11 Amendments of Marco SCURRIA related to 2011/2024(INI)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the recognition process under the general system and the automatic system based on professional experience is overly cumbersome and time-consuming for both competent authorities and those who pursue certain professionals;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on Member States, therefore, preferably to use modern communication technologies, including databases and online registration procedures, in order to ensure that the deadlines set under the general recognition system are met and that significant improvements are made in terms of access to information and transparency of decision-making for professionals;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for further clarification of the concept of temporary and occasional provision of services; argues that competent authorities face difficulties applying the regime and, therefore, calls on the Commission to evaluate the current provisions set out in Article 7 of the directive, specifically those concerning public health and safety, and to evaluate the option of supplementing the above- mentioned provisions of Article 7(1) with a requirement to supply all information on the service provision that is relevant and necessary in order to assess its temporary and occasional nature, providing evidence that the service provider has no criminal convictions, and to present its conclusions to Parliament;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission, moreover, to evaluate the option of supplementing the provisions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 5(2) of the directive with the establishment for all professions of a benchmark proportionate to the number of times a service is provided (or number of days’ work) by local professionals in the host state;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that compensation measures, which allow competent authorities to impose an aptitude test or an adaptation period of up to three years and play an invaluable role in ensuring consumer and patient safety, can be applied in a disproportionate manner; calls for enhanced transparency of decision-making for professionals and an evaluation of the Code of Conduct to assist competent authoritiesthe protocols concerning recognition procedures for professionals once the specific nature of the individual professions has been evaluated;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that Member States should regulate professions in a more proportionate manner, with a view to reducing the total number of regulated professions in the EU, setting aside the healthcare sector and the tourism professions, owing to their specific, distinctive and atypical features;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 bis (new)
Paragraph 8 bis (new)
8a. Underlines, however, the importance of ensuring that the intellectual professions continue to be regulated, also in order to increase consumer protection;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Argues that the protection of consumer and patient safety is a vital objective in the context of the revision of the directive; draws attention to the special status of healthcare professionals and calls on the Commission to take into account also all other professions involving citizens and recipients of services;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that the concept of a voluntary Professional Card, which must be linked to an electronic database such as the IMI, could be a useful tool to aid mobility for some professions, excluding those (professions) for which the application of compensatory measures is required; stresses that any card introduced must meet specific conditions and that the necessary safeguards must be established;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission, prior to the introduction of any card solely at the request of the representatives of the respective professions, to provide evidence, through a thorough impact assessment, of the possible added value for the recognition process, beyond that provided by an enhanced IMI, of a voluntary card for certain professionals and competent authorities; argues that the impact assessment must address the concerns raised in the consultation and by numerous other stakeholders, assess the merits of an ‘e-card’, provide a cost-benefit analysis, specify its potential features and explain exactly how data protection and consumer safety would be ensured;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission, prior to the introduction of any card, to provide evidence, through a thorough impact assessment, of the possible added value for the recognition process, beyond that provided by an enhanced IMI, of a voluntary card for certain professionals and competent authorities; argues that the impact assessment must address the concerns raised in the consultation and by numerous other stakeholders, assess the merits of an ‘e-card’, provide a cost-benefit analysis, specify its potential features and explain exactly how data protection and completeness and consumer safety would be ensured, without prejudice to respect for the country of establishment principle;