Activities of Damian BOESELAGER related to 2022/2143(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the principle of primacy of EU law
Amendments (12)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, in accordance with Article 2 TEU, the EU is founded on the 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 of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, that are common to the Member States; whereas respect for such values is a prerequisite for accession to the Union; whereas respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law, and with the core principle of the primacy of EU law;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas several national constitutional and supreme 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 112 #
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; recalls that these include the principle of primacy, which is crucial for ensuring the consistent application of EU law throughout the Union and guaranteeing the equal protection for EU citizens;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls in this regard that, in accordance with consistent case-law and on the basis of Article 4(2) TEU, although thwhile 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 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points, however, to the negative consequences of any decision of a national constitutional or supreme court that challenges the principle of primacy; stresses that, if every national constitutional or supreme court could decide on the limits of the primacy of EU law, the effectiveness and uniformity of EU law would be seriously jeopardised; underlines that challenging CJEU judgments on the basis of national constitutional reservations concerning respect for EU competences or the national constitutional identity genuinely undermines the CJEU’s authority;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the case-law of any national constitutional or supreme court challenging the principle of primacy has an important influence on the doctrines of the constitutional or supreme 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 law;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes all existing informal mechanisms allowing to strengthen judicial dialogue between national constitutional and supreme courts and the CJEU, such as the Meeting of judges gathering the President of the CJEU and the Presidents of the constitutional and supreme courts, and the Judicial Network of the European Union platform created at their initiative in 2017;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its call on the Commission to closely monitor 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 response; to this end, calls on the Commission to include this monitoring exercise on primacy in its annual Rule of Law report;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Encourages constitutional and supreme courts to consistently engage in a judicial dialogue with the CJEU in order to avoid such rulings; underlines that procedures before the Court of Justice, such as references for preliminary rulings, already provide the opportunity for such dialogue; to this regard, invites national constitutional and supreme courts to proactively use references for preliminary rulings; considers nevertheless that other mechanisms could be envisaged to further enhance judicial dialogue, such as the establishment of a voluntary non-binding conciliation dialogue of judges where relevant references for preliminary rulings have been made; considers that such a mechanism would help prevent in particular ultra vires cases similar to the German Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment of 5 May 2020 or the Polish Constitutional Tribunal’s decision of 7 October 2021;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. EncourageStresses however the need to make clear to national constitutional and supreme courts that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy; requests the Commission to initiate infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU in response to judgments of national constitutional and supreme courts that challenge the principle of primacy; underlines that such procedures in this regard, further suggests to improvide 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 primacyeffectiveness of infringement procedures in order to be more dissuasive through the next revision of the Treaties;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates that, although it is not enshrined inthe principle of primacy of EU law is enshrined in a Declaration annexed to the Treaties, the principle of the primacy of EU law applies to, and its effects are binding on, all bodies of the Member States at all times;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends nevertheless that, in the event ofwhen a revision of the Treaties will occur, the principle of primacy be codified in the Treaties themselves; 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 Lisbon;