What changed

G. whereas only the first of the three yellow card procedures led to the withdrawal of a proposal for a regulation10,regulation, the second led to enhanced cooperation between 20 Member States instead of unanimous implementation11,implementation, and the third had no effect, while 14 reasoned opinions have been submitted by parliaments in 11 Member States12;States;

8. Notes the concerns expressed unanimously by the French Senate’s European Affairs Committee13Committee regarding the weak legal foundation for certain EU legislative initiatives, the increasing tendency to favour regulations over directives, and the excessive use of implementing or delegated acts;

13. Welcomes the creation of informal procedures to enhance coordination between the Commission, the European Parliament and national parliaments, such as the political dialogue, the rapporteurs’ dialogue and the website entitled ‘National Parliament opinions and Commission replies’14;replies’; urges the Commission to explore avenues to further improve consultation with national parliaments on subsidiarity concerns, for example by establishing a ‘single subsidiarity hub’ (SSH) based on the IPEX platform, where reasoned opinions, as well as, for example, contributions, opinions of the European Committee of the Regions, answers from the Commission and Parliament resolutions, would be collected and freely accessible; considers that an SSH would be a suitable place for the Member States to request that the Commission propose supporting or coordinating legislation in an area of the Member States’ exclusive competence;

22. Welcomes the contributions of the LXXII Plenary Meeting of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC)15,(COSAC), which recommended strengthening the subsidiarity review by the national parliaments by extending the eight-week deadline for submitting opinions to 10 weeks and through lowering the threshold for triggering the yellow card to one quarter of the votes cast;

36. Takes note of the CJEU’s interpretation that not taking into account the particular situation of one or more of the Member States in the assessment of a legislative initiative does not constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality16;proportionality; insists that the individual particularities of the Member States are relevant for the purpose of drafting legislation for the EU as a whole;

37. Expresses concern about the CJEU’s judgment stating that the failure to carry out an impact assessment cannot be regarded as a breach of the principle of proportionality17;proportionality; calls on the Commission to carry out impact assessments without exception and ensure that when the scope of the legislative proposal changes, the Commission comes forward with a new impact assessment;