Activities of Marie-Christine BOUTONNET related to 2015/2283(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Annual report 2014 on subsidiarity and proportionality (debate) FR
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Annual Report 2014 on subsidiarity and proportionality PDF (359 KB) DOC (59 KB)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
– having regard to Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)
Citation 1 b (new)
– having regard to Protocol No 2 of the TEU on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the continued consideration ofRecalls that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which are guiding principles for the European Union when it chooses to act and that they must be respected; stresses that subsidiarity and democratic legitimacy are closely intertwined concepts; highlights that subsidiarity checks canmust be considered an important tool for reducing the so- called ‘democratic deficit’in line with Protocol No 2; points out that national parliaments have a vital and indispensable role to play in ensuring that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions received from national parliaments in 2014; points out, however, that such a decrease might be as a result of the declining number of legislative proposals by the Commission and not of a loss of interest on the part of national parliaments; draws attention toregrets the fact that in 2014 no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card procedures’ under Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is seriously concerned by the fact that some national parliaments have highlighted that, in a number of the Commission’s legislative proposals, the justification of subsidiarity and proportionality is insufficient or non- existent in substance; stresses, in this connection, the need for the European institutions to make it possible for national parliaments to scrutinise legislative proposals by ensuring that the Commission provides detailed and comprehensive grounds for its legislative decisions on subsidiarity and proportionality, in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 2 to the TFEU;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern that the Impact Assessment Board (‘IAB’) considered more than 32 % of impact assessments (‘IAs’) reviewed by them in 2014 to have included an unsatisfactory analysis of the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality, or both; considers this to be unacceptable; notes the crucial importance of impact assessments as tools for aiding decision-making in the legislative process, and stresses the need, in this context, for proper consideration to be given to issues relating to subsidiarity and proportionality; welcomnotes, in this connection, the package of better regulation measures adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, which place new emphasis on subsidiarity and proportionality in the context of impact assessments; calls for these measures to be implemented immediately;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls concerns raised in previous reports regarding the somewhat perfunctory character of the annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality prepared by the Commission, which too often fail to pay detailed consideration to how the principles of subsidiarity and, in particular, proportionality are observed in EU policy- making; calls on the Commission to urgently produce more analytical annual reports;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the reports made by a number of national parliaments as a valuable and indispensable contribution to the debate on the role of national parliaments in the EU decision-making process and takes note of the proposals included therein; notes, in this connection, that these reports suggest that reasoned opinions should not only concern compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, but also compliance with the principle of proportionality and the legal basis for the proposal; believes that the practicability of these proposals depends on a revision of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto; strongly encourages other national parliaments to share their views on the role that national parliaments should play in the EU decision-making process;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Suggests that in any review of the Treaties and the Protocols thereto consideration should be given to whether reasoned opinions should be limited to examining subsidiarity grounds, to the appropriate number of national parliament responses required to trigger a ‘yellow’ or ‘orange card’ procedure, and to what the effect should be in cases where the threshold for these procedures is reached; believes that consideration should be given to theit is vital to introduction ofe a ‘red card’ mechanism whereby the consideration of a proposal by the EU co- legislators should be stayed if a significant number of national parliaments expresses concern on subsidiarity groundone or several national parliaments believe that the proposal harms their vital interests, unless the proposal is amended to accommodate those concerns;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note of the request from a number of national parliaments to extend the eight-week period in which they can issue a reasoned opinion under Article 6 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; notes, in this regard, that the current timeframe for national parliaments to carry out subsidiarity checks is often deemed insufficient; considers that a twelve-week period would be more appropriate; at the beginning of the legislative procedure; notes additionally that it would be necessary to extend the period in which the national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion to the entire duration of the legislative process, or at the very least to its mid-term and to its end.
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that legislative proposals may change substantially in the course of the legislative procedure and, in this connection, reiterates that consideration should be given to the introduction of further subsidiarity checks and impact assessments should be introduced when a major amendment is likely to be adopted and at the conclusion of the legislative negotiations and in advance of the adoption of the final text, in order that compliance with subsidiarity can be guaranteed and that assessments including proportionality can be made;