ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 285/84

Tuesday 24 November 2009

Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pflüger

P7_TA(2009)0082

European Parliament decision of 24 November 2009 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pflüger (2009/2055(IMM))

2010/C 285 E/15

The European Parliament,

having regard to the request by Tobias Pflüger for defence of his immunity announced in plenary sitting on 5 May 2009,

having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986 (1) of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,

having regard to Article 46 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany,

having regard to its decision of 16 May 2006 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Tobias Pflüger (2),

having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0054/2009),

A. whereas Parliament has already waived Tobias Pflüger's immunity by its decision of 16 May 2006 concerning the same set of facts,

B. whereas it appears after examination that Parliament's prerogatives are threatened neither by the judgment against Tobias Pflüger of 2 March 2009 nor by the request of the public prosecutor on 15 April 2009 to increase the penalty imposed on him,

1. Decides not to defend the immunity and privileges of Tobias Pflüger;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of the committee responsible, immediately to the appropriate authority of the Federal Republic of Germany.

(1) Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195, and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391.

(2) OJ C 297 E, 7.12.2006, p. 74.
1.

Decides to amend the number of members of parliamentary committees as follows: Committee on Foreign Affairs: 76 members Committee on Development: 30 members Committee on International Trade: 29 members Committee on Budgets: 44 members Committee on Budgetary Control: 30 members Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs: 48 members Committee on Employment and Social Affairs: 51 members Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: 68 members Committee on Industry, Research and Energy: 60 members Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection: 41 members Committee on Transport and Tourism: 46 members Committee on Regional Development: 50 members Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development: 44 members Committee on Fisheries: 24 members Committee on Culture and Education: 32 members Committee on Legal Affairs: 25 members Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: 60 members Committee on Constitutional Affairs: 25 members Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality: 35 members Committee on Petitions: 35 members and to amend the number of members of parliamentary subcommittees as follows: Subcommittee on Human Rights: 31 members Subcommittee on Security and Defence: 31 members
Where the conditions set out in Rule 49(1) and Rule 50 are fulfilled, the Conference of Presidents may , if it is satisfied that the matter is of major importance, decide that a procedure with joint meetings of committees and a joint vote is to be applied. In that event, the rapporteurs concerned shall draw up a single draft report, which shall be examined and voted on by the committees involved at joint meetings held under the joint chairmanship of the committee Chairs concerned. The committees involved may set up inter-committee working groups to prepare the joint meetings and votes.

1. When a question of competence is referred to it pursuant to Rule 188(2), the Conference of Presidents may decide that the procedure with joint meetings of committees and a joint vote is to be applied , provided that : — by virtue of Annex VII, the matter falls indissociably within the competences of several committees; and — it is satisfied that the question is of major importance. 2. In that event, the respective rapporteurs shall draw up a single draft report, which shall be examined and voted on by the committees concerned, under the joint chairmanship of the committee Chairs. At all stages of the procedure, the rights attaching to the status of committee responsible may be exercised by the committees concerned only when they are acting jointly. The committees involved may set up working groups to prepare the meetings and votes. 3. At the second-reading stage of the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council position shall be considered at a joint meeting of the committees concerned, which, should no agreement be reached between their Chairs, shall be held on the Wednesday of the first week set aside for meetings of parliamentary bodies following the communication of the Council’s position to Parliament. Should no agreement be reached on the convening of a further meeting, any such meeting shall be convened by the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs. The vote on the recommendation for second reading shall be taken at a joint meeting on the basis of a joint text drafted by the respective rapporteurs of the committees concerned or, in the absence of a joint text, on the basis of the amendments tabled in the committees concerned. At the third-reading stage of the ordinary legislative procedure, the Chairs and rapporteurs of the committees concerned shall be ex officio members of the delegation to the Conciliation Committee.
2. Motions for resolutions contained in own-initiative reports shall be examined by Parliament under the short presentation procedure set out in Rule 139. Amendments to such motions for resolutions shall only be admissible for consideration in plenary if tabled by the rapporteur to take account of new information or by at least one-tenth of the Members of Parliament. Political groups may table alternative motions for resolutions in accordance with Rule 157(4). This paragraph shall not apply in cases where the subject of the report qualifies for a key debate in plenary, where the report is drawn up pursuant to the right of initiative referred to in Rule 41 or 42, or where the report can be considered a strategic report according to the criteria set out by the Conference of Presidents .

2. Motions for resolutions contained in own-initiative reports shall be examined by Parliament under the short presentation procedure set out in Rule 139. Amendments to such motions for resolutions shall only be admissible for consideration in plenary if tabled by the rapporteur to take account of new information or by at least one-tenth of the Members of Parliament. Political groups may table alternative motions for resolutions in accordance with Rule 157(4). Rule 163 and Rule 167 shall apply to the committee's motion for a resolution and amendments thereto. Rule 167 shall also apply to the single vote on alternative motions for resolutions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 251/118

Tuesday 13 March 2012

Request for waiver of immunity of Krisztina Morvai

P7_TA(2012)0067

European Parliament decision of 13 March 2012 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Krisztina Morvai (2010/2285(IMM))

2013/C 251 E/25

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Krisztina Morvai, forwarded on 13 October 2010 by the Pest Central District Court in Budapest (Hungary) in connection with proceedings pending before that court and announced in plenary on 24 November 2010,

— having heard Krisztina Morvai, in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the written submissions from the Pest Central District Court of 19 December 2011 in reply to the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 7(3) for further information and explanations,

— having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

— having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010 and 6 September 2011 (1),

— having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0050/2012),

A. whereas the Pest Central District Court has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Krisztina Morvai, in connection with proceedings before it;

B. whereas the request by the Court relates to criminal proceedings relating to the criminal offence of public defamation in connection with statements made by Krisztina Morvai concerning a private individual in Hungary;

C. whereas, according to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties;

D. whereas the facts of the case, as manifested in the submissions from the Court to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements were made at a time when Krisztina Morvai was not a Member of the European Parliament;

1. Decides to waive the immunity of Krisztina Morvai;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its competent committee immediately to the competent authority of Hungary and to Krisztina Morvai.

(1) Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195, Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and Others [1986] ECR 2391, Case T-345/05 Mote v Parliament [2008] ECR II-2849, Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente [2008] ECR I-7929, Case T-42/06 Gollnisch v Parliament (not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-163/10 Patriciello (not yet published in the ECR).
1.

Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 159(3): ‘Rule 159(3) is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a tied vote on a draft recommendation under Rule 128(4) not to intervene in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, such a tie does not signify the adoption of a recommendation that Parliament should intervene in those proceedings. In such a case, the committee responsible is to be deemed not to have expressed any recommendation.’;
1. In order to allocate the amount indicated in point c) of Article 6(1), by 1 June 2017 the Commission shall establish, on the basis of input and in consultation with the Frontex Agency, a report which, in accordance with the Frontex risk analysis, shall set up threat levels at the external borders for the period 2017-2020. Threat levels will be based on the burden in border management and on the threats that affected security at the external borders of the Member States in 2014-2016 and they will take into account inter alia possible future trends on migratory flows and unlawful activities at the external borders considering the likely political, economic and social developments in the third countries concerned, in particular in neighbouring countries.

1. In order to allocate the amount indicated in point (c) of Article 6(1), by 1 January 2017 the Commission shall establish, on the basis of input and in consultation with the Frontex Agency and EASO , a report which, in accordance with the Frontex risk analysis, shall set up threat levels at the external borders for the period 2017-2020. Threat levels will be based on the burden in border management , assessment reports drawn up as part of the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism and on the threats that affected security and safety, including search and rescue operations at sea, at the external borders of the Member States in 2014-2016 and they will take into account inter alia possible future trends on migratory flows and unlawful activities at the external borders considering the likely political, economic and social developments in the third countries concerned, in particular in neighbouring countries.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 468/285

P7_TA(2013)0564

Appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank

European Parliament decision of 11 December 2013 on the proposal of the European Central Bank for the appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank (N7-0103/2013 — C7-0424/2013 — 2013/0901(NLE))

(Approval)

(2016/C 468/65)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the proposal of the European Central Bank of 22 November 2013 for the appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank (N7-0103/2013),

— having regard to Article 26(3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (1),

— having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability and oversight over the exercise of the tasks conferred on the ECB within the framework of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (2),

— having regard to its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0452/2013),

A. whereas Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 provides that the European Central Bank (ECB) is to submit to Parliament its proposal for the appointment of the Chair of its Supervisory Board and that the Chair is to be chosen on the basis of an open selection procedure from among individuals of recognised standing and experience in banking and financial matters who are not members of the Governing Council;

B. whereas Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 provides that the appointments for the Supervisory Board in accordance with that Regulation are to respect the principles of gender balance, experience and qualification;

C. whereas, by letter of 22 November 2013, the ECB submitted to Parliament a proposal for the appointment of Danièle Nouy as the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB for a term of office of five years;

D. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the proposed candidate, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 26(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013; whereas in carrying out that evaluation, the Committee received a curriculum vitae from the proposed candidate as well as her replies to a written questionnaire;

E. whereas the Committee held a hearing with the proposed candidate on 27 November 2013, at which she made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the Committee;

1. Approves the ECB’s proposal for the appointment of Danièle Nouy as Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Central Bank, the Council and the governments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.

(2) OJ L 320, 30.11.2013, p. 1.
—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 24 and Article 228 thereof,
4. At any stage of the negotiations Parliament may, on the basis of a report from the committee responsible, and after considering any relevant proposal tabled pursuant to Rule 121, adopt recommendations and require them to be taken into account before the conclusion of the international agreement under consideration .

4. At any stage of the negotiations and from the end of the negotiations to the conclusion of the international agreement, Parliament may, on the basis of a report from the committee responsible, and after considering any relevant proposal tabled pursuant to Rule 121, adopt recommendations and require them to be taken into account before the conclusion of that agreement.
2.

Decides that the special committee shall be vested with the following powers: (a) to analyse and examine practice in the application of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) regarding tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect issued by Member States since 1 January 1991; (b) to analyse and assess the Commission's practice of keeping under constant review, pursuant to Article 108 TFEU, all systems of aid existing in Member States, proposing to the Member States appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the internal market, checking whether aid granted by a State or through State resources is compatible with the internal market and not misused, deciding that the State concerned is to abolish or alter such aid within a certain period of time, and referring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union if the State concerned does not comply, which has allegedly resulted in a high number of tax rulings incompatible with EU state aid rules; (c) to analyse and examine compliance by Member States since 1 January 1991 with obligations set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) , regarding the obligation to cooperate and provide all necessary documents; (d) to analyse and examine compliance with the obligations set out in Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (2) and Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (3), regarding communication by Member States to other Member States since 1 January 1991, by spontaneous exchange, of information on tax rulings; (e) to analyse and assess the Commission's practice as regards the proper application of Directives 77/799/EEC and 2011/16/EU regarding communication by Member States to other Member States, by spontaneous exchange, of information on tax rulings; (f) to analyse and assess compliance by the Member States with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, such as fulfilment of the obligations to facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and to refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives, given the alleged large scale of aggressive tax planning facilitated by Member States, and the likely significant consequences this has had on public finances of and in the EU; (g) to analyse and assess the third-country dimension of aggressive tax planning carried out by companies established or incorporated in the Member States, as well as the exchange of information with third countries in this respect; (h) to make any recommendations that it deems necessary in this matter;
A.

whereas Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 provides that the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI are to be appointed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) after approval by the European Parliament following an open and transparent selection process in line with EIB procedures, during which the European Parliament shall be kept duly informed in a timely manner at all stages;
—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and in particular Articles 30 and 31(5) thereof,
D.

whereas the complaint relates to statements made by António Marinho e Pinto on 30 May 2015 during an interview on the TV programme ‘A Propósito’ on the Portuguese channel SIC Notícias, presented by António José Teixeira and broadcast at 21.00, during which he is alleged to have said: ‘As far as social security is concerned, what I can say is that the solidarity aspect should be split off; that’s a matter for the State, and shouldn’t be paid for at the expense of workers’ pensions, you see? It has to come from the State budget. Social solidarity must be provided through taxes and through that gigantic institution, Misericórdia de Lisboa, which handles millions and millions, and money is being wasted, more often than not for personal gain or out of personal interest.. […] I think that Manuel Rebelo de Sousa would be better than Pedro Santana Lopes, given what we saw of Santana Lopes in government. It was actually good to see how the Superintendent of Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa worked in support of his candidacy and what means and resources he employed in order to do it.’
—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in particular Articles 14(4) and 126(5) thereof,
A.

whereas Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 provides that the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI are to be appointed by the EIB for a fixed term of three years, renewable once, after approval by the European Parliament following an open and transparent selection process in line with EIB procedures, during which the European Parliament shall be kept duly informed in a timely manner at all stages;
A.

whereas Article 56(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 provides that the members of the Single Resolution Board referred to in Article 43(1)(b) of that regulation are to be appointed on the basis of merit, skills, knowledge of banking and financial matters, and of experience relevant to financial supervision, regulation and bank resolution;
—

having regard to Declaration No 11 annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon,
A.

whereas the delegated act temporarily amends the prudential banking framework in response to the COVID-19 outbreak; in particular to mitigate the impacts of the extreme market volatility on the prudent valuation framework, the delegated act increases the aggregation factor used to calculate the total additional valuation adjustments (‘AVA’) amount under the ‘core approach’ from 50 % to 66 % until 31 December 2020 to allow institutions to weather out the current extreme market volatility; this would reduce the total AVAs amount, hence reducing the amount deducted from institutions’ Common Equity Tier 1 (CETI) capital;
B.

whereas Parliament deplores that all candidates were men despite the obligations under Article 56(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the numerous calls made by Parliament to respect gender balance when presenting lists of candidates; whereas Parliament regrets that women continue to be underrepresented in executive positions in the field of banking and financial services and demands that gender balance be respected for the next nomination; whereas all EU and national institutions and bodies should implement concrete measures to ensure gender balance;
—

having regard to Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (1),