BETA

21 Amendments of Gunnar BECK related to 2020/2132(INI)

Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Commission’s right of legislative initiative, as set out in the Treaties, has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years, with a decrease in the Commission’s output over the past decade and Commission Presidents not assuming their political responsibilities; strongly recommends therefore that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs further exploit Parliament’s powers assigned by the Treaties and consider a Treaty revision to give Parliament a direct right of legislative initiativeand that the Commission has no democratic legitimacy to exercise such a political role; strongly recommends therefore that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs consider a Treaty revision to remove from the Commission its right of legislative initiative and transfer it to the Council and Parliament;
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the European Council has a de-facto right of initiative within the area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which does not reflect a level playing field between Parliament and Council; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the Council and Parliament should have an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national interests, which need to be counter-balanced; deplores therefore that this possibility has beenthe former because it represents the States and the latter because it is the regsularly deferred to a future Treaty revisiont of universal suffrage;
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Deeply regrets that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non- legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a positive reply from the Commission1; regrets also that, to date, the three-month deadline for the Commission to react to a parliamentary resolution, as laid down in paragraph 16 of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (‘2010 FA’)2, and the one-year deadline for the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal in response to a legislative initiative report have consistently not been respected; concludes from this that the current system is in need of fundamental change; _________________ 1Study ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, pages 55 and 57. 2 OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that INL reports in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, with only one addressee and workable proposals within realistic timeframes, will be more successful; recommends therefore that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs invites the Commission to the negotiating table in order to slightly extend the relevant deadlines and to accommodate alleged organisational difficulties with regard to the 2010 FA and thereby enhance the Commission’s responsiveness to Parliament’s resolutions; expects in return, however, that the Commission’s response to and implementation of an INL report should be automatic;deleted
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that, in an institutional set-up where Parliament does not yet have a general direct right of initiative, the special legislative procedures that it initiates have special constitutional dignity and primacy over ordinary legislative procedures;deleted
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that in past 20 years, Parliament has consistently made use of such rights; regretstakes note, however, that these special legislative procedures have too seldom been successfully concluded due to the lack of agreement of the Commission and the Council7 ; _________________ 7 Study entitled ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, pp 34-35 (PE 655.134 – ISBN 978-92-846-6738-3).
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Urges the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its responsibilities and to honour its own commitments;deleted
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Deeply regrets the lack of follow- up by the European Council on the rule of law procedure launched by Parliament and its subsequent calls for action;deleted
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Parliament’s call for a legislative act in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, its resolution adopted by a majority of members shall form the basis for a legislative procedure to be initiated by Parliament itself;deleted
2021/01/08
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets that three Member States have not yet ratified the amended electoral law of the European Union adopted in 2018;deleted
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Further regrets that the Council has to date refused to negotiate with Parliament regarding its right of inquiry, despite this contradicting Article 226 of the TFEU and the principle of sincere cooperation;deleted
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the adoption of the new Statute of the European Ombudsman, upon Parliament’s initiative, which ensures that the statute is consistent with the Treaty of Lisbon;deleted
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Acknowledges, furthermore, that Article 68 of the TFEU has been exercised as a de facto right of initiative by the European Council in the area of freedom, security and justice; highlights the fact that the European Council is not a co-legislator; stresses the particularly serious impact of these policies on citizens’ fundamental rights and calls for Parliament and the Council to be given this competence in equal terms in future Treaty revisions;deleted
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern the lack of transparency in the use of the indirect right of initiative of the Council laid down in Article 241 of the TFEU; calls onEncourages the Council to publish, in a user-friendly manner, all requests made on thise legal basis of Article 241 of the TFEU;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Stresses however the need for an increased level of scrutiny by the Parliament over the activity of the Commission and the importance of a better level of transparency in the decision-making process prior to the presentation of legislative initiatives, in the light of the substantial relationship of trust that must bind the Commission and the Parliament, as the sole body directly elected by the Citizens;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Strongly believes that whenif the Treaties are next revised, a proposal to grant Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to initiate legislation should be in any event preceded by a popular referendum in all Member States;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Is deeply convincedObserves that a general and direct right of initiative wof the Parliament could further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and empower Union citizens; believes that it would reflect the evolution over time of the competences of the Union and its institutions, and is of the opinion that Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, should be granted the right to propose legislation, as national parliaments may, when the Treaties are next revised, as the only directly elected EU institution;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates the special and reinforced constitutional dignity of the issues that are currently subject to the initiative of Parliament and considers that such an exclusive right shConsiders that the exclusive rights of initiative of Parliament such as those that already exist, could be extended to issues where democratic legitimacy is especially relevant;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that Parliament’s current rights of initiative encompass different special legislative procedures; considers that the Treaties barely regulate such procedures and calls for a new interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions devoted exclusively to this matter, with full respect for its special constitutional dignity;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Considers that the recognition of a direct right of initiative of Parliament would not exclude the possibility of the Commission retaining a concurrent right or keeping a monopolyright of initiative in certain areas, such as the budget; could also envisage that in exceptionalcertain areas, the Council would also have a monopoly of initiative;
2021/09/13
Committee: AFCO