3 Amendments of Andreas MÖLZER related to 2011/2275(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the non-respect of a deadline for the transposition of a directive is an infringement of the Treaties, like any other non-respect of substantive provisions, and must be seen and treated accordingly; welcomes in this respect the possibility created by the Treaty of Lisbon for a lump sum payment or penalty to be imposed in such cases on the Member State concerned together with the judgment on the infringement; however, in view of the difficult financial situation in many Member States, doubts whether such penalties could ever be collected in practice;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Draws attention to the direct applicability of provisions of directives when they are sufficiently precise and unconditional (‘direct effect’), suggests that the Commission explicitly refer to such provisions in its justification for a directive andin order to make the directive easier to apply; is of the opinion that the legal profession should be made more aware of them;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to evaluate in each single case whether, in view of the enormous number of non-communication cases (470 pending in 2010), the relevant question could not be better regulated at national level or, vice versa, whether the choice of a regulation instead of a directive is more appropriate; notes that thise latter would at the same time resolve the problem of Member States going beyond the standards required by a directive, entailing a protectionist effect (‘gold-plating’);