Activities of Josep-Maria TERRICABRAS related to 2017/2273(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on monitoring the application of EU law 2016
Amendments (5)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes this first report on the monitoring of the application of EU law following the entry into force of the Better Regulation Agenda in 2015; recalls that the principles of better law-making encompass the requirement to demonstrate the need to legislate at EU level, in a way that is strictly proportionate to the aims of the legislative action, and to ensure that the legislation is correctly implemented at the right level; recalls that any expansion of EU law that is not built on such principles is detrimental to the proper application thereofEU law must comply with the principles of conferral, legal certainty, equality before the law and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; stresses, therefore, the importance of upholding these principles of subsidiarity and proportionalityalso in the application of EU law;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deplores the high number of negative trends revealed in the current report, notably the substantial increase in the opening of infringement cases, representing a 67.5 % increase over the past year and a five-year peak, together with a recorded increase in complaints and a decrease in rates of resolution; notes the Commission’s aim, in line with its communication entitled ‘EU law: Better results through better application’1 , to make use of the EU Pilot only; points that the three Member States against which the Commission filed the most complaints where it provides effective added value in the infringement resolution processItaly, Spain and France; welcomes the fact that the report acknowledges the role of Parliament in calling the Commission’s attention to shortcomings in the application of EU law in Member States by means of parliamentary questions and petitions; _________________ 1 C(2016)8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the crucial importance of transparency in the drafting and application of EU law by the EU institutions, meaning that EU legislation has to be clear, understandable, consistent and precise, while also taking into consideration the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which insists on the need for foreseeability and predictability in EU norms2 ; _________________ 2Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2009, Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt, C-201/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:539, paragraph 46.he proper application of EU law, including the adequate and timely transposition of EU directives by the Member States;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Points out that EU Pilot is a working tool that has no legal status and that allows a discretionary power to the Commission that does not comply with the proper standards of transparency and accountability; considers that these shortcomings can be addressed through the adoption of a regulation that should clarify the legal rights and obligations of individual complainants and the Commission;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6