Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
2012/2308(INI) Location of the seats of the European Union's institutions
Lead committee dossier: AFCO/7/11302
Legal Basis RoP 048
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | AFCO | HÄFNER Gerald (Verts/ALE), FOX Ashley (ECR) | LE GRIP Constance (EPP), DROUTSAS Dimitrios (S&D), ILCHEV Stanimir (ALDE), SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo (GUE/NGL), MESSERSCHMIDT Morten (EFD) |
| Opinion | BUDG | ALVARO Alexander (ALDE) | |
| Opinion | PETI | CHICHESTER Giles (ECR) |
Legal Basis RoP 048
Subjects
Activites
-
2013/11/20
Vote in plenary scheduled
-
2013/11/19
Debate in Parliament
-
2013/10/23
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A7-0350/2013
summary
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Ashley FOX (ECR, UK) and Gerald HAFNER (Greens/EFA, DE) on the location of the seats of the European Union’s Institutions. It believed that the European Parliament, given that it is the only body directly representing the European citizens, should be granted the prerogative of determining its own working arrangements, including the right to decide where and when it holds its meetings. The current situation is that, in accordance with Article 341 TFEU, Member States have determined the seat of the institutions: Protocol 6 annexed to the Treaties establishes that Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg, where 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions – including the budget session – shall be held, that the periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels, that its committees shall meet in Brussels, and that its General Secretariat and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg. The committee agreed with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place. Members note that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has amongst most EU citizens become a symbolic, negative issue detrimental to the European Union’s reputation, especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful expenditure cuts in the Member States. The report noted that the additional annual costs resulting from the geographic dispersion of Parliament have been estimated to range between EUR 156 million and EUR 204 million, equivalent to approximately 10 % of Parliament’s annual budget, while the environmental impact is also significant, with the CO2 emissions associated with the transfers to and from the three working locations estimated to be between 11 000 and 19 000 tonnes. Treaty revision procedure: Members considered it perfectly legitimate to launch a debate on its right to determine its own working arrangements, including the right to decide where and when it is to meet. Accordingly, they committed themselves to initiating an ordinary treaty revision procedure under Article 48 TEU with a view to proposing the changes to Article 341 TFEU and Protocol 6 necessary to allow Parliament to decide on the location of its seat and its internal organisation. They also called on the Parliament not to make any recommendations regarding the seats of the other EU institutions. The committee asked the Court of Auditors, or a similar independent agency, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for the EU budget if Parliament had Brussels as its only seat. This analysis should include budgetary aspects and ancillary costs such as savings made through reduced loss of working time and greater efficiency. Furthermore, the committee asked the Bureau to commission Eurobarometer, or a similar professional polling service, to conduct, by 1 January 2014, a survey of the European citizens’ views on the prospect of maintaining Parliament’s three places of work, with specific reference to the financial, environmental and efficiency costs of this arrangement. Lastly, Members acknowledged that any future decision by Parliament on its working arrangements must allow sufficient time for debate and reflection, as well as for an orderly transition.
-
A7-0350/2013
summary
-
2013/10/14
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2013/09/26 Amendments tabled in committee
- 2013/07/05 Amendments tabled in committee
- 2013/06/06 Committee draft report
-
2012/11/22
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee draft report: PE513.103
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE514.747
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE519.753
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0350/2013
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 340 |
2012/2308(INI)
2013/06/24
PETI
164 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -A a (new) -Aa. having regard to Article 341 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the former Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Points to the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its own CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010, meaning that these now represent 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 e (new) 2e. Emphasises that Strasbourg has come to be viewed by the public as the European capital of democracy and human rights owing to the institutions that are based there, among them the European Parliament;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 e (new) 2e. Adds that the carbon footprint for travel for committee, political group and delegation meetings, which increased by 23.8% between 2006 and 2010, is significantly larger (6 350 tonnes of CO2 in 2010) than that for Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg (4 199 tonnes of CO2 en 2010);
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 f (new) 2f. Emphasises that the public associates the city of Brussels with the European Commission, while the city of Strasbourg continues to be associated with the European Parliament;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 f (new) 2f. Considers that the success of the open days held every year at the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, the 100 000 visitors each year outside part-sessions and the 10 000 students from the Euroscola Programme indicate that the European public have in no way rejected the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 g (new) 2g. Expresses concern at the steady increase (+23.8% between 2006 and 2010) in the number of committee, political group and delegation meetings held outside the European Parliament’s places of work;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 g (new) 2g. Points out that holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 - ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and Follow-up to the Discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 h (new) 2h. Notes that the carbon footprint for travel in connection with these meetings was 6 350 tonnes of CO2 en 2010, while for the seat in Strasbourg it was 4 199 tonnes that year;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 i (new) 2i. Notes that economic and environmental costs could be rationalised by limiting the number of meetings held outside the European Parliament’s official places of work;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and calls therefore for amending the Treaty requirements
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting that the
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects and underlines the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system;
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system; nevertheless insists that such an arrangement cannot continue in perpetuity and that Parliament itself must be able to state a preference for its future in line with the democratic principles which it seeks to uphold;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system; nevertheless insists that such an arrangement cannot continue in perpetuity and that
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A – point 1 (new) (1) whereas, on the basis of Article 341 TFEU, the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union forms an integral part of the Treaties and thus of EU primary law, having been ratified, as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules;
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the
Amendment 122 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Respects the historic and symbolic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new) (1) Adds that all new European agencies and institutions should be created in the new Member States;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) Points out, too, that Parliament’s Strasbourg seat, which achieved a 57% reduction in CO2 emissions between 2006 and 2010, is leading the way on respect for the environment and that, as data compiled by Parliament’s Secretariat shows, its detractors have substantially overestimated its annual costs;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) Points out that Croatia, as the 28th Member State of the Union as of 1 July 2013, is bound to seek the siting of a future EU agency or institution on its territory;
Amendment 127 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Draws attention to and respects the Treaty requirements that necessitate the system of one seat and three places of work;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that the question of the seat also effects the location of the European Ombudsman, which currently holds office space in both Strasbourg and Brussels; believes that the Ombudsman should be consulted as his working conditions and given a choice as to the location for his administration; asks that article 13 of the Parliament's Decision on the performance of the Ombudsman's duties be reviewed;
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Draws attention to the emblematic nature of the city of Strasbourg, symbolising as it does reconciliation between Germany and the other nations of Europe;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A – point 2 (new) (2) having regard to the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 December 2012 in joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11 opposing France and Parliament, which annuls Parliament’s decision of 9 March 2011;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underscores the symbolic and historical importance of the European Parliament’s location in Strasbourg as part of the process of European reconciliation;
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the relevant services of the European Parliament to make an assessment of the agreement between the authorities in Luxembourg and the European Parliament, on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg, taking into account a revision of the Parliament's needs; this assessment shall include suggestions on how to renegotiate this agreement, without prejudice to the legal provisions;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Points out that Parliament’s initiatives on determining for itself the matter of its seat – which is in Strasbourg – were set aside by the Court of Justice in its ruling of 13 December 2012 and that, therefore, any action on Parliament’s part to establish the seats of the EU institutions is in breach of the very Treaties which it sees itself as defending in its capacity as the democratic voice of Europe’s citizens;
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Points out that, pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, revision of the Treaties requires a political-level decision by the European Council;
Amendment 134 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Recognises the educational and civic value of Parliament’s Strasbourg seat, which attracts 100 000 visitors a year outside part-session periods, as well as 10 000 students on the Euroscola programme;
Amendment 135 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the European Union;
Amendment 136 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls on Parliament's Administration to procure for Eurobarometer or similar professional polling service to conduct a survey of EU citizens' views on the maintenance of Parliament's split site working arrangement by 1 January 2014, with specific reference to the financial, environmental and efficiency costs of this arrangement;
Amendment 137 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Points out that the European Union has developed in a polycentric way, with the EU institutions and agencies located, insofar as possible, throughout all the Member States, so as to bring decision making closer to the people and avoid an unwelcome concentration of power;
Amendment 138 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Recognises that efforts are needed to improve working conditions during ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 139 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A a (new) Aa. whereas the European Parliament has had its seat in Strasbourg since 1952, a situation confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, and not altered by the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 140 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Points out that it is fundamentally important to Europe’s citizens that decisions are taken in more than one place;
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3d. Considers that choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 142 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 143 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 144 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 145 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 146 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 147 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 148 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for Parliament to express its view as to whether the current arrangement should continue; and if an appropriate majority vote is recorded, recommends that Parliament
Amendment 149 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 150 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 151 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 152 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 153 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 154 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new) (1) Considers that the so-called petition No 0630/2006 is not in fact a petition because it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of petitions to Parliament under Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure (formerly Rule 191(2)) inasmuch as it does not show the nationality and permanent address of each petitioner, and that, by implication, electronic signatures on a petition are not admissible and there can be no guarantee as to the real or virtual level of support for this initiative;
Amendment 155 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on Parliament to reject the report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the location of the seats of the EU institutions, which is at odds with the Treaties.
Amendment 156 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Reminds the Committee on Constitutional Affairs that there is no restriction on Parliament’s right to organise its own work but that the matter of its seat remains fixed by the Treaties;
Amendment 157 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that the own-initiative report cannot be used as means of circumventing the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there.
Amendment 158 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers, in the light of the foregoing, that the first-named petitioner in petition No 0630-2006 is the only one to meet the admissibility criteria and that this means the so-called petition has received just one signature;
Amendment 159 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Asks that the figures cited in the report on the cost of Parliament’s places of work, and in particular the annual costs and the carbon footprint figures, should not be lifted directly from hostile campaign information but should be properly researched on the basis of verifiable data supplied by Parliament's Secretariat.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A b (new) Ab. whereas the real annual cost of retaining the Strasbourg seat in 2010 was EUR 51.5 million, i.e. 0.04 % of the annual budget of the European Union or 10 cents per citizen per year;
Amendment 160 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Finds it regrettable that this debate should focus on a matter which concerns 0.04% of the EU budget at a time when people want to see an overall Union budget capable of responding adequately to the financial difficulties that Member States are experiencing;
Amendment 161 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Asks Parliament’s Legal Service to specify whether such a report on the location of the seats of the EU institutions is lawful;
Amendment 162 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 d (new) 4d. Considers that petitions about the seats of the EU institutions should be forwarded to the Member States, which alone are empowered to take decisions in the matter;
Amendment 163 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 e (new) 4e. Considers that the own-initiative report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs can have no legal impact;
Amendment 164 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 f (new) 4f. Points out that Parliament may be consulted on the question of the seats of the European institutions only prior to the convening by the Council of an intergovernmental conference and that there are no plans for such a conference.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A b (new) Ab. having regard to the requirements set out in the Treaty, which, following the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, has formally laid down for Parliament an arrangement involving a seat in Strasbourg and two other sites in Brussels and Luxembourg;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A c (new) Ac. whereas the gross cost of holding plenary sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and whereas 80 % of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where a given part-session is held (equipment, publications, translation, etc.);
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A c (new) Ac. whereas the seats of some European institutions were chosen on account of their symbolic significance, one such example being Strasbourg, the city which symbolises the process of Franco-German reconciliation which is at the root of the European peace project;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -A b (new) -Ab. having regard to the Edinburgh European Council of 11 and 12 December 1992;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A d (new) Ad. whereas mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of an MEP, requiring at least a large number of journeys between the European Parliament, the MEP’s Member State of origin and the constituency in which the MEP was elected;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A d (new) Ad. whereas, in accordance with the sole article of Protocol No 6 annexed to the TFEU, the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, the Council has its seat in Brussels, the Commission has its seat in Brussels, the Court of Justice of the European Union has its seat in Luxembourg, the Court of Auditors has its seat in Luxembourg, the Economic and Social Committee has its seat in Brussels, the Committee of the Regions has its seat in Brussels, the European Investment Bank has its seat in Luxembourg, the European Central Bank has its seat in Frankfurt and the European Police Office (Europol) has its seat in The Hague;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A e (new) Ae. having regard to Parliament’s Environmental Statement for 2010, issued in May 2011, and in particular pages 68 to 70;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A f (new) Af. having regard to the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and follow-up to the discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A g (new) Ag. having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 December 2012 in Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B B. whereas
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B B. whereas one of these petitions (0630/2006) does not bear
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B – subparagraph 1 (new) whereas in this time of crisis, the European Parliament should demonstrate the principle of solidarity with its citizens by focusing more closely on making administrative savings;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B a (new) Ba. whereas there were historical reasons for the decision to hold part-sessions in Strasbourg, in particular the symbolic significance of that city and the need to have a multi-centre European Union;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B a (new) Ba. whereas, pursuant to the former Rule 191(2) and the current Rule 201(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, petitions to Parliament ‘shall show the name, nationality and permanent address of each petitioner’, which ‘petition’ 0630/2006 clearly does not do;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -A (new) -A. having regard to the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice on 1 October 1997 in Case C-345/95 confirming that the seat of the European Parliament is fixed in accordance with Article 289 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B b (new) Bb. whereas petitions and the more recently introduced European Citizen’s Initiative must not be used for polemical purposes by representatives of EU citizens;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B b (new) Bb. whereas, under the Treaties, the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions are held;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph B c (new) Bc. whereas the city of Strasbourg is associated in people’s minds with the European Parliament, and whereas the seating capacity for visitors is much greater in the Strasbourg than in the Brussels Chamber, which represents an asset for the seat of European democracy;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C C. whereas since 2006 attempts by the Petitions Committee to consider this issue on a parliamentary level have
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C C. whereas since 2006 attempts by the Petitions Committee to consider this issue on a parliamentary level have repeatedly been obstructed despite the widespread interest in the issue from European citizens and amongst MEPs;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -A (new) -A. having regard to Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C C. whereas since 2006
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C C. whereas since 2006 attempts by the Petitions Committee to consider this issue on a parliamentary level have repeatedly been obstructed despite the widespread interest in the issue amongst MEPs; whereas such a lack of transparency is completely at odds with the values of integrity, rectitude and democracy which Parliament should embody;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C C. whereas since 2006 attempts by the Petitions Committee to consider this issue on a parliamentary level have
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C – subparagraph 1 (new) whereas it appreciates that some Members of the European Parliament have difficulties of access to certain institutions or agencies because of certain problems in road, rail or air services, but does not consider that this should be the subject of a report or petition, in view of the difficulties encountered in everyday life by many fellow citizens, which would give the impression that Members of the European Parliament are out of touch with the realities facing the people of Europe;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C a (new) Ca. whereas the official seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg is provided for by the Treaties;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C a (new) Ca. whereas Article 341 TFEU lays down that the seats of the institutions of the European Union are ‘determined by common accord of the governments of the Member States’.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C a (new) Ca. whereas, in the organisation of democracies, there is no rule indicating that it is the parliament that decides on its seat and whereas, moreover, in many Member States, parliament’s seat is laid down either in the Constitution or by law or by decision of the government, but not by means of a particular decision by the parliament itself;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C a (new) Ca. whereas two judgments given by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 1997 and 2012 recalled that the TFEU locates the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg and whereas the conditions for the application of Protocol No 6 have been clarified;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C a (new) Ca. whereas MEPs have repeatedly requested the Parliament's Administration procure for a Eurobarometer survey which asks European citizens for their views on Parliament's split-site arrangement;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C a (new) Ca. whereas petitions are not an instrument for evading the Treaties but an instrument for use by European citizens to improve EU legislation which creates obstacles in their everyday life or to provide them with assistance so as to support them if their rights as citizens are disregarded;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C b (new) Cb. whereas the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C b (new) Cb. whereas the issue of the European Parliament’s seat can only be considered in the context of a debate on the seats of all the European institutions;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C b (new) Cb. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C b (new) Cb. whereas the concept of mobility is inherent in the work of Members of the European Parliament to enable them to come closer to European citizens, whereas the Committee on Petitions regularly invites petitioners to comment on their petitions by inviting them to the European Parliament in Brussels and whereas this work of contact with citizens should not be confined to one direction;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C c (new) Cc. whereas the EU Court of Justice has given two judgments – in 1997 and 2012 – whose gist was the same;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C c (new) Cc. whereas Strasbourg has been the meeting place of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 1949 and then, from 1952, played host to the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C c (new) Cc. whereas, if a debate is initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it will inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty, and whereas the budgetary discharges of the European agencies could be affected by it;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C d (new) Cd. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C e (new) Ce. whereas the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions is based on the principle of polycentrism;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph C f (new) Cf. whereas, if a debate is initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it will inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new) Considers that the only possible way of amending the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol’ is by means of a Treaty revision pursuant to Article 48 TEU, which requires an initiative by a Member State or the European Commission;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A A. whereas
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that only the Member States have the power to amend the Treaties, the substance of which is binding on the Institutions and their members, and that a vote on this subject can only be carried unanimously;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers, however, that it is time to stop the polemics concerning the cost of the Strasbourg seat; calls therefore for the figures provided by official sources within the European Parliament to be quoted clearly in the annexes to the own- initiative report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, including pages 68-70 of the Environmental Declaration of the European Parliament of May 2011 concerning the ‘environmental impact of the Strasbourg seat’ and page 40 of the document of the European Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘REPLIES AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE DISCHARGE FOR 2010’ on the annual cost of the Strasbourg seat;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Recalls that, on this basis, twelve monthly plenary part-sessions, including the budgetary part-session, must be held at the Strasbourg seat, while additional part-sessions are held in Brussels;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Does not considers that a majority exists within the Council in favour of altering the seat of any European Institution, bearing in mind that this would send an undesirable message to citizens, which would be interpreted as expressing a desire on the part of the Member States to make the European Union’s decision-making bodies more remote from the European citizen;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Stresses that the additional part- sessions entail a substantial additional cost, which could be reduced by extending ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Notes the intention of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report which will make it possible to recall that the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Recalls that European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) have the purpose of securing the adoption of a legal act of the Union which does not amend primary law, whereas any call for amendment of the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Union’ would entail amendment of a primary legal act, which is not compatible with the regulation;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A A.
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputation; also considers that, in view of the structural crisis that is raging on in the European Union and the budgetary position of both the EU itself and its Member States, European citizens can no longer be expected to tolerate a situation where a sum currently amounting to around EUR 200 million is being spent on this type of travelling;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputation; considers that the European Institutions, which approved the imposition of fiscal austerity in many Member States, must now respect the fact that harsh sacrifices have been imposed on hundreds of millions of citizens in those countries and must therefore not engage in needless public spending;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph A A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting that the establishment of the European Parliament in more than one place of work be discontinued;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new) emphasises that the gross cost of holding part-sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and that 80% of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where the part-session is held, be they for equipment, publications or translation, etc.;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out that in acceding to the European Union, Member States undertook to respect the values, principles and symbols of that Union;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010 by taking special measures, meaning that these now represent 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Asks the Administration to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for our budget if the Parliament had only one place of work, in Brussels; asks that this analysis includes the budgetary aspects and the ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers it inappropriate in the European Year of Citizens to show these selfsame European citizens that the idea is to distance them from EU institution decision-making centres, and also believes that prevailing Euroscepticism would use this is a reason to criticise an over-concentration of decision-making bodies in one set place;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Considers that deciding the seats of EU institutions lies outside the remit of the European Parliament; points out that the ECB in Frankfurt is building new premises for itself, that the Council in Brussels will soon have new buildings, and that investments have been made in the European Parliament in Strasbourg in recent years to make it a parliament worthy of the centre of European democracy;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Points to the economic and social importance of the European Parliament for the Strasbourg region;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Points to the tradition of geographical diversity in the siting of EU institutions;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Emphasises that almost 95% of the EU budget is intended for investment and hence for the public, adding that the European Union, with such a small and deficit-less operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, stands as an example in these times of crisis;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Stresses that concentrating EU powers in the city of Brussels would adversely effect the way the European public views the EU;
source: PE-513.022
2013/07/05
AFCO
124 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 – having regard to Articles 232 and 341 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and to the fact that the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union forms an integral part of the Treaties and thus of EU primary law, having been ratified, as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Commits itself, therefore, to initiate an ordinary treaty revision procedure under Article 48 TEU with a view to propos
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Commits itself, therefore, to initiat
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new) Considers it inappropriate in the European Year of Citizens to show these self-same European citizens that the idea is to distance them from EU institution decision-making centres, and also believes that the prevailing Euroscepticism would use this as a reason to criticise an over- concentration of decision-making bodies in one set place;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises that the Committee’s report was prepared under the ordinary own-initiative procedure and there is thus no obligation to implement the proposals, and further that the matter of the EU institutions’ seats is governed directly by the Treaties and is therefore subject to the political will of the Member States acting unanimously;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Recalls that the Court of Justice of the EU has held that Parliament, during the proceedings before the Court, did not adduce reasons based on the exercise of its power of internal organisation sufficient to show – despite the continuous increase in its powers – that it had the power to alter the timetable of part-sessions; stresses, therefore, that the European Parliament likewise does not now have the power to decide where its seat should be;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Decides not to make any recommendations regarding the seats of the
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Maintains that it will be necessary to evaluate the financial and economic consequences entailed in a change of Parliament’s seat, or as regards its places of work, and to agree on an appropriate compromise whereby existing Parliament buildings can continue to be used;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for the figures on the cost of the European Parliament’s three places of work to be perfectly objectively and transparently researched on the basis of verifiable data supplied by Parliament's Secretariat;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges that any
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Acknowledges that any future decision by Parliament on its working arrangements must allow sufficient time for debate and reflection, as well as for an orderly transition; requests a study into the one- off cost of moving all parliament's activities to a single working location;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Acknowledges that the European Parliament must, in consultation with the various authorities in Belgium which have powers relating to Brussels, devise measures to keep the city of Brussels, particularly the districts around the European Parliament, safe, accessible for traffic, a source of amenity and quality of life and affordable, including for the city’s original residents;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Respects the historical and symbolic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that establish the seat of the European Parliament as being in Strasbourg and stipulate that the European Parliament must hold its twelve monthly plenary sessions there, as the ECJ confirmed in its judgment of 13 December 2012;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that this own-initiative report must not be used as a means of disregarding the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Points out that Parliament may be consulted on the question of the seats of the European institutions only prior to the convening by the Council of an intergovernmental conference and that there are no plans for such a conference;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 – having regard to the petition gathered in 2006 by the One Seat campaign, which was not signed by more than 1.2 million EU citizens, signature being required for compliance with Rule 201(2) (Rule 191(2) when the petition was deposited) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, since the it does not meet the signature admissibility criteria, and having regard moreover to the fact that its originators are MEPs seeking to circumvent the Treaties and that the petition therefore bears only one valid signature, namely that of the petitioner,
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Observes that, if a debate were initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it would inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of all the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Asks the Administration to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for our budget if the parliament had only one place of work, in Brussels; asks that this analysis includes the budgetary aspects and the ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Asks the Administration to procure that EMAS or suitable external consultants provide an analysis of the environmental aspects if the parliament held all its plenary sessions in Brussels;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Asks the Administration to procure that the parliament's Medical Service provide an analysis of the health effects of the monthly session in Strasbourg on Members, staff and assistants;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 – having regard to Rules 5.3, 29, 41, 48 and 74a of its Rules of Procedure,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 a (new) – having regard to the parliament's vote on 23 October 2012, which saw a majority of 78% of Members call on EU governments to revise the issue of parliament's official seat; Strasbourg;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A (new) -A. whereas the European Parliament plays a distinct and unique role as the only institution that is directly elected by and accountable to European citizens, and since its role has undergone the most significant changes amongst all institutions since its creation, this report will primarily focus on the seat and working arrangements of the European Parliament;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A a (new) -Aa. whereas the decision by member states on these seats was reached in a broader deal, taking into account the historical development of the European Union and its institutions as well as considerations of geographical dispersion;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A b (new) -Ab. whereas Member States have done so in Protocol 6 annexed to the Treaties, establishing Brussels as seat of the Commission, the Council - with its meetings to be held in Luxembourg during the months of April, June and October -, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the regions, Luxembourg as seat of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank, Frankfurt as seat of the European Central Bank and The Hague as seat of the European Police Office;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A c (new) -Ac. whereas Article 341 TFEU establishes that the seat of the institutions of the Union shall be determined by common accord of the governments of the Member States;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A (new) -A. whereas arrangements affecting Parliament’s right of organisational self- determination are among the foremost concerns for a parliamentary system;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas Article 341 TFEU and Protocol 6 annexed to the Treaties establish that the seats of the Union’s institutions shall be determined unanimously by the Member States, that Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held, that the periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels, that its committees shall meet in Brussels, and that its General Secretariat and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas, pursuant to former Rule 191(2) and current Rule 201(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, petitions to Parliament ‘shall show the name, nationality and permanent address of each petitioner’, which ‘petition’ 0630/2006 clearly does not do;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the protocols on the seats of the institutions are governed by mutual respect for the respective powers of the Member States and of Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas each of the six founding countries wanted to host the seat of one of the institutions; whereas, accordingly, the location of Parliament’s seat is the product of compromise; whereas Strasbourg - a French city on the border with Germany - was chosen as the seat, symbolising the reunification of Europe and the building of a new, shared history;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas petitions and the more recently introduced European Citizens’ Initiative must not be used for polemical purposes by representatives of EU citizens;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas petitions are not an instrument for evading the Treaties but an instrument for use by European citizens to improve EU legislation which creates obstacles in their everyday life or to provide them with assistance so as to support them if their rights as citizens are disregarded;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B c (new) Bc. whereas European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) have the purpose of securing the adoption of a legal act of the Union which does not amend primary law; whereas any call for amendment of the ‘Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Union’ would entail amendment of a primary legal act, which is not compatible with the regulation;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Article 232 TFEU allows Parliament to adopt its own rules of procedure
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Article 232 TFEU allows Parliament to adopt its own rules of procedure and to determine the length of plenary sessions, as laid down in the Treaties;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 2 – having regard to Protocol 6, annexed to the Treaties, on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, under which the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, the Council has its seat in Brussels, the Commission has its seat in Brussels, the Court of Justice of the European Union has its seat in Luxembourg, the Court of Auditors has its seat in Luxembourg, the Economic and Social Committee has its seat in Brussels, the Committee of the Regions has its seat in Brussels, the European Investment Bank has its seat in Luxembourg, the European Central Bank has its seat in Frankfurt and the European Police Office (Europol) has its seat in The Hague,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Article 232 TFEU
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas according to historical and constitutional tradition, parliaments, as the bodies directly representing citizens, have had the prerogative of determining how their affairs should be organised and hence of deciding where to have their seat;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it has further stated that there are disadvantages and costs engendered by the plurality of working locations, but also that
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it has further stated that there are disadvantages and costs engendered by the plurality of working locations, but also that any
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas on two occasions, in 1997 and 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union pointed out that the fact that Parliament’s seat is in Strasbourg is determined by the TFEU; whereas it has also confirmed Protocol No 6 in clarifying the conditions for the application thereof; whereas it has fully acknowledged the power of Parliament to determine its own internal organisational arrangements, since Parliament may adopt appropriate measures to ensure its proper functioning and proper conduct of its proceedings, but the question of determining its seat does not come within that remit;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas Parliament
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas Strasbourg has been the meeting place of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 1949 and then, from 1952, played host to the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E b (new) Eb. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 a (new) – having regard to former Rule 191(2) and current Rule 201(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the increase in legislative activity and responsibility is reflected in
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the structure of Parliament’s calendar (fixed during the Edinburgh Summit in 1992)
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the structure of Parliament’s calendar (fixed during the Edinburgh Summit in 1992) predates all changes to its
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the structure of Parliament’s calendar (fixed during the Edinburgh Summit in 1992) predates all changes to its role arising from the adoption of the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon; whereas, under the Edinburgh compromise, it was determined that Parliament’s seat is Strasbourg - a decision subsequently incorporated into the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas the fact of geographical distance between the official seats of the co-
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas the fact of geographical distance between the official seats of the co-
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 4 Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas, according to figures acknowledged by Parliament’s Secretariat, the additional annual costs resulting from the geographic dispersion of Parliament have
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M – footnote 4 Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M – footnote 4 Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M – footnote 5 Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M – footnote 5 Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M – footnote 5 5
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M a (new) Ma. whereas the current working arrangements of the European Parliament also imposes additional costs and travel on the other European Union institutions, in particular the European Commission and Council, EU member states' representations, journalists and civil society representatives;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N N. whereas
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N a (new) Na. having regard to the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010, meaning that these now represent only 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N b (new) Nb. whereas the gross cost of holding part-sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and whereas 80% of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where the part- session is held, be they for equipment, publications or translation, etc.;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas the
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) – having regard to Parliament’s Environmental Statement for 2010, issued in May 2011, and in particular pages 68 to 70,
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O a (new) Oa. whereas it is regrettable that this debate should focus on a matter which concerns 0.04% of the EU’s annual budget at a time when people want to see an overall Union budget capable of responding adequately to the financial difficulties that Member States are experiencing;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O a (new) Oa. whereas Euro-scepticism is growing at an increasing rate in some Member States and whereas Parliament, the only institution to be elected directly, has to stand for greater credibility and greater closeness to citizens;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas Parliament, since its suggestion in 1958 to be sited in proximity to the Council and the Commission, has
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P a (new) Pa. whereas, beside economic, environmental and geographical concerns, aesthetic considerations should also play a role in determining the seat of the European Parliament;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas citizens of the EU
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas citizens of the EU – including
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q a (new) Qa. whereas, in the organisation of democracies, there are no rules indicating that it is the parliament that decides on its seat and whereas, moreover, in many Member States, parliament’s seat is laid down either in the Constitution or by law or by decision of the government, but not by means of a particular decision by the parliament itself;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 b (new) – having regard to the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and follow-up to the discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q a (new) Qa. whereas several petitions have been submitted requesting either that the European Parliament should no longer have its seat in Strasbourg or that Parliament’s seat should continue to be located in Strasbourg in accordance with Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaty on European Union;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q b (new) Qb. whereas the success of the open days held every year at the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, the 100 000 visitors each year outside part- sessions and the 10 000 students from the Euroscola Programme indicate that the European public have in no way rejected the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q c (new) Qc. whereas the so-called petition No 0630/2006 is not in fact a petition because it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of petitions to Parliament under Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure (formerly Rule 191(2)) inasmuch as it does not show the nationality and permanent address of each petitioner, and whereas, by implication, electronic signatures on a petition are not admissible and there can be no guarantee as to the real or virtual level of support for this initiative;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q a (new) Qa. whereas Members have repeatedly requested up-to-date breakdowns of the financial, environmental and social costs of the parliament's working arrangements, because the Administration has yet to produce a consistent and coherent set of figures;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q a (new) Qa. whereas it is necessary to consider the impact which a change to the existing arrangement would have on the quality of life in the city of Brussels, particularly the affordability of housing for the residents of Brussels itself;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Notes that in addition to the subjects dealt with in this report, there are other essential matters directly related to Parliament’s status and its function within the EU institutional machinery and – on those points – convincing solutions have yet to be found; notes that these unresolved questions include electoral law, rules for a no-protest zone, immunity matters, and points related to the Statute for Members and that they should either be encompassed within Parliament’s right of organisational self-determination, exercised in the form of a general decision-making power, or, at the very least, be brought within the scope of the ordinary legislative procedure based on codecision;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Believes that
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Believes that
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 – footnote 3 3. Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11, France v Parliament, the judgment in which annulled Parliament’s votes of 9 March 2011.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Believes that Parliament should
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Believes that Parliament should have the right to determine its own working arrangements, including the right to decide where and when it holds its meetings, without prejudice to the Treaties;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Believes that
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Points out that holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 - ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and follow-up to the discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Respects the historical reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the system of a single seat and three places of work;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Considers that the choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 e (new) 1e. Considers it perfectly legitimate for the European Parliament to consider launching a debate on its right to determine its own working arrangements, including the right to decide where and when it is to meet;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 source: PE-514.747
2013/07/17
BUDG
43 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Citation – having regard to its
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Recital A c (new) Ac. whereas the 2002 Secretary-General's estimate was confirmed by the joint working group report of the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets on Parliament's budget for 2012, when complementing the EUR 148 million estimate by the EUR 25 million of annual amortisation cost for the Strasbourg buildings that need to be taken into account since the purchase of named buildings;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas the
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas the time incurred in 2011 due to the monthly travel to the four-day plenary part-session was 69 562 days for officials and other agents (of which 3,115 mission days from Information Offices would also be incurred if Parliament were located in a single place) and 31 316 days for accredited parliamentary assistants, costing € 16 652 490 for officials and other agents and € 5 944 724 for accredited parliamentary assistants;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas the time incurred in 2011 due to the monthly travel
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Recital C Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas these figures do not show the cost
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas these figures do not
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas a reply given to the EP Budgetary Control Committee in preparation for the EP discharge for 2011 does not provide estimates on the potential savings, but only a partial estimate of the additional costs of the Strasbourg seat; whereas this EUR 55 million estimate does not include many budget lines that were included in previous and following estimates, namely the cost of data processing, equipment and movable property, travel expenses of political groups as well as any potential savings connected to time lost travelling (totalling EUR 68 million); whereas this estimate provides lower numbers on several budget lines than both previous and following estimates without providing any justification (totalling EUR 25 million);
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas Article 341 TFEU and Protocol 6 annexed to the Treaties establish that the seat of the institutions of the Union shall be determined by common accord of the governments of the Member States, that Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held, that the periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels, that its committees shall meet in Brussels, and that its General Secretariat and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas Parliament’s estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas none of these estimates includes the additional costs of the European Parliament's geographic dispersion on the other European Union institutions, in particular the European Commission and Council, EU member states' representations, journalists and civil society representatives;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Recital C c (new) Cc. whereas ¾ of members believe that the EP should find significant structural savings and these could be found in re- evaluating the EP's geographical dispersion of places of work, illustrated by a breakdown of the costs of Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg set out in a transparent and credible format to standards expected from a major public body;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Recital C d (new) Cd. whereas the historical reasons for the European bodies permanently seated in Strasbourg are well-known in respect e.g. the European Court for Human Rights and the Council of Europe, and while the European Assembly /Parliament for convenience initially used the latter's Chamber, the choice of Brussels as the seat of the European Commission and of NATO reflect the EU's aspirations for a continent progressively united in prosperity and security;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Recital C e (new) Ce. whereas situating the co-legislators of the EU in a single place does not undermine the tradition of polycentrism in the EU but bears significant efficiency and transparency gains for EU citizens;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Recital C f (new) Cf. whereas, in many Member States, parliament's seat is laid down either in the Constitution or by law and whereas the European Parliament is a co-legislator of European law and can call for changes of the European treaties under article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Recital C g (new) Cg. whereas during the European Year of Citizens it is appropriate to show that their voice is not only heard but that their directly elected representatives are taking action on their behalf in order to end the monthly travel between the EP's places of work;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Recital C h (new) Ch. whereas the European institutions must do everything to further European political integration and bridge the perceived distance from citizens by tackling a major structural issue of the institutions and promoting European understanding, transparency, accountability and coherence by having the EU's decision making bodies in one place;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Recital C i (new) Ci. whereas 6% of the EU budget is intended for administrative purposes and that the European Union, with a relatively small operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, must set an example in these times of crisis by streamlining its own budgetary impact as much as possible without prejudice to the proper functioning of the European Parliament, adding that the efficiency gains of having a single seat near the co-legislator cannot be ignored;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Asks the Administration for an analysis of the savings that could be made if the European Parliament had only one place of work
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Asks the Administration for an objective analysis of the
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas Parliament's estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs directly related to the dispersion estimated at EUR 1
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Asks the Administration
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Asks the Administration for an analysis of the savings that could be made if Parliament had only one place of work to be carried out without delay; asks that, in order to identify savings for greater efficiency, this should include not only structural costs (buildings, maintenance, security, insurance, energy, environmental impact, travel, logistics, restaurants, etc.) but also ancillary costs;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the relevant services of the European Parliament to make an assessment of the agreement between the authorities in Luxembourg and the European Parliament, especially on the provisions related to the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg, taking into account Parliament's needs; considers that this assessment should include an analysis and comparisons on the most cost-efficient location for Parliament's services, as Parliament might benefit from having some of these outsourced from its' main location;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Ask the Administration for a comparative analysis of the savings that could be made by allocating the working place of the Parliament solely in Brussels while moving the European Council meetings to Strasbourg. This analysis should include structural as well as ancillary costs;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that while the seats of the European Institutions are enshrined in the Treaties, so is article 48, which allows for a proposal for treaty change;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Agrees that Parliament would be mo
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas Parliament’s estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Agrees that Parliament would be more effective and cost-efficient if it were located in a single place; resolves, therefore, to propose Treaty changes under Article 48 of the TEU; underlines however, given its' historical importance as a symbol of peace and reconciliation in Europe, that a reasonable adequate and viable alternative solution for the current seat in Strasbourg must be sought.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – indent 1 (new) - Decides not to make any recommendations regarding the seats of the EU institutions;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – indent 2 (new) - In view of the fact that the Court of Justice of the European Union: recalled in two judgments, in 1997 and 2012, that the TFEU locates the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg; also upheld Protocol 6 by clarifying the conditions for its application; fully acknowledged that the European Parliament has the power of internal organisation, as it may take appropriate measures to ensure the proper functioning and conduct of its proceedings, but noted that the issue of determining its seat falls outside its remit; recognised the disadvantages and costs linked to the plurality of working places but also pointed out that it is not for Parliament or the Court but for the Member States to remedy this situation, if necessary, by exercising their power to determine the seats of the institutions;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recognises that, since Parliament has no power to choose its seat, this matter was determined by a unanimous decision of the Member States, as with the seats of the other institutions; recommends that any proposal for a change to Parliament’s seat should be subject to the same conditions of unanimity and should be discussed together with the seats of the institutions and agencies which were determined as a result of that agreement.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas Parliament's estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs directly related to the geographic dispersion estimated at
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas treaty Protocol 6 states that Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, while its committees meet in Brussels and that the General Secretariat remains in Luxembourg;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 – ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and Follow- up to the Discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas since the beginning of the current legislature, both individual committees and the plenary have made several specific requests to the European Parliament's administration to provide comprehensive, detailed and reliable estimates of the additional costs relating to each of the three places of work;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Recital A b (new) Ab. whereas, the numbers provided by the Secretary-General's report to the Bureau of September 2002 are the last overall cost estimates available;
source: PE-516.652
2013/09/26
AFCO
9 amendments...
Amendment A #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 - having regard to Rules
Amendment B #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 - having regard to the petition
Amendment C #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Article 232 TFEU allows Parliament to adopt its own rules of procedure
Amendment D #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it has further stated that there are disadvantages and costs engendered by the plurality of working locations, but also that any
Amendment E #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas the additional annual costs
Amendment F #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas Parliament, since its suggestion in 1958 to be sited in proximity to the Council and the Commission, has via numerous reports, declarations and statements
Amendment G #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas
Amendment I #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Commits itself, therefore, to initiate an ordinary treaty revision procedure under Article 48 TEU with a view to propose the changes to Article 341 TFEU and to Protocol 6 necessary to allow Parliament to decide
Amendment J #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 – having regard to the Secretary-General’s report
source: PE-519.753
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2013-11-22Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/6/docs |
|
| activities/7/docs |
|
| activities/7/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
2013-11-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/6/type |
Old
Debate in plenary scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
2013-11-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/5/docs/0/text |
|
2013-11-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/5/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-350&language=EN
|
2013-10-26Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/1/date |
Old
2013-11-18T00:00:00New
2013-06-06T00:00:00 |
| activities/1/docs |
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee draft report |
2013-10-24Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/7 |
|
| activities/8 |
|
2013-10-23Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/5 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2013-10-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/4 |
|
2013-10-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3 |
|
2013-07-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE514.747
|
2013-07-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/date |
Old
2013-07-02T00:00:00New
2013-07-05T00:00:00 |
2013-07-02Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/date |
Old
2013-06-28T00:00:00New
2013-07-02T00:00:00 |
2013-06-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
2013-06-25Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2013-06-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE513.103
|
2013-06-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2013-05-31T00:00:00New
2013-06-06T00:00:00 |
2013-05-31Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
2013-05-28Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3/mepref |
Old
4de1889e0fb8127435bdc386New
4de1888a0fb8127435bdc36a |
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3/name |
Old
SCHOLZ HelmutNew
SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo |
| committees/0/shadows/3/mepref |
Old
4de1889e0fb8127435bdc386New
4de1888a0fb8127435bdc36a |
| committees/0/shadows/3/name |
Old
SCHOLZ HelmutNew
SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo |
2013-05-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
2013-05-03Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1/date |
2013-03-26T00:00:00
|
| activities/0/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| committees/1/date |
2013-03-26T00:00:00
|
| committees/1/rapporteur |
|
2013-05-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
2013-03-23Show (5) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
| activities/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
2013-03-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/title |
Old
Proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutionsNew
Location of the seats of the European Union's institutions |
2013-02-21Show (6) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/date |
|
| activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows |
|
| committees/0/date |
|
| committees/0/rapporteur |
|
| committees/0/shadows |
|
2013-01-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/subtype |
Old
Strategic initiativeNew
Initiative |
2012-12-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| other/0 |
|
2012-11-27Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/subtype |
Old
InitiativeNew
Strategic initiative |
2012-11-27Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
AFCO/7/11302
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2012-11-24Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|