Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Joint Responsible Committee | ['JURI', 'AFCO'] | SVOBODA Pavel ( PPE), CORBETT Richard ( S&D) | GONZÁLEZ PONS Esteban ( PPE), KAUFMANN Sylvia-Yvonne ( S&D), KARIM Sajjad ( ECR), CAVADA Jean-Marie ( ALDE), PAGAZAURTUNDÚA Maite ( ALDE), DURAND Pascal ( Verts/ALE), HAUTALA Heidi ( Verts/ALE), CASTALDO Fabio Massimo ( EFDD), ANNEMANS Gerolf ( ENF), LEBRETON Gilles ( ENF) |
Committee Opinion | ECON | GUALTIERI Roberto ( S&D) | Ashley FOX ( ECR), Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS ( ALDE) |
Committee Opinion | INTA | BENDTSEN Bendt ( PPE) | Emma McCLARKIN ( ECR), Marietje SCHAAKE ( ALDE) |
Committee Opinion | EMPL | MCINTYRE Anthea ( ECR) | Jean LAMBERT ( Verts/ALE), Dominique MARTIN ( ENF), Gabriele ZIMMER ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | ENVI | VĂLEAN Adina-Ioana ( PPE) | Jo LEINEN ( S&D) |
Committee Opinion | PETI | MARIAS Notis ( ECR) | Alberto CIRIO ( PPE), Laurenţiu REBEGA ( ENF) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54, RoP 58
Legal Basis:
RoP 54, RoP 58Events
The European Parliament adopted by 497 votes to 76, with 111 abstentions, a resolution on the interpretation and implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making.
Members welcomed the progress made during the first year and a half of implementation of the new Interinstitutional Agreement which entered into force on 13 April 2016. They called for further steps to be taken to fully implement the agreement, the objective of which is to establish more open and transparent relations between the three institutions with a view to delivering high-quality legislation in the interest of EU citizens.
Programming : Parliament welcomed the three Institutions’ agreement to reinforce the Union’s annual and multiannual programming by means of a more structured procedure with a precise timeline. It considered that priority treatment for certain legislative files agreed upon in joint declarations should not be used to exert undue pressure on the colegislators and that greater speed should not be prioritised at the expense of legislative quality.
The Commission should present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmes and impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value . Parliament encouraged developing efficient legislation geared to developing employment protection and European competitiveness with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, across all sectors of the economy.
Members considered it essential that parliamentary committees are fully consulted throughout the joint declaration preparation and implementation process and stressed the importance of transparent cooperation in good faith between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. In this regard, it reminded the Commission of its obligation to respond promptly to legislative and non-legislative own initiative reports.
Tools for better law-making : Parliament underlined that impact assessments may inform but must never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process. Particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those stakeholders who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision-makers, including SMEs, civil society, trade unions and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions. They must pay equal attention to the evaluation of social, health and environmental consequences in particular, and that the impact on the fundamental rights of citizens and on equality between women and men must be assessed.
Members recalled that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to any political control. All of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, shall be made public. In addition, the Commission should clarify how it intends to assess the cost of non-Europe , including the cost to producers, consumers, workers, administrations and the environment of the lack of harmonised legislation at EU level.
All parliamentary committees should review Commission impact assessments and the Parliament’s ex-ante impact assessment analysis as early as possible in the legislative process.
As regards legislative instruments , Members stressed the need for consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment related to the same proposal. They stressed that the choice of the legal basis for a Commission proposal should be based on objective grounds subject to judicial review. However, Parliament, as co-legislator, should be able to amend the legal basis on the basis of its interpretation of the Treaties.
Delegated and implementing acts : Members reiterated that it is the competence of the legislator to decide, within the limits of the Treaties, and in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether and to what extent to use delegated acts and whether and to what extent to use implementing acts. They welcomed the Commission’s effort to comply with the deadline for proposing the alignment of all basic acts which still refer to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS). However, they expressed concern that the Council is trying almost systematically to replace delegated acts with implementing acts.
Members recalled that politically significant elements, such as Union lists or registers of products or substances, should remain an integral part of a basic act and should therefore only be amended by means of delegated acts.
Transparency and coordination of the legislative process : Members called on the Commission to make available and, when feasible, public, all relevant documents relating to legislative proposals, including non-papers, to both legislators at the same time. The flow of information from the Council should also be improved. The Council, as a general rule, hold all its meetings in public, as does the European Parliament.
Parliament proposed that the Council meets Parliament at least once during the consultation procedure to allow Parliament to present and explain the reasons for the approved amendments, and the Council to state its position on each of them.
The three EU institutions are reminded that further progress is needed in establishing a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files.
Members called on the other institutions to comply with the Treaties and regulations and to observe the relevant jurisprudence in order to ensure that Parliament is immediately, fully and accurately informed during the whole life-cycle of international agreements , without undermining the EU’s negotiation position, and is accurately informed and involved in the implementation stage of the agreements.
Implementation and application of EU law : when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents. In order to reduce the problems related to ‘gold-plating’ , the three Institutions should commit to adopting EU legislation which is clear and easily transposable.
Simplification : Members welcomed the commitment for a more frequent use of the legislative technique of recasting . They considered that this technique should constitute the ordinary legislative technique as an invaluable tool to achieve simplification. However, in the event of a complete policy overhaul, the Commission should, instead of using the recasting technique, put forward a proposal for an entirely new legal act repealing existing legislation, so that the co-legislators can engage in broad and effective political discussions and see their prerogatives as enshrined in the Treaties fully preserved.
Parliament also stressed that the reduction of administrative burdens does not necessarily mean deregulation and that, in any event, it must not compromise fundamental rights and environmental, social, labour, health and safety, consumer protection, gender-equality or animal welfare standards.
The Committee on Legal Affairs, together with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, adopted an own-initiative report prepared by Pavel SVOBODA (EPP, CZ) and Richard CORBETT (S&D, UK) on the interpretation and implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making.
Members welcomed the progress achieved and the experience gained in the first year and a half of the application of the new Interinstitutional Agreement which entered into force on 13 April 2016 and encouraged the Institutions to undertake further efforts to fully implement the agreement, which is an interinstitutional exercise to improve the quality of EU legislation.
Programming : Members welcomed the three Institutions’ agreement to reinforce the Union’s annual and multiannual programming by means of a more structured procedure with a precise timeline. They considered that priority treatment for certain legislative files agreed upon in joint declarations should not be used to exert undue pressure on the colegislators and that greater speed should not be prioritised at the expense of legislative quality.
Members called on the Commission to present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmes and impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value. They encouraged developing efficient legislation geared to developing employment protection and European competitiveness with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, across all sectors of the economy.
Members considered it essential that parliamentary committees are fully consulted throughout the joint declaration preparation and implementation process.
Tools for better law-making : the report underlined that impact assessments may inform but must never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process. Particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those stakeholders who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision-makers, including SMEs, civil society, trade unions and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions. Members considered that impact assessments must pay equal attention to the evaluation of social, health and environmental consequences in particular, and that the impact on the fundamental rights of citizens and on equality between women and men must be assessed.
Members recalled that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to any political control. All of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, shall be made public. In addition, the Commission should clarify how it intends to assess the cost of non-Europe , including the cost to producers, consumers, workers, administrations and the environment of the lack of harmonised legislation at EU level.
Better regulation tools : the report stressed that impact assessments should never replace political decisions or delay the legislative process. They should pay particular attention to the potential effects on stakeholders, including SMEs, civil society, trade unions and others who do not have easy access to institutions. They should pay equal attention to the assessment of social, health and environmental consequences, in particular, and assess the impact on the fundamental rights of citizens and on equality between men and women.
Members reiterated the need to protect the independence, transparency and objectivity of the regulatory review committee and its work, and that its members should not be subject to political control. All opinions of the Committee, including negative assessments, should be made public. In addition, the Commission should clarify how it intends to assess the cost of non-Europe, including the cost to producers, consumers, workers, administrations and the environment of the lack of harmonised legislation at EU level.
Delegated and implementing acts : Members reiterated that it is the competence of the legislator to decide, within the limits of the Treaties, and in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether and to what extent to use delegated acts and whether and to what extent to use implementing acts. They welcomed the Commission’s effort to comply with the deadline for proposing the alignment of all basic acts which still refer to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS).
However, they expressed concern that the Council is trying almost systematically to replace delegated acts with implementing acts.
Members recalled that politically significant elements, such as Union lists or registers of products or substances, should remain an integral part of a basic act and should therefore only be amended by means of delegated acts.
Transparency and coordination of the legislative process : Members called on the Commission to make available and, when feasible, public, all relevant documents relating to legislative proposals, including non-papers, to both legislators at the same time. The flow of information from the Council should also be improved.
The Council should, as a general rule, hold all its meetings in public, as does the European Parliament.
The report proposed that the Council meets Parliament at least once during the consultation procedure to allow Parliament to present and explain the reasons for the approved amendments, and the Council to state its position on each of them.
The three EU institutions are reminded that further progress is needed in establishing a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files.
Members called on the other institutions to comply with the Treaties and regulations and to observe the relevant jurisprudence in order to ensure that Parliament is immediately, fully and accurately informed during the whole life-cycle of international agreements , without undermining the EU’s negotiation position, and is accurately informed and involved in the implementation stage of the agreements. They also called for the establishment and formalisation of a financial dialogue on the adoption and coherence of European positions in the run-up to major international negotiations.
Implementation and application of EU law : the report underlined the importance of the principle that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents. In order to reduce the problems related to ‘gold-plating’ , the three Institutions should commit to adopting EU legislation which is clear and easily transposable.
Simplification : Members welcomed the commitment for a more frequent use of the legislative technique of recasting . They considered that this technique should constitute the ordinary legislative technique as an invaluable tool to achieve simplification.
However, in the event of a complete policy overhaul, the Commission should, instead of using the recasting technique, put forward a proposal for an entirely new legal act repealing existing legislation, so that the co-legislators can engage in broad and effective political discussions and see their prerogatives as enshrined in the Treaties fully preserved.
Members also stressed that the reduction of administrative burdens does not necessarily mean deregulation and that, in any event, it must not compromise fundamental rights and environmental, social, labour, health and safety, consumer protection, gender-equality or animal welfare standards.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2018)515
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0225/2018
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A8-0170/2018
- Committee opinion: PE613.586
- Committee opinion: PE615.308
- Committee opinion: PE615.264
- Committee opinion: PE609.658
- Committee opinion: PE582.235
- Committee opinion: PE582.235
- Committee opinion: PE609.658
- Committee opinion: PE615.264
- Committee opinion: PE615.308
- Committee opinion: PE613.586
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2018)515
Activities
- Pavel SVOBODA
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Andrejs MAMIKINS
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Adam SZEJNFELD
Votes
A8-0170/2018 - Pavel Svoboda et Richard Corbett - § 10/2 30/05/2018 13:11:56.000 #
A8-0170/2018 - Pavel Svoboda et Richard Corbett - Considérant W 30/05/2018 13:15:35.000 #
A8-0170/2018 - Pavel Svoboda et Richard Corbett - Résolution 30/05/2018 13:15:50.000 #
Amendments | Dossier |
328 |
2016/2018(INI)
2016/11/22
PETI
28 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises the importance of developing and further advancing Parliament’s role as co-legislator and of ensuring equality with respect to the Council, as well as enhancing its role as a supervisory body of all EU institutions;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Stresses that when it comes to its application, an effective EU legislation must aim at ensuring that the procedures established therein match the underlying purpose of the piece of legislation itself, and particularly the ultimate goal of protecting the environment when it comes to ensuring a high degree of environmental protection
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls the numerous petitions received on the economic and social crisis in the European Union and believes that priority should be given to legislative initiatives
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls the numerous petitions received on the economic and social crisis in the European Union and believes that
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Acknowledges the importance of the work within the committee on Petitions in assessing the quality of the EU law-making when it comes to its actual implementation, and as a source for improving legislative texts and procedures; notes in this regard the importance of a faithful inter-institutional cooperation with the European Commission when it comes to ensuring a proper examination of the petitions;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Encourages the development of
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Encourages the development of
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Encourages the development of an efficient legislation geared to developing employment protection and European competitiveness
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Opposes any legislative initiative or legal framework put in place with the participation of any EU institution that can lead to an actual precarisation of the labour market, risks putting a greater amount of people effectively under the poverty threshold or undermines fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. States that impact assessments of new legislative proposals should systematically take account of the actual effects, including in the short term, on
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has set itself the goal of better regulation as a priority for this term and affirms the need to create clear, simple, effective and socially and environmentally balanced EU legislation which will consequently be easy to transpose and implement;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. States that impact assessments of new legislative proposals should systematically take account of the actual effects, including in the short term, on employment and social inclusion in the European Union Member States and include an SME test case;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. States that impact assessments of new legislative proposals should systematically take account of the actual effects, including in the short term, on employment
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Calls for a greater consultation with social partners at an early stage, and a greater involvement of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and due account to be taken of their concerns;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Observes that the adoption of systematic impact assessments must not lead to a de-politicisation of the legislative process, thereby affecting Parliament
Amendment 24 #
7a. Stresses that, in the light of the objective of ensuring full transparency in the decision-making process and the highest levels of social justice, consultations and impact assessments should principally aim to involve the public and civil society organisations fully and as prime movers, and must promote the adoption of legislation which guarantees full protection for citizens' fundamental rights and the environment; considers that consultations and impact assessments must form part of a wider process of democratisation which leads to the direct participation of the public at all stages in the EU decision-making process;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Believes that the
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasises that taking more effective account of the subsidiarity principle is also fundamental to the drafting of clear, simple, socially balanced legislation; calls on the Commission and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to put forward proposals for the more stringent application of the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Stresses that the notion of Better Law-Making can by no means be understood in a way that leads to less regulation, but rather as a way to ensuring the drafting of robust legislation which minimises loopholes and ensures a smoother transposition and enforcement by Member States;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that further development of the transparency of the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that further development of the transparency of the negotiations process, especially as regards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), as well as of the legislative process and enhanced scrutiny of existing legislation must be the guiding principles of the implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses that the negotiations regarding a withdrawal agreement in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union are conducted at an interinstitutional basis; recalls that Article 50 only clarifies on the participation of Members of the European Council or of the Council; highlights that Members of the European Parliament of a withdrawing Member State are not prevented from participating in European Parliament and committee debates and voting; calls on the need to enhance transparency with regards to withdrawal negotiations both on European Parliament as well as interinstitutional basis;
source: 594.137
2017/10/24
ECON
23 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Regrets that
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises the need to improve informal cooperation during the preparatory phase of delegated acts and implementing acts; warns against losing sight of the legislative intent of the co- legislators when preparing delegated and implementing acts; emphasises the importance of the Delegated Act Register, which will soon be operational; requests that the Commission notify the co- legislators simultaneously of all draft implementing measures adopted, including implementing acts and implementing technical standards;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. 4a Regrets that in many occasions the Commission considers that level 2 measures proposed by the three financial services authorities (ESAME, EBA and EIOPA) are adopted by the Commission without changes, reducing scrutiny time for Parliament, when important or a substantial number of changes are introduced;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Proposes that the Council meets Parliament at least once during the consultation procedure to allow Parliament to present and explain the reasons for the approved amendments, and the Council to state its position on each of them, and proposes in any case that the Council provide a written reply;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Suggests that Parliament conduct a quantitative study on the effectiveness of the consultation procedure;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission to respect the
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission to respect the deadlines set for delegated acts and implementing acts, and, as a minimum, to officially inform the co-legislators well in advance if it, on an exceptional basis, i
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission, EBA, ESMA and EIOPA, to respect the deadlines set for delegated acts and implementing acts, and, as a minimum, to officially inform the co-legislators well in advance if it, on an exceptional basis, intends not to respect them, as well as stating its reasons;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges the Commission to respect the deadlines set for delegated acts and implementing acts, and, as a minimum, to officially inform the co-legislators well in advance if it, on an exceptional basis, intends not to respect them, as well as stating its reasons; notes that the Commission recently omitted to do so in numerous cases in the field of financial services, in particular in relation to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, Directive 2014/65/EU, Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1011, where the Commission did not respect the 3 month deadline laid-down in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 for the adoption of regulatory technical standards, and where it was unable to inform the co-legislators on how and when it intended to adopt the delegated acts based on ESMA’s technical advice; reminds the Commission that procedures through which Parliament declares it has no objections to an act were never intended to compensate for delays originating at the Commission’s end and that these procedures significantly impact the time available for Parliament to exercise its scrutiny rights;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Urges the Commission to respect the deadlines set for the review of existing Directives and Regulations;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Considers that the Commission should ensure that the Annual Growth Surveys are debated and adopted in the European Parliament, given its central place in the European Semester;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that Council presidencies should
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Calls European representatives to pay particular attention to consistency between international standards/requirements and binding adopted EU legislation;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Regrets that the Commission is not willing to disclose documents outlining its stance in the international organisations which set standards in the financial, monetary and regulatory fields, in particular the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision; requests that Parliament be fully informed at all stages of the development of international standards that may have an impact on EU law, except in the case of classified and confidential documents where special rules should apply.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for the establishment and formalisation of a “financial dialogue” on the adoption and the coherence of European positions in the run-up to major international negotiations, in accordance with the report adopted by the European Parliament on the EU role in the framework of international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies;1a emphasizes that on the basis of detailed guidelines, to be potentially complemented with proactive 'guidance' resolutions, these positions shall be discussed and known ex ante, whilst ensuring a follow-up, with the Commission reporting back regularly on the application of these guidelines. __________________ 1a (2015/2060(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that Council presidencies should provide more detailed information to Parliament on the negotiations in Council in order for Parliament to better understand which Member States have a problem and what its exact nature is; suggests that the attendance of Parliament representatives at Council working group meetings would
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that Council presidencies should provide more detailed information to Parliament on the negotiations in Council in order for Parliament to better understand which Member States have a problem and what its exact nature is and to facilitate the successful and timely conclusion of Trilogue negotiations; suggests that the attendance of Parliament representatives at Council working group meetings would facilitate mutual understanding, in the same way as attendance at expert group meetings does;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that Council presidencies should provide more detailed information to Parliament on the negotiations in Council in order for Parliament to better understand which Member States have a problem and what its exact nature is; recalls that according to point 34 of the IIA on better law-making the co- legislators agreed on “the importance of maintaining close contacts already in advance of interinstitutional negotiations, so as to achieve a better mutual understanding of their respective positions” and that they furthermore agreed to that end that “they will facilitate mutual exchange of views and information, including by inviting representatives of the other institutions to informal exchanges of views on a regular basis”; points out that this point of the IIA has so far not been implemented sufficiently and there continues to exist an information asymmetry since Parliament’s committee meetings are public where Council working groups are not; suggests that the attendance of Parliament representatives at Council working group meetings would facilitate mutual understanding, in the same way as attendance at expert group meetings does;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Believes that Council presidencies should provide more detailed information to Parliament on the negotiations in Council in order for Parliament to better understand which Member States have a problem and what its exact nature is; regrets the persisting opacity of Eurogroup meetings and stresses the need for the European Parliament and its Members to have access to programme- country related documents ahead of decisions, as well as notes presented to the Eurogroup after the meetings, including its minutes; suggests that the attendance of Parliament representatives at Council working group meetings would facilitate mutual understanding, in the same way as attendance at expert group meetings does;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Requests that the Commission make
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Re
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that impact assessment of new legislative proposals should take due account of citizens’ fundamental rights, high levels of social inclusion, the cost of non-Europe, enhanced environmental protection as well as aim to fully involve the public and civil society organisations in the light of the objective of ensuring full transparency in the decision-making process and the highest levels of social justice;
source: 612.224
2018/01/30
INTA
80 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital -A (new) -A. Notes that the IIABLM calls for inter-institutional cooperation with the aim of simplifying existing Union legislation, avoiding overregulation and administrative burdens for citizens,administrations and businesses; emphasizes that with regard to international trade agreements these objectives should not lead to lower standards on the protection of the environment, public health, workers' health, safety, ILO labour standards and consumer rights;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Points out that there is at present an information disparity between Parliament and the Council, since parliamentary committee meetings are held in public, whereas Council meetings are not; stresses the importance, therefore, of giving effect without delay to point 34 of the agreement, which stipulates that Parliament and the Council, in their capacity as co- legislators, have to maintain close contacts all through interinstitutional negotiations, one means to that end being to exchange views and information;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to provide additional justification for its choice of legal basis for proposals, in order to avoid uncertainty in the areas of parliamentary responsibility, and for the legislative process to be conducted efficiently and effectively;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the establishment. on 14 November 2017, of the Commission Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’, which
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the establishment of the Commission Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the ‘Think Small First’ principle c
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital -A a (new) -A a. Notes that regulatory cooperation has emerged as a key instrument in international trade agreements on a path towards regulatory dialogue and coherence between the trade partners; calls on the Commission to remain in that process committed to the principles of a fair and level playing field for all stakeholders and guaranteeing utmost transparency in decision-making;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the interinstitutional agreement (IIA) on better law-making and the inclusion of new, innovative elements s
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the ‘Think Small First’ principle
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the ‘Think Small First’ principle can play an important role in job creation and growth by reducing the cost of legislation to SMEs; encourages the Commission to consider how the needs of SMEs can be further taken into account when drafting legislation while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the ‘Think Small First’ principle
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for the Impact Assessment (IA) Handbook, and if necessary its Rules of Procedure, to provide that an IA on substantive amendments can be requested by a Committee where it is supported by political groups representing at least 40 % of the members of the Committee; firmly believes that impact assessments on Parliament’s amendments will help to reinforce our position without replacing the political decision-making process;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes it is essential to respect horizontally the longstanding practice to await for Parliament’s consent before provisionally applying the trade and investment provisions of politically important agreements, as also committed to by Commissioner Malmström in her hearing on 29 September 2014; calls on the Council, Commission and the EEAS to continue to extend this practice to all international agreements;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points out that while impact assessments may help to improve the quality of EU legislation, the interinstitutional agreement of 13 April 2016 on better law-making nevertheless states that impact assessments are ‘not a substitute for political decisions within the democratic decision-making process’ and ‘must not be undue delays in the law- making process or prejudice the co- legislators’ capacity to propose amendments’;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that thorough impact assessments which comprehensively evaluate compliance with the principles of subsidiarity, and enhanced subsidiarity checks by all institutions are essential throughout the legislative process, particularly in light of the Pillar on Social Rights;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Is convinced that sound impact assessments constitute an important tool to support decision-making and play a significant role in better regulation; underlines, however, that such assessments cannot substitute for political assessments and decisions;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that, as specified in the interinstitutional agreement on better law- making, ‘Each of the three Institutions is responsible for determining how to organise its impact assessment work, including internal organisational resources and quality control’;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Maintains that it is essential that, to quote the agreement, ‘The Commission's initial impact assessment and any additional impact assessment work conducted during the legislative process by the Institutions’ should be made public by the end of the legislative process in order to ensure transparency in relation to citizens and stakeholders;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the importance of the new provisions for public and stakeholder consultations, which
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the importance of t
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – point b a (new) b a. is pro-actively informed about the Commission's position in international fora, like the WTO, UNCTAD, OECD, UNDP, FAO and UNHRC;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses the importance
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses the importance of the agreed ABS as a tool to identify and monitor the results of EU efforts to avoid overregulation
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Commission to
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Commission to establish
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Commission to establish the ABS without delay, as it will play a key role in the implementation and application of EU legislation, in particular the scrutiny of Member States’ transposition of directives, and of all national measures that go beyond the provisions of EU legislation (‘gold-plating’) whilst bearing in mind that Member States are free to apply higher standards if only minimum standards are defined by Union law; Believes in this regard that the ABS provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the added value of EU legislation and to provide transparency to our citizens;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Regrets that the IIA failed to recognise the importance and relevance of the innovation principle in all policy sectors including employment and social affairs; Calls on the Commission to assess the impact of legislation on innovation;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Considers that the transposition deadline to be met by Member States must not be shortened;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Maintains that no infringements should be brought into being and declared by the EU in relation to Member States that continue to be sovereign;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Notes that each of the institutions should be mindful that the responsibility as legislators does not end once international agreements are concluded; stresses the need for close monitoring of implementation and ongoing efforts to ensure agreements are meeting their aims; calls on the institutions to extend best-practice and a collaborative approach to the implementation and evaluation phases of international agreements;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers better law-making as an inter-institutional exercise of improving the quality of EU legislation by prioritising its social purpose to enhance citizens’ well-being and promote their rights and freedoms as defined in the Treaties;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the RSB must show more ambition; calls for an evaluation and follow-up of the independence of the RSB in fulfilling its role of
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Highlights that the choice of the legal bases of a proposal by the Commission should be made on objective grounds which are subject to judicial review; stresses however the right of the Parliament, as co-legislator, to propose modifications to the legal bases, on the basis of its interpretation of the Treaties;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 c (new) 9c. Stresses that better law making should focus less on reducing regulation and concentrate more on quality legislation and its ability to protect and promote the interests of EU citizens; highlights the importance of giving fundamental rights as well as employment and health and safety considerations the same weight as financial considerations when legislative fitness checks are carried out; points out that in the case of conflicts fundamental rights should always take precedence;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Notes that human rights impact assessments can be an important tool for States, or the Union to which powers have been attributed, in negotiating trade and investment agreements, particularly to ensure that they will not make demands or concessions that will make it more difficult for them, or for the other party or parties, to comply with their human rights obligations;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Points out that the widespread existing use of exemptions and exceptions under EU legislation is itself a major contributing factor to regulatory complexity; Calls on the Commission to come forward with proposals for targets for the reduction of unjustified burdens in key sectors.
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the Commission to come forward regularly with proposals for targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors.
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the Commission to come forward with proposals for numerical targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors.
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA, Parliament stated that the wording contained in the IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments; firmly believes that further steps should be taken to commit all three institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Calls on the EMPL Committee to set aside Committee time on a regular basis to undertake an analysis of the implementation of legislation; believes that the Committee should invite the Commission on a regular basis to present its impact assessments at a full Committee meeting;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 c (new) 10c. Calls on the Employment Committee to systematically review Commission Impact Assessments and review the European Parliament’s ex-ante Impact Assessment analysis as early as possible in the legislative process;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the more systematic approach to impact assessments although the methodology used is not always optimal; calls on the Commission to continue to pursue this approach for an evidence and results-based trade policy, that must reduce the administrative and regulatory burden for businesses;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the more systematic approach to impact assessments although the methodology used is not always optimal; urges the Commission to rely on the Guiding Principles for human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements1a _________________ 1a Presented to the Human Rights Council by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 19 December 2011
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the importance of proper implementation of the programming arrangements and reminds the Commission of its obligation to respond promptly to legislative and non-legislative own- initiative reports; Calls on the Commission to come forward with legislative proposals when requested by Parliament;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Points out that based on the principle of the binding character of treaties 2a, like for example the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both States and the Union have the duty to act in accordance with the results of the human rights impact assessment; _________________ 2a Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, arts. 26 and 30 (4)(b)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. In keeping with the agreement, calls for Parliament and Council experts, to be given full access, on an equal footing, to meetings of Commission expert groups responsible for drafting delegated acts, and for the three institutions, working in close collaboration, to draw up a ‘joint functional register of delegated acts’ in order to ensure that the message of the co-legislators in a basic legislative act is not negated or distorted;
source: 616.794
2018/02/06
ENVI
44 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Regrets the fact that it is not usually possible to access certain Council documents relating to international agreements, particularly negotiating mandates; regards this state of affairs as a lack of transparency and an obstacle to democracy;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that further progress is needed in setting up non-binding criteria for the application of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in order to ensure the accurate definition and application of implemented and delegated acts;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recalls that, as laid down in its recital 7, the new inter-institutional agreement should facilitate the negotiations in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure and improve the application of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, but deplores that this has not yet materialised; expresses strong dissatisfaction at the fact that the Council is still very reluctant to accept delegated acts when the criteria under Article 290 TFEU are met; stresses that this puts a substantial strain on negotiations;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Is very concerned that the Council is trying almost systematically to replace delegated acts with either implementing acts or with the ordinary legislative procedure; finds it particularly unacceptable when Council is trying to use the post-Lisbon alignment to replace the regulatory procedure with scrutiny with implementing acts or with the ordinary legislative procedure instead of delegated acts;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Stresses that the conferral of implementing powers under Article 291 TFEU for decisions that fall under Article 290 TFEU violates the Treaty and as a result unduly deprives Parliament of its control rights; points out that using the ordinary legislative procedure for amendments of non-essential elements of general scope in the basic act instead of delegated acts establishes a far higher threshold for such amendments; considers that such a higher threshold as well as full control by both sides of the co- legislator may indeed be politically desirable in certain sensitive matters, that it is however counter-productive in other matters (e.g. of more technical nature), insofar as it makes it far more difficult if not unlikely that necessary adaptations are made;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Expresses disappointment at the fact that the Commission did not always defend its own original proposals with regard to the use of delegated acts;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that politically significant elements, such as Union lists or registers of products or substances,
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Looks forward to making use of a well-structured and user-friendly functional register of delegated acts, translated into all 24 official languages of the EU, which was published on 12 December 2017 and had been requested by Parliament;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Reminds the three Institutions that further progress is needed in establishing a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Reiterates its call for the compulsory inclusion in all impact assessments of a balanced analysis of the medium- to long-term economic, social, environmental and health impacts, as is standard practice in the legislative process of most Member States;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls for a more harmonised and structured approach, with guaranteed access for Parliament
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Takes the view that the Commission should determine the cost to producers, consumers and the environment of not having harmonised legislation at EU level and of the fact that differing national rules generate additional costs and make policies less effective;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that while impact assessments should
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that impact assessments should
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that impact assessments, in spite of their importance and the need to make them more forward-looking, should only serve as a guide for better law- making, and as an aid for making political decisions, and should in no event replace political decisions within the democratic decision-making process, nor should they hinder the role of politically accountable decision-makers;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Considers that impact assessments
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Considers that while impact assessments should not cause undue delays to legislative procedures, nor should they be utili
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Considers that impact assessments, in spite of their importance and the need to make them more forward-looking, should not cause undue delays to legislative procedures, nor should they be utilised as procedural obstacles in an attempt to delay unwanted legislation;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to use the impact assessments as well as ex-post evaluations to examine the compatibility of an initiative, proposal or piece of existing legislation in line with the Sustainable Development Goals 2030, as well as the respective impact on their progress and implementation;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls for the Impact Assessment Handbook, and if necessary, its Rules of Procedure, to provide that an Impact Assessment on substantive amendments can be requested by a Committee where it is supported by political groups representing at least 40% of the members of the Committee;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that certain administrative burdens are necessary for ensuring proper compliance with legislative objectives and the required level of protection,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls for a more harmonised and structured approach, with guaranteed access for Parliament, to all negotiating texts and related documents, even those of a confidential or classified nature, including negotiating mandates, and to other relevant documents used during the preparatory stages and actual negotiations, so that minimum transparency and democracy requirements can be met; considers, moreover, that the Commission and the Council should provide the Parliament with regularly updated lists of the documents at their disposal relating to the negotiations;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that certain administrative burdens are necessary for ensuring proper compliance with legislative objectives and the required level of protection, in particular with regard to the environment and the protection of public health – sectors in which information requirements must be maintained; regrets the blanket criticism of 'red tape', which is used to resist necessary regulation and compliance mechanisms;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Stresses the importance to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and takes into account the correlation between company size and resources to implement the obligations required;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Believes that, as quality is of the utmost importance, the work of regulatory simplification should not serve as a pretext for showing less ambition on issues of vital importance to Member State citizens, such as the protection of the environment, public health or food safety;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as it unnecessarily reduces the range of instruments available for addressing new or unresolved issues, and ignores the corresponding benefits of regulation; stresses, at the same time, the need for the cost of regulation to be kept under control;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement that, in reviewing existing and planned legislation, it will take account of the particular interests of micro- enterprises and SMEs and apply lighter regimes to such companies in the form of exemptions and simplifications;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Welcomes the establishment of the Commission Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing Less More Efficiently", which must work hand in hand with the IIA to increase the trust of citizens who consider the principle of subsidiarity to be a key aspect of the democratic process;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Underlines the new provisions for public and stakeholder consultations which should serve as an important tool both in the preparatory phase and throughout the entire legislative process;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Subheading after paragraph 14 (new) Implementation and application of EU law
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Is of the opinion that in the implementation and transposition of EU acts, a clear distinction must be made between cases of "gold plating", in which Member States introduce additional administrative requirements unrelated to EU legislation, and the setting of higher standards that go beyond EU-wide minimum standards for environmental and consumer protection as well as health care and food safety;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 c (new) 14c. Calls on the Member States to refrain as much as possible from adding additional administrative requirements when transposing EU-legislation, and in accordance with paragraph 43 of the IIA, make such additions identifiable in the transposing act or associated documents;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 d (new) 14d. Underlines that in the implementation of EU legislation and where EU legislation sets only minimum standards, Member States are free to introduce higher standards for environmental and consumer protection as well as health care and food safety;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Regrets the fact that Parliament is not allowed to attend, as an observer, EU coordination meetings during international conferences, even though, as the EU institution representing the peoples of Europe, it should have the right to do so;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Regrets the fact that Parliament is not allowed to attend, even as an observer, EU coordination meetings during international conferences;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the three Institutions to conclude - in a timely manner - the negotiations on improved practical arrangements for cooperation and information-sharing that were initiated in November 2016 in accordance with paragraph 40 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that the delegation of power to the Commission is not merely a technical issue but can also involve questions of political sensitivity which are of considerable importance to EU citizens, consumers and businesses, and in that vein, suggests that where this occurs, such delegation of power to the Commission should be revised to include trilogue-type consultation with the European Parliament and with the Council;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that the delegation of power to the Commission is not merely a technical issue but can also involve questions of political sensitivity which are of considerable importance to EU citizens, consumers and businesses; emphasises the need, therefore, for strict compliance with the requirement not to modify key elements of the legislative act and the requirement to define the objectives, substance, scope and duration of the delegation of powers, and the possibility for the delegation of power to be revoked or objections to be raised to the delegated acts that have been adopted;
source: 618.061
2018/02/13
JURI, AFCO
142 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 a (new) – having regard to the Report on Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union (‘Five Presidents’ Report’) of 22 June 2015, which set out proposals to be implemented in several phases,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that the new IIA aims to develop a more open and transparent relationship between the three Institutions with a view to delivering high-quality legislation in the interest of EU citizens; considers that better law-making in the interests of the Union's citizens can also mean more regulation, inter alia in the fields of common social, consumer protection, environmental and civil- society challenges and interests within the European Union and its Member States and a harmonization of national disparities in legislation; considers that, although the principle of sincere cooperation among Institutions is only mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 32 in relation to specific areas covered by the new IIA, it should be observed throughout the legislative cycle as one of the principles enshrined in Article 13 TEU;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 a (new) 36a. Deplores the fact that the examination procedure has frequently been used to take political, rather than technical decisions; recalls that the decision of Parliament – as co-author of a legislative act – to accept an implementing act and thus to vest the examination committee with certain powers, pursues the sole aim of alleviating the legislator from overly technical decisions which should be assessed and taken by experts with profound scientific knowledge; points out, at the same time, that Parliament does not wish to give away any political power when agreeing on an implementing act; stresses in this context that the Parliament's prerogatives must not be undermined during the examination procedure, which takes place in the presence of the Commission and representatives of the Member States, but not the Parliament as co-author of the basic act; believes that the current implementation procedure needs thorough revision in order to preserve Parliament’s prerogatives and to remain a useful procedure for technical issues to be harmonised at EU level;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment, should broader expertise be needed for the early preparation of draft implementing acts, to regularly make use of expert groups, consult targeted stakeholders and carry out public consultations, as appropriate; considers that, whenever any such consultation process is initiated, Parliament should be duly informed;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Notes with appreciation the fact that the Commission in paragraph 28 of the new IIA agreed to ensure that Parliament and the Council have equal access to all information on delegated and implementing acts, so that they will receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts; welcomes the fact that experts from Parliament and the Council will systematically have access to the meetings of Commission expert groups to which Member States’ experts are invited and which concern the preparation of delegated acts; calls on the Commission to abide by this commitment genuinely and consistently;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Notes with appreciation the fact that the Commission in paragraph 28 of the new IIA agreed to ensure that Parliament and the Council have equal access to all information on delegated and implementing acts, so that they will receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts; welcomes the fact that experts from Parliament and the Council will systematically have access to the meetings of Commission expert groups to which Member States’ experts are invited and which concern the preparation of delegated acts; calls on the Commission to abide by this commitment genuinely and consistently; notes that such access has already improved
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39.
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40.
Amendment 109 #
41. Deplores the fact that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the new IIA have not yet led to an improvement in the information flow from the Council, notably since there seems to be a general lack of information on the issues raised by the Member States within the Council and no systematic approach to facilitate the mutual exchange of views and information; notes with concern that the information flow usually varies greatly from Presidency to Presidency and varies between services of the Council’s General Secretariat; underlines the asymmetrical access to information between the co-legislators since the Council can attend parliamentary committee meetings when Parliament representatives are not invited to attend Council's working groups meetings;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that the new IIA aims to develop a more open and transparent relationship between the three Institutions
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Deplores the fact that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the new IIA have not yet led to an improvement in the information flow from the Council, notably since there seems to be a general lack of information on the issues raised by the Member States within the Council and no systematic approach to facilitate the mutual exchange of views and information; notes with concern that the information flow usually varies greatly from Presidency to
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Requests that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the new IIA be fully implemented; asks the Council, in particular, that the agendas, working documents and presidency proposals of working parties and the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (Coreper), be transmitted to Parliament in a regular and structured manner in order to allow for a matching level of information between co-legislators; considers that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the new IIA should be interpreted to the effect that, in addition to informal exchanges of views, Parliament
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 a (new) 43a. Stresses the need for Parliament to preserve its integrity during the legislative process; in order to safeguard its integrity, warns against any attempt by other Institutions to interfere with Parliament’s decision-making procedure;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 44 44.
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46a. Points out that under the codecision procedure (Article 294 TFEU) the Commission is required to submit its proposals to both Parliament and the Council and that the 'Tusk-Juncker' procedure which has been used in particular for the relocation of agencies should not become the rule, otherwise the codecision procedure is likely to become meaningless;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46a. Acknowledges the mandate approved by the Permanent Representatives Committee on 6 December 2017 agreeing on the Council's position on the Commission proposal for a mandatory transparency register; calls on the Council to enter into negotiations in a spirit of good cooperation;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Underlines the importance of the principle set out in paragraph 43 of the new IIA, that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents; notes that this information is often still lacking; calls on the
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Underlines the importance of the principle set out in paragraph 43 of the new IIA, that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents; notes that this information is often still lacking; calls on the Commission and the Member States to act jointly and consistently to tackle the lack of
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Urges the Commission once again to launch negotiations on an interinstitutional agreement on European economic governance, including the European Semester and the scrutiny of the implementation of the macroeconomic adjustment programme, with Parliament, the Council and the Eurogroup, as provided for in the Five Presidents’ Report; insists that this IIA should ensure, within the framework of the Treaties, meaningful and regular parliamentary scrutiny, in particular as regards euro area recommendations;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 a (new) 47a. Urges the Commission to be more ambitious in establishing the agreed Annual Burden Survey without delay, as it can play a key role in the implementation and application of EU legislation, in particular the scrutiny of Member States’ transposition of directives, and of all national measures that go beyond the provisions of EU legislation (‘gold-plating’) whilst bearing in mind that Member States are free to apply higher standards if only minimum standards are defined by Union law;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Considers that, in order to reduce the problems related to ‘gold-plating’, the three Institutions should commit to adopting EU legislation which is clear, easily transposable and which has a specific European added value; recalls that, while additional unnecessary administrative burdens should be avoided, this should not prevent the Member States from taking more ambitious measures and to adopt higher social, environmental and consumer protection standards in cases where only minimum standards are defined by Union law37
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. Considers that, in order to reduce the problems related to ‘gold-plating’, the three Institutions should commit to adopting EU legislation which is clear, easily transposable and which has a specific European added value; recalls that, while additional unnecessary administrative burdens should be avoided, this should not prevent the Member States from using the non-regression clause and taking more ambitious measures in cases where only minimum standards are defined by Union law37; _________________ 37 See Parliament’s resolution of 12 April 2016 on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook, cited above, paragraph 44.
Amendment 124 #
49. Recalls that, under paragraph 44 of the new IIA, Member States are called upon to cooperate with the Commission in obtaining information and data needed to monitor and evaluate implementation of Union law;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 50 a (new) 50a. Points out that Members of the Commission are required to respect the legislative prerogatives of Members of the European Parliament and should not exert any kind of pressure on their legislative work; is of the opinion that they should provide Parliament with all the independently conducted studies on the basis of which they have taken their decisions, whilst at the same time disclosing those which contradict their conclusions;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52. Welcomes the commitment made in paragraph 46 of the new IIA for a more frequent use of the legislative technique of recasting; reiterates that this technique should constitute the ordinary legislative technique as an invaluable tool to achieve simplification41
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 52.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Welcomes the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Welcomes the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation, for which it carried out a Flash Eurobarometer survey on business perceptions of regulation, interviewing over 10 000 businesses across the 28 Member States, mainly SMEs and reflecting the distribution of business in the EU; draws attention to the findings of the survey, which confirm that the focus on cutting unnecessary costs remains
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Takes the view that the implementation of an agreement on 'better law-making should first and foremost stress the need to promote and implement at EU level public policies oriented towards social and environmental justice; considers that continuous-assessment mechanisms operating during the legislative procedure are likely to increase the bureaucracy and inertia of European institutions rather than improve the quality of European legislation;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53. Welcomes the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation, for which it carried out a Flash
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53.
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53.
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 a (new) 53a. Stresses that in the process of defining the annual burden, the Commission shall take particular caution in assessing national environmental, labour and social legislation, making sure that it does not undermine its positive impacts;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Takes note, furthermore, of the outcome of the Commission’s assessment of the feasibility, without detriment to the purpose of legislation, of establishing objectives to reduce burdens in specific sectors;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Takes note, furthermore, of the outcome of the Commission’s assessment of the feasibility
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 – point a (new) (a) Calls on the Commission to come up with an initiative to establish targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors, to avoid unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden and to lower costs for administrations and businesses, including SME;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 a (new) 54a. Reminds the Commission of its commitment in the IIA to burden reduction and calls for the Commission as a matter of urgency to come forward with proposals establishing targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors as soon as possible, while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Is disappointed at the lack of transparency of Eurogroup meetings and stresses the need for Parliament and its Members to have access to programme- country-related documents ahead of decisions, as well as to the notes presented to the Eurogroup after the meetings, including minutes;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 a (new) 54a. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this unnecessarily reduces the range of instruments available for addressing new or unresolved issues, and ignores the corresponding benefits of regulation;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 b (new) 54b. Stresses that a European standard generally replaces 28 national standards, thereby underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the three Institutions’ agreement to reinforce the Union’s annual and multiannual programming in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU by means of a more structured procedure with a precise timeline; notes with satisfaction that the first exercise of interinstitutional annual programming under the new IIA saw the active participation of the three Institutions, participation that led to a joint declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017, with 59 key legislative proposals identified as priorities for 2017 and, further to a joint declaration on legislative priorities for 2018-2019, 31 key legislative proposals identified as priorities until the end of the current term; particularly welcomes, in this context, the active involvement of the Council and trusts that it will continue in the future, including as regards multiannual programming for the new term; considers, however, that priority treatment for certain legislative files agreed upon in joint declarations should not be used to exert undue pressure on the co-legislators and that greater speed should not be prioritised at the expense of legislative quality; on the other hand, regards it as a Parliament's task derived from Treaty obligations to act to overcome a legislative standstill or blocking or undermining of legislation in the field of social environmental and consumer protection standards as well as transparency standards;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the three Institutions’ agreement to reinforce the Union’s annual and multiannual programming in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU by means of a more structured procedure with a precise timeline; notes with satisfaction that the first exercise of interinstitutional annual programming under the new IIA saw the active participation of the three Institutions, participation that led to a joint declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017, with 59 key legislative proposals identified as priorities for 2017 and, further to a joint declaration on legislative priorities for 2018-2019, 31 key legislative proposals identified as priorities until the end of the current term; particularly welcomes, in this context, the active involvement of the Council and trusts that it will continue in the future, including as regards multiannual programming for the new term; considers, however, that priority treatment for certain legislative files agreed upon in joint declarations should not be used to exert undue pressure on the co-legislators and that greater speed should not be prioritised at the expense of legislative quality; considers it important to evaluate how the current practice and rules for approving the Joint Declarations are applied and whether improvements can be made;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that the strong focus on the Commission's work programme cannot be taken to justify any restriction of Parliament's own legislative powers or right of initiative and expresses its strong determination to resist any attempt to undermine the legislative powers of the European Parliament by means of a modification of the legal basis or relevant means;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers, however, that the President of Parliament should be given an explicit mandate from the political groups to negotiate with the Council and the Commission the Joint Declaration on legislative priorities for the year ahead, and that he should not add his signature before receiving a mandate from the plenary;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 3 b (new) – having regard to Article 294 TFEU on the codecision procedure,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Considers that the Commission should, when presenting its Work Programme, in addition to the elements referred to in paragraph 8 of the new IIA, indicate evidence as to how the envisaged legislation is justifiable in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 – point a (new) (a) Considers the establishment of the 'Task force on subsidiarity, proportionality and doing less more efficiently' is a positive step forward; believes that its recommendation with regards to identifying policy areas where work could be re-delegated or definitely returned to Member States, to improving involvement of regional and local authorities in EU decision- making process could increase the trust of citizens and enhance democratic legitimacy of the EU.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that the Commission should urgently fulfil its commitment to reducing regulatory burdens in specific key sectors and propose sectors where specific policy areas could be returned to Member States;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmes; requests, in particular, that the Commission Work Programmes clearly indicate the legal nature of each proposal with accurate and realistic timeframes;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to present
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Welcomes the fact that the Commission replied to Parliament’s requests for proposals for Union acts under Article 225 TFEU, for the most part within the three-month deadline referred to in paragraph 10 of the new IIA; points out, however, that the Commission failed to adopt specific communications as foreseen in that provision; calls on the Commission to adopt such communications with a view to ensuring full transparency and providing a political response to requests made by Parliament in its resolutions
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 a (new) Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act,
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27 ; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28 ; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Considers it essential that better regulation should help the creation of quality jobs, and urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromised; stresses that the reduction of administrative burdens must not lead to a reduction in employment standards or an increase in precarious employment contracts, and that workers in SMEs and micro-enterprises must enjoy the same treatment and high standard of protection as workers in larger companies;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Points out that the horizontal social clause enshrined in Article 9 TFEU requires the Union to give careful consideration to the impact of EU legislation on social standards and employment and with a due consultation of social stakeholders and consumers;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the new IIA
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Stresses that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to workers' rights;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 c (new) 11c. Stresses the importance of social dialogue and respect for the autonomy of the social partners; underlines in particular with regard to Article 9 TFEU that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can lead to EU legislation at the joint request of the signatory parties; expects the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the better regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding or bypassing agreements reached between the social partners; therefore rejects any impact assessments of social partner agreements;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Recalls that the idea of a supplementary ad hoc technical independent panel contained in the Commission’s initial proposal for the new IIA was not further pursued in the course of the negotiations; points out that the aim of the creation of such a panel was to enhance the independence, transparency
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the inclusion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the scope of impact assessments; stresses, in this regard, that impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the reference in the new IIA to the inclusion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the scope of impact assessments; stresses, in this regard, that impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Recalls that the principle of subsidiarity is a key aspect of the democratic process; emphasises the need for greater flexibility in the enforcement of the eight-week deadline for national parliaments to issue a reasoned opinion on non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity; believes that the use of a yellow card by national parliaments should be sufficient reason to suspend the legislation procedure;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas, in order to further reinforce the transparency of the legislative process, Parliament revised its Rules of Procedure so as to adapt its rules on interinstitutional negotiations during the ordinary legislative procedure, building on the provisions introduced in 2012; whereas, while all of Parliament’s negotiating mandates are public, the same does not hold true of the Council’s mandates; whereas the Parliament find this situation highly unsatisfactory;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Expresses disappointment at the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficial; points out that in the first phase of application of the new
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Expresses disappointment at the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficial; points out that in the first phase of application of the new IIA, 20 of the 59 Commission proposals included in the 2017 joint declaration were not accompanied by impact assessments; recalls in this regard that, while it is in any case foreseen that initiatives which are expected to have a significant social,
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Calls on the Commission to further clarify how it intends to assess the cost
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is a welcome first step to achieving an independent board; reiterates that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to political control29 ; stresses the importance of ensuring that all of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, are made public and accessible at the same time as the relevant impact assessments are published; believes that the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board must show more ambition; calls for an evaluation and follow-up of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in fulfilling its role of supervising and providing objective advice on impact assessments; _________________ 29 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014, cited above, paragraph 12; Parliament decision of 9 March 2016,
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Recalls that
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Recalls that replacing the former
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T a (new) Ta. whereas the Annual Burden Survey offers a unique opportunity to identify and monitor the results of EU efforts to avoid overregulation and reduce administrative burdens; believes in this regard that the Annual Burden Survey provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the added value of EU legislation and to provide transparency to our citizens;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, established within its administration, assists parliamentary committees and offers them a variety of services, for which sufficient resources must be available so as to ensure that Members and committees receive the best possible support available;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, established within its administration, assists parliamentary committees and offers them a variety of services
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Calls for the Impact Assessment Handbook, and if necessary its Rules of Procedure, to provide that an impact assessment on substantive amendments can be requested by a committee where it is supported by political groups representing at least 40% of the number of members of that committee; firmly believes that impact assessments on Parliament’s amendments will help to reinforce its position without replacing the political decision-making process;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls that under paragraph 14 of the new IIA, upon considering Commission legislative proposals, Parliament
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls that under paragraph 14 of the new IIA, upon considering Commission legislative proposals, Parliament will take full account of the Commission’s impact assessments; recalls in this context that parliamentary committees may invite the Commission to present its impact assessment and the policy option chosen at a full committee meeting and invites its committees to avail themselves of this opportunity more regularly, and of the
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls that
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Welcomes the possibility that the Commission complements its own impact assessments during the legislative process; considers that paragraph 16 of the new IIA should be interpreted to the effect that, when requested by Parliament or the Council, the Commission should as a rule promptly provide such complementary impact assessments, including on subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Regrets that the IIA failed to recognise the importance and relevance of the innovation principle in all policy sectors; calls on the Commission to assess the impact of legislation on innovation;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U a (new) Ua. whereas the choice of seat of the bodies and agencies not explicitly provided for in the Treaties falls to the co- legislators who decide on their establishment, having jointly the responsibility and obligation to take decisions concerning the location of the seat and any transfer in a transparent and democratic way;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20.
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Repeats its position that stakeholders, trade unions and the civil society should be able to provide effective input to the impact assessment process as early as possible in the consultation phase and encourages the Commission to that end to make a more systematic use of roadmaps and inception impact assessments and publish them in due time at the beginning of the impact assessment process;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Repeats its position that stakeholders should be able to provide effective input to the impact assessment process as early as possible in the consultation phase and
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Welcomes the commitment made by the Commission, before adopting a proposal, to consult widely and encourage, in particular, the direct participation of SMEs and other end-users in consultations; notes with satisfaction that the Commission’s revised Better Regulation Guidelines take such a direction; notes, however, that the Commission's consultations do not take trade unions into consideration enough, and that workers' and vulnerable groups' interests are often not taken into account;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Welcomes the commitment made by the Commission, before adopting a proposal, to consult widely and encourage, in particular, the direct participation of SMEs, civil society and other end-users in consultations; notes with satisfaction that the Commission’s revised Better Regulation Guidelines take such a direction;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Emphasises that such assessments of administrative burdens must go far beyond the cost assessments which are undertaken and thus also - on at least an equal footing and assigning equal political weight on these aspects- take account of the social benefits of legislative measures and the consequences of failure to act with regard to social, environmental and consumer protection standards;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24b. Underlines that the goal of reducing the administrative burden should not be used as a pretext for deregulation that weakens social protection, consumer protection, environmental standards, animal welfare standards or social dialogue;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U b (new) Ub. whereas point 32 of the IIA stipulates that ‘the Commission shall carry out its role as facilitator by treating the two branches of the legislative authority equally, in full respect of the roles assigned by the Treaties to the three Institutions’;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25.
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25.
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the commitments made by the Commission as regards the scope of the explanatory memorandum accompanying each of its proposals; expresses particular satisfaction at the fact that the Commission will also explain how the measures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 83 #
27. Welcomes the commitments made by the Commission as regards the scope of the explanatory memorandum accompanying each of its proposals; expresses particular satisfaction at the fact that the Commission will also explain how the measures proposed are justifiable
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the commitments made by the Commission as regards the scope of the explanatory memorandum accompanying each of its proposals; expresses particular satisfaction at the fact that the Commission will also explain how the measures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; underlines in this regard the importance of a strengthened and comprehensive assessment and justification regarding compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Considers that consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment related to the same proposal is necessary;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Draws attention to the fact that in paragraph 25 of the new IIA, the Commission only committed to taking ‘due account of the difference in nature and effects between regulations and directives’;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Draws attention to the fact that in paragraph 25 of the new IIA, the Commission only committed to taking ‘due account of the difference in nature and effects between regulations and directives’; reiterates its request that, pursuing the same approach as that outlined in the Monti report, greater use should be made of regulations in legislative proposals30 , in accordance with the legal requirements and principles of subsidiarity and proportionality established by the Treaties as to their use, in order to ensure consistency, simplicity, and legal certainty across the Union; _________________ 30 See Parliament’s resolution of 14 September 2011 on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation, paragraph 5.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes the three Institutions’ commitment to exchanging views on modifications of the legal basis, as referred to in paragraph 25 of the new IIA; stresses the role and the expertise of its Committee on Legal Affairs in verifying legal bases31 ; recalls Parliament’s position that it will resist any attempt to undermine the legislative powers of Parliament by means of unwarranted modifications of the legal basis; invites the Council to pursue the dialogue with Parliament in case of disagreement over the proposed legal basis; _________________ 31 See Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Annex V, point XVI.1.
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Welcomes the three Institutions’ commitment to exchanging views on modifications of the legal basis, as referred to in paragraph 25 of the new IIA; stresses the role and the expertise of its Committee on Legal Affairs in verifying legal bases31 ; recalls Parliament’s position that it will resist any attempt to undermine the
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30.
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Underlines the importance of the principle enshrined in paragraph 26 of the new IIA
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33.
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Expresses
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 a (new) 34a. Is very concerned that the Council is trying almost systematically to replace delegated acts with either implementing acts or with detailed provisions in the legislative act itself; finds it particularly unacceptable that the Council is trying to use the post-Lisbon alignment to replace the regulatory procedure with scrutiny with implementing acts or with detailed provisions in the legislative act itself, instead of delegated acts;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 source: 616.860
2018/03/27
EMPL
11 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers the better law-making agreement as an inter-institutional exercise which seeks to improve the quality of Union legislation; reminds that in many instances, EU legislation harmonises or replaces different rules in 28 Member States, making national markets mutually and equally accessible and reducing administrative costs overall to realise a fully functional internal market;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the importance of
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Believes that the ‘Think Small First’ principle
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the importance of t
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses the importance of the agreed A
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Commission to establish
source: 619.263
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
Old
New
|
committees/2 |
Old
New
|
docs/2 |
|
docs/2 |
|
docs/2/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/INTA-AD-615264_EN.html
|
docs/3 |
|
events/4/docs |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE582.235&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PETI-AD-582235_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE609.658&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-AD-609658_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE615.497
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE615.264&secondRef=02
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE615.308&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AD-615308_EN.html |
docs/5 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE613.586&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EMPL-AD-613586_EN.html |
docs/6 |
|
events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3 |
|
events/3 |
|
events/4/docs |
|
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|