Activities of Ulla TØRNÆS related to 2015/2089(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on Towards improved single market regulation PDF (175 KB) DOC (111 KB)
Amendments (40)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the single market is a key tool for reigniting economic growth and job- creation in the Union;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the responsibility for subsidiarity extends beyond the Commission, the Council and Parliament, and includes a role for national and – where appropriate –regional parliaments; believes that the input of parliaments should be given appropriate weight and consideration in the context of the subsidiarity mechanism, but also as regards political dialogue; therefore encourages the Commission to engage in a yearly debate with each parliament in order to strengthen the dialogue between the national parliaments and the Commission;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the deadlines involved in the subsidiarity mechanism are too short to ensure that parliaments always have time to consider in detail aspects of implementation or other practical matters; considers, therefore, that parliaments should be afforded more time to respond; considers, as well, that a stronger ‘red card' procedure should be introduced, allowing proposals to be rejected on grounds of lack of conformity with in order to improve the quality of the outcome from the subsidiarity checks; encourages the national parliaments to exchange views and experiences on relevant criteria and argumentations with regard to their assessment of subsidiarity principles;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that the national parliaments can contribute further in the decision- making of the European Union by being more pro-active players; considers the possibility of the parliaments to invite the Commission to create new legislation or amend existing, if 1/3 of all national parliaments support it; if a proposal is submitted to the Commission, the Commission should be obliged to respond adequately to the request and give its reasons for taking or not taking action;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that, where the need for European regulation and EU added value can be demonstrated, the institutions should jointly undertake to ensure that the principle of proportionality, as well as the principles of simplicity, transparency, coherence and respect for fundamental rights, are reflected in the drafting of the relevant legislation;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that single market legislation should have clear evidence of EU added value and be to the benefit of competitiveness, innovation and growth, and views effective impact assessments as an important tool for informing policymakers on how best to design regulation to achieve these aims and their single market objectives; believes, as well, that if the impact assessment does not provide arguments for clear EU added value that will have a positive impact on citizens and businesses, the legislation should be withdrawn;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that theit is essential that impact assessments accompanying a proposal should be sere undertaken throughout the whole policy cycle, and therefore encourages both the European Parliament and the Council to undertake impact assessments prior to the adoption of any substantive amendment not covered by the initial impact assessment; considers the need to see the impact assessment as a ‘'living document' that is kept up to date and that, thereby correspondsing to the choices made by the co-legislators at the various stages of negotiations before the final political decision is taken;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers consultation to be an ongoing process rather than an occasional exercise; reiterates, in this regard, its calls on the Commission to consider the establishment of a Stakeholder Forum; is pleased to see the new Commission proposal in the Better Regulation Agenda for the establishment of a REFIT Platform; strongly believes that this bottom-up approach involving different stakeholders such as experts from Member State authorities, businesses, social partners, SMEs and civil society will be a constructive way to give direct input to the EU institutions, particularly in view of the needs to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens; underlines the need for the platform to be very transparent and therefore encourages the platform to be an online tool inspired by the other national Stakeholders Forums, like in Denmark;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that it is not only the formal targets for transposition and implementation that are important, but also the practical implementation on the ground; therefore encourages the introduction of two yearly fixed dates for implementation in order to simplify the procedure and make it easier for both national authorities but also enterprises and business to follow and comply with the legislation;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to invest more efforts to improve, consolidate and publicise guidance on the regulations and tools in place that contribute to the monitoring of how Union law is being applied and that, as such, are vital to the proper functioning of the single market; regrets that the quality of the services differs vastly among the Member States due to the lack of both prioritisation and resources; therefore calls for an enforced governance framework at EU level in order to improve the functioning of these tools and services;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Encourages the Commission to set- up obligatory implementation groups, consisting of the respective implementing authorities in the Member States, in order to achieve the abovementioned goals; believes that these implementation groups can be a useful way to discuss how the transposed EU law could be applied and how relevant articles should be interpreted in order to ensure better coordination and more consistent application of EU law;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Urges the Commission to undertake infringement proceedings where evidence exists to demonstrate a failure of implementation and where reasonable efforts to solve problems through tools such as EU Pilot or SOLVIT have failed; considers that while action should be taken in all applicable cases, the Commission could further prioritise action to tackle those infringements that are most significant in economic terms; underlines that Member States have an equal responsibility to enforce EU law, and that they should ensure an effective and efficient enforcement to protect consumers interest and to create a level playing field for businesses throughout Europe;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 128 #
-1. Asks the Commission to take into account the recommendations contained in this resolution in its forthcoming internal market strategy;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that in order to be effective as tools, impact assessments should be prepared on the basis of strong evidence; believes that careful consideration of scientific advice should form part of the impact assessment process and, in particular, substantiate how or why policy choices have been mainclude all options which have significant impacts or are politically important; regrets in that respect that the country of origin marking foreseen by Article 7 of the Commission proposal for a Regulation on Consumer Product Safety was not among the options which were initially considered and then discarded in preparatory phases, which will assist the political processthe impact assessment, nor among the options analysed in depth;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that the impact assessment accompanying a proposal should be seen as a ‘living document’ that is kept up to date and that corresponds to the choiceupplemented by impact assessments on substantial amendments madeopted by the co-legislators at the various stages of negotiations before the final political decisi; Recalls that Parliament has carefully assessed the potential impact on SMEs of some of its amendments to the two Public Procurement Directives; Urges therefore the Council - which has not done any impact assessment on its takenown amendments since 2007 - to become more involved;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Considers that the principle of subsidiarity is an essential element to be considered when assessing the impact of new legislations together with the principle of proportionality;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Recalls that the responsibility for subsidiarity extends beyond the Commission, the Council and Parliament, and includes a role for national parliaments;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph - 11 a (new)
Paragraph - 11 a (new)
-11a. Considers that the consultation phase should always include a 'Digital by default' section whereby the Commission would seek to deeply understand user needs and what it means for the design of the service;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that full and proper implementation of single market legislation to be fundamental if the benefits of the single market are to be fully felt; expresses concern over the fact that targets for implementation are not always met; Calls in particular for a full and correct implementation of the Services directive; recalls the large degree of heterogeneity remaining between Member States and sectors, notably in the sector of legal services;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Regrets that despite the 0.5% target proposed by the Commission in the Single Market Act, Slovenia is still lagging behind; Stresses that it is not only the formal targets for transposition and implementation that are important, but also the practical implementation on the ground;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to invest more efforts to improve, consolidate and publicise guidance on the regulations and tools in place that contribucontinue its effort and regularly update guidance on the regulations; in particular, calls for the quick update tof the monitoring of how Union law is being applied and that, as such, are vital to the proper functioning of the single marke2009 Guidance on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices in order to make sure it fits to the digital age in close cooperation with the European Parliament;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Regrets that according to the Commission, France has both the slowest answering speed in days for requests entered in the IMI system and the lowest satisfaction rate of all EU countries;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Considers that the Internal Market Information System should continue to be expanded to other single market tools in order to become a central information hub; Highlight that it would allow to comply with the ‘once only’ principle, in line with the recent Commission initiatives;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Is concerned by the low level of awareness and understanding among Europeans of the services available such as Your Europe, Your Europe Advice, European Employment Service, CPC network, points of single contact, SOLVIT and Alternative and Online Dispute Resolution;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)
Paragraph 19 d (new)
19d. Considers that too few procedures can be completed online via the points of single contact and ask Member States to remedy this situation; Points out that Germany is lagging behind the other Member States in terms of performance of its points of single contact;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 e (new)
Paragraph 19 e (new)
19e. Asks the Commission to carry out in- depth reflection on their interaction and to explore the possibility to replace them by one single point of contact for consumers which would then direct the consumer to other tools as appropriate;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 f (new)
Paragraph 19 f (new)
19f. Considers that this reflection should ensure a better definition of these services in order to obtain a better separation of activities and then avoid overlapping;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 g (new)
Paragraph 19 g (new)
19g. Considers that the forthcoming revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) regulation should fully take into account the need to improve the information flow between the different single market tools;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Is very concerned by the fact that Slovenia ceased cooperation with the Commission services regarding Your Europe in all respects; Also underlines the need for Latvia and Greece to ensure permanent representation and regular attendance at the Editorial Board meetings;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the performance of the Products Contact Points foreseen in the 2009 Mutual Recognition Regulation and the 2011 Construction Products Regulation;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Title before Paragraph 23
Title before Paragraph 23
Enforcement and market surveillance
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph – 23 a (new)
Paragraph – 23 a (new)
- 23a. Underlines the need for a closer cooperation between the single market governance tools receiving consumer complaints about the breach of EU legislation by a trader and national enforcement bodies via formal procedures and improved data sharing;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Considers that market surveillance tools should be used in conjunction with single market tools to strengthen the enforcement of EU law;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. In this regard, points out the national authorities do not always make correct use of the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance (ICSMS) or fail to take necessary measures in a timely fashion; underlines in particular, the need to improve the passing on of cases between public authorities;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)
Paragraph 25 c (new)
25c. Is concerned by the fact that, according a sample analysis conducted by the Commission in 2014, 60% of completed product investigations did not report on the country of origin, 32% of machinery product investigations were not accompanied by a risk classification and 5% percent of entries did not make reference to the EU regulation/directive at breach; Asks the Council and its Member States to give serious consideration to this issue and to inform the Parliament of the follow-up actions taken thereof;