{"id":659,"date":"2016-05-16T13:36:39","date_gmt":"2016-05-16T11:36:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/firearms-united.com\/?p=659"},"modified":"2017-10-28T13:34:06","modified_gmt":"2017-10-28T11:34:06","slug":"firearms-uniteds-answer-iure-subsidarity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.firearms-united.com\/es\/firearms-uniteds-answer-iure-subsidarity\/","title":{"rendered":"FIREARMS UNITED’s Answer to JURI : Subsidiarity of EU Gunban"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"yellow-card\"The Committee\u00a0JURI votes on 24th May on \u00abSubsidarity of Firearms Directive 91\/477\/EEC\u00bb<\/h3>\n

The Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) votes on\u00a0\u00abProposal for a recommendation on subsidiarity on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91\/477\/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons<\/em>\u00bb on 24 May. See\u00a0point 24 in this link.<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Update: \u00a0Vote has been postponed.<\/p>\n

Because most\u00a0National Parliaments failed to reject the Proposal regarding subsidarity our hope lies now in JURI and the European Parliament.<\/p>\n

Only Poland and Sweden made a complaint in time.<\/p>\n

Please inform the members of JURI<\/a>, especially the ones of your own nation about this vote.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What is subsidiarity?<\/h2>\n

The principle of subsidiarity is defined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. It aims to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made to verify that action at EU level is justified in light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. (Glossary of EU<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This means that EU has to tackle cross-border movements<\/strong> of firearms but not the internal security of the Member States (MS).<\/p>\n

Subsidiarity Control by yellow and orange cards<\/h2>\n

Since 2009 National Parliaments can show Commission a yellow or orange card to block draft laws:<\/p>\n

The 2009 Lisbon treaty gave national parliaments the right to police subsidiarity through the creation of a so-called ‘yellow card<\/strong>‘ system. This allows a third<\/strong> or more of them, acting together, to vet and temporarily block draft laws<\/strong> proposed by the European Commission. (For legislation in the sensitive area of justice and home affairs, the threshold is only a quarter.)<\/p>\n

If either a majority of governments or MEPs<\/strong> agrees that the orange card<\/strong> is justified, then the legislation is defeated outright.<\/p>\n

Read more:\u00a0THE EU’S ‘YELLOW CARD’ COMES OF AGE: SUBSIDIARITY UNBOUND?<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What looks democratical is in reality only a show. National parliaments have yellow-carded new legislation only twice and never played the orange card in the past.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Because Commission skipped the four-week-consultation with stakeholders before publishing Proposal and also misused the Christmas-holliday-break only a few\u00a0National Parliaments made their complaints\u00a0in time of the eight weeks.<\/p>\n

Under Article 6 of the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, national parliaments may, within eight weeks of the date of transmission of a draft legislative act<\/strong>, send the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. (means January 2016<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Only two National Parliaments hit the topic of subsidarity in time.<\/p>\n

Sweden’s complaint<\/a><\/h3>\n

To sum up, the Riksdag takes the view that the proposal for a directive generally complies with the subsidiarity principle, but that there are a number of areas in which it does not. Chief among these are the rules on limited-duration licences and mandatory medical tests in the authorisation procedure. The Riksdag takes the view that these measures go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of the proposal. In the Riksdag\u2019s opinion, that objective can be achieved just as well if the directive gives the Member States more scope to determine for themselves the measures to be taken.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Poland’s complaint<\/a><\/h3>\n

KSZUE takes the view that the Commission has not established reasoned proportionality between the restrictiveness of the measures proposed and the threats identified by the Commission.\u00a0KSZUE considers that the Commission\u2019s suggestions are not based on a reliable analysis, in that:<\/p>\n