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 #