more financial resources recognising the failure of the Commission to propose a MFF that is more efficient, better targeted and solely focused on areas in which the EU can add value;
Amendment 179 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomeRegrets the Council decision establishing permanent structured cooperation (PESCO), the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) as important steps towards a common defence policy, and note, and rejects proposals by certain Member States for an EU Security Council and a European Intervention Initiative; recallalso rejects its call for the establishment of a permanent Council of Defence Ministers chaired by the Vice- President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), and underl; remineds the importance of appropriate democratic accountability of decisions taken in this area and the need for reinforced cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments in this regardat defence policy must remain a matter of national sovereignty, with NATO as the cornerstone of Europe’s defence and security objectives; insists therefore that any further developments by the EU in this area must adhere to the commitments made in the 2016 EU-NATO Joint Declaration;
Amendment 182 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 197 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Underlines its determination to continueExpresses concerns with the Spitzenkandidaten process for the election of the next Commission President, and welcomes the support of the Commission and certain Member States in this respect; underlines that it will reject any candidate in the investiture procedure of the Commission President who w; regrets that in 2014 the process failed to engage with citizens as nbot appointed as a Spitzenkandidat in the run-up to European Parliament elections and who does not have a sufficient parliamentary majority; considers it essential to strengthen the social legitimacy of the European elections and the supranational role of the European Parliament as an exponent of European citizenship and European sovereigntyh the candidates and European political parties were entirely unknown to a vast majority of citizens, weakening the political legitimacy of both Parliament and the Commission; warns that this same situation will occur in the 2019 European elections;
Amendment 206 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Regrets the frequent and widespread temptation to attribute unpopular decisions to Brussels and to free national authorities of their responsibilities and politics, given that this unjust and opportunistic attitude damages Europe, promotes anti-European nationalism and discredits the EU institutioof MEPs to state one policy position in Brussels and an entirely different one to their citizens in the Member States, given that this unjust and opportunistic attitude damages Europe, discredits the EU institutions and has contributed to further supranational integration without and even against the consent of its citizens;
Amendment 213 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Underlines the need to strengthen the European public sphere as a suprademocratic legitimacy of the European institutions by increasing the role of national parea of European democracyliaments in the EU decision- making process; stresses that the major challenges Europe is facing must be addressed and discussed from both a European perspective and not from a national perspective; poremintds out that, for this reason, European democracy needs a Europethat Europe is a continent with diverse cultures and identity, a genuinely European demos, more European institutional education and a deliberative, more participatory and less national social frameworkies and that there can never be a European demos; points out that the diversity in the European Union is its strength, and that it should therefore refrain from attempting to harmonise the cultures and identities of its Member States;
Amendment 224 #
2018/2094(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the approach taken to the current negotiations on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the European Union, and underlines the remarkable unity displayed by the EU institutions and Member States; notereminds that experience in the negotiations to date has shown the enormous complexities of such decisionsthe deal currently being negotiated between the EU and the UK can serve as a model agreement for any other Member State who wishes to leave in the future;
Amendment 1 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas differentiated integration is a polysemous concept that can define various phenomena both from a political and from a technical point of view, as is illustrated by the variety of possible cooperation arrangements, namely: ‘variable geometry and geography’, ‘multi-speed’, ‘à la carte’, ‘concentric circles’, ‘Olympic rings’, and so forth;
Amendment 3 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas Europe constitutes what Kundera calls a maximum of diversity in a minimum of space, something that should be reflected in the manner of organising European cooperation, bodies, and shared goals, as anything else would be tantamount to repudiating the true Europe;
Amendment 6 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the political perception of differentiated integration varies significantly depending on the national context; whereas in the eyes of the elites in some Member States that have been members of the Union for longer, it can carry a positive connotation of creating a “pioneer group”, while in the Member States that have more recently joined the Union it is often perceived as a path towards the creation of first-class and second-class Member States of the Uniondifferentiated integration can be associated with the idea of creating a “pioneer group” advancing towards supranational amalgamation, while in the Member States that have more recently joined the Union, where the memory of the totalitarian trauma is still fresh, those notions are perceived with perplexity, since the national community, democracy, cultural heritage, and political freedoms are understood to be indivisible treasures which are fragile and always have to be protected;
Amendment 11 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas differentiation has been a stable feature of European integcooperation and has occurred simultaneously withbeen developed to enable the deepening and the widening of the EU to be pursued simultaneously; whereas, as a consequence, one cannot oppose differentiation andto integration nor present differentior cooperation, nor present supranational integration as an innovative path for the future of the Union, since it was theorised about long ago by Saint-Simon (1814), Proudhon (1863), and, before them, by Charles-Irénée Castel, abbé de Saint- Pierre (1713);
Amendment 16 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas experience shows that, if interdependence works as a factor of integration, politicization often works as an obstacle tois constantly cited certain circles as an argument for ever-increasing supranational integration, democracies attempt to resist it; whereas, as a consequence, Union policy areas with the deepest integration mare mostly the least politicized ones, such as internal market harmonization and regulation, whilek the change from representative government to technocratic governance and are, of course, the ones subject to the least democratic control – witness the examples of internal market harmonization and regulation or the governance of the euro area – and, that being the case, democratically controlled forms of differentiated integcooperation seems most likely to arisehould take over and be encouraged in policy areas characterised by high political polarisation, such as monetary policy, defence, borders control, fundamental rights or taxation;
Amendment 20 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Treaties foreseprovide the possibilities for Member States to take different paths of integration, namely via enhanced cooperation (Article 20 TEU) and Ppermanent structured cooperation (Article 46 TEU); , without preventing the development of differentiated forms of cooperation based on the partners’ freedom of choice, commitments, and organisational machinery, these having enabled Europe to achieve its greatest successes;
Amendment 27 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the process of differentiation has led to the creation of initiatives within the Union legal framework but also to some more flexible intergovernmental legal arrangements, which have led tomade the creaposition of amore complex and non-understandable system for citizens, with reduced accountability of public decisions; baffling to citizens and hence exacerbated the intrinsic ‘democratic deficit’, a spectre consistently raised in rulings handed down by, among others, the German Constitutional Court;
Amendment 32 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Insists that the debate should not be about pro-differentiation versus anti- differentiation but about the best ways to operationalise differentiated integcooperation arrangements outside or inside the EU institutional framework, in the best interest of the Union and its citizenspeoples of Europe;
Amendment 33 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that differentiated integcooperation should reflect the idea that Europe does not work on a one-size fits all approach and should adapt to the needs and wishes of its citizenpeoples; Bbelieves that differentiation should be used as a constitutional tool to ensure flexibility, freedom, and a pragmatic approach, without undermining the general interest of the Union and the equality of rights and opportuni, which, instead of being imposed from above by any supranational authority, should be determined democratically and by consensus among the representatives between citizensof the European peoples constituting its substance;
Amendment 39 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Parliament believes that differentiated integcooperation must remain open to all Member Stat, free, and flexible, reflect the will of the national democracies, and continue to act as an example of deeper European integration, not as a way to facilitate ‘à la carte’ solutions’seek union in so far as this is necessary, as opposed to uniformity and amalgamation across the board, while accepting à la carte’ solutions’ wherever desired, since they are preferable to outright withdrawal of the EU and the only way to save it from imploding;
Amendment 42 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Affirms that any differentiation initiative that would lead to the creation or to the perception of the creation of first- class and second-class Member States of the Union woulinitiative that continued to ignore the widespread democratic distrust not of the European project, but of the supranational version of it, which for more than 15 years has been expressed in numerous referendums and election results and in most opinion polls, would accelerate the continuing European fragmentation and be a major political failure with detrimentalirreparable consequences for the EUuropean project as a whole;
Amendment 43 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 49 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that differentiated integcooperation should always, if possible, take place within the Treaty provisions, and maintain the unity of EU institutions and should not lead to the creation of parallel institutional arrangements; remindsinstitutional coherence of the EU, but should not rule out extra-Treaty cooperation; points out that flexibility and adaptation torespect for national, regional or local specificities can and should also be ensured via provisions in secondary lawdemocracies and specificities, now more than ever, can and must be ensured;
Amendment 50 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that democracy should never be the price to pay for differentiation and that differentiated integratbuilding Europe and that future decisions should not lead to more complex decision-making processes that wouldeven more secretive and complex European processes, further undermineing the democracomprehensibility of power, political accountability of Union institutions, separation of powers, and the primacy of the constitution, which all define the ‘rule of law’;
Amendment 53 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 64 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that a step further would be to go beyond the existing Treaty limits and to initiate a change to the Treaty which would introduce two types of membership: full membership and associated membershipby unlocking the cooperation system so as to make the arrangements free, flexible, and open in terms of aims, fields, and the choice of organisational machinery and participating countries, including non-EU countries, thereby enabling all the countries concerned to respond to the existential challenges for the future of European civilisation, in particular the demographic, security, environmental, digital, and cultural challenges;
Amendment 68 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Suggests that full membership would require full compliance with Union primary law and all the policy areas whereas associated membership would entail the participation in certain policies only and would not be fully integrated into the EU decision-making process; Believes that the associated membership should be accompanied by obligations corresponding to the associated rights, as for example a contribution to the EU budget and should be conditional to the respect of the Union’s fundamental values and to the four freedomsno decision should be taken if it were likely to add more to the mutual distrust among European countries, further widen the political, economic, and cultural divides, specifically between East and West, as well as North and South, fuel the resentment towards a project that is being increasingly less perceived as authentically ‘European’, and lastly, lead to a frightening rise of extremism;
Amendment 71 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 78 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that flexibility and differentiation should go hand in hand with ademocratic reinforcement of common rules in corm whereby, in particular, full European legislative areas in order to ensure that differentiation does not lead to political fragmentation; Therefore, considers necessary the existence, in a future European institutional framework, of European Pillars of Political, Economic, Social and Environmental rights that would not be possible to evadsponsibility would be conferred on the national parliaments, the best practices for parliamentary oversight of European activities would be brought into general use, and the Luxembourg compromise would be reaffirmed by being implemented in the wake of a prior European public debate;
Amendment 82 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Suggests, when competences attribution allows it, permitting regions and other substate entities to participate in cases of enhanced cooperation; also proposes opening enhanced cooperation to the participation of candidate countrieany European country interested; accordingly proposes that an interpretation of Article 20 TFEU be adopted whereby the future partners would enjoy freedom of choice regarding the geographical scope, substance, aims, and organisational machinery of their proposed cooperation arrangements;
Amendment 91 #
2018/2093(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Suggests, on the basedis onf good practices observed in the Australian federal model, to introduceing a procedure that would allow individual Member States to mirror another Member State’s law or to enact the immediate application of a law based on another Member State’s law; calls for the competent high courts in the Member States to be asked beforehand to rule whether such a measure would be compatible with their constitutions;
Amendment 8 #
2018/2080(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recital 10
Annex – recital 10
(10) Account should be taken of the recent changes concerning the protection of the Union’s financial interests against criminal offences, notably the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/19392 , so as to allow the Ombudsman to notify a competent national authority of any information falling within the latter’s remit. Likewise, in order to fully respect the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence enshrined in Article 48 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is desirable that, where he or she notifies the European Public Proseca competent national author’s Officeity of information falling within the latter’s remit, the Ombudsman reports that notification to the person concerned and to the complainant. __________________ 2 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1).
Amendment 42 #
2018/2080(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex - article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Annex - article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
If, in the course of inquiries, the Ombudsman learns of facts which he or she considers might relate to criminal law, the Ombudsman shall notify the competent national authorities and, in so far as the case falls within their powers, the European Anti-fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. If appropriate, the Ombudsman shall also notify the Union institution, body, office or agency with authority over the official or servant concerned, which may apply the second paragraph of Article 17 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.
Amendment 6 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the importance of cross- border cooperation programmes in funding educational, cultural, sporting and other activities whose European added value of cross-border synergies brings citizens closer and fosters mutual trust in border regions; stresses, in this regard, the large number of INTERREG projects devoted to culture, which proves that there is a strong desire among border regions to invest in joint culturaltraditional cultural assets as well as in development modern creative projects; reiterates, therefore, its view that EU financial support for these initiatives should be further strengthened in the next MFF; calls on the Commission to identify and foster synergies between local priorities, existing EU strategies and objectives as well as to make impact assessments with view to promote better convergence.
Amendment 19 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the fact that language barriers are still an important obstacle to cross-border cooperation, especially in border areas without a longstanding tradition of cooperation; notes that the language is an important factor enhancing trust and helping to mitigate sociocultural difficulties; believes that a more targeted use of ESI funds can support the systematic promotion of multilingualism in education and training in border regions, from early childhood education onwards;
Amendment 33 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Member States to facilitate cross-border partnerships between education and training institutions in border regions in order to promote the mobility of students, teachers, trainers and administrative staff, as well as doctoral candidates and researchers; underlines that the use of multilingualism within such cross-border partnerships can prepare graduates to enter the employment market on both sides of the border; urges the Member States to facilitate and encourage the mutual recognition and better understanding of diplomas, certificates and professional qualifications between neighbouring regions;
Amendment 35 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Commission to facilitate cross-border initiatives and different types of exchanges, intercultural and educational activities aimed at better awareness of citizens about legislative and administrative requirements in border regions as well as at improvement of cooperation between local administrations, cultural and educational institutions;
Amendment 46 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is of the opinion that a strong cross- border cooperation in the area of cultural and creative industries (CCIs) can help to create socio-economic value, growth and jobs (also via clustering of enterprises), while also building bridges, increasing mutual understanding and forging a European consciousness through joint initiatives on cultural heritage-related projects; by means of joint child-care facilities, accessible multilingual education, partnerships with educational institutions, and other relevant stakeholders.
Amendment 51 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Believes that the development of cross- border cultural cooperation makes an essential contribution to the sustainable development of cross-border territories impacting economy, social cohesion and environment; calls on the Commission together with Member States to work out common strategic approach for development and support of Cultural and Creative Industries, bridging CCI with society and economy in order to promote smart, sustainable growth in EU border regions.
Amendment 60 #
2018/2054(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Strongly believes that border regions, thanks to the existence of long- established contacts between cultural institutions across borders, can create favourable conditions for artistic and cultural mobility and can therefore be vital for thematic tourism and help promote Europe as a destination., calls on the Commission to integrate a cultural dimension into the cross-border development initiatives, respecting the balance between historic heritage assets and contemporary creativity;
Amendment 5 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that reform of the revenue side should go hand in hand with reform of expenditure and of rebates and correctionsthe EU towards differentiated cooperation (a la carte) approach, in order to increase the European added value of EU expenditure by ensuring a visible link between expenditure and EU policies and priorities, and by supporting EU policies in the key areas of EU competence which demonstrate high potential for European added value, such as the single market, migration and asylum policies, environmental protection and climate action, energy union, common defence policy, and the reduction of fiscal heterogeneity in the single market, as recommended in the Monti report1 ; _________________ 1 Final report and recommendations of the High-Level Group on Own Resources on the future financing of the EU, adopted in December 2016.policy, economic and social cohesion, research, technological development, environmental protection and climate action, energy union, common defence policy;
Amendment 8 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that EU spending should be given the appropriate flexibility and be the subject of proper democratic scrutiny and accountability, which necessitates the full involvement of Parliament in every phase of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) Regulation decision-making process in respect of its prerogatives as co- legislator; calls, therefore, for closer dialogue between the Council and Parliament when negotiating the next MFF before the Council formally submits for Parliament’s consent its proposal for the MFF Regulation, and warns againstof the European Council’s usual top-down approach of setting the overall ceilings per heading rather than assessing the actual needs of the programmes first, corresponding to the EU major sectors of activity and ensures that EU expenditure does not exceed the limits of its own resources;
Amendment 10 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets that the requirement to propose the next MFF by 1 January 2018 (as stated in Art. 25 of Regulation No 1311/2013) was not met; urges the Commission to take all necessary measures to ensure that a repeat of the implementation delays in sectoral programmes is avoided;
Amendment 14 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 25 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 32 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 37 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Call the Commission to maintain the current system of own resources, which strikes a fair balance between traditional own resources (i.e. tariffs and sugar levies) and gross national income- based contributions; the GNI-contribution is a stable, reliable, fair and by definition sufficient to fund the budget.
Amendment 16 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic minorities, people with special needs, women, LGBTIQ, migrants and refugeyoung people with disabilities, – who are facing barriers to enter the labour market, and access culture, social services and education – are those most affected by the socio-economic crisis;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas education, and intercultural dialogue, strategic communication and closer cooperation between Member States in particular, have a key role to play in preventing the radicalisation of young people;
Amendment 29 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas fostering young entrepreneurship is one of the eight fields of actions promoted by the 2019-18 EU Youth Strategy;
Amendment 35 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas there is a need to mainstream EU actioncross-sector initiatives in the field of youth through the inclusion of a youth dimension in current and future plans;
Amendment 37 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 45 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas sustained efforts are needed to increase the participation of young people in society, particularly for migrants, refugeyoung people with disabilities, those not in education, employment or training (NEETs) and those at risk of social exclusion;
Amendment 57 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with regret that long-term austerity measures, notably cuts in funding for education, culture, and youth policies, have had a negative impact on young people and their living conditions; warns that young people, especially the most disadvantaged, such as young women, ethnicpeople with disabilities, young women, minorities, LGBTIQ, those with special needs, migrants and refugees, are are greatly affected by rising inequality, the risk of exclusion, insecurity and discrimination;
Amendment 67 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges the positive achievements of the EYS though the development of cross-sector work and the implementation of structured dialogue in order to ensure the participation of young people, believes that the general level of awareness of the objectives and the instruments of EYS on the part of relevant actors and stakeholders needs to be improved;
Amendment 77 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. UrEncourages the Member States to use the European Pillar of Social Rights as a basis for drafting legislation for young people;
Amendment 79 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recommends that the future EYS should be centred around young people and participatory, improving well-being, reflecting the needs, well- being, ambitions and diversity of, widening access to creative tools involving new technologies for all young people in Europe;
Amendment 100 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage regional and local authorities to ensure that young people and youth organizations are able to fully and effectively participate and be involved in decision-making, implementing and follow up process;
Amendment 118 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support regional and local authorities and to invest in new life opportunities for young people, in order to develop their creativity, support youth entrepreneurship and to foster social inclusion of young people for the benefit of their communities;
Amendment 121 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission and the Member States to adopt a rights-based approach to youth and employment; calls on the Member States to ensure that young people have access to quality internships and jobs that uphold their rights, including the right to a stable job that offers a living wage, social protection and secures a life of dignity and autonomy;
Amendment 145 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Strongly believes that quality education and training is a fundamental right; considers, therefore, that access to education should be guaranteed for all Europeans, regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity or gender, gender, physical or cognitive disabilities; underlines the important role played by education in providing young people with the knowledge and skills to become committed citizens and take part in the European project;
Amendment 151 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is deeply concerned at the particularly acute problem of child poverty, with which up to 25 million children in the EU (more than 26.4 % of all Europeans aged 0-17) from families that are suffering every day from a lack of sufficient income and basic services, are afflicted; believes that youth policies could contribute to areas as child and family; calls on the Commission to develop a Child Guarantee as a long-term tool to offer equal opportunities for all children in the EU;
Amendment 160 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Commission to encourage initiatives with formal education and informal learning to support young people's innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship and to promote cohesion and understanding between young people of different groups;
Amendment 179 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 24 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Recalls that in the area of youth, the EU can only carry out actions to support, coordinate and supplement the actions of the Member States in line with principle of subsidiarity, notes the importance of coherence of EU and national funding and therefore calls on the Commission to facilitate synergies with national, regional and local initiatives to avoid duplicated, overlapping and repeated activities.
Amendment 184 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 25 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Commission to better address the complexities of national and regional differences to support and supplement the actions of Member States as it is provided by Article 6 TFEU.
Amendment 192 #
2017/2259(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Firmly believes that the Europe for Citizens programme should continue to stimulate active citizenship, civic education and dialogue and engender a sense of European identity; notes that the low success rate of the programme is due to a lack of funding; calls for a substantial increase in its funding allocation; mismatch between the budget and the ambitions and goals of the programme; calls to deploy funding more strategically, focusing on citizens driven activities and to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the programme;
Amendment 8 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Article 10(1) TEU states that the functioning of the Union is founded on representative democracy, and whereas the Commission as the European Union’s executive plays such a decisive role in the functioning of the Union in total independence vis-à-vis its constituent peoples, so that the German constitutional Court warned against "a structural democratic deficit that would be unacceptable" (Lisbon case, 30 June 2009) ;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the draft amendments enable Members of the Commission to stand in European Parliament elections without having to resign or to take unpaid leave as any civil servant or agent working in the European institutions would be required to do; and whereas allowing Commissioners who are still in office to stand as candidates to the Parliament will lead to dangerous confusion and be bewildering for citizens;
Amendment 20 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, according to Article 10(4) TEU, political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union, which is inseparable from the nation-state, which is the hallmark of European civilization, since it is the political form which links citizens and sovereignty, and contribute to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union, the European character of which finds its highest expression as a community of Nations;
Amendment 33 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the Spitzenkandidaten process is a further step in strengthenRecalls that no genuine democratic Parliament should behave as a unitary institution and that, ing the EU’s parliamentary dimension, and therefore warns that the European Parliament will reject anyabsence of a crystal ball, it is not possible to predict voting results in advance, especially in the case of a possible vote of an assembly that has not been elected yet; recalls the fact that the candidate in thefor investiture procedure of theas a Commission President who was not appoill anyway be first determinted as a Spitzenkandidat in the run-up to the elections of the European Parliamentby consensus within the Council between Member States and in accordance with the Treaties;
Amendment 41 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the Spitzenkandidaten process fosters the, by highlighting the illusion of the choice among Spitzenkandidaten, most of whom are unknown to most voters, will foster, in the run-up to the European Parliament elections, political awareness ofamong European citizens inof the run-up to the elections of the European Parliament and"structural democratic deficit" that the Union seems unable to eliminate and further underlines that that process fails to reinforces the political legitimacy of both Parliament and the Commission by connecting their respective elections more directly to the choice of the voters, which institutions will be increasingly perceived as the representative bodies of a false Europe ;
Amendment 46 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that allsome major European political parties embraced the Spitzenkandidaten process in the run-up to the 2014 European elections, leading to the appointment of M. José-Manuel Barroso for a second term as the head of the Commission despite a poor record and before he takes as many the Revolving doors, which is itself a sign of its success, and stresses that the 2019 European elections will be the occasion to cement the use of that process;
Amendment 53 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 60 #
2017/2233(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ApproveRejects the amendments to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, annexed to this decision;
Amendment 20 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
Citation 14 a (new)
- having regard to the Resolution of the European Parliament of 14 March 1984 on freedom of education in the European Community (C 104/70),
Amendment 21 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 b (new)
Citation 14 b (new)
- having regard to the right to education as defined in Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 30 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, while the main responsibilityaccording to Article 6 e) of the TFEU the competence for education and training lies within Member States, while the European Union has a vital supportive role;
Amendment 69 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Knowledge as a key economic resource and a source of citizens’ well-beingcondition of individual and civic development
Amendment 71 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Declares that universal quality education is a crucial component of personal, cultural, professional and societal development in a knowledge-based society;
Amendment 75 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the attainment of the European Union’s economic and societal objectives depend on quality education aiming the success of each child and the promotion of the best;
Amendment 83 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that quality education and training systems form the basis of an open, inclusive, prosperousluralist, democratic and tolerant society, while promoting active citizenship and common values;
Amendment 115 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the potential of new technologies to improvecontribute to the quality of education by meeting learners’ needs, increasing flexown's talent and capacities, increasing personalization and responsibility in learning and teaching, and creating new forms of cooperation;
Amendment 143 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 174 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Sees all schools as centres of basic skills acquisition, ensuring in particular a better mastery of language, as a precondition for any critical and creative thinking development;
Amendment 180 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that mastering basic skills isliteracy and numeracy skills and humanities are fundamental forto pupils to ensure their further learning and personal development' further learning and personal development; stresses that the Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020) and the Commission’s New Skills Agenda should complement national actions and support Member States in this regard;
Amendment 195 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Takes note of the positive impact of school multilingualism on pupils’ linguistic and cognitive development, as well as on the promotion of culture awareness, understanding and diversitypluralism; invites in this regard the Commission and the Member States to create pupils exchanges programmes following the example of the long established Franco-German Youth Exchange scheme "Brigitte Sauzay";
Amendment 279 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that the European Education Area should focus on achieving common goals and must be formed in alignment with existing policies and educational trends in the EU, while giving also new impetus to their development and respecting the principles of subsidiarconferral, subsidiarity, proportionality and institutional and educational autonomy;
Amendment 302 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Encourages, with regard to increasing inclusiveness and freedom of educational choice, public funding for both privately and publicly run schools, provided that all schools are subject to rules and regulations regarding the quality of education and the use of those funds;
Amendment 305 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls for enhancdifferentiated cooperation among Member States in modernising education, as encouraged and facilitated by the Commission, with a view to the worldwide promotingon of best practices and mutual learning;
Amendment 362 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Calls on the Commission to assess the effectiveness and added value of EU existing culture and education programmes, paying particular attention to the Europe for Citizens programme, and to promote simplification of procedures and sound financial management at all levels;
Amendment 379 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Commission to consider establishing a common European framework forof best practices on ECEC;
Amendment 403 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Encourages more STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics) initiatives at school level through enhancdifferentiated cooperation with higher education and scientific research institutions;
Amendment 439 #
2017/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Urges theEncourages Member States to invest at least 2 % of their respective GDPs in higher education, to be deducted from the national deficit calculation, and to comply with the EU benchmark of investing 3 % of the EU GDP in R&D by 2020;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that access to quality, free and independent information is a fundamental human right, that media pluralism is, political and intellectual, is one of the pillars of democracy and that the media’s independence from political and economicexternal powers and influences of any kind must be guaranteed accordingly;
Amendment 11 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RecallInsists that the formation of public opinion is based upon a social pact between citizens and media professionals aimed at influencing those in power for the purposes of general interesreasons for the growing public mistrust of media should be openly and seriously sought; notes with the gravest concern that the financing system for the press has collapsed, resulting in dominant media players using information to pursue political and commercial propaganda objectives, thereby dramatically lowering the quality of information and giving rise to phenomena such as ‘fake news’, sensationalism, ideological and personal bias;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 39 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that online media pluralism is under serious threat from the excessive concentration of corporate power which raises in particular the issue of editorial independence in a highly concentrated media universe and in several countries the collusion between interests of the media industry and politics; asks the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to overcome regulatory deficiencies in order to create legal clarity and consistency to ensure media freedom, that is to say free from any kind of external pressures or influences, and prevent the abuse of their dominant position by media and web giants;
Amendment 42 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to lead by example of respect for the freedom and the independence of journalists, which henceforth implies to refrain from subsidising guidelines telling them how to handle such and such a topic, as for instance a “Reporting on migration and minorities – approach and guidelines”, from supporting “training” activities, biased seminars or trips for journalists, and more generally any propaganda operation that non only doesn’t increase the popularity of the EU but undermines the dignity of the profession and a pillar of democracy;
Amendment 50 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses that media pluralism and quality of information are also under threat when free competition is distorted by certain practices :in that regard, Public Service Media have a particular obligation not to disrupt private media’s work, for instance by copying on their websites the content of private media ;encourages the Commission to look into this issue to ensure that publicly funded media do not act in a way that can violate the competition rules through its public funding ;
Amendment 74 #
2017/2209(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that a critical use of media content is essential to people’s understanding of current issues and to their contribution to public life; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to promote and support media literacy projects, as well as to lead by example in how to guarantee/ensure a healthy relationship between EU officials and journalists without feeding into the ethical disbalance, which implies that guidelines, seminars and invited groups of journalists supported by EU funds are addressed only with factual and unbiased information about the EU, while opinions about EU’s future and policies shall during these seminars and trips only be conveyed by MEPs representing the different political groups in the Parliament.
Amendment 32 #
2017/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers it essential to improve information for people with disabilities regarding mobility opportunities and to give special attention to the difficulties they encounter as well as provide assistance where possible;
Amendment 50 #
2017/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of improving the digital skills and competences of persons with disabilities, and calls on Member States to ensure the protection of vulnerable citizens and persons with disabilities online;
Amendment 58 #
2017/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that education for active citizenship citizens should address the prospects of persons with disabilities who face more barriers regarding access to civic participation;
Amendment 71 #
2017/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls for the enhanced use of digital tools and digitalisation as a means to support the entry of people with disabilities in to full time employment, in spheres such as the IT industry;
Amendment 75 #
2017/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Welcomes the commitment to raise social awareness of issues related to persons with disability;
Amendment 76 #
2017/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Stresses the importance of educating citizens on issues related to people with hidden/invisible disabilities in order to protect such persons from abuse.
Amendment 9 #
2017/2069(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is engaged in enhancing the democratic dimension of the European elections by reforming current European electoral law with a view to increasing citizens’ participation and confidence in the EU democratic system, thanks to increased transparency and awareness and new voting sys, decreased digital divide between Member States in terms, including e- democracy tools; of digital infrastructure, digital literacy and citizens experience with e-participation;
Amendment 20 #
2017/2069(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Warns against possible legal uncertainty over the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and those of UK citizens living in the EU arising as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; believes that core rightsthe position of EU citizens living in UK and UK nationals living in EU should be safeguarded in the UK withdrawal agreement and the agreement on the future relationship between the EU and the UK; stresses that any agreement should be based on the principle of reciprocity;
Amendment 28 #
2017/2069(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the Commission’s plan to revise the European Citizens’ Initiative Rregulation with a view to improving its functioning; strongly supports the regulation as an important tool for participatory democracy that, if used to its full potential, could increase citizens’ trust in the EU institutions and, contribute to the construction of a genuine and inclusive EU legislative process and complement representative democracy in the European Union;
Amendment 31 #
2017/2069(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the security of EU citizens and the fight against terrorism should be a top priority for the EU; welcomes the steps taken by the EU to reinforce the Security Union; calls for the speedy implementation of the interoperability of EU information systems for security, migration and border management; emphasises that the coordination ofconcurrent internal and external EU actions of Member States in the field of security isare essential for the efficient protection of EU citizens.;
Amendment 20 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas its resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union2 outlined its position on establishing a jointsupranational constituency in which lists are headed by each political family’s candidate for the post of President of the Commission; __________________ 2 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0395. Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0395.
Amendment 21 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas such a single supranational constituency is imaginable only on an hypothetical day, where citizens of the current 27 or future 30 nations would show the degree of homogeneity of a single people, sharing at least a single political culture and language, without which no common identification of the citizens and democracy are possible; whereas as convinced European the first responsibility is not to deny or fight the natural diversity of Europe that makes the richness and uniqueness of its civilization but to cherish it like a fragile and perishable treasure and to pass it on to next generations; whereas any different attitude is deeply anti-European and leading to a new despotism; whereas the only legitimate and sovereign European power to build will be that of the concert of nation-states which are, in our troubled times, the most peaceful human community at this level, the best guarantee for citizens and peoples' support, the only crucible of a living democracy, the very place where social and territorial solidarities are possible and the antidote to identity explosions;
Amendment 26 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas aconstitutionality reviews and positive opinions from the constitutional Courts of Member States before any modification of the electoral law of the EU will be necessaryshould be requested to create the legal basis for such a joint constituency;
Amendment 44 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges that the current distribution of seats only partially respects the principle of degressive proportionality, and therefore should be corrected as soon as possible without redistributing any vacant seats when the withdrawal of the United Kingdom will become legally effective ;
Amendment 73 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Proposes that ano new distribution of seats in Parliament should immediately apply once there is legal certainty and the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union becomes legally effective; insists that the MEPs that will occupy the seats resulting from this new distribution shall all take up their seats in Parliament at the same timeno seat will be reallocated and therefore the number of Members of the European Parliament will decrease to 678 as soon as the Union will be composed by 27 Member States;
Amendment 83 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Proposes that this new distribution of seats should be fair, objective and based on the following principles: greater respect for the principle of degressive proportionality, no loss of seats for any Member State, and theno use of only a minimalany fraction of the seats vacated by the UK;
Amendment 93 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the new distribuabsence of reallocation proposed wouldill allow for a reduction in the size of Parliament to 69977 members plus the President, thereby leaving sufficient room for manoeuvre to accommodate potential future enlargements of the EU and members elected to European countries and setting a joint constituencyn example in terms of saving public money ;
Amendment 136 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Amendment 140 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – table
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – table
Belgium 21 Bulgaria 17 Czech Republic 21 Denmark 143 Germany 96 Estonia 76 Ireland 131 Greece 21 Spain 584 France 784 Croatia 121 Italy 763 Cyprus 6 Latvia 8 Lithuania 11 Luxembourg 6 Hungary 21 Malta 6 Netherlands 286 Austria 198 Poland 51 Portugal 21 Romania 32 Slovenia 8 Slovakia 143 Finland 143 Sweden 210
Amendment 155 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 2
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. If the date on which the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union becomes legally effective falls after the European Parliament elections in 2019, each Member State concerned shall designate the persons who will fill the additional seats resulting from the difference between the number of seats allocated to that Member State in Article 3 of Decision 2013/312/EU and the number of seats allocated to it in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article. Member States shall designate the persons who will fill those additional seats in accordance with their legislation, provided that the persons in question have been elected by direct universal suffrage and by reference to the resultsthe 73 seats vacated will not be reallocated or filled, in compliance with Article 3 of the European Council Decision 2013/312/EU, of 28 June 2013, establishing the composition of the European Parliament elections in 2019.
Amendment 163 #
2017/2054(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 3
Annex – Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. The number of representatives in the European Parliament who fill the additional seats referred to in paragraph 2 shall take up their seats in Parliament at the same timeelected in each of the remaining 27 Member States is set by Article 3 of the European Council Decision 2013/312/EU of 28 June 2013 establishing the composition of the European Parliament.
Amendment 4 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 9 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note of the opportunity presented by Brexit to deeply reform the structural fund system, entrust the national Courts and Parliament to examine and evaluate the execution of the budget and expenses in their country, reconsider the current system of rebates and corrections, which are not only contrary to the letter and spirit of the Treaties, but which have also proven to shift the focus of discussions from the European added value of the EU budget to the ‘net balance’ effect on the contributions of Member States;
Amendment 14 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the EU’s powers are founded on the principle of representation of interests of Member States and according to the Art. 311 TFEU the adoption of provisions relating to the system of own EU resources requires a unanimous decision by the Council and approval by every Member States, thus retaining their fiscal sovereignty.
Amendment 18 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that any reform of the system of own resources should be based on the principles of subsidiarity and comprehensibility for European citizens;, that implies in particular the refusal of EU taxation, to lay down in the Treaty a ceiling of EU expenditure at 1% of the GDP and to broadly involve national Parliaments and Court of auditors in the discussion on their national contributions and EU expenses made on their territory.
Amendment 22 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that a reform of the EU own resources system should center on more efficient use of EU financial means, improved democratic control over the EU budget, and respect of the subsidiarity principle, which provides Member States with a right to decide about sources of financing for their contributions they pay to EU budget.
Amendment 25 #
2017/2053(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that reform on the revenue side should go hand in hand with reform on the expenditure side to ensure a visible link with EU policies and priorities and to support EU policies in key areas of EU competence, such as the single market, environmental protection and climate action, energy union, and reducing fiscal heterogeneity in the single market, as recommended in the Monti report1 ; by such a reform national Court of auditors and Parliaments should be entrusted to investigate and deliver an opinion on the execution of the budget and EU expenditure in their territory ; _________________ 1 Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources on the future financing of the EU, adopted in December 2016
Amendment 1 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that EU spending should be subject to proper democratic scrutiny and accountability, which necessitates the full involvement of Parliament in decision making on the MFF Regulation; calls, therefore, for closer dialogue between the Council and Parliament when negotiating the next multiannual financial framework and warns against the European Council’s usual top-down approach of setting the overall ceilings per heading instead of first assessing the actual needs of the programmes;
Amendment 6 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points toDespite the possibility of switching from unanimity to qualified majority when voting for the adoption of the forthcoming MFF Regulation, by using the provisions of given by Article 312(2) of the TFEU, which bring the MFF negotiations closer into line with the procedure for the adoption of the annual budget of the Unionbelieves that some MFF headings could be sensitive and needed to be approved unanimously by all Member States;
Amendment 12 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 18 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Warns against the possibility that the upcoming Brexit negotiations might shroud the outcome of negotiations on the next MFF;, recalls the difficulty of assessing the impact of Brexit on both the interinstitutional process and funding under the forthcoming MFF, and considers it unlikely that the long-term EU budgets can be increased in this contextproposes to reduce long-term EU budgets, equivalent to the level of the estimated UK’s receipts;
Amendment 24 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for increased complementarity between national budgets and the EU budget, and forbelieves that European funding toshould focus on areas that deliver genuine European added value and , fully in line whichith principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; believes that such well- targeted spending at European level can produce savings at national level.;
Amendment 30 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls the importance of coherence of EU and national funding and therefore believes that national objectives and budgetary efforts undertaken in Member States should be considered when developing Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 2 #
2017/2010(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Regrets that the absence of a binding effect of these reasoned opinions finally reduces the control of subsidiarity by national parliament to a simple right to protest ("yellow card") or in the best case to ask the European legislator for a second deliberation ("orange card") ;reminds in that regard that since the Lisbon treaty entered into force, only 3 "yellow cards" could be issued by national chambers for which the Commission has refused to withdraw its proposals in the two last cases (Revision of the directive on the posting of workers and establishment of the European public Prosecutor's Office), and went back in the first one only due to a lack of majority in the Council while denying in a press release any non compliance with the subsidiarity principle ("Monti II" revision) ;
Amendment 10 #
2017/2010(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets that Delegated acts and Implementing acts that are much abused to complete the EU legislative acts are however still not transmitted to the national Parliaments under the subsidiarity control ;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2010(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Reminds that the real and ultimate judge of the subsidiarity is the Court of Justice of the European Union which has until now never annulled any community or EU Act on such a basis of an infringement of the subsidiarity principle, perhaps because to comply with the specific definition of subsidiarity as laid down in article 5 TEU one can always find a transnational dimension to any issue justifying the EU competence and, last but not least, because the EU Court is itself both judge and defendant ;
Amendment 20 #
2017/2010(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls for the introduction, through an interinstitutional agreement, of an interparliamentary pillar to organise the network of the national parliaments, allowing them to : – truly scrutinise subsidiarity henceforth to be understood as allowing the Union to act under two cumulative conditions : (1) if the objectives of the envisaged action cannot be satisfactorily realised at the national level ;and (2) if democratic control is not thereby diminished ; – intervene should they so wish in EU decision-making, by exercising a collective right of veto ("red card") and an individual right of non-participation to an EU legislation or Policy, allowing the development of differentiated integration and cooperation ; – exercise both prior and follow-up monitoring of all Council of Ministers meetings at EU level through specialised interparliamentary groupings of their members ; – take decisions of a European nature that are immediately applicable in their respective Member States ;
Amendment 25 #
2017/2010(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates the need to enhance the flexibility of the early warning system, and notably of the eighttwelve-week period for submitting reasoned opinions, and to continue to reflect on the introduction of a green card mechanism with legally binding effect ;
Amendment 40 #
2017/2010(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the reference to subsidiarity in the Rome Declaration of 25 March 2017; takes the view that subsidiarity and national parliaments should have a prominent place in reflection on the EU’s future. in order to address the "structural democratic deficit" especially mentioned by the German Constitutional Court which, in its judgement of 30 June 2009 "Treaty of Lisbon", reminds that the national parliaments are sovereign assemblies conferring the main source of democratic legitimacy to the EU and should therefore exert, on behalf of their respective sovereign peoples, a genuine intervention and control over the EU decision making and process, in order to remain in compliance with our Constitutions and democratic principles ;
Amendment 16 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/20106 provides that the head of the Secretariat of the ESRB is to be appointed by the ECB, in consultation with the General Board of the ESRB. To raise the profile of the head of Secretariat of the ESRB, the General Board of the ESRB should assess, in an open and transparent procedure, whether the shortlisted candidates for the position of head of Secretariat of the ESRB possess the qualities, independence and experience necessary to manage the ESRB Secretariat. The General Board should inform the European Parliament and the Council about the assessment procedure. Furthermore, the tasks of the head of the ESRB Secretariat should be clarified. _________________ 6 Council Regulation (EU) NO 1096/2010 of 17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 162).
Amendment 17 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010, the first Vice-Chair of the ESRB has up until now been elected by and from the members of the General Council of the ECB, with regard to the need for a balanced representation of Member States overall and particularly between those whose currency is the euro and those whose currency is not the euro. Following the creation of the Banking Union, it is appropriate to replace the reference to Member State whose currency is the euro and those whose currency is not the euro with a reference to Member States that do participate in the Banking Union and those who do not.
Amendment 21 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) To ensure the quality and relevance of the ESRB opinions, recommendations and decisions, the Advisory Technical Committee and Advisory Scientific Committee are expected to consult a broad range of stakeholders, where appropriate, at an early stage and in an open and transparent manner.
Amendment 23 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a
2a. When consulted on the appointment of the head of Secretariat of the ESRB in accordance with Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010*, the General Board, following an open and transparent procedure, shall assess whether the shortlisted candidates for the position of head of Secretariat of the ESRB possess the qualities, independence and experience necessary to manage the ESRB Secretariat. The General Board shall inform the European Parliament and the Council about the consultation procedure.
Amendment 27 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. The first Vice-Chair shall be elected by and from the members of the General Council of the ECB for a term of 5 years, with regard to the need for a balanced representation of Member States overall, and particularly between those which are participating Member States as defined in Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013**, and those which are not. The first Vice-Chair may be re-elected once.
Amendment 34 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point c
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. With regard to the representation of the national authorities referred to under paragraph 2(a), the respective high-level representatives shall rotate depending on the item discussed, unless thebe nominated by the relevant national authorities of a particular Member State have agreed on a common represenand remain answerable to their respective Member Stative.;
Amendment 35 #
2017/0232(COD)
(c) four other members of the General Board who are also members of the General Council of the ECB, with regard to the needobligation for a balanced representation of Member States overall, and particularly between those which are participating Member States as defined in Article 2(1) Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 and those which are not. They shall be elected by and from among the members of the General Board who are also members of the General Council of the ECB, for a period of 3 years;;
Amendment 37 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
5. Where appropriate, the Advisory Scientific Committee shall organise consultations with a broad range of stakeholders at an early stage and in an open and transparent manner, while taking into account the requirement of confidentiality.;
Amendment 41 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a
4a. Where appropriate, the Advisory Technical Committee shall organise consultations with a broad range of stakeholders at an early stage and in an open and transparent manner, while taking into account the requirement of confidentiality.;
Amendment 43 #
2017/0232(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Warnings or recommendations issued by the ESRB in accordance with points (c) and (d) of Article 3(2) are the responsibility of the ESRB Chair and may be of either a general or a specific nature and shall be addressed in particular to the Union, to one or more, as appropriate, to the relevant Member States(s), to one or more of the ESAs or to one or more of thethe Ecofin Council, the relevant ESA(s) or to the relevant national competent authorities, or to the ECB for the tasks conferred to the ECB in accordance with Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.;
Amendment 14 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) For reasons of transparency and in order to strengthen the scrutiny and the democratic accountability of European political parties and the link between European civil society and the Union institutions, in particular the European Parliament, access to funding from the general budget of the European Union should be made conditional upon the publication by the majority of its member parties of the programme and logo of the European political party concerned, as well as information regarding the gender representation among the candidates at the last elections to the European Parliament and among the members of the European Parliament.
Amendment 17 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The new requirements regarding publicity of the programme and logo of European political parties and of information regarding gender representation should apply to the largest possible extent already to applications for funding for 2019, the year in which elections to the European Parliament will take place. Therefore, transitional arrangements should be provided for.
Amendment 18 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In order to ensure greater transparency, legal certainty and full respect of the rules by all, a permanent Working Group on Transparency of European Parties and Foundations’ Activities should be established within the European Parliament. The Working Group should review all rules and procedures currently applicable on the eligibility for funding from the general budget of the European Union of activities performed by European parties and foundations. That review should focus on the activities performed and on the practices observed to date as well as on the decisions of eligibility adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament. The Working Group should propose any clarification or amendment to those rules and procedures it considers appropriate and should advise on decisions of eligibility to be adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament.
Amendment 26 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1141/2014
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 1
Amendment 33 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1141/2014
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
(1a) Article 17(3) is replaced by the following: “3. For the purposes of determining eligibility for funding from the general budget of the European Union in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and point (b) of Article 3(1), and for the application of Article 19(1), a member of a regional parliament or assembly, of a national parliament or of the European Parliament shall be considered asto be a member of only one European political party, which shall, where relevant, be the one to which his or her national or regional political party is affiliated on the final date for the submission of applications for funding. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1141&from=EN)Furthermore those members who belong to a political party that is not affiliated to a European party shall be considered as members of the European party whose Board accepted them in writing as members.” Or. en
Amendment 40 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1141/2014
Article 18 – paragraph 3 a
Article 18 – paragraph 3 a
3a. A European political party shall include in its application evidence demonstrating that the majority of its member parties have continuously published on their websites, during 12 months preceding the moment at which the applications is made, the political programme and logo of the European political party as well asnd are encouraged to include information, in relation to each of the member parties of the European political party, on the gender representation among the candidates at the last elections to the European Parliament and among the Members of the European Parliament.
Amendment 45 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1141/2014
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – indent 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – indent 1
– 510 % shall be distributed in equal shares among the beneficiary European political parties,
Amendment 48 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1141/2014
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – indent 2
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – indent 2
– 950 % shall be distributed in proportion to their share of elected members of the European Parliament among the beneficiary European political parties.
Amendment 63 #
2017/0219(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1141/2014
Article 32 a
Article 32 a
Amendment 126 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The European Union is built on solidarity, among its citizens and, among its Member States as well as "between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions", as set out by the preamble of the Treaty on the European Union. This common value of solidarity guides itsthe actions of the Union and provides the necessary unity to cope with current and future societalcommon good challenges, which young Europeans are willing to help address by expressing their solidarity in practice.
Amendment 136 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) Since 2009, the unemployment rate for persons under the age of 25 has remained frozen at an average of between 20 % and 25 % in the Eurozone as a whole and at even higher rates in individual Member States such as France (25,9 %), Portugal (31 %), Cyprus (31,7 %), Italy (37,9 %), Croatia (44,1 %), Spain (46 %) and Greece (48,6 %). Such a serious situation calls for acting beyond solidarity on the very structural causes of the growth decline observed in most of our European countries for 40 years, by fighting on all fronts which implies to restore the instruments of economic, monetary and political sovereignty.
Amendment 146 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Young people should be provided with easily accessible opportunities to engage in solidarity activities, which could enable them to express their commitment to the benefit of communities while acquiring useful experience, skills and competences for their personal, educational, social, artistic, linguistic, cultural, civic and professional development, thereby improving their employability. Those activities would also support the mobility of young volunteers, trainees and workers.
Amendment 155 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The solidarity activities offered to young people should be of high quality, in the sense that they should respond to unmet societal needspublic interest needs to be provided by participating public entities or non-profit entities governed by private law, contribute to strengthening national or local communities, offer young people the opportunity to acquire valuable knowledge and competences, be financially accessible to young people, and be implemented in safe and healthy conditions.
Amendment 169 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The European Solidarity Corps would provide a single entry point for solidarity activities throughout the Union. Consistency and complementarity of that framework should be ensured with other relevant Union policies and programmes. The European Solidarity Corps should build on the strengths and synergies of existing programmes, notably the European Voluntary Service. It should also complement the efforts made by Member States to support young people and ease their school-to-work transition under the Youth Guarantee19 by providing them with additional opportunities to make a start on the labour market in the form of traineeships or job placements in solidarity-related areas within their respective Member State or across borders. Complementarity with existing Union level networks pertinent to the activities under the European Solidarity Corps, such as the European Network of Public Employment Services, EURES and the Eurodesk network, should also be ensured. Furthermore, complementarity between existing related schemes, in particular national solidarity schemes and mobility schemes for young people, and the European Solidarity Corps should be ensured, building on good practices where appropriate. __________________ 19 Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee (2013/C 120/01).
Amendment 184 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 211 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) To ensure the impact of European Solidarity Corps placements on the personal, educational, artistic, social, civic and professional development of the participants, the knowledge, skills and competences that are the learning outcomes of the placement should be properly identified and documented, in accordance with national circumstances and specificities, as recommended in the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning22. __________________ 22 Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non- formal and informal learning, OJ C 398, 22.12.2012, p. 1.
Amendment 238 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) This Regulation lays down a financial envelope for the period 2018- 2020 which is to constitute the prime reference amount, within the meaning of Point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management23, for the European Parliament and the Council during the annual budgetary procedure. The prime reference amount includes redeployments from the Erasmus+ programme (EUR 197.7 million) and from the Employment and Social Innovation programme (EUR 10 million) for the financial years 2018, 2019 and 2020, and it is complemented by contributions from several Union programmes under different headings, such as the European Social Fund, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, the LIFE programme and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. __________________ 23 Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.
Amendment 259 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The European Solidarity Corps should target young people aged 18-3025. Participation in the activities offered by the European Solidarity Corps should require prior registration in the European Solidarity Corps Portal.
Amendment 266 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Any entity willing to participate in the European Solidarity Corps, whether funded by the European Solidarity Corps budget, by another Union programme or by a different funding source, should receive a quality label provided that the appropriate conditions are fulfilled. The process that leads to the attribution of a quality label should be carried out on a continuous basis by the implementing structures of the European Solidarity Corps. The attributed quality label should be reassessed periodically and could be revoked if, in the context of the checks to be performed, the conditions that led to its attribution were found to be no longer fulfilled. In order to ensure the appropriate involvement of national and local authorities, national parliaments should be able to further scrutinise the participating organisations that have been attributed a quality label and their solidarity activities. National parliaments should be able to assess the efficiency of participating organisations and propose possible changes or adjustments where, for example, an activity is organised in a manner that is contrary to national or local policies, causes a distortion in competition or disrupts the tasks of national administrations or public services.
Amendment 299 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 314 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) “solidarity activity” means an activity aimed at addressing the unmet societal needspublic interest needs to be provided by participating organisations governed by public law or of non-profit participating organisations governed by private law to the benefit of a community while also fostering the individual’s personal, educational, artistic, social, civic and professional development, which may take the form of placements, projects or networking activities, developed in relation to different areas, such as education and training, employment, gender equality, entrepreneurship, in particular social entrepreneurship, citizenship and democratic participation, environment and nature protection, climate action, disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery, agriculture and rural development, provision of food and non-food items, health and wellbeing, creativity and culture, physical education and sport, orchestral and choral practices, social assistance and welfare, reception and integration of third-country nationals, territorial cooperation and cohesion;
Amendment 350 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Amendment 359 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) “volunteering placement” means a full-time32 unpaid voluntary service for a period of up to twelve months, which, as a primary goal, provides young people with the opportunity to contribute to the daily work of organisations active in solidarity- related fields, to the ultimate benefit of the communities within which the activities are carried out, and includinges, as a secondary goal, a solid learning and training dimension in order to enable the young volunteer(s) to gain skills and competences, which will be useful for their personal, educational, artistic, social and professional development, and which will also contribute to improving their employability; __________________ 32 As a general principle, an activity carried out continuously, 5 days a week for 7 hours a day.
Amendment 407 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
The objective of the European Solidarity Corps is to enhance the engagement of young people and organisations in accessible and high quality solidarity activities as a means to contribute to strengthening cohesion and solidarity in Europe, supporting national or local communities and responding to societalcommon good challenges.
Amendment 422 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to ensure that the solidarity activities that are offered to the European Solidarity Corps participants contribute to addressing concrete, unmet societalpublic interest needs and strengthening national or local communities, are of high quality and properly validated.
Amendment 444 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) solidaritytraineeship and job placements, solidarity projects and networking activities (Action 1);
Amendment 447 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) volunteering placements (Action 2);
Amendment 449 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) quality and support measures (Action 3).
Amendment 450 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title
Article 7 – title
Amendment 452 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. This Action 1 shall support:
Amendment 454 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) solidarity placements in the form of volunteering, traineeships or jobtraineeship and job placements, including individual cross-border and in- country placements as well as volunteering teams’ placements;
Amendment 466 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 469 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7 a (new)
Article 7a Volunteering placements 1. Action 2 shall support volunteering placements, including individual cross-border and in-country volunteering placements. 2. The cross-border volunteering placements referred to in paragraph 1 shall be considered equivalent to those carried out under the European Voluntary Service and references to the European Voluntary Service in Union acts shall be read as also referring to the European Solidarity Corps as regards those placements.
Amendment 470 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 537 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. Young people aged 17 to 30 yearsbetween 16 and 25 years of age who are willing to participate in the European Solidarity Corps shall register in the European Solidarity Corps Portal. However, at the moment of commencing a placement or a project a registered young person shall be at least 18 years of age and not older than 3025.
Amendment 568 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. After having heard the views of the national authority referred to in Article 18, the national parliament of a Member State may assess participating organisations that have obtained the quality label and provide solidarity activities within that Member State by adopting reasoned opinions in order to determine whether the solidarity activities offered by those participating organisations adhere to the requirements of the European Solidarity Corps. Those reasoned opinions may concern, inter alia, the efficiency of participating organisations and the possible impact of their activities on national or local policies, on fair competition or on the performance of the tasks of the national administration or public services. Where a national parliament assesses that the solidarity activities of a participating organisation that has obtained the quality label do not adhere to the requirements of the European Solidarity Corps, considered in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, it may request that the label be revoked.
Amendment 649 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Article 19 – paragraph 3
3. The independent audit body shall givtransmit audit opinions as referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission, to the national parliaments and to the Court of Auditors. The independent audit body shall provide the Commission and its representatives, as well asthe national parliaments and the Court of Auditors, with full access to all documents and reports in support of the audit opinion that it issues on the national agency's yearly management declarationreferred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 683 #
2017/0102(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 17 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee as well as the introduction of a right to call back implementing acts, inspired by work on the Convention on the Future of Europe and essential to any worthwhile scrutiny of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
Amendment 28 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account ofendorse any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
Amendment 31 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
(-1) Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. The chair shall submit to the committee the draft implementing act to be adopted by the Commission. or any other implementing act that a committee member has proposed be called back."
Amendment 32 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1- paragraph 1 -point -1 a (new)
Article 1- paragraph 1 -point -1 a (new)
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
(-1a) In paragraph 3 the following subparagraph is added: "Any committee member may propose on duly justified grounds that an implementing act be called back in order to scrutinise the measures implemented and where necessary propose amendments to the act."
Amendment 39 #
2017/0035(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a
3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall take account ofendorse any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral.
Amendment 900 #
2016/2114(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 15 – paragraph 1
Rule 15 – paragraph 1
The President, Vice-Presidents and Quaestors shall be elected by secret ballot, in accordance with Rule 182. Nominations shall be with consent. They may only be made by a political group or by at least 40 Members. However, if the number of nominations does not exceed the number of seats to be filled, the candidates may be elected by acclamation. Members shall be permitted to serve a maximum of two terms in the office of President pursuant to Rule 19(1), regardless of whether they are served consecutively or not.
Amendment 7 #
2016/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that not all EU institutionObserves that while the nine EU institutions and bodies concerned by the Ombudsman’s inquiry from 24th July 2014 - the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Auditors, the European External Action Service, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, and the European Data Protection Supervisor - have introduced whistleblowing framework, regrets that a large number of EU Agencies and bodies have not adopted the rulesequivalent rules that fully comply with the legal requirements of the new Staff Regulation;
Amendment 36 #
2016/2055(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to address the Ombudsman’s request and to encourage all EU institutions and bodies to adopt internal rules on whistle-blowing.own initiative inquiry opened on the 24th of July 2014 in order to comply with article 22 c of the new Staff regulation, by recommending all the EU bodies to adopt ethical alert mechanisms and whistle-blowing legal framework directly based on the internal rules of the Ombudsman’s office ;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), as provided for in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policlays down a framework for strengthening the EU's capacities to address security tchat might lead to a future common defencellenges facing the EU Member States;
Amendment 19 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that Article 42 of the TEU states that the CSDP of the EU shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and their commitments under NATO obligations.
Amendment 24 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the VP/HR and the Member States to use the full potential of the TEU, especially Article 44 on the implementation of a CSDP task by a group of Member States which notified their intention to participate in the task and have necessary capability for that and Article 46 on permanent structured cooperation with regard to a faster and more flexible deployment of CSDP missions and operations; welcomes the activation of Article 42(7) on the mutual defence clause;.
Amendment 34 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Council, the Commission and the VP/HR to ensure, as provided for in the TEU, consistency between the different areas of external action and to address these areas through a global and comprehensive approach; recalls that only Member States make decisions on their more binding commitments with a view to the most demanding civilian and military deployments.
Amendment 38 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 49 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its support for the adoption of a White Book on defence on the basis of the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy, which should be based on a joint accurate appraisal of the existing military capabilities of the Member States;, to realise more deployable and more task oriented military capabilities for NATO missions and operations.
Amendment 57 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates the need to ensure and to further strengthen the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO, which is vitally important for Europe’s security.
Amendment 59 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates the need to ensure and to further strengthen the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO. to address common security challenges.
Amendment 63 #
2016/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Encourages the Member States to step up financial accountability for Europe’s security and to set aside at least 2% of GDP for defence expenditure.
Amendment 22 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – point a (new)
Paragraph 6 – point a (new)
(a) Considers the establishment of the 'Task force on subsidiarity, proportionality and doing less more efficiently' is a positive step forward; believes that its recommendation with regards to identifying policy areas where work could be re-delegated or definitely returned to Member States, to improving involvement of regional and local authorities in EU decision- making process could increase the trust of citizens and enhance democratic legitimacy of the EU.
Amendment 33 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27 ; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28 ; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including SMEs and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions; recalls that SMEs represent 99% of all businesses in the EU, generate 58% of EU’s turnover and employ two thirds of the total private employment; stresses the importance of taking into account and paying attention to the needs of SMEs at all stages of the legislative cycle and expresses satisfaction that the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines prescribe that potential impacts on SMEs and competitiveness should be considered and reported systematically in all impact assessments; encourages the Commission to consider how the impact on SMEs can be taken into account even better, including in connection with the European added value of a proposal, and intends to follow this issue closely in the years to come; _________________ 27 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (OJ C 289, 9.8.2016, p. 53), paragraph 16. 28 See Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2016 on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0081), paragraph 4.
Amendment 49 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Recalls that the principle of subsidiarity is a key aspect of the democratic process; emphasises the need for greater flexibility in the enforcement of the eight-week deadline for national parliaments to issue a reasoned opinion on non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity; believes that the use of a yellow card by national parliaments should be sufficient reason to suspend the legislation procedure;
Amendment 96 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. WarnNotes that the inclusion of the obligation for the Commission of systematic recourse to Member States’ experts in connection with the preparation of delegated acts should not amount to making the relevant procedure very similar, if not altogether identical, to that established for the preparation of implementing acts, especially as regards procedural prerogatives conferred upon those experts; considers that this may also blur the differences between the two types of acts to the extent that it could imply a de facto revival of the pre-Lisbon comitology mechanism; believes that steps should be taken to facilitate the review of implementing acts by national parliaments, thereby enhancing the democratic credentials and legitimacy of the EU legislation;
Amendment 138 #
2016/2018(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 – point a (new)
Paragraph 54 – point a (new)
(a) Calls on the Commission to come up with an initiative to establish targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors, to avoid unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden and to lower costs for administrations and businesses, including SME;
Amendment 1 #
2016/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that ‘human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’ are the values on which the EU is founded, as stated in Article 2 TEU; recalls that the principles of representative democracy and of the rule of law laid down in the Treaties and confirmed by the Copenhagen Criteria require the following constitutional conditions to be genuinely and fully met: separation of powers, hierarchy of legislation, institutional stability, equal representation of all citizens, political accountability, power to be intelligible to citizens and constitutional neutrality; regrets that the institutional system of the European Union itself reveals serious shortcomings with regard to each of these criteria, as is consistently highlighted in the case-law of the German Constitutional Court, which serves as a European reference; underlines the utmost importance of ensuring full respect for these values both at Union and Member State level;
Amendment 13 #
2016/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that in case of systemic threats to the rule of law, Article 7 and Rule of Law Framework procedures should be launched to provide remedies; considers it important to establish a new consensus between the EU and its Member States regarding respect for democracy, sovereignty, constitutional identity, the rule of law and fundamental rights;
Amendment 20 #
2016/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the importance of ensuring full respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the national constitutional identity of the Member States throughout the whole legislative process; welcomes in this regard the Better Regulation Agreement, and draws attention to the significant role of comprehensive impact assessments, as well as of close cooperation between the EU institutions;
Amendment 28 #
2016/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that further efforts should be made towards a consistent and uniform implementation of the Charter in accordance with national constitutions, including through awareness-raising measures among practitioners and the general public;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes note of the activation by the Commission for the first time ever of the new Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law; regrets that this activation cannot take place in a spirit of constructive dialogue which respects in principle and in practice the sovereignty of national parliaments; recommends a thorough evaluation of its functioning and results with a view to improving its effectiveness if necessary;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2009(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the first two Rule of Law dialogues, held by the Council; looks forward to the expected evaluation of this mechanism, which should aim at improving its relevance while respecting the constitutional identity and sovereignty of the Member States, as well as its complementarity with the other EU rule of law instruments;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. having regard to the large number of European legal acts currently in force: 31 665 legislative acts, including 1 712 directives and 12 310 binding regulations, plus those legal acts at the 'pending' stage: 2 344 proposals for legislative acts and 644 proposals for non-legislative acts;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. having regard to the highly topical significance of the Council's statement made in its Laeken Declaration of 15 December 2001, according to which: '[Citizens] want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to Member States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived by some as a threat to their identity.
Amendment 4 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas a large proportion of European legislative activity is now completely invisible as a result of the 2 500 or so delegated acts per year which are general in scope and over 500 of which are in fact of a legislative nature, in violation of the provisions of Article 290 ff. TFEU, and whereas they should therefore be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision); whereas this situation is extremely damaging in terms of the requirements of transparency, subsidiarity and, in a more general sense, democratic legitimacy of EU law, which is today lacking;
Amendment 5 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)
Recital A d (new)
Ad. having regard to the urgent need for a drastic reduction in the number of European standards and, with this in mind, a deadline and target figures for EU institutions, which should apply this excellent formula: 'for each new standard created, two old standards deleted';
Amendment 11 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the agreement reached between the institutions and considers this a good basis forfirst step in establishing a new relationship between them with a view to delivering better law-making in the interest of the Union's citizens;
Amendment 13 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Deeply regrets, in the context of better law-making, that negotiations on the IIA failed to follow established practice in terms of a committee procedure in the European Parliament; believes that the manner in which the negotiations were conducted undermines the democratic legitimacy of the agreement;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes a number of elements contained in the agreement which represent a first step in ensuring that legislation is clear and simple and that it will have a positive impact on citizens' lives with proportionate and bearable costs; notes in particular the results of the negotiations as regards multiannual interinstitutional programming, the Commission's follow-up to Parliament's legislative initiatives, and the provision of justifications for and consultations on envisaged withdrawals of legislative proposals; also welcomes the agreed interinstitutional exchange of views in the event that a modification of the legal basis of an act is envisaged;
Amendment 28 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the importance of the provisions of the new IIA on better law- making tools (impact assessments, public and stakeholder consultations, evaluations, etc.), which should be used both in the preparatory phase and throughout the entire legislative process, for a well- informed, inclusive and transparent decision-making process and for the correct application of legislation, whilst safeguarding the prerogatives of the legislators; welcomes the aim of improving the implementation and application of Union legislation, inter alia through better identification of national measures that bear no relation to the Union legislation that is to be transposed ("gold-plating"); believes that the concept of "gold-plating" must be understood as meaning any measure that exceeds minimum requirements;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned that the wording in relation to impact assessments in no way commits the three Institutions to include SMEs and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments notwithstanding that this would have helped ensure that companies, and SMEs in particular, are not overburdened by legislation;
Amendment 30 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Believes that thorough impact assessments which comprehensively evaluate compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, and enhanced subsidiarity checks by all Institutions are essential throughout the legislative process and that the inclusion of a subsidiarity check in the agreement would have been a welcome step forward in improving the trust of citizens, who regard the subsidiarity principle as a key aspect of the democratic process;
Amendment 31 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Regrets that the wording of the agreement does not explicitly indicate that impact assessments should be living documents that must as a matter of course be updated when new significant amendments are introduced during the legislative process;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Notes that the cumulative cost of legislation can result in significant difficulties for businesses and individuals affected by Union rules; expresses regret that that this agreement has failed to address this, and calls on the three institutions to consider the benefits of introducing regulatory offsetting, whereby new rules that add to administrative and regulatory burdens can only be imposed if a corresponding cut in existing burdens can be identified;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note of the letter of 15 December 2015 from the First Vice -President of the Commission on the functioning of the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which is to oversee the quality of the Commission's impact assessments; strongly believes that the establishment of the RSP represents a missed opportunity which should have shown more ambition; believes that an external, independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board involving independent experts throughout the legislative cycle and common to the three institutions should have been agreed upon; points out that the legislators may also carry out their own impact assessments where they consider this necessary; underlines that, furthermore, the new IIA provides for exchanges of information between the institutions on best practice and methodologies relating to impact assessments, thus providing an opportunity to review the functioning of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in due time;
Amendment 45 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the importance of the agreed "Annual Burden Survey" as a tool to help avoid and eliminate overregulation and reduce administrative burdens; points out that the feasibility and desirability of establishing objectives for the reduction of burdens in specific sectors must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in close cooperation between the institution in order to monitor, in a clear and transparent manner, the burden reduction; urges that the Annual Burden Survey must identify the burdens imposed by individual Commission legislative proposals and acts and by individual Member States; welcomes in this respect the fact that the three institutions have agreed that impact assessments should also address the impact of proposals on administrative burdens, particularly as regards small and medium- sized enterprises;
Amendment 47 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the importance of the agreed "Annual Burden Survey" as a tool to help avoid overregulation and reduce administrative burdens; points out that the feasibility and desirability of establishing objectives for the reduction of burdens in specific sectors must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in close cooperation between the institutions; welcomes in this respect the fact that the three institutions have agreed that impact assessments should also address the impact of proposals on administrative burdens, particularly as regards small and medium-sized enterprises, which are on the receiving end of an administrative burden imposed by EU law estimated by a former Commissioner to amount to EUR 600 billion per year;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that, in principle, a balanced solution has been found with regard to delegated and implementing acts, ensuring transparency and parity between legislators, but points to the need for a swift agreement on appropriate delineation criteria for delegated and implementing acts, and for a right of call back and control by national parliaments for such acts, and a prompt alignment of all basic acts to the legal framework introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 56 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Regrets that the appropriate use of first and second-reading procedures has not been addressed; believes that the practice of conducting trilogues to achieve first-reading agreements may lack transparency and reduce the possibility for citizens and stakeholders to follow and provide input during fast-tracked procedures; calls for improvements to be made to the transparency of Parliament's own procedures, especially in first- reading agreements; believes in this regard that a "cooling-off" period, applied after the conclusion of negotiations, should be further utilised for the completion of an impact assessment and subsidiarity check;
Amendment 59 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the commitment to ensure transparency of legislative procedures, but underlines the need for more concrete provisions and tools to achieve this, and is particularly concerned that democracy should not be sacrificed to speed, given that European democracy is already defective, and hence that the delegated acts procedure should no longer be misused to pass measures of a legislative nature; calls for a procedure for the right of call back of delegated and implementing acts, to enable national parliaments to monitor measures taken by the Commission using both these types of act;
Amendment 66 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Also believes that more concrete arrangements are needed in order to enhance the political and legislative dialogue with national parliaments to enable them finally to assume their full responsibilities vis-à-vis the European process, particularly in the drafting and legitimisation of Union law: a right of legislative initiative ('green card'), a right to issue a binding negative opinion ('red card'), whether by virtue of the subsidiarity principle or by reference to a risk to its own country's very important interests, a right not to participate in European legislation (which does not prevent action by other Member States and permits differentiated forms of cooperation), a right to call back implementing and delegated acts taken by the Commission, and a right of inquiry into European matters;
Amendment 68 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Also believes that more concrete arrangements are needed in order to enhance the political dialogue with national parliaments; believes that steps should be taken to facilitate the review by national parliaments of implementing acts and their ability to call for further consideration to be given to them;
Amendment 71 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Proposes the development of mechanisms whereby national parliaments are involved in the revision of current European legislation: review of a directive or regulation if a Member State requests it, automatic sunset clause for certain acts after five or ten years, repatriation of a power if, by virtue of the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, a national parliament finds that Union intervention is not, in the light of experience, more effective than the intervention of national or local authorities;
Amendment 72 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Regrets that the three institutions have not made a greater commitment with regard to implementation; believes that the European Parliament could have gone further by agreeing to set aside committee time and to undertake analyses of the implementation of legislation applying in their sectors; believes that such evaluation should be supported by the Commission, which should be represented by a senior official during these meetings and should be expected to answer questions in detail;
Amendment 74 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that such simplification and reduction of red tape in the application of Union legislation should be carried through once all practical arrangements to implement the new IIA in its entirety are in place, whereupon the institutions could also evaluate whether adjustments to the new IIA may be necessary in light of experience gained up until that point in time with the implementation of the new IIA;
Amendment 77 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Points out that the following issues, in particular, the need further follow-up at technical and/or political level:
Amendment 79 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
- verification of the legal basis of acts (review of the Rules of Procedure to incorporate arrangements for a trilateral exchange of views) and of strict compliance with the principle of conferral, whereby 'the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein' (Article 5(2) TEU) and 'each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them' (Article 13(2) TEU);
Amendment 81 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
- the transparency, democratisation and coordination of the legislative process (practical arrangements for exchanges of views, information- sharing and comparison of time-tables, transparency in the context of trilateral negotiations, development of platforms and tools for the establishment of a joint database on the state of play of legislative files, the provision of information to national parliamentscomposition and transparency of groups of experts (list and CVs of members, their financial interests and external activities, group's agendas and minutes, and exclusion of lobbyists), development of platforms and tools for the establishment of a joint database on the state of play of legislative files, the provision of information to national parliaments, facilitation of the exercise by national parliaments of effective upstream and downstream control over legislative negotiations carried out by and with the Union institutions, over compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, over activation of 'passerelle' clauses, the flexibility clause, clauses on the internal market and simplified revision clauses, and over measures taken via implementing and delegated acts, and practical arrangements for cooperation and information-sharing regarding negotiations on, and the conclusion of, international agreements);
Amendment 84 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
- the transparency and coordination of the legislative process, including the use of a "cooling off" period after the conclusion of trilogue negotiations for the completion of an impact assessment and a subsidiarity check (practical arrangements for exchanges of views, information- sharing and comparison of time-tables, transparency in the context of trilateral negotiations, development of platforms and tools for the establishment of a joint database on the state of play of legislative files, the provision of information to national parliaments and practical arrangements for cooperation and information-sharing regarding negotiations on, and the conclusion of, international agreements);
Amendment 85 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 a (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 a (new)
- an evaluation and possible follow up of the independence of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in fulfilling its role in supervising and providing objective advice on respective impact assessments;
Amendment 86 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 b (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 3 b (new)
- inclusion of a binding target for a 25% reduction by 2020 of the economic costs linked to regulatory burdens for businesses in each policy area, with a longer-term target for halving the burden of existing Union regulations by 2030;
Amendment 88 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
- delegated and implementing acts (negotiations on delineation criteria for delegated and implementing acts, the setting-up of a register of delegated acts and alignment of pre-Lisbon acts, the right of call back enabling Member States to monitor the content of delegated and implementing acts and the Commission's compliance with the Treaties);
Amendment 92 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. ApproveRejects the draft agreement contained in Annex I to this decision;
Amendment 95 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to set a target figure for the EU of a 50% reduction in the volume of European legislation to be achieved by 2024, by the immediate application of the formula that, for each new law created two old laws are to be repealed, in cooperation with the national parliaments;
Amendment 97 #
2016/2005(ACI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Instructs its President not to sign the new IIA with the President of the Council and the President of the Commission and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for a genuine revision of the MFF, encompassing the financial means made available under the current framework; notes the deployment of the special and flexibility tools in order to respond to the exceptional and unforeseen circumstances the Union is facing; calls for even greater flexibility in orderand sound financial governance in order to allow reprioritization and to deal adequately with such circumstances; stresses, however, that in tackling new challenges the EU must not prejudice the allocation of resources for cohesion purposes;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources and assuring that the Member States' fiscal sovereignty remains unimpaired; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High- Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the crisis enhanced the need for improvement in EU economic governance and that the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) must be progressively completed; – with the proviso that this must not in any way undermine the EU’s democracies – and that before the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is progressively completed, the first stage must be to revise the geography of the eurozone, which should not be allowed to extend beyond those countries that, taken together, would correspond to an optimal currency area (ZMO), this being a sine qua non for any currency to work, failing which the euro will continue to reduce flexibility, an intolerable situation in an economy open to what is in some cases unfair competition and one that would apply whatever the reforms and however many billions in financial transfers were channelled towards the southern countries, to quote the view that has long been held by many economists, including the five Nobel Prize winners, Maurice Allais, Milton Friedman, Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the crisis enhanced the need for improvement in EU economic governance and that national parliaments must play an important role to ensure legitimacy, and accountability in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) must be progressively completed;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the establishment of a budgetary capacity within the eurozone is necessary to completeunacceptable for the EMU and that it is recommendable to create a budgetary capacity, albeit limited, under the current Treaty frameworkwill provoke controversies and divisions between Member States; believes that EU has sufficient tools like ESM for financial emergency intervention to perform stabilization function;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the establishment of a budgetary capacity within the new eurozone, comprising the optimal currency area (ZMO) only, is necessary to complete the EMU and that it is recommendable to create a budgetary capacity, albeit limited, under the current Treaty framework;
Amendment 42 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that such capacityany stabilization mechanism should be part of the EU budget as laid down in Article 310 (1) TFEU and should comply with the provisions of Articles 310(4) and 312(1) TFEU;
Amendment 44 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recognises the need to avoid imposing an even heavier tax burden on taxpayers and hence that 1) no European tax should be created and 2) European budget expenditure should be subject to a ceiling not exceeding 1% of GDP; 3) calls on the Commission and the Council to propose a reform aimed at rationalising the European budget, not least with a view to stamping out everything conducive to fraud, disorder, cronyism, and propaganda, cutting the Structural Funds, and complying more exactly with the recommendations in the annual reports of the Court of Auditors, which have been very critical in the last 20 years;
Amendment 46 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that, pursuant to Article 311 TFEU, it is possible to raise the own resources ceilings, to establish new categories of own resources (even if only from a limited number of Member States) and to assign certain revenue to finance specific items of expenditure, as provided for in Article 21 of the Financial Rules1; , under a special legislative procedure requiring the Council to act unanimously and Member States to give their approval in accordance with their constitutional rules, to lay down ‘the provisions relating to the system of own resources’, to establish new categories of own resources (there is nothing in the above article to prevent these from coming only from a limited number of Member States, subject to an objective criterion), to abolish an existing category, and to assign certain revenue to finance specific items of expenditure, as provided for in Article 21 of the Financial Rules1; considers that it would be desirable to do away with VAT-based resources, as this system is too complex, and rely instead on a single annual national contribution based on a percentage of GNI; __________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.
Amendment 48 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that, pursuant to Article 311 TFEU, it is possible to raise the own resources ceilings, to establish new categories of own resources (even if only from a limited number of Member States) and to assign certain revenue to finance specific items of expenditure, as provided for in Article 21 of the Financial Rules1 ; The decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements; __________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.
Amendment 53 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 54 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the EU budget also offers guarantees for specific lending operations, which in principle, however, should not be used to finance the EU budget, and that several instruments, such as the EFSM and the EGF, allow for funds to be mobilised over and above the MFF expenditure ceilings;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates the need for democratic legitimacy and accountability, implying the adoption of the community method, namely with the involvement of Parliament in the shaping, implementation and oversight of a budgetary capacity, dovetailing with, and without encroaching on, the prerogatives of the national parliaments; also points out that the own resources system is a hybrid system: some revenue – traditional own resources – is of a fiscal nature, since it results from the fact that the EU has and exercises a genuine power to levy taxes directly on the taxpayers concerned, but the bulk is generated by automatic sharing of national budget resources, followed by automatic transfer of the proportion due to the EU, which is index-linked to macroeconomic statistical aggregates;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates the need for democratic legitimacy and accountability, implying the adoption of the community method, namely with the involvement ofprinciples of subsidiarity and proportionality with the involvement of national parliaments and the European Parliament in the shaping, implementation and oversight of athe EU budgetary capacity;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the protocols on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and on the role of national parliaments offer ample opportunities for national parliaments’ involvement in this respect; points out that it is profoundly anxious to preserve the eminent budgetary prerogative of the national parliaments of the countries from which so-called own resources originate and that it is committed to the fundamental democratic principle of ‘no taxation without representation’, which should not be gradually yoked together with, let alone replaced by, the principle of ‘no representation without taxation’; warns against the real danger that the EU might move in the two unwelcome directions referred to above;
Amendment 71 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. RecallInsists that the protocols on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and on the role of national parliaments offer ample opportunities foempower national parliaments’ to be involvement in this respectd in coordination and scrutinising of the EU economic policy;
Amendment 76 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 81 #
2015/2344(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Emphasises that EU Member States' economies are linked and believes that all Member States should be involved, to ensure the long-term economic sustainability of the eurozone.
Amendment 11 #
2015/2283(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the package of better regulation measures adopted on 19 May 2015; believes however that material criteria for establishing the existence of a violation of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles should be proposed; calls the Commission acting together with Member States to propose a package of improvement to make reasoned opinion procedure more effective by including a principle of proportionality in the procedure;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2283(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; takes note of the Commission’s view that, far from reflecting a decrease in interest on their part, this might be the result of the declining number of legislative proposals from the Commission; calls the Commission to improve the quality of the Commission's explanatory statement memorandums on subsidiarity and its engagement with reasoned opinion;
Amendment 62 #
2015/2283(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Considers that the role of national parliaments in monitoring EU political and legislative process should be increased; believes that the speaker of the national parliament in the country holding the Council presidency along with the President of the European Parliament should be invited to address the European Council prior to each of its meetings.
Amendment 65 #
2015/2283(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Proposes enhancing inter- parliamentary cooperation in order that the potential of the Lisbon Treaty be harnessed to serve subsidiarity and democracy through the informal organisation, with support from COSAC, of a council of national parliaments: 1) all draft EU acts would be debated there by networked national parliaments; 2) this would enable them to assume fully their paramount responsibility in regard to sovereign powers, in particular: movement of persons, visas, asylum and immigration, police and judicial cooperation, citizenship, foreign affairs and defence, government revenue and expenditure, law and criminal law procedure, cultural matters, particularly in regard to language, the family and education, religious affairs, challenging ethical, moral or philosophical issues, fundamental political freedoms (freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom to hold meetings, etc.), electoral law, law and social security schemes; 3) it would enable efficient monitoring of the work of the EU Councils of Ministers through specific committees for each council of ministers; 4) more generally, it would ensure efficiency in horizontal exchanges between national parliaments, including the sharing of good democratic practices, such as the mandate for negotiation some national parliaments give their ministers prior to Council meetings or the prior consultation of parliamentary chambers before any activation by the European Union of a passerelle clause or any implementation of a simplified Treaty change procedure.
Amendment 5 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Article 5 TEU, Article 56, 153(5) and 154 TFEU,
Amendment 18 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
- having regard to European platform to enhance cooperation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work,
Amendment 22 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to the Eurofound Industrial Relations Dictionary1a, __________________ 1a https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observa tories/eurwork/industrial-relations- dictionary
Amendment 24 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)
Citation 11 b (new)
- having regard to the Commission's Better Regulation Agenda: Enhancing transparency and scrutiny for better EU law-making1a __________________ 1ahttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP- 15-4988_en.htm
Amendment 30 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. having regard to the increased trend towardswhereas the nature and scale of undeclared work, and bogus self- employment, outsourcing and subcontracting, leading to an increase in precarious jobs and deteriorating levels of worker protection varies significantly between Member States,
Amendment 44 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas REFIT represents an important first step towards simplifying legislation and reducing administrative burdens of regulation for businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas on 15 July 2014 Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Commission, undertook before Parliament to combat 'social dumping' and reiterated this commitment in his 2015 State of the Union address9 ,ensure that the Posting of Workers Directive is strictly implemented and to initiate a targeted review of the Directive; __________________ 9 http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm
Amendment 68 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in case C- 341/05 Laval of 18 December 200710 highlighted the legitimacy of the struggle against social dumping,right to take collective action against possible social dumping without undermining the freedom to provide services as enshrined in the Treaties; __________________ 10 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?te xt=&docid=71925&pageIndex=0&doclang =EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1& cid=498309
Amendment 81 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas there is no clear, universally accepted definition of social dumping;
Amendment 93 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. having regard to the importance of the principle of 'equal pay and social protection for the samewhereas the Commission is currently investigating ways to develop a formula introducing a principle of 'equal pay for equal work atin the same place' for all European workers,at EU level;
Amendment 106 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas introducing the principle of "equal pay for equal work in the same place" at EU level could impose a significant barrier to the proper functioning of the single market;
Amendment 122 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas the setting of wages is a Member State competence;
Amendment 131 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas according to Directive 96/71/EC Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 18 June 2016;
Amendment 142 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading I
Subheading I
I. Reinforcing controls and coordination between and by Member States
Amendment 149 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive based onencourage Member States to take ILO Convention No. 81 on labour inspection into account when formulating their policies;
Amendment 165 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on Member States to increase the staffing levels and resources of their labour inspectorates and their liaison offices, in particular for interpretation and translationexchange best practice and to consider new innovative ways of developing an adaptable and flexible labour market to meet the challenges of a global economy while ensuring high labour standards for all workers;
Amendment 192 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the creationon Member States in the context of athe European body of cross-border labour inspectPlatform for Undeclared Worsk to carry out on-the-spot checks in suspected cases of social dumping, including by identifying 'letterbox companies', which body would work in coordination with the platform against undeclared work in order to limit the financial burden involvedonsider ways to step up efforts for the exchange of information in order to curb undeclared work and fraud while recognising the importance of data protection and the special status of tax information;
Amendment 225 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the implementation by Member States ofon Member States in the context of better regulation to make electronic systems available for the registration of the prior declaration of posting missions;
Amendment 237 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive based Notes the Council decision authorising Member States to ratify, for the parts falling within the competence of the EU, International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 189 concerning decent work for domestic workers; Stresses that the EU cannot itself ratify any ILO Convention, as this is the preserve of individual Member States;
Amendment 249 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that the competent authorities should be able to suspend theHighlights the importance of provisions of services in cases of serious breaches of legislation on postings; considers that the amount of the fines should exceed employees' contributionthe Enforcement Directive 2014/67/EU on the cross-border enforcement of financial administrative penalties and/or fines which will safeguard against unfair competition and help eliminate breaches of the legislation by employers;
Amendment 262 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Stresses the importance of ensuring that such safeguards do not amount to barriers for genuine businesses and workers doing business in another Member State;
Amendment 263 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 280 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 294 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 309 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Highlights that the freedom to provide services is central to the proper functioning of the single market; recognises at the same time that safeguards against unfair competition and protections for vulnerable workers are necessary and support the functioning of the single market; stresses however, that such safeguards must be proportionate and respect the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 320 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading II
Subheading II
II. Addressing regulatory gaps in order to implement the principle of 'equal pay and equal social protection for the same work'and improving enforcement and coordination between Member States
Amendment 323 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to combat the phenomenon of letterbox companies by applying more generally the principle that each company should have a single corporate headquarters; recalls the rejection by the Committee on Eeffectively monitor the on-going imployement and Social Affairs of the proposal for a directive on single-person limited liability companiation of Directive 2014/67 EU by the Member States;
Amendment 342 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Firmly believes that a revision of the posting of workers directive in advance of the transposition of Directive 2014/67/EU will not only create legal uncertainty for businesses but will also have a negative effective on growth and job creation;
Amendment 350 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 364 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the notionsetting of 'minimum wages' contained in Directive 96/71/EC should be revised to ensure equal pay for posted workers and local workers in similar positions; stresses the need to respect the collective agreements of the host country and to ensure, through the revision of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009, the payment of gross earnings corresponding to the remuneration paid by the employer before the deduction of taxes and social security contributions payable by employees and withheld by this a Member States competence; stresses that introducing the notion of equal pay for equal work in the same place at EU level will have significant unintended consequences and undermine Memployer; recalls that specific postings bonuses should be paid on top of remunerationber States economic and social models;
Amendment 391 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 430 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for increased controls on the implementation of working time and rest times in transport; calls for the introduction of automatic digital records and the development of 'smart tachographs' for all means of transport, including inland waterway transport; recalls the desire expproper and efficient, non- discriminatory enforcement of the existing legislation to ensure uniform interpretation, and incresased in its resolution of 3 July 2012 on road transport that 'by 2020 all vehicles which are not exempted from the application of this Regulation in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be fitted with a smart tachograph'12 controls on the implementation of working time and rest times in transport; __________________ 12 www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do? type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2012- 0271&language=EN&ring=A7-2012- 0195#BKMD-7
Amendment 452 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 468 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Asks the Commission to clarify the provisions so that a distinction can be drawnbroker an exchange of views between Memployees and self- employed wber States in orkders to combat 'bogus self employment'; emphasises that airline pilots and train drivers cannot be considered to be independent of the companies for which they work;
Amendment 491 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that the rules on cabotage are not sufficiently precise, which facilitates the practice of some road operators of engaging in permanent cabotage; wishes cabotage operations to be subject to mandatory prior notificatio and therefore should be simplified and clarified in order to improve compliance without increasing the administrative burden;
Amendment 566 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission rapidly to draw up proposals to combat unfair competition inMember States and the Commission to take the necessary measures to combat unfair competition while at the same time creating an open, flexible market with a regulatory framework that reflects the dynamic nature of the digital and sharing economy;
Amendment 592 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a social protocol is necessary to ensure the primacy of fundamental rights over economic freedomsthe establishment of an internal market in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured is an essential objective of the Union;
Amendment 604 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Highlights the Five Presidents' Report which recognises in the context of the convergence process that there is no "one-size-fits-all" template;
Amendment 613 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. RecallNotes the Commission's commitmentintention to proposinge a basis of minimum social rights; emphasises that the establishment of criteria for comparing the various national social systems cannot provide such a basis, but can only serve as a preliminary analytical framework by increasing the use of benchmarking and best practice;
Amendment 624 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 657 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Supports the development of unemployment benefit arrangements as a mechanism for absorbing asymmetric social shocks within the euro areaexchange of best practice between Member States on the development of unemployment benefit arrangements; stresses that the provision and management of social security systems is a Member State competence and are diversely structured which the Union coordinates but does not harmonise;
Amendment 671 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Commission to propose aMember States together with the Commission to consider the need for taking action at EU legavel instrument line with the principle of subsidiarity to address the cross- border dimensions of outsourcing, extending the joint and several liability of the payer to include all economic sectors and the en; highlights in the regard the benefits of non-legislatirve subcontracting chaininitiatives;
Amendment 678 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the Commission to propose an appropriate legislative vehicle providing that companies have a duty of care for which they may be held liable, in respect of both their subsidiaries that their subcontractors operating in third countries in order to prevent the risk of violations of human rights, corruption, severe physical injury or environmental damage and the violation ofMember States and the Commission where appropriate to consider the social and economic arguments in favour of ratifying and implementing ILO Conventions;
Amendment 690 #
2015/2255(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 28 #
2015/2161(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Takes note of the Ombudsman´s calculations with regard to potential savings of EUR 195 000 should there be only one seat of the institution; takes into account that the seat of the Ombudsman is tied with the seat of the Parliament and therefore deems it necessary that the Ombudsman is included in any debate on centralisation of the Parliament´s seat; stresses that such centralization should be actively promoted;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the discharge procedure is part of the concept of representative democracy;
Amendment 3 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas for twenty years the Court of Auditors of the European Union has been uncovering 'excessive levels of error regarding the legality and regularity of operations in most budget areas', leading it to give an adverse opinion, which is, for the financial high courts, the highest level of disapproval, affecting over 80% of EU expenditure;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas Special Report No 10/2015 of the Court of Auditors shows that the 'significant level of errors' uncovered that year concerned in particular 'the unjustified award of procurement contracts, work or supplementary services' and 'conflicts of interest', ineligible expenditure on research, innovation or improvements to the education system (unjustified staff, travel or equipment costs), unwarranted use of agriculture, fishing or environmental subsidies and of part of the aid to developing countries, making a total of over EUR 6 billion wasted;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 bis. Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to consider a large-scale budgetary reform with the aim of: - reducing as far as possible the risk of fraud, waste and patronage in connection with EU money, - introducing a maximum ceiling for EU expenditure of 1% of GDP, - cancelling half of the structural funds currently at the Commission's discretion, - rejecting any kind of European tax and making provision for a simple national annual contribution determined as a percentage of GNI to be evaluated, debated and voted on exclusively by each national parliament, - affording national courts of auditors and parliaments the right to investigate and criticise the budget execution and European expenditure undertaken in their respective countries, and - reinforcing the assets and competences of the European Court of Auditors to enable it to combat the many irregularities and instances of fraud and waste uncovered;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets about poor cooperation on scrutiny of the implementation of the budget between the Parliament and the Council last years and considers it as a negative sign sent to the citizens of the Union;
Amendment 18 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls to take into account Article 319(1) together with Article 317(2) TFEU, and Articles 55, 165, 166 of the Financial Regulation as a sufficient legal basis to exercise the Parliament’s implicit right to take a separate discharge decision to the Council in addition to its explicit right to grant a discharge to the Commission;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2156(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Council and Commission to enter into negotiations with Parliament with a view to ensuring that the latter can exercise its right of access to information concerning the implementation of the Council’s budget, believes that it entails an obligation by the Council to deliver the requested information, either directly or through the Commission;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2155(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Stresses that the Court of Auditors report adopted on 11.07.2014 states that the potential saving for the EU budget would be about 114 million EUR per year if the European Parliament centralised its activities; reiterates the call on Parliament and the Council to address, in order to create long term savings, the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as stated by Parliament in several previous resolutions;
Amendment 31 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in recent years, in particular, the dynamism in the digital economy but also distortions of competition as a result of national taxation policyfiscal state aid which is causing considerable harm to the internal market have brought with them new challenges for the Commission and all market players; whereas global cooperation on competition enforcement helps to avoid inconsistencies in remedies and outcomes of enforcement actions, and helps businesses to reduce their costs of compliance;
Amendment 59 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that ensuring a level playing field for companies in the internal market also depends on combating social dumping;
Amendment 64 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes that competition policy should be focused particularly on protecting consumers, improving consumer welfare, fostering innovation and stimulating economic growth;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the regular dialogue which the Commission conducts with the European Parliament on competition matters, and calls again for fundamental legislative directives and guidelines to be adopted in the co-decision procedure and in particular for those departments which draw up guidelines to be strictly separated from those which apply those guidelines in specific cases;
Amendment 78 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to refincomplete the internal market in areas where it is still fragmented and incomplete, and to end market restrictions and distortions of competition as soon as possible wherever they are found;
Amendment 85 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the prioritisation of the work of the competition authority and the presentation in the 2014 Competition Report are largely consistent with the common priorities; sees in some areas, however, the need for a differentmore determined course of action, which the Commission should emphatically address in the coming year; highlights the importance of global cooperation on competition enforcement; supports an active participation of the Commission in the International Competition Network;
Amendment 131 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Stresses the importance of avoiding monopolistic practices in order to achieve a fully fair, competitive and secure European energy market; calls, in this regard, for the elimination of monopolistic suppliers and discriminatory practices affecting users; considers that the European gas market should evolve towards an Energy Union with fair and stable prices by improving the diversification of its energy sources and enhancing access to strategic infrastructures;
Amendment 137 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Calls on the Commission to undertake investigations and take the necessary steps to ensure that existing electricity interconnectors are made fully available for the power market by the transmission system operators (TSOs), in order to enhance the functioning of the internal electricity market;
Amendment 151 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Reiterates that EU Structural Funds may not be used in a way that directly or indirectly supports the relocation of services or production to other Member States;
Amendment 176 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that, in the digital economy, in the past assessment of mergers and takeovers has been predominantly on the basis of the turnover of the businesses in question, which iseems to be inadequate because businesses with low turnovers and substantial start-up losses may also have a large customer base and significant market strength, as the Commission’s unconditional approval of the takeover of WhatsApp by Facebook proves;
Amendment 181 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that particularly in the digital economy additional new criteria must be introduced incould be considered for assessing mergers, such as the purchase price, possible market entry barriers and network effects; Calls on the Commission to give particular consideration to the commercial model of businesses in the digital economy and possible market entry barriers;
Amendment 187 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that the erroneous assessment of market strength combined with the current market definition is often working to the detriment of European businesses in particular and must therefore be urgently re-adjusted also in times of globalisation and in a dynamic digital market; calls on the Commission to consider a readjustment within the framework of the Merger Regulation;
Amendment 195 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the temporary State aid in the financial sector for the stabilisation of the global financial system was necessary but on completion ofCalls for the fifth consecutive year in its annual competition report for a swift end to the state aid crisis regime for the Bbanking Union must be quickly reduced or totally removed and scrutinisedsector;
Amendment 215 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the investigations initiated by the Commission in 2014 into unlawful fiscal State aid through unfair tax competition and calls on Member States in future to present the Commission with information about their taxation practice in good time and ultimately to comply with the obligation to declare special arrangements to the detriment of other Member States;
Amendment 229 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 240 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers that healthy tax competition is one of the constitutive elements of the internal market of the Union but unfair tax competition must be prevented through minimum rates of taxation and harmonised tax bases;
Amendment 256 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that in view of an estimated volume of tax fraud and tax avoidance of up to one billion euros a year the Member States must ultimately tackle and restrict this practiceMember States must tackle and restrict tax fraud; welcomes the recent adoption by the finance ministers of the G20 of new rules drawn up by the OECD on base erosion and profit shifting, which will improve transparency, close loopholes and restrict the use of tax havens;
Amendment 264 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. WelcomesTakes note of the intention of the Competition Commissioner to reorganise the control of State aid as part of a fair tax burden for all; Expects that prior to this reorganisation there will be an unconditional and complete evaluation and calls on the Member States to abandon their current blockade mentality;
Amendment 277 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission to modify without delayconsider modifying the existing rules, in order to allow the amounts recovered following an infringement of EU State aid rules to be returned to the Member States which have suffered from an erosion of their tax bases and not to the Member State which granted the illegal tax-related State aid, as is currently the case, which provides additional incentives;
Amendment 287 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Welcomes the regular dialogue between the Competition Commissioner and the European Parliament but considers that the right to a hearing on essential matters of principle is not sufficient;
Amendment 289 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 295 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the Commission to give the Parliament greater and earlier involvement in fundamental issues of competition policy, if the desired treaty amendment is not expected soon; Calls on the Commission to give the Parliament greater involvement in sector-specific investigations;
Amendment 300 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Considers that a results-driven and focused public evaluation of the various proposals by Parliament for development of competition policy should also be undertaken and published by the Commission in the near future;
Amendment 303 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Considers that all tried and tested and existing forms of dialogue held to date should be maintained, but an organisational separation of legislative and executive authority is inalienable for democratic reasons;
Amendment 307 #
2015/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and, the Commission and to national competition authorities.
Amendment 98 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 b (new)
Paragraph 67 b (new)
67b. Stresses that Parliament and the Council must address the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as requested by a large majority in this Parliament in several resolutions, in order to create long term savings in the Union budget;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that making the budget more credible, effective and relevant, so as to sustain citizens’ confidence in the EU institutions and their identification with the project of European integrationproperly spent taxpayer's money, must remain one of the core objectives of the policy to protect the Union’s financial interests which the CommissUnion and Member States are required to pursue under Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls, therefore, for Article 325 to be implemented right across the spectrum of Union policies, and for action not just in response to cases of fraud but also to prevent them; for compliance with Article 325, and particularly paragraph 5 on annual reports, on which there is currently a year’s delay; for simplification, especially, of the way that EU subsidies are used in cohesion policy; for adherence to agreed procedures and for the ratification of the agreements on combating fraud at regional and international level which have been concluded between the Union and third countries or third-party organisations; for follow-up on the action plan and recommendations in Parliament’s resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (2013/2107(INI)), especially recommendations 130 (on the visibility of measures by the Member States to combat organised fraud and crime) and 131 (on a general action plan for the period 2014- 2019 to eradicate organised crime, corruption and money laundering – points i-xxii); for every effort to be made to secure the speediest possible adoption of the plan for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the directive on common anti-fraud measures under criminal law; for the initial results of implementation of the Money Laundering Directive to be made available; and for more information to be provided about the anti-corruption instruments used by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and about the coordination of Member States’ procedures for recovering monies disbursed as a result of fraud.
Amendment 24 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Takes the view that establishment of European Prosecutor's office triggers the principle of subsidiarity; calls to safeguard jurisdiction over offences of participating Member States set out in the Directive on the protection of the EU financial interests by means of criminal law and to enforce responsibilities of Member States for anti-fraud activities on national level;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Takes into consideration the complexity of EU legislation and calls for simplification of regulations applicable to EU budget, to prevent fraud and/or irregularities affecting EU funds;
Amendment 587 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses the need for full implementation and enforcement of existing EU energy legislation and for a swift adoption of ambitious European network codes and guidelines, which must go hand in hand with strengthening the competences of especially the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), and to some extent the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSO-G);
Amendment 618 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Notes that the legal framework surrounding the current electricity market is not fitted to an electricity sector where an increasing share of supply will come from technologies with low marginal costs; welcomes, therefore the Commission's ambition to adjust the electricity market accordingly;
Amendment 642 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24b. Notes, that increasing the physical infrastructure will have little effect, if capacity on interconnections are not made fully available; underlines therefore the necessity to end restrictions on cross- border trade of electricity;
Amendment 646 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to concentrate their efforts on driving projects of common interest (PCIs) forward, with a view to achieving a pan- European ‘super grid' with the capacity to transmit power across EU countries from multiple sources and therefore capable of diverting energy from surplus to deficit areas, thereby allowing the market to instantly respond to interruptions of supply wherever they occur; underlines that efforts should be particularly focused on regions where energy production and consumption are expected to increase in coming years;
Amendment 684 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Underlines that increased regional cooperation can contribute to both enhancing energy security, improve infrastructure planning, ensuring cost optimisation of integrating renewables and drive down costs for consumers;
Amendment 915 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Stresses, however, that the EU must as a general principle employ a technology- neutral approach to decarbonising our energy systems, adopting strategies for using and promoting not only renewable energy sources but also other low-emission sources of energy; acknowledges, however, that certain technologies will still need technology specific support after 2020. Underlines, that such support measures should be reserved to technologies with a significant cost reduction potential within a reasonable time frame; calls on the Commission, in this respect, to revise its Energy and Environmental State Aid Guidelines in a way which will provide for an equitable treatment of energy production from different energy sources;
Amendment 971 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Notes that integrating an increasing share of domestically produced biogas could contribute positively to energy security; underlines in this context the necessity of maintaining existing gas infrastructure for that purpose;
Amendment 1028 #
2015/2113(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to undertake common efforts in order to bring down wholesale and retail gas and energy prices by 20 % by 2020remove regulated prices;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2112(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomRecognizes the EU's leadership on climate change mitigation and adaption, including the creation of skills, jobs and growth that it brings; notes the crucial need for a global binding agreement binding the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters to be concluded in Paris and stresses that continued EU leadership requires the full commitment of all parties to this agreement; insists on a regular, transparent performance review based on the most up- to-date data and technology;
Amendment 133 #
2015/2106(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines that a transaction tax will make the securities markets less liquid; notes that the lower liquidity and the taxes that would be paid by current and future owners of a security will make e.g. new equity issues less attractive to investors;
Amendment 402 #
2015/2063(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Stresses that it is vital to engage in dialogue with the various religious communities in order to help reach a better understanding of the phenomenon of radicalisation; draws the Member States’ attention to the issue of training religious leaders in order to prevent preachers of hate from appearing in places of worship in Europe, and also of training prison chaplains, particularly when they are around prisoners deemed to be radicalised; proposes to make the establishment of places of religious worship subject to the formal signature of a republican charter which would confirm in particular respect for gender equality, the absolute primacy of the rule of law in the public domain, the obligation to preach only in the language of the host country, freedom of religion including the freedom to change religion and the prohibition of foreign funding.
Amendment 538 #
2015/2063(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Reiterates its belief that the European Union must step up its external and internal border controls as a matter of urgency; stresses that it will be impossible to effectively track the departures or arrivals of European citizens unless mandatory and systematic controls are introduced on the European Union’s external borders; states that, to this end, one of the European Union’s priorities must be reforming the Schengen Code; as a priority, this reform should enable Member States, in the event of a threat to internal security, to re-establish fixed controls at national borders, in a rigorous, flexible, random and non- systematic manner, not interfering with people's movements but exercising a significant dissuasive effect on illegal immigrants, terrorists, traffickers and other criminal networks;
Amendment 660 #
2015/2063(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Invites Member States to decide to introduce an embargo, particularly on energy supplies, on all areas controlled by 'Islamic State' and to take a similar initiative in the United Nations;
Amendment 3 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Union should play a more active and prominent role supporting its Member States in the process of global economic governance, and stresses the need for coherent EU representation and a strong European voice, relaying that of the sovereign nations, in international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Advocates that the Union promote a unified and inclusive European approach in order to ensure thatEuropean approach respectful of the interests and inputs of all those Member States, including those that are not represented within these institutions or bodies, and ensuring that these are taken into account when a common stance is defined;
Amendment 18 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Emphasises how vital it is that the national parliaments should exercise democratic scrutiny over the activities of the European Union’s representatives in the international bodies and institutions, and that political accountability should be restored;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 20 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that the EU should seek full membership of such international economic and financial institutions, where this has not yet been granted and is appropriate (in the case of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for instance)not undermine the sovereignty of the European countries which are members in their own right of such international economic and financial institutions, whether or not it has been granted membership itself;
Amendment 22 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 23 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that in the future, with due regard to the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States and the progress made towards deepening economic and monetary union, consideration should be g – which, however, has failed to delivenr to introducing unified external representationhe promised growth and prosperity and, ofn the EU and the euro area within the IMF and other international economic forums, in order to allcontrary, has made the euro area an island of economic stagnation in a sea of grow the EU to exploit its potential fully and to increase its relevance and influence within the global economic and financial architecture – it would be sensible to consider a thorough overhaul of the single currency and its geography, and of the European Central Bank’s aims;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out that the International Monetary Fund’s expertise can usefully contribute to thinking about the future of the single currency and reforms in that regard, as illustrated by the most recent (April 2015) World Economic Report study – albeit covering only four countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) accounting for 80% of euro area GDP – which measured precisely how, since 2000, the euro has undermined macroeconomic policy to the detriment of growth, and charted, too, its negative impact on growth potential;
Amendment 31 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the need to ensure the transparency, democratic accountability and legitimacy of the Union’s participation in existing economic and financial institutions via a tight and effective system of scrutiny by the national parliaments, which should be able to ‘show a red cardֹ’, particularly when Commission representatives stray beyond their negotiating briefs in international institutions, as, regrettably, has systematically been the case in the context of GATT and subsequently the WTO;
Amendment 38 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that Parliament and the national parliaments should be duly informed of the Union’s activities within existing economic and financial institutions;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that Parliament and the national parliaments should be granted access to the relevant documents issued by economic and financial institutions, that an appropriate, open and efficient reporting mechanism should be developed, and that EU participants should systematically provide feedback to Parliament on the decisions taken in these forums;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2060(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is of the opinion that the EU should, where and when necessary, and once it has set a good example itself in this regard, play a leading and more active role in promoting the reform of international economic and financial institutions with a view to making their functioning more democratic, transparent and accountable, via the close and effective involvement of national parliaments and scrupulous respect for national sovereignty, and thereby bringing them closer to citizens.
Amendment 9 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas transparency, accountability and integrity of EU institutions are in most respects already aheadin a more critical situation than of national and regional political institutions in terms of their transparency, accountability and integrity;
Amendment 128 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 12 – point 1 (new)
(1) Regrets that according to the Transparency International report more than half of the entries on the EU’s lobbying disclosure register in 2015 were inaccurate, incomplete or meaningless;
Amendment 140 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that at least 5 % of declarations should be checked each year; Takes into account that 900 checks out of 7 352 registrants were performed in 2014 and 3500 quality checks out of 9 210 registrants were done in 2015 that is 12% and 38% respectively of the total; believes that the number of quality checks should be increased or at least it should remain at the same level;
Amendment 224 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Believes that Members should have the remuneration paid to them by Parliament reduced by half of what they earn, whether as employees or self-employed persons, from any outside activity in parallel to their office from any outside activity if it could potentially interfere with their parliamentary obligations as Members of the European Parliament;
Amendment 228 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 20 – point 1 (new)
(1) Calls Bureau of the European Parliament to examine outside interests of Members which rise concerns over potential conflict of interest with their parliamentary activities and if the conflict of interest exists, to demand Members to leave their outside positions or to stop their duties as Members of the European Parliament;
Amendment 258 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Believes that for Members of the Commission the ‘cooling-off period’ to work in lobbying should be extended to three years; and that a two-year cooling-off period should also apply to all Commission staff involved in the drafting or implementation of EU legislation or treaties, including contract staff;
Amendment 336 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 32 – point 1 (new)
(1) Reminds that the European Court of Justice ruled in October 2013, Case C- 280/11 P, that the Council must release documents publicly disclosing Member States’ negotiating positions in Council from an early stage;
Amendment 366 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)
Subheading 8 a (new)
Transparency in the election of the President of the European Parliament and of the President of the Commission
Amendment 367 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Takes the view that in order to increase the transparency of the European Parliament’s business, its President should be elected by open ballot; calls on the relevant parliamentary committee to amend the Rules of Procedure accordingly;
Amendment 368 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 b (new)
Paragraph 35 b (new)
35b. Takes the view that the election of the President of the Commission, which is rightly treated as an expression of the European Parliament’s political prerogatives, should be an open ballot, thereby increasing the transparency of Parliament’s business and sending a strong signal to the public as regards accountability in decision-making; calls on the relevant parliamentary committee to amend the Rules of Procedure accordingly;
Amendment 407 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Calls for transparency in the conclusion of interinstitutional agreements to be enhanced and guaranteed by subjecting Commission proposals to examination by a Parliament committee and through Parliament’s effective inclusion in the negotiation of such agreements;
Amendment 428 #
2015/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 44 – point 1 (new)
(1) -Regrets the decision of the European Commission to withdraw a chapter on EU institutions from the report on corruption in Member states; - Reminds the speech of Commissioner Malmstrom in March 2013 where she recognised that corruption within the European Commission and other EU Institutions is an issue that should be taken seriously; - Calls the Commission to prepare a report on corruption in EU institutions taking into consideration the Council of Europe's Group of States Against Corruption (Greco) as a possible external institution, that could be able objectively evaluate corruption risks in EU institutions;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the reform of Parliament’s electoral procedure should aim at enhancing the democratic dimension of the European elections, reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhance the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and provide for greater electoral equality for citizens of the Union;
Amendment 27 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the reform of Parliament’s electoral procedure should aim at enhancing the democratic dimension of the European elections, reinforce the concept of citizenship of the Union in a way that does not contradict the obvious primacy of national consciousness and citizenship, improve the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, make the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhance the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and provide for greater electoral equality for citizens of the Union;
Amendment 38 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas, despite of the wording of Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union, ‘the European Parliament is not a representative body of a sovereign European people’, as clearly recalled by the German Constitutional Court in paragraph 280 of its judgment of 30 June 2009, in which it stressed that ‘this is reflected in the fact that it is designed as a representation of peoples in the respective national contingents of Members, not as a representation of Union citizens in unity without differentiation, according to the principle of electoral equality’;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a comprehensive agreement on a truly uniform electoral procedure has not yet been achieved, though some convergence of electoral systems has gradually taken place, inter alia through secondary legislation, such as Council Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and stand as candidate in elections to the Parliament for Union citizens residing in another Member State;
Amendment 46 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas despite these reforms, European elections are still governed for the most part by national laws, electoral campaigning remains national, and European political parties cannot sufficiently fulfil their constitutional mandate and ‘contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union’ as required by Article 10(4) TEU;
Amendment 49 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas European political parties are best placearely recognisable to the electorate and therefore not sufficiently understood to ‘contribute to forming European political awareness’13 and should therefore cannot legitimately play a stronger role in the campaigns for Parliament elections, so as to improve their visibility and to show the link between a vote for a particular national party and the impact it has on the size of a European political group in the European Parliament; __________________ 13; __________________ 13 Article 10(4) TEU. Article 10(4) TEU.
Amendment 50 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas it is extremely difficult in several countries for citizens to know of, and to control, the actions of their representatives in the European Parliament, because those actions cannot be naturally identified with a territory corresponding to a lived human reality, due to the drawing of constituency boundaries; whereas such a lack of identification infringes the rights of citizens, widely feeds abstention from voting in elections and undermines the democratic legitimacy of the Members elected;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas although Article 10(2) of the Electoral Act expressly prohibits the early publication of the results of elections, such results have been made public in the past; whereas a harmonised time for the close of polling in all Member States would contribute strongly to the common European character of the European elections and would reduce the possibility of their outcome being influenced if election results in some Member States are made public before the close of polling in all Member States;
Amendment 68 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the Lisbon Treaty established a new constitutional order by granting the European Parliament the right to elect the President of the European Commission14 instead of merely giving its consent; whereas the 2014 elections set an important precedent in this respect; whereas the procedure for the nomination and selection of lead candidates for this position should furthermore be an integral part of the election campaigns; and whereas the deadline for the nomination of candidates by European political parties should be codified in the Electoral Act; __________________ 14, in assuming its right to elect the President of the European Commission14, the European Parliament misapplied the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was not the intention of Member States when the Treaty was ratified; whereas the turnout for the 2014 elections was the lowest on record and highlights the lack of legitimacy in the procedure for the nomination and selection of the Commission President; __________________ 14 Article 17(7) TEU. Article 17(7) TEU.
Amendment 73 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 85 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas the minimum age for eligibility to stand as a candidate across the 28 Member States varies between 18 and 25, and the minimum age for eligibility to vote ranges from 16 to 18, due to the divergent constitutional and electoral traditions in the Member States; whereas harmonisation of the voting age, and of the minimum age for candidates, would be highly desirable as a means of providing Union citizens with real voting equality, and would enable discrimination to be avoided in the most fundamental area of citizenship: the right to participate in the democratic process;
Amendment 111 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Decides to reform its electoral procedure in good time before the 2019 elections, with the aim of enhancing the democratic dimension of the European elections, reinforcing the concept of citizenship of the Union, improving the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union, making the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhancing the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and providing for greater electoral equality for citizens of the Union;
Amendment 115 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Decides to reform its electoral procedure in good time before the 2019 elections, with the aim of enhancing the democratic dimension of the European elections, reinforcing the concept of citizenship of the Union in a way that does not contradict the obvious primacy of national consciousness and citizenship, improving the functioning of the European Parliament and the governance of the Union in accordance with national democracies, making the work of the European Parliament more legitimate and efficient, enhancing the effectiveness of the system for conducting European elections, and providing for greater electoral equality for citizens of the Union;
Amendment 121 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 131 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Proposes that the names and logos of the national political parties or alliances of parties should appear on the ballot papers, and that those ballot papers may also mention, secondarily, any affiliations that such national political parties or alliances of parties may have with European political parties;
Amendment 141 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 150 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 155 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 165 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 174 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 193 #
2015/2035(INL)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Encourages the Member States to facilitate the spontaneous identification by their citizens of the Members of the European Parliament representing them, and thereby their ability democratically to monitor the actions of those Members, by opting either for a single European constituency or otherwise for a drawing of constituency boundaries which truly corresponds to human, historical, geographical and economic reality;
Amendment 3 #
2015/2012(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Whereas the report of the Court of Auditors adopted on 11 July 2014 states that the potential saving for the Union budget would be about EUR 114 million a year if the Parliament centralised its activities;
Amendment 37 #
2015/2012(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Stresses that in order to create substantial savings the need for a road map to a single seat of the Parliament must be addressed;
Amendment 1 #
2015/0907(APP)
Draft legislative resolution
Recital A (new)
Recital A (new)
A. Whereas the legal opinion of the Venice Commission recommends that electoral law should not be open to amendment less than one year before an election; whereas in order to respect and fully satisfy this recommendation any amendments made to the EU’s electoral law must not be applicable for the 2019 European elections;
Amendment 127 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6 a) A sponsor should be able to delegate tasks to a servicer, but should remain responsible for all its obligations under this Regulation.
Amendment 138 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) It is important that the interests of originators, sponsors and original lenders that transform exposures into tradableare involved in a securitiesation and investors are aligned. To achieve this, the originator, sponsor or original lender should retain a significant interest in the underlying exposures of the securitisation. It is therefore important for the originators or the sponsors to retain a material net economic exposure to the underlying risks in question. More generally, securitisation transactions should not be structured in such a way so as to avoid the application of the retention requirement. That requirement should be applicable in all situations where the economic substance of a securitisation is applicable, whatever legal structures or instruments are used. There is no need for multiple applications of the retention requirement. For any given securitisation, it suffices that only the originator, the sponsor or the original lender is subject to the requirement. Similarly, where securitisation transactions contain other securitisations positions as underlying exposures, the retention requirement should be applied only to the securitisation which is subject to the investment. The STS notification indicate to investors that originators are retaining a material net economic exposure to the underlying risks. Certain exceptions should be made for cases when securitised exposures are fully, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed by in particular public authorities. In case support from public resources provided in the form of guarantees or by other means, any provisions in this Regulation are without prejudice to State aid rules.
Amendment 153 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In synthetic securitisations which are not 'true sale', the underlying exposures are not transferred to such an issuer entity, but rather the credit risk related to the underlying exposures is transferred by means of a derivative contract or guarantees. This introduces an additional counterparty credit risk and potential complexity related in particular to the content of the derivative contract. To date, no analysis on an international level or Union level has been sufficient to identify STS criteria for those types of securitisation instruments. An assessment in the future of whether some synthetic securitisations that have performed well during the financial crisis and are simple, transparent and standardised are therefore eligible to qualify as STS would be essential. On this basis, the Commission will assess whether securitisations which are not 'true sale' should be covered by the STS designation in a future proposal.
Amendment 174 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) For securitisation positions outstanding as of the date of entry into force of this Regulation, originators, sponsors and SSPEs may use the designation 'STS' provided that the securitisation complies with certain of the STS requirements specified in this Regulation. Therefore, originators, sponsors and SSPEs should be able to submit an STS notification pursuant to Article 14 (1) of this Regulation to ESMA.
Amendment 177 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) The due diligence requirements are essentially taken over from existing Union law and should thus apply to securitisations issued on or after 1 January 2011 and to securitisations issued before that date, where new underlying exposures have been added or substituted after 31 December 2014. The relevant articles of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 625/2014 that specify the risk retention requirements for credit institutions and investments firms as defined in Article 4(1) (1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 2013/575 should remain applicable until the moment that the regulatory technical standards on risk retention pursuant to this Regulation become of application. For reasons of legal certainty, credit institutions or investment firms, insurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings and alternative investment fund managers should, for securitisation positions outstanding as ofs falling within the scope of Article 404 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 immediately prior to the entry into force of this Regulation; continue to be subject to Article 405 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and to Chapter 1, 2 and 3 and Article 22 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 625/2014, Articles 254 and 255 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 and Article 51 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 respectively. Those Articles, and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 for relevant transactions established prior to the adoption of updated regulatory technical standards, should be read in accordance with the provisions of Chapters 1, 2 and 3 and Article 22 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 625/2014. In order to ensure that originators, sponsors and SSPE's comply with their transparency obligations , until the moment that the regulatory technical standards to be adopted by the Commission pursuant to this Regulation apply, make the information mentioned by Annexes I to VIII of Delegated Regulation 2015/3/EU available to the website referred to in Article 5 (4) of this Regulation.
Amendment 179 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation applies to institutional investors becoming exposed to securitisation andthe credit risk of a securitisation. This Regulation also applies to originators, original lenders, sponsors and securitisation special purpose entities, in each case, provided that the relevant entity is established in the Union and is involved in the securitisation.
Amendment 195 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8
(8) 'asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) transaction' or 'ABCP transaction’ means a securitisation withinfunded in whole or part by an ABCP programme;
Amendment 202 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) 'investor' means a person holding securitiesa credit risk exposure resulting from a securitisation;
Amendment 209 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18 a) 'securitisation position' means a credit exposure to a securitisation;
Amendment 210 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 b (new)
Amendment 214 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. An institutional investor, other than the originator, sponsor or original lender of a securitisation, shall verify before becoming exposed to athe credit risk of the securitisation that:
Amendment 217 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where the originator or original lender is not a credit institution or investment firm as defined in Article 4(1), points (1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the originator or original lender grants all itsrelevant credits on the basis of sound and well-defined criteria and clearly established processes for approving, amending, renewing and financing those credits and has effective systems in place to apply these criteria and processes;
Amendment 219 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the originator, sponsor or original lender retains a material net economic interest in accordance with Article 4 of this Regulation and discloses it to the institutional investor in accordance with: (i) Article 54, in the case of a securitisation issued on or after the date of entry into force of this Regulation or of a securitisation to which this Regulation applies pursuant to Article 28(4a); or (ii) any applicable requirements under Article 28(4b), in the case of a securitisation issued prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation;
Amendment 220 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) one or more of the originator, sponsor andor SSPE has makde available the information required by Article 5 of this Regulation in accordance with the frequency and modalities provided in that Article; , or agreed to make available, sufficient information for the purposes of making the assessments referred to in Article 3(2) and Article 3(3) of this Regulation;
Amendment 223 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Before becoming exposed to the credit risk of a securitisation, institutional investors shall also carry out a due diligence assessment commensurate with the risks involved including at least the following aspects:
Amendment 227 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Institutional investors that are exposed to the credit risk of a securitisation shall at least:
Amendment 233 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Without prejudice to paragraphs (1) to (3) of this Article, where an institutional investor has given investment firms or regulated asset managers the power to make investment management decisions that might expose it to a securitisation, the institutional investor may instruct those investment firms or regulated asset managers to fulfil its obligations under this Article in respect of any exposure to a securitisation arising from such decisions. Member States shall ensure that where an institutional investor is instructed pursuant to this paragraph to fulfil the obligations of another institutional investor and fails to do so, any sanction that may be imposed for the purposes of Article 17 and 18, shall be imposed on the managing institutional investor and not the institutional investor who is exposed to the securitisation.
Amendment 240 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 279 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The originator, sponsor andor SSPE of a securitisation shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, makeensure that: (a) in the case of a public securitisation, at least the following information available to holders of a securitisation position and to theset out in paragraph 1a is made publicly available; (b) in the case of a private securitisation, at least the information set out in paragraph 1b is made available to investors and, upon request, to national competent authorities as referred to in Article 15 of this Regulation.
Amendment 291 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point e – point iii
(iii) information about the risk retained, including who retains it and how it is retained, in accordance with: - Article 4 and the information required pursuant to paragraph 3, in the case of a securitisation issued on or after the date of entry into force of this Regulation or of a securitisation to which this Regulation applies pursuant to Article 28(4a); or - any applicable requirements under Article 28(4b), in the case of a securitisation issued prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 296 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 302 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) the information that the originator, sponsor andor SSPE should provide to comply with their obligations under paragraph 1(a) and (d) and the format thereof by means of standardised templates;
Amendment 306 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a Third country equivalence For the purposes of this Regulation, the obligation of originators or original lenders that are established in a third country to comply with Articles 3 and 4 shall be deemed to be met if the originators or original lenders comply with the legal framework applying to securitisation of that third country.
Amendment 308 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b Criteria for credit-granting 1. Originators and original lenders shall apply to exposures to be securitised the same sound and well-defined criteria for credit-granting which they apply to non-securitised exposures. To that end, the same clearly established processes for approving and, where relevant, amending, renewing and re-financing credits shall be applied. Originators and original lenders shall have effective systems in place to apply those criteria and processes in order to ensure that credit-granting is based on a thorough assessment of the obligor's creditworthiness taking appropriate account of factors relevant to verifying the prospect of the obligor to meet his obligations under the credit agreement. 2. Where an originator purchases a third party's exposures for its own account and then securitises them, that originator shall verify that the entity which was, directly or indirectly, involved in the original agreement which created the obligations or potential obligations to be securitised fulfils the requirements in accordance with the first paragraph.
Amendment 321 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Securitisations, except ABCP programmes, ABCP transactions and other private securitisations, that meet the requirements in Articles 8, 9 and 10 of this Regulation shall be considered 'STS'.
Amendment 322 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 347 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 8
Article 8 – paragraph 8
8. The debtors or the guarantors shall have, at the time of transfer of the exposures, have made at least one payment, except in the case of revolving securitisations backed by personal overdraft facilities, credit card receivables, trade receivabexposures payable in a single instalment or having a maturity of less and dealer floorplan finance loans or exposures payable in a single instalmentthan one year, including without limitation monthly payments on revolving credits.
Amendment 352 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The originator, sponsor or the original lender shall satisfy the risk retention requirement in accordance with Article 4retain a material net economic interest in accordance with: (a) Article 4, in the case of a securitisation issued on or after the day of entry into force of this Regulation or otherwise of a securitisation to which this Regulation applies pursuant to Article 28(4a); or (b) any applicable requirements under Article 28(4b), in the case of a securitisation issued prior to the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 363 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. The originator, sponsor and SSPE shall be jointly responsible for compliancecomply with Article 5 of this Regulation and shall make all information required by Article 5(1) (a) available to potential investors, in accordance with paragraph 4a, before pricing. The originator and, sponsor and SSPE shall make the information required by Article 5 (1) (b) to (e) available before pricing at least in draft or initial form, where permissible under Article 3 of Directive 2003/71/ECa) (b) to (e) and 5(1b) (b) to (e) available, in accordance with paragraph 4a of this Article, before pricing at least in draft or initial form. The originator, sponsor and SSPE shall make the final documentation available to investors, in accordance with paragraph 8a, at the latest 15 days after closing of the transaction.
Amendment 365 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. For public securitisations, the information referred to in paragraph 4 shall be made publicly available. For private securitisations, the information referred to in paragraph 4 shall be made available to investors and, upon request, to national competent authorities.
Amendment 367 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 3 – section 2 – title
Chapter 3 – section 2 – title
Requirements for ABCP and private Securitisation
Amendment 369 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – title
Article 11 – title
Simple, transparent and standardised ABCP Securitiprogrammes, ABCP transactions and private securitisations
Amendment 371 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
ABCP transactions and other private securitisations shall be considered 'STS' where the ABCP programme complies with the requirements in Article 13 of this Regulation and all transactions within that ABCP programme fulfil the requirements in Article 12.
Amendment 375 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Transactions within an ABCP programmeABCP and private securitisations shall be backed by a pool of underlying exposures that are homogeneous in terms of asset type and shall have a remaining weighted average life of no more than twofive years and none shall have a residual maturity of longer than threeseven years. The underlying exposures shall not include loans secured by residential or commercial mortgages or fully guaranteed residential loans, as referred to in paragraph 1(e) of Article 129 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. The underlying exposures shall contain contractually binding and enforceable obligations with full recourse to debtors with defined payment streams relating to rental, principal, interest, or related to any other right to receive income from assets warranting such payments. The underlying exposures shall not include transferable securities, as defined in Directive 2014/65/EU.
Amendment 379 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. Any referenced interest payments underFor the purposes of Article 9(3), in an ABCP transaction, the interest rate or other return on the securitisation transaction's assets and liabilities shall be based on generally used market interest rates, but shall not reference complex formulae or derivativesto the ABCP programme may be based on the ABCP programme's cost of funds, including, but not limited to, the costs of issuing commercial paper.
Amendment 380 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
5. The underlying exposures shall be originated in the ordinary course of the seller's business pursuant to underwriting standards that are not less stringent than those that the seller applies to origination of similar exposures that are not securitised. Material changes in underwriting standards shall be fully disclosed to potential investorsthe sponsor and other parties directly exposed to the ABCP transaction without undue delay. In the case of securitisations where the underlying exposures are residential loans, the pool of loans shall not include any loan that was marketed and underwritten on the premise that the loan applicant or, where applicable intermediaries, were made aware that the information provided might not be verified by the lender. The seller shall have expertisience in originating exposures of a similar nature to those securitised.
Amendment 387 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. All transactions within an ABCP programme shall fulfil the requirements of Article 12 of this Regulationset out in paragraphs (1a) to (1d), (1h) to (1j) and (3) to (7) of Article 12. At all times, at least 70 % of the aggregate amount of the exposures underlying the transactions within an ABCP programme and which are funded by the programme shall fulfil the requirements set out in paragraphs (1e) to (1g) and (2) of Article 12 . For a period of two years from … [ date of entry into force of this Regulation] up to 20 % of that aggregate amount may be exposures to securitisation transactions that do not fulfil those requirements.
Amendment 390 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Amendment 393 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) the responsibilities of the trustee and other entities, if any, with fiduciary duties to investors;
Amendment 395 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point b
Amendment 396 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point c
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point c
(c) contractual obligations, duties and responsibilities of the sponsor, and its management team, who shall have expertise in credit underwriting, the trustee, if any, and other ancillary service providers;
Amendment 397 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point d
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point d
Amendment 399 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point f – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 7 – point f – paragraph 1
that upon specified events, default or insolvency of the sponsor remedial steps shall be provided for to achieve, as appropriate, collateralisation of the funding commitment or replacement of the liquidity facility provider. In case the liquidity facility provider does not renew the funding commitment, in case the liquidity facility provider does not renew the funding commitment under a liquidity facility within 30 days ofbefore its expiry, the liquidity facility shall be drawn down, and used to repay the maturing securities shall be repaid and the transactions shall cease to purchase exposures while amortising the existing underlying exposures.
Amendment 401 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 8
Article 13 – paragraph 8
8. The originator,programme sponsor and SSPEissuer shall be jointly responsible for compliance at ABCP programme level with Article 5 of this Regulationcomply with Article 5 and shall make all information required by Article 5(1) (a) available to potential investorsin accordance with paragraph 8a of this Article, before pricing. The originator, sponsor and SSPE shall make the information required by Article 5 (1) (b) to (e) available before pricing at least in draft or initial form, where permissible under Article 3 of Directive 2003/71/ECa)(b) to (e) and 5(1b)(b) to (e) available in accordance with paragraph 8a, at least in draft or initial form, before pricing . The originator, sponsor and SSPE shall make the final documentation available to investorsin accordance with paragraph 8a at the latest 15 days after closing of the transaction
Amendment 404 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. For public securitisations, the information referred to in paragraph 8 shall be made publicly available. For private securitisations, the information referred to in paragraph 8 shall be made available to investors and, upon request, to national competent authorities.
Amendment 438 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Article 16 – paragraph 3
3. Competent authorities shall ensurequire that risks arising from securitisation transactions, including reputational risks, are evaluated and addressed through appropriate policies and procedures of originators, sponsors, SSPE's and original lenders.
Amendment 457 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Competent authorities, when determining the type and level of an administrative sanction or remedial measure imposed under Article 17 of this Regulation, shall take into account all relevant circumstances, including, the extent to which the infringement is intentional or results from a factual error, and where appropriate:
Amendment 458 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3 (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 3 (new)
3. Sanctions shall be applied in a proportionate manner, which includes consideration of the nature of the breach.
Amendment 464 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 23 – paragraph 1Directive 2009/65/EC
Article 50a
Article 50a of Directive 2009/65/EC is repealedlaced by the following: 'UCITS management companies or internally managed UCITS shall act in the best interest of the investors in the relevant UCITS and take corrective action, if appropriate, where they discover, after the assumption of an exposure to a securitisation, that the securitisation does not meet the requirements laid down in Regulation .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council [STS Regulation], in particular that the determination and disclosure of the retained interest did not meet the requirements laid down in that Regulation.'.
Amendment 467 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 26 – paragraph 1Directive 2011/61/EU
Article 17
Article 17 of Directive 2011/61/EU is repealed laced by the following: 'AIFMs shall act in the best interest of the investors in the relevant AIF and take corrective action, if appropriate, where they discover, after the assumption of an exposure to a securitisation, that the securitisation does not meet the requirements laid down in Regulation [STS], especially in particular that the determination and disclosure of the retained interest did not meet the requirements laid down in Regulation [STS].'.
Amendment 468 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point 1Regulation 648/2012/EU
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point 1Regulation 648/2012/EU
Article 2 – point 30
(30) “"covered bond”" means a bond meeting the requirements of Article 129 of Regulation (EU) No 575/201352(4) of Directive 2009/65/EC."
Amendment 471 #
2015/0226(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 3
Article 28 – paragraph 3
3. In respect of investments made after ... [date of entry into force of this Regulation] in securitisations the securities of which were issued on or after 1 January 2011 and to securitisations issued before that date, where new underlying exposures have been added or substituted after 31 December 2014, Article 3 of this Regulation shall apply.
Amendment 35 #
2015/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products result from hunts conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities, provided thataking into account the following conditions are all satisfied:
Amendment 38 #
2015/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the hunt has been traditionally been conducted by the community;
Amendment 41 #
2015/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the hunt contributes to the subsistence of the community and is not conducted primarily for commercial reasons;
Amendment 45 #
2015/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
(c) the hunt is conducted in a manner which reduces pain, distress, fear or other forms of suffering of the animals hunted to the extent possible taking into consideration the traditional way of life and the subsistence needs of the communityby members of the community that possess a hunting licence, and in a manner which has due regard to animal welfare.
Amendment 55 #
2015/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. If the number of seals hunted, the quantity of seal products being placed on the market pursuant to paragraph 1 or ore is relevant evidence indicating that the export of seal products to the Union is deemed unsustainable or purely commercial the Commission may take action, if ther circumstances are such as to indicate that a hunt is conducted primarily for commercial purposes, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated actsonditions for placing the seal products on the market are not in accordance with Article 3(1). The Commission may act after consultation with the countries of origin concerned and taking into accordance with Article 4 in order to limit the quantity of productunt any opinion from the Committee referred to in Article 5. Subsequently the Commission may establish general restrictions, or restrictions resulating from that hunt that may be placed on the marketto certain countries of origin, on the introduction of seal products into the Union.
Amendment 69 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The investment environment within the Union should be improved by removing barriers to investment, cutting the red tape and reducing administrative burdens, reinforcing the Single Market and by enhancing regulatory predictability. The work of the EFSI, and investments across Europe generally, should benefit from this accompanying work.
Amendment 72 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) The EFSI should be considered as a temporary and one-off instrument within the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020.
Amendment 79 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The purpose of the EFSI should be to help resolve the difficulties in financing and implementing productive investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing. It is intended that increased access to financing should be of particular benefit to innovative micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises. It is also appropriate to extend the benefit of such increased access to financing to mid- cap companies, which are companies having up to 3000 employees. Overcoming Europe's current investment difficulties should contribute to strengthening the Union's economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Amendment 91 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The EFSI should support strategic investments with high economic value added contributing to achieving Union policy objectives. such as high level of the energy security and well-functioning digital single market. All operations under EFSI should be consistent with Union policies, including cohesion policy, and complementary to other relevant EU financial instruments (Connecting Europe Facility, Horizon 2020, COSME, European Structural and Investment Funds), as well as other public and private financing instruments at national and regional level.
Amendment 230 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The Commission shall conclude an agreement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) on the establishment of a European Fund for Strategic Investments ('EFSI') for the period 2015-2020.
Amendment 241 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The purpose of the EFSI shall be to support investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing for companies having up to 3 000 employees, with a particular focus on innovative micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, through the supply of risk bearing capacity to the EIB ('EFSI Agreement').
Amendment 326 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The Investment Committee shall be composed of sixeight independent experts and the Managing Director. Independent experts shall have a high level of relevant market experience in project finance andin general, and where possible also specifically in the policy areas referred to Article 5a(2). They shall be appointed by the Steering Board for a renewable fixed term of up to three years and not exceeding six years in total.
Amendment 341 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
The EU guarantee shall be granted for EIB financing and investment operations approved by the Investment Committee referred to in Article 3(5) or funding to the EIF in order to conduct EIB financing and investment operations in accordance with Article 7(2). The operations concerned shall be consistent with Union policies and support any of the following general objectives:
Amendment 345 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 368 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 380 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 402 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Amendment 413 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Amendment 437 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When establishing the investment policy and risk policy for the EFSI support, the Steering Board shall take into account the need to avoid an excessive exposure within a given geographic area.
Amendment 444 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. Provided that all relevant eligibility criteria are fulfilled, Member States may use European Structural and Investment Funds to contribute to the financing of eligible projects in which the EIB is investing with the support of the EU guarantee.
Amendment 446 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Eligibility criteria for the use of the EU guarantee 1. The EFSI Agreement shall provide that EFSI is to support in a non- discriminatory way projects which: (a) are consistent with Union policies; (b) contribute to EU’s competitiveness, economic growth and creating new jobs; (b) are economically and technically viable; (c) provide additionality; (d) maximise where possible the mobilisation of private sector capital. 2. In addition, the EFSI Agreement shall provide that the EFSI is to support projects pursuing any of the following general objectives: (a) development of the energy sector, in particular energy interconnections and other infrastructure, and thus contributing to energy security; (b) development of the digital economy and society, in particular infrastructure for information and communication technologies, and thus contributing to the digital single market; (c) development of the transport infrastructure; (d) science, research, development and innovations; (e) education and training; (f) financial support for companies having up to 3 000 employees, with a particular focus on innovative micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Amendment 501 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. By 30 June 2018 and every three years thereafter, two years thereafter and by 6 months from the date of termination of the agreement on EFSI:
Amendment 507 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
In accordance with its own transparency policies on access to documents and information, the EIB shall make publicly available on its website information relating to all EIB financing and investment operations and how they contribute to the general objectives and other eligibility criteria referred to in Article 5(2)a.
Amendment 25 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the Citizens’ Initiative is an exceptional opportunity for citizens to identify and articulate their aspirations and to ask for EU actionthe EU to act or to cease acting, and that it must be encouraged, improved and supported; further stresses that the use of one’s mother tongue is a civic right, and that all activities connected with an ECI may therefore be undertaken in one’s mother tongue;
Amendment 37 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to provide as much guidance as possible – especially of a legal nature – to organisers of ECIs via the Europe Direct Contact Centre, so that they are aware of the possibilities open to them and will not fail by proposing an ECI that is outside the Commission’s powers, or else to assign the task of giving advice to another independent company or body so as to avoid a possible conflict of interest within the Commission itself; notes, however, that under the Treaty of Lisbon the issues raised by ECIs may not correspond entirely to the Commission’s jurisdiction; takes the view, furthermore, that the Commission should consider setting up a dedicated ECI office in each Member Stateinstruct each of its permanent representations in the Member States to provide all the necessary information, advice and support for citizens’ initiatives;
Amendment 50 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that under the terms of Article 4 of Regulation 211/2011, in the event of a refusal by the Commission to register an ECI, ‘the Commission shall inform the organisers of the reasons for such refusal and of all possible judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them’; acknowledges, in this connection, the many complaints from organisers about not receiving detailed and exhaustive reasons for the rejection of their ECIs, and invites the Commission to provide as manyll the elements as possible in order to explain the reasonssubstantiating its decision declaring an ECI inadmissible in order that the validity and complete objectivity of those elements can be subject to legal scrutiny and to guide organisers to a possible solution;
Amendment 91 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Invites the Member States to be flexible in their verification when they receive statements of support for an ECI which are just above the threshold of 1 million signatures, with a view to allowing its submission; calls, in any event, on the competent national authorities to inform the national parliaments’ European affairs committees on a periodic basis about ECIs in progress which have already gathered a significant number of signatures;
Amendment 96 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls onUrges the Commission to revise the wording of Article 10(c) of Regulation 211/2011 to allow proper follow-up to a successful ECI, including a parliamentary debate in plenary followed by a vote on the ECIall initiatives which have reached the threshold of 1 million signatures from at least one-quarter of the Member States to be effectively and efficiently followed up, in particular by forwarding them to the national parliaments for an opinion and then a debate followed by a vote by the European Parliament in plenary session; urges the Commission to start preparing a legal act on successful ECIs within 12 months of their acceptance;
Amendment 102 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission to revise the wording of Article 10(c) of Regulation 211/2011 to allow any European Citizens’ Initiative meeting the conditions laid down in Article 11(4) TEU in respect of which it has decided not to submit a proposal to be authorised for debate in the European Parliament, followed by a vote, where necessary after the national parliaments have delivered an opinion;
Amendment 106 #
2014/2257(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that, in order to emphasise the political dimension of ECIs, a public hearing held under the terms of Article 11 of Regulation 211/2011 should be structured in such a way as to allow organisers to engage in a dialogue with Members of the European Parliament and Members of the national parliaments concerned; stresses that hearings on ECIs should be organised by a neutral committee that does not have the main responsibility for their subject-matter;
Amendment 9 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European Union and its Member States are facing major and urgent challenges, which no Member State can tackle on its ownMember States could better address within the framework of variable-geometry and variable- geography cooperation - à la carte Europe - rather than within that of a fast- track, supranational integration based on a largely outdated ideology, the mandatory intermediary of the EU in many areas having essentially generated: mutual paralysis, political impotence, economic, social and moral ‘disarmament’, mass unemployment and poverty, cultural and identity-related anxiety and a great step backwards as far as democracy is concerned so that no one dares to hope that Europe as it is today can still provide either protection or prosperity or even the peace that has so often been promised;
Amendment 14 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas it has now been demonstrated that we are not necessarily stronger together; whereas the Brezhnev doctrine of ‘limited sovereignty’ and thinking in terms of major blocs are largely outdated and obsolete; whereas a seven-year old child can understand that twenty-eight stunted sovereignties will never make a single European sovereignty, no matter how often this is invoked spell-like in European Parliament resolutions; whereas old notions of size, scope, scale and critical mass were relevant in the nineteenth and in part of the twentieth centuries, but for a long time now there has been no necessary relation between mass and power; whereas in a world of intense and rapid global economic relations, advanced technology, instant communications and miniaturisation, power now resides in networks, technological advantage and influence and, in the case of a political organisation, such as a State or a union of States, this list should also include political will and social and national cohesion - all of which we should have sought to protect as our most precious assets, rather than to dismantle, if our ambition was to create a strong Europe;
Amendment 15 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the ideal of peace and the demand for justice, on which the construction of a united Europe was based from the outset, made it essential scrupulously to preserve the democratic qualities patiently developed by its constituent nations; whereas, however, as everyone can see, the loss of national democracy has not so far been offset by the emergence of a true ‘European’ democracy in the absence of a single demos; whereas the regime resulting from the Lisbon Treaty, pushed through against the wishes of the only three nations - France, the Netherlands and Ireland - consulted by referendum, reveals much more than just growing pains: a chronic lack of legitimacy of the EU institutions, the extremely technological development of power, the dangerous entanglement of executive, legislative and judicial powers, impracticable national or European parliamentary scrutiny, inconsistent political accountability, the lack of a European political culture and therefore of a transnational public communication arena, a perceptible vulnerability to globalised private influences, the growing distrust of the peoples and public opinion with regard to the Union, its legislation and of the parties which support the project and the increasingly alarming identity-based reactions taking many different forms;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 25 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Community method must be preserved and not be undermined by in terms of results - economic, political, cultural and democratic - the Community method is a total failure and plain common sense as well as a desire for effectiveness that should inform the actions and thinking of European public officials more than ever should prevent them from clinging obstinatergovernmental solutions, not even ily to the dangerous supra-nationalist ideology of forced integration and thus lead them to favour free cooperation between sovereign pareas where not all Member States fulfil the conditions for participationtners in an à la carte Europe which finally respects democracies and the splendid vitality of Europe in all its diversity;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Parliament is the parliament of the whole Union and plays an essential role since it was supposed to ensuringe the legitimacy and accountability of EU decisions; whereas, however, as the German Constitutional Court has recalled: ‘Even in the new wording of Article 14.2 Lisbon TEU, and contrary to the claim that Article 10.1 Lisbon TEU seems to make according to its wording, the European Parliament is not a representative body of a sovereign European people' (Lisbon TUE judgment, 30 June 2009);
Amendment 31 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Parliament is the parliament of the whole Union and plays an essential role in ensuringthat it affirms that it guarantees the legitimacy and accountability of EU decisions despite the absence of a single European people; whereas, the fact of voting for the same assembly cannot in itself create a genuine political body any more than the existence of a market without borders: democracy, the participation of all in law-making presupposes a capacity for mutual identification within one and the same people, which obviously cannot be invented or decreed by Treaties, flurries of directives or costly communication campaigns;
Amendment 38 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas political dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament should be enhanced and practical possibilities for the use of the ‘yellow’ and ‘orange card’ improved,and the development of the 'green' and 'red' card, including on an informal basis, improved, so that national parliaments fully assume their responsibilities towards the European process particularly in the drawing up and legitimisation of EU law: the right of legislative initiative finally recognised, the right to issue a politically binding opinion on any draft act, the right of non-participation without blocking other States, call-back rights allowing scrutiny of the content of the implementing acts and delegated acts adopted by the Commission and the right of investigation into European affairs;
Amendment 42 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the European Council’s working methodsworking methods of the European Council and also of the Court of Justice, the Council, the Commission and the host of committees of experts attached to the last two should be rendered more transparent vis-à-vis Parliament and its interferencthe national parliaments and the interference of each one in legislative decision-making should remain within the limits of the Treaty provisions, which would break with over fifty years of bad habits of interpretations contrary to the law of the Treaties which have proved highly detrimental to democracy, the rule of law and the European project itself;
Amendment 46 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas in order to create a genuine bi- cameral legislative system, the existing specialised Council configurations should be reduced to a single legislative one, and the transparency of its decision-making should be improved; whereas this merger of Councils in one single body conjures up the spectre of full-blown federalism which had already raised it head fifteen years ago at the Convention on the Future of Europe and which the Heads of State and Government had already clearly rejected; whereas the resulting very clear wording of Article 16(6) TEU is applicable to all of them: 'The Council shall meet in different configurations, the list of which shall be adopted in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.'
Amendment 57 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the Commission’s role as the executive should bein the field of Economic and Monetary Policy which it combines with legislative functions (monopoly of initiative, delegated and implementing acts, streongthened in the field of Economic and Monetary Policy by influence on the entire legislative process), judicial functions (competition) and repressive functions, poses a very serious problem, not only the democratic problem of the economic and budgetary control over national parliaments, but also the violation of the principle of separation of powers dear to Montesquieu, without which there is no rule of law but a dictatorial regime; whereas more and more supra- nationalism cannot of course resolve the problems caused by supra-nationalism, a deadly ideology that risks bringing about the downfall of Europe and the European dream; whereas, therefore, the creation of the position of EU Finance Minister, an idea rejected by the Treaties, assisted by an EU Fiscal and Treasury administration, anwhich would bye endowing ited with the powers to implement and enforce any future and existing Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) instruments; would be a desperate move which would only make matters worse;
Amendment 63 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the European Institutions and bodies, notably the Committee of the Regions (CoR), the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), and, especially, the European Parliament should, in their daily work, monitor respect for, and the development of, horizontal and vertical subsidiarity in the European Union so that the democracies that constitute the Union and legitimise it, starting with the national parliaments, regain control of the essential conditions for exercising sovereignty; whereas, unless it is in fact conceived and implemented in its original sense of a delegation of authority in a purely subsidiary capacity with a general preference for that body which is closest to citizens, then the principle of European subsidiarity is nothing but a farce;
Amendment 73 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the existing economic governance system is not yet strong enough to tackle all potential future crises and shocks as it should, nor is it yet sufficiently good at generating higher competitiveness, structural convergence among its members, sustainable growth and social cohesion; whereas, therefore, progress towards the completion, in fact the opposite is the case; whereas, therefore, the manifest failure of the EMU should be sustainnoted, as well as efforts to render its institutional structure more legitimate and democratically accountable;
Amendment 74 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. whereas the completion of economic, monetary and budgetary federalism would necessitate massive financial transfers in particular to Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, the cost of which has been evaluated by a number of converging studies (excluding the contribution to the EU): in order to overcome the gap in research and development and in the education system and to revive the economy over a period of 10 years the following amounts would be needed in annual federal aid: EUR 122.99 billion for Italy, EUR 86.76 billion for Spain, EUR 30.69 billion for Greece and EUR 17.27 billion for Portugal, i.e. total annual federal aid for those countries alone of EUR 257.71 billion; whereas moreover other eurozone countries will soon also need help in order to ‘catch up’ with the northern countries; whereas the contributors would be mainly Germany, France, Finland, Austria, and the Netherlands; whereas Germany alone would bear 90% of the cost of the annual federal support (for these four countries alone), namely between EUR 220 and 250 billion per year, i.e. between 8% and 12.7 % of its GDP according to studies, which would erode its economic competitiveness; whereas it is doubtful whether the peoples of the five above-mentioned countries have the capacity or the will to take on this burden;
Amendment 75 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J d (new)
Recital J d (new)
Jd. whereas, in the absence of an optimal European currency area, a single currency will never be able to work whatever the reforms and financial transfers that may be undertaken, as has been demonstrated many economists, including no fewer than five Nobel laureates in economics of all ideological stripes - Maurice Allais, Milton Friedman, Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz; whereas the euro has shown that it merely imposes a disastrous straitjacket on most countries in the eurozone, detrimental not only to employment but also to the fight against excessive deficits and the sovereign debt crisis; whereas after a brief movement of apparent convergence of the countries that had adopted the single currency and the adoption of the so-called ‘Stability and Growth Pact’ to impose fiscal constraints, it collided with reality; whereas, even though since the 2008 crash, the eurozone countries have strived to establish solidarity mechanisms to address the banking and financial crisis (bank recapitalisation and financial assistance for States through the ESM), it is doubtful whether they will be able to weather the approaching financial crisis; whereas their effectiveness is limited by the growing structural divergences within the eurozone created by the single currency and there is a steady deterioration in the real economies of countries in difficulty: falling wages, a decline in investment, domestic demand and economic activity, rising unemployment, and thus mounting external deficits and public deficits;
Amendment 81 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Fiscal Compact should be incorporated into the EU legal framework on the basis of an assessment of experience with its implementation, subject to the democratic approval of the peoples of Member States in a referendum held in all those where this is legally possible;
Amendment 85 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 95 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas the Union needs a new legal act on economic policy, including the adoption of Convflexibility, a halving in the number of its regulations and free, variable-geometry cooperation e.g. for countries wishing to restore for themselves European prefergence Guidelinor launch an industrial project of common interest, as well as some crucial structuralrather than a new legal act for economic policy or reforms in the areas of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion, which would not have much more success than the old Lisbon Strategy or Europe 2020 that followed it;
Amendment 101 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the European Semester process should be simplified, and rendered more focused and democratic, by enhancing Parliament’s s, above all, more democratic, in so far as it is totally illegitimate and undemocruatiny role over it and by investing it with a more substantial role in the various cycles of negotiationc that draft national budgets should have to be approved by the Commission even before they are submitted to the national parliaments;
Amendment 106 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the use of the Union budget should be more streamlined, its revenue should originate from genuine own resources and not predominantly from Gross National Income (GNI) contributions, and the procedure for adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the legislation relevant to own resources should be switched to the ordinary legislative proceduren particular in order to strip it of anything that promotes fraud, mismanagement, patronage and propaganda, to eliminate VAT as a resource which is too complicated and to rely on a simple annual national contribution determined by a single percentage of GNI, to remove the half of the structural funds currently allocated at the discretion of the Commission which uses it to purchase a group of clients beholden to it, a practice which has for the last twenty years been the subject of extremely serious criticism by the European Court of Auditors itself, to reduce the annual contribution of States by the same amount (over a third), to reject the idea of a European tax (as the Commission and some parliamentary groups have been demanding for years), which would increase the burden on taxpayers and break the link to national States and set the ceiling for EU budget expenditure at 1% maximum of GDP;
Amendment 117 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas the Union should be endowed with increarefocused investment capacity by ensuring better use of the exand efforts should be made to streamline, by setting an EU budget spending ceiling at 1% of GDP and ensuring the legal, regular and genuinely useful utilisatingon of the structural funds and by fully implementing the existing six-pack and two-pack legal framework, which may be halved in order to reduce the annual contribution of Member States by that amount and to use the other half to help those countries that are most in need, for a limited period, and to fund major projects of European interest such as railway lines for combined sea-rail-road transport;
Amendment 122 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 144 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas the Union needs tocould increase the effectiveness, coherence and accountability of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which can be done by using the existing Treaty provisions to switch from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) for more and more areain particular by preserving and strengthening its intergovernmental character which determines its effectiveness, by rejecting any ‘communautarisation’ i.e. any further reciprocal paralysis and by boosting the role of the institutions representing the national will of individual Member States: the Council deliberating unanimously and scrutiny by national parliaments in particular; whereas only the Council can by definition have diplomatic experience and an overview of external policies - CFSP, trade policy, development aid - and therefore the High Representative should ensure that that office remains closely linked to the Council ; whereas it is necessary to use all the flexibility offered by variable geometry to overcome the obstacles that could occur due to the unanimity requirement among too great a number of States; whereas the EU needs to honour, in its statements and actions, the principles and purposes enshrined in the UN Charter and take care to comply with the procedures of exinternal policies,tional law; whereas it is as well as by implementing onderful asset for the whole of Europe that some of its Member States have historically close relations with other provisions for flexibility and enhanced cooperatioowers or a privileged status in the international community (such as a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in wthen needed; case of two Member States);
Amendment 147 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas recent security challenges, some within and in the immediate vicinity of the EU’s borders, have revealed the need to move progressively towards the establishment of a common defence policy, and eventually, a common'defence in common', outside the framework of the current Treaties rather than a single defence policy straitjacketed by Brussels institutions and procedures: by giving each people the right to determine its defence interests and thus respecting the national basis of any defence; whereas the Treaty already contains clear provisions as to how this could be done, notably in Articles 41, 42, 44 and 46 TEU; ich is necessary if it is to be effective and democratic, by ruling out any idea of an integrated army, by clearly establishing the principle of free cooperation between sovereign nations, according to the mechanisms of variable geometry, by thus rejecting the notion of an unstoppable constitutional process contained embryonically in the follow-up Treaties to the Lisbon Treaty, by launching a study of a missile shield for Europe that would be managed by an intergovernmental structure and involve those States that wished to participate and by developing voluntary and cooperation controlled by the States in intelligence matters, as an essential step for improving the capabilities of our armed forces;
Amendment 155 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the current refugee crisis has exposed the need for a common asylum and immigration policy, which should provide as well for a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the European Un, which could result in as many as another 2.5 million refugees in 2016 according to NGOs, has amply demonstrated that the European Union needs to have internal border controls reintroduced, that each nation needs to regain the capacity to determine its own migration policy and that solidarity between Member States needs to be strengthened by cooperation in the face of this the huge challenge of migration with which they are confronted at the beginning of this century, by henceforth telling third countries unambiguously what they think about abuses of the right to asylum, by agreeing on political goals and joint actions in the fight against illegal migration, the fight against terrorism and everything that nurtures it and by maintaining above all and imperatively a right of veto or non- participation if they feel that their interests may be seriously jeopardised by a draft act or decision;
Amendment 171 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the European Union and its Member States are facing challenges on an unprecedented challengesscale, such as the refugee crisis, the foreign policy challenges in the immediate neighbourhood and the fight against terrorism, as well as globalisation, climate change, the consequences of the financial and debt crisis, the euro crisis, the lack of competitiveness and the social consequences in several Member States, and the need to reinforce the EU internal market, (mass unemployment, growing poverty, the destruction of the middle classes) and the need to reinforce the EU internal market, the failure of multiculturalism and the crisis of integration and the serious blows to democracy and the rule of law which have so far been inadequately addressed at European level, and for good reason;
Amendment 176 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that, where these challenges cannot be tackled individually by the Member States, but need a collective response from the Union, this must be found within the framework of free cooperation based on variable geometry and variable geography - Europe-à-la-carte, which is ultimately the only possible future for Europe - rather than within that of a failed and outdated supranational integration, since the mandatory involvement of the EU has so far basically fuelled mutual paralysis, political impotence, ‘economic disarmament’, mass unemployment, the dissolution of national identities and major setbacks for democracy and the rule of law so that no one now expects the EU to deliver the prosperity so frequently promised us, or even peace;
Amendment 187 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the Union needs to restore the lostgain the confidence and trust of its citizens by enhancing the transparency and political accountability of its institutions and decision-making, and improving its capacity to act and scrutiny thereof by national parliaments and improving its capacity to act not in order to disarm Europe and Europeans but, on the contrary, to give them the means to live in security, to be enterprising, to prosper and to transmit and secure the future of Europe as a civilisation;
Amendment 194 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have not yet been exploited to their full potential even though they contain some necessary tools that could not, of course, have been applied to prevent some of the crises with which the Union is confronted, or could bein fact the opposite is the case, or that some naively wish to used to cope with the current challenges without having to initiate a Treaty revision in the short term; whereas there is no point, however, in engaging in endless speculation, in empty and charm-like resolutions, on the theme: ‘more integration will solve the problems of integration’, that hackneyed cliché which no one believes in any more but which may trigger a backlash against those who for sixty years have been promising a European El Dorado in return for jettisoning the nation, democracy and borders;
Amendment 199 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the Community method is superior to the intergovernmental method as it is the only one that allows for transparency, QMV in the Council, and the equal right of co-legislation by the European Parliament and Council, as well as preventing a fragmentation of institutional responsibilities and the development of competing institutions;to make democracy, defined as the ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’, morph insidiously into a European regime of supra-nationalist integration, an EU which the philosopher Jürgen Habermas has already dubbed the ‘paragon of post-democratic autocracy’
Amendment 203 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 214 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the directly elected European Parliament plays an essential role in ensuring the legitimacy of the Union, as well as in making the Union’s decision-making system accountable to citizens by ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny over the executive at the Union level and by the legislative co-decision procedure complementary legitimising role compared to the main legitimation conferred by the national governments and parliaments, as the German Constitutional Court recalled in its 'Lisbon' Judgment of 30 June 2009, whereas the absence of a single European people instead of the twenty-eight peoples at present, the absence of a continent-wide 'demos' that can neither be invented or decreed into existence, is still an unavoidable reality, and whereas politics obviously has to be rooted in reality;
Amendment 220 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that the European Parliament is the parliament of the whole Union; considers that its working methods should be reformed so as to strengthen its control over the Commission in the implementation of the acquis, and to ensure proper democra in addition to the European Council, the Council and the national parliaments as a whole; considers that its working methods should be reformed so as to strengthen its democratic control, establish that of national parliaments in particular over the Commission in all its activities and to re-establish proper and consistent political accountability and scrutiny and genuine transparency even in the areas in which not all Member States participate;
Amendment 235 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Insists that Parliament’sthe legislative powers and control rights of the European Parliament and the networked the national parliaments must be guaranteed, consolidated and strengthened, pari passu with those of the Council by an inter- institutional agreement, and through the use of the corresponding legal base by the Commission;
Amendment 263 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Encourages meaningful political dialogue with national parliaments on the contents of legislative proposals; insists, however, on a clear delineation of the respective decision-making competences of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, where the former should exercisbetter assume their European functionresponsibility on the basis of their national constitutions, which constitute the apex of the hierarchy of norms, in particular via the control of their national governments as members of the European Council and the Council, which is the level where they are best placed to directly influence the content of and exercise scrutiny over the European legislative process; is therefore against the creation of joint parliamentary decision- making bodies for reasons of transparency, accountability and ability to act; encourages the sharing and spread of good practices such as the mechanism whereby national parliaments confer a negotiating mandate on their ministers prior to Council meetings, the solemn parliamentary approval prior to any activation of a 'passerelle' clause or the implementation of any simplified procedure for the revision of the Treaties; calls for the establishment of a practicable and productive ‘red card’ procedure, a right of ‘non-participation’, a recall clause for delegated acts and implementing acts, automatic sunset clauses for some European legislation, a parliamentary initiative mechanism for revising existing European legislation, a parliamentary initiative mechanism for repatriating powers on the basis of subsidiarity; in order to achieve this European democratic revolution, calls for the development of interparliamentary cooperation with the support of COSAC by creating a Council of networking national parliaments;
Amendment 274 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls for the development of genuine interparliamentary cooperation, with the support of COSAC, through the informal creation of a Council of national parliaments, in which: - all draft European acts would be discussed and, where applicable, approved by networking parliaments; - they would assume their eminent legislative responsibility in particular in the following areas: the movement of persons, visas, asylum, migration, nationality, foreign affairs, defence, the budget, criminal law, culture, language, the family, education, religion, ethical or philosophical issues, fundamental political freedoms, elections and social systems; - sectoral parliamentary committees would ensure the preparation and follow- up for the various Councils; - good practices, such as the practice whereby national parliaments confer a negotiating mandate on their ministers prior to Council meetings or the consultation of parliamentary assemblies prior to the activation of a 'passerelle' clause or the implementation of a simplified revision procedure, would be shared;
Amendment 277 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 291 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 295 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 318 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 330 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. DemandsRejects the idea that the Council should switches completely to QMV voting andor that it abandons the practice of transferrarbitration ing contentious legislative fields toby the European Council, as this goes against the letter and the spiritthe pre-eminent democratic institution of the TreatyUnion, which stipulates that the European Council can only decide unanimously, and should only do so, on broad political goals, not on legislationis charged, under Article 15 TEU, with providing ‘the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and [defining] the general political directions …thereof', vital and wide-ranging tasks that all other institutions of the Union must respect;
Amendment 333 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 348 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 355 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 390 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Stresses the importance of the subsidiarity principle, as laid down in Article 5 TEU, which is binding on all institutions and bodies, notablyincluding the CoR and the EESC, and is based on the concept of competences being delegated only where this is possible and ideally to the body closest to citizens, and the importance of the instruments contained in Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; supports a flexible interpretation of the deadlines enshrined in the Protocol and calls on the Commission to improve the quality of its responses toin any case to respect reasoned opinions;
Amendment 402 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Considers that the practical possibilities for national parliaments to ensure the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be improved, and networked cooperation between national parliaments strengthened, to enable them, in close cooperation among themselves, to reach the necessary quorum under article 7(3) of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; considers in any case that one negative opinion from a national parliament ought to give rise to a constructive political dialogue with the EU institution that instigated the contested act, while even if the quorum is not reached, several negative opinions should set a voluntary procedure in motion whereby the draft act is halted and, if necessary, rewritten taking due account of the positions and concerns of the national parliaments;
Amendment 420 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 432 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 464 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Insists on formalising Parliament’s scrutiny role in the European Semester through an interinstitutional Agreement, including by involving it formally in the adoption of the AGSas well as that of national parliaments ahead of the budgetary calendar instead of after it as at present, otherwise they are no more than recording chambers, through an interinstitutional Agreement;
Amendment 489 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls for the integration of the Fiscal Compact into the EU legal framework on the basis of an assessment of the experience with its implementation and subject to approval thereof by the people consulted directly by referendum everywhere where the Constitution so allows;
Amendment 565 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 577 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
Amendment 595 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
Amendment 607 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 741 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
Amendment 753 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
Paragraph 83
Amendment 822 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96
Paragraph 96
Amendment 840 #
2014/2249(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
Paragraph 97
97. Considers it necessary to strengthen Frontex and transform it into a European System of Border Guards, to be supported, when necessary, by military instruments such as a European Maritime Force (Euromarfor) and an upgraded European Corps (Eurocorps), together with the resources pooled through Permanent Structured Cooperation; suggests that automatic adjustment should also be envisaged of the databases of border agencies such as Eurodac, and, in future, Smart Borders, such that they incorporate the ‘European list of dangerous persons’ and the ‘European Database for wanted persons’reject any obviously ineffective supranational management of the external border, with the Frontex agency that was set up in 2005 proving to be as expensive as it is unnecessary; emphasises that in order to increase effectiveness, each country must retain responsibility for its own borders and for making its own choices as regards immigration and integration policy; actively encourages the development of technical coordination: exchanges of good practice, operational coordination, ongoing joint training, compatibility of equipment, joint risk analysis; calls for Member State solidarity to be enhanced by means of cooperation to address the challenge posed by migration with a view to reaching agreements on political objectives and joint actions such as combating illegal immigration (repatriation, readmission agreements with third countries, etc.); proposes extending the Eurodac Convention to include illegal immigrants and incorporating the ‘European list of dangerous persons’ and the ‘European Database for wanted persons’; at the same time, calls for a generous co-development policy to be pursued by means of active solidarity with immigration source countries, which is not merely aid, but face-to-face cooperation, for example to support the restoration of the State in those countries if necessary, as well as the development of health services, education, cultural and social centres and rural areas, and the establishment of a network of very small local companies and local SMEs, thereby showing that third countries’ economic development or political instability problems can only be resolved in situ, in order to prevent large- scale displacement;
Amendment 15 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
– having regards the consistently declining turnout in the European elections, from 61.9% in 1979 to 42.6% in 2014 according to final results TNS/Scytl in cooperation with the European Parliament; and simultaneously rising criticism of the EU,
Amendment 20 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
Citation 16 a (new)
– having regard to negative referenda decisions concerning the current Union and/or policies as expressed by majorities of people in France on the 29th of May 2005, the Netherlands on the 1st of June 2005, Ireland on the 12th of June 2008, Greece on July 5, 2015, Denmark on the 3rd of December 2015, Netherlands on the 6th of 2016, in addition to renouncing the candidacy of Norway on the 28th of November 1994, Switzerland on the 4th of March 2001 and Iceland on the 12th of March 2015,
Amendment 33 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the ‘polycrisis’ currently faced by the Union, including its financial, economic, social, democratic, cultural, identity, safety and migratory consequences, have all led to the rejection by a growing part of the population of the current European Union;
Amendment 94 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, as regards Schengen, the free movement of people and the resulting abolition of internal border controls, all formally integrated into the Treaties, ‘opt- outs’ were given to the UK and Ireland; whereas four other Member States are also not taking part, but have the obligation to do so, while ‘opt-ins’ were accorded to three countries outside the European Union; whereas this fragmentation not only prevents the total abolition of some remaining internal borders, but also hinders the establishment of a true internal market and of a fully integrated area of freedom, security and justice;
Amendment 104 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, last but not least, this ‘variable geometry’ endangers the uniform application of EU law, leads to excessive complexity in terms ofambitions, visions and capacities of EU Member States differs, the variable geometry approach appears now as the most pragmatic way to avoid disintegration, facilitate and deepen sincere cooperation between EU Members; a goivernance, jeopardises the cohesion of the Union and undermines solidarity among its citizenn level of flexibility shall offer differentiated degrees and areas for common policies and mediate divergent national preferences;
Amendment 128 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas, while Article 16 of the TSCG provides that within five years of the date of entry into force (before 1 January 2018) the necessary steps must have been taken to incorporate the Fiscal Compact into the legal framework of the Union, it is clear that the resilience of the euro area, including the completion of the banking union, cannot be achieved without further fiscal deepening stepsintelligent reforms that take into consideration calls and proposals by Economic Nobelists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Thomas Sargent and Christopher Pissarides, together with the establishment of a more reliable, effective and democratic form of governanceeconomic cooperation ; whereas this will complete the current Stability and Growth Pact, which, ever since it came into existence, even after its reform by the so- called six-pack and two-pack, has never been applied for any obvious political reasons; ;
Amendment 138 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 157 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the European Union is a constitutional system based on the rule of law; whereas the Treaties must be rooted in the sovereignty of its Member States as authors of the EU Treaties and noting that if the exercise of certain competences changed to give the European C obviously be delegated, sovereignty by itself cannot be divided, shared, limited or transferred ourt of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction over all aspects of EU law, in particular common foreign and security policy (Article 24(1) TEU) and monetary and economic policy (Article 126(10) TFEU)people’s control without de facto dissipating and undermining the rule of law ; whereas ultra vires ECJ teleological interpretations lead to unilateral judicial amendment to the Treaties against the very will of its signatory representative governments ; whereas in case of risk of conflict of laws, nobody else than relevant national parliament(s), the competent national high Court or/and the people itself deciding by referendum shall now decide which legal provision, national or European shall have the primacy over the other;
Amendment 199 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the decline of Europe’'s Member States defence capabilities has limited itstheir ability to project stability beyond our immediate borders; whereas this goes hand in hand with the reluctance of our US allies to intervene if Europe is not ready to take its fair share of responsibility; whereas this leads inevitably to the need for more intense cooperation among the Member States and an integration of some of their defence capacities into a European defence community, both in line with a new European security strategy as well as to protect our internal territories which face now an unprecedented and multifaceted terrorist risk ; whereas this leads inevitably to the need for more intense cooperation among the Member States to meet objective of a new European security strategy based on internal border controls and combat the ideology that justifies terrorism that attacks our European societies, values and freedoms;
Amendment 277 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NoStates that the direction of the Union’s reform should lead towards its modernisation by establishing new effective European capacities and instruments, rather than its renationalisation by means of greater intergovernmentalismbasic criterion for review of the powers and their distribution should be the full respect of the three fundamental principles anchored in the Treaty : the principle of conferral that concerns delimitation of EU competences; the principle of subsidiarity which should be now understood as opposing centralism and allocating competencies and tasks at those levels of authority, which, due to the proximity of the issue are the best predestined ; and finally the principle of proportionality of the intervention of the Union;
Amendment 431 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the fact that, until the Treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, it will continue to participate in all decision-making of the Union throughout its institutions, with the exception of the negotiations and the agreement concerning its own withdrawal; considers that intermediate arrangements will need to be made concerning the UK’s participation in European decision- making, as it will be politically difficult to allow a Member State in the process of leaving to influence decisions affecting the Union of which it will soon cease to be a member;
Amendment 603 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 650 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 688 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 743 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. NRecalls that mass immigration to the European Union undermines the Schengen agreements which now need urgent and serious reform ; notes that the Treaties should have provided ample means to set up a humane, well- functioning migration management system including a European Border and Coast Guard;, believes, however, that the Treaties, particularly Article 79(5) TFEU, are too restrictive regarding other aspects of migration, especially on the establishment of a genuine European legal migration system; insists that democratic scrutiny by Parliament is neededright of asylum and the right to accept refugees should be solely the competence onf the implementation of border control, asylumMember States and mhigration policies, and that the safeguarding of national security cannot be used as ahlighting that if one doesn’t preotexct to circumvent European actionits own borders nobody else will ;
Amendment 778 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 799 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Stresses that for the Union to strengthen the defence of the EU territory, as a pillar within NATO, which remains the cornerstone of the European security architecture, and to enable the Union to act autonomously in operations abroad, mainly with a view to stabilising its neighbourhood, the Treaties should provide for the possibility of establishing a European defence union ;
Amendment 813 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Believes, finally, that it is essential that the restrictions in Article 24(1) TEU on the authority of the European Court of Justice in the field of CFSP be removed; calls, in the same spirit,Calls for Parliament to gain greater powers of scrutiny and accountability over CFSP, including full co-decision powers over the budget together with national parliaments ;
Amendment 891 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Reiterates its commitment to initiating an ordinary treaty revision procedure under Article 48 TEU with a view to proposing the changes to Article 341 TEU and Protocol 6 necessary to allow Parliament to decide on the location of its seat and its internal organisation;
Amendment 901 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its call for a single seat for the European Parliament; proposes that Parliament and the Council each decide the location of their own seat after having obtained the consent of the other; further proposes that the seats of all the other EU institutions, agencies and bodies be determined by Parliament and the Council on a proposal by the European executive, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure;
Amendment 907 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Reiterates its call for a single seat for the European Parliament; reminds that the European Parliament is the only EU institution directly elected by EU citizens ; recalls that over one million of them endorsed a petition asking for a single seat ; proposes accordingly changes to Article 341 TFEU and Protocol 6 and to allow the EP to decide on its internal organisation;
Amendment 933 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 957 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Believes that when the Parliament and the Council vote on legislation, irrespective of whether it is specific Eurozone measure or not, all elected MEPs and respective representatives of its Member States should take part in the vote ;
Amendment 965 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recogniszes the significant role that should now be played by national parliaments in the constitutional order and the democratic legitimation of the European Union, and in particular their role in transposing EU legislation into national law and the role they wshould play in both ex-ante and ex-post control of legislative decisions and policy choices made by their members of the new Council of States, including its specialised configurations; suggests therefore complementing and enhancing the powers of national parliaments by introducing a ‘green card’ procedure whereby national parliaments could submit legislative proposals to the Council for its considerationbinding instructions to the Commission in the exercise of its initiative power ; as well emphasizes the need to strengthen the role of national parliaments by an efficient use of ‘yellow’ and ‘red card’ to make it possible for a group of national parliaments acting together to block an indicated legislative proposal whose author would then be forced to withdraw it ;
Amendment 1017 #
2014/2248(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Believes, finally, that the current Treaty ratification procedure is too rigid to befit such a supranational polity as the European Union; proposes allowing amendments to the Treaties to come into force if not by an EU-wide referendum then after being ratified by a qualified majority of four-fifths of the Member States, having obtained the consent of Parliament; correspondingly, once this threshold has been met, Member States which still decline to ratify the amended Treaty should decide, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, whether to start the process of secession or to opt for an associate status that respect for the Treaties, its signatory Members’ legitimacy, State of Law, democratic will expressed through every referenda organized in Europe for more than 10 years, and viability of the Union itself require strict compliance with procedures for revision of the Treaties provided in Article 48-1 to 5 TEU;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to maintain the objective of including a specific energy chapter in the TTIP which could significantly increase the EU's energy security by decreasing dependence on dominant suppliers and single points of transit;
Amendment 77 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to work on transatlantic harmonisation ofand convergence of high mutual standards and regulations that define the principles of public support for different energy sources;
Amendment 129 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that TTIP should contain ambitious and innovative provisions for Europe's 20 million SMEs. Given the disproportionate effect that tariffs, non- tariff barriers and technical barriers to trade have on SMEs, this should be one of the main objectives of the negotiations. Possible improvements should cover not only a reduction of tariffs but a simplification of customs procedures and potentially new mechanisms aimed at helping SMEs to exchange experience and best practices buying and selling on the EU and US markets. In this regard plans for a specific chapter in the final agreement dealing solely with SMEs are welcomed.
Amendment 144 #
2014/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Requests that the Commission facilitate more active participation of EU firms in US public procurement at all levels of government, not only through increased market access but through high quality disciplines and rules, going beyond what has already been agreed in the context of the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), as this can contribute to stimulating private-sector innovation and to the emergence of new, high-growth innovative companies and sectors;
Amendment 19 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 41 a (new)
Citation 41 a (new)
– having regard to the Statement by the Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager on tax state aid investigations of 6 November 2014,
Amendment 50 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the publication of the so- called ‘LuxLeaks’ documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists calls for a thorough and independent investigation of Member States’ tax rulings practices and their compliance with EU state aid control rules;
Amendment 78 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates that the Commission could consider reallocation of resources from obsolete or underused budget lines towards DG Competition, in order to enable a more proactive stance; recommends in view of the LuxLeaks revelations in this regard in particular a reinforcement of DG Competition’s fiscal state aid unit;
Amendment 149 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the importance of affordability, sustainability and security of energy supply are crucial to the European economy and its competitiveness; considers competition policy to be of vital importance in encouraging unbundling andsuing correct and timely implementation of the third liberalisation package for gas and electricity and in addressing the current fragmentation of the market; stressnotes that the regulation of state aid in this field must be carried out in the same spirit as in any otherfor sustainable energy sources must, to the greatest extent possible, be done in the same spirit as any other, while taking into consideration the EU’s 2030 targets for climate and energy;
Amendment 156 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Calls on the Commission to investigate and take the necessary steps to ensure that existing electricity interconnectors are made fully available for the power market by the transmission system operators (TSOs) in order to enhance the function of the internal electricity market and in order to support the fulfilment of the EU 2030 targets for climate and energy at lowest possible socioeconomic cost at EU-level;
Amendment 208 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Expresses concern that several of the new regulatory requirements and proposals may cause financial institutions to refrain from entering or providing specific financial services;
Amendment 209 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Expresses concern that new regulatory measures regarding prices and demands for certain product features in relation to consumer products such as bank accounts will limit competition and innovation;
Amendment 210 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)
Subheading 7 a (new)
Taxation Expresses concern over possible illegal corporate tax practices in Member States and calls on the Commission to step up investigations into such possible practices using all available evidence;
Amendment 237 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Expresses its concern at the abuse of cabotage regulation in road transport and at potential social dumping within various transport services, and believes these problems must be addressed; Expresses concern of differing implementation and enforcement by member states of the regulations related to international road transport, e.g. regulations on cabotage and driving and resting times and believes this must be addressed;
Amendment 256 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Highlights the essential role of the European Parliament in representing the interests of European consumers in the proper enforcement of competition rules;
Amendment 281 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Highlights the publication of the so- called ‘LuxLeaks’ documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists; welcomes the commitment of the Commissioner for Competition to thoroughly and independently investigate Member States’ tax rulings practices and their compliance with EU competition law; encourages the Commission to vigilantly enforce EU state aid control rules;
Amendment 282 #
2014/2158(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Calls on the Commission President to ensure the independence of the on-going and future investigations of Member States’ tax ruling practices led by the Commissioner for Competition; insists that the European Parliament be kept fully informed of the progress of the investigations and of the means to ensure they are being conducted in a transparent and independent manner; calls on the Commission to present a report on its findings as soon as possible; recalls the commitment made by the Commissioner for Competition to extend her investigation should this be deemed necessary once the facts have been collected;
Amendment 3 #
2014/2145(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that it is absolutely vital for the democratic legitimacy of EMU to be improved substantially within the EU’s institutional framework and in line with the Community method; believes that parliamentary scrutiny is necessary to assure democratic control and accountability;
Amendment 12 #
2014/2145(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls for providing an adequate mechanism to ensure a more active role of national Parliaments in issues of economic and financial governance, in particular with regard to the European Semester.
Amendment 19 #
2014/2145(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Regrets that the capacity of national Parliaments to control and influence their governments' actions in the EU are insufficient; is of the view that national Parliaments should take more active part in policymaking in terms of scrutinizing and shaping their government's positions before they are submitted to the Commission.
Amendment 23 #
2014/2145(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the setting-up of the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union; believes that IPC-EFG can help to reduce the evident gap in parliamentary control; underscores, nevertheless, its limits when it comes to encouraging accountability on the part of decision-makers; points out that responsibilities must be assumed at the appropriate level, withdemocratic control and accountability should take place at the appropriate level, where decisions are taken. This implies that national parliaments scrutinising national governments and the European Parliament scrutinising the European executive, and that such cooperation must not lead to the establishment of a new joint parliamentary body; opportunities offered by existing structures of interparliamentary cooperation should be used;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the Court of Auditors Report adopted on 11.07.2014 states that the potential saving for the EU Budget would be about 114 million euro a year if the European Parliament centralised its activities;
Amendment 48 #
2014/2078(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 c (new)
Paragraph 33 c (new)
33c. Stresses that the Parliament and the Council, in order to create long term savings in the Union budget, must address the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as stated by the Parliament in several previous resolutions;
Amendment 1 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. StressBelieves that the low turn-out at recent European elections shows the need to continue during allcannot be attributed solely to a lack of awareness of the elegislature, and not only wction or the activities of then European elections are approaching, to invest in campaigns to inform citizens on the impact of the Union on their daily liveUnion; considers crucial to have an assessment of the recent EP institutional communication campaign; furthermore, believes that serious reflection is needed as to whether the deeper centralisation of power in Brussels away from the citizens and of the prole of the EP; considers crucial to have an assessmentgrammes contained in the 2015 Budget directed towards this aim are a true reflection of the precent EP institutional communication campaigferences indicated by European citizens in the 2014 European Parliament election;
Amendment 2 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Takes the view that communications projects can struggle to demonstrate effectiveness when evaluated, primarily due to a lack of agreed or appropriate metrics upon which their performance can be judged; believes that for all spending directed towards improving awareness and communicating European issues to the public it is necessary that such metrics are established at an early stage; in this regard, observes that figures such as raw numbers of visitors to websites are often used, which without comparative figures from similar organisations are largely meaningless and only speak to one aspect of communications (availability) and not for example quality of content or ease of use.
Amendment 3 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes in the importance of instruments of participatory democracy, as defined in the Lisbon Treaty, for citizens; regrets, in this context, the difficulties related to the implementation of the European Citizens' Initiative and emphasises the need for providing adequate funding not only for the initiatives themselves, but also for their communication, in order to improve the popularvisibility and the trustworthiness of the ECI; underlines that any such funding is independent of the subject matter of the ECI and all qualifying ECIs irrespective of their content are treated equally;
Amendment 4 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. StresRecognises the need for adequate funding of throle various instruments of e-democracy with a view to intensifyinghave to open participatory democracy processes through the use of information and communication technology; calls upon the Commission to identify more clearly in the following budgets how it intends to reflect the growing importance of e-democracy;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that, in view of the entry into force of the Regulation on European political parties and foundations, adequate and fair funding is needed to enable its effective implementation.; believes that a high-level evaluation of expenditure by political parties and foundations in connection with their activities to promote participation in European political life is warranted; expresses concern that significant public funding is given to such organisations, believes a private funding model of political parties is necessary to best stimulate democratic participation;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Requests that budget lines concerning the European Parliament's infrastructure, expenses and other items which correspond to the Parliament's places of work are broken down to reflect where expenses occur (Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg).
Amendment 7 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Believes that the highest levels of transparency and accountability to which this institution aspires demands that allowances paid to Members are not paid en bloc, but rather are reimbursements on production of receipts for actual expenditure and all claims paid are individually published; requests that the budgetary rules and the working practices of the Parliament are amended to that effect;
Amendment 8 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9c. Expresses regret, once again, that the negative comments received from the Court of Auditors are still not acted upon, and the financial management of the Budget by the European institutions remains wholly unsatisfactory;
Amendment 9 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9d. Regards the Lisbon Treaty as having invested powers in the European Parliament to reflect its standing as an elected chamber capable of reflecting the views of citizens from across the Union and from a variety of social and economic spheres; believes therefore that the role of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee to have been subsumed within the role of the European Parliament and the Council, whose members are accountable to their domestic electorates already; instructs the Commission to establish the costs and savings to be accrued from their closure, and for the Council and Parliament to begin the legal process to phase out the CoR and EESC;
Amendment 10 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 e (new)
Paragraph 9 e (new)
9e. Notes the decrease in expenditure on relations between the European institutions and national parliaments, and expresses regret that more is not done to prioritise the involvement of national legislatures; considers that expenditure elsewhere could be revisited ahead of this budgetary element, particularly in the context of previous Parliamentary resolutions which have called for greater attention to be paid to how this relationship may function more effectively;
Amendment 112 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Since remuneration is one of the key instruments for companies to align their interests and those of their directors and in view of the crucial role of directors in companies, it is important that the remuneration policy of companies is determined in an appropriate manner. Without prejudice to the provisions on remuneration of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council17 and while taking into account the differences in board structures applied by companies in the different Member States, listed companies and their shareholders should have the possibility to define the remuneration policy of the directors of their company. __________________ 17Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338.
Amendment 118 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to ensure that shareholders have an effective say on the remuneration policy, without forcing shareholders to approve a level of detail in the policy that could be detrimental to the interests of the company in two-tier systems, they should be granted the right to approve the remuneration policy, on the basis of a clear, understandable and comprehensive overview of the company's remuneration policy, which should be aligned with the business strategy, objectives, values and long-term interestsgive indications on inter alia the possible use of variable pay, performance criteria, vesting-, retention- and deferral periods and payments linked to termination. The policy should be aligned with the business strategy of the company and should incorporate measures to avoid conflicts of interest. Companies should only pay remuneration to their directors in accordance with a remuneration policy that has been approved by shareholders. The approved remuneration policy should be publicly disclosed without delay.
Amendment 301 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that shareholders have the right to vote on the remuneration policy as regards directors. Companies shall only pay remuneration to their directors in accordance with a remuneration policy that has been approved by shareholders. The policy shall be submitted for approval by the shareholders at least every three years. However, Member States may allow companies to submit the policy for approval by the general meeting only when there is a proposal for amendment.
Amendment 307 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 326 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
3. The policy shall explain how it contributes to the company strategy and long-term interests and sustainability of the company. It shall set clear criteria for the award of fixed and variable remuneration, including all benefits in whatever formindicate the components of fixed and variable remuneration that can be awarded and give clear and comprehensive guidelines on the criteria for the award of fixed and variable remuneration, without thereby disclosing sensitive information detrimental to the interests of the company.
Amendment 330 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 345 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
For variable remuneration, the policy shall indicate theclude guidelines on the use of financial and non-financial performance criteria to be used and explain how they contribute to the long- term interests and sustainability of the company, and on the methods to be applied to determine to which extent the performance criteria have been fulfilled; it shall specify theet guidelines on the use of deferral periods, vesting periods for share-based remuneration and retention of shares after vesting, and it shall provide information on the possibilitcy of the company ton reclaiming variable remuneration.
Amendment 352 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
Article 9a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4
The policy shall indicate the main termsgive guidelines on the duration of the contracts ofwith directors, including its duration and the applicable notice periods and payments linked to termination of contracts.
Amendment 368 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9b – paragraph 1 – introductory words
Article 9b – paragraph 1 – introductory words
1. Member States shall ensure that the company draws up a clear and understandable remuneration report, providing a comprehensive overview of the remuneration, including all benefits in whatever form, granted to individual directors, including to newly recruited and former directors, in the last financial year. Member States shall ensure that the overview is either presented at the level of individual directors or at an aggregated level for each type of board or each type of director. It shall, where applicable, contain all of the following elements:
Amendment 411 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 9c – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that companies, in case of transactions with related parties that represent more than 1% of their assets, publicly announce such transactions at the time of the conclusion of the transaction, and accompany the announcement by a report from an independent third party assessing whether or not it is on market terms and confirming that the transaction is fair and reasonable from the perspective of the shareholders, including minority shareholders. The announcement shall contain information on the nature of the related party relationship, the name of the related party, the amount of the transaction and any other material information necessary to assess the transactioneconomic fairness of the transaction from the perspective of the company.
Amendment 419 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 9c – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Member States may provide that companies can request their shareholders to exempt them from the requirement of subparagraph 1 to accompany the announcement of the transaction with a related party by a report from an independent third party in case of clearly defined types of recurrent transactions with an identified related party in a period of not longer than 12 months after granting the exemption. Where the related party transactions involve a shareholder, this shareholder shall be excluded from the votethe announcement published pursuant to paragraph 1 is accompanied by a report assessing whether or not the transaction is fair from the perspective of the company, including minority shareholders, and explaining the assumptions the report is based upon together with the methods used. The report shall be produced by: (a) an independent third party; (b) the administrative or supervisory body; (c) the audit committee or any other committee the majority of which is composed of directors with no conflict of interest in the transaction; or (d) any other qualified people in the company with no conflict of interest in the transaction provided that the related parties are prevented from influencing the preparation onf the advance exemption. report.
Amendment 430 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 9c – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. Member States shall ensure that transactions with related parties representing more than 5% of the companies’' assets or transactions which can have a significant impact on profits or turnover are submitted to a voteapproved by the shareholders in a general meeting. Where the related party transaction involves a shareholder, this shareholder shall be excluded from that vote. The company shall not or by the administrative or supervisory body of the company in accordance with procedures which prevent a related party from taking advantage of its position and provide adequate protection of the interests of shareholders who are not related parties. Where the related party is a shareholder, the related party and other shareholders controlled by the related party shall be excluded from voting on the approval of the transaction, unless a report fulfilling the requirements in paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, concludes that the transaction before the shareholders’ approval of the transaction. The company may however conclude the transaction under the conditionis fair from the perspective of the company, including the interests of minority shareholders. Where the related party is a director, the director and any other person having a conflict of interest shall be excluded from the vote in the administrative ofr shareholder approvalupervisory body.
Amendment 459 #
2014/0121(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2007/36/EC
Article 9c – paragraph 4
Article 9c – paragraph 4
4. Member States may excludeParagraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to transactions: (a) conducted on standard terms in the ordinary course of business, (b) concluded on market terms, provided that the administrative or supervisory body, without influence from the related party, has sanctioned what constitutes market terms in the particular type of case, or (c) transactions entered into between the company and one or more wholly owned members of its group. Member States may exclude from the requirements in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, provided that those members of the group and 2 transactions entered into between the company and any of its subsidiaries that are not wholly owned if national law provides for adequate protection of the interests of share wholly owned by the companders who are not a related party.
Amendment 109 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Harmonisation at Union level can ensure that Union banking groups, many of which operate in several Member States, are regulated by a common framework of structural requirements thereby avoiding competitive distortions, reducing regulatory complexity, avoiding unwarranted compliance costs for cross- border activities, promoting further integration in the Union market place and contributing to the elimination of regulatory arbitrage opportunities. Systemic risks, where they appear, must be addressed in the same way throughout the Union, with the aim of ensuring that each institution is resolvable without putting the financial stability of the Union at risk.
Amendment 165 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)
Recital 24 a (new)
(24 a) On the other hand, market making is a necessary component of a well- functioning market for corporate bonds and other debt instruments, since one of the main advantages for investors of such bonds is that they may be traded on a market at all times and contributes positively to financial stability.
Amendment 173 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) To ensure an effective separation in legal, economic, governance and operational terms, core credit institutions and trading entities should meet capital, liquidity, and large exposure rules on a functional sub-group basis. They should have strong independent governance and separate management bodies. Or. en Justification
Amendment 174 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Groups that qualify as mutuals, cooperatives, savings institutions or similar have a specific ownership and economicBanking groups in the Union have by tradition different ownership structures. Imposing some of the rules related to separation could require far-reaching changes to the structural organisation of those entities the costs of which could be disproportionate to the benefDifferent legal traditions should be respected and the regulation adopts a neutral approach allowing the core credit institution to hold capital instruments and voting rights in the trading entitsy. To the extent that those groups fall within the scope of the Regulation, the competent authority may decide to allow core credit institutions that meet the requirements set out in Article 49(3)(a) or (b) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to hold capital instruments or voting rights in aAppropriate measures to ensure effective separation between the core credit institution and the trading entity must be taken, e.g. by securing that there are no recourse possibility from the trading entity whereto the competent authority considers that holding such capital instruments or voting rights is indispensable for the functioning of the group and that the core credit institution has taken sufficient measures in order to appropriately mitigate the relevant risksre credit institution leaving creditors and equity in the trading entity to bear possible losses in the trading entity. The trading entity shall on a solo level fulfil own fund requirements and shall have its own management body.
Amendment 207 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to reduce excessive risk taking withinensure the resolvability of the credit institution;
Amendment 286 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point 12
12. ‘market making’ means a financial institution's commitment to provide market liquidity on a regular and on-going basis, by posting two-way quotes with regard to a certain financial instrument, or as part of its usual business, by fulfilling orders initiated by clients or in response to clients’ requests to trade, butor in both cases without beanticipation of potential client activity, and by hedging exposed to material market riitions arising from the fulfilment of those tasks;
Amendment 392 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
(i a) the selling of interest rate derivatives, foreign exchange derivatives, credit derivatives, emission allowances derivatives and commodity derivatives eligible for central counterparty clearing, and emission allowances, to non-financial clients and to financial entities referred to in the second and third indents of point (19) of Article 5, to insurance undertakings, or to institutions providing occupational retirement benefits where the sole purpose of the sale is to hedge interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, credit risk, commodity risk or emissions allowance risk.
Amendment 393 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i b (new)
(i b) activities for the purpose of prudently managing capital, liquidity, funding and the balance sheet;
Amendment 395 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i c (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point i c (new)
(i c) market making activities which do not pose a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the whole or any part of the Union financial system.
Amendment 438 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) the relative size of trading assets, as measured by risk weighted trading assets divided by totalhe total risk weighted assets;
Amendment 440 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the leverage of trading assets as measured by trading assetrading related risk exposures divided by core Tier 1 capital;
Amendment 442 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the relative importance of counterparty credit risk, as measured by the fair value of stemming from non-centrally cleared derivatives, as measured by the risk weighted assets stemming from non- centrally cleared derivatives divided by total tradingrisk weighted assets;
Amendment 449 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point d
Amendment 453 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point e
Amendment 456 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) the relative importance of market risk, as measured by computing the difference between trading assets and liabilities in absolute value and dividing it by the simple average between trading assets and trading liabilitiesthe risk exposure amount for market risk divided by the total risk exposure amount;
Amendment 461 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point h
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point h
Amendment 464 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point h a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point h a (new)
(h a) trading related risk exposures divided by eligible liabilities for bail-in requirements as defined in Article 45 of Directive 59/2014/EU [BRRD]
Amendment 483 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The competent authority shall have finalised its assessment by [OP – please introduce 18 months from the day of publication of the Regulation], and shall carry out assessments when appropriate and at least every 5 years, taking into account article 19 on a regular basis, at least yearly, thereafter.
Amendment 500 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
1. Where the competent authority concludes that, following the assessment referred to in Article 9(1), the limits and conditions linked to the metrics referred to in points (a) to (h) of Article 9(2) and specified in the delegated act referred to in paragraph 5 are met, and it therefore deems that there is a threat to the financial stresolvability of the core credit institution or to the Union financial system as a whole, taking into account the objectives referred to in Article 1, it shall, no later than two months after the finalisation of that assessment, start the procedure leading to a decision as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3.
Amendment 523 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Unless the core credit institution demonstrates, within the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that the reasons leading to the conclusions are not justified, the competent authority shall adopt a decision addressing the core credit institution and requiring it not to carry out the trading activities specified in those conclusionsto reduce the risk that potential losses stemming from the trading related activities are transferred to the core credit institution, by taking measures in accordance with Article 17 of the Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) to restore the resolvability of the credit institution. The core credit institution shall in the first instance propose measures to remove impediments and only in the second instance, should the measures proposed by the core credit institution be regarded as inefficient, shall the consolidating supervisor take alternative measures in accordance with Article 17(5) of Directive 2014/59/EU. The competent authority shall state the reasons for its decision and publicly disclose it.
Amendment 560 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b – introductory part
(b) specify which type of securitisation is not considered to pose a threat to the financial stresolvability of the core credit institution or to the Union financial system as a whole with regard to each of the following aspects:
Amendment 608 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a (new)
Article 12 a A core credit institution that has been subject to a decision referred to in Article 10(3) may carry out those market making activities which do not pose a threat to the financial stability of the core credit institution or to the whole or any part of the Union financial system.
Amendment 613 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The EU parent shall ensure that in a group containing core credit institutions and trading entities shall be structured so that on a sub-consolidated basis two distinct sub-groups are created, only one of which contains core credit institutionsthere are no recourse possibility from the trading entity to the core credit institution leaving creditors and equity in the trading entity to bear possible losses in the trading entity.
Amendment 616 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Article 13 – paragraph 5
Amendment 672 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Before taking the decision referred to in Article 10(3), the competent authority shall notifyensure close coordination with the relevant resolution authority designated in accordance with Article 3 of Directive [BRRD] thereof.
Amendment 675 #
2014/0020(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. When carrying out the assessment in accordance with Article 9 and when requiring the core credit institution not to carry out certain activities in accordance with Article 10, the competent authority shall take into account any ongoing or pre- existing resolvability assessments carried out by any relevant resolution authority pursuant to Article 13 and 13(a) of Directive [BRRD]. A finding by the resolution authority that there are no substantive impediments to resolvability shall be deemed sufficient to demonstrate that the conclusions referred to in article 10(3) cannot justify a separation decision.
Amendment 10 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 19 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the principle of conferral circumscribes the competences of the Union, which are exercised in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and whereas the national parliaments seek to ensure that draft legislative acts comply with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 26 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 32 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, accordingly, the national parliaments taken together do notshould form a ‘third chamber’ in the EU’s constitutional set-up, but instead serve to make the Union’s second chamber, the Council, more democratic;
Amendment 36 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the national parliaments’ competences in connection with the subsidiarity principle are viewed by most of those parliaments more as a means of engaging in ‘political dialogue’ with the European institutions than as a formal legal means of blocking legislation;
Amendment 49 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the inclusion of national parliaments in a European parliamentary system needs to be properly regulated with a view to building a Union that is ever more integrated, democratic, transparent and close to the people;
Amendment 54 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas interparliamentary cooperation can play an essential role in driving the European integration process forward by allowing exchanges of information, a joint examination of issues, mutually beneficial dialogue and smoother transposition of EU legislation into national law;
Amendment 59 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. Whereas more openness in the European Parliament voting procedures would be a big step forward;
Amendment 62 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas following the establishment of the Interparliamentary Conference for the CFSP and the CSDP and the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance, as well as the consolidation of interparliamentary committee meetings’ position as the preferred channel for cooperation, COSAC should focus on its role of making periodic reviews of among other things the general state of the integration process;
Amendment 109 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that the 8 weeks threshold is too short and that the national parliaments must have more time;
Amendment 155 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that, not least in the light of the new interparliamentary conferences on the CFSP/CSDP and economic and financial governance, COSAC should take on a more specialist role as, primarily, a forum for discussion of the state of the Union and other EU-relevant issues;
Amendment 195 #
2013/2185(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Believes that COSAC should serve primarily as a forum for in-depth discussion of among other things the state of the Union, with a view to the gradual integration of the peoples and states of Europe;
Amendment 9 #
2013/2017(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Asks also for an evaluation of the communication strategy for the 2009 elections 2009and stresses the need for a similar evaluation of 2014 elections;
Amendment 12 #
2013/2017(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the role of the European political parties for European democracy and condemns as undemocraticCondemns any attempt to discriminate economically between such partiesthe European political parties as undemocratic;
Amendment 3 #
2012/2024(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – Recital B
Section 1 – Recital B
B. whereas all the actions of the Union must comply with the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers;
Amendment 6 #
2012/2024(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 1 – Recital C
Section 1 – Recital C
C. whereas Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises the right to good administration as a fundamental right of the citizens;
Amendment 15 #
2012/2024(INI)
Draft opinion
Section 2 – paragraph 2
Section 2 – paragraph 2
2. The Regulation should establish a guarantee and lay down more detailed procedural rules in order to ensure respect of the fundamental principles of separation of powers, good administration, namely lawfulness and legal certainty, proportionality, impartiality and fairness, legitimate expectations and equality;
Amendment 169 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Council Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products and the prohibition of the marketing of certain types of tobacco for oral use prohibited the sale in the Member States of certain types of tobacco for oral use. Directive 2001/37/EC confirmed this prohibition. Article 151 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden grants the Kingdom of Sweden derogation from this prohibition . The prohibition of the sale of oral tobacco should be maintained in order to prevent the introduction to the internal market of a product that is addictive, has adverse health effects and is attractive to young people. For other smokeless tobacco products that are not produced for the mass market, a strict labelling and ingredients regulation is considered sufficient to contain market expansion beyond their traditional useas oral tobacco has been proven to cause fewer health effects than smoking tobacco.
Amendment 249 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 362 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1017 #
2012/0366(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Amendment 16 #
2011/2174(REG)
A. whereas it should be emphasised that the objective of the new code of conduct is to combat all forms of corruption. Consequently all substantiated allegations of corruption should lead to suspension of parliamentary immunity and criminal investigation at the relevant courts rather than an administrative procedure initiated by the Advisory Committee. This is not only to ensure that culprits are convicted in accordance with laws against corruption, but also to ensure that the fundamental rights of a fair trial guaranteed under the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights are observed,
Amendment 17 #
2011/2174(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure Motion for a decision
Recital B (new)
Recital B (new)
B. whereas the suspension of parliamentary immunity is always decided upon by request from national authorities, it is stressed that any decision on such matter by the Advisory Committee shall be communicated to the relevant national authorities,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a proper communication policy should be based on relevant information to be given to citizens, such as the steps taken to face the Euro crisis, the reform of the European electoral system, the EU enlargement perspectives and the benefits of better integration,
Amendment 5 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 8 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 10 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 12 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Regrets that the Court of Auditors was again unable to give an unqualified statement of assurance on the EU budget in its latest audit and impresses on all the institutions that this situation is untenable;
Amendment 14 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Declares that, at a time of crisis when Member States are making drastic budget cuts, all EU institutions should display solidarity and not increase their expenditure;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3c (new)
Paragraph 3c (new)
3c. Is sceptical about the Commission’s imminent plans to introduce EU taxes;
Amendment 13 #
2011/0901(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) In cases of major importance before the Court of Justice, namely cases concerning fundamental questions pertaining to the legal order of the European Union, there should be the possibility for a Judge to announce, during the Court's deliberations, that he intends to deliver a dissenting opinion as to the judgment or the reasons on which it is based, to be published together with the judgment. This possibility, which exists in numerous constitutional courts of Member States of the European Union and in the European Court of Human Rights, ensures that the public is aware of the fact that there is not a sole answer to the question before the Court and that legally sound alternatives are conceivable, and may thus have an influence on future judicial practice. It contributes, moreover, to a better understanding and, in a legal system which is largely based on case-law such as that of the European Union, to a better interpretation and application of the Court's findings. Dissenting opinions must be utilised in a way that ensures the necessary authority of the Court and does not compromise the secrecy of deliberations. They must be the sole initiative and responsibility of the Judge concerned. At the same time, they enable the majority to give the reasons for their decision in a clear and straightforward manner. Experience has shown that they do not undermine the reputation of those courts in which they are delivered, as the modalities of their delivery are entirely a matter for the court concerned.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0901(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) In order to avoid any doubts as to the authority of the temporary Judges, it is of the utmost importance that they be elected in a way which does not compromise the authority of the Court and which ensures their total independence,
Amendment 24 #
2011/0901(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
4a. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 35: ‘In cases concerning fundamental questions pertaining to the legal order of the European Union, where a Judge has declared, in the deliberations of the Court of Justice, his disagreement with the judgment to be delivered or the reasons on which that judgment is based, he shall be entitled to deliver a dissenting opinion. That opinion shall be published together with the judgment. Implementing rules relating to the admissibility, and the detailed procedure for the delivery, of such opinions shall be laid down in the Rules of Procedure.’.
Amendment 33 #
2011/0901(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8
The Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with Article 257 TFEU, may attach temporary Judges to the specialised courts in order to cover the absence of Judges who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, are prevented from participating in judicial business for an extended period of time. In that event, the Parliament and the Council shall lay down the conditions under which the temporary Judges shall be appointed, their rights and duties, the detailed rules governing the performance of their duties and the circumstances in which they shall cease to perform those duties. (This amendment replaces Amendment 4 of the draft opinion (PE 470.092 v01-00))Those provisions shall ensure, moreover, that the temporary Judges enjoy the same rights and are entitled to assume the same functions as permanent Judges, in order to guarantee the uncompromised authority of the Court's judgments. Or. en
Amendment 40 #
2011/0901(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 b (new)
Recital 10 b (new)
(10b) Whilst there is a need for the Court of Justice to introduce a mechanism allowing dissenting opinions to be expressed, this must not jeopardise the independence of Judges; a thorough debate on this issue is needed between experts, practitioners and other interested parties.
Amendment 1 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. the Protocols to the TEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union form an integral part thereof, and therefore an additional Protocol establishing special rules with regard to the application of parts of the law of the Union to a Member State requires a revision of the Treaties,
Amendment 1 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas it is necessary to respect the conditions under which Member States have acceded to the Treaty of Lisbon,
Amendment 3 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. it should be emphasised that, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU, the Charter does not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties,
Amendment 7 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 10 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. an important function of the Charter is to increase the prominence of fundamental rights and to make them more visible, but Protocol No 30 gives rise to legal uncertainty and political confusion, thereby undermining the efforts of the Union to reach and maintain a uniformly high level of rights protection,
Amendment 14 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 18 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 19 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 23 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. major doubts exist as to whether there is a majority in the Czech Parliament to ensure ratificatthe internal Czech political discussion ofn the new protocol aimed at extending the application of Protocol No 30 to the Czech Republicmatter is not an issue for the Union institutions to judge upon,
Amendment 31 #
2011/0817(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the European Council to decide not to examine the proposed amendment of the Treaties;
Amendment 1 #
2011/0816(NLE)
Draft report
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas all the EU institutions are obliged, in their interpretation of the application of both primary and secondary law, to comply with the decision of the European Council of 19 June 2009;
Amendment 2 #
2011/0815(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, when Article 1 of the draft protocol when stipulatinges that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon affects the scope and applicability of the protection of the right of life, the protection of the family and the protection of the rights in respect of education provided by the Constitution of Ireland, refers to matters which do not constitute areas of Union competence under Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 2 to 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or for which the Union has only a complementary role (Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unithis is intended to apply to all parts of the Treaty of Lisbon);
Amendment 4 #
2011/0815(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 2 of the draft protocol, in relation to taxation, only draws general conclusions in the absence of specific provis precludes any interventions of the Treaty of Lisbon and does not prevent further progress towards enhanced economic coordination in the Unionis kind in respect of Ireland, irrespective of its Treaty basis;
Amendment 7 #
2011/0815(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas it is the Member States that negotiate and adopt Treaty amendments, and whereas it is therefore necessary to respect the previous political understandings between governments, and whereas the content of the draft protocol is not incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon;
Amendment 8 #
2011/0815(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon, whether it relates to the Court of Justice, the Commission or other EU institutions, may be interpreted as being contradictory to the letter or spirit of the adopted protocol;
Amendment 16 #
2010/2291(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 – point b
Paragraph 6 – point b
(b) the scope of the register, which covers all relevant actors but excludes, among others, social partners as actors in the social dialogue, as well as churches, political parties and local, regional and municipal authorities;
Amendment 20 #
2010/2291(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 – point c
Paragraph 6 – point c
(c) the division of the register into separate sections and subsections, which makes it possible for differentall kinds of organisations and associations to be entered in the register;
Amendment 17 #
2010/2231(REG)
Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 5
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 5
Amendment 76 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Decision is to establish the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service ("EEAS"), a functionally autonomous body of the Union under the authority of the High Representative, set up by Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union ("TEU"), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. This Decision and in particular the reference to the term "High Representative" will be interpreted in accordance with his/her different functions under Article 18 of the TEU.
Amendment 77 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The EEAS will support the High Representative, who is also a Vice- President of the Commission and the President of the Foreign Affairs Council, in fulfilling his/her mandate to conduct the Common Foreign and Security Policy ("CFSP") of the European Union and to ensure the consistency of the EU's external action as outlined, notably, in Articles 18 and 27 TEU. The EEAS will support the High Representative in his/her capacity as President of the Foreign Affairs Council, without prejudice to the normal tasks of the General Secretariat of the Council. The EEAS will also support the High Representative in his/her capacity as Vice- President of the Commission, for his/her responsibilities within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union's external action, without prejudice to the normal tasks of the Commission services.
Amendment 78 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) In its contribution to the EU external cooperation programmes, the EEAS ensures that these programmes respond to the objectives for external action as set out in Article 21 TEU.
Amendment 79 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Provisions should be adopted relating to the staff of the EEAS and their recruitment. For matters relating to its staff the EEAS should be treated as an institution within the meaning of the Staff Regulations. I where such provisions are necessary to establish the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. In parallel, necessary amendments should be made, in accordance with Article 27(3)336 of the TFEU, the EEAS will comprise oo the Staff Regulations of Officials ofrom the General Secretariat of the Council andEuropean Communities ("Staff Regulations") and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Commission as well as personnel seconded from the diplomatic services of the Member Stateunities ("CEOS") without prejudice to Article 298 TFEU. For matters relating to its staff the EEAS should be treated as an institution within the meaning of the Staff Regulations. The High Representative will be the Appointing Authority, in relation both to officials subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ("Staff Regulations") and agents subject to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. The High Representative will also have authority over the Seconded National Experts ("SNEs") in post in the EEAS. The number of officials and servants of the EEAS will be decided each year as part of the budgetary procedure and will be reflected in the establishment plan.
Amendment 80 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) The staff members of the EEAS will carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with in mind the full respect of the identified strategic interests by the European Council as well as the determined objectives and defined guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, that shall be put into effect by the High Representative and by the Member States, using national and Union resources according to article 26 TEU.
Amendment 81 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) In accordance with Article 27(3) of the TEU, the EEAS will comprise officials from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission as well as personnel coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States. For that purpose, the relevant departments and functions in the General Secretariat of the Council and in the Commission will be transferred to the EEAS, together with officials and temporary agents occupying a post in such departments or functions. Before the 1st of July 2013, the EEAS will recruit exclusively officials originating from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission as well as staff seconded from the diplomatic services of the Member States. After that date, and according to the needs, the recruitment of EU permanent officials under Staff Regulation within the quota of 60% should be done accordingly with EPSO external procedure specifically designed for the EEAS.
Amendment 82 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to ensure the budgetary autonomy necessary for the smooth operation of the EEAS, the Financial Regulation should be amended in order to treat the EEAS as an "institution" within the meaning of the Financial Regulation, with a specific section in the Union budget. The EEAS will be subject to the procedures regarding the discharge as provided for in Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Articles 145 to 147 of the Financial RegulationThe Financial Regulation should be amended in order to include the EEAS in Article 1 of the Financial Regulation, with a specific section in the Union budget. In accordance with applicable rules, and as it is the case for other institutions, a part of the annual report of the Court of Auditors will be dedicated also to the EEAS and the EEAS will respond to such reports. The EEAS will be subject to the procedures regarding the discharge as provided for in Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Articles 145 to 147 of the Financial Regulation. The High Representative will provide the European Parliament with all support necessary to complete European Parliament’s right as discharge authority. The implementation of the operational budget will be the Commission’s responsibility in accordance with Article 317 of the TFEU. Decisions having a financial impact will in particular respect the responsibilities laid down in Title IV of the Financial Regulation, especially Article 75 thereof regarding expenditure operations and Articles 64 to 68 regarding liability of the financial actors.
Amendment 83 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
1. The EEAS shall support the High Representative in fulfilling his/her mandates as outlined in Title V TEU, notably in Articles 18 and 27 TEU:
Amendment 84 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – indent 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – indent 1
- in fulfilling his/her mandate to conduct the Common Foreign and Security Policy ("CFSP") of the European Union, including the Common Security and Defence Policy ("CSDP"), to contribute by his/her proposals to the development of that policy, which he/she shall carry out as mandated by the Council and to ensure the consistency of the EU's external action;
Amendment 85 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The EEAS shall be managed by an executive Secretary-General who will operate under the authority of the High Representative. The executive Secretary- General shall take all measures necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the EEAS, including its administrative and budgetary management. He shall ensure effective coordination between all departments in the central administration as well as with the Union delegations, and shall represent the EEAS. . The High Representative shall appoint, in accordance with the normal rules of recruitment, a Director General for budget and administration who shall work under the authority of the High Representative. He/she shall be responsible to the High Representative for the administrative and internal budgetary management of the EEAS. He/she shall follow the same budget lines and administrative rules as applicable in section III of Heading V of the Multiannual Financial Framework.
Amendment 86 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – indent 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – indent 3
- the crisis management and planning directorate, the civilian planning and conduct capability, the European Union Military Staff and the European Union Situation Centre, placed under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative in her capacity as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; t; they shall assist him/her in the task of conducting the Union’s CFSP in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty while respecting, in accordance with Article 40 of the TEU, the other competences of the Union. The specificities of these structures, as well as the particularities of their functions, recruitment and the status of the staff shall be respected. Full coordination between all the structures of the EEAS shall be ensured.
Amendment 87 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
In areas where the Commission exercises the powers conferred to it by the Treaties, the Commission may, in accordance with article 220 (2) TFEU, also issue instructions to delegations, which shall be executed under the overall responsibility of the Head of Delegation.
Amendment 88 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) iIf necessary, and on a temporary basis, specialised seconded national experts (SNEs)the EEAS may, in specific case, have recourse to a limited number of specialised seconded national experts (SNEs). The High Representative shall adopt the rules, equivalent to those laid down in Council Decision 2003/479/ECof 16 June 2003 concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council1, under which SNEs are put at the disposal of the EEAS in order to provide specialised expertise. 1 OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 72.
Amendment 89 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The staff members of the EEAS shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Union in mindin accordance with recital 7a. Without prejudice to Articles 2(1), third subparagraphindent, 2(2) and 5(3), they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government, authority, organisation or person outside the EEAS or any body or person other than the High Representative or only with his/her consent. In accordance with Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, the EEAS staff may not accept any payments of any kind whatever from any other source outside the EEAS.
Amendment 91 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 9 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. When the EEAS has reached its full capacity, staff from Member States, as referred to in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, should represent 40 % of all EEAS staff at AD level. Likewise, permanent EU officials should represent 60% of all EEAS staff at AD level, including staff coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States, who have become permanent EU officials, in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations. Each year, the High Representative shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the occupation of posts in the EEAS.
Amendment 93 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 9 b (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. The High Representative shall lay down the rules on mobility so as to ensure that the members of the staff of the EEAS are subject to a high degree of mobility within the EEAS services. Specific modalities shall apply to the personnel referred to in Article 4 (3), third indent. In principle, all EEAS staff shall periodically serve in Union delegations. The High Representative shall establish rules to that effect.
Amendment 94 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 10
Article 6 – paragraph 10
10. The procedures for recruiting staff for posts transferred to the EEAS which are on-going at the date of entry into force of this Decision shall remain valid: they shall be carIn accordance with the applicable provisions of its national law, each Member State shall provide its officials who have become temporary agents in the EEAS with a guarantee of immediate reinstatement at the end of their period of service to the EEAS. This perieod on and completed under the authority of the High Representativef service respects and the relevant vacancy notices shall be carried in accordance with the relevant vacancy notices and the applicable rules of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants1. In the course ofEU officials settrving upin the EEAS, representatives of the Member States, the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission shall be involved in the recruitment procedure for vacant posts in the EEAS. The staff of the EEAS central administration shall be made up of officials and ot shall have the right to apply for posts in their institution of origin on the same terms as internal applicants. 1 where servants from, respectively, relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. When the EEAS has reached its full capacity, staff from Member States should represent at least one third of all EEAS staff at AD level. Each year, the High Representative shall present a report touch provisions are necessary to establish the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. In parallel, necessary amendments should be made, in accordance with Article 336 of the TFEU, to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ("Staff Regulations") and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Council on the occupation of posts in the EEAS. mmunities ("CEOS") without prejudice to Article 298 TFEU.
Amendment 95 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Actions undertaken under the CFSP budget, the Instrument for Stability except the part referred to in the seventh indent of paragraph 2, the Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries, the Communication and Public Diplomacy as well as the Election Observation Missions are under the responsibility of the High Representative/EEAS. The Commission shall be responsible for their financial implementation under the authority of the High Representative in his/her capacity as Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission will make a declaration to the effect that the High Representative will have the necessary authority in this area, in full respect of the Financial Regulation. The Commission department responsible for this implementation shall be co-located with the EEAS.
Amendment 96 #
2010/0816(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Annex – paragraph 2 – introductory wording (new)
Annex – paragraph 2 – introductory wording (new)
In addition to the Council above mentioned staff, Commission staff in the departments and functions listed below can be transferred under the High Representative authority to the EEAS, within the limit of 60% set in Article 6 (9a).
Amendment 68 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish the minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come. In order to ensure that a citizens' initiative is representative of a Union interest, this number should be set at one third oftwo Member States.
Amendment 104 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
1. "Citizens" initiative" means an initiative, submitted to the Commission in accordance with the present Regulation, inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, which has received the support of at least one million eligible signatories coming from at least one third of alltwo Member States;
Amendment 134 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Proposed citizens' initiatives which can be reasonably The Commission shall register a proposed initiative within two months from its receipt when the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the citizens' committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated; (b) thereg arded as improper because they are abuse no manifest, significant inconsistencies between the different language versions of the title, subject- matter and objectives or devoid of seriousness will not be registered. f the proposed initiative; (c) the initiative does not manifestly fall outside the scope of the Commission’s power under the Treaties to submit a proposal for the requested legal act; (d) the proposed initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious; (e) the proposed initiative is in line with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
Amendment 139 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Amendment 144 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. If the Commission rejects a proposal for a citizen’s initiative, the organisers shall have an opportunity to submit the initiative to the European Parliament’s AFCO Committee, which will then discuss the content of the initiative and the Commission’s rejection.
Amendment 155 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The signatories of a citizens' initiative shall come from at least one third oftwo Member States.
Amendment 161 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. In one third ofeach Member States, signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens set out in Annex I.
Amendment 170 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Signatories shall be considered as coming from the Member State which issued the identification document indicatedere they have their permanent residence. Signatories having their permanent residence in a their statement of supportd country shall be considered as coming from the Member State of which they are nationals.
Amendment 180 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa. receive the organisers at an appropriate level to allow them to explain in detail the matters raised by the initiative and organise a public hearing on the subject-matter of the initiative, if appropriate jointly with other institutions or bodies of the EU;
Amendment 182 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
b. examine the citizens' initiative and, within 4 months, set out in a communication its conclusions on the initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reason present a proposal for a legal act within one year or include that proposal in its next year's fWor doing sok Programme.
Amendment 2 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, in case law which has remained consistent since the 1970s, the Court of Justice has held that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general legal principles which the Court enforces,
Amendment 4 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Court of Justice devotes particular attention to the development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as demonstrated by the growing number of judgments which refer to provisions of the ECHR, and need not itself develop this case law,
Amendment 6 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in principle the European Court of Human Rights makes a basic 'presumption of compatibility' of the conduct of a Member State of the Union with the ECHR when the State is merely implementing Community law,
Amendment 9 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union provides that the European Union shall accede to the ECHR and whereas Protocol No 8 to the Lisbon Treaty lists a series of points concerning which provision must be made at the time ofprior to that accession; whereas these provisions do not merely constitute an option allowing the Union to accede but require the Union institutions must be made for these points prior to thact accordingly,ession;
Amendment 17 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 1
Paragraph 1 – indent 1
– the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into its primary law, its accession to the ECHR will send a strong signal concerning the coherence between the Union and 'wider Europe', constituted by the Council of Europe and its pan-European human rights system; this accession will also enhance the credibility of the Union in the eyes of third countries which it regularly calls upon in its bilateral reports to respect the ECHR,
Amendment 21 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that, pursuant to neither the entry into force of the Charter within the Treaty, nor accession does notto the ECHR entails any extension of the powers of the Union and in particular does not create a general human rights competence for the Union;
Amendment 28 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Observes that the ECHR system has been supplemented by a series of additional protocols concerning the protection of rights which are not covered by the ECHR and suggests that the Union should accede to all the protocols which at least partially concern matters where the Union possesses powers (Nos 1, 4, 7 and 12);
Amendment 33 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – indent 3
Paragraph 5 – indent 3
– the right for the European Parliament to appoint/send a certain number of representatives, which should at least include participants from all groups of the European Parliament, to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when the latter elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights;
Amendment 38 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that any application by a citizen of the Union concerning an act or failure to act by an institution or body of the Union should be directed solely against the latter and that similarly any application concerning a measure by means of which a Member State implements the law of the Union should be directed solely against the Member State, without prejudice to the principle that, wif there can be any doubt as to the way in which responsibility for the act concerned is shared between the Union and the Member State is not clearly definis shared, an application may be brought simultaneously against the Union and the Member State;
Amendment 43 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 46 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that it would be unwise to formalise relations between the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights by establishing a preliminary ruling procedure before the latter or by creating a body or panel which would take decisions when one of the two courts intended to adopt an interpretation of the ECHR which differed from that adopted by the other; recalls in this context Declaration No 2 concerning Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which notes the existence of a regular dialogue between the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, which should be reinforced when the Union accedes to the ECHRRefers to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of the ECHR always takes precedence over any interpretation given by the Court;
Amendment 49 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the ECHR has an important function in connection with the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as rights guaranteed by the Charter which correspond to rights recognised by the ECHR must be interpreted in accordance with the Convention and as, by virtue of Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the ECHR constitutes a source of inspiration for the Court of Justice in the formulation of general principles of the Union's law; notes likewise that, pursuant to Article 53 of the ECHR, the Convention cannot be interpreted as limiting or adversely affecting the rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, so that the latter retains its full legal force;
Amendment 55 #
2009/2241(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 9 #
2009/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that any communication from one or more national parliaments on problems with the subsidiarity principle should be taken seriously, and calls in this connection for a dialogue to be initiated in every such case between the relevant European Parliament committee and the national parliament(s);
Amendment 10 #
2009/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses that there should be no material restrictions on what proposals may be submitted by citizens through the Citizens’ Initiative and are thus admissible by the EU institutions;
Amendment 11 #
2009/2142(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the vital importance of making simple, clear laws that EU citizens can understand. and that are in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 10 #
2009/2134(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
Amendment 18 #
2009/2134(INI)
Amendment 8 #
0000/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 11 #
0000/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 21 #
0000/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 34 #
0000/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 55 #
0000/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4