17 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2022/2143(INI)
Amendment 19 #
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 and an obligation for the EU Member States;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas, according to the case-law of the CJEU, the rationale for the principle of primacy centres in essence on the need for the effective and uniform application of EU law as a form of protection for all persons throughout the EU, underpinning citizens’ equality under the law;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the concept of primacy does not relate to the fact there is a hierarchy between EU and national law; whereas, however, in the event of a conflict, Member States have the obligation not to apply national law that is contrary to EU law;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
Bc. whereas, according to the case-law of the CJEU, if the conditions for direct applicability are met, national authorities are obliged to apply the provision of EU law, while if they are not then national authorities are obliged to interpret national law in conformity with EU law;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
Bd. whereas the implementation of EU policies would become unachievable if Member States were not to respect the principle of primacy of EU law;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the case-law establishing the principle of primacy has been implicitly accepted by the Member States, whichith the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and Declaration No 17 annexed thereto; whereas Member States have never used a Treaty revision to lay down exceptions to the precedence of EU law or limitations on the applicability of that principle;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, according to the European Commission’s 2022 Rule of Law Report, 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 identity;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the principle of primacy does not imply a hierarchy between the legal orders of the EU and the Member States nor entail the annulment or automatic invalidation of national provisions, but rather requires that, in the event of conflicting provisions of EU and national law, national courts must disapply those national provisions, and that national courts for as long as the EU provisions which take precedence over them remain in force, and interpret their national law in conformity with EU law;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas there is still no commonly accepted view that the principle of primacy of EU law should be codified, and doubts have been raised as to the effectiveness of such codification;
Amendment 100 #
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 theits obligations under the Treaties, and whereas, in the light of the case-law of the CJEU and Declaration No 17 on primacy annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, that procedure could also be applied in the event of a breach of obligations resulting from the principle of primacy of EU law;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
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 during their membership of the EU; recalls that these include, inter alia, the principle of primacy of EU law;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls in this regard that, in accordance with the consistent case-law of the CJEU, and 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, since this would endanger the objectives of the EU Treaties and would be tantamount to discriminating between the citizens of the Member States; 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, economic, political or social changes;
Amendment 154 #
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 concerning the European Central Bank’s public sector purchase programme, the German Federal Constitutional Court nevertheless stressed its respect for the principle of primacy of EU law;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points, however, to the negative consequences of any decision of a national constitutional court that challenges, or fails to apply, the principle of primacy of EU law; stresses that, if every national constitutional court could decide on the limits of the primacy of EU law, or on exceptions to the applicability of that principle, the effectiveness and uniformity of EU law would be seriously jeopardised, the implementation of EU policies would become unachievable and the uniform and non-discriminatory protection of persons by EU laws, throughout all EU Member States, would be weakened; underlines that challenging CJEU judgments on the basis of national constitutional reservations concerning respect for EU competences or the national constitutional identity could genuinely undermines the CJEU’s authority;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its call onrecommendation to the Commission to closely monitor the rulings of national courts with regard to application of the principle of the primacy of EU law over national legislation and to provide full information to Parliament on any possible conflict and anyconflict relating to non-observance of the principle of the primacy of EU law and on the action taken in response to this;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Encourages the Commission to initiate infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU in response to judgments of national constitutional courts that prove to have challenged the principle of primacy of EU law; 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 constitutional courts that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends neverthelessPoints out 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 fact that this primacy clause was not included in the Treaty of Lisbondebate on whether to codify the principle of primacy of EU law, doubts have been raised as to the effectiveness of such codification, as it is felt that this would not resolve one of the key issues underlying the challenge to the principle of primacy, with reference to national and/or European competences;