12 Amendments of Jeroen LENAERS related to 2020/2142(DEC)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regrets that, in spite of its initial commitment, the Council doehas not, so far, systematically carryied out any adequate impact assessment of its substantial amendments to the Commission’s proposals; reiterates that such assessment is one of the key factors to improve the quality of Union legislation set out in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making2 ; _________________ 2 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the lack of information from the Council on effective actions taken to tackle gender and geographical imbalances, including at management level, and in this regard recalls Parliament's resolution of 17 December 2020 on the need for a dedicated Council configuration on gender equality3 , requesting ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality to have a dedicated institutional forum to ensure stronger integration of gender equality in Union strategies and policy processes, the coordination of all related policies, as well as the harmonisation of the protection of women’s rights and gender equality in the Union via an intersectional approach; underlines that this specific configuration would represent a key element in unblocking the negotiations on the main files related to gender equality; _________________ 3 Text adopted, P9_TA(2020)0379.;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets the lack of attention paid to the need for an ethical framework, transparency and the prevention, identification and avoidance of conflicts of interest; reiterates its deep concern over the conflicts of interests of a number of Member State representatives involved in policy and budget decision-making processes; highlights in this regard the conclusions of the Commission audit on Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and Agrofert which confirm the existence of conflict of interest; repeats Parliament’s strong call on the Council to ensure that Member State representatives who benefit directly from Union subsidies through the businesses they own (directly or indirectly) do not participate in related policy or budgetary discussions and votes; requests the Council to provide Parliament with information on the necessary measures put in place to avoid any conflict of interests; deplores that the Council categorically rejects Parliaments' proposals to increase digitalisation in the area of audit and control and refuses to cooperate on increasing the interoperability of existing Union and national databases and reporting and monitoring systems; is very concerned about the official and unofficial European Council conclusions that, despite existing conflicts of interest, interfere with the common agricultural policy and with the cohesion negotiations on a capping of funding per natural and legal person;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the resort to corporate sponsorship to cover some of the expenses incurred by Member States tocalls that the financial resources from national budgets vary significantly among Member States, meaning that the costs of a Council presidency likely result in a higher per capita financial burden for tax payers in smaller Member States; is of the opinion that each Member State, independent of its size and budgetary means, should have equal opportunities to organise a successful Council presidency without imposing a higher tax burden on its citizens; notes that corporate sponsorship allows Member States to reduce the tax burden on citizens when financeing their Council presidencies; is highly concerned byy; underlines theat possible reputational damage that this practice might cause too the Council due to conflicts of interests arising from corporate sponsorship of a Council presidency must not occur; emphasises therefore, that Member States should only seek corporate sponsorship of their Council and the Unionpresidencies when the absence of conflicts of interests is fully ensured in a transparent manner; urges the adoption of clear guidelines aimed at preventing situations of conflict of interest and the definition of transparent and binding rules on sponsorship;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Regrets that reporting by the Council on measures taken to improve legislative transparency remains less than completely satisfactory and reiterates its call on the Council to step up its transparency efforts by, inter alia, publishing Council working documents in a machine-readable format, by recording and publishing Member States’ positions and making available more trilogue documents;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)
Subheading 8 a (new)
Council’s role in appointing the European prosecutors to the EPPO
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 b (new)
Subheading 8 b (new)
Recalls that Council implementing decision 14830/19 of 22 July 2020 on appointing the European prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor's Office states that regarding the 'candidates nominated by Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal, the Council did not follow the non-binding order of preference of the selection panel, on the basis of a different assessment of the merits of those candidates which was carried out in the relevant preparatory bodies of the Council';
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34 b. Recalls that on 27 July 2020, Austria, Estonia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands published a statement that 'a competition between rankings of national selection panels and the ranking of the European selection panel must be avoided, at the risk of eroding the European component of the appointment procedure';
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 c (new)
Paragraph 34 c (new)
34 c. Regrets that Council did not properly reply to several parliamentary written questions between July and September 2020 asking Council to explain why it decided not to follow there commendations by the European selection panel and asking for elaborations on the assessment for arriving at the decision not to follow the recommendations of the European selection panel;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 d (new)
Paragraph 34 d (new)
34 d. Is very concerned about media revelations that the Portuguese government provided Council with wrongful information about the title and experience of the candidate ranked second by the European selection panel leading to his appointment as Portuguese European prosecutor;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 e (new)
Paragraph 34 e (new)
34 e. Recalls that the European prosecutors must be independent and any suspicion of an intervention by a national government in favour of a candidate against the recommendation of the European selection panel would have a severe negative impact on the reputation, integrity and independence of the EPPO as an institution;