12 Amendments of Rainer WIELAND related to 2022/2143(INI)
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, as a legal community, the EU is dependent on the effective and uniform application of its law by the Member States’ and the Union’s courts; 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 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the primacy of EU law is intrinsically linked to the principle of equality before the law, as it guarantees equal protection of the rights conferred by EU law to all EU citizens;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the continuous dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and national supreme and constitutional courts regarding the interpretation of this principle results from tensions between the EU and national legal orders, namely regarding the division of competences between the two constitutional spheres and who has the ultimate authority to define whether something falls under the scope of powers conferred by the Member States to the EU;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas several national constitutional courts have nevertheless defended the existence of certain limits to the principle of primacy related to Articles 4(2) and 5 TEU; whereas these reservations mostly concern respect for EU competences and the national constitutional identity;
Amendment 79 #
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, national courts must disapply those national provisions, EU law prevails and that national courts must interpret their national law in conformity with EU law; whereas a conflict between domestic law and EU legislation can finally be solved either by amending the domestic law or the respective EU law;
Amendment 142 #
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 tounderlines that the application of Articles 4(2) and 5 TEU requires an active dialogue between the national courts onand the basis of their interpretation of EU lawCJEU; notes that the definition of the principle orf provisions of national lawimacy cannot, therefore, be left to the CJEU or national courts alone;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Underlines that a constructive dialogue between national constitutional courts and the CJEU is beneficial to the development of EU law as it can serve as a way of solving tensions between the European and national legal orders regarding the division of competences; stresses that such dialogue should be constructive and does not legitimise any disrespect for the decisions of the CJEU;
Amendment 181 #
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 dialogue; 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; considers that the escalation of conflicts by national constitutional or supreme courts might testify to a lack of investment in dialogue with the CJEU in the course of the proceedings;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Encourages the Commission to initiate infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU where appropriate, 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 that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends nevertheless 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 Lisbon; underlines the legal effect of Declaration No 17 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, concerning primacy and its interpretation by the signatory states;