36 Amendments of Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA related to 2022/2143(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
— having regard to the constitutions of the Member States,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2
Citation 2
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
— having regard to the fact that the principle of primacy of EU law is not regulated in the Treaties of the Union,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 b (new)
Citation 2 b (new)
— having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Costa v E.N.E.L. case of 15 July 1964,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 c (new)
Citation 2 c (new)
— having regard to the judgments of the constitutional courts of a number of Member States questioning the application of this principle over national constitutions,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, as a legal community and within the limits of its competencies, the EU is dependent on the effective and uniform application of its law; whereas such effectiveness and uniformity can only be ensured if EU law takes precedence over national law; whereas the principle of primacy therefore constitutes a cornerstone of the EU’s legal order, which is essential for the EU’s functioning;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the principle of primacy of EU law is not entrenched in the Treaties and has therefore not been accepted explicitly by the Member States;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in the principle of primacy is not enshrined in the Treaties, but has developed over decades through the case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); whereas, ever since its landmark Costa v E.N.E.L. judgment of 15 July 1964 in Case C- 6/646, the CJEU has reaffirmed that EU law takes precedence over thee primacy of EU law ofn the Member States, regardless of the rank of the national legislation or the time ofgrounds that EU law must be applied in a uniform manner and its adoption; whereas the principle of primacy therefore applies to any provision of domestic law, including provisions of a constitutional nature, in accordancdirectly effective in all of the Member States, but left national constitutions outside with the well-established case-law of the CJEUs scope of application; _________________ 6 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 1964, Costa v E.N.E.L., C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas, despite the attempts of the Court of Justice of the European Union to develop this principle, the primacy of EU law over national constitutional law is an abuse of the sovereignty of the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, in Declaration No 17 concerning primacy, annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Conference recalls that, in accordance with the well-settled case-law of the CJEU, the Treaties the Member States have refused to accept the inclusion of this principle of primacy of EU law both in the draft European Constitution and in the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case-lawTreaty of Lisbon, and whereas, instead, only Declaration No 17 concerning primacy, annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, makes reference to it;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the case-law establishing the principle of primacy has not been implicitly accepted by all of the Member States, which have never used a Treaty revision to lay down exceptions to the precedence of EU lawand whereas the constitutional courts of several Member States have rejected the principle of primacy over national constitutions to respect their national identity and because they have not ceded their sovereign powers in this area;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas there are Member States, such as Spain, where, since time immemorial, case-law does not constitute a source of law (Article 1.6 Civil Code), meaning that is not easily sustainable that the doctrine emanating from a Court of Justice whose origin lies in a Treaty can modify laws adopted by a national parliament or even the Constitution;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 83 #
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, but rather requires that, in the event of conflicting provisions of EU and national law ranking beneath the Constitution, national courts must disapply those national provisions, and that national courts interpret their national law in conformity with EU law;
Amendment 84 #
Ga. It is clear that 'not apply' means modify, repeal or render inapplicable in a given case, so to claim that there is no hierarchy but that there is primacy amounts to nothing more than unacceptable sophistry, at odds with the most basic principles of logic;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the CJEU has jurisdiction to give rulings on all questions concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the validity and interpretation of EU secondary law in the context of the preliminary reference procedure; whereas the CJEU therefore has exclusive competence to provide the definitive interpretation of EU law;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
Amendment 104 #
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 primacyundertaken to respect the provisions of the Treaties at all times; recalls that the principle of primacy of EU law over the national laws of the Member States ranking below the Constitution in not enshrined in the Treaties and emanates solely from the case-law of the CJEU, which has been contested by academics, the scientific community and a number of national courts and tribunals, including at the constitutional level;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Warns that the Constitutions of the Member States are, in any case and unless expressly provided for in the national constitution itself, hierarchically superior to EU law, including the Treaties, since it is the constitutions that in every instance authorise, enable, permit or empower each Member State to join the European Union, in the manner laid down in national law;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that there are Member States where, in accordance with customary law, case-law is not a source of law, and therefore the alleged primacy of EU law as asserted in the doctrine of the CJEU cannot be seriously claimed, and that there are also countries where laws expressly state that Community rules may not derogate in whole or in part from the Constitution;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that it is up to the CJEU, given its exclusive competence to provide the definitive interpretation of EU law, to define the scope of the principle of primacy; notes that such a definition cannot, therefore, be left to national courts on the basis of their interpretation of EU law or provisions of national lawthe Union cannot unilaterally impose the application of the principle of primacy of EU law over national constitutions, and that respect for the sovereignty of the Member States is a fundamental pillar of the European project;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that the development of the case-law of the CJEU since the Costa v. E.N.E.L. judgment of 15 July 1964 has meant that the constitutional courts of several Member States have questioned the abusive application of this principle, on the grounds that the Union is exceeding the powers assigned to it by the Member States, and that it is damaging their national constitutional identity;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. This constructive judicial dialogue may be resorted to in cases where there is a conflict between a provision of EU law and a national constitution, however, in the event of failure to reach an agreement, national constitutions must take precedence;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its cCalls on the Commission to closely monitorrespect 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 responseconflicts between EU legislation and national constitutions;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Union to respect national constitutional identities and to confine itself to acting within the scope of the competences assigned to it by the Member States, exercising its functions with full respect for national sovereignty;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 241 #