2020/2132(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Considers that Parliament's role in the Union's political and legislative agenda is crucial and that it has an important role to play in shaping the legislative initiatives to be submitted by the Commission, a role that should be more regularly and consistently fulfilled; stresses the need for the Parliament to put forward an increased number of new legislative proposals in order to gain a stronger role in initiating legislation;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Strongly recommends therefore making further use of Parliament’s powers under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision to be considered to give Parliament an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplores the fact that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision, undermining the representation of the public and its interests;

Amendment 11 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Moritz KÖRNER, Morten PETERSEN, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Strongly ~~recommend~~urges therefore making ~~further~~pro-active use of Parliament’s powers under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision to be considered to give Parliament an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplores the fact that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;

Amendment 12 #

Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that, as an institution representing the citizens of Europe, the European Parliament forms the democratic basis of the European Union and must accordingly be fully involved in the EU legislative process with an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that Treaty revision is a lengthy process; strongly recommends therefore that in the meantime the European Parliament explores all other options to enhance its right to initiate legislation;

Amendment 14 #

Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Considers that it is worth exploring the possibility to amend the 2010 Framework Agreement on the relations between the European Parliament and the Commission1a and the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on better law-making1b in order to strengthen the European Parliament’s powers to influence the European agenda-setting; _________________ 1ahttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010 Q1120%2801%29 1bhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016 Q0512%2801%29

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Recalls the Commission President’s commitment to support a right of initiative for the European Parliament in its political guidelines1a presented to Parliament on 16 July 2019 and that this commitment has been passed on to all Commissioners via their Mission letter; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/po litical-guidelines-next- commission_en_0.pdf

Amendment 16 #

Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Roberta METSOLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Believes that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides the right opportunity to discuss with civil society the powers of the European Parliament;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that Article 68 TFEU recognized a preponderant role to the European Council that has a de facto right of initiative when defining the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, which does not constitute a level playing field, as co- legislators, between Parliament and the Council, as laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on “Better Lawmaking”; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;

Amendment 18 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Moritz KÖRNER, Morten PETERSEN, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the European Council has a de facto right of initiative when defining the strategic guidelines for legislative planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, which does not constitute a level playing field between Parliament and the Council; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies; deplores that the Commission withdraws legislative proposals mostly because the Council cannot manage to agree and that this effectively rewards the often obstructionist attitude of the Council to legislative initiatives;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the European Council has a de facto right of initiative when defining the strategic guidelines for legislative planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, which does not constitute a level playing field between Parliament and the Council; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies; emphasises that these factors have led to the development of a large asymmetry in the legislative power held by the Council and the European Parliament;

Amendment 2 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Jana TOOM, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Moritz KÖRNER, Morten PETERSEN, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the Commission’s use of its right of legislative initiative has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years, especially as the Commission too often tailors legislative initiatives to the wishes of the Member States; believes that the same holds true of the frequent use of recast procedures and the lack of proper impact assessment;

Amendment 20 #

Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the European Council has a ~~de facto~~ right of initiative when defining the strategic guidelines for legislative planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, which does not constitute a level playing field between Parliament and the Council; underlines moreover the early in~~fluence by~~volvement of the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it deeply regrettable that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non-legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful, and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a positive reply from the Commission1 ; considers it regrettable also that the deadlines for the Commission to react to parliamentary resolutions and to come forward with legislative proposals have consistently not been respected; ~~expects the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report to be automatic, as pledged by the current Commission;~~ believes that the Commission must take action on Parliament's legislative initiatives by at least outlining follow-up actions taken and offering a detailed explanation when issuing negative decisions and expects the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report to be automatic, as pledged by the current Commission; reserves its right to consider taking action under Article 265 TFEU against the Commission if it fails to take any action on Parliament's legislative initiatives; regrets that the Commission's communications on the actions taken on own-initiative reports are not public and often lack a detailed response; _________________ 1 ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, p. 55 and 57.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers it d~~Deeply regret~~table~~s that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non- legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful, and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a ~~positive reply from the Commission1 ; considers it regrettable also that the~~concrete legislative proposal as follow-up by the Commission1 ; regrets that the three months deadlines for the Commission to react to parliamentary resolutions and to come forward with legislative proposals have consistently not been respected; expects the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report to be ~~automatic, as pledged by the current Commission~~fully in line with Article 225 TFEU, with the 2010 Framework Agreement and the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making; _________________ 1 ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, p. 55 and 57.

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it deeply regrettable that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non-legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful, and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a positive reply from the Commission1; considers it regrettable also that the deadlines for the Commission to react to parliamentary resolutions and to come forward with legislative proposals have consistently not been respected; expects the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report to be automatic, as pledged by the current Commission; urges the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its responsibilities and to honour its commitments; points out that it is not in the spirit of democracy for Commission responses to parliamentary resolutions to be given on a purely optional basis; _________________ 1 ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, p. 55 and 57.

Amendment 25 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Moritz KÖRNER, Morten PETERSEN, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Considers that, were the Commission not to submit a legislative proposal and fail to provide proper reasons as required by Article 225 TFEU, following Parliament’s request, this would constitute a failure to act and Parliament should reserve its right to take action under Article 265 TFEU; is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Parliament’s call for a legislative act in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, its resolution adopted by a majority of Members shall form the basis for a legislative procedure to be initiated by Parliament itself;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Considers that, were the Commission not to submit a legislative proposal and fail to provide proper reasons as required by Article 225 TFEU, following Parliament’s request, this would constitute a failure to act and Parliament should reserve its right to take action under Article 265 TFEU; is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Parliament’s call for a legislative act in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, its resolution adopted by a majority of members shall form the basis for a legislative procedure to be initiated by Parliament itself;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recalls that Article 225 TFEU and the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making requires the Commission to give detailed reasons for not following-up on the European Parliament’s request to legislate; considers that the validity of the Commission’s reasons for not following- up with a concrete legislative proposal to a Parliament INL report are subject to interpretation and Parliament should reserve its right to take action under Article 265 TFEU when it considers it necessary;

Amendment 29 #

Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Believes that INL reports should be accompanied by impact assessments whenever possible and drafted as clearly as possible;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Believe~~Recalls that the Commission~~’s use of its right~~ has a near monopoly ofn legislative initiative ~~has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years; believes~~s, and that the ~~sam~~se should~~s true of the frequent use of recast procedures and the lack of~~ respect the principles of proportionality, subsidiarity and better law-making and be accompanied by a proper impact assessment;

Amendment 30 #

Beata KEMPA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 31 #

Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Condemns the consistent lack of proper~~Recalls the 2016 legislative initiative on the EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1a; regrets the insufficient response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; recalls the 2020 resolution on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1b; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement; _________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-8-2016-0409_EN.pdf 1b https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-9-2020-0251_EN.pdf

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Condemns the consistent lack of proper response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights based on Parliament’s proposal of 2016 and the Commission’s annual report on the rule of law, governed by an interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions, consisting of an annual cycle of monitoring Union values, covering all aspects of Article 2 TEU and applying in an equal, objective and fair manner to all Member States in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement;

Amendment 34 #

Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Condemns the consistent lack of proper response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement as the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic, fundamental rights and rule of law violations; believes that the persistent deterioration of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the Member States has shown the need for interinstitutional cooperation in protecting the principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates its reasoned proposal on the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded; reiterates its deep concern that the standard modalities for hearings do not ensure equal treatment for Parliament, on the one hand, and the Commission and one third of the Member States, on the other, for presenting the reasoned proposal and access to information; expresses its regret that the hearings have not yet resulted in any significant progress on addressing clear risks of a serious breach of the values; points out that the Council’s failure to make effective use of Article 7 of the TEU continues to undermine the integrity of common European values, mutual trust, and the credibility of the Union as a whole.deleted

Amendment 36 #

Beata KEMPA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 37 #

Milan UHRÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates its reasoned proposal on the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded; reiterates its deep concern that the standard modalities for hearings do not ensure equal treatment for Parliament, on the one hand, and the Commission and one third of the Member States, on the other, for presenting the reasoned proposal and access to information; expresses its regret that the hearings have not yet resulted in any significant progress on addressing clear risks of a serious breach of the values; considers that the Union remains structurally unprepared to counter the backsliding of democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law and their violations in the Member States and points out that the Council’s failure to make effective use of Article 7 of the TEU continues to undermine the integrity of common European values, mutual trust, and the credibility of the Union as a whole.

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Believes that, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788, in case the Commission has failed to publish its intentions or has set out in a communication that it intends not to take action on a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) that has met the procedural requirements, Parliament should decide to follow up with an INL report that is based on the ECI; urges the Commission to commit itself to submit a legislative proposal following the adoption of a Parliament’s initiative that is based on an ECI that has met the procedural requirements and that is in line with the Treaties and the core values of the Union enshrined in Article 2 TEU; proposes in that regard to modify the Framework Agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the Commission’s use of its right of legislative initiative has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years; believes that the same holds true of the frequent use of recast procedures and the lack of proper impact assessment, which has undermined the effectiveness of the legislative acts;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

Amendment 41 #

Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes that the upcoming Conference on the Future of Europe should serve as a major democratic initiative to discuss possible developments for the future institutional set-up, including through strengthening the Parliament's role in decision-making;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Considers that new EU law- making mechanisms associating EU citizens and their elected representatives in the Parliament should be designed in order to improve citizens participation and the European democracy as a whole; believes, for instance, that the procedural thresholds for ECIs should be lowered where the proposal for an ECI is co- signed by a minimum number of MEPs;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Considers that new EU law- making mechanisms associating EU citizens and their elected representatives in the Parliament should be designed in order to improve citizens participation and the European democracy as a whole; believes for instance that the procedural thresholds for ECIs should be lowered where the proposal for an ECI is co- signed by a minimum number of MEPs;

Amendment 44 #

6 c. Asks the Commission to study the possibility of introducing mechanisms of direct democracy, such as citizen's assemblies or referendum vote on specific issues, which would grant EU citizens decisional or consultative power in the EU law-making process, without depending on the reform of the Treaties.

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the Commission’s use of its right of legislative initiative has ~~been neither~~not always been constructive ~~nor~~and productive in recent years; believes that the same holds true of the frequent use of recast procedures and the lack of proper impact assessment;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that the European Parliament is the only institution of the Union directly elected by its citizens and that it is the only parliamentary assembly in the world that does not have the power of direct legislative initiative, unlike national parliaments; believes that the current institutional architecture represents a democratic deficit, which is difficult to understand for European citizens;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Recommends that the Commission strengthens transparency and simplifies accessibility to documents, in particular to impact assessments and existing direct participation tools, such as online public consultations available in the 23 Union languages, or other feedback mechanisms on specific issues, as well as to consider introducing new mechanisms of direct democracy, that would allow for a wider participation of European citizens throughout the Union's legislative process;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Regrets that the European Parliament, as a democratically elected body, does not have the formal right of legislative initiative like national parliaments; Strongly recommends therefore ~~making~~to strengthen and to make further use of Parliament’s powers under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision to be considered to give Parliament an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European ~~people~~citizens and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; ~~deplor~~stresses the fact that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;

Amendment 9 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Strongly recommends therefore making further use of Parliament’s powers ~~under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision~~and of its crucial democratic role within the Union under the Treaties and for a Treaty revision of Article 225 TFEU, which has almost been overridden by Article 17(2) TEU, to be considered to give Parliament an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplores the fact that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;

source: 689.823

2021/09/13 AFCO 113 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Parliament’s position on the Conference on the Future of Europe,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas, while the Treaties award Parliament direct rights of initiative with regard to its own composition, the election of its Members and their Statute, the Statute of the European Ombudsman and Parliament’s right of inquiry, instances where a special procedure applies, and in order to initiate procedures related to respect of the rule of law and Treaty revisions, they effectively leave the Commission with a monopoly on the exercise of legislative initiative;

Amendment 100 #

Leila CHAIBI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Notes the importance of ~~ensuring close cooperation~~being firm with the Commission throughout the life cycle of legislative initiative reports; highlights the roles of the Conference of Committee Chairs and the Conference of Presidents in this regard;

Amendment 101 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Notes the importance of ensuring close cooperation with the Commission throughout the life cycle of legislative initiative reports, so as to ensure that the process is as effective, transparent and inclusive as possible; highlights the roles of the Conference of Committee Chairs and the Conference of Presidents in this regard;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Calls for the extension of the 3- month timeframe for the response of the Commission established by Art. 16 of the 2010 Framework Agreement; Considers that a more realistic timeframe might improve the overall credibility of the process, as well as improve the quality of the response by the Commission;

Amendment 103 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Believes that the Commission, when assessing the subsidiarity, proportionality and better lawmaking principles as part of its follow-up on Parliament requests for legislative proposals under Article 225 of the TFEU, should take due account of the accompanying analyses concerning ‘European added value’ and the ‘cost of non-Europe’ produced by Parliament; points out that under the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, the Commission is already obliged to respond to any issues raised by the co-legislators in relation to such analyses; believes, furthermore, that the Commission should clearly ~~refer to Parliament’s~~link draft proposals adopted under Article 225 of the TFEU ~~when such proposals are followed by a legislative initiative~~to the relevant INL or INI reports, providing a clear “legislative influence footprint”;

Amendment 104 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27 a. Commits to foster a stronger coordination with the Committee of the Regions and with the Economic and Social Committee by giving due account to their opinions into legislative own- initiative reports. Believes that, given the specific nature of these requests, a revised Framework Agreement should incentivize the Commission to transpose these own- initiative reports into a legislative proposal;

Amendment 105 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Reiterates that accessibility, ethics and transparency are paramount and must guide the activities of all the EU institutions; calls for all the relevant information on legislative initiative reports ~~to be made easily available online~~, such as internal procedural steps or follow- up by the Commission, to be made easily available online in all official languages;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28 a. Believes that, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788 , in the event that the Commission, within the given deadlines, has failed to publish its intentions, or has set out in a communication that it intends not to take action on a European citizens’ initiative (ECI) which has met the procedural requirements and is in line with the Treaties, in particular the core values of the Union enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU, Parliament could decide to follow up the ECI with a legislative own- initiative report (INL); urges the Commission to commit itself to submitting a legislative proposal following Parliament’s adoption of such an INL; proposes, in this regard, to modify the 2010 Framework Agreement;

Amendment 107 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Reiterates the importance of the pre-legislative phase and recalls the role of Parliament as provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the 2010 Framework Agreement; calls for work on the establishment of a joint legislative database to be sped up, as stipulated in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making; calls to urgently start interinstitutional talks in order to open a review of the Interinstitutional Agreement;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Regrets that, as regards dialogue between the social partners at EU level, Parliament is merely kept informed, in accordance with Article 155 of the TFEU; stresses that a revision of the Framework Agreement should be the opportunity to provide for a de facto obligation on the Commission to present a legislative proposal on the basis of their request submitted by Parliament;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29 a. Suggests, aspart of the Conference on the Future of Europe, studying the possibility of introducing mechanisms of direct participation, such as citizens’ assemblies,in order to grant EU citizens the opportunity to express themselves and thereby engage in the EU law-making process;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the Treaties award Parliament direct rights of initiative with regard to its own composition, the election of its Members and their Statute, the Statute of the European Ombudsman and Parliament’s right of inquiry, instances where a special procedure applies, and in order to initiate procedures related to respect of the rule of law and Treaty revisions; whereas this direct right of initiative is far from sufficient; whereas the European Parliament is the only European institution democratically elected by the citizens of the European Union, and is thus the institution best able to represent the voice of citizens, and also of civil society and the social partners, within the European institutions;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Considers it essential to increase Parliament's role through the conferral of full co-decision powers and by ending the unanimity requirement regarding social policies;

Amendment 111 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)

29b. Supports an autonomous mechanism of the European Parliament to include national parliaments in its legislative initiative within the framework of Article 9 of Protocol 1 of the Lisbon Treaty;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30 a. Recalls the importance of citizens’ and civil society participation for the democratic legitimacy of the EU; calls on all EU institutions to involve them in a meaningful way in decision-making at all stages of the policy cycle;

Amendment 113 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)

30 b. Recalls that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides the opportunity to assess the EU’s institutional status quo and give new impetus to European democracy; calls on all participants to the Conference to consider a genuine right of initiative for the European Parliament;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas giving the European Parliament direct power of initiative would rebalance the Union's legislative process; whereas the Council is able to block proposals that fail to meet with the approval of all EU Member States; whereas, as indicated in the study commissioned by the Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on Parliament's right of initiative, empirical evidence shows that the success of Parliament's initiatives depends essentially on the decision-making procedure followed by the Council (qualified majority or unanimity);

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas in its resolution on the state of the debate on the future of Europe, Parliament recalled that ‘in the event of a possible future revision of the Treaties, the right of legislative initiative could also be attributed to Parliament as the direct representative of EU citizens’; whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe is, among other things, an opportunity to discuss Treaty change with citizens and to strengthen the tools for citizens’ direct participation;

Amendment 14 #

Brando BENIFEI, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas on the digital platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe, European democracy is one of the issues which registers most contributions from citizens, alongside climate change and the environment, far ahead of other issues; whereas a genuine right of legislative initiative is one of the most frequently recurring proposals from citizens;

Amendment 15 #

Leila CHAIBI

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas in its resolution on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union, Parliament proposed ‘that in line with the common practice in a number of Member States, both chambers of the EU legislature, the Council and, in particular, the Parliament, as the only institution directly elected by citizens, should be given the right of legislative initiative, without prejudice to the basic legislative prerogative of the Commission’; whereas the Commission goes beyond its role as guardian of the Treaties;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

H a. whereas strengthening the right of initiative should also be intended in a more open sense, meaning the necessity to work towards a more prominent role of the Parliament, being the only elected representative of the citizens, in the agenda setting of the Union, of which the right of legislative initiative is an essential element but not the only element, looking in particular at the extension of co- decision in all policy areas;

Amendment 17 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)

H b. whereas the Parliament Rules of Procedure determine the rules for drafting and adopting resolutions under art 225 TFEU; whereas a distinction in practice exists between INI and INL reports; whereas framework agreement of 2010 and better law making agreement of 2016 do not make such distinction;

Amendment 18 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Recital H c (new)

H c. whereas art 225 TFEU grants Parliament a rather broad right to request to the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal, with the only condition that it should be adopted with a qualified majority of its component members;

Amendment 19 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Recital H d (new)

H d. whereas, looking in particular at the current institutional set-up of the Union, the development of parallel avenues for enhancing the Parliament Right of Initiative, which means strengthening forms of interinstitutional cooperation as well as defining a clearer separation of powers, notably by granting Parliament a direct right of initiative, should be the ideal way forward;

Amendment 2 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 18 June 2020 on the European Parliament’s position on the Conference on the Future of Europe,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H e (new)

H e. whereas the EP has shown the capacity to produce a particularly ambitious legislative initiative on the issue of the rule of law, as adopted in October 2020, by inviting the Commission and the Council to enter into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement in accordance with Article 295 TFEU; whereas the matter of rule of law should be highlighted as one of the key areas where the Parliament right of initiative should be developed;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that, in an institutional set-up where Parliament does not yet have a general direct right of initiative, the special legislative procedures that it initiates have special constitutional dignity and primacy over ordinary legislative procedures; considers that in order to enable Parliament, as the only directly elected institution, to have a general direct right of initiative, the Treaties should be revised as soon as possible;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls the essential prerogatives of a Parliament, such as adopting the budget and proposing legislation; stresses that the Commission’s legislative monopoly has the effect of increasing citizens’ mistrust of the Union as a whole, and that the direct right of initiative is therefore a pressing need in order to give life to European democracy;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the Treaty of Lisbon already bestows some direct rights of initiative on Parliament, although largely insufficient, acknowledging its competence to self-organise, its scrutiny function and its democratic legitimacy as the only directly elected EU institution;

Amendment 25 #

Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that in past 20 years, Parliament has consistently made use of such rights, insufficient as they are; regrets, however, that these special legislative procedures have too seldom been successfully concluded due to the lack of agreement of the Commission and the Council7 and of democratic commitments on their part; _________________ 7 Study entitled ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, pp. 34- 35 (PE 655.134 – ISBN 978-92-846-6738- 3).

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that in past 20 years, Parliament has consistently made use of such rights; ~~regrets~~takes note, however, that these special legislative procedures have ~~too~~ seldom been successfully concluded due to the lack of agreement of the Commission and the Council7 ; _________________ 7 Study entitled ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, pp 34-35 (PE 655.134 – ISBN 978-92-846-6738-3).

Amendment 27 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Suggests streamlining the procedures outlined in the Parliament Rules of Procedure for drafting and adopting resolutions under art 225 TFEU; considers that the distinction currently in practice between INI1a and INL2a reports should be eventually overcome to ensure that any request for legislative initiative to the Commission is adequately taken into account, always respecting the Interinstitutional Agreement, regardless of the parliamentary resolution that carries such request; _________________ 1a Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament 2a Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

~~4. Deeply regrets the lack of follow- up by the European Council on the rule of law procedure launched by Parliament and its subsequent calls for action;~~deleted

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Deeply regrets the lack of follow- up by the European Council on the rule of law procedure launched by Parliament and its subsequent calls for ac~~Recalls the 2016 and 2020 initiatives on the EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; deeply regrets the consistent lack of proper response to Parliament’s initiative on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights governed by an interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions, consisting of an annual cycle of monitoring covering all aspects of Article 2 of the TEU and applying in an equal, objective and fair manner to all Member States; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on the interinstitutional agreement; believes that the persistent deterioration of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in various Member States has shown the need for genuine interinstitutional cooperation;

Amendment 3 #

Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ

Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas Article 15 of the TEU specifies that the European Council shall not exercise legislative functions;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Deeply regret~~Condemns the lack of follow- up by the European Council on the rule of law procedure launched by Parliament and its subsequent calls for action; deems it essential to ensure a full and immediate implementation of the Regulation establishing the Rule of Law mechanism, without any undue delay and respecting the role of the Parliament as co-legislator and without any further additional implementing guidelines;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Deeply regrets the lack of follow- up by the European Council on the rule of law procedure launched by Parliament and its subsequent, repeated calls for action;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reiterates its reasoned proposal on the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded;reiterates its deep concern that the standard modalities for hearings do not ensure equal treatment for Parliament, on the one hand, and the Commission and one third of the Member States, on the other, for presenting the reasoned proposal and access to information;expresses its regret that the hearings have not yet resulted in any significant progress on addressing clear risks of a serious breach of EU values;considers that the Union remains structurally unprepared to counter the backsliding of democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law and their violation in the Member States and points out that the Council’s failure to make effective use of Article 7 of the TEU continues to undermine the integrity of common European values, mutual trust, and the credibility of the Union as a whole; ';

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

~~5. Regrets that three Member States have not yet ratified the amended electoral law of the European Union adopted in 2018;~~deleted

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

~~5. Regrets that three Member States have not yet ratified the amended electoral law of the European Union adopted in 2018;~~deleted

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Further regrets that the Council has to date refused to negotiate with Parliament regarding its right of inquiry, despite this contradicting Article 226 of the TFEU and the principle of sincere cooperation;deleted

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 37 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Welcomes the adoption of the new Statute of the European Ombudsman, upon Parliament’s initiative, which ensures that the statute is consistent with the Treaty of Lisbon;~~deleted

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Proposes, that in line with the common practice in a number of Member States, the Parliament, as the only institution directly elected by the citizens, should be given the right of legislative initiative, without prejudice to the basic legislative prerogative of the Commission; strongly encourages the Parliament delegation to the Conference on the Future of Europe to highlight the importance of granting Parliament a direct right of initiative in the upcoming discussions in the plenary and working groups’ meetings of the Conference;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the Council has exercised Article 121 of the TFEU as a de facto right of initiative in relation to economic and monetary policy~~, while demanding further accountability from~~; regrets that Article 121 provides merely for the European Parliament to be informed; proposes that Parliament, as the only EU institution directly elected ~~EU institution;~~ by citizens, should acquire more responsibilities and, as co-legislator, should be on an equal footing with the Council, and thus empowered to adopt, amend and propose legislation to the same extent;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Parliament is the only institution democratically and directly elected by the citizens; whereas, contrary to the constitutional systems of most EU Member States, the European Parliament has no formal right of direct legislative initiative, which, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the TEU, ~~the right of initiative~~ lies with the Commission, except where the Treaties state otherwise;

Amendment 40 #

Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the Council has exercised Article 121 of the TFEU as a de facto right of initiative in relation to economic and monetary policy, while demanding further accountability from Parliament as the only directly elected EU institution and the only one that represents the voice of the citizens when it comes to EU decision making;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Acknowledges, furthermore, that Article 68 of the TFEU has been exercised as a de facto right of initiative by the European Council in the area of freedom, security and justice; highlights the fact that the European Council is not a co-legislator; stresses the particularly serious impact of these policies on citizens’ fundamental rights and calls for Parliament and the Council to be given this competence in equal terms in future Treaty revisions;deleted

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Acknowledges, furthermore, that Article 68 of the TFEU has been exercised as a~~Calls for a review of the de facto right of initiative by the European Council under Article 68 TFEU in the area of freedom, security and justice; highlights the fact that the European Council is not a co-legislator~~; stresses the particularly serious~~ and that the adoption by the European Council of multiannual operational programmes in this area without any obligation to consult the European Parliament or the Commission constitutes an undemocratic set of tools and procedures in an area where the impact of these policies on citizens’ fundamental rights ~~and~~is particularly serious; calls for Parliament and the Council to be given this competence in equal terms in future Treaty revisions;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Acknowledges, furthermore, that Article 68 of the TFEU has been exercised as a de facto right of initiative by the European Council in the area of freedom, security and justice; highlights the fact that the European Council is not a co-legislator; stresses the particularly serious impact of these policies on citizens’ fundamental rights ~~and~~; calls for Parliament ~~and the Council to be given this competence in equal terms~~to be given the right of initiative in future Treaty revisions;

Amendment 44 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that pursuant to Article 76 of the TFEU, the Council, through a quarter of its Member States, has a right of initiative that is concurrent with that of the Commission in relation to cooperation on administrative law, and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; considers that the European Parliament, as the only institution directly elected by citizens, must have a direct right of initiative in this area;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Notes that these developments are part of a wider trend whereby aforementioned institutions increasingly usurp decision-making power in all EU policy fields; stresses that this practice erodes the institutional balance of the EU as established by the Treaties; believes that the balance should be restored in favour of democratic legitimacy through equivalent rights for Parliament;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Notes with concern the lack of transparency in the use of the indirect right of initiative of the Council laid down in Article 241 of the TFEU; calls on~~Encourages the Council to publish, in a user-friendly manner, all requests made on thise legal basis of Article 241 of the TFEU;

Amendment 47 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes with concern the lack of transparency in the use of the indirect right of initiative of the Council laid down in Article 241 of the TFEU~~; calls on the Council to publish,~~ and in general in the work of the Council; calls on the Council to publish, in all the official languages of the European Union and in a user-friendly manner, all requests made on this legal basis;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Notes with concern~~Regrets the lack of transparency in the use of the indirect right of initiative of the Council laid down in Article 241 of the TFEU; calls on the Council to publish, in a user-friendly manner, all requests made on this legal basis; insists on its call to the Council to ensure the highest possible level of transparency in all its acts, as outlined in the Parliament report on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU adopted in December 2018

Amendment 49 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Recalls that since the Maastricht Treaty, Parliament, in an acknowledgement of its unique democratic legitimacy, has had the right to ask the Commission to submit legislative proposals; considers that asking the Commission to submit legislative proposals is an insufficient right and that Parliament must have a direct right of initiative;

Amendment 5 #

Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas Article 48 of the TEU sets out the Treaty revision procedures, and whereas such procedures are necessary to give the European Parliament a new right of initiative;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that in accordance with Article 225 of the TFEU, requests must be within the remit of competence of the Union and that currently the sole obligation of the Commission is to inform Parliament of its reasons for not presenting a proposal; believes that the Commission should commit to initiate legislation following the adoption of any request by the Parliament adopted by the majority of its component members within any legislative own-initiative report;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that in accordance with Article 225 of the TFEU, requests must be within the remit of competence of the Union and the sole obligation of the Commission is to inform Parliament of its reasons for not presenting a proposal; considers this obligation to be far too weak;

Amendment 52 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recalls that Parliament and the Commission agreed to further enhance this right through the 2010 Framework Agreement; notes that the Commission committed to report on its follow-up on Parliament requests within three months and, if so decided by the college, present a legislative proposal; considers that all requests from Parliament, which is the only directly elected institution, should be taken into account and that they should not depend on the goodwill of the Commission; considers, more broadly, that the Commission should comply with its role as guardian of the Treaties and that Parliament should enjoy the monopoly of legislative initiative;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recalls that Parliament and the Commission agreed to further enhance this right through the 2010 Framework Agreement; notes that the Commission committed to report on its follow-up on Parliament requests within three months and, if so decided by the college, present a legislative proposal; believes that time has come to show a more ambitious political will and therefore calls for a review of the Interinstitutional Agreement with the goal of ensuring a stronger EP rights of initiative;

Amendment 54 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regrets that, until 2019, the follow- up on Parliament’s legislative initiative reports adopted pursuant to Article 225 of the TFEU showed that the Commission had only delivered legislative proposals following Parliament requests in a minority of cases8 ; further regrets that the deadlines for the Commission to respond to Parliament requests and to put forward legislative proposals were ~~not adhered to in most cases~~practically never adhered to; _________________ 8 Study entitled ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, p. 54 (see footnote 7 above).

Amendment 55 #

Brando BENIFEI, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes ~~in the strongest terms~~ the commitment made by Commission President von der Leyen to always respond with a legislative act to Parliament requests under Article 225 of the TFEU, with full respect for the proportionality, subsidiarity and better lawmaking principles; expects this commitment to be followed by action;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Welcomes in the strongest terms the commitment made by Commission President von der Leyen to always respond with a legislative act to Parliament requests under Article 225 of the TFEU, with full respect for the proportionality, subsidiarity and better lawmaking principles; believes that this commitment should be translated into legal by amending the 2010 Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission and the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the Commission in order to strengthen Parliament’s power to influence the EU agenda;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Welcomes the new legislative powers and equal treatment with the Council that the Lisbon Treaty has conferred on the European Parliament; believes that the European Parliament, as the only EU body expressing the will of the citizens and making their voices heard, should be continually empowered and given a greater role in the election, formation and evaluation of the European Commission and in overseeing the operations of the Recovery and Resilience Facility;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Suggests that, before the next revision of the Treaties,inter-institutional arrangements are put in place in order to better regulate the areas where the Parliament already has a right of initiative with a view to ensure that these procedures are more efficient;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas it is the citizens who are ultimately affected by European legislation and it is therefore essential to pay heed to and take into account their legitimate expectations;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Believes that the reflection about the right of initiative of the Parliament has to go hand in hand with a wider reflection on political initiative within the EU decision-making process; suggests to improve the mechanism to follow-up on European Citizens Initiatives, notably by introducing a procedure according to which, in the event that the Commission, within the given deadlines, has failed to publish its intentions, or has set out in a communication that it intends not to take action on a European citizens’ initiative (ECI) which has met the procedural requirements and is in line with the Treaties, in particular the core values of the Union enshrined inArticle 2 of the TEU, Parliament could decide to follow up the ECI with a legislative own- initiative report (INL);

Amendment 61 #

Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Proposes that the entire college of Commissioners work closely with the European Parliament at every stage in the drafting and debating of resolutions; stresses the importance of the Commissioners keeping Parliament constantly updated during all negotiations at international level; calls on the European Commission to incorporate into its legislative activity the recommendations set out in own-initiative European Parliament resolutions; calls on the EC to provide the European Parliament with clear details regarding the implementation of EU legislation;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Stresses however the need for an increased level of scrutiny by the Parliament over the activity of the Commission and the importance of a better level of transparency in the decision-making process prior to the presentation of legislative initiatives, in the light of the substantial relationship of trust that must bind the Commission and the Parliament, as the sole body directly elected by the Citizens;

Amendment 63 #

Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17 b. Suggests to substantially improve the involvement of the Parliament in the setting of the Commission Work Programme, for example by putting in place a joint procedure;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Strongly believes that ~~when~~if the Treaties are next revised, a proposal to grant Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, ~~should be granted~~ the right to initiate legislation should be in any event preceded by a popular referendum in all Member States;

Amendment 65 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Strongly believes that ~~when the Treaties are next revised,~~ Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted ~~the right to initiate legislation~~a genuine and general right to initiate legislation; such right of initiative should at least apply in those policy fields in which Parliament is empowered to enact legislation as co- legislator;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Strongly believes that when the Treaties are next revised, Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution~~, should be granted the right to initiate legislation~~ and hence the one that represents the voice of the citizens in the EU decision-making process, must be granted the right to initiate legislation; takes the view that more democratic and effective action at EU level must be the common objective of the Commission and Parliament;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Strongly believes that when the Treaties are next revised, Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to initiate legislation; regards the Conference on the Future of Europe as an opportunity to address the shortcomings of the current arrangements in terms of the legislative balance of power, recommend amendments to the Treaties and redress the growing imbalance between the institutions;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Strongly believes that when the Treaties are next revised, for which there is an urgent need, Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted a monopoly on the right to initiate legislation; calls for Article 17(2) of the TEU to be revised in order to give Parliament a monopoly on legislative initiative, enabling it to make legislative proposals on all matters it considers relevant and on which the European Union is competent; calls also for an urgent revision of Articles 225 and 294 in order to give Parliament full responsibility, from the earliest stage, enabling it to make legislative proposals;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Notes that, although there are many possible arrangements for increasing Parliament’s legislative powers, the best option to guarantee it a genuine right of legislative initiative remains Treaty change, without which the Commission will retain its legislative monopoly as laid down in European law; stresses that the Conference on the Future of Europe is the opportunity to raise this institutional and democratic issue; is therefore in favour of Treaty change;

Amendment 7 #

Jaak MADISON, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gunnar BECK, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the Treaties award an indirect, albeit extremely limited, right of legislative initiative as, pursuant to Article 225 of the TFEU, ‘the European Parliament may, acting by a majority of its component Members, request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters on which it considers that a Union act is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’; whereas the European Parliament is the only institution directly elected by citizens;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Is deeply convinced~~Observes that a general and direct right of initiative wof the Parliament could further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and empower Union citizens; believes that it would reflect the evolution over time of the competences of the Union and its institutions, and is of the opinion that Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to propose legislation, as national parliaments may, when the Treaties are next revised, as the only directly elected EU institution;

Amendment 71 #

Leila CHAIBI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Is deeply convinced that a general and direct right of initiative would further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and empower Union citizens; stresses that Parliament’s lack of power is particularly damaging for democracy, especially in the area of trade agreements; calls, therefore, for the Treaties, and in particular Article 207 of the TFEU, to be amended so that the Commission submits recommendations to the Council and also to Parliament, in order for them to authorise it to open the necessary negotiations; considers that it is not solely for the Council and the Commission to ensure that negotiated agreements are compatible with the Union’s policies and internal rules, in particular with the Green Deal; adds that these negotiations could be conducted by the Commission in consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council and Parliament to assist it in this task or by an interinstitutional team involving the Commission, the Council and Parliament; believes that it would reflect the evolution over time of the competences of the Union and its institutions, and is of the opinion that Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to propose legislation, as national parliaments may, when the Treaties are next revised;

Amendment 72 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Pascal DURAND, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Is deeply convinced that a general and direct right of initiative would further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and empower Union citizens; believes that it would reflect the evolution ~~over time of the competences of the Union and its institutions~~towards a genuine European democracy, and is of the opinion that Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to propose legislation and policy initiatives, as national parliaments may~~, when the Treaties are next revised~~;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Is deeply convinced that a general and direct right of initiative would further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and empower Union citizens; believes that it would reflect the evolution over time of the competences of the Union and its institutions, and is of the opinion that Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to propose legislation, ~~as national parliaments may,~~ when the Treaties are next revised; believes that national parliaments could contribute strengthening the parliamentary dimension of the EU and suggests endowing them with the right of proposing initiatives to the European Parliament;

Amendment 74 #

Sandro GOZI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Alin MITUȚA, Charles GOERENS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Is deeply convinced that a general and direct right of initiative would further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and empower Union citizens; believes that it would reflect the evolution over time of the competences of the Union and its institutions, and is of the opinion that Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to propose legislation, as national parliaments may, when the Treaties are next revised; believes also that conferral of a right of initiative on the European Parliament should be accompanied by a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the Council, thereby preventing the latter from blocking proposals that fail to meet with the approval of all EU Member States;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Welcomes in the strongest terms the support from Commission President von der Leyen for a right of initiative for the European Parliament, as expressed during her speech on the eve of her election as President of the Commission;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Reiterates the special and reinforced constitutional dignity of the issues that are currently subject to the initiative of Parliament and considers that such an exclusive right sh~~Considers that the exclusive rights of initiative of Parliament such as those that already exist, could be extended to issues where democratic legitimacy is especially relevant;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Reiterates the special and reinforced constitutional dignity of the ~~issue~~matters that are currently subject to the initiative of Parliament and considers that such an exclusive right should be extended to ~~issue~~matters where democratic legitimacy is especially relevant;

Amendment 78 #

Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Reiterates the special and reinforced constitutional dignity of the issues that are currently subject to the initiative of Parliament and considers that such an exclusive right should be extended to issues where democratic legitimacy is especially relevantat the areas in which it has a direct right of initiative are currently limited to issues of a constitutional nature; believes that this direct right of initiative should be extended to all areas;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Reiterates the special and reinforced constitutional dignity of the issues that are currently subject to the initiative of Parliament and considers therefore that such an exclusive right should be extended to all issues ~~where democratic legitimacy is especially relevant~~it considers to be relevant and on which the European Union is competent, in order to give strong democratic legitimacy to the legislative proposals of the European union;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas, the European Parliament's own-initiative reports and resolutions are an important tool for setting the EU political agenda; whereas, under the 2010 Framework Agreement, the Commission committed to report on the concrete follow-up on any Parliament request to submit a proposal pursuant to Article 225 of the TFEU within 3 months following adoption of the corresponding resolution in plenary;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Reiterates the special and reinforced constitutional dignity of the issues that are currently subject to the initiative of Parliament and considers that such an exclusive right should be extended to issues where democratic legitimacy ~~is especially relevant~~and European sovereignty are especially relevant, such as on rule of law, taxation, own resources;

Amendment 81 #