BETA

25 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU, Articles 288(3) and Article 291(1) TFEU the Member States have the primary responsibility for transposing, applying and implementing EU law correctly and within the time-limits set, as well as to provide sufficient remedies to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas, according to settled case law of the Court of Justice, the Member States must supply the Commission with clear and precise information on the way in which they transpose EU directives into national law1a; _________________ 1aCase C-427/07, Commission/Ireland, paragraph 107

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas, in accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission1a and the Joint Political Declaration of 27 October 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission2a, Member States may, when notifying the Commission of national transposition measures, have an obligation, in justified cases, also to provide supporting information in the form of 'explanatory documents' setting out the way in which they have transposed the directives into their national legislation3a; _________________ 1a OJ 2011/C 369/02 2a OJ 2011/C 369/03 3a In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of Member States and the Commission of 28 September 2011 on explanatory documents, Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislative body considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas EU Pilot procedures are F. intended to make for closer and more coherent cooperation between the Commission and Member States so as to remedy breaches of EU law at an early stage through bilateral dialogue in order, wherever possible, to avert the need to resort to formal infringement proceedings;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that these areas were also the subject of most of the investigations opened under the EU Pilot system in 2015, with the main Member States concerned being Italy, Portugal and Germany;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that, at the end of 2015, 1 368 infringement cases remained open, representing a slight increase over the previous year but still below the 2011 level;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that timely and correct transposition of EU law into national legislation and a clear domestic legislative framework should be a priority for the Member States, with a view to avoiding breaches of EU law while delivering to individuals and businesses the intended benefits made possible by the efficient and effective application of EU law;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses that time-limits for transposition must be enforced; urges the European institutions to set realistic time- limits for enforcement;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 TEU); reiterates that careful monitoring of Member States’ and EU institutions’ acts and omissions is of utmost importance, and expresses its concern at the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission concerning problems supposedly resolved by the Commission and points out that the Member States, when implementing EU law, must also respect in full the fundamental values and rights enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Reiterates that careful monitoring of Member States’ and EU institutions’ acts and omissions is of utmost importance, and expresses its concern at the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Acknowledges that Parliament also has a crucial role to play by exercising political oversight of the Commission’s enforcement actions, scrutinising the annual reports on monitoring the implementation of EU law and adopting relevant parliamentary resolutions; suggests that Parliament could contribute further to the timely and accurate transposition of EU legislation by sharing its expertise in the legislative decision-making process through pre- established links with national parliaments;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the decrease of around 30 % from 2014 in the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2015 (881 as against 1208 in 2014); notes, however, that the average resolution rate remains stable ~~compared to~~in 2015, being exactly the same as in 20154 (75 %);

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the fact that for the first time since 2011, the number of new complaints has decreased by around 9 % compared to 2014, with a total of 3450 new complaints; notes, in this connection, that the five policy areas with the highest number of complaints are: employment, inclusion and social affairs; internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs; justice and consumers; taxation and customs union and the environment; notes that together these account for 72 % of all complaints submitted against the Member States in 2015;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Regrets that, in 2015, Member States did not deliver in all cases on their commitment to provide explanatory documents together with the national measures transposing the directives into their legal order; takes the view that the Commission should offer the Member States more support in the process of drawing up these explanatory documents and correlation tables; encourages the Commission to continue to report to Parliament and the Council on explanatory documents in the annual reports on the application of EU law;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Is of the opinion that financial penalties for non-compliance with EU law should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account repeated failures in the same field, and that Member States’ legal rights must be respected;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses that the Memoranda of Understanding, even if Member States are obliged thereunder to take austerity measures, are not considered as EU acts, with the result that the CFREU is not applicable to them7 ; _________________ 7 See inter alia: ECJ judgment of 27 November 2012, Pringle, C-370/12, EU:C:2012:756, paragraphs 161 and 178 ff.deleted

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights that all EU institutions, even when they act as members of groups of international lenders (‘troikas’), are bound by the EU Treaties and the CFREU8 ; _________________ 8 ECJ judgment of 20 September 2016 - Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank (Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P), paragraphs 67 ff.; OJ C 171, 26.5.2015, p. 7.deleted

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that whilst the European Stability Mechanism Treaty (ESM Treaty) entrusts the Commission and the ECB with certain tasks relating to the implementation of the objectives of that treaty, the duties conferred on the Commission and the ECB under it do not entail any power to make decisions of their own and, moreover, the activities pursued by those two institutions within the ESM Treaty commit the ESM alone9 ; _________________ 9deleted Ibid, par. 51.

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Reiterates that the tasks allocated to the Commission or other EU institutions by the ESM Treaty (or other relevant treaties) oblige them, as provided in Article 13(3) and (4) thereof, to ensure that the Memoranda of Understanding concluded under the aforementioned treaties are consistent with EU law; stresses that as a result, EU institutions should refrain from signing a memorandum of understanding whose consistency with EU law they doubt10 ; _________________ 10ibid., paragraphs 58 ff.; see, to that effect, judgment of 27 November 2012, Pringle, C-370/12, EU:C:2012:756, paragraph 164.deleted

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Regrets that the annual reviews by the Commission, the ECB and the Council of economic adjustment programmes for members of the euro area have imposed on EU Member States obligations which in some cases run counter to the objectives and values of the Union as expressed in the EU Treaties and the CFREU11 ; _________________ 11See inter alia: Ghailani, D. (2016), ‘Violations of fundamental rights: collateraldamage of the Eurozone crisis?’, in Vanhercke, B., Natali, D. and Bouget, D. (eds.), ‘Social Policy in the European Union: State of Play 2016’, Brussels, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and European Social Observatory (OSE) - http://www.ose.be/files/publication/OSEP aperSeries/Ghailani_2016_OseResearchP aper32EN.pdf; and ‘The impact of the crisis on fundamental rights across Member States of the EU - Comparative analysis’, study for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, 2015 - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2015/510021/IPOL_STU%28 2015%29510021_EN.pdfdeleted

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Expresses its concern that the austerity measures which EU institutions imposed on over-indebted EU Member States, in particular the drastic cuts in public spending, have had the effect of reducing significantly the capacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assume their responsibility to implement EU law correctly;deleted

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Regrets the poor stat~~Stresses the importance of domestic transposition and practical implementation of EU-level asylum standards (for example regarding the implementation by Member States of the reception conditions directive (Directive 2013/33/EU12 ))13 ~~; condemns the deficient implementation~~and the use of the relocation mechanism proposed by the Commission to deal with the refugee crisis by Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission to pay particular attention to the implementation of measures adopted in the area of asylum and migration so as to ensure that they comply with the principles enshrined in the CFREU, and to launch the necessary infringement proceedings ~~when~~if relevant; _________________ 12 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96. 13 See inter alia: S. Carrera/S. Blockmans/D. Gross/E. Guild, ‘The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis -Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities’, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), essay No 20, 16 December 2015 - https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/EU%20R esponse%20to%20the%202015%20Refuge e%20Crisis_0.pdf

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Regrets the fact that significant shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation persist in some Member States; notes that this is particularly the case in waste management, wastewater treatment infrastructure and compliance with air quality limit values; considers, in this context, that the Commission should seek to identify the causes of this situation in the Member States;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Encourages the EU institutions to continue to assume their duty to respect primary EU law when they create rules of secondary EU law, decide policies or sign agreements or treaties with institutions outside the EU, and also to assume their duty to assist EU Member States by all means available in their efforts to transpose EU legislation in all areas and to respect the values and principles of the Union~~, especially in times of austerity and budgetary constraints~~;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Calls on the Commission to make compliance with EU law a real political priority, to be pursued in close collaboration with Parliament, which has a duty to keep the Commission politically accountable and, as co-legislator, to make sure that it is itself fully informed, with a view to constantly improving its legislative work;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI