Activities of Iñaki IRAZABALBEITIA FERNÁNDEZ related to 2013/2119(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on 29th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of European Union Law (2011)
Amendments (13)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the European Commission to acknowledge the role of petitions in monitoring the effective application of European Union law and points out that petitions are among the first indicators of problems related to bad implementation of EU legislation;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that, in light of the current economic situation, the EU legislation, needs to be even more effective and efficient, bringing benefits at minimum costs and paying full attention to, when it comes to ensuring citizens’ rights and social cohesion, while respecting the principles of subsidiary and proportionality, also at the regional level;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that due to the poor management of acorruption in the public sector, the burden on the citizens is constantly rising; therefore urges the Commission and Member States to put more efforts in this sphere in order to improve the management of this sector and reduce costregain trust among the citizens in the national and European institutions;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that citizens, businesses and other stakeholders expect a simple and predictablefair regulatory framework; indicates that excessive regulation disrupts competitiveness andausterity measures have severe social impact, shrink the productive activity and internal demand, and hence retards the growth of economy; points, therefore, to the need of a reduction in bureaucracy and administrative burdens and calls on the Commission to identify the pieces of legislation where regulatory costs can be reducedstop this univoque approach;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers thatInvites Member States while transposing EU law to the national system should either quantitatively precisely transpose provisions of the directive or explain why it considers that it is necessary to expand transferable provisions more than it is required by the determined minimum requirements of EU law;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that the higher standards of genuine public participation are crucial in ensuring a proper application of EU law, both in letter and spirit; underlines the timely access to full relevant information and the existence of proper legal redress mechanisms as basic pillars of citizens’ participation;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Is concerned with assuring the maximum guarantees in the correct implementation of the EU law on the environmental field; considers that the precautionary approach should apply when authorising projects that have an impact that might be in breach of EU environmental legislation, and that injunction mechanisms can be an effective tool for this;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that one of the main problems faced by Member States are formal legal requirements in the stages of drafting, legislation, planning or adoption of legislative acts; notes that process of EU law transposition may protract even more if during the term of these stages the composition of the government changes; besides, problems also arise from the lack of coordination or cooperation between departments of administrative institutions, responsible for transposition of directives’ provisions; deplores that the delays in the effective transposition of EU legislation into national legislation become often an important source of bad application of community law;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Requests a detailed assessment of the actual benefits and costeffectiveness of the complaint mechanisms (EU Pilot, Solvit, etc.); reminds that the Commission is the ultimate responsible body for the compliance with EU legislation in Member States, both in terms of legal transposition and in enforcement;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Urges the Commission to help competitiveent national institutions to ensure appropriate transposition and application of EU rules and to determine the main risk factors tofor a timely and appropriate implementation of new (or partly amended) pieces of legislation, as well as to recommend, what risk reduction factors have to be foreseen in the implementation plans; also, to pay more attention to the development of bilateral communication of bilateralbetween national administrations and the Commission as well as to other forms of support to Member States and regional governments;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to provide public access to information on infringement cases through a user-friendly database, providing comprehensive information on the infringements related to specific EU legislative acts or to a Member State, and particularly to update punctually the Petitions committee on the state of play of infringement procedures related to petitions;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that the infringement procedure capacity by the Commission remains an important driver for a proper implementation of EU law in Member States. Considers that the Commission should propose a Regulation governing the rules of the pre-infringement and the infringement procedures, based on clear, comprehensive criteria and procedures. The development of these rules should go through a consultation process prior to the legislative decision making procedure;