Activities of Gilles LEBRETON related to 2022/2143(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the principle of primacy of EU law
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (30)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, in accordance with Article 2 TEU, the EU is founded on values, including the rule of law, that are common to the Member States; whereas respect for such values is a prerequisite for accession to the Union shared by the Member States;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas, in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union and 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 and whereas competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties shall remain in the hands of the Member States;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, as a legal community, the EU is dependent on the effective and uniformhomogeneous application of its law; whereas such effectiveness and uniformhomogeneity can only be ensured if EU law takes precedence over national law; whereas the principle of primacy therefore constitutes a cornerstoneithin the areas of competence conferred ofn the EU’s legal order, which is essential for the EU’s functioningUnion by the Treaties;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the principle of primacy is not enshrined in the Treaties, but has developed over decades through and therefore has no legal value under primary law, but has developed as a result of the interpretation thereof in the case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); whereas, ever since its landmark Costa v E.N.E.L. judgment of 15 July 1964 in Case C-6/646, the CJEU has reaffirmed that EU law takes precedence over the law of the Member States, regardless of the rank of the national legislation or the time of its adoption; whereas the principle of primacy therefore, under this interpretation, primacy applies to any provision of domestic law, including provisions of a constitutional nature, in accordance with the well- established case- law of the CJEU; _________________ 6 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 1964, Costa v E.N.E.L., C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, in Declaration No 17 concerning primacy, annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Conference recalls that, in accordance with the well-settled case-law of the CJEU, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case-lawFinal Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, has no binding legal value;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the case-law establishing the principle of primacy has never been imexplicitly acceptenshrined by the Member States, which have never used a Treaty revision to lay down exceptions to in primary law in a revision of the pTrecedence of EU lawaties;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas several national constitutional courts have nevertheless defended the existence of certain limits to the principle of primacy; whereas these reservations mostly concern respect for EU competences and the national constitutional identitya directive may not be transposed or domestic law may not be adapted to a regulation on a manner contrary to a rule or principle inherent to the constitutional identity of a Member State, unless the national constituent assembly has expressly consented thereto;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the principle of primacy does notinevitably implyies a hierarchy between the legal orders of the EU and the Member States, but rather since it requires that, in the event of conflicting provisions of EU and national law, national courts must disapply those national provisions, and that national courts interpret their national law in conformity with EU law;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the CJEU has jurisdiction to give rulings on all questions concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the validity and interpretation of EU secondary law in the context of the preliminary reference procedure; whereas the CJEU therefore has exclusive competence to provide the definitive interpretation of EU law; , but only in the areas of competence conferred on the Union by the Treaties;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, in accordance with Article 258 TFEU, the Commission has the possibility of opening an infringement procedure before the CJEU against a Member State that has failed to fulfil the obligations resulting from the principle of primacybinding upon it under the Treaties, but primacy does not constitute such an obligation since it is not enshrined in primary law;
Amendment 106 #
1. Reiterates that, by their accession to the EU, the Member States have adhered to a certain number of core values and principles, which they share and have undertaken to respect at all times; recalls that these include the principle of primacy;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that each Member State has its own national constitutional traditions which are in line with these values and which must always be treated with respect, objectivity and in accordance with the principle of equality;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls in this regard that, in accordance with consistent case-law andthat, on the basis of Article 4(2) TEU, although the Member States have a certain degree of discretion in implementing the principles of EU law, their obligations as to the result to be achieved do not vary from one Member State to another and the executive force of EU law may not vary from one Member State to another; emphasises that the same logic applies within the Member States, as compliance with EU law and its principles may not vary over time as a result of national legal, political or social changes;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that if the primacy of EU law means that its executive force may not vary from one Member State to another and that compliance with its letter and spirit cannot vary over time in the wake of national legal, political or social changes, this amounts to a fundamental change in the very institutional nature of European integration; points out that that such a substantial modification would require an explicit revision to this effect both of the Treaties and of the national ratification processes;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that if a principle of case- law were to be asserted in a manner overruling choices expressed by a majority, for example in elections held in the Member States, this would pose a major democratic problem, especially as this principle applies even to constitutions, and it is conceivable that it could even run contrary to a referendum decision;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that while it is up to the CJEU, given its exclusive competence to provide the definitive interpretation of EU law, to define the scope of the principle of primacy; notes that such a definition cannot, therefore, be left to national courts on the basis of their interpretation of EU law or provisions of national to define the scope of the principle of primacy, that is not the case for the principle of primacy, which it has defined itself without it being mentioned in primary law;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the vast majority of the courts of the Member States comply with the principle of the primacy of EU law; notes that, since the Costa v E.N.E.L. judgment of 15 July 1964, there has only been a very small number of cases in which a national court has refused to draw the consequences of a preliminary ruling, compared to the large overall number of preliminary references; highlights that even in one of the most prominent such cases, namely the judgment of 5 May 2020 concern where they take the view that the law has been laid down in accordance with the EU's Treaty-recognised competences and does not infringe the European Central Bank’s public sector purchase programme, the German Federal Constitutional Court nevertheless stressed its respect for the principle of primacir constitutional identity;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the case-law of any national constitutional court challengingon the principle of primacy has an important influence on the doctrines ofmay be a point of consideration for the constitutional courts of the other Member States with regard to the scope of the primacy of EU law; points, therefore, to the risk that this could pose to the effectiveness and uniformity of EU lawsignificance of a dialogue between national constitutional judges, particularly with regard to the EU's adherence to the competences conferred upon it in the Treaties;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is of the opinion that the preliminary reference procedure constitutes a way to engage in a constructive judicial dialogue; emphasises that, since it ensures the uniform interpretation of EU law, it is a prerequisite for the consistency and autonomy of the EU’s legal order; recalls that, in certain cases, the CJEU has shown a willingness to change its reasoning in a second preliminary ruling requested by the same national constitutional court that had initiated the first preliminary reference, which demonstrates that this procedure provides for an effective dialogue between courtsnotes that a dialogue of that kind is incompatible with a general and strict principle of primacy that involves a uniform interpretation and for which there is, therefore, no room for discussion;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its cCalls on the Commission to closely monitorstudy the rulings of national courts with regard to the primacy of EU law over national legislation and to provide full information to Parliament on any possible conflict and any action taken in resptake them into consideration in its own interpretation of EU law; calls on the Commission to send the Council and Parliament a detailed summary of those decisionse;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. EncourageReminds the Commission to initiate infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU in response to judgments of national constitutional courts that challenge the principle of primacy; underlines that such procedures provide the opportunity for supreme courts to engage in a judicial dialogue; stresses also the need to make clear to other national chat while Article 258 TFEU enables it to initiate infringement procedures against a Member State that may have failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, that article does not apply in the case of a Member State whose Constitutional cCourts that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy may have called into question the principle of primacy in case-law, which is not enshrined in the Treaties;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Acknowledges that infringement procedures against judicial decisions are oftenlegitimately criticised for potentially jeopardising the independence of the judiciary; points out, however, that judicial independence is aimed at shielding courts from exposure to political pressure, but not from accountability for not complying with the applicable law, including constitutional courts;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates that, althoughs it is not enshrined in the Treaties, the principle of the primacy of EU law applies to, and its effects are binding on, all bodies of themay not apply in any binding manner to any Member States at all tim bodies;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends nevertheless that, in the event of a revision of the Treaties, the principle of primacy be codified; recalls that the precedence of EU law was explicitly laid down in the Constitutional Treaty; regrets the factalls that the precedence of EU law was explicitly laid down in the Constitutional Treaty but that the Constitutional Treaty was democratically rejected in two national referendums; stresses that this primacy clause was then deliberately not included in the Treaty of Lisbon, stripping it of all binding legal force;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls, in an intergovernmental EU founded on subject-matter jurisdiction, for the primacy of national constitutional orders to be reasserted; to that end and to provide more legal clarity, as part of any future Treaty reform, Declaration 17 to the TFEU should be repealed and it should be established in primary law that the primacy of EU law is limited to only legislative competence areas explicitly conferred upon the EU in the Treaties, and it should remain subject, on the one hand, to the 'constitutional identity' of the Member States and, on the other hand, to effective control of compliance with that condition, both judicial, by the national constitutional courts, and political and democratic, by the Member States' parliaments;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Member States' constitutional courts, and the Commission.