2021/2166(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the role of the better regulation programme is improving regulatory principles and reducing unnecessary burdens for businesses and citizens; underlines the importance of enabling citizens to ~~fully~~ exercise their democratic right to participate in the EU’s decision-making process ~~and ensuring citizens’~~through active interaction with their elected representatives, as well as promoting direct participation; underlines that it is essential for the EU to ensure increased transparency at different levels of policy- making; calls on the Commission to continuously improve public consultations in order to ensure citizens’ 'participation and to take into account feedback from other institutions on such activities; stresses that public consultations on better law-making in the EU should be accessible to citizens and civil society through different outreach channels, should be translated into all official and co-official languages of the Member States, and should have easy-to-access documents, and particularly the Parliament as the directly elected representative body, on such activities; reiterates, that petitions to the Parliament are an important form of citizens’ participation and feed-back, which Commission should regularly assess and address; stresses that public consultations on better law-making in the EU should be accessible to citizens and civil society, and should have easy-to-access documents; this would mean more costs and more bureaucracy;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the role of the better regulation programme is improving regulatory principles and reducing unnecessary burdens for businesses, particularly SMEs, and citizens; underlines the importance of enabling citizens to fully exercise their democratic right to participate in the EU’s decision- making process and ensuring citizens’ direct participation; underlines that it is essential for the EU to ensure increased transparency at different levels of policy- making; calls on the Commission to continuously improve public consultations in order to ensure citizens’ participation and to take into account feedback from other institutions on such activities; stresses that public consultations on better law-making in the EU should be accessible to citizens and civil society through different outreach channels, should be translated into all official and co-official languages of the Member States, and should have easy-to-access documents;

Amendment 11 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 13 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 14 #

Tatjana ŽDANOKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that better regulation must be an interinstitutional effort, with Parliament and the Council also sharing responsibility; highlights the fact that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are the guiding principles of the EU when it chooses to act; recalls, in that regard, Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides that the decisions at EU level shall be taken as openly and closely as possible to the citizens; considers that clearer rules on the handling of petitions by the Commission would improve the transparency of the system and its effectiveness towards resolving the issues raised in petitions by European citizens. The European Commission and the European Parliament should consider the option of framing their relationship regarding the handling of petitions with a more binding agreement, as the current Inter-institutional Agreement does not cover petitions;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that better regulation must be an interinstitutional effort, with Parliament and the Council also sharing responsibility; highlights the fact that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are the guiding principles of the EU when it chooses to act; recalls, in that regard, Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides that the decisions at EU level shall be taken as openly and closely as possible to the citizens; reiterates, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality require any overregulation on EU level to be avoided and that EU legislation, in order to be close to the citizens, transparent and comprehensible, needs to be limited in scope and volume;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)

(1) Stresses that COVID-19 crisis must not be used as an excuse to open up for regulatory exceptions for SMEs; highlights that a green, inclusive and fair recovery must not be built on lowering standards, as this only risks creating double-standards and a race to the bottom; stresses that business interests alone cannot be put on an equal footing with the general interest, which also includes the interests of workers, citizens, consumers and the environment;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasis that the EU should respect the principles of conferral as well as subsidiarity, and must legislate only on areas clearly established by the treaties; stresses that EU must not interfere with the member states' prerogatives and respect their national sovereignty;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers, as the only committee ~~most~~in directly and constant engagedment with the public, that a democratic approach and political accountability remain the strongest control mechanisms in any constitutional democracy, including in the EU;

Amendment 2 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers, as the committee most directly engaged with the public, that a democratic approach and political accountability remain the strongest control mechanisms in any constitutional democracy~~, including~~ as well as in the EU;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers, as the committee most directly engaged with the public, that a democratic approach and shared political accountability remain the strongest control mechanisms in any constitutional democracy, including in the EU;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)

(1) Notes that the persistently large number of infringement procedures shows that the timely and correct implementation and application of EU law in the Member States remains a serious challenge;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that continuous attentive review of citizens’ petitions ~~presents great opportunities~~should be performed diligently and continuously to ensure that European citizens have an essential democratic instrument to make better regulation more inclusive and efficient and to improve policymakers’ understanding of local and regional realities;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that continuous attentive review of citizens’ petitions presents great opportunities to make better regulation more inclusive and efficient and to improve policymakers’ understanding of local and regional realities; ;Acknowledges, however, that EU legislation could not and should not address any particular problem, but ensure equal treatment of citizens and businesses and effective enforcement of citizens’ rights throughout the Union; Therefore, case-by-case and ad hoc legislation should be avoided, whereas strong and equal enforcement of existing European and national rules be guaranteed;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)

(1) Supports the Commission’s objective to simplify legislation and reduce burdens; stress that care is needed to ensure that it is done in an appropriate manner so that simplification does not come at the cost of clarity for beneficiaries and public administrations and weaken the mechanisms in place to deliver results;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 2 (new)

(2) Notes the Commission’s will to strengthen the role of the Regular Scrutiny Board in scrutinising impact assessments and evaluations in light of the “one in, one out” approach; regrets the lack of transparency of this body while it should pave the strategic foresight and appropriate consideration of the various effects of the Covid-19 crisis;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that better regulation is an overarching principle in all Commissioners’ mission letters; calls on the Commission and Council to improve the rules and procedures of the preparatory phases of their respective legislative processes, with a particular focus on examining the short-term impact and the future effects of legislative measures;

Amendment 29 #

Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Frédérique RIES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)

(1) Highlights that the Commission persists in failing to address EU law making as a positive and necessary investment in and for society as a whole, with a long-term perspective;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for more transparency from all European institutions, in particular the Council in order to ensure better law- making and to guarantee citizens´ rights of public access to documents and access to the right information;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that Parliament’s work and internal procedures can and should be further digitised in order to simplify them and make them more easily accessible to citizens;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the Commission, in its efforts to ensure that EU policies draw on a clear understanding of policy areas subject to rapid structural change such as the environment and digitalisation, should make use of the input included in the petitions of citizens and civil society organisations; considers citizens’ participation key in ~~policy areas such as fundamental rights,~~ensuring continuous promotion of respect for rule of law, a~~nd discrimination against women, migrants and LGTBIQ persons~~cross the social spectrum;

Amendment 33 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the Commission, in its efforts to ensure that EU policies draw on a clear understanding of policy areas subject to rapid structural change such as the environment and digitalisation, should make use of the input included in the petitions of citizens and civil society organisations; considers citizens’ participation key in policy areas such as fundamental rights, respect for rule of law, and discrimination ~~against women, migrants and LGTBIQ persons~~of any kind;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the Commission, in its efforts to ensure that EU policies draw on a clear understanding of policy areas subject to rapid structural change such as the environment and digitalisation, should make use of the input included in the petitions of citizens and civil society organisations; considers citizens’ participation key in policy areas such as fundamental rights, respect for rule of law, and any form of discrimination ~~against women, migrants and LGTBIQ persons~~;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the Commission, in its efforts to ensure that EU policies draw on a clear understanding of policy areas subject to rapid structural change such as the environment and digitalisation, should make use of the input included in the petitions of citizens and civil society organisations; considers citizens’ participation key in policy areas such as fundamental rights, ~~respect for rule of law, and discrimination against women, migrants and LGTBIQ persons~~including fighting any form of discrimination and respect for the rule of law;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the Commission, in its efforts to ensure that EU policies draw on a clear understanding of policy areas subject to rapid structural change such as the environment and digitalisation, should make use of the input included in the petitions of citizens and civil society organisations; considers citizens’ participation key in policy areas such as fundamental rights, respect for rule of law, and ~~discrimination against women, migrants and LGTBIQ persons~~the fight against all forms of discrimination on any ground whatsoever;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity for a revamped and effective better regulation programme to ~~help EU governance adapt to a post- pandemic ‘new normal’,~~allow societies to return to pre-COVID normality and to improve law- making ~~and be more respons~~, responding effectively to citizens’ concerns;

Amendment 38 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

7. Calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity for a revamped and effective better regulation programme to help EU governance ~~adapt to a post- pandemic ‘new normal’,~~restore a situation of normality and social calm, while fully respecting the human rights of all citizens, after the imbalances of the pandemic period, and to improve law- making and be more responsive to citizens’ concerns;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity for a revamped and effective better regulation programme to help EU ~~governance~~Member States' adaptation to a post- pandemic ‘'new normal’', improve law- making and be more responsive to citizens’ concerns;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity for a revamped and effective better regulation programme to help EU governance adapt to a post- pandemic ‘new normal’, improve law- making and be more responsive to citizens’ concernsimprove the law-making, and to be more responsive to citizens’ concerns; and to improve the communication and consultation with stakeholders, as well as increasing the transparency at the same time;

Amendment 41 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity for a revamped and effective better regulation programme to help EU governance ~~adapt to a post- pandemic ‘new normal’,~~in improveing law- making and be more transparent and responsive to citizens’ concerns;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity for a revamped and effective better regulation programme to help EU governance adapt to a post- pandemic ~~‘new normal’~~scenario, improve law- making and be more responsive to citizens’ concerns;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 1 (new)

(1) Criticises the need for the ‘one in, one out’ approach, since it represents a quantitative assessment of legislation as a short-term burden and a cost rather than focusing objectively on the quality of regulation and its merits, in the medium and long term; regrets that this focus on burden and cost reduction is inconsistent with the needs and realities of EU policymaking, and could jeopardise the Commission’s responsibility to deliver quality regulation, and create a counter- productive effect on any new environmental or social legislation;

Amendment 44 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses the important role played by Parliament as representative of the citizens of the EU, including in its oversight of and cooperation with the Commission and other institutions on behalf of the public and in ensuring a bottom-up approach regarding the effects of legislation on citizens; Reiterates therefore, the role of Parliament in preliminary assessment of future legislation, through the existing parliamentary tools;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses the important role played by Parliament as representative of the citizens of the EU, including in its oversight of and cooperation with the Commission and the other communitarian institutions on behalf of the public and in ensuring a bottom-up approach regarding the effects of legislation on citizens;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the role of specific tools, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, in improving Commission regulation; ~~recalls that~~welcomes the launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe ~~should be continuously improved~~ in order for the citizens to communicate the real impacts of legislation at national, local and regional level and to make suggestions on how to achieve better law-making; ~~notes that the Commission should develop new tools~~underlines the fact that the Conference can bring a fresh impetus to the European discussion to facilitate the process of public participation; notes that the Commission should focus on making existing participatory tools more efficient to give citizens direct access to and involvement in EU policy-making ; insists that the Commission should seek the opinion of citizens and more importantly, take their views into account;

Amendment 47 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the role of specific tools, such as the Own Initiative of Parliament, European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, in improving Commission regulation; recalls that the Conference on the Future of Europe ~~should be continuously improved in order~~has an important role for the citizens to, which can communicate the real impacts of EU legislation at national, local and regional level and to make suggestions on how to achieve better law- ~~making; notes that the Commission should develop new tools to give citizens direct access to and involvement in EU policy-~~ making;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the role of specific tools, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, in improving Commission regulation; recalls that the Conference on the Future of Europe should be ~~continuous~~effectively improved in order for the citizens to communicate the real impacts of legislation at national, local and regional level and to make suggestions on how to achieve better law-making; notes that the Commission should develop new tools to give citizens direct access to and involvement in EU policy-making;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the role of specific tools, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, in improving Commission regulation; recalls that the ~~Conference on the Future of Europe~~activity of all EU institutions should be continuously improved in order for the citizens to communicate the real impacts of legislation at national, local and regional level and to make suggestions on how to achieve better law-making; notes that the Commission should develop new tools to give citizens direct access to and involvement in EU policy-making;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 50 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the role of specific tools, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, in improving Commission regulation; recalls that the Conference on the Future of Europe should be continuously improved in order for the citizens to communicate the real impacts of legislation at national, local and regional level and to make suggestions on how to achieve better law-making; notes that the Commission should develop new tools to give citizens direct access to and involvement in EU policy-making in order to exercise their fundamental right;

Amendment 6 #

Tatjana ŽDANOKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 8 #

Gianna GANCIA, Stefania ZAMBELLI, Markus BUCHHEIT, Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

source: 703.018

2022/02/17 AFCO 77 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s communication’s ~~aim~~1 intention to make the approach to ~~the B~~better law-making more dynamic and adaptivable to further developments; underlines the need for legislation that is fit for purpose, balanced, clear, and transparent and does not add administrative and regulatory burden;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Re~~iterates that there is a need to fully engag~~calls the rapidly changing character of citizens’ views about the impact of the EU governance on the establishment of permanent their daily life and impact on future participatory mechanisms to further developments against the backdrop facilitate and engage citizens’ of increasingly social media driven participation in the EU decision- information society, establishment making process; supports awareness- of which accelerates and increases raising activities for these awareness functioning of the EU mechanisms and highlights the need decision-making; reiterates that to establish them at the national, there is a need to fully engage regional and local levels for adequate citizens in the EU decision- making ~~process; reiterates its call for~~ horizontal and vertical coordination process; reiterates its call for the among institutions at different levels; establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process beyond the act of voting and other channels and instruments; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reiterates that there is a need to fully engage citizens in the EU decision- making process; reiterates its call for the establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process; calls for the launch of more public consultations addressed to particular groups like children, youth, seniors or people with disabilities; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reiterates that there is a need to fully engage citizens in the EU decision- making process in a manner which takes into account the entire policy cycle; reiterates its call for the establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process; highlights the need to embed this permanent participatory mechanism in the consultation process that establishes the Annual Work Programme of the European Commission, as provided by Annex X of the IIA on Better Law- Making; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms and highlights the need to establish them at ~~the~~European, national, regional and local levels, including the necessary tools for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels; calls on all EU decision-makers to take stakeholders’ input into account and ensure effective follow-up in the ensuing decision-making processes;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reiterates that there is a need to fully engage citizens in the EU decision- making process; reiterates ~~its call for the establishment of permanent~~the importance of effective participatory mechanisms to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels; emphasises that more in-depth information regarding citizens’ concerns will assist the EU institutions in their efforts to be responsive to these concerns under the Union’s core principles of representative democracy;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)

3a (new) Calls for greater transparency of the consultation process and calls for the publication of public reports, available in all EU languages and also accessible to people with disabilities;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)

3a (new) Calls on the institutions to take all necessary measures to ensure the participation of vulnerable people such as disabled people and children in the EU decision-making process; highlights the need for a better access to information for these citizens;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)

3a (new) Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to making better use of strategic foresight since it plays a key role in helping to future-proof EU policy-making by ensuring that short- term initiatives are grounded in a longer- term perspective;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)

3a (new) Acknowledges the current trend of national parliaments asking for more political dialogue on Union policies in order to develop a greater added value for citizens, and a further involvement of the European Committee of the Regions in this regard;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3b (new)

3b (new) Highlights the need for the European Parliament to have an oral or written translation at each stage of the legislative process and in all official languages of the EU;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3b (new)

3b (new) Calls again on Member States to reduce the issues related to “gold-plating” and to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens when implementing EU law;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s communication’s aim to make the approach to the Better law-making more dynamic and adaptive to further developments; ~~1 COM(2021)0219.~~insists nevertheless that its operational aspects will become clearer only with the revision of the Better regulation guidelines and toolbox, which will be thoroughly scrutinized by the Parliament; Or. en

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the acknowledged lack of impact assessments for several key legislative files~~, which can only partly be attributed to the COVID- 19 pandemic~~;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the acknowledged lack of impact assessments for several key legislative files, which can only partly be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic; underlines the need of extensive assessment of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic and related legislation and calls for adequate solutions and policies tackling the causes and limiting the negative impact of the pandemic;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the acknowledged lack of impact assessments for several key legislative files, which can only partly be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic; underlines the need for evidence-based legislation, comprehensive impact assessment reports and in-depth analysis of all available data; calls on the Commission to ensure the transparency of the decision-making process;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the acknowledged lack ofimpact assessments for several key of impact assessments for several key legislative files, which can only legislative files, which can only partly be partly be attributed to the COVID-19 attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to publish a staff working document together with the proposal or within the three months of its publication;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights and regrets the acknowledged lack of impact assessments for several key legislative files, which can only partly be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4a (new)

4a (new) Stresses that the functioning of the European Union is founded on representative democracy;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4a (new)

4a (new) Insists that impact assessments should never replace political decisions nor delay the legislative process; considers that impact assessments must pay equal attention to the evaluation of social, health and environmental consequences in particular, and that the impact on the fundamental rights of citizens and on equality between women and men must be assessed;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Acknowledges the need for the co- legislators to conduct impact legislators to conduct impact assessments when substantially assessments when substantially amending legislative proposals, in amending legislative proposals, in line with paragraph 15 of the line with paragraph 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making2 (IIA on BLM); Better Law-Making3 (IIA on BLM); calls for impact assessments to be published immediately upon their completion, and not only when the policy proposal is presented, thus ensuring greater transparency of how decisions at EU-level are taken, as stated by the CJEU in Case C 57/16P, ClientEarth v Commission;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Acknowledges the need for the co- ~~2 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 3 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 4 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.~~ legislators to conduct impact legislators to conduct impact assessments assessments when substantially when substantially amending legislative amending legislative proposals, in proposals, in line with paragraph 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making45 (IIA on BLM); encourages the establishment of internal procedures for the Parliament to produce its own impact assessments on substantial amendments and the committees to avail themselves fully of the possibility to request expertise for such amendments;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Acknowledges the need for the co- legislators to conduct impact assessments when substantially amending legislative proposals, in line with paragraph 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making (IIA on BLM); recalls the commitment of all three institutions to systematically consider the use of review clauses in legislation to carry out ex-post evaluations;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1a (new)

1a (new) Highlights the need to provide a better assessment of the social and environmental consequences of the Commission’s proposals, as well as of their impact on the rights of citizens;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a (new) Stresses that the updated toolbox on better law-making, in particular the “do not significant harm” principle, shall consider the costs that may arise from inaction, notably on the climate and environment, as well as the social dimension, and the cumulative effects arising from delay in action;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a (new) Stresses furthermore that impact assessments are a tool to help reaching well-informed decisions in the legislative decision- making process and must not lead to undue delays in decision-making or hinder political decisions in a context of green and digital transition to answer global challenges; highlights that such processes should take into consideration economic, environmental, gender and social impacts in an integrated and balanced way and use both qualitative and quantitative analyses, as well as addressing the costs of non-harmonisation at EU level; recalls that making regulation which is ‘fit for the future’ should entail the adoption of a ‘think sustainability first’ approach in the Better Regulation Guidelines;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)

5a (new) Calls for the wide implementation of evaluation and impact markers of the policies implemented at European level; praises the UNICEF proposal for a children-marker evaluating the impact of policies on children and calls for the development of similar mechanisms on other policies and impact factors;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5b

~~6 Case C-201/08 Plantanol~~5b (new) Recalls the need to apply consistent principles of legislative drafting, in particular transparency, accountability as well as clarity and precision in line with the principles recognized by the jurisprudence of the CJEU6; Or. en

Amendment 34 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to setting up a joint legislative register; insists on the need to make this joint portal fully operational and transparent as soon as possible and to include all publicly disclosed documents under Regulation (EU) 1049/20017 automatically; deplores the persistent lack of transparency in the Council’s decision- making process and the practice of over- classifying documents and applying an excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to setting up a joint legislative register; insists on the need to make this joint portal fully operational and transparent ~~as soon as possible~~by the end of 2022 and to include all publicly disclosed documents under Regulation (EU) 1049/200189 automatically; deplores the persistent lack of transparency in the Council’s decision- making process and the practice of over- classifying documents and applying an ~~7 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 8 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 9 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001~~excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001; believes that the use of secrecy exceptions for Council documents should be applied in a coherent system with external oversight and complying with CJEU caselaw;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to set~~ting up a joint legislative register~~ up a Joint legislative register, to allow for an increased transparency of the legislative process and allow the citizens and both informed and general public to follow the evolution of legislative text in a clear and comprehensive way; insists on the need to make ~~this~~such joint portal fully operational and transparent as soon as possible and to include automatically all publicly disclosed documents under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001~~10 automatically~~; deplores the persistent lack of transparency in the ~~Council’s~~ decision-making process ~~and~~in the Council as well as practice of over-classif~~ying~~ication of documents and of applying an excessively broad interpretation of ~~the~~ exceptions ~~included~~ under the Regulation (EU) 1049/2001~~; 10 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.~~, in particular with regard to the protection of decision-making process and protection of legal advice, contrary to the principle of overriding public interest in the disclosure of related documents; Or. en

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to setting up a joint institutions to setting up a joint legislative legislative register; insists on the register; insists on the need to make this need to make this joint portal fully joint portal fully operational and operational and transparent as soon transparent as soon as possible and to as possible and to include all publicly include all publicly disclosed documents disclosed documents under under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001[1] Regulation (EU) 1049/200111 automatically; deplores the persistent lack automatically; deplores the persistent of transparency in the Council’s decision- lack of transparency in the Council’s making process and the practice of over- decision-making process and the classifying documents and applying an practice of over-classifying excessively broad interpretation of the documents and applying an exceptions included under Regulation (EU) excessively broad interpretation of 1049/2001; calls on the three institutions the exceptions included under to ensure a forward-looking and Regulation (EU) 1049/2001; consistent application of the above mentioned Regulation allowing appropriate access to registered documents and to all types of communication, provided they concern a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution's sphere of responsibility;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to setting up a joint legislative ~~11 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.~~ register; insists on the need to make this joint portal fully operational and transparent as soon as possible and to include all publicly disclosed documents under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001 automatically; deplores the persistent lack of transparency in the Council’s decision- making process and the practice of over- classifying documents and applying an excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under Regulation (EU) 1049/2001;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)

6a (new) Is convinced that considering also the cost of non- legislation at European level (the so- called cost of non-Europe) is an important source of narrative and understanding when dealing with the available tools for better regulation;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the efforts to consolidate the consultation process and the commitment to report on each public consultation within eight weeks of its closure; calls for improved systematic assessments of public consultations and for the Commission to increase its outreach activities and measures to promote greater participation; calls on the Commission to better engage with its representations in the Member States, with consultative bodies on the EU level and with national authorities with the view to disseminating more information about public consultations;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)

6a (new) Insist that the effective implementation of the EU law is essential in order to enhance citizen’s trust in EU policies and institutions; recalls that under Article 197 TFEU, such implementation shall be regarded as o matter of common interest for the Member States and stresses the need for them to avoid gold-platting when transposing EU legislation;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)

6a (new) Believes that EU legislation should always be fit for purpose, proportionate and aim at keeping the burden for citizens and businesses, especially SMEs, as low as possible; reiterates the need to avoid unnecessary administrative, adjustment and compliance burdens when designing, transposing and implementing EU acts; underlines the need for the strengthening of the principle of being ‘big on big things, small on small things’;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)

6a (new) Is of the opinion that access to documents rules in Council activities should be as transparent as those of the European Parliament; stresses in this regard that the positions defended by the representatives of the Member States, already at the level of the Working Groups of the Council, should be made public in order for citizens, media and civil society to be able to know what position their government took on their behalf at the EU level and to contribute to the enhancement of scrutiny of EU decision-making by national parliaments, applying to all decisions, from legislative files to implementing and delegated acts; points out that bodies with even less levels of transparency such as the Eurogroup should as a first step be submitted to the Council’s rules of procedure, making available to the public the voting procedures, minutes, results, and explanation of votes and its deliberations;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6b (new)

6b (new) Requests urgent measures to enhance the transparency of decisions taken in infringement procedures;

Amendment 44 #

6b (new) Calls for providing for sufficient resources with the EP Services entitled to support the members capacity to improve their function of co-legislators, such as the EP Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6b (new)

6b (new) Stresses that ‘gold plating’ often creates additional administrative or compliance burdens, especially for SMEs; Calls on Member States to increase their efforts at a national level regarding better regulation and the avoidance of unnecessary burdens; considers that the principle of better regulation should not prevent Member States’ parliaments from maintaining or taking more ambitious measures in cases where only minimum standards are defined by Union law;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6c (new)

6c (new) Believes that the EU needs more ambitious access to documents rules, including for documents related to internal, trilogue and international negotiations; recalls that according to the European Ombudsman, restrictions on access to documents, particularly legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; further recalls that transparency and publicity of an ongoing legislative procedure are inherent to the legislative process and can therefore be applied to the access of documents for trilogues as stated by the CJEU in its case-law, case T540/15, De Capitani v Parliament in particular; adds furthermore that openness and transparency confer greater legitimacy and confidence in the democratic legislative process of the European Union;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Warns against a mechanical application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ principle, which results in an excessive focus on regulatory burdens, which may lead the consideration of benefits to be neglected; , including potential impact of withdrawal of legislation already implemented at the Member States domestic regulatory framework;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Warns against a mechanical application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ principle, which results in an principle, which may result in an excessive excessive focus on regulatory focus on regulatory burdens , which in burdens, which may lead the turn may negatively impact the consideration of benefits to be achievement of other legitimate policy neglected; goals;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Warns against a mechanical application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ principle, which results in an principle, which results in an excessive excessive focus on regulatory focus on regulatory burdens, which may burdens, which may lead the lead the consideration of benefits to be consideration of benefits to be neglected; reiterates the need of wide-EU neglected; consultation at European, national and local level and insists on the need for extensive evaluations of policy-impact at all levels in order tackle potential specific challenges;

Amendment 5 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. WCalls for more effective and thorough implementation of ‘doing less more efficiently’ approach; calls to improve the application of principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, and proximity; welcomes the efforts to consolidate the consultation process and the commitment to report on each public consultation within eight weeks of its closure; calls for improved systematic assessments of public consultations and for the Commission to increase its outreach activities and measures to promote greater participation;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. W~~arns against a mechanical application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ principle, which results in an excessive focus on regulatory burdens~~elcomes the ‘one in, one out’ approach, by which the Commission aims to offset newly introduced burdens by relieving citizens and businesses of equivalent burdens at EU level in the same policy area; highlights that the ‘one- in, one-out’ approach strengthens the REFIT programme by extending the programme beyond the burdens from individual pieces of existing legislation to include also burdens from new legislation as well as managing the accumulative burden in each policy area; calls on the Commission to increase its efforts regarding regulatory offsetting, and to thoroughly examine how new legislative elements overlap with existing laws and regulations, without going so far as to introduce a mechanical application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ principle, which may lead the consideration of benefits to be neglected;

Amendment 51 #

7a (new) Emphasises the essential role of the EU’s 24 million SMEs, which employ around 100 million people, in our economy; reiterates that special attention must be given to administrative, adjustment and compliance costs for SMEs when conducting impact assessments; regrets the unsatisfactory application of the SME test to date, and calls for a binding SME test to do justice to the importance of SMEs;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7b (new)

7b (new) Strongly believes that better regulation is necessary to enable the EU to reach the targets set out in the Green Deal; welcomes the Commission communication’s commitment to work with Member States, regions and key stakeholders to remove obstacles and red tape hindering the progress of the green transition; stresses the importance of ex- post evaluations of climate legislation to ensure that the EU is delivering on its commitments;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Recalls the importance of maintaining a close contact between the co-legislators in advance of interinstitutional negotiations, including by inviting representatives of other institutions to informal exchanges of views on a regular basis, in line with the commitment outlined in paragraph 34 of the IIA on BLM;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Recalls the importance of maintaining close contact between the co- legislators in advance of interinstitutional negotiations, including by inviting representatives of other institutions to informal exchanges of views on a regular basis, in line with the commitment outlined in paragraph 34 of the IIA on BLM; regrets that this commitment has not given rise to any new structures of cooperation neither to systematic practice for facilitate such exchange; suggests that the co-legislators agree on a code of good practice in that respect;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Council and the Commission to assess jointly with Commission to assess jointly with Parliament the extent to which the Parliament the extent to which the IIA on IIA on BLM should be revised to BLM should be revised to eliminate eliminate possible barriers to possible barriers to Parliament’s ability to Parliament’s ability to exercise its exercise its power to propose legislative power to propose legislative initiatives; reminds the Council and the initiatives; Commission of the recommendations taken by the Focus Groups of the European Parliament underlining the need to revise Rule of Procedure 132 as well as rule 166 on the access to the Chambers of the Council and the European Commission so as to allow members to assist or be questioned during Council Working Group, COREPER or Council meetings;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Calls on the Council and the~~ Welcomes the commitment of the Commission to assess jointly with Commission’s President to support the Parliament the extent to which the right of initiative of the European IIA on BLM should be revised to Parliament and its commitment to always eliminate possible barriers to respond with a legislative act to the Parliament’s ability to exercise its requests under Article 225 TFEU; calls on power to propose legislative the Council and the Commission to assess initiatives; jointly with Parliament the extent to which the IIA on BLM should be revised to eliminate possible barriers to Parliament’s ability to exercise its power to propose legislative initiatives; considers that the Framework Agreement might be revised to increased facilitation of this right; highlights the need to also clarify differences between the various types of EP reports and clarify the action requested from the Commission;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Council and the Commission to assess jointly with Parliament the extent to which the IIA on BLM should be revised to eliminate possible barriers to Parliament’s ability to exercise its power to propose legislative initiativesStresses that a parliamentary right of initiative is an important feature of representative democracy at Member State level and sees the necessity to empower MEPs, as the direct representatives of EU citizens, by strengthening their right to shape the EU legislative agenda; Calls on the Council and the Commission to assess jointly with Parliament the extent to which the IIA on BLM should be revised to eliminate possible barriers to Parliament’s ability to exercise its power to propose legislative initiatives; points out that better law- making requires effective legislative procedures conducive to concluding EU decision-making procedures within a suitable timeframe; regrets that, due to the lack of commitment of the Council and in the absence of effective procedural guidelines, the special legislative procedures set out in the Treaties have too seldom been successfully concluded;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9a (new)

9a (new) Considers that when the Treaties are to be revised, the European Parliament as the only directly elected institution should be granted the right of legislative initiative;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9b (new)

9b (new) Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Parliament to revise the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making in order to integrate a permanent citizen’s consultation mechanism in the process leading to the establishment of the Annual Work Programme of the European Commission;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the ~~efforts to consolidate the consultation process and the~~ commitment to report on each public consultation within eight weeks of its closure; calls for improved systematic assessments of public consultations and ~~for the Commission to increase its outreach activities and measures to promote greater participation~~to promote greater participation; urges the Commission to ensure better involvement of national, regional and local authorities;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9c (new)

9c (new) Considers that in cases in which Parliament exercises the right of initiative, such as on the regulations relating to its own composition, the election of its Members and the general conditions for the exercise of its functions, and the statute of the Ombudsman as well as the constitution of temporary committees of inquiry, it is necessary to contemplate measures in a future Interinstitutional Agreement to avoid the Council's refusal to negotiate with the Parliament;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9d (new)

9d (new) Recommends that the legislative process arising from the right of legislative initiative conferred on Parliament by the Treaties must include, a request for the establishment of a legislative calendar for the initiatives concerned, similarly as with the ordinary legislative procedure; underlines, moreover, that such a special legislative procedure must respect the provisions of the IIA concerning the institutional obligation to negotiate of all three institutions;

Amendment 62 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for the need take into full consideration the Conference on the Future of Europe’s deliberations on the participation of citizens in the EU decision-making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof;deleted

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for the need to take into full consideration the Conference on the Future of Europe’s deliberations on the participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, ~~in particular~~with a focus on sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for the need take into full consideration the Conference on the Future of Europe’s deliberations on the participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 ~~thereof~~and stream 5. Citizens Participation, especially No. 39;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Calls for the need take into full consideration~~Welcomes the Conference on the Future of Europe’s deliberations on the participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the ~~recommendations~~work of the Citizens Panel No 2~~, in particular sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof~~; highlights the necessity of meaningful engagement with the recommendations made in the final report on the Conference, which will be drawn up by the Executive Board in collaboration with the Conference Plenary, on the basis of the Conference Plenary’s debates on the recommendations from the national and European Citizens’ Panels, as well as input from the Multilingual Digital Platform;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Calls for the need take into full~~ Emphasizes the need to consider consideration the Conference on the the issue of the Right of initiative at the Future of Europe’s deliberations on Conference on future of Europe, as it the participation of citizens in the EU would strengthen the EU’s democratic decision-making process, in legitimacy and further empower EU particular the recommendations of citizens; calls for the need take into full the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular consideration the Conference on the Future sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub of Europe’s deliberations on the stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof; participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof; considers that the recommendations of the panels clearly demonstrate that the citizens call for more transparency of the public debate in the EU, for more outreach and more information to be provided by the EU institutions with active use of all the channels of communication while emphasizing the role of the social media, which should be accompanying the decision-making in the EU, including legislative processes;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for the need take into full consideration the Conference on the Future of Europe’s deliberations on the participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular sub stream ~~4.2~~2.1, No ~~29, No 32, sub stream 2.1~~10 and No 11; sub stream 3.1, No 16; sub stream 4.1, No 24 and sub stream 4.2, No 1029 and No 1132 thereof;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10a (new)

10a (new) Calls more generally on the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to implement the Citizens Panels’ recommendations in accordance with the principle of conferral as laid down in Article 5 TEU;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2a (new)

2a (new) Calls on the institutions to step up efforts for establishing a dedicated and user-friendly joint database on the state of play of legislative files for which work is ongoing as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Considers the development of new algorithms and new forms of forms of digitalisation processes in digitalisation processes in the the decision-making of all three decision-making of all three institutions to be an essential institutions to be an essential challenge of the digital era; believes challenge of the digital era; believes that the commitments of the three that the commitments of the three institutions on those developments institutions on those developments should be clearly identified and should be clearly identified and included in a revised IIA on BLM. included in a revised IIA on BLM.

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Considers the development of new ~~included in a revised IIA on BLM~~algorithms and new forms of algorithms and new forms of digitalisation processes in the digitalisation processes in the decision-making of all three decision-making of all three institutions to be an essential institutions to be an essential challenge of the digital era; believes challenge of the digital era; believes that the commitments of the three that the commitments of the three institutions on those developments institutions on those developments should be clearly identified and should be clearly identified and included in a revised IIA on BLM; calls upon legislators to employ digitalization in order to facilitate the legislative work and to avoid over-bureaucratization and any form of limitation of democratic expression and opinions of elected officials.

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Considers the development of new algorithms and new forms of digitalisation processes in the decision-making of all three institutions to be an essential challenge ~~of the digital era~~and opportunity to strengthen the quality of EU law-making; believes that the commitments of the three institutions on those developments should be clearly identified and included in a revised IIA on BLM.

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Considers the development of new algorithms and new forms of digitalisation processes in the decision- making of all three institutions to be an essential challenge of the digital era; believes that the commitments of the three institutions on those developments should be clearly identified and included in a revised IIA on BLM.deleted

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11a (new)

11a (new) Insists on the strong links between the implementation of the Next Generation EU recovery package with the objective of ensuring stronger resilience of EU societies and the need of EU institutions to reach out to the citizens of the Union in order to raise awareness about fundamental nature of these political tasks and their execution; believes that such outreach should ultimately contribute to more flexible and more far-reaching inter-institutional decision-making capable to respond in a robust and decisive manner to the experiences of the pandemic;

Amendment 75 #

Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11b (new)

11b (new) Classifies uniform linguistic versions in the official EU languages as a crucial prerequisite for the submission of a reliable interpretation of existing regulations by courts and authorities and thus as one of the most important contributions to the unitary exertion of European Union Law; calls on the institutions to substantially meet these requirements in the course of future law-making.

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11c (new)

11c (new) Believes that EU participatory democracy requires supporting unorganised citizens and promoting their access to electoral and participatory opportunities within and outside EU channels; highlights that this bottom-up participatory agenda should be capable of complementing, not substituting, representative democracy in the EU;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11d (new)

11d (new) Reiterates that an effective enforcement of EU legislation is a key part of the “Better Law-making” agenda; points out that excessive regulatory burden for citizens and businesses can often be attributed to Member States compliance issues; calls on the Commission to enforce EU legislation in full and without undue delay and to leverage all existing tools; stresses that the Commission’s enforcement policy must be more predictable and transparent and reinforce legal certainty for all stakeholders;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reiterates ~~that there is a need to fully~~its call to facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process~~; reiterates its call for the establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making process~~ which is founded on representative democracy; supports awareness-raising activities ~~for these mechanisms~~ and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local ~~levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different~~ levels;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. RStresses that Article 10(3) TEU recognises participatory democracy as one of the main democratic principles of the EU, thereby highlighting that decisions must be taken as close to citizens as possible, which is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the EU institutions; reiterates that there is a need to fully engage citizens in the EU decision- making process; reiterates its call for the establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms, such as, but not limited to, online policy debate platforms, Youth consultations, a continuation of the Citizens’ Panels, to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms, such as, but not limited to, Commission, Council Presidency and Parliament citizens’ hours and dialogues, and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels;

source: 704.778

2022/02/24 DEVE 38 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Having regard to the development cooperation objectives pursuant to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses, further, that impact analyses must also take account of the specific features of the outermost regions and overseas countries and territories;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Stresses that developing countries are an extremely heterogeneous group and that, consequently, impact analyses must focus on least-developed countries;

Amendment 12 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Catherine CHABAUD, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Strongly believes that the Union’s better regulation system is a valuable instrument in the implementation of this legal obligation, as long as the tools that the system proposes are used appropriately and to their maximum potential; ~~welcomes the new versions of the better regulation guidelines and the better regulation toolbox; believes that tool number 35 in particular contain~~regrets the fact that impact assessments of Union policy and legislation on developing countries, in particular of non- development internal legislation, remain few in number and do not properly assess and address the potential impact on developing countries; welcomes the new versions of the better regulation guidelines and the better regulation toolbox; hopes the new communication and the updated guidelines and toolbox will improve the situation by regularly conducting complete and coherent impact assessments twhen necessary ~~elements to guide the performance of impact analyses in developing countries and expects that this tool will be used extensively~~; strongly believes that ex ante impact assessments are a valuable tool for identifying and addressing potential risks of a policy and/or legislative proposal on developing countries; urges the Commission to translate the impact assessments conclusions into legal provisions in its non-development legislative acts as appropriate, so as to better reflect the EU’s commitment to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU; calls the Commission to strengthen the screening of the impact assessments by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board by reinforcing the expertise of this body on development cooperation;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Strongly believes that the Union’s better regulation system iscan be a valuable instrument in the implementation of this legal obligation, as long as the tools that the system proposes are used appropriately ~~and~~ to their maximum potential~~; welcomes the new versions of the better~~, in order to generate incentives for policy-making, which adequately address the global challenges in regulation ~~guidelines and the better regulation toolbox; believes that tool number 35 in particular contains the necessary elem~~to climate change, green and digital transformation, economic development, social justice, human rights, gender equality, etc., and which enable the minimisation of obstacles, burdents ~~to guide the performance of impact analyses in developing countries and expects that this tool will be used extensively~~or ambiguities in the application of those policy objectives; welcomes the new versions of the better regulation guidelines and the better regulation toolbox;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Strongly believes that the Union’s better regulation system is a valuable instrument in the implementation of this legal obligation, as long as the tools that the system proposes are used appropriately and to their maximum potential; regrets that the analysis on the impact on developing countries of many internal legislative initiatives in past years has not been up at the desired level; strongly calls on the European Commission to pay more attention to the impact of European legislation, in particular domestic legislation, in developing countries and to respect and promote the objectives of development cooperation in these initiatives, particularly in areas such as migration, social policies, environment, agriculture, fisheries, health, travel, leisure and transport, information technologies and digital market security, financial services, combating transnational crime such as organised crime, drug and human trafficking and money laundering and private sector behaviour; welcomes the new versions of the better regulation guidelines and the better regulation toolbox; believes that tool number 35 in particular contains ~~the~~ necessary elements to guide the performance of impact analyses in developing countries and expects that this tool will be used extensively;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Believes that tool number 35 in particular contains the necessary elements to guide the performance of impact analyses in developing countries and expects that this tool will be used extensively; considers that the current sectors for which impact assessments should be prioritized need to mirror current and future challenges of the Union and reflect the European Parliament’s positions and should show a clear correspondence with the areas of European Union law, so as to facilitate the identification of legislation to pay attention to; recalls that to advance towards the future it is also important to constantly evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures and tools and, in this line, calls on the Commission to regularly report on the implementation of tool 35 to the European Parliament;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Suggests that the toolbox needs to be further strengthened in order to facilitate the identification and analysis of potential economic, social, human rights, gender and environmental impacts in developing countries; recommends that a new heading “impact on developing countries” is introduced in specific tools of the toolbox, in particular in tools 23, 25and 26; suggests that under that heading, a number of guiding questions is inserted in order to detect whether legislation contributes to the objectives of development policy and to the implementation of the Agenda 2030 both in EU and developing countries;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Recalls that human rights impacts, including on children, indigenous, HBTQI+ and other vulnerable groups, in developing countries are of particular importance for the European development cooperation, which has as one of its main objectives the respect and promotion of human rights; calls on the European Commission to give this type of impact a greater role in the analysis by framing it as a separate category and adapting tools 18 and 29 accordingly, so these type of analysis can be carried out in line with international human rights treaties and obligations and future legislation on due diligence; urges the European Commission to introduce similar separate categories dedicated to impact on gender and women’s rights and on rule of law and good governance in developing countries;

Amendment 2 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Catherine CHABAUD, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission communication of 29 April 2021 entitled ‘Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws’ (COM(2021)0219) and its commitment to ensuring that every legislative proposal contributes to the 2030 sustainable development agenda; recalls that the principles and objectives set out by the SDGs are indivisible and must not be undermined by burden and cost reduction targets;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to devise and promote concrete propositions for measures supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in their adaptation to the new regulatory framework, notably related to the achievement of the principles of Policy Coherence for Development, targets of Paris agreement, Sustainable Development goals and Agenda 2030;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Strongly believes that more emphasis must be put on institutional consultation, coordination and cooperation between EU institutions and within them; urges the Commission to streamline its internal procedures to systematically associate DG INTPA to all impact assessments, in particular for internal legislation with potential effects beyond the EU, and to duly take into account the inputs, suggestions and recommendations provided by this DG; calls on the Commission to reinforce the involvement and meaningful participation of DG INTPA during the inter-service consultation, in the GRI (Groupe des Relations Interinstitutionnelles) and EXCO (Group for External Coordination) and to take duly into consideration the inputs from this leading DG concerning development cooperation and developing countries;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Welcomes European Commission’s focus to improve the understanding of the needs and impacts of EU legislation outside the EU by increasing engagement with external partners; calls on the European Commission to make this engagement effective by articulating broad, inclusive and meaningful consultation processes involving affected stakeholders such as trade unions and civil society representatives in developing countries; suggests that the outcome of those consultations and the evidence gathered truly inform the legislation; highlights the role that the EU delegations can play, particularly, in developing countries, and the need to make available the instruments and resources needed for the implementation of these consultations; welcomes the initiative to make consultation process more focused, clearer and user-friendly and calls on the Commission to take into account the context and the specific needs of affected stakeholders in partner countries where the consultation is to be carried out;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3 d. Acknowledges that the effective implementation of the better regulation and, in particular, of the ex-ante impact assessments will require an appropriate level of human, financial and other resources and time; urges the Commission to allocate the appropriate means in this regard;

Amendment 25 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Catherine CHABAUD, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3 e. Acknowledges that better regulation is a shared objective and a responsibility of all EU Institutions; as legislator, the European Parliament will streamline its internal services to better contribute to the assessment and monitoring of the impact on developing countries of EU legislation with external dimension, including of the AMs introduced by the European Parliament during the legislative procedure and EU spending programmes; accordingly, it will reinforce the cooperation and coordination between committees, strengthen the expertise on development policies throughout all the relevant committees, and clarify the role that the Committee on Development is called to play as guarantor of the principle of policy coherence for development as stated in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (Annex VI), all of this with the aim of improving the quality and effectiveness of the EU legislation;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to improving the analysis and reporting of the impact of proposals, ~~in particular on developing countries and with regard to achieving the SDGs~~acknowledging the paramount importance of quality assessments, which could identify gaps, needs, opportunities and help discover existing risks and trends, could contribute to defining policy priorities and devising long-term perspective strategic planning, in particular on developing countries and with regard to achieving the SDGs; recalls on the Union’s commitment to be a global frontrunner in implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, together with its Member States and their local and regional authorities, and in close cooperation with its international partners; regrets that the Commission has not yet developed an integrated and holistic SDG implementation strategy;

Amendment 27 #

Catherine CHABAUD, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Charles GOERENS, Stéphane BIJOUX

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to improving the analysis and reporting of the impact of proposals, in particular on developing countries and with regard to achieving the SDGs; recalls that the EU must raise its visibility in developing countries, notably with the growing presence of its geopolitical competitors in African countries, through efficient communication on its cooperation and spending programmes; such as Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs);

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to improving the analysis and reporting of the impact of proposals, in particular on developing countries and with regard to achieving the SDGs; is concerned that the envisaged simplification of the public consultation process may jeopardise its effectiveness and should be reconsidered; underlines that consultation should be more effective and fulfil the requirements of the social partners and civil society;

Amendment 29 #

Beata KEMPA, Ryszard CZARNECKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to improving the analysis and reporting of the impact of proposals, in particular on developing countries, particularly least-developed countries, and with regard to achieving the SDGs;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission communication of 29 April 2021 entitled ‘Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws’ (COM(2021)0219) and its commitment to ensuring that every legislative proposal contributes to the 2030 sustainable development agenda; stresses the importance of involving citizens, businesses and stakeholders in the decision-making process;

Amendment 30 #

Beata KEMPA, Ryszard CZARNECKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Stresses the importance of a holistic perspective that takes into account the impact on the SDGs as whole, where all three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social, and environmental – are considered with the same level of detailed analysis and accuracy, taking into account both qualitative and quantitative evidence;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Believes that better regulation is a tool that has to be shared with partner countries in order to improve the quality of their legislation and its implementation; calls on the European Commission to promote partnerships in this regards;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that the impact on outermost regions and overseas countries and territories must also be taken into account;

Amendment 33 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Catherine CHABAUD, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls on the role of DG INTPA to be further strengthened during the process of drafting, implementing and evaluating domestic legislation with significant impact on developing countries in the framework of policy coherence for development;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the importance of policy coherence for development (PCD) in relation to external EU policy affecting developing countries; ~~welcomes any~~is alarmed that the revised Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox presented by the European Commission in November 2021 do not mention policy coherence for development even once, only a "toolbox" that accompanies these guidelines includes a tool 35 for PCD; is concerned that the key provisions on the PCD were ignored in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) impact assessment and, much more seriously still, in the Commission's proposal for CBAM regulation; insists that mechanisms for ensuring policy coherence for sustainable development must be used more systematically and efficiently by all relevant EU institutions and all Member States, including at the highest political level; calls for the initiatives that make the EU’s approach more consistent in this regard. ;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the importance of policy coherence in relation to external EU policy affecting developing countries, particularly least-developed countries, but also a number of territories in the EU with specific geographical features that must be taken into account, i.e. the outermost regions and overseas countries and territories; welcomes any initiatives that make the EU’s approach more consistent in this regard.

Amendment 36 #

Catherine CHABAUD, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Stéphane BIJOUX

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the importance of policy coherence in relation to external EU policy affecting developing countries; welcomes any initiatives that make the EU’s approach more consistent in this regard; underlines that the assessment of impacts of regulation on fundamental rights and values still needs to be strengthened.

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the importance of ~~policy~~ensuring efficiency and dynamism of policy-making at the EU level, as well as coherence in ~~relation to~~ external EU policy affecting developing countries; welcomes any initiatives that make the EU’s approach more consistent in this regard.

Amendment 38 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Catherine CHABAUD, Jan-Christoph OETJEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Reminds that the EU’s political engagement should be reflected in its multiannual financial framework and through its new European Financial Architecture for Development; underlines the crucial role of coherence across the Union financing instruments, initiatives and strategies, such like Global Europe instrument, Team Europe initiative, Global Gateway strategy etc.- in order to achieve EU’s global response and commitment towards sustainable growth and development.

Amendment 4 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Catherine CHABAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Highlight~~Affirms the EU’s obligation to incorporate the development cooperation objectives into any policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls that many Union policies with a more domestic dimension contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and therefore achieving coherence across all Union policies is crucial to achieving the SDGs worldwide;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the EU’s obligation to incorporate the development cooperation objectives into any internal or external policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls that many Union policies with a more domestic dimension can not only contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), ~~and therefore achieving coherence~~but also often still leave a very high total ecological footprint in the developing countries; insists therefore that the 2030 Agenda and its sustainable development goals must further catalyse a coordinated approach between the EU’s internal and external action and its other policies; reiterates thus that creating sufficient synergies across all Union policies is crucial to achieving the SDGs worldwide;

Amendment 6 #

Ádám KÓSA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the EU’s obligation to incorporate the development cooperation objectives into any policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of developing countries as well as their national identities and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; recalls that many Union policies with a more domestic dimension contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and therefore achieving coherence across all Union policies is crucial to achieving the SDGs worldwide;

Amendment 7 #

Catherine CHABAUD, Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Charles GOERENS, Stéphane BIJOUX

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the EU’s obligation to incorporate the development cooperation objectives into any policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls that many Union policies with a more domestic dimension contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and therefore achieving coherence across all Union policies is crucial to achieving the SDGs worldwide; recalls that adaptation action should be put in place to support the resilience of both terrestrial and marine ecosystems; insists on the importance for the EU strategy in developing countries to be designed in order to anticipate the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the EU’s obligation to incorporate the development cooperation objectives into any policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries, particularly least- developed countries, as set out in Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls that many Union policies with a more domestic dimension contribute to the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and therefore achieving coherence across all Union policies is crucial to achieving the SDGs worldwide;

Amendment 9 #