22 Amendments of Igor ŠOLTES related to 2017/2273(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the right to petition the European Parliament is a cornerstone of European citizenship, as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ranking second in importance to citizens according to recent surveys; underlines the importance of petitions as a means for citizens to express their concerns about instances of misapplication or violation of EU law and on potential lacunae, while at the same time highlighting these deficiencies to the Commission in recognition of its role as guardian of the Treaties; shares the view of the Commission that the work done to ensure the effective enforcement of existing EU law needs to be recognised as being of equivalent importance to the work devoted to developing new legislation.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Draws attention to the Study commissioned by the Committee on Petitions to the Policy Department C on "Monitoring the implementation of EU law: tools and challenges"1a, and welcomes the concrete recommendations for action to this Parliament; _________________ 1a http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2017/596799/IPOL_STU(201 7)596799_EN.pdf
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that proper implementation of EU law is essential to achieving the EU policy goals defined in the Treaties and secondary legislation, andsuch as the rule of law as enshrined in article 2 TEU; emphasizes that lack of enforcement not only undermines the efficiency of the internal market and has costly impacts such as irreversible damages to environment, but also affects the credibility and image of the Union; underlines, in this regard, that implementation and enforcement are founded on the distribution of powers conferred by the Treaties, and that the Member States and the Commission therefore have a shared responsibility to implement and enforce European law, with the Commission as the ultimate guardian of the treaties; points out, at the same time, that all EU institutions share the responsibility of ensuring implementation and enforcement of EU law, as provided for in the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Acknowledges that implementation reports by the Parliament, as well as other own-initiative reports and resolutions linked to them, often take too long, thereby reducing their actual impact; commits to review the procedures for their adoption, also so that this tool points more effectively at key actions to solve existing problems; stresses that petitions themselves are an essential source of information concerning potential implementation shortcomings, and a valuable opportunity for this institution to be directly involved in the assessment on compliance. Fact-finding visits1a periodically organized by the committee on Petitions are not only a unique effective means of getting closer to citizens and demonstrating that their concerns are taken seriously, but also an essential tool for the Parliament to gather evidence and check by itself whether for instance EU environmental law has been fully respected in a concrete situation; _________________ 1aRule 216a of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the increased transparency of, and the provision of morprovision of more explanations concerning the statistical information and methodology in, the Commission report for 2016, as compared to previous reports; regrets the fact, however, that it still provides no precise information on the number of petitions that have led to the initiation of EU Pilot or infringement procedures; notes with regret that Parliament is not involved in these procedures; reiterates its call on the Commission to share with Parliament information on all EU Pilots opened and infringement procedures initiated in order to improve transparency, reduce the time frame for dispute settlement through the Committee on Petitions, build citizens’ trust in the EU project and, ultimately, enhance the legitimacy of the EU Pilot procedure; acknowledges the Court of Justice’s ruling onbelieves that greater transparency of the infringement procedure can be regulated while respecting the CJEU case-law, such as the joined cases C-39/05 P and C- 52/05 P of May 2017, according to which documents within the EU Pilot procedure should not be disclosed publicly if there is a risk that such disclosure would affect the nature of the infringement procedure, alter its progress or undermine the objectives of that procedure;1a, requiring motivated arguments to justify refusal for access to documents under Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001/EC, including those of infringement procedures; _________________ 1a Sweden and Turco v Council [2008] ECR I-4723
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the number of complaints received by the Commission reached an historical maximum in 2016, going beyond the 2014 level, after the remarkable decrease in 2015; regrets the sharp increase of over fifty percent in the infringement cases due to late transposition by Member States; underlines that environment remains to be within the main policy areas when it comes to open infringement cases, with water quality, waste management, air quality and biodiversity as the main issues; is concerned however that the absolute amount of new infringement procedures opened in 2016 on environmental matters has dropped drastically, nearly halving its relative weight and losing the top position in the open cases account; notes instead the clear shift in priority by the Commission towards matters concerning internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses the importance of keeping properly informed complainants at all stages on a proactive basis and further involving them, and petitioners in cases deriving from petitions, in the EU Pilot processes, in order to improve the decision-making and also to facilitate the dialogue between those and the national authorities concerned; suggests to enhance the administrative procedures and the related resources to that effect; considers that given the Parliament is co- responsible in ensuring implementation and enforcement of EU law according to the Inter-Institutional Agreement and its relevant scrutiny power over the Commission conferred by article 14 TEU, it should be automatically notified about every EU Pilot opened and infringement initiated, as well as granted adequate access to documents related to both procedures, particularly when those emerge from petitions, while respecting the necessary confidentiality provisions for the successful handling of the cases;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Is concerned that the current regulatory framework for handling complaints and infringement procedures is not legally binding; considers that this lack of legally binding rules governing the proceedings, including roles and timeframes, leads to too long periods for taking decisions on the different steps, which together with the general lack of information to complainants or to the public on the status of the cases and the arguments behind decisions, has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the process; considers that an increased and properly recognised complainants’ involvement in the procedure, framed under clear and legally binding rules providing access to information on the arguments under discussion by the Commission and the Member States, as well as the motivation of decisions, would improve its overall effectiveness and transparency; reiterates its recurrent call to enact a Regulation on an open, efficient and independent European Union administration, which would in turn contribute to ensuring consistency and fairness in the handling of complaints and petitions;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the presentation in the report of the revised Commission strategy for monitoring the application of EU law, as this policy is outlined in the 2016 Communication ‘Better results through better application’; notesis concerned with the intention of the Commission to systematically direct petitioners to seek redress at national level when complaints do not concern issues of wider principle, do not raise systemic issues and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms at EU or national level; notconsiders that this approach may lead to ineffective investigation of complaints through petitions in cases where action at EU level could prove more appropriate, particularly concerning environmental law; welcomes the Commission’s intent to launch an EU Pilot procedure only where it could prove to be useful in a case, and to proceed with infringement procedures without relying on EU Pilots in order to expedite investigations of breaches of EU law; is concerned, however, that this approach may lead to ineffective investigation of complaints through petitions in cases where action at EU level could prove more appropriate; deplores the high number of infringement procedures in 2016; notes the distinctively decreasing trend in the number of EU Pilots launched in the same year;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Urges the Commission to better clarify the concrete implications of its enforcement policy announced in the Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, and to provide further details regarding its priority-setting, the specific policy priorities where it will focus its enforcement action, and where it expects to make a real difference by pursuing cases revealing systemic weakness in a Member State’s legal system; requests a clarification on how the concept of ‘issues of wider principle’ is concretely interpreted and implemented; maintains doubts on whether the Commission's implicit objective to restrict its action to complaints related to strategic cases is compatible with the role and duties attributed to it by Article 17(1)TEU; calls for its reconsideration so as to ensure that it does by no means jeopardize the treatment of certain cases whose effective resolution might be better achieved at EU level due to the national circumstances or interests involved;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Is concerned about the potential implications of the overall strategic line of the Commission on the handling of petitions; notes the increase in replies received where the Commission inhibits itself from further action leaving as a sole option for the petitioners the recourse to national courts; warns about the risk to create disappointment and frustration among petitioners if they have the perception no action at all is pursued at EU level; considers that in nowadays' state of affairs such an approach can dangerously undermine the public opinion's perception of the added value of the EU by citizens, particularly since petitioners are committed citizens a priori supportive of the European project and thus with high expectations towards the Union's ability to give an appropriate answer to their concerns; disagrees with the ongoing structural approach concerning the handling of petitions, particularly in the field of environment, and calls upon the Commission to reconsider it, also in light of its ultimate obligations and competences under Article 17 TEU; considers that simply leaving concrete cases and specific matters to be resolved by national courts consists a failure in complying with its duties of guardian of the treaties;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Considers that the assessment of cases of possible breach of EU legislation, and in particular those emerging from petitions, should not only be done on a passive manner and merely on procedural grounds, but proactively and taking into account the substantial elements and the ultimate spirit of the related EU legislation applicable; recommends that fast-track procedures with shorter periods are established for these cases which are deemed of urgency and where the Commission might need to act soon; suggests the Commission, the Court of Justice and national courts that in full observance of the precautionary principle enshrined in article 191 TFEU more effectively preventive mechanisms should be proactively established, for instance injunction measures, particularly when it comes to cases such as infrastructure projects where the possibility of a breach of EU environmental law is envisaged;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Calls for the adoption of a EU legislative act enabling genuine EU inspections on environmental legislation, either through specific staff in DG ENV or through the European Environment Agency (EEA); suggests an update of the Regulation 1210/90 on the establishment of the EEA, in order to further deploy its article 20 to explicitly entrust it to support the Commission in carrying out this inspection role;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Supports the Commission's aim to strengthen enforcement of EU law based on structured and systematic transposition and conformity checks of national legislation so that it is in full compliance with the EU Treaties and secondary legislation; calls on the Commission to allocate sufficient resources to carry out the correlation tables for all necessary EU legal instruments; requests that the correlation tables and conformity checking studies for the transposition of provisions of EU directives are made publically available by the Commission, in order to improve the quality of transpositions and allow the scrutiny of the concerned stakeholders; invites the Commission to systematically report on the explanatory documents in the annual reports on the application of EU law;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 g (new)
Paragraph 4 g (new)
4g. Invites the Commission to further involve regional and local authorities in the implementation efforts, and to ensure adequate coordination with the national authorities by enhancing the support provided by the Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment of the Commission and the Committee of Regions;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 h (new)
Paragraph 4 h (new)
4h. Notes the recently adopted communications by the Commission encompassing measures to facilitate access to justice1a and support environmental compliance assurance in Member States2a, as foreseen in the Commission Work Programme 2017: "Delivering a Europe that protects, empowers and defends"; expects that these tools will effectively contribute to improve the effective application of EU environmental legislation; _________________ 1aC(2017) 2616 final - COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION of 28.4.2017: Commission Notice on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 2aCOM(2018) 10 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THEEUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU actions to improve environmental compliance and governance
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that, according to Standard Eurobarometer 86, a majority of EU citizens favours a common EU policy in areas such as defence, migration and terrorism; rRecalls that, in order for suchEU policies to be successful, it is paramount that they are implemented in a timely and uniform manner in all Member States; notes with concern that certain Member States are disregarding their obligations with regard to asylum and migration, in particular where relocation of asylum seekers and immigrants is concerned;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that austerity policies and related cuts made by Member States to their government sectors and judicial systems have resulted in a deterioration in the level of protection of citizens’ rights, while at the same time exacerbating the difficulties relating to the proper transposition of EU law;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomDeplores the proactive work of the Commission on the application of union law under the Better Regulation Package, and the support offered to Member States through implementation plans for new direcoverall high number of infringement procedures in 2016 and calls upon the Member States to ensure compliance with EU legislation at the earliest opportunity; points out that Member States should live up to their responsibility to enforce the rules they have jointly adopted; endorses in this regard the Commission's reaffirmed approach to continue advocating for lump sums together with daily penaltives; points out, however, that Member States should live up to their res in cases brought to the Court of Justice due to the failure of a Member State to properly transpose or enforce a EU directive, in accordance with article 260 TFEU; invites the Commission to explore the ponssibility to enforce the rules they have jointly adopted. ies to re-invest the funds collected from penalties for lack of compliance into concrete measures aimed at addressing the situation, particularly when it concerns environmental matters such as water and waste management;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Commits to foster closer cooperation and strengthen the links with the national parliaments in the law- making process, particularly assisting in the adoption of legislation correctly transposing the EU law; intends to follow more closely the development of the package meetings between the Commission and Member States to solve compliance problems subject to infringement procedures; requests to be invited or at least be notified timely about their occurrence, as well as on the meetings between the Commission and the relevant complainants or NGOs; offers to be involved and contribute to the development of Commission Guidelines on the implementation of EU law and to assist facilitating their implementation;