amendment list, 12 November 2025
European Union regulatory fitness and subsidiarity and proportionality – report on Better Law-Making covering 2023 and 2024
Document JURI-AM-779632 · (2025/2015(INI))
Committee on Legal Affairs
Full text
Jump to an amendment (163)
- Amendment 1
- Amendment 2
- Amendment 3
- Amendment 4
- Amendment 5
- Amendment 6
- Amendment 7
- Amendment 8
- Amendment 9
- Amendment 10
- Amendment 11
- Amendment 12
- Amendment 13
- Amendment 14
- Amendment 15
- Amendment 16
- Amendment 17
- Amendment 18
- Amendment 19
- Amendment 20
- Amendment 21
- Amendment 22
- Amendment 23
- Amendment 24
- Amendment 25
- Amendment 26
- Amendment 27
- Amendment 28
- Amendment 29
- Amendment 30
- Amendment 31
- Amendment 32
- Amendment 33
- Amendment 34
- Amendment 35
- Amendment 36
- Amendment 37
- Amendment 38
- Amendment 39
- Amendment 40
- Amendment 41
- Amendment 42
- Amendment 43
- Amendment 44
- Amendment 45
- Amendment 46
- Amendment 47
- Amendment 48
- Amendment 49
- Amendment 50
- Amendment 51
- Amendment 52
- Amendment 53
- Amendment 54
- Amendment 55
- Amendment 56
- Amendment 57
- Amendment 58
- Amendment 59
- Amendment 60
- Amendment 61
- Amendment 62
- Amendment 63
- Amendment 64
- Amendment 65
- Amendment 66
- Amendment 67
- Amendment 68
- Amendment 69
- Amendment 70
- Amendment 71
- Amendment 72
- Amendment 73
- Amendment 74
- Amendment 75
- Amendment 76
- Amendment 77
- Amendment 78
- Amendment 79
- Amendment 80
- Amendment 81
- Amendment 82
- Amendment 83
- Amendment 84
- Amendment 85
- Amendment 86
- Amendment 87
- Amendment 88
- Amendment 89
- Amendment 90
- Amendment 91
- Amendment 92
- Amendment 93
- Amendment 94
- Amendment 95
- Amendment 96
- Amendment 97
- Amendment 98
- Amendment 99
- Amendment 100
- Amendment 101
- Amendment 102
- Amendment 103
- Amendment 104
- Amendment 105
- Amendment 106
- Amendment 107
- Amendment 108
- Amendment 109
- Amendment 110
- Amendment 111
- Amendment 112
- Amendment 113
- Amendment 114
- Amendment 115
- Amendment 116
- Amendment 117
- Amendment 118
- Amendment 119
- Amendment 120
- Amendment 121
- Amendment 122
- Amendment 123
- Amendment 124
- Amendment 125
- Amendment 126
- Amendment 127
- Amendment 128
- Amendment 129
- Amendment 130
- Amendment 131
- Amendment 132
- Amendment 133
- Amendment 134
- Amendment 135
- Amendment 136
- Amendment 137
- Amendment 138
- Amendment 139
- Amendment 140
- Amendment 141
- Amendment 142
- Amendment 143
- Amendment 144
- Amendment 145
- Amendment 146
- Amendment 147
- Amendment 148
- Amendment 149
- Amendment 150
- Amendment 151
- Amendment 152
- Amendment 153
- Amendment 154
- Amendment 155
- Amendment 156
- Amendment 157
- Amendment 158
- Amendment 159
- Amendment 160
- Amendment 161
- Amendment 162
- Amendment 163
Text 1,008 paragraphs
Amendment 1
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions, establishing an interinstitutional body for ethical standards for members of institutions and advisory bodies (hereafter ‘EU Interinstitutional Ethics Body’) referred to in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union; |
Or. en
Amendment 2
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration, |
Read the rest (996 paragraphs)
Or. en
Amendment 3
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws;’ (COM(2021)0219); |
Or. en
Amendment 4
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the Commission communication of 29 April 2021 entitled ‘Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws’ (COM(2021)0219), |
Or. en
Amendment 5
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2022 entitled ‘Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws’1a, | |
| 1a OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 250. |
Or. en
Amendment 6
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to its resolution of 18 June 2025 on the Commission’s 2024 Rule of Law Report (2024/2078(INI)); |
Or. en
Amendment 7
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to all the previous Commission communications on the need for better regulation in order to achieve better results for the benefit of EU citizens, | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 8
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| – having regard to the European Ombudsman’s inquiry in case 983/2025/MAS on the European Commission’s failure to comply with its “Better regulation guidelines” in preparing a legislative proposal on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence, |
Or. en
Amendment 9
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -A. whereas better law-making is a common goal for all EU Institutions, and should be achieved by increasing transparency, accountability and cooperation between the institutions and Member States, citizens and stakeholders, ensuring full respect of all fundamental European values, including democracy, the rule of law and human rights; |
Or. en
Amendment 10
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -A a. whereas European legislation should be fit for purpose, proportionate, clear, transparent and comprehensive in order to effectively benefit citizens and stakeholders; whereas better regulation helps to ensure that EU policies and legislation are geared towards the future, taking account of the faster pace of technological, societal and environmental developments; whereas, therefore, it will be increasingly important to back up regulatory proposals with evidence based on the most appropriate assessments and reliable peer-reviewed scientific evidence, as well as respect for the precautionary principle; whereas the Commission should manage the evidence transparently, and to ensure that it is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable; whereas quality law-making cannot be reduced to quantitative targets for the short-term reduction of burdens and costs alone, but should deliver for everyone as a long-term investment in the shared prosperity of our societies and our future; |
Or. en
Amendment 11
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -A b. whereas EU law making is driven by the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; |
Or. en
Amendment 12
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| A. whereas, in accordance with Article 5 TEU, the limits of EU competences are governed by the principle of conferral; whereas the use of EU competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; | A. whereas, in accordance with Article 5 TEU, the limits of EU competences are governed by the principle of conferral; whereas the use of EU competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; whereas, under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein; whereas competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States; |
Or. ro
Amendment 13
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| A a. Whereas the shared competences between the EU and Member States are outlined only broadly in Article 4 TFEU; |
Or. en
Amendment 14
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas better law-making is a shared responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a commitment to transparency, proportionality and accountability; | B. whereas better law-making is a shared responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a commitment to transparency, proportionality and accountability; whereas these requirements derive from the rule of law, one of the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, which ensures that all Union action, including legislative and regulatory processes, is grounded in legality, transparency and effective judicial review; |
Or. en
Amendment 15
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas better law-making is a shared responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a commitment to transparency, proportionality and accountability; | B. whereas in accordance with Article 5 TEU better law-making is a responsibility of the Member States, and the Union is to act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. |
Or. nl
Amendment 16
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas better law-making is a shared responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a commitment to transparency, proportionality and accountability; | B. whereas better law-making is a shared responsibility guided by the principle of inter-institutional balance among EU institutions as well as between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a shared commitment to transparency, proportionality and accountability; |
Or. en
Amendment 17
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B. whereas better law-making is a shared responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a commitment to transparency, proportionality and accountability; | B. whereas better law-making is both an obligation and a shared responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States, requiring a commitment to transparency, proportionality, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, and accountability; |
Or. ro
Amendment 18
Jörgen Warborn
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. whereas in her political guidelines for the next European Commission 2024−2029 of 18 July 2024, the President elect stated that “future legislation must also be simplified and designed with small businesses in mind and in a spirit of subsidiarity”; whereas she also stated that “better law-making has to be a joint task – with all institutions involved and all of the legislative process covered”; |
Or. en
Amendment 19
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. whereas the Commission has made it clear in its different communications that better law-making requires ensuring that EU law and policymaking is based on sound evidence, involves stakeholders, including citizens and businesses, avoids imposing unnecessary burdens and brings tangible and sustainable benefits for EU citizens; |
Or. en
Amendment 20
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| B a. whereas the European Parliament, as the Union’s only directly elected institution, bears a primary responsibility for ensuring that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are applied in a manner consistent with democratic accountability and the protection of citizens’ interests; |
Or. en
Amendment 21
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas national parliaments are the natural guardians of the principle of subsidiarity and play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality through interparliamentary dialogue and the Early Warning System, which allows national parliaments and/or chambers to submit a reasoned opinion if they believe a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity; | C. whereas national parliaments are the natural guardians of the principle of subsidiarity and play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality through interparliamentary dialogue and the Early Warning System, and the proactive inclusion of regional assemblies where relevant, which allows national parliaments and/or chambers to submit a reasoned opinion if they believe a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity; |
Or. en
Amendment 22
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas national parliaments are the natural guardians of the principle of subsidiarity and play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality through interparliamentary dialogue and the Early Warning System, which allows national parliaments and/or chambers to submit a reasoned opinion if they believe a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity; | C. whereas national parliaments play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality through interparliamentary dialogue and the Early Warning System, which allows national parliaments and/or chambers to submit a reasoned opinion if they believe a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity; |
Or. en
Amendment 23
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C. whereas national parliaments are the natural guardians of the principle of subsidiarity and play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality through interparliamentary dialogue and the Early Warning System, which allows national parliaments and/or chambers to submit a reasoned opinion if they believe a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity; | C. whereas national parliaments ought to be the natural guardians of the principle of subsidiarity and play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality through interparliamentary dialogue and the Early Warning System, which allows national parliaments and/or chambers to submit a reasoned opinion if they believe a legislative proposal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity; |
Or. en
Amendment 24
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C a. Whereas in a recent complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainants raised concerns that the Commission failed to follow its 'Better regulation guidelines' in preparing a legislative proposal on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence; in particular, the complainants were concerned that the Commission failed to carry out a prior impact assessment, including a climate consistency assessment and a public consultation, before proposing the draft directive; |
Or. en
Amendment 25
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C a. whereas, in accordance with Article 4 TEU, the Union and Member States are bound by the principle of sincere cooperation to assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties. Whereas this includes the task of Member States to take any appropriate measure to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union; |
Or. en
Amendment 26
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Ca. whereas, over the years, national parliaments have made use of the subsidiarity control mechanism to varying degrees, and the Commission has adapted it to the extent possible to make it more flexible; |
Or. ro
Amendment 27
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| C b. Whereas in November 2025, over a hundred authoritative law professors and lawyers in a legal analysis shared with the members of the Legal Affairs Committee cautioned that the Omnibus I, if adopted, would face a high risk of legal challenges in national or EU courts, and could set a dangerous precedent for the bloc’s legislative and constitutional processes in the view of other omnibus proposals; whereas they indicate that the Omnibus I violates the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU and undermines the constitutional architecture of evidence-based, participatory lawmaking enshrined in Article 11 TEU and Article 296 TFEU; |
Or. en
Amendment 28
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, with particularly detrimental effects on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); | D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, lead to an outflow of investment and jobs outside Europe, and make it easier for suppliers of goods and services from third countries to expand in the single market, with particularly detrimental effects on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); |
Or. pl
Amendment 29
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, with particularly detrimental effects on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); | D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens can reduce legal predictability, undermine legal certainty, lead to fragmentation of the EU internal market and hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, with particularly detrimental effects on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); |
Or. ro
Amendment 30
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, with particularly detrimental effects on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); | D. whereas the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), shall not be unnecessarily hindered by regulatory burdens; |
Or. en
Amendment 31
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, with particularly detrimental effects on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); | D. whereas excessive regulatory burdens hinder the competitiveness, innovation and growth of EU companies, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); |
Or. en
Amendment 32
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| D a. Whereas excessive bureaucracy inconsistent with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only deepens the mistrust of citizens in the European Union; |
Or. en
Amendment 33
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas gold-plating practices undermine not only the uniform application of EU legislation but also citizens’ trust in the EU, and create excessive burdens; | E. whereas the transparent, accurate and uniform application of EU legislation is essential for citizens’ trust in the EU, and without creating unnecessary burdens; whereas under Article 197 TFEU, such implementation must be regarded as a matter of common interest for the Member States; whereas Member States should avoid adding unnecessary additional administrative or compliance burdens when transposing EU legislation; |
Or. en
Amendment 34
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas gold-plating practices undermine not only the uniform application of EU legislation but also citizens’ trust in the EU, and create excessive burdens; | E. whereas gold-plating practices undermine not only the uniform application of EU legislation but also citizens’ trust in the EU, create excessive burdens and generate additional costs for businesses and consumers; |
Or. pl
Amendment 35
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E. whereas gold-plating practices undermine not only the uniform application of EU legislation but also citizens’ trust in the EU, and create excessive burdens; | E. whereas uneven implementation of EU law undermine the uniform application of EU legislation and create excessive burdens; |
Or. en
Amendment 36
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E a. whereas a lack of legal certainty and predictability stemming from changes to existing legislation can also lead to unnecessary burden and costs; |
Or. en
Amendment 37
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| E b. whereas in 2021 the Commission introduced the ‘one in, one out’ approach with the intention of offsetting new burdens resulting from the Commission’s legislative proposals by removing already existing burdens in the same policy area; |
Or. en
Amendment 38
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the ‘one in, two out’ principle should not be understood as a numerical target for legislative acts, but rather as a cost-based mechanism aimed at achieving a tangible net reduction in regulatory costs; whereas the focus must remain on the total administrative, compliance and implementation costs imposed on businesses, ensuring that any new obligations are balanced by the double removal or simplification of current rules of equivalent cost; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 39
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the ‘one in, two out’ principle should not be understood as a numerical target for legislative acts, but rather as a cost-based mechanism aimed at achieving a tangible net reduction in regulatory costs; whereas the focus must remain on the total administrative, compliance and implementation costs imposed on businesses, ensuring that any new obligations are balanced by the double removal or simplification of current rules of equivalent cost; | F. whereas the ‘one in, one out’ approach proposed by the Commission should not be understood as a numerical target for legislative acts, but rather as a cost-benefit -based mechanism aimed at achieving a tangible net reduction in regulatory costs and improvements in the functioning of EU market and society; whereas the focus must remain on the expected added value of the new law and total administrative, compliance and implementation costs imposed on businesses, ensuring that any new obligations are balanced by the expected added value for the parties involved and society as a whole; |
Or. en
Amendment 40
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F. whereas the ‘one in, two out’ principle should not be understood as a numerical target for legislative acts, but rather as a cost-based mechanism aimed at achieving a tangible net reduction in regulatory costs; whereas the focus must remain on the total administrative, compliance and implementation costs imposed on businesses, ensuring that any new obligations are balanced by the double removal or simplification of current rules of equivalent cost; | F. whereas the ‘one in, two out’ principle should not be understood as a numerical target for legislative acts, but rather as a cost-analysis-based qualitative mechanism aimed at achieving a tangible net reduction in regulatory costs; whereas the focus must remain on the total administrative, compliance and implementation costs imposed on businesses, ensuring that any new obligations are balanced by the double removal or simplification of current rules of equivalent cost; |
Or. ro
Amendment 41
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F a. whereas recent advances in artificial intelligence are transforming the manner in which EU law can be assessed and applied, evolving from limited, knowledge-based expert systems towards predictive and generative machine-learning models; whereas such technologies open new possibilities across the legislative cycle – including during pre-enactment analysis and impact forecasting, legislative drafting, public consultation, and, in particular, during post-enactment monitoring – thereby offering significant opportunities to improve the timeliness, accuracy and depth of EU law making; |
Or. en
Amendment 42
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Fa. whereas, as a general trend, the number of national parliament opinions has decreased in recent years[1], while the importance of the political dialogue with the Commission has increased for national parliaments, reflecting greater involvement in the EU decision-making process at an early stage [1] Commission Annual Report 2024, published on 8 September 2025, on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and relations with national parliaments (COM(2025) 0473), Section 3.1. |
Or. ro
Amendment 43
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F a. whereas better law-making must aim to serve the EU’s political ambitions, especially its long-term objectives, such as social progress and the binding objective of Union climate neutrality by 2050, and the long-term priority objective for 2050 that citizens live well, within the limits of our planet; whereas sustainability should be at the heart of quality law-making, placing social, environmental and economic considerations on an equal footing; |
Or. en
Amendment 44
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Fa. whereas, according to the most recent data available, the proportion of EU legislative acts to implementing and delegated acts that are the competence of the Commission alone is 1 to 30; whereas that imbalance raises concerns first and foremost about respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; |
Or. it
Amendment 45
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F b. whereas well carried out ex ante and ex post impact assessments and public consultations are essential tools for well-informed, better, efficient, accountable and transparent law-making; |
Or. en
Amendment 46
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| F c. whereas the Regulatory Scrutiny Board assesses the quality of impact assessments as well as of fitness checks and major evaluations to support political decision-making; |
Or. en
Amendment 47
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recalls that, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 TEU, the EU has an obligation to legislate only where and to the extent necessary; recalls that the aim of this obligation is to legislate as closely as possible to the citizens of the EU, including both individuals and businesses; | 1. Recalls that, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 TEU, the EU has an obligation to legislate only where and to the extent necessary; stresses that these principles must be rigorously applied in practice, hence avoiding undue expansion of the Union’s competences in areas that can be better addressed by the Member States, and recalls that the aim of this obligation is to legislate as closely as possible to the citizens of the EU, including both individuals and businesses; |
Or. ro
Amendment 48
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recalls that, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 TEU, the EU has an obligation to legislate only where and to the extent necessary; recalls that the aim of this obligation is to legislate as closely as possible to the citizens of the EU, including both individuals and businesses; | 1. Recalls that, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 TEU, the EU is competent to legislate only when the objective cannot be sufficiently achieved at national level or can be better achieved by the Union by reason of its scale or effects; recalls that the aim of this competence is to legislate as closely as possible to the citizens of the EU, including both individuals and businesses, so that preference is given to legislation at national level; |
Or. nl
Amendment 49
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Recalls that, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 TEU, the EU has an obligation to legislate only where and to the extent necessary; recalls that the aim of this obligation is to legislate as closely as possible to the citizens of the EU, including both individuals and businesses; | 1. Recalls that, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 TEU, the EU has an obligation to legislate only where and to the extent necessary; recalls that the aim of this obligation is to legislate as closely as possible to the citizens of the EU; |
Or. en
Amendment 50
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Reiterates that subsidiarity and proportionality should not be used to justify deregulation but to ensure that EU action delivers clear European added value, particularly in cross-border challenges such as energy transition, digital transformation and social inclusion; |
Or. en
Amendment 51
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 a. Recalls that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality were introduced by the Maastricht Treaty precisely to contain the growing powers of the EU and balance them with those of Member States; |
Or. en
Amendment 52
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 b. Stresses that these principles are crucial to a better, more trustworthy law-making, as the guarantee that the EU is acting only when necessary and insofar as appropriate; |
Or. en
Amendment 53
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 c. Recalls that evaluation, impact assessment and stakeholder consultation are key pillars of an efficient and responsible regulation; |
Or. en
Amendment 54
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1 d. Notes that, despite the introduction of the Early Warning Mechanism by the Treaty of Lisbon in its Protocol No 2, its effectiveness remains very limited; |
Or. en
Amendment 55
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Notes that in 2023, national parliaments submitted 22 reasoned opinions, a third less than in 2022, in line with the long-term downward trend in the number of reasoned opinions; notes that there was also an increase in the participation of national parliaments in the wider political dialogue with the Commission, representing an increase of over 10 % compared to 2022; | 2. Notes that in 2023, national parliaments submitted 22 reasoned opinions, a third less than in 2022; notes that there was an increase in the participation of national parliaments in the wider political dialogue with the Commission, representing an increase of over 10 % compared to 2022; |
Or. en
Amendment 56
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2 a. Notes that national parliaments submitted only 577 subsidiarity checks and reasoned opinions, 3 803 contributions, three ‘yellow cards’ and no ‘orange cards’ since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009; |
Or. en
Amendment 57
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Notes that 2024 marked 15 years since the entry into force and application of the Treaty of Lisbon, which introduced higher levels of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability in the EU, notably through the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 58
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Notes that 2024 marked 15 years since the entry into force and application of the Treaty of Lisbon, which introduced higher levels of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability in the EU, notably through the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; | 4. Notes that 2024 marked 15 years since the entry into force and application of the Treaty of Lisbon, which introduced higher levels of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability in the EU, notably through the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; believes that, given the new challenges facing Europe, strengthening these principles remains essential for an effective and results-oriented Union; |
Or. ro
Amendment 59
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Notes that in 2024, the very first action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union by a chamber of a national parliament requesting the annulment of a legislative act on the grounds that it exceeded the EU’s competences and breached the principle of subsidiarity; notes, furthermore, that in 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a provision of a regulation added during the legislative negotiations on the grounds that there was insufficient information to assess and unequivocally establish its proportionality; reaffirms, in the light of the foregoing, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality remain essential to the EU’s legitimacy and calls for closer cooperation and enhanced structured dialogue with national parliaments; | 6. Reaffirms that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality remain essential to the EU’s legitimacy and calls for closer cooperation and enhanced structured dialogue with national parliaments; |
Or. en
Amendment 60
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Notes that in 2024, the very first action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union by a chamber of a national parliament requesting the annulment of a legislative act on the grounds that it exceeded the EU’s competences and breached the principle of subsidiarity; notes, furthermore, that in 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a provision of a regulation added during the legislative negotiations on the grounds that there was insufficient information to assess and unequivocally establish its proportionality; reaffirms, in the light of the foregoing, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality remain essential to the EU’s legitimacy and calls for closer cooperation and enhanced structured dialogue with national parliaments; | 6. Notes that in 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a provision of a regulation added during the legislative negotiations on the grounds that there was insufficient information to assess and unequivocally establish its proportionality; reaffirms, in the light of the foregoing, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality remain essential to the EU’s legitimacy and calls for closer cooperation and enhanced structured dialogue with national parliaments; |
Or. en
Amendment 61
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Notes that in 2024, the very first action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union by a chamber of a national parliament requesting the annulment of a legislative act on the grounds that it exceeded the EU’s competences and breached the principle of subsidiarity; notes, furthermore, that in 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a provision of a regulation added during the legislative negotiations on the grounds that there was insufficient information to assess and unequivocally establish its proportionality; reaffirms, in the light of the foregoing, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality remain essential to the EU’s legitimacy and calls for closer cooperation and enhanced structured dialogue with national parliaments; | 6. Notes that in 2024, the very first action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the basis of Protocol No 2, by a chamber of a national parliament requesting the annulment of a legislative act on the grounds that it exceeded the EU’s competences and breached the principle of subsidiarity; notes, furthermore, that in 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a provision of a regulation added during the legislative negotiations on the grounds that there was insufficient information to assess and unequivocally establish its proportionality; reaffirms, in the light of the foregoing, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality remain essential to the EU’s legitimacy and calls for closer cooperation and enhanced structured dialogue with national parliaments; |
Or. ro
Amendment 62
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Calls for the earlier, structured and meaningful involvement of national parliaments in the EU policy-making cycle, including during the consultation and agenda-setting phases, and not only once the Commission has adopted a proposal; underlines that granting national parliaments timely access to draft initiatives, background analyses and impact-assessment material would enable more effective scrutiny of subsidiarity and proportionality considerations and ensure that national expertise is reflected upstream in the legislative process; |
Or. en
Amendment 63
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6a. Underlines the importance of preventive scrutiny by the national parliaments with regard to Commission implementing and delegated acts, too, in order to ensure effective democratic scrutiny and ensure that the acts respect and comply with the principle of subsidiarity and, above all, the principle of proportionality, which can be easily breached in highly technical implementing acts; |
Or. it
Amendment 64
Jörgen Warborn
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Welcomes the fact that in 2024 the Commission significantly improved the way in which the opinions of national parliaments, as well as its replies to those opinions, are made publicly available, by launching a new online database with a number of filtering possibilities; further welcomes the fact that this improvement applies also to the opinions and replies gathered since 2014; |
Or. en
Amendment 65
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Calls for enhanced cooperation with national parliaments through structured digital dialogue platforms to ensure timely information-sharing on new EU initiatives; stresses that interparliamentary exchanges should include local and regional representatives to improve transparency and public ownership of EU law-making; |
Or. en
Amendment 66
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 b. Encourages the consideration of avenues to enable national parliaments to play a more proactive role in EU policy-making, including through a structured “green card” mechanism allowing collective suggestions for Commission initiatives, operating under reasonable and attainable thresholds; notes that empowering parliaments beyond a reactive role would strengthen ownership and the democratic legitimacy of EU action; |
Or. en
Amendment 67
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6b. Notes that a number of national parliaments, including the German Bundestag (2021), the French Senate (2023) and the Dutch Tweede Camer (2022), have asked to be more involved in the scrutiny of delegated and implementing acts; points out that those requests reflect legitimate concerns about the democratic deficit in the procedure used to adopt non-legislative acts; |
Or. it
Amendment 68
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 a. Recalls that better law making is based on inter-institutional balance among the co-legislators and a shared commitment to sincere and transparent cooperation throughout the entire legislative cycle; notes that this shall be reflected in the setting or reviewing of multi-annual priorities, and the yearly joint declaration on annual inter-institutional priorities; recalls that any intention by the Commission to withdraw pending legislative acts as announced in its Annual Work Programmes need to be duly reasoned and substantiated, allowing for the proper consultation of EU co-legislators; observes a lack of proper consultation in recent withdrawals procedures, which puts at risk the balanced exercise of the prerogatives of EU institutions, creates legal uncertainty for businesses and undermines trust of ordinary people in EU law-making; calls therefore on the Commission to involve fully the European Parliament and the Council at an early stage and throughout the procedure pertaining to envisaged withdrawals; |
Or. en
Amendment 69
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 b. Recalls that recourse to other legal bases than ordinary legislative procedure is carefully framed in the EU treaties; warns against any use of legislative processes specifically foreseen for emergency situations based on Art. 122 TFEU beyond specific situations that necessitate swift reactions to unfolding crises; recalls the ongoing action for annulment before the EUCJ of the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) proposal, based on its use of such legal basis; reaffirms in this context that the choice of legal basis is instrumental in the well functioning of EU law making; |
Or. en
Amendment 70
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 c. Underlines that, despite the shared objective of sincere cooperation guiding EU policy- and law-making, including the role of Member States in taking all appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of obligations arising from the Treaties or resulting from acts of the Union’s institutions, situations still vary greatly in the timely transposition of directives and implementation of EU law; calls for further support to build Member States’ administrative and technical capacity in this regard, and urges the Commission to ensure resolute enforcement when cooperation fails; |
Or. en
Amendment 71
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 d. Recognises the essential role of law enforcement in upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights; calls on the Member States to ensure that any constitutional or legislative reforms affecting the separation of powers fully comply with EU fundamental values and legal principles and on the full use of EU rule of law toolbox, as these would have huge consequences on EU cohesion and the lives of citizens; |
Or. en
Amendment 72
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 e (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 e. Strongly welcomes the establishment of the EU Interinstitutional Ethics Body and calls for its full and effective use to promote a common culture of integrity and ethics across the European Union institutions; |
Or. en
Amendment 73
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 f (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6 f. Notes the setting-up of ‘implementation dialogues’ carried out by the European Commission as part of its transparency and participative democracy efforts to better law making; encourages more generally initiatives conducive to the meaningful involvement of civil society and businesses in policy making; |
Or. en
Amendment 74
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Underlines that, despite progress made under the better regulation agenda, EU legislation still generates excessive regulatory burden; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 75
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Underlines that, despite progress made under the better regulation agenda, EU legislation still generates excessive regulatory burden; | 7. Underlines that, despite progress made under the better regulation agenda, EU legislation still generates excessive and disproportionate regulatory burdens for enterprises, public authorities and the public; stresses the need for firmer enforcement of the ‘one in, two out’ principle and more rigorous control of administrative and compliance costs, especially for SMEs and farmers; |
Or. ro
Amendment 76
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Underlines that, despite progress made under the better regulation agenda, EU legislation still generates excessive regulatory burden; | 7. Underlines that, despite progress made under the better regulation agenda, improvements can be made to ensure that the EU legislative process is more transparent, inclusive to all stakeholder input and easier to follow; |
Or. en
Amendment 77
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. Underlines that, despite progress made under the better regulation agenda, EU legislation still generates excessive regulatory burden; | 7. Regrets that, despite certain declarations and promises made by the Commission, EU legislation still generates excessive regulatory and bureaucratic burden; |
Or. pl
Amendment 78
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Calls on the Commission and the co-legislators to systematically apply good legislative drafting techniques and use clear and accessible legal language, ensuring coherence across the EU acquis and avoiding duplication or contradictions that create unnecessary complexity and hinder implementation; reiterates that clear and coherent drafting enhances legal certainty and reduces the administrative burden for citizens, businesses, and public administrations; |
Or. en
Amendment 79
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Recalls that the Commission in its 2016 Communication already highlighted the importance of closely involving citizens and stakeholders, and being open to their feedback, at every stage of the process – from the first idea, to when the Commission makes a proposal, through to the adoption of legislation and its evaluation; |
Or. en
Amendment 80
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 a. Calls on the Commission to offer targeted training programmes and accessible resources for national parliaments, to strengthen their capacity to analyse and assess the impact of EU legislative proposals, thereby fostering more informed, timely and constructive debates at national level; |
Or. en
Amendment 81
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 b. Echoes the concerns in the complaint of several civil society organisations with the European Ombudsman earlier this year, concerning the alleged failure of the Commission to follow its 'Better regulation guidelines' in preparing a legislative proposal on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence; points out in this regard that the Ombudsman officially stated they were not convinced that the Commission provided adequate reasons to justify the absence of an impact assessment, a public consultation, and a climate consistency assessment; welcomes the inquiry that was initiated by the Ombudsman and points out this inquiry has already identified potential problems with how the Commission conducted an inter-service consultation before publishing the proposal; |
Or. en
Amendment 82
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7 b. Recalls that legal certainty, accessibility and predictability of legislation are key requirements of the rule of law; calls on the Commission and the co-legislators to ensure that Better Regulation tools, including impact assessments, consultations and evaluations, contribute to clearer, more coherent and more foreseeable EU legislation; |
Or. en
Amendment 83
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; | 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved; highlights, in particular, that impact assessments should be informed by full and public consultation which has ensured comprehensive democratic participation by actively seeking a range of views; stresses that proposals should only be presented without full impact assessment in very limited situations and that urgency procedures are being overused to the detriment of evidence-based policy-making; notes that in 2023, 59 out of 130 ordinary legislative procedures were published without an impact assessment, and in 2024, 26 out 31 ordinary legislative procedures were published without one; furthermore notes with concern that the Commission between 1 December 2024 and 26 September 2025 published 80 ordinary legislative procedures whereby only 18 were supported by a total of 12 impact assessments; |
Or. en
Amendment 84
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; | 8. Emphasises that, in accordance with the principles of good governance, the Commission is obliged to carry out an impact assessment prior to any legislative initiative in order to evaluate the potential economic, social and environmental consequences of the proposed legislation; states that the Commission is increasingly deciding not to carry out an impact assessment due to the urgency or nature of the proposal; considers that it should not be permissible to refrain from carrying out an impact assessment; considers, furthermore, that this impact assessment should be representative of all Member States; Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; |
Or. nl
Amendment 85
Gheorghe Piperea
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; | 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved and unbiased; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; |
Or. en
Amendment 86
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be improved; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; | 8. Considers that in order to achieve the objectives of the better regulation agenda, the quality and use of impact assessments need to be significantly improved; highlights, in particular, the problem that impact assessments only focus on legislative proposals as submitted and are often not properly evaluated after they have been enacted or implemented; |
Or. pl
Amendment 87
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 a. Calls for impact assessments to be performed on all acts, without exception; regrets that this was not the case for several politically sensitive proposals in the past; recalls that on several occasions Parliament has carried out its own impact assessments in replacement of the Commission’s; nevertheless, recalls that impact assessments help to inform but do not replace political decision-making; |
Or. en
Amendment 88
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 a. Stresses the need for increased transparency on the authors of impact assessments and the assumptions made within the impact assessments; highlights the need for impact assessments on all legislation adopted by the co-legislators as well as proper ex-post evaluations of Union initiatives; |
Or. en
Amendment 89
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 b. Recalls that Parliament has set up a dedicated directorate, the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, to be able to carry out ex ante and ex post impact assessments with a view to supporting evidence-based policy-making; |
Or. en
Amendment 90
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 8 c. Encourages the Commission to make greater use of ex post assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of legislation; stresses the importance of the ‘evaluate first’ principle for ensuring that lessons learnt from the past inform future policy cycle action; is seriously concerned about the increasing trend of evaluations and impact assessments being carried out in parallel, although evaluation results should feed into any revision of legislation; |
Or. en
Amendment 91
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; | 9. Stresses the need for all major legislative and policy initiatives to be accompanied by detailed cost-benefit analyses, including in respect of their social, economic and environmental impacts; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining legal certainty and citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in cases where no such initial analysis has been conducted, the Commission must prepare an ex-post cost-benefit analysis before any revision or consolidation of legislation, to ensure that informed and proportionate decisions are taken; |
Or. ro
Amendment 92
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; | 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis in the broadest sense, giving due consideration to societal and environmental goals and the public interest; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; |
Or. en
Amendment 93
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; | 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by both a cost-benefit analysis; emphasises that in such cases a risk-benefit analysis must also be carried out; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; |
Or. nl
Amendment 94
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; | 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of European competitiveness and innovation; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; |
Or. pl
Amendment 95
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ and businesses’ trust in EU legislation; is of the opinion that in situations where no impact assessment is drafted, a cost-benefit analysis must be prepared at a later stage and accompany the proposal; | 9. Stresses that all major legislative and policy initiatives should be accompanied by an impact assessment; considers such analyses indispensable for evidence-based policymaking and for maintaining citizens’ trust in EU legislation; stresses that the perceived urgency of omnibus proceedings must not result in the nonconduction of impact assessments; |
Or. en
Amendment 96
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Calls into question the use of an “Omnibus” as a legislative technique, to simplify the existing EU regulatory framework; points out that this method should be used only for technical consolidation and not for substantively amending existing legislation across different domains; stresses the concerns expressed by a multitude of legal experts that the first as well as further Omnibuses are becoming the preferred vehicle for implementing a comprehensive deregulatory agenda while bypassing procedural integrity and giving rise to conflicts with EU core constitutional principles; agrees with the legal experts that the Omnibus I violates the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU and undermines the constitutional architecture of evidence-based, participatory lawmaking enshrined in Article 11 TEU and Article 296 TFEU; calls on the Commission to properly take into account these legal counterindications and thoroughly reassess the use of such omnibus technique, including for future use. |
Or. en
Amendment 97
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Recalls that the need for new legislation should not automatically imply that current legislation is no longer needed; in this regard, is of the opinion that a thorough impact assessment must equally be conducted for any potential repeal, to avoid unexpected consequences and undesirable effects; calls for this approach to be based on a transparent and evidence-based methodology giving proportionate consideration to all sustainability aspects, both in terms of benefits and costs, including the costs of noncompliance and inaction, and taking into account the administrative or economic impacts, while also looking at the EU acquis holistically and considering their social, environmental and public health impacts; |
Or. en
Amendment 98
Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Ewa Kopacz
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Reiterates its call for mainstreaming of children's rights in EU legislation through introduction of a children's rights test in the framework of the impact assessment toolbox, which would ensure that all EU legislative proposals are evaluated for their possible impact on the rights of the child, identify the affected areas and provide for assessment of alternative measures where necessary; underlines that this process should involve the EU Children's Participation Platform to strengthen the voices of children in the decision-making process; |
Or. en
Amendment 99
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 9 a. Stresses that the Commission must systematically inform and consult the European Parliament throughout the entire law-making cycle, in order to guarantee democratic accountability, institutional balance and transparency in EU policymaking; |
Or. en
Amendment 100
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; | 10. Takes note of the ‘one in, one out’ approach by which the Commission aims to offset newly introduced burdens by relieving citizens and businesses of equivalent burdens at EU level in the same policy area; regrets the unilateral introduction of this approach by the Commission, without a prior impact assessment or consultation; underlines that the implementation of this approach should not affect political imperatives or the objectives of better regulation, and emphasises that it should not lead to mechanical or mathematical decisions to repeal legislation, lower its standard or result in a chilling effect on legislation; recalls that the need for new legislation should not automatically imply that current legislation is no longer needed; calls for this approach to be based on a transparent and evidence-based methodology giving balanced consideration to all sustainability aspects, both in terms of benefits and costs, including the costs of noncompliance and inaction; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to make its ‘one in, one out’ calculator public before applying this approach; |
Or. en
Amendment 101
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; | 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; underlines that that shortcoming is particularly evident when it comes to delegated and implementing acts, which are not subjected to a systematic review of their necessity and proportionality; |
Or. it
Amendment 102
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; | 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations and risk undermining the objectives of the legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; emphasises the need to focus on improving EU legislation to ensure it remains fit for purpose, rather than pursuing deregulation as an end in itself; |
Or. en
Amendment 103
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; | 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper standardised ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming with a far-reaching impact on legal certainty and the functioning of the internal market; |
Or. ro
Amendment 104
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; | 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for review and evaluation, as well as for removing outdated or redundant measures, constitutes a serious shortcoming; |
Or. pl
Amendment 105
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; | 10. Recognises that current mechanisms, meant to control legislative burden, such as the ‘one in, one out’ approach, struggle to function effectively as a result of the lack of proper ex-post evaluations of the actual cost and results of legislation; further considers that the lack of efficient mechanisms for removing outdated or redundant measures constitutes a serious shortcoming; |
Or. nl
Amendment 106
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 a. Welcomes the Commission’s burden-reduction objectives as steps towards smarter regulation; stresses, however, that such initiatives must undergo rigorous stress-testing to ensure that simplification does not undermine policy objectives; recalls that systematic, evidence-based evaluation of legislation, as provided in the Better Regulation Toolbox, must remain the cornerstone of this process; |
Or. en
Amendment 107
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10a. Points out that the 'one in, one out' mechanism is restricted to basic legislative acts, and excludes the costs inherent in delegated and implementing acts; calls on the Commission, therefore, to include those costs in the overall assessment of the regulatory burden; points out that in Case C-286/14, the Court underlined the importance of assessing the impact of delegated acts, too; |
Or. it
Amendment 108
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 10 b. Recommends a more disciplined and proportionate use of delegated and implementing acts, ensuring that level-2 measures are confined to genuinely technical aspects necessary for the application of level-1 acts, and do not alter essential policy elements; highlights the importance of subjecting level 2 acts to transparent procedures, with clear timelines allowing sufficient time for meaningful and effective scrutiny by the co-legislators; calls for these measures to be published well in advance to enable stakeholders to prepare for compliance; insists that, wherever possible, such measures be made available either prior to or simultaneously with the entry into force of level 1 legislation in order to guarantee legal certainty and enforceability; |
Or. en
Amendment 109
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; | 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach inadequate in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a balanced approach in law making in order to truly ease regulatory burden and bring benefits for businesses and citizens; takes the position that this requires a clear methodology and an independent and transparent monitoring mechanism; |
Or. en
Amendment 110
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; | 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard and for impact assessments to systematically include delegated and implementing acts; |
Or. it
Amendment 111
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; | 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses and to improve the quality and effectiveness of EU legislation by ensuring that regulatory measures are proportionate, evidence-based, and deliver clear added value for citizens and businesses; stresses that the focus should be on reducing unnecessary administrative burdens while maintaining high levels of social, environmental, and consumer protection; rejects the idea of arbitrary numerical targets such as the ‘one in, two out’ approach, which risk undermining the Union’s policy objectives; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; |
Or. en
Amendment 112
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; | 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology, transparent indicators and an independent monitoring mechanism, alongside a strengthening of the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; |
Or. ro
Amendment 113
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; | 11. Calls on the Commission to further step up efforts to reduce regulatory obligations for citizens and businesses; considers the current ‘one in, one out’ approach vastly insufficient in this regard; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach in order to truly ease regulatory burden, rather than just maintaining the regulatory status quo; takes the position that the establishment of a ‘one in, two out’ approach should include a clear methodology and an independent monitoring mechanism to achieve a net reduction in regulatory costs; calls for the role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be strengthened in this regard; |
Or. pl
Amendment 114
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 11 a. Takes note of the involvement of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in impact assessments, fitness checks, and major evaluations of current legislation; notes, however, that the transparency of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on meetings with stakeholders, reviews, recommendations and opinions should be significantly improved; underlines that the work of the Board should not ultimately affect the Commission’s capacity to propose legislation or unduly delay the adoption of legislative proposals; considers that all opinions from the Board should always be made public immediately after adoption without any exception; |
Or. en
Amendment 115
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, particularly when significant competitiveness concerns are identified, Parliament should be properly and timely informed to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; | 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, particularly when significant competitiveness concerns are identified, Parliament should be properly and timely informed to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; calls for improved transparency of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, including faster publication of its opinions and greater clarity on the follow-up to its recommendations; |
Or. en
Amendment 116
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, particularly when significant competitiveness concerns are identified, Parliament should be properly and timely informed to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; | 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, Parliament should be properly and timely informed; calls on the Commission to consider how the Regulatory Scrutiny Board’s mandate and procedures could be improved to ensure its deliberations inform rather than impede the role of the co-legislators; |
Or. en
Amendment 117
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, particularly when significant competitiveness concerns are identified, Parliament should be properly and timely informed to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; | 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, Parliament should be properly and timely informed to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; |
Or. en
Amendment 118
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, particularly when significant competitiveness concerns are identified, Parliament should be properly and timely informed to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; | 12. Takes the view that, in cases where the Regulatory Scrutiny Board issues a negative opinion on an impact assessment, particularly when significant competitiveness concerns are identified, Parliament should be properly informed, within a reasonable time period, to review whether to proceed with the proposal or reject it; |
Or. ro
Amendment 119
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12a. Draws attention to the negative role played by NGOs in the process of European law-making, particularly in areas such as climate and energy policy; stresses the need for full transparency regarding the Commission's funding of lobbying activities targeting other EU institutions, particularly the European Parliament; stresses the importance of the Scrutiny Working Group (SWG) operating within the CONT Committee in disclosing the sources of funding for the activities of NGOs that influence EU law-making through consultation or advisory functions; |
Or. pl
Amendment 120
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12 a. Calls for the European Parliament to play a stronger role in ex-post evaluation of EU legislation and in monitoring the implementation of the ‘one in, two out’ principle, ensuring that simplification efforts do not undermine citizens’ rights, workers’ protection or environmental standards; |
Or. en
Amendment 121
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 12 a. Invites the Commission to explore ways of further strengthening the independence and capacity of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, including by ensuring that it is provided with adequate resources to review a greater proportion of the Commission’s initiatives; |
Or. en
Amendment 122
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13. Notes that the Commission’s annual burden survey plays a central role in tracking progress on burden reduction; stresses, however, that greater transparency is needed regarding the calculation and methodology used to measure costs and cumulative effects, in order to ensure accountability and comparability across policy areas; | 13. Stresses, that greater transparency is needed regarding the calculation and methodology used to measure costs and cumulative effects against benefits, in order to ensure accountability and comparability across policy areas; |
Or. en
Amendment 123
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13a. Notes that the national parliaments do not have any powers in terms of preventive scrutiny of delegated and implementing acts adopted by the Commission; points out that this shortcoming gives rise to major concerns regarding protection of the principle of proportionality, primarily in certain areas that might lend themselves to breaches of that principle, notably subjects with a high degree of technical complexity, where the risk of excessive delegation or overreach in relation to the limits laid down in the basic act is much higher; recalls that in Case C-14/18, the Court reiterated the importance of respecting the principle of proportionality at all stages of the regulatory procedure, including implementation; calls on the Commission to strengthen the democratic scrutiny and accounting mechanisms for those acts; |
Or. it
Amendment 124
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13a. Encourages the Commission to regularly use the 'Stop the Clock' mechanism in situations where incoming legislation or regulations could threaten European competitiveness in strategic sectors of the economy and where the costs of implementation significantly outweigh the potential benefits of their application; |
Or. pl
Amendment 125
Jörgen Warborn
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13 a. Welcomes the idea by Draghi to develop a single, clear methodology to quantify the cost of new legislation and takes the view that the Commission should develop such a methodology; |
Or. en
Amendment 126
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 13b. Calls on the Commission to establish an early warning system for national parliaments for delegated and implementing acts, similar to that used for legislative acts; considers that the system should allow national parliaments to present observations on the proportionality and national impact of acts before their final adoption; |
Or. it
Amendment 127
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14. Notes that reporting obligations often generate considerable administrative costs for companies, in particular SMEs; takes the view that such obligations should be recognised as a service of general interest; calls, therefore, on the Commission to assess the feasibility of establishing mechanisms through which companies could receive financial compensation for mandatory reporting tasks; invites the Commission to present a report identifying the types of reporting obligations for which such compensation schemes could be appropriate; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 128
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14. Notes that reporting obligations often generate considerable administrative costs for companies, in particular SMEs; takes the view that such obligations should be recognised as a service of general interest; calls, therefore, on the Commission to assess the feasibility of establishing mechanisms through which companies could receive financial compensation for mandatory reporting tasks; invites the Commission to present a report identifying the types of reporting obligations for which such compensation schemes could be appropriate; | 14. Notes that reporting obligations often generate considerable administrative costs for companies, in particular SMEs; takes the view that such obligations should be abolished, at least for SMEs; |
Or. nl
Amendment 129
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14. Notes that reporting obligations often generate considerable administrative costs for companies, in particular SMEs; takes the view that such obligations should be recognised as a service of general interest; calls, therefore, on the Commission to assess the feasibility of establishing mechanisms through which companies could receive financial compensation for mandatory reporting tasks; invites the Commission to present a report identifying the types of reporting obligations for which such compensation schemes could be appropriate; | 14. Notes that reporting obligations often generate considerable administrative costs for companies, in particular SMEs; takes the view that such obligations should be recognised as a service of general interest; calls, therefore, on the Commission to assess the feasibility of establishing mechanisms through which companies could receive financial compensation from the Union budget for mandatory reporting tasks; invites the Commission to present a report identifying the types of reporting obligations for which such compensation schemes could be appropriate; |
Or. pl
Amendment 130
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14. Notes that reporting obligations often generate considerable administrative costs for companies, in particular SMEs; takes the view that such obligations should be recognised as a service of general interest; calls, therefore, on the Commission to assess the feasibility of establishing mechanisms through which companies could receive financial compensation for mandatory reporting tasks; invites the Commission to present a report identifying the types of reporting obligations for which such compensation schemes could be appropriate; | 14. Notes that duplicative reporting obligations can generate considerable administrative costs for companies; takes the view that such obligations should be streamlined and that more support should be provided to digitise reporting; acknowledges, however, the importance of effective reporting for tracking legitimate public policy objectives and enforcing legislation, and stresses that any changes to reporting frameworks should not undermine existing legislation, lead to deregulation, or weaken its enforcement; |
Or. en
Amendment 131
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14 a. Calls on the Commission to systematically integrate bottom-up data on how citizens perceive, understand and exercise their rights in practice, including their experience with enforcement and redress mechanisms; calls for this dimension to be better reflected in the Better Regulation Guidelines and Better Regulation toolbox, in order to strengthen evidence-based enforcement and to enable Parliament to scrutinise Commission action more effectively from the perspective of citizens; calls on the Commission and the co-legislators to increase the practical applicability of EU legislation at every stage of the policy cycle, including through genuine citizen involvement during policy conception, user-centred drafting, user-testing of draft acts, and post-legislative consultation; |
Or. en
Amendment 132
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14a. Stresses the importance of digitalisation and digital processes in enhancing transparency and facilitating consultations with stakeholders and national parliaments, with this adding a new dimension to the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality by reducing bureaucracy and making information more accessible; |
Or. ro
Amendment 133
Jörgen Warborn
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14 a. Calls for processes like evaluation and the regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT), which aim to simplify legislation, to be used more frequently; considers also that different legislatives techniques that could help with outdated or redundant measures, are underused or, when used, are used poorly; |
Or. en
Amendment 134
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 14 a. Calls on the Commission to introduce, by 2026, a mandatory ‘Citizen’s Summary’ for every EU legislative act, in all official languages, outlining in clear terms its purpose, rights, obligations and expected impact, to make EU law more accessible and understandable for citizens; |
Or. en
Amendment 135
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 15. Recalls that the Draghi report underlined simplifying rules as one of the three overarching goals for a renewed European partnership7 ; further recalls that, similarly, the Letta report stresses that regulations should facilitate, rather than hinder, economic activity and innovation within the single market8 ; | 15. Recalls that the Draghi report underlined simplifying overlapping rules as conducive to European competitiveness, amongst other more prominent overarching goals for a renewed European partnership7 ; further recalls that, similarly, the Letta report stresses that regulations should facilitate, rather than hinder, economic activity and innovation within the single market8; |
| 7 Draghi M., 'The future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe' European Commission, 9 September 2024, Part A, p. 67-68. | 7 Draghi M., 'The future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe' European Commission, 9 September 2024, Part A, p. 67-68. |
| 8 Letta Enrico, 'Much more than a Market', European Council, April 2024, p. 130. | 8 Letta Enrico, 'Much more than a Market', European Council, April 2024, p. 130. |
Or. en
Amendment 136
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 15a. Regrets that the Commission's deregulation initiatives and proposals to simplify existing legislation to date have been limited in scope; calls on the Commission to take more decisive and bold deregulation measures, particularly in areas such as climate, energy and digital policy; |
Or. pl
Amendment 137
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 16. Welcomes the introduction, in 2023, of the new SME and competitiveness check, which has become a mandatory annex to impact assessments; welcomes the pledge by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen that this new SME and competitiveness check will help avoid regulatory burdens while maintaining high standards; notes that actions must now follow words; | 16. Welcomes the introduction, in 2023, of the new SME and competitiveness check, which has become a mandatory annex to impact assessments; welcomes the pledge by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen that this new SME and competitiveness check will help avoid regulatory burdens while maintaining high environmental, social and consumer protection standards; notes that actions must now follow words focusing on supporting SMEs and provide them with the tools to reach EU objectives instead of pushing blind deregulation; |
Or. en
Amendment 138
Ton Diepeveen
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 16. Welcomes the introduction, in 2023, of the new SME and competitiveness check, which has become a mandatory annex to impact assessments; welcomes the pledge by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen that this new SME and competitiveness check will help avoid regulatory burdens while maintaining high standards; notes that actions must now follow words; | 16. Welcomes the introduction, in 2023, of the new SME and competitiveness check, which has become a mandatory annex to impact assessments; welcomes the pledge by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen that this new SME and competitiveness check will help avoid regulatory burdens while maintaining high standards; notes that actions must now follow words; considers that an annual assessment should be carried out to determine whether the pledge has been fulfilled; |
Or. nl
Amendment 139
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 17. Reiterates the importance of the ‘Think Small First’ principle as a cornerstone of better regulation, ensuring that the needs and capacities of SMEs are systematically considered at every stage of the policy cycle, from design to implementation and evaluation; | 17. Reiterates the importance of the ‘Think Small First’ principle as a cornerstone of better regulation, ensuring that the needs and capacities of SMEs are systematically considered at every stage of the policy cycle, from design to implementation and evaluation; stresses the importance of identifying causal links between regulatory provisions, firm behaviour and user benefits, and of assessing potential unintended consequences and disproportionate compliance burdens on SMEs; |
Or. en
Amendment 140
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 17 a. Affirms that strengthening European competitiveness and sovereignty requires resisting external pressure to weaken the EU legal framework; in this regard, considers that the announced ‘stress testing’ exercise on the application of the recently adopted AI Act appears premature; |
Or. en
Amendment 141
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 17 a. Welcomes and encourages broader use of regulatory sandboxes in future-oriented sectors (such as AI, clean tech, and digital services), to support innovation, reduce compliance costs, and offer legal certainty for SMEs; |
Or. en
Amendment 142
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18. Welcomes the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must be more ambitious; welcomes, therefore, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that the Commission’s 25 % target should therefore be viewed within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities; calls, accordingly, for a more ambitious approach, aiming for a 30 % reduction in all regulatory costs and a 35 % reduction in regulatory costs for SMEs and scaleups; | 18. Is concerned about the Commission’s strict and numerical pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, and the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; points out that simplification requires focusing first and foremost smart implementation strategies, taking a pragmatic, legally sound and efficient approach to alleviating some of the administrative burden of companies and SMEs in particular, and simplify as much as possible the implementation of agreed rules; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that all the Commission’s simplification targets should therefore be viewed within the broader objectives of reducing overall costs and complexities as well as further approximation of national rules, without leading to deregulation nor cutting back on the EU acquis; calls in this context on the Commission to follow-up and implement the three 2024 recommendations of the “Fit for Future Platform” on automated sustainability reporting, measures to avoid unnecessary/duplicate reporting and sustainability related disclosures; |
Or. en
Amendment 143
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18. Welcomes the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must be more ambitious; welcomes, therefore, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that the Commission’s 25 % target should therefore be viewed within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities; calls, accordingly, for a more ambitious approach, aiming for a 30 % reduction in all regulatory costs and a 35 % reduction in regulatory costs for SMEs and scaleups; | 18. Takes note of the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must not be at the detriment of transparency and scrutiny; further notes, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs that should be considered within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities especially for SMEs and scaleups; |
Or. en
Amendment 144
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18. Welcomes the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must be more ambitious; welcomes, therefore, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that the Commission’s 25 % target should therefore be viewed within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities; calls, accordingly, for a more ambitious approach, aiming for a 30 % reduction in all regulatory costs and a 35 % reduction in regulatory costs for SMEs and scaleups; | 18. Welcomes the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must be more ambitious; welcomes, therefore, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that the Commission’s 25 % target should therefore be viewed within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities; calls, accordingly, for a more ambitious approach, aiming for a 30 % reduction in all regulatory costs and a 35 % reduction in regulatory costs for SMEs and scaleups, including a pilot ‘innovation-friendly regulation test’ to identify barriers for start-ups and new technologies in early legislative phases; |
Or. en
Amendment 145
Kosma Złotowski
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18. Welcomes the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must be more ambitious; welcomes, therefore, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that the Commission’s 25 % target should therefore be viewed within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities; calls, accordingly, for a more ambitious approach, aiming for a 30 % reduction in all regulatory costs and a 35 % reduction in regulatory costs for SMEs and scaleups; | 18. Welcomes the Commission’s pledge to reduce reporting obligations by 25 %, but stresses that this target must be more ambitious; welcomes, therefore, the inclusion of a 35 % reduction in administrative costs and reporting for SMEs; recalls, moreover, that reporting obligations constitute only a small fraction of the total regulatory burden, which also includes administrative, implementation and compliance costs; notes that the Commission’s 25 % target should therefore be viewed within the broader objective of reducing overall costs and complexities; calls, accordingly, for a more ambitious approach, aiming for a 45 % reduction in all regulatory costs and a 50 % reduction in regulatory costs for SMEs and scaleups; |
Or. pl
Amendment 146
Jörgen Warborn
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18 a. Welcomes, furthermore, the nomination of a Vice-President for Implementation, Simplification and Interinstitutional Relations; welcomes the use of implementation dialogues and encourages regular reality checks and stress tests of the Union acquis to assess cumulative impacts on competitiveness, innovation and SMEs, and to identify opportunities for effective simplification; underlines, in this respect, the importance of comprehensive impact assessments, systematically integrating fitness checks, competitiveness checks, and SME tests; |
Or. en
Amendment 147
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18 a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to systematically integrate competitiveness considerations into simplification initiatives, ensuring that administrative procedures affecting citizens and businesses are streamlined without compromising essential safeguards; stresses that reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, expanding digital solutions, and improving mutual recognition can lower compliance costs, facilitate mobility, and strengthen the competitiveness and attractiveness of the Single Market; |
Or. en
Amendment 148
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18 a. Stresses that regulatory simplification must proceed within constitutional boundaries and be based on proper impact assessments and public consultations following the Interinstitutional Agreement that the Commission and the co-legislators signed in 2016; |
Or. en
Amendment 149
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18 b. Considers that simplification in view of competitiveness and further internal market integration requires an overarching approach to relevant EU and national legislation; points out that also divergences between national rules of different Member States can cause legal uncertainty and additional administrative costs; |
Or. en
Amendment 150
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 18 c. Calls in that regard on the Commission to provide a mapping of all existing financial and non-financial legislation and administrative obligations for companies under European law as well as obligations under national company law rules; calls for the mapping to be the basis of a comprehensive assessment including regarding costs and benefits, the different public interest that legislation serves, overlaps between legislations, as well as opportunities for harmonisation and approximation; invites the Commission to use this assessment to put forward, if necessary and with effective participation of all relevant actors and stakeholders as well as based on a proper impact assessment, proposals to update outdated provisions and address unjustified barriers through proportionate measures in view of achieving upwards convergence; |
Or. en
Amendment 151
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; | 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; calls on the Commission to test and deploy novel artificial-intelligence tools – including large language models complemented with retrieval-augmented generation – in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of monitoring the implementation of EU law, enabling faster detection of non-compliance, more timely responses to complaints, and proactive solutions to emerging issues; recalls that effective deployment requires robust data-access strategies established from the moment new legislation is adopted; emphasises that any use of AI for monitoring the implementation of EU law must operate under meaningful human oversight; underlines that such systems must remain fully compliant with EU law; |
Or. en
Amendment 152
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; | 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; underlines that this requires capacity building and accompanying measures to equip enterprises of all sizes, administrations and households with the necessary digital infrastructures and to give citizens the digital skills; highlights in particular the importance of universal access to e-justice; |
Or. en
Amendment 153
Jörgen Warborn
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; | 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; including innovation-friendly regulation like sandbox approaches |
Or. en
Amendment 154
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored; | 19. Stresses that there is great potential in digital tools and AI-based solutions to help simplify compliance and reduce regulatory costs; considers that the potential power of digital tools to deliver better and faster solutions in this regard needs to be further explored and existing recent legislation needs to be implemented; |
Or. en
Amendment 155
Victor Negrescu
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 19 a. Calls on the Commission to provide open-source digital dashboards enabling citizens, SMEs and stakeholders to monitor legislative progress, costs and simplification measures in real time; |
Or. en
Amendment 156
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20. Warns against the persistent problem of gold-plating by the Member States in the transposition of directives; urges the Member States to refrain from such gold-plating practices and calls on the Commission to identify and publish instances of such practices in its annual implementation reports; | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 157
Daniel Buda
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20. Warns against the persistent problem of gold-plating by the Member States in the transposition of directives; urges the Member States to refrain from such gold-plating practices and calls on the Commission to identify and publish instances of such practices in its annual implementation reports; | 20. Warns against the persistent problem of gold-plating by the Member States in the transposition of directives; urges the Member States to refrain from such gold-plating practices and urges the Commission to establish a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating transposition at national level, with annual publication of examples of good and bad practices, in order to prevent gold-plating and ensure the uniform application of EU law; encourages Member States to cooperate and participate in the exchange of best practices to ensure the proportionate and efficient implementation of directives; |
Or. ro
Amendment 158
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20. Warns against the persistent problem of gold-plating by the Member States in the transposition of directives; urges the Member States to refrain from such gold-plating practices and calls on the Commission to identify and publish instances of such practices in its annual implementation reports; | 20. Warns against the persistent problem of gold-plating by the Member States in the transposition of directives; urges the Member States to refrain from such gold-plating practices and calls on the Commission to identify and publish instances of such practices in its annual implementation reports; calls on the Commission to monitor new delegated and implementing acts, and to check whether they contribute to gold-plating by laying down overly detailed or prescriptive requirements; |
Or. it
Amendment 159
Tiemo Wölken, Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Eric Sargiacomo, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Brando Benifei, Leire Pajín
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20. Warns against the persistent problem of gold-plating by the Member States in the transposition of directives; urges the Member States to refrain from such gold-plating practices and calls on the Commission to identify and publish instances of such practices in its annual implementation reports; | 20. Urges the Member States to refrain from late, incomplete, or inaccurate transposition of directives, and calls on the Commission to comprehensively identify and publish instances of such practices in its annual implementation reports; |
Or. en
Amendment 160
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20 a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to tackle regulatory fragmentation affecting SMEs in the Single Market, including unnecessary national formalities, and to prioritise mutual recognition and interoperability frameworks; calls on the Commission and the Member States to reduce national administrative divergences that hinder SMEs’ participation in the Single Market; underlines the importance of strengthening mutual recognition and harmonisation to streamline access to EU markets; |
Or. en
Amendment 161
Mario Mantovani
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20a. Calls on the Commission to look carefully at the balance between legislative acts and delegated and implementing acts, and to intervene where there are too many of the latter, ensuring that they are used in a proportionate manner that does not compromise the democratic legitimacy of the regulatory procedure; suggests that Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and the provisions on delegated and implementing acts be revised with a view to strengthening parliamentary scrutiny and transparency; |
Or. it
Amendment 162
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20 a. Acknowledges the need for consistent and effective transposition of EU legislation across Member States to ensure legal certainty and a level playing field with upwards conversion; stresses, that the concept of ‘gold-plating’ should not be misused to discourage Member States from maintaining or introducing higher social, environmental, or consumer protection standards; |
Or. en
Amendment 163
Dainius Žalimas
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
| Motion for a resolution | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 20 b. Calls for a full competitiveness check to become standard practice, including assessment of the cumulative impact of major legislative packages rather than evaluation of individual acts in isolation; |
Or. en