Activities of Cristian Dan PREDA related to 2015/2283(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the Annual Report 2014 on subsidiarity and proportionality
Amendments (8)
Amendment 5 #
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 establish and particularly the introduction of roadmaps that include an initial justification for action related to subsidiarity and proportionality principles; equally welcomes the inclusion ing the existence of a violbetter regulation package of a more thorough explanation of how the legislative proposal meets the legal obligations of subsidiarity and proportionality principles should be proposed;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Strongly underlines that impact assessments are a key instrument to ensure the respect of subsidiarity and proportionality principles and promote accountability; encourages the European Commission to put a greater focus on subsidiarity and proportionality when conducting its impact assessments in the framework of the better regulation guidelines;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RegretNotes 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 towards the end of its term of office;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes the fact that in 2014, all EU institutions played an active role in ensuring the control of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality according to Article 5 of the TEU; notes positively that the political dialogue between the European Commission and the national parliaments was enhanced including through the various visits of EU Commissioners to national parliaments;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes, nevertheless, that it is important to raise the awareness of national parliaments on subsidiarity issues and to support them with tools permitting information exchange; stresses that, especially since the volume of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014 remained unchanged in proportion to the number of Commission proposals, a mechanism should be developed for the participation of national pencourages, in that sense, the inter-parliamentary cooperation to reinforce the role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process; stresses the importance of a better use of the inter-parliamentary tools that are at the national parliaments' disposal such as the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for EU Affairs, the inter-parliamentary meetings held by the European Parliaments in or the EU legislative processConference for Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Security and Defence Policy;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the national parliaments and the European Parliament to engage more effectively with each other including by developing informal contacts between MEPs and national parliamentarians regarding specific policy areas;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that the period of eight weeks given to national parliamentsTakes note of the request made by a number of national parliaments to extend the eight weeks period given to them to issue a reasoned opinion under the Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be extended significantly; ; believes that since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the involvement of national parliaments in EU affairs has developed significantly including by linking up with other national parliaments on a regular basis; strongly encourages national parliaments to make fully use of the role they are given by the existing treaties;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the Commission should provide an adequate response toreflect on the request by a number of national chambers for a stronger subsidiarity control procedure; supportstakes note of the request made by some national chambers to play a more crucial role,; by proposing that the Commission should be bound to withdraw or amend its proposal when a yellow card is triggered; believes, at the same time, that the idea of a ‘green card’ should be considered as one means ofelieves that this role could be strengthened by using the existing mechanisms in the treaties more effectively; recommends to further use the network of representatives of national parliaments to raise the awareness about the subsidiarity and proportionality principles and to improve the functioning of IPEX that should be considered as an indispensable tool for raising the participation and activity of national parliaments in the EU legislative process.