13 Amendments of Sven SIMON related to 2020/2132(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. BelievStresses that the Commission’sParliament is a democratically elected body which unlike national parliaments, does not have a formal 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 responsibilitiesnd therefore the fact that the Commission has the exclusive direct right of legislative initiative creates a problem of democratic legitimacy that has to be addressed; strongly recommends therefore that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs further exploit Parliament’s powers assigned by the Treaties and consider a Treaty revisionanalyse the different ways to give Parliament a direct right of legislative initiative;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 fieldthe legislative equality between Parliament and Council as foreseen in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making; underlines moreover the early influence by the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies and asks the Commission to ensure to the Parliament the same level of participation;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that Parliament should have an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the European peoplecitizens and not just national interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplores therefore that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that providing Parliament with the right of legislative initiative would require a Treaty revision and therefore exploring the potential of current treaty provisions to enhance the influence the Parliament can have on initiating legislation are worth looking at in order to pave the way to its direct right to initiative;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses the importance of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the Parliament, Council and the Commission and the Framework Agreement on relation between the Parliament and the Commission and the fact that changes there can enhance the legislative agenda setting powers of Parliament and recalibrate the institutional balance without formally changing the Treaties;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Proposes to consider developing a procedure for Parliament to support ideas in form of a sponsorship to for instance European Economic and Social Committee´s and European Committee of the Regions’ positions within the framework of Article 225 TFEU;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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 the Commission did not follow- up by submitting a positive reply from the Commissionny appropriate proposal1 ; 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; _________________ 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.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 thereforeclearly defined proposals that focus on the scope of the report and are within realistic timeframes, have a greater chance of being translated into legislative proposals by the Commission; recommends 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 translates an INL report automatically into a concrete legislative proposal;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reminds that Parliament has a structure for impact assessment activities and is convinced that the use of it should be mandatory before drafting a legislative own-initiative report in order to enhance the European added value assessment foreseen in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Urges the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its responsibilities and to honour its own commitmentssystematically involve Parliament in its decisions on the Commission Work Programme, so that Parliament has to approve the programme before its publication in order to enhance Parliaments´ agenda-setting power in the meantime before its direct right to initiative is established;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Parliament’s callrequest for a legislative act in the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, its resolution adopted by a majority of members shall Parliament should systematically consider to bring an action regarding the Commission´s failure to act beforme the basis for a legislaCourt of Justivce procedure to be initiated by Parliament itselfof the European Union to have an infringement by the Commission established on the basis of Article 265 TFEU;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that, were the Commission does not to submit a legislative proposal and fails to provide proper reasons as required by Article 225 TFEU, following Parliament’s request, this would constitute a failure to act and Parliament would reserve its right to take action underause for a motion of censure on the Commission´s activities according to Article 26534 TFEU.;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Is convinced that Article 294 TFEU should be revised in a way that Parliament’s resolution requesting a legislative act pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, adopted by a majority of members shall form the basis for a legislative procedure to be initiated by Parliament itself, if the Commission does not forward a legislative proposal within 12 months after Parliament’s request;