2020/2132(INI) Parliament’s right of initiative
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date 2021/11/22
Lead committee dossier:
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date 2021/11/22
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | AFCO | RANGEL Paulo ( EPP) | BENIFEI Brando ( S&D), GOZI Sandro ( Renew), DELBOS-CORFIELD Gwendoline ( Verts/ALE), MADISON Jaak ( ID), CHAIBI Leila ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | LIBE | DELBOS-CORFIELD Gwendoline ( Verts/ALE) | Caterina CHINNICI ( S&D), Sophia IN 'T VELD ( RE), Nicolaus FEST ( ID), Anne-Sophie PELLETIER ( GUE/NGL), Isabel WISELER-LIMA ( PPE), Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | DURAND Pascal ( Renew) | Angel DZHAMBAZKI ( ECR), Gilles LEBRETON ( ID), Tiemo WÖLKEN ( S&D), Manon AUBRY ( GUE/NGL), Marie TOUSSAINT ( Verts/ALE), Marion WALSMANN ( PPE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54, RoP 57
Legal Basis:
RoP 54, RoP 57Subjects
Events
2021/11/22
Indicative plenary sitting date
2021/08/13
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2021/05/21
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2021/03/22
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/09/17
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2020/09/17
EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2020/07/13
EP - DURAND Pascal (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2020/06/11
EP - DELBOS-CORFIELD Gwendoline (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2020/05/26
EP - RANGEL Paulo (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
Documents
Activities
- Antonio TAJANI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Brando BENIFEI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Caterina CHINNICI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Pascal DURAND
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Angel DZHAMBAZKI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Charles GOERENS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Othmar KARAS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Gilles LEBRETON
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Paulo RANGEL
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Helmut SCHOLZ
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Clare DALY
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Leila CHAIBI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Gwendoline DELBOS-CORFIELD
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Márton GYÖNGYÖSI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Marcel KOLAJA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Grace O'SULLIVAN
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Eugenia RODRÍGUEZ PALOP
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Mick WALLACE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Domènec RUIZ DEVESA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Damian BOESELAGER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Bert-Jan RUISSEN
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Eugen TOMAC
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Andrey SLABAKOV
Plenary Speeches (0)
- László TRÓCSÁNYI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Sven SIMON
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Salvatore DE MEO
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Sandro GOZI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Cyrus ENGERER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Vlad GHEORGHE
Plenary Speeches (0)
Amendments | Dossier |
78 |
2020/2132(INI)
2021/01/08
JURI
33 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 a (new) A. whereas the Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end; whereas Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise, as laid down in Article 17 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU);
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the European Council has a de-facto right of initiative within the area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which does not reflect
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the European Council has a de-facto right of initiative within the area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that the Council and Parliament should have a
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that Parliament should
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that Parliament should have an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. 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 could 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 Interinstitutional Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that providing Parliament with the right of legislative initiative would require a Treaty revision and therefore exploring the potential of current treaty provisions to enhance the influence the Parliament can have on initiating legislation are worth looking at in order to pave the way to its direct right to initiative;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Stresses the importance of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the Parliament, Council and the Commission and the Framework Agreement on relation between the Parliament and the Commission and the fact that changes there can enhance the legislative agenda setting powers of Parliament and recalibrate the institutional balance without formally changing the Treaties;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Proposes to consider developing a procedure for Parliament to support ideas in form of a sponsorship to for instance European Economic and Social Committee´s and European Committee of the Regions’ positions within the framework of Article 225 TFEU;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Deeply regrets 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
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 b (new) B. whereas the Treaties grant Parliament the direct right of initiative only in very limited cases, namely its own composition, the election of its members and their Statute, the Statute of the European Ombudsman, to initiate a rule of law procedure, to set up temporary inquiry committees and to initiate Treaty revisions; whereas Parliament has the right to request from the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters it considers relevant for a Union act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, according to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); whereas Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (RoP) further details this indirect right of initiative;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Deeply regrets that on
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is of the opinion that INL reports in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, with only one addressee and
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making plays an essential role in securing sincere and transparent cooperation throughout the entire legislative cycle and allows to achieve a better and mutual understanding of the respective positions of the different institutions; calls for an assessment of the extent to which the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making should be revised with the purpose of eliminating possible barriers to the Parliament right of Initiative;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that new EU law- making mechanisms associating EU citizens and their elected representatives in the European 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 minimal number of MEPs;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Reminds that Parliament has a structure for impact assessment activities and is convinced that the use of it should be mandatory before drafting a legislative own-initiative report in order to enhance the European added value assessment foreseen in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Emphasises that Parliament fully adheres to the interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, which stresses the necessity of a prior "European added value" analysis as well as a "cost of non- Europe" assessment;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. 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 Treaty;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Urges the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its responsibilities and to
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 c (new) C. whereas Article 225 TFEU obliges the Commission to give reasons, in case it would not submit a legislative proposal as requested by Parliament; recalls thereby the compulsory character of this Treaty provision;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Parliament’s
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Considers that, were the Commission does not
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Is convinced that Article 294 TFEU should be revised in a way that Parliament’s resolution requesting a legislative act pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, adopted by a majority of members shall form the basis for a legislative procedure to be initiated by Parliament itself, if the Commission does not forward a legislative proposal within 12 months after Parliament’s request;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 d (new) D. whereas the European Parliament is the only directly elected EU institution, which at the same time has less legislative initiative powers than most national parliaments;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 e (new) E. whereas Ms Ursula von der Leyen, before she was elected President of the Commission, committed to respond to legislative initiatives, when adopted by a majority of Parliament’s members and in full respect of the proportionality, subsidiarity, and better law-making principles;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 f (new) F. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe will be an avenue for further reflection with civil society on how to best strengthen the Parliament’s right of initiative with regards to better law- making;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 g (new) Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that the Commission’s right of legislative initiative, as set out in the Treaties, has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years,
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
source: 662.145
2021/03/16
LIBE
45 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Strongly
Amendment 12 #
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 #
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) Amendment 16 #
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 #
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
Amendment 2 #
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 #
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 in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, 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;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses that the European Council
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;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
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 #
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 President when she sought support from Parliament for her appointment; _________________ 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 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 #
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.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
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 #
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 Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 37 #
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
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) 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 41 #
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) 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 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Believes that the Commission’s use of its right of legislative initiative has
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
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Strongly recommends therefore making further use of Parliament’s powers
source: 689.823
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2021-09-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/3 |
|
2021-09-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2021-10-04T00:00:00New
2021-11-22T00:00:00 |
2021-08-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/date |
Old
2021-08-03T00:00:00New
2021-08-13T00:00:00 |
2021-08-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/date |
Old
2021-07-15T00:00:00New
2021-08-03T00:00:00 |
2021-07-30Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-PR-680845_EN.html
|
2021-07-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/date |
Old
2021-07-14T00:00:00New
2021-07-15T00:00:00 |
2021-07-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/date |
Old
2021-07-13T00:00:00New
2021-07-14T00:00:00 |
2021-07-13Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2/date |
Old
2021-07-09T00:00:00New
2021-07-13T00:00:00 |
2021-07-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/2 |
|
2021-07-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts |
|
2021-06-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-680906_EN.html
|
2021-05-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/1 |
|
2021-05-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts |
|
2021-05-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
commission |
|
2021-05-03Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
events/0/body |
EP
|
2021-04-30Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
forecasts/0/title |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Indicative plenary sitting date |
2021-04-13Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE657.481&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-657481_EN.html |
2021-03-27Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
docs |
|
forecasts |
|
2021-03-03Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
2021-02-24Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
2021-02-17Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
2021-02-16Show (5) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
124693
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
2020-12-09Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
124693
|
committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
197531
|
2020-09-28Show (1) Changes
committees/2/rapporteur |
|