Activities of René REPASI related to 2022/2143(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the principle of primacy of EU law
Amendments (26)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
– having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU),
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, as a legal community of law (‘Rechtsgemeinschaft’), 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 diverging 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 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the principle of primacy is not explicitly 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 the law of the Member States, regardless of the rank of the national legislation or the time of its adoption; whereas the principle of primacy therefore applies to any provision of domestic law, including provisions of a constitutional nature, in accordance with the well- established case-law of the CJEU; _________________ 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 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the principle of primacy only applies within the scope of EU law; whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union has the exclusive competence to determine the scope of EU law under Article 344 TFEU;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the EU legal order is rooted in public international law Treaties, the existence of which depends on national acts of ratification; whereas the relationship between the EU legal order and national legal orders is based on the principle of conferral as enshrined in Article 4(1) TEU; whereas national courts have the exclusive competence to determine the scope of national law including ratification acts;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Recital E c (new)
Ec. whereas the claim of the Court of Justice of the European Union to exclusively determine the scope of EU law and the claims of national constitutional courts to exclusively determine the scope of national law are both legitimate;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas several national constitutional courts have nevertheless defended the existence of certain limiconcluded that the scope of the national acts ratifying the EU Treaties does not cover unjustified violations of human rights, tohe weakening of the principle of primdemocracy;, whereas these reservations mostly concern respect for EU competences andich includes the adoption of legally binding provisions by the EU outside of the scope of competences conferred upon the EU, and the conferral of core provisions of the national constitution (‘constitutional identity’);
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas such interpretations of the scope of national law by national constitutional courts can be perceived at the level of EU law as reservations of the principle of primacy;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)
Recital F c (new)
Fc. whereas the EU legal order and a Member State’s national order are distinct and autonomous legal orders that co-exist next to each other at equal footing and that can both legitimately claim to be applicable within the territory of a Member State; whereas a conflict rule is needed once the scope of provisions of the EU legal order and of the national legal order overlap but lead to diverging legal consequences; whereas the principle of primacy is such a conflict rule;
Amendment 87 #
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 acts of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies such as 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 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas national courts of last instance have jurisdiction to give final rulings on the interpretation of national law that does not imply questions concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the validity and interpretation of acts of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies such as EU secondary law; whereas in rare cases a diverging interpretation of EU law has led to conflicts of competence between national courts of last instance and the CJEU;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU obliges national courts of last instance to initiate a preliminary reference procedure if such a question is raised; whereas national courts of last instance remain obliged to refer additional preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union in case they disagree with answers previously given by the Court in the same procedure; whereas, pursuant to Article 344 TFEU, the Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union can, under the preliminary reference procedure, enter into a constructive dialogue on conflicts between the national legal order and the EU legal order;
Amendment 101 #
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 the obligations resulting from the principle of primacy; whereas pursuant to Rule 149(4) of its Rules of Procedure the European Parliament can submit observations or intervene in support of the European Commission in such infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that, by their accession to the EU, the Member States have adhered to the entire body of EU law, including the acquis communautaire and the Court’s case law, 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;
Amendment 133 #
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(23) 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; 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 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that the constitutional identity of the Member States is recognised under Article 4(2) TEU;
Amendment 144 #
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 EU rules for which the principle of primacy demands to take precedence over conflicting national rules; 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 law; acknowledges that the protection of core values and principles such as the effective protection of human rights, of democracy and of the rule of law is a joint task for the EU legal order and the national legal orders and for the courts tasked with the interpretation of these legal orders;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the vast majority of the courts of the Member States comply withapplies 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;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points, however, to the negative consequences of any decisions of a national constitutional court that challenges the principle of primacy itself; stresses that, if every national constitutional 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 without referring preliminary questions on the interpretation of these judgments to the CJEU genuinely undermines the CJEU’s authority;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is of the opinion that the preliminary reference procedure constitutes a way to engage in a constructive judicial dialogueplays a crucial role in fostering a free and constructive judicial dialogue and is a key instrument to solve conflicts between national courts of last instance and the CJEU; emphasises that, since it ensures the uniform interpretation of EU law, it is a prerequisite for the consistency and autonomy of the EU’s legal order; recalls that, in certain cases, the CJEU has shown a willingness to change its reasoning in a second preliminary ruling requested by the same national constitutional court that had initiated the first preliminary reference, which demonstrates that this procedure provides for an effective dialogue between courts; emphasises that the current reform of the preliminary ruling procedure amending Protocol No 3 of the Court of Justice of the European Union needs to take into account its potential impact on the mechanism of judicial dialogue between courts within the framework of the preliminary ruling procedure;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Emphasises that transparency of decision-making as a democratic principle also applies to the judiciary and fosters public trust into the judicial process; believes that public access to court documents, files and records contributes to transparency and accountability of the judiciary in the Member States and the Union;
Amendment 216 #
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 challenge the principle of primacy; 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 and their governments that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates that, although it is not explicitly enshrined in 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 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12