2023/2079(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2020 amounted to 131 out of 134 submissions formally received by Parliament under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality2 ; notes the increase in the submission of reasoned opinions in 2021 to 24 out of 227 submissions; observes that the total number of opinions received also rose from 255 in 2020 to 360 in 2021, reflecting the increased number of proposals presented by the Commission; _________________ 1 See for methodological differences in counting footnote 50 on page 9 of the Commission Annual report for 2020 (COM(2021)0417). The Commission counts 9 reasoned opinions for statistical purposes. 2 OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 206.

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the ‘Juncker’ Commission’s guideline: ‘big on big things and small on small things’; cConsiders that~~, while the COVID-19 crisis presented unprecedented challenges that resulted in the Commission interpreting EU competences in an extensive manner,~~ the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union) should remain guiding principles in focusing EU efforts on significant issues with EU added value that require collective action, and that other matters should be left to the national and regional levels; Reiterates the need to avoid unneccesary administrative burdens when designing, transposing and implimenting EU acts in order to keep the burden for citizens and businesses, especially SMEs, as low as possible.

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls for the "one in one out" approach to be applied as it plays an important role in supporting efforts to simplify EU law and reduce red tape in order to support the recovery and resilience of EU; Calls on the Commission to consider best practices at national level, including a reduction of the regulatory burden affecting SMEs by at least 30% in order to decrease cost pressures and promote competitiveness;

Amendment 12 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recommends establishing in the Court of Justice an independent subsidiarity chamber for monitoring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of conferral in order to safeguard the Member States from the Union acting ultra vires and illegitimately acquiring new competences; the Chamber shall consist of presidents of national constitutional courts of Member States; the task of continual monitoring should be supplemented with publishing an annual report dedicated to the review of the Union’s policies in light of the division of competences and assessment of Union’s application of the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the importance of fully using the existing instruments for strengthening the role of participatory democracy in the Union’s legislative process, such as the European Citizens' Initiative, the right to petition the European Parliament as outlined in Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the further implementation of Citizens' Assemblies;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. 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 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls for improved comprehensive impact assessments with a special focus on SMEs, including a binding SME test within the impact assessment phase to fully assess the economic impact, including compliance costs of legislative proposals on SMEs; calls for the test to be updated throughout the whole legislative process; recommends a comprehensive review of the SME test including the use of appropriate tools to facilitate SME's input, the regular revision of impact assessments and differentiation between different SME size categories; draws attention to the importance of solid impact assessments taking the competitiveness of European businesses into account;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Recalls the experiences that were gained from the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in the need for coordinated action to ensure an effective public health response; underlines that close coordination between the institutions and Members States would be needed to create an utmost European added value on public health matters for all Union citizens;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Encourages the Commission and the Member states to streamline procedures and implement the "once only" and "digital by default" principles, thereby facilitating administrative processes for citizens and businesses alike;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the adoption, in November 2021, of new better regulation guidelines and a toolbox, which also includes the production of subsidiarity assessment grids~~; regrets the fact that these grids are currently limited only to proposals for politically sensitive and important legislative proposals accompanied by an impact assessment~~ on proposals for politically sensitive and important initiatives accompanied by an impact assessment; believes that in light of the successful conclusion of the EU Year of Youth, tool #31 ‘Education and training, culture and youth’ of the Commission better regulation toolbox should be amended to more prominently evaluate the impact of the Commission’s proposal on future generations;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the adoption, in November 2021, of new better regulation guidelines and a toolbox, which also includes the production of subsidiarity assessment grids; ~~regrets the fact that these grids are currently limited only to proposals for politically sensitive and important legislative proposals accompanied by an impact assessment;~~

Amendment 2 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2020 amounted to 131 out of 134 submissions formally received by Parliament under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality2 ; notes the increase in the submission of reasoned opinions in 2021 to 24 out of 227 submissions; observes that the total number of opinions received also rose from 255 in 2020 to 360 in 2021; stresses the need to evaluate the discrepancies of approach by Member States and underlines the need to reinforce a wider participation of all national parliaments to the decision making process; _________________ 1 See for methodological differences in counting footnote 50 on page 9 of the Commission Annual report for 2020 (COM(2021)0417). The Commission counts 9 reasoned opinions for statistical purposes. 2 OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 206.

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the adoption, in November 2021, of new better regulation guidelines and a toolbox, which also includes the production of subsidiarity assessment grids; regrets the fact that these grids are currently limited only to proposals for politically sensitive and important legislative proposals accompanied by an impact assessment; Highlights that the toolbox does not provide a clear definition of the European Green Deal's "do no harm" principle, leaving it to the Commission services to determine if a policy option would do harm; Regrets that there is a risk that the rule could be inconsistently implemented without a clear definition;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the Commission's integration of strategic foresight and the mainstreaming of Sustainable development goals that reflect the need to anticipate future challenges in the policy making process, and ensure that all legislative proposals contribute to the 2030 sustainable agenda;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Reitera~~Notes that the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making3 stipulates that the Commission should outline in its explanatory memoranda how its proposed measures are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; points out that this requires that, as a general rule, every Commission proposal should be duly accompanied by an impact assessment; _________________ 3 Interinstitutional agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Reiterates that the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making3 stipulates that the Commission should outline in its explanatory memoranda how its proposed measures are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; points out that this requires that, as a rule, every Commission proposal should be duly accompanied by an impact assessment; that monitors compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as well as the potential creation of European added value; _________________ 3 Interinstitutional agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out that the structural consultation of stakeholders on all new EU policy initiatives is critical to assess the proportionality of these initiatives; welcomes the Commission’s efforts to consolidate the consultation process; believes that the public consultation process for strategic initiatives can be further strengthened, in particular to improve the outreach to under- represented groups, such as SMEs, young people and minorities;

Amendment 25 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Urges the Commission to provide comprehensive training and resources to national parliaments, enabling them to better understand and evaluate the implications of EU proposals, thereby promoting a more informed and constructive debate at the national level;

Amendment 26 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Stresses the need for greater public awareness and understanding of the EU's legislative processes; proposes the launch of educational campaigns and initiatives aimed at informing the public about the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the role of national parliaments in shaping EU decisions and the importance of their active participation;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Reiterates its call for the establishment of a permanent participatory mechanism for citizens in the lead-up to the adoption of the Annual Work Programme of the European Commission and calls to revise the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making therefore;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Is concerned about 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; calls on the three institutions to ensure a forward-looking and 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 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Notes with concern the European Council’s practice of ‘tasking the Council and the Commission’ which goes beyond the role of strategic guidance assigned to it by the Treaties, and is therefore contrary to both the word and spirit of the Treaties; considers it necessary to respect the division of competences as defined in the Treaties in order to ensure the independence and the good functioning of the legislative process;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Believes that European legislation should be fit for purpose, proportionate, clear, transparent, future-proof and comprehensive in order to effectively benefit citizens and stakeholders;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that, in 2020 and 2021, no Commission proposals reached the threshold of four countries to trigger an aggregate response from the Commission to the reasoned opinions from national parliaments; encourages national and regional parliaments to prioritise resources for subsidiarity and proportionality checks in order to ~~strengthen their scrutiny of~~proactively contribute to the EU decision- making process and to a greater ownership of EU policies;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that, in 2020 and 2021, no Commission proposals reached the threshold of four countries to trigger an aggregate response from the Commission to the reasoned opinions from national parliaments; encourages national parliaments to prioritise resources for subsidiarity and proportionality checks in order to strengthen their scrutiny of EU decision-making processes; calls to review the relevant Treaty provisions to strengthen the “yellow card” procedure and to introduce a “green card” procedure, enabling national parliaments to more effectively and constructively engage in the EU decision-making process;

Amendment 33 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Proposes introducing a politically binding red card mechanism; this would oblige the Commission to consider any reasoned opinion on the non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity politically binding if it has reached the threshold of 50 % of national parliaments and, consequently, the Commission should immediately and completely remove the challenged draft act;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Encourages national parliaments to systematically include the reasoned opinions of regional parliaments with legislative powers into their reasoned final opinions that are sent to the Presidents of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, especially when regional exclusive competences may be affected;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Encourages the Commission to have a more active engagement with national and regional parliaments in the consultation at the different stages of policy preparation; furthermore encourages the Commission to take a more active role in its direct interaction with regional parliaments;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Recommends to better take into account the role played by the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in the legislative framework as representatives of local and regional authorities and organised civil society; reaffirms the need to reform the CoR in order to maximize its impact in the law- making process;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that, in 2020, members of the Commission had 101 visits to national parliaments or meetings with national parliament delegations and that in 2021, this number rose to 130; ~~believe~~suggests that the Commission ~~should consistently~~ participates in debates on EU proposals in national parliaments.

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Reiterates that an effective enforcement of EU legislation is necessary to ensure the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are observed in full; points out that disproportionate regulatory burden for citizens and businesses can often be attributed to Member State compliance issues; calls on the Commission to enforce EU legislation in full and without undue delay and to leverage all existing tools therefore; stresses that the Commission’s enforcement policy must be more predictable and transparent and reinforce legal certainty for all stakeholders

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Believes that within the Union's multi-level governance structure the transparency of the legislative process is of the utmost importance to ensure public accountability and legitimacy of the decision-making process; underlines the importance of the EU transparency register in that regard and calls on the institutions to further strengthen its usage; reiterates its call for an Independent Ethics Body (IEB) to ensure the consistent and full implementation of ethics standards across the EU institutions;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls the utmost importance of parliamentary scrutiny in the Union's legislative process and reiterates its call for the European Parliament's right to initiate policy proposals;

Amendment 40 #

6a. Considers that in cases in which the European 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 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. 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 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Notes that current challenges, including the supply of energy and rapid changes of the industrial landscape, require new methods to improve regulatory cooperation; calls therefore on the Member States to consider the impact of their national regulations under these constrains and to foster any potentials for stronger mutual coordination on a European level.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Underlines that Better Law Making is a centre piece of the “ever closer Union” and an objective shared by all EU institutions; reiterates that regulatory fitness, subsidiarity and proportionality as well as transparency, accountability and cooperation between the institutions, Member States, citizens and stakeholders, ensuring full respect of all fundamental European values, are essential prerequisites for EU democracy;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the ‘Juncker’ Commission’s guideline: ‘big on big things and small on small things’; considers that, while the COVID-19 crisis presented unprecedented challenges that resulted in the Commission interpreting EU competences in an extensive manner,at the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union) should remain guiding principles in focusing EU efforts ~~on significant issues with EU added value that require collective action, and that other matters should be left to the national and regional levels~~;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls the ‘Juncker’ Commission’s guideline: ‘big on big things and small on small things’; considers that, while the COVID-19 crisis presented unprecedented challenges that resulted in the Commission interpreting EU competences in an extensive manner, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union) should remain guiding principles in focusing EU efforts on significant issues with EU added value that require collective action, and that other matters should be left to the national and regional level the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union) should remain guiding principles;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Recal~~Underlines also the ‘Juncker’ Commission’s guideline: ‘big on big things and small on small things’; considers that, while the COVID-19 crisis presented unprecedented challenges that resulted in the Commission interpreting EU competences in an extensive manner,role that national parliaments play in shaping EU policies and legislation as outlined in Protocol No 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; calls on the Commission and the co- legislators to use all available means to support the active engagement of national parliaments but also the European Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee in the legislative process of the EU; considers that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality ~~(Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union)~~ should remain guiding principles in focusing EU efforts on significant issues with EU added value that require collective action~~, and that other matters should be left to the national and regional levels~~;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Recalls the ‘Juncker’ Commission’s guideline: ‘big on big things and small on small things’;~~ considers that, while the COVID-19 crisis presented unprecedented challenges that resulted in the ~~Commission interpreting EU competences in an extensive manner~~beginning in a fractured response by Member States and a delayed and insufficient European cooperation, , the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union) should remain guiding principles in the development of EU and Member State policy in shared competence areas, focusing EU efforts on significant issues with EU added value that require collective action~~, and that other matters should be left to the national and regional levels~~;

source: 752.770

2023/09/27 JURI 60 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

– having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. Whereas better law-making should place social, economic and environmental considerations on an equal footing;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the mandate of the C. Regulatory Scrutiny Board includes checking the quality of impact assessments; whereas in 2020, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board examined a total of 53 impact assessments, that in 12 cases, it estimated that it was necessary to improve their analysis of subsidiarity and EU added value, and that 30 opinions contained comments on proportionality; notes that, in 2018, it examined 75 impact assessments, that in 16 cases, it was necessary to improve their analysis of subsidiarity and EU added value, and that 47 opinions contained remarks aimed at improving the analysis of proportionality and comparisons of policy options; underlines that, in 2019, the board examined only one impact assessment;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the mandate of the C. Regulatory Scrutiny Board includes checking the quality of impact assessments; whereas the Regulatory Scrutiny Board functions in a highly opaque manner that does not allow for contradictory discussions and public accountability despite having a quasi-veto power of EU law-making;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas national parliaments are the natural guardians of the subsidiarity principle and have the right to control it through the Early Warning System (EWS), according to which when a national parliament/chamber considers that a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity, it may adopt a reasoned opinion;

Amendment 14 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas national parliaments and constitutional courts are the natural guardians of the subsidiarity principle;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the current configuration of the subsidiarity control mechanism sets in motion 41 legislative chambers in the EU, 75 regional parliaments and assemblies, and thousands of parliamentarians throughout the EU; whereas, in this regard, the current mechanism overloads the agendas of national parliament’s Committees for Union Affairs, impeding them to dedicate more time to the analysis of EU policies; whereas national parliaments do not see this mechanism as a way to stall the EU law-making process, but as a way to voice their views and participate in the debate on EU policies;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas the European Committee of the Regions highlights its role as guardian of the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. RAcknowledges the work carried out by the EU institutions in the respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, taking into account that no orange card has been triggered; recalls that the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union aims to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to citizens and that constant checks are carried out to verify that action at EU level is justified; recalls that the principle of proportionality requires that any action taken by the EU should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EU national parliaments have activated the Early Warning System (EWS) -“ yellow card” - only on three occasions;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the measure to help national parliaments execute their role more effectively by excluding the period from 20 December to 10 January from the eight-week period during which national parliaments can submit reasoned opinions, which has produced positive results and invites the Commission to evaluate the possibility of further extending this period;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)

– having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal, which welcomes the commitment by the Commission to ensure that all EU actions should help the EU achieve a sustainable future and a just transition and to update the better regulation guidelines accordingly, requiring, inter alia, that a ‘sustainability first’ principle be integrated into the Better Regulation Agendas of the EU and its Member States,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Suggests a revision of the subsidiarity control mechanism with the aim of making it less constraining and less burdensome for national parliaments, thereby allowing for deeper political discussions on European politics at national level, while preventing the misuse of this mechanism for slowing the integration of the Union;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that the number of reasoned opinions received from EU national parliaments was 9 in 2020, 16 in 2021 and 34 in 2022; recalls that the “orange card” procedure has never been activated, and that the “yellow card” has been activated only three times, out of a total of 494 reasoned opinions and more than 6000 opinions in the period 2007-2022;

Amendment 22 #

Catharina RINZEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes also that, in 2020, of a total number of ~~41 house~~39 chambers of national parliaments, only eight issued reasoned opinions, that, in 2021, that number fell to seven and that, in 2022, it increased to 13;

Amendment 23 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recommends establishing in the Court of Justice an independent chamber for monitoring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of conferral in order to safeguard the Member States from the Union acting ultra vires and illegitimately acquiring new competences; the task of continual monitoring should be supplemented with the publication of an annual report dedicated to the review of the Union’s policies in light of the division of competences and assessment of Union’s application of the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to take greater account of the opinions expressed by the Committee of the Regions through the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network (SMN) created to facilitate the exchange of information between regional and local authorities and the Union on the various legislative proposals which, following their adoption, will have a direct impact on these bodies and on the policies for which they are responsible;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines that the trend of the number of opinions and reasoned opinions in the period 2007-2022 demonstrates that national parliaments increasingly ask for more political dialogue and a greater involvement in the debate on EU policies, thus dedicating less time to the normative analysis of EU legislative proposals;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Suggests a revision of the subsidiarity control mechanism with the aim of making it more functional and agile so that local and regional authorities, and mostly national parliaments, are able to dedicate the essential time needed for a genuine debate on European politics; recommends the development of a more political approach in this regard, in order to develop a greater EU added value for citizens;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Considers that the European Committee of the Regions could have a more prominent role in the subsidiarity control mechanism, additionally to the right to bring an action before the CJEU for an infringement of the principle;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines the importance of fully using and respecting the existing instruments for strengthening the role of participatory democracy in the Union’s legislative process, such as the European Citizens' Initiative, the right to petition the European Parliament as outlined in Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the further implementation of Citizens' Assemblies;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the importance of promoting dialogue between Members of national Parliament and Members of the European Parliament; highlights the need for the European Parliament’s Committees to engage directly with national parliaments with specific thematic focuses;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2022 on Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws (2021/2166(INI)),

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Invites the Commission to evaluate the possibility for the EU to involve national parliaments at an earlier stage of the legislative procedure, more specifically when consultations take place;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Stresses that a parliamentary right of initiative is an important feature of representative democracy at Member State level and sees the necessity to empower Members of the European Parliament, as the direct representatives of EU citizens, by strengthening their right to shape the EU legislative agenda;

Amendment 32 #

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Supports the consolidation of responses if seven or more national parliaments issue reasoned opinions on one of the Commission’s legislative proposals, despite the threshold for initiating the ‘yellow card’ procedure not having been reachedInsists that each reasoned opinion from a national parliament should receive a detailed response from the Commission;

Amendment 33 #

Catharina RINZEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Supports the consolidation of responses if seven chambers or more of national parliaments issue reasoned opinions on one of the Commission’s legislative proposals, despite the threshold for initiating the ‘yellow card’ procedure not having been reached;

Amendment 34 #

Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Suggests that the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs should hold a proper discussion about the reasoned opinions from national parliaments that are forwarded to it, highlighting to its members when at least two reasoned opinions criticise the same proposal;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Continues to support the Commission’s commitment to ex ante evaluation before considering possible legislative changes or new initiatives; believes that the EU and the authorities of the Member States should continue to work closely together to ensure better evaluation of the real impact of EU regulations on citizens and businesses, notably SMEs; stresses that this assessment cannot consist only of economic considerations such as growth and corporate profits, and should insteadassess the impact of legislations on the well-being of citizens and long-term sustainability; calls for ex ante evaluations to evaluate the impact of legislations on social justice, fundamental rights, and environmental protection;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Emphasises that the impact assessment is a key instrument of the "Better Regulation" program to ensure that subsidiarity and proportionality are respected and is used to promote accountability of Commission’s initiatives likely to have a significant economic, social or environmental impact; welcomes the fact that the two principles are part of the quality review performed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Emphasises that the impact assessment is a key instrument to ensure that subsidiarity and proportionality are respected and is used to promote accountability; ~~welcomes the fact that the two principles are part of the quality review performed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;~~

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Highlights the need to develop additional tools to assess the environmental impacts of new policies, initiatives and legislation where existing tools are insufficient, in order to ensure that the far-reaching green ambitions of the von der Leyen Commission, together with its focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, will be more prominent in the Commission’s impact assessments;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)

– having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on "The EU Youth Test",

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Recalls the commitment to improved analysis and reporting of environmental impacts in all EU policies through mandatory assessment of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle, and the fact that this assessment is to be applied to proposals from across all policy areas, in order to avoid uneven application1a; _________________ 1a Commission communication of 29 April 2021 entitled ‘Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws’ (COM(2021)0219)

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11c. 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;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that, in 2020, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board examined a total of 53 impact assessments, that in 12 cases, it estimated that it was necessary to improve their analysis of subsidiarity and EU added value, and that 30 opinions contained comments on proportionality; notes that, in 2018, it examined 75 impact assessments, that in 16 cases, it was necessary to improve their analysis of subsidiarity and EU added value, and that 47 opinions contained remarks aimed at improving the analysis of proportionality and comparisons of policy options; underlines that, in 2019, the board examined only one impact assessment;deleted

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses that the Regulatory Scrutiny Board can only provide an effective check on the Commission’s work if its independence and impartiality are indisputably established; calls, in this regard, for the independence of the Board, including by ensuring a well- balanced composition that reflects a broad set of backgrounds and competences; calls for increased transparency of the Board, including by publishing all its opinions immediately after adoption, by declaring its meetings with interest groups, and by making the use of the Transparency Register mandatory for its members; underlines that, while the advice of the Board should be taken into account by the Commission to improve impact assessments, evaluations and fitness checks, it should in no way affect the Commission’s capacity to propose legislation; calls for closer cooperation between the Board and the co-legislators;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to subjecting EU legislative proposals to an SME test; welcomes its increased accessibility; regrets, however, that the test is not conducted systematically and consistently; calls for the test to be binding and updated throughout the whole legislative process in order to ensure clear and predictable EU legislation at minimum costs; recommends that the SME test differentiate between different size- classes of SMEs; to ensure proportionality; underlines the need to monitor and assess the implementation and quality of the SME test;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to subjecting EU legislative proposals to an SME test; welcomes its increased accessibility; ~~regrets, however, that the test is not conducted systematically and consistently; calls for the test to be binding and updated throughout the whole legislative process;~~ recommends that the SME test differentiate between different size-classes of SMEs;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Considers that the Commission should fully comply with the provisions of Article 6 (4) of the European Climate law, which provides that any draft measures and legislative proposals need to be consistent with the fulfilment of the Union’s climate neutrality objective by 2050; to that end, calls the Commission to assess the consistency of all draft measures or legislative proposals, including impact assessment, with climate neutrality objectives and whether they ensure progress on adaptation to climate change

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Welcomes the Commitment from the EESC to implement a ‘EU Youth Test’ on its opinions; calls on the Commission to adopt a fully-fledged ‘EU Youth Test’ to ensure the meaningful engagement, participation and commitment of young people in the preparation of all EU policies; highlights that this should lead to the establishment of a systematic impact assessment on its proposals to ensure that they promote and reflect the needs of young people and to take mitigation measures if they have a negative impact;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Stresses the importance of gender impact assessments for the design of legislative proposals and gender- responsive evaluations of legislative initiatives; regrets that gender impacts are rarely addressed as part of the Commission’s impact assessments; asks the Commission to carry out and publish a gender impact assessment for each legislative proposal and include explicitly gender-related objectives and performance indicators in its proposals;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses that the quality of the EU’s regulatory framework is crucial for the Union’s competitiveness; welcomes the Commission communication entitled ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ and the commitment therein to better assess the cumulative impacts of different policy measures with a view to developing a methodology complementary to the competitiveness check currently used in impact assessments8 ; deplores, however, that the promised methodology has not yet been developed and that the current competitiveness check focuses only on individual legislative proposals; calls, therefore, on the Commission to promptly develop a comprehensive methodology covering the cumulative effects of the relevant policy measures on the EU’s competitiveness; calls, furthermore, for the competitiveness check to not only be performed on the impact assessments of single EU legislative proposals, but also on legislative packages9 and the Commission work programme as a whole; _________________ 8protection of the Union’s environment, social justice, and employment; takes not of the Commission communication ~~of 16 March 2023~~ entitled ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030~~’, p. 17, (COM(2023)0168). 9 For example, the ‘Fit for 55’ package.~~';

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

– having regard to the 10th Subsidiarity Conference - Active Subsidiarity: Daring more EU democracy - Creating EU added value on 11 November 2022,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes with concern that, in 2022, 58 % of the impact assessments provided insufficient quantification of costs relevant to the ‘one in, one out’ approach10 ; calls, therefore, on the Commission to ~~improve~~clarify the implementation of the ‘one in, one out’ approach in law-making, to better indicate what costs and benefits were considered and to provide clear information on the reduction of existing regulatory burdens; ~~_________________~~ underlines that in its communication of 24 October 2017 entitled ‘Completing the Better Regulation Agenda: Better solutions for better results’ (COM(2017)0651) the Commission expressed reservations about the ‘one in, one out’ approach and ‘fixing ex ante burden reduction targets’, considering that it ‘would create deregulatory pressures and impair its political responsibility to deliver what needs to be done when it needs to be done’1b; _________________ 1b European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2022 on Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws (2021/2166(INI)), paragraph S 10 Regulatory Scrutiny Board, ‘Annual Report 2022’, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 16 May 2023, p. 25.

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes ~~with concern~~ that, in 2022, ~~58 % of the impact assessments provided insufficient quantification of costs relevant to the ‘one in, one out’ approach10 ; calls, therefore, on the Commission to improve the implementation of~~the 'one in, one out' approach to legislative procedures based on a quantification of costs could not be or was not followed in 58 % of the impact assessments; considers that this shows that the ‘'one in, one out’' approach in law-making, to better indicate what costs and benefits were considered and to provide clear information on the reduction of existing regulatory burdens; _________________ 10 Regulatory Scrutiny Board, ‘Annual Report 2022’, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 16 May 2023, p. 25.s a misguided, quantitative approach to law-making that cannot be applied in practice and should be abandonned to focus on the benefits of legislation for citizens, workers, and consumers;

Amendment 52 #

Catharina RINZEMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Is concerned about unnecessary and unintended consequences of EU legislation for citizens and businesses, which hampers the transition towards a sustainable economy; stresses the importance of a holistic approach towards ex-post evaluation in order to determine the supportive as well as hindering effects of bureaucracy for consumers and businesses; therefore calls on the Commission to come up with a thorough ex-post ‘practice check’ aiming to clarify any supporting best practices as well as stumbling blocks preventing citizens and businesses from making the needed sustainable transition;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses to that regard that, while additional unnecessary administrative burdens should be avoided in designing, transposing and implementing EU acts, this should not be translated into deregulation or “no-regulation” nor prevent Member States from maintaining or taking more ambitious measures and adopting higher social, environmental and consumer protection standards in cases where only minimum standards are defined by Union law1c; _________________ 1c European Parliament resolution of 24 June 2021 on European Union regulatory fitness and subsidiarity and proportionality – report on Better Law Making covering the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, paragraph 34

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses that the implementation of the ‘one in, one out’ approach should not run counter to the objectives of better regulation, lead to mechanical decisions to repeal legislation, result in deregulation or ‘no-regulation’, or prevent Member States from maintaining or taking more ambitious measures and adopting higher social, environmental and consumer protection standards where only minimum standards are defined by Union law;

Amendment 55 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Proposes introducing a politically binding red card mechanism, obliging the Commission to consider any reasoned opinion on the non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity as politically binding, if it has reached the threshold of 50 % of national parliaments; consequently, the Commission should immediately and completely remove the challenged draft act;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Stresses that the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules on good administration applicable across the Union makes it difficult for citizens and businesses to easily and fully understand their rights under Union law; emphasises, therefore, that codifying rules on good administration as a regulation setting out the various aspects of administrative procedures – including notifications, binding time limits, the right to be heard and the right for every person to have access to their file – would be tantamount to reinforcing citizens’ rights and transparency; believes that this regulation would increase the effectiveness, efficiency and capacity of public administrations and services, and in this regard respond to the need for investment and reform in the European Union;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Calls on the Commission to develop a more integrated approach on sustainability that would better take into account the interplay of the economic, social and environmental impacts of EU policies and legislation; considers that impact assessments must pay equal attention to the evaluation of these impacts; stresses the need to develop additional tools to assess the social and environmental impacts of new policies, initiatives and legislation where existing tools are insufficient; in this regard, calls for the costs that may arise from policy inaction, and the cumulative effects arising from delays, to be considered;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Reiterates its call for the adoption of a regulation on an open, efficient and independent EU administration under Article 298 TFEU, and notes that there Commission has not come forward with a proposal following up on this request; calls on the Commission once again, therefore, to come forward with a legislative proposal on a European law of administrative procedure, taking into account the steps taken so far by Parliament in this field;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Calls for further transparency of decision-making processes within all institutions; deplores the Council’s lack of transparency and its practice of over- classifying documents; urges the Council to increase the documents it makes public, in particular the positions expressed by the Member States, thereby allowing the public to know the position of their government and enhancing scrutiny by national parliaments;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal welcomes the commitment by the Commission to ensure that all EU actions should help the EU achieve a sustainable future and a just transition and to update the better regulation guidelines accordingly, requiring, inter alia, that a ‘sustainability first’ principle be integrated into the Better Regulation Agendas of the EU and its Member States;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)

15d. Calls for the introduction of a direct right of legislative initiative of the European Parliament; stresses this is an important feature of representative democracy at Member State level; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to always respond with a legislative act to requests under Article 225 TFEU; calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure increased facilitation of this right;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas there is still the need to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens to make sure that EU laws deliver their intended benefits while reducing unnecessary costs, particularly for citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); whereas, however, ‘Better Regulation’ should deliver for all and serve the interest of European society; whereas 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 8 #

B. whereas ~~there is still the need to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens to make sure that~~increasing transperancy, accountability and cooperation between institutions and, Member States and citizens should be a common goal for all; where full respect for fundamental rights, democratic values, rule of law and human rights should be ensured; whereas EU laws must deliver their intended benefits ~~while reducing unnecessary costs, particularly for citizens and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)~~for citizens; whereas quality law-making cannot only be reduced to quantitative targets and limiting administrative efforts, but should aim to deliver long-term prosperity;

Amendment 9 #