European Parliament 2019-2024
Committee on Legal Affairs
2020/2132(INI)
8.1.2021
AMENDMENTS 1 - 33
Draft opinion Pascal Durand (PE657.481v01-00)
Parliament’s right of initiative (2020/2132(INI))
AM\1221888EN.docx PE662.145v02-00
EN United in diversityEN AM_Com_NonLegOpinion
PE662.145v02-00 2/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN Amendment 1 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Recital 1 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
A. whereas the Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end; whereas Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise, as laid down in Article 17 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU);
Or. en
Amendment 2 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Recital 1 b (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
B. whereas the Treaties grant Parliament the direct right of initiative only in very limited cases, namely its own composition, the election of its members and their Statute, the Statute of the European Ombudsman, to initiate a rule of law procedure, to set up temporary inquiry committees and to initiate Treaty revisions; whereas Parliament has the right to request from the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters it considers relevant for a Union act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, according to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); whereas Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the
AM\1221888EN.docx 3/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN European Parliament (RoP) further details this indirect right of initiative;
Or. en
Amendment 3 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Recital 1 c (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
C. whereas Article 225 TFEU obliges the Commission to give reasons, in case it would not submit a legislative proposal as requested by Parliament; recalls thereby the compulsory character of this Treaty provision;
Or. en
Amendment 4 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Recital 1 d (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
D. whereas the European Parliament is the only directly elected EU institution, which at the same time has less legislative initiative powers than most national parliaments;
Or. en
Amendment 5 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
PE662.145v02-00 4/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN Draft opinion Recital 1 e (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
E. whereas Ms Ursula von der Leyen, before she was elected President of the Commission, committed to respond to legislative initiatives, when adopted by a majority of Parliament’s members and in full respect of the proportionality, subsidiarity, and better law-making principles;
Or. en
Amendment 6 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Recital 1 f (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
F. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe will be an avenue for further reflection with civil society on how to best strengthen the Parliament’s right of initiative with regards to better law- making;
Or. en
Amendment 7 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Recital 1 g (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
G. deplores the existing imbalance of EU agenda-setting powers between
AM\1221888EN.docx 5/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN Commission, Council and Parliament, notably in policy areas where the Commission does not enjoy an exclusive right of initiative and where no consultation obligation for Council exists, namely in the area of Economic and Monetary Union and Common Foreign and Security Policy, whereby competences were transferred to the EU High Representative and the European External Action Service;
Or. en
Amendment 8 Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck, Laura Huhtasaari
Draft opinion Paragraph 1
Draft opinion Amendment
1. Believes that the Commission’s 1. Believes that the Commission’s right of legislative initiative, as set out in right of legislative initiative, as set out in the Treaties, has been neither constructive the Treaties, has been neither constructive nor productive in recent years, with a nor productive in recent years, and that the decrease in the Commission’s output over Commission has no democratic legitimacy the past decade and Commission to exercise such a political role; strongly Presidents not assuming their political recommends therefore that the Committee responsibilities; strongly recommends on Constitutional Affairs consider a Treaty therefore that the Committee on revision to remove from the Commission Constitutional Affairs further exploit its right of legislative initiative and Parliament’s powers assigned by the transfer it to the Council and Parliament; Treaties and consider a Treaty revision to give Parliament a direct right of legislative initiative;
Or. fr
Amendment 9 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 1
Draft opinion Amendment
PE662.145v02-00 6/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN 1. Believes that the Commission’s 1. Stresses that Parliament is a right of legislative initiative, as set out in democratically elected body which unlike the Treaties, has been neither constructive national parliaments, does not have a nor productive in recent years, with a formal right of legislative initiative and decrease in the Commission’s output over therefore the fact that the Commission the past decade and Commission has the exclusive direct right of legislative Presidents not assuming their political initiative creates a problem of democratic responsibilities; strongly recommends legitimacy that has to be addressed; therefore that the Committee on strongly recommends therefore that the Constitutional Affairs further exploit Committee on Constitutional Affairs Parliament’s powers assigned by the further exploit Parliament’s powers Treaties and consider a Treaty revision to assigned by the Treaties and analyse the give Parliament a direct right of legislative different ways to give Parliament a direct initiative; right of legislative initiative;
Or. en
Amendment 10 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 2
Draft opinion Amendment
2. Stresses that the European Council 2. Stresses that the European Council has a de-facto right of initiative within the has a de-facto right of initiative within the area of freedom, security and justice in area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which does not reflect a level playing field does not reflect the legislative equality between Parliament and Council; between Parliament and Council as underlines moreover the early influence by foreseen in the Interinstitutional the Member States via their participation in Agreement on Better Law-Making; numerous Commission advisory bodies; 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;
Or. en
Amendment 11 Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck, Laura Huhtasaari
AM\1221888EN.docx 7/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN Draft opinion Paragraph 2
Draft opinion Amendment
2. Stresses that the European Council 2. Stresses that the European Council has a de-facto right of initiative within the has a de-facto right of initiative within the area of freedom, security and justice in area of freedom, security and justice in accordance with Article 68 TFEU, which accordance with Article 68 TFEU; does not reflect a level playing field underlines moreover the early influence by between Parliament and Council; the Member States via their participation in underlines moreover the early influence by numerous Commission advisory bodies; the Member States via their participation in numerous Commission advisory bodies;
Or. fr
Amendment 12 Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck
Draft opinion Paragraph 3
Draft opinion Amendment
3. Believes that Parliament should 3. Believes that the Council and have an enhanced direct right of Parliament should have a direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly legislative initiative, the former because it represents the European people and not represents the States and the latter because just national interests, which need to be it is the result of universal suffrage; counter-balanced; deplores therefore that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;
Or. fr
Amendment 13 Manon Aubry
Draft opinion Paragraph 3
Draft opinion Amendment
3. Believes that Parliament should 3. Believes that Parliament should
PE662.145v02-00 8/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN have an enhanced direct right of legislative have an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national European peoples; deplores therefore that interests, which need to be counter- this possibility has been regularly deferred balanced; deplores therefore that this to a future Treaty revision; possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision;
Or. en
Amendment 14 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 3
Draft opinion Amendment
3. Believes that Parliament should 3. Believes that Parliament should have an enhanced direct right of legislative have an enhanced direct right of legislative initiative, as it directly represents the initiative, as it directly represents the European people and not just national European citizens and not just national interests, which need to be counter- interests, which need to be counter- balanced; deplores therefore that this balanced; deplores therefore that this possibility has been regularly deferred to a possibility has been regularly deferred to a future Treaty revision; future Treaty revision;
Or. en
Amendment 15 Pascal Durand, Marie Toussaint, Tiemo Wölken
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
3a. Believes that, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788, in case the Commission has failed to publish its intentions or has set out in a communication that it intends not to take action on a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) that has met the procedural requirements, Parliament could decide to
AM\1221888EN.docx 9/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN follow up with an INL report that is based on the ECI; Urges the Commission to commit itself to submit a legislative proposal following the adoption of a Parliament’s initiative that is based on an ECI that has met the procedural requirements and that is in line with the Treaties and the core values of the Union enshrined in Article 2 TEU; Proposes in that regard to modify the Interinstitutional Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission;
Or. en
Amendment 16 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
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;
Or. en
Amendment 17 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
PE662.145v02-00 10/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN 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;
Or. en
Amendment 18 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
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;
Or. en
Amendment 19 Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck
Draft opinion Paragraph 4
Draft opinion Amendment
4. Deeply regrets that only one-third 4. Deeply regrets that only one-third of Parliament’s legislative and non- of Parliament’s legislative and non- legislative initiative procedures can be legislative initiative procedures can be considered successful and that most considered successful and that most legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted since 2011 did not result in a positive reply since 2011 did not result in a positive reply
AM\1221888EN.docx 11/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN from the Commission1; regrets also that, to from the Commission1; regrets also that, to date, the three-month deadline for the date, the three-month deadline for the Commission to react to a parliamentary Commission to react to a parliamentary resolution, as laid down in paragraph 16 of resolution, as laid down in paragraph 16 of the Framework Agreement on relations the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the between the European Parliament and the European Commission (‘2010 FA’)2, and European Commission (‘2010 FA’)2, and the one-year deadline for the Commission the one-year deadline for the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal to come forward with a legislative proposal in response to a legislative initiative report in response to a legislative initiative report have consistently not been respected; have consistently not been respected; concludes from this that the current system is in need of fundamental change; ______1 Study ‘The European Parliament’s right 1 Study ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, pages 55 and 57. 2020, pages 55 and 57. 2 OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47. 2 OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.
Or. fr
Amendment 20 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 4
Draft opinion Amendment
4. Deeply regrets that only one-third 4. Deeply regrets that on most of Parliament’s legislative and non- legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted legislative initiative procedures can be since 2011 the Commission did not follow- considered successful and that most up by submitting any appropriate legislative initiative (INL) reports adopted proposal1 ; regrets also that, to date, the since 2011 did not result in a positive three-month deadline for the Commission reply from the Commission1 ; regrets also to react to a parliamentary resolution, as that, to date, the three-month deadline for laid down in paragraph 16 of the the Commission to react to a parliamentary Framework Agreement on relations resolution, as laid down in paragraph 16 of between the European Parliament and the the Framework Agreement on relations European Commission (‘2010 FA’)2 , and between the European Parliament and the the one-year deadline for the Commission European Commission (‘2010 FA’)2 , and to come forward with a legislative proposal the one-year deadline for the Commission in response to a legislative initiative report
PE662.145v02-00 12/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN to come forward with a legislative proposal have consistently not been respected; in response to a legislative initiative report have consistently not been respected; ______1 Study ‘The European Parliament’s right 1 Study ‘The European Parliament’s right of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of initiative’, Andreas Maurer, University of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for of Innsbruck, Jean Monnet Chair for European Integration Studies and Michael European Integration Studies and Michael C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July C. Wolf, University of Innsbruck, July 2020, pages 55 and 57. 2020, pages 55 and 57. 2 OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47. 2 OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.
Or. en
Amendment 21 Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck, Laura Huhtasaari
Draft opinion Paragraph 5
Draft opinion Amendment
5. Is of the opinion that INL reports deleted 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;
Or. fr
Amendment 22 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
AM\1221888EN.docx 13/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN Draft opinion Paragraph 5
Draft opinion Amendment
5. Is of the opinion that INL reports in 5. Is of the opinion that INL reports in the area of the ordinary legislative the area of the ordinary legislative procedure, with only one addressee and procedure, with only one addressee and workable proposals within realistic clearly defined proposals that focus on the timeframes, will be more successful; scope of the report and are within realistic recommends therefore that the Committee timeframes, have a greater chance of on Constitutional Affairs invites the being translated into legislative proposals Commission to the negotiating table in by the Commission; recommends that the order to slightly extend the relevant Committee on Constitutional Affairs deadlines and to accommodate alleged invites the Commission to the negotiating organisational difficulties with regard to table in order to slightly extend the relevant the 2010 FA and thereby enhance the deadlines and to accommodate alleged Commission’s responsiveness to organisational difficulties with regard to Parliament’s resolutions; expects in return, the 2010 FA and thereby enhance the however, that the Commission’s response Commission’s responsiveness to to and implementation of an INL report Parliament’s resolutions; expects in return, should be automatic; however, that the Commission translates an INL report automatically into a concrete legislative proposal;
Or. en
Amendment 23 Tiemo Wölken
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
5a. Considers that the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making plays an essential role in securing sincere and transparent cooperation throughout the entire legislative cycle and allows to achieve a better and mutual understanding of the respective positions of the different institutions; calls for an assessment of the extent to which the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making should
PE662.145v02-00 14/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN be revised with the purpose of eliminating possible barriers to the Parliament right of Initiative;
Or. en
Amendment 24 Marie Toussaint
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
5a. Considers that new EU law- making mechanisms associating EU citizens and their elected representatives in the European Parliament should be designed in order to improve citizens participation and the European democracy as a whole; believes for instance that the procedural thresholds for ECIs should be lowered where the proposal for an ECI is co-signed by a minimal number of MEPs;
Or. en
Amendment 25 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
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;
AM\1221888EN.docx 15/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN Or. en
Amendment 26 Pascal Durand, Javier Nart, Karen Melchior, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Stéphane Séjourné
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
5a. Emphasises that Parliament fully adheres to the interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, which stresses the necessity of a prior "European added value" analysis as well as a "cost of non- Europe" assessment;
Or. en
Amendment 27 Marie Toussaint
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
5b. Asks the Commission to study the possibility of introducing mechanisms of direct democracy, such as citizen's assemblies or referendum vote on specific issues, which would grant EU citizens decisional or consultative power in the EU law-making process, without depending on the reform of the Treaty;
Or. en
Amendment 28
PE662.145v02-00 16/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck, Laura Huhtasaari
Draft opinion Paragraph 6
Draft opinion Amendment
6. Urges the Commission, as the deleted guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its responsibilities and to honour its own commitments;
Or. fr
Amendment 29 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 6
Draft opinion Amendment
6. Urges the Commission, as the 6. Urges the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its guardian of the Treaties, to adhere to its responsibilities and to honour its own responsibilities and to systematically commitments; 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;
Or. en
Amendment 30 Gilles Lebreton, Jean-Paul Garraud, Gunnar Beck, Laura Huhtasaari
Draft opinion Paragraph 7
Draft opinion Amendment
7. Is of the opinion that, if the deleted Commission fails to implement
AM\1221888EN.docx 17/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN 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;
Or. fr
Amendment 31 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 7
Draft opinion Amendment
7. Is of the opinion that, if the 7. Is of the opinion that, if the Commission fails to implement Commission fails to implement Parliament’s call for a legislative act in the Parliament’s request for a legislative act in area of the ordinary legislative procedure, the area of the ordinary legislative its resolution adopted by a majority of procedure, Parliament should members shall form the basis for a systematically consider to bring an action legislative procedure to be initiated by regarding the Commission´s failure to act Parliament itself; before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have an infringement by the Commission established on the basis of Article 265 TFEU;
Or. en
Amendment 32 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 8
Draft opinion Amendment
8. Considers that, were the 8. Considers that, were the Commission not to submit a legislative Commission does not submit a legislative proposal and fail to provide proper reasons proposal and fails to provide proper as required by Article 225 TFEU, reasons as required by Article 225 TFEU, following Parliament’s request, this would following Parliament’s request, this would constitute a failure to act and Parliament cause for a motion of censure on the
PE662.145v02-00 18/19 AM\1221888EN.docx EN would reserve its right to take action Commission´s activities according to under Article 265 TFEU. Article 234 TFEU;
Or. en
Amendment 33 Marion Walsmann, Andrzej Halicki, Sven Simon, Daniel Buda, Esteban González Pons
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new)
Draft opinion Amendment
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;
Or. en
AM\1221888EN.docx 19/19 PE662.145v02-00 EN