10 Amendments of Paulo RANGEL related to 2011/2276(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Suggests that the institutions involved in lawmaking should be reminded of the guidelines contained in Protocol 30 of the Amsterdam Treaty on the Application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in relation to the testing of the aforesaid principles, so as to foster their correct applicatneed to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are correctly applied under the terms of Protocol No 2 annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Suggests assessing whether appropriate criteria should be laid down, at EU level, for evaluating compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Union will take action only and insofar as the objectives of a planned measur, in areas not falling within its exclusive competence, only and insofar as the Member States cannot achieve the objectives sufficiently or if, by reason of the scan be better implemented at Union level; takes the view that the aforesaidle or effects of the proposed action, the Union can achieve them better; takes the view that subsidiarity, as an objective legal principle, as a dynamic concept, should be able to justifysociated with the concept of optimum level of action, may lead both to any extension of the activities of the Union within the framework of its powers, when circumstances so require, and, conversely, to the action concerned being restricted or curtailed where it is no longer justified;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that a distinction should be made between ane crucial importance of impact assessments and the principle of subsidiarity, becaus tools for aiding decision- making in the legislative process and stresses these are different concepts with a different focus, although the impact a need, in this context, proper consideration to be given to issuessment can bring ‘material’ to light for the subsidiarity test relating to subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the closer involvement of national parliaments in the European legislative process, particularly with regard to scrutinising legislative proposals in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers it appropriate to pursue the question of whether the small number of formal, reasoned opinions from national parliaments on the subsidiarity of measures, 34 in 2010, is due to the fact that the principle of subsidiarity is observed on all sides, or to the fact that the national parliaments are unable to enforce this principle because of a lack of resources; considers an analysis by the European Commission to be desirableNotes that, in 2010, 211 opinions were received from national parliaments, but that only a small number of them, 34, raised subsidiarity concerns;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes with concern that some opinions from national parliaments highlight the fact that, in a number of Commission proposals, the subsidiarity justification is insufficient or non-existent;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Notes further in this regard that the current timeframe for national parliaments to carry out subsidiarity and proportionality checks has often been considered insufficient;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Draws the conclusion from the legislative proceduresHighlights the need for the European investigated in the report, in which concerns were raised in relattutions , when submitting their respective assessments and opinions, to subsidiarity, that it is not possible to drawmake, as far as possible, a sharp distinction between subsidiarity arguments and general questions of suitability and practicality in the political process.