28 Amendments of Nathalie GRIESBECK 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 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A e (new)
Paragraph A e (new)
Ae. having regard to Parliament’s Environmental Statement for 2010, issued in May 2011, and in particular pages 68 to 70;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A f (new)
Paragraph A f (new)
Af. having regard to the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and follow-up to the discharge for 2010’;
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 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 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 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 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient andConsiders efficiency, cost-effectiveness and the principle of respectful of for the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels andnot to be connected with the place in which Parliament sits, but with its needs; points out that according to figures from the European Parliament’s services, the annual cost of Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg hwas become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputationEUR 51.5 million in 2010, or 0.04% of the annual EU budget, which represents a cost of 10 cents per EU citizen per year, and hence considers the arguments on Parliament’s cost to be exaggerated;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
emphasises that the gross cost of holding part-sessions in Strasbourg is EUR 7 445 000 per part-session, and that 80% of these costs are fixed and would be incurred irrespective of where the part-session is held, be they for equipment, publications or translation, etc.;
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 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Points to the environmental example set by the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg, which reduced its own CO2 emissions by 57% between 2006 and 2010, meaning that these now represent 3.6% of all Parliament’s CO2 emissions;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Adds that the carbon footprint for travel for committee, political group and delegation meetings, which increased by 23.8% between 2006 and 2010, is significantly larger (6 350 tonnes of CO2 in 2010) than that for Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg (4 199 tonnes of CO2 en 2010);
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Points out that holding part-sessions in Brussels rather than Strasbourg would result in a saving of EUR 1.5 million, as is specified in paragraph 28 - ‘Costs of using Strasbourg as the seat of the EP’ of the document drawn up by Parliament’s Secretariat entitled ‘Replies and Follow-up to the Discharge for 2010’;
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 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 154 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – point 1 (new)
(1) Considers that the so-called petition No 0630/2006 is not in fact a petition because it does not meet the criteria for admissibility of petitions to Parliament under Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure (formerly Rule 191(2)) inasmuch as it does not show the nationality and permanent address of each petitioner, and that, by implication, electronic signatures on a petition are not admissible and there can be no guarantee as to the real or virtual level of support for this initiative;