Activities of Constance LE GRIP related to 2012/2308(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Location of the seats of the European Union's institutions (debate)
Location of the seats of the European Union's institutions (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the location of the seats of the European Union’s Institutions PDF (235 KB) DOC (115 KB)
Amendments (66)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Parliament’s estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs directly related to the dispersion estimated at EUR 180 000 000related to the 12 part-sessions (as compared with the costs that would be generated in Brussels) estimated – according to figures recognised by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament in the document entitled ‘Replies to the questionnaire in preparation to the EP discharge for 2011’ – at EUR 51.61 million, that is 0.04% of the EU’S annual budget or 10 euro cents per citizen per year;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 – ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and Follow- up to the Discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the timecost incurred in 2011 due to the monthly travel to the four-day plenary part-session was 69 562 days for officials and other agents and 31 316 days for accredited parliamentary assistants, costingby travel for officials and other agents is € 16 652 490 for officials and other agents and € 5 944 724 for accredited parliamentary assistants;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A
Paragraph A
A. whereas certain petitions have been deposited requesting that the establishment of the European Parliament in more than one place be discontinuedEuropean Parliament should no longer have three places of work;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A – point 2 (new)
Paragraph A – point 2 (new)
(2) having regard to the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 December 2012 in joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11 opposing France and Parliament, which annuls Parliament’s decision of 9 March 2011;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A d (new)
Paragraph A d (new)
Ad. whereas, in accordance with the sole article of Protocol No 6 annexed to the TFEU, the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, the Council has its seat in Brussels, the Commission has its seat in Brussels, the Court of Justice of the European Union has its seat in Luxembourg, the Court of Auditors has its seat in Luxembourg, the Economic and Social Committee has its seat in Brussels, the Committee of the Regions has its seat in Brussels, the European Investment Bank has its seat in Luxembourg, the European Central Bank has its seat in Frankfurt and the European Police Office (Europol) has its seat in The Hague;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the protocols on the seats of the institutions are governed by mutual respect for the respective powers of the Member States and of Parliament;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A f (new)
Paragraph A f (new)
Af. having regard to the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and follow-up to the discharge for 2010’;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A g (new)
Paragraph A g (new)
Ag. having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 December 2012 in Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B
Paragraph B
B. whereas one of these petitions (0630/2006) does not bears the signatures of more than one million citizens of the EU; one million signatures required for compliance with Rule 201(2) (Rule 191(2) when the petition was deposited) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, and whereas, moreover, its originators are MEPs seeking to circumvent the Treaties;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Asks the Administration for an analysis of the savings that could be made if the European Parliament had only one place of work; asks that, in order to identify savings for greater efficiency, this should include not only structural costs (buildings, maintenance, security, insurance, energy, environmental impact, travel, logistics, restaurants, etc.) but also ancillary costs in Strasbourg, which is its seat;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B a (new)
Paragraph B a (new)
Ba. whereas, pursuant to the former Rule 191(2) and the current Rule 201(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, petitions to Parliament ‘shall show the name, nationality and permanent address of each petitioner’, which ‘petition’ 0630/2006 clearly does not do;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Article 232 TFEU allowrequires Parliament to adopt its own rules of procedure and to determine the length of plenary sessionby a majority of its Members;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the ECJ has stated that the location of the seat is not to hinder the well-functioning of Parliament; whereas it has further stated that there are disadvantages and costs engendered by the plurality of working locations, but also that any improvement of the current situation requires a Treaty change and, thus, the consent ofresponsibility for remedying this lies neither with Parliament nor with the Court, but, rather, by exercising their exclusive power to determine the seats of the institutions, with the Member States;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas on two occasions, in 1997 and 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union pointed out that the fact that Parliament’s seat is in Strasbourg is determined by the TFEU; whereas it has also confirmed Protocol No 6 in clarifying the conditions for the application thereof; whereas it has fully acknowledged the power of Parliament to determine its own internal organisational arrangements, since Parliament may adopt appropriate measures to ensure its proper functioning and proper conduct of its proceedings, but the question of determining its seat does not come within that remit;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees that Parliament would be more effective and cost-efficient if it were located in a single place; resolves, therefore, to propose Treaty changes under Article 48 of the TEU.Deplores the fact that the principles of polycentrism of the European institutions and of geographical mobility, which form an integral part of the European project, are being called into question to fuel a debate about 0.04% of the EU's annual budget; points out that the issue of the seats of the European institutions is a Treaty matter and is therefore subject to the unanimous political will of the Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Parliament has undergone a complete transformation, from a consultative body with 78 seconded members that – mostly for practical reasons – shared its facilities with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, into a fully fledged, directly elected Parliament with 754 members thatcomprises 754 Members elected by direct universal suffrage and is today co-legislator on equal terms with the Council;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas Strasbourg has been the meeting place of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 1949 and then, from 1952, played host to the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas this is most clearly illustrated by the growth of its legislative capacity, as reflec is illustrated inby the increase in the number of co-decision procedures (now ordinary legislative procedures) from 165 in 1993- 1999 to 454 in 2004-2009, to an even greater number in the current legislature;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – indent 1 (new)
- Decides not to make any recommendations regarding the seats of the EU institutions;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 2 (new)
Paragraph 2 – indent 2 (new)
- In view of the fact that the Court of Justice of the European Union: recalled in two judgments, in 1997 and 2012, that the TFEU locates the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg; also upheld Protocol 6 by clarifying the conditions for its application; fully acknowledged that the European Parliament has the power of internal organisation, as it may take appropriate measures to ensure the proper functioning and conduct of its proceedings, but noted that the issue of determining its seat falls outside its remit; recognised the disadvantages and costs linked to the plurality of working places but also pointed out that it is not for Parliament or the Court but for the Member States to remedy this situation, if necessary, by exercising their power to determine the seats of the institutions;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the increase in legislative activity and responsibility is reflected in the fact that the number of statutory staff in Brussels increased by 377 % (from 1 180 to 5 635 staff members) from 1993 to 2013, by far exceeding the 48 % increase in the number of MEPs in the same periodincrease in staff at Parliament’s three places of work;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the structure of Parliament’s calendar (fixed during the Edinburgh Summit in 1992) predates all changes to its rolehas not been called into question, since it was confirmed in Protocol No 6 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, and the increase in Parliament’s powers arising from the adoption of the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon has therefore been taken into account;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. whereas two judgments given by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 1997 and 2012 recalled that the TFEU locates the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg and whereas the conditions for the application of Protocol No 6 have been clarified;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the fact of geographical distance between the official seats of the co- legislative bodies – 435 km – isolates Parliament not only fromreflects the multi- centre principle with regard to the seats of the European institutions and, during part-sessions, the attention of the Council and the Commission, but also ofrom other stakeholders, such as NGOs, civil society organisations and Member State representations, and ofrom one of the world’s largest international journalistic communities, is fully focused on the work of Parliament;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C b (new)
Paragraph C b (new)
Cb. whereas all the countries which have joined the European Union have ratified Protocol No 6;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C c (new)
Paragraph C c (new)
Cc. whereas Strasbourg has been the meeting place of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe since 1949 and then, from 1952, played host to the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C d (new)
Paragraph C d (new)
Cd. whereas the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 and then incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty in 2009;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C e (new)
Paragraph C e (new)
Ce. whereas the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions is based on the principle of polycentrism;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M – footnote 5
Recital M – footnote 5
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C f (new)
Paragraph C f (new)
Cf. whereas, if a debate is initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it will inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to draw up a report on the location of the seats of the European Union’s institutions;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers, however, that it is time to stop the polemics concerning the cost of the Strasbourg seat; calls therefore for the figures provided by official sources within the European Parliament to be quoted clearly in the annexes to the own- initiative report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, including pages 68-70 of the Environmental Declaration of the European Parliament of May 2011 concerning the ‘environmental impact of the Strasbourg seat’ and page 40 of the document of the European Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘REPLIES AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE DISCHARGE FOR 2010’ on the annual cost of the Strasbourg seat;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas Parliament, since its suggestion in 1958 to be sited in proximity to the Council and the Commission, has via numerous reports, declarations and statements alwaysoften expressed its wish for a more practical and efficient working arrangement;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputationNotes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg remains a positive symbol of European polycentrism;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Respects the historical reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the system of a single seat and three places of work;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the citizens of the European Union;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Considers that the choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Considers it perfectly legitimate for the European Parliament to consider launching a debate on its right to determine its own working arrangements, including the right to decide where and when it is to meet;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that the Committee’s report was prepared under the ordinary own-initiative procedure and there is thus no obligation to implement the proposals, and further that the matter of the EU institutions’ seats is governed directly by the Treaties and is therefore subject to the political will of the Member States acting unanimously;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recalls that the Court of Justice of the EU has held that Parliament, during the proceedings before the Court, did not adduce reasons based on the exercise of its power of internal organisation sufficient to show – despite the continuous increase in its powers – that it had the power to alter the timetable of part-sessions; stresses, therefore, that the European Parliament likewise does not now have the power to decide where its seat should be;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that this own-initiative report must not be used as a means of disregarding the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Observes that, if a debate were initiated concerning the seat of the European Parliament, it would inevitably lead to discussion of the distribution of all the seats of the European Institutions, which is laid down in the Treaty;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Respects the historic reasons for the location of its plenary sessions in Strasbourg and the Treaty requirements that necessitate the two-seat system; nevertheless insists that such an arrangement cannot continue in perpetuity and that Parliament itself must be able to state a preference for its futuresystem of a single seat and three places of work;
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Draws attention to the emblematic nature of the city of Strasbourg, symbolising as it does reconciliation between Germany and the other nations of Europe;
Amendment 135 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Emphasises that European integration necessarily entails mobility and that this applies to all national and European political representatives and officials, and that mobility is an intrinsic aspect of the work of MEPs, as representatives of the European Union;
Amendment 139 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Considers that decentralisation of the legislative authority away from Brussels strengthens its independence;
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Considers that choice of the EU institutions’ seats has always been guided by a desire to bring the Union as close to ordinary people as possible and not to concentrate it in one place;
Amendment 153 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for Parliament to express its view as to whether the current arrangement should continue; and if an appropriate majority vote is Emphasises that the Committee’s report was prepared under the ordinary own- initiative procedure and there is thus no obligation to implement the proposals, and further that the matter of the EU institutions’ seats is governed directly by the Treaties and is therecforded, recommends that Parliament propose Treaty changes under Article 48.e subject to the political will of the Member States acting unanimously;
Amendment 154 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
(1) Considers that the so-called petition No 0630/2006 is not in fact a petition because it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of petitions to Parliament under Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure (formerly Rule 191(2)) inasmuch as it does not show the nationality and permanent address of each petitioner, and that, by implication, electronic signatures on a petition are not admissible and there can be no guarantee as to the real or virtual level of support for this initiative;
Amendment 157 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the own-initiative report cannot be used as means of circumventing the EU Treaties, which provide that the seat of the European Parliament shall be in Strasbourg and that 12 part-sessions per year shall be held there.