41 Amendments of Agnès LE BRUN related to 2012/2308(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
Citation 10
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A b (new)
Paragraph A b (new)
Ab. whereas the real annual cost of retaining the Strasbourg seat in 2010 was EUR 51.5 million, i.e. 0.04 % of the annual budget of the European Union or 10 cents per citizen per year;
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 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B a (new)
Paragraph B a (new)
Ba. whereas there were historical reasons for the decision to hold part-sessions in Strasbourg, in particular the symbolic significance of that city and the need to have a multi-centre European Union;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B b (new)
Paragraph B b (new)
Bb. whereas, under the Treaties, the European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions are held;
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 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 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
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 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 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 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M – footnote 5
Recital M – footnote 5
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 68 #
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 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 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses that the additional part- sessions entail a substantial additional cost, which could be reduced by extending ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 86 #
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 singlTakes note of the petitions submitted requesting that the European Parliament no longer meet in more than one 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 reputationof the arguments put forward in that respect;
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 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Expresses concern at the steady increase (+23.8% between 2006 and 2010) in the number of committee, political group and delegation meetings held outside the European Parliament’s places of work;
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 123 #
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 futureNotes that travel is an inherent part of the duties of Members of the European Parliament, and that the continuation of the monthly journeys between Brussels and Strasbourg is not a significant factor in terms of the European Parliament’s reputation among EU citizens;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Points out, too, that Parliament’s Strasbourg seat, which achieved a 57% reduction in CO2 emissions between 2006 and 2010, is leading the way on respect for the environment and that, as data compiled by Parliament’s Secretariat shows, its detractors have substantially overestimated its annual costs;
Amendment 152 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for Parliament to express its view as to whetherEmphasises that only the cEurrent arrangement should continue; and if an appropriate majority vote is recorded, recommends that Parliament propose Treaty changes under Article 48opean Council has a remit to determine Parliament’s seat; sees the location of Parliament’s seat as part of the broader question of determining the seats of all the EU institutions.