Activities of Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI related to 2022/2143(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the principle of primacy of EU law
Amendments (15)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
Amendment 27 #
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; whereas such effectiveness and uniformity can only be ensured if EU law takes precedence over national law in areas where EU law is applicable; whereas the principle of primacy therefore constitutes a cornerstone of the EU’s legal order, which is essential for the EU’s functioning;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas several national constitutional courts have nevertheless rightly 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 89 #
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; whereas such interpretation should not lead to introducing a de facto amendment to the Treaty by changing the meaning of a provision without formally changing its content (judicial activism);
Amendment 145 #
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 law; underlines however that Member States as 'masters of the treaties' retain the right to assess whether the EU institutions, including the CJEU, in adopting a particular act or judgement have acted within the framework of the powers conferred on them and whether they have exercised their powers in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and if this framework is exceeded, then acts (judgements) adopted outside of it are not covered by the principle of primacy of EU law;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the vast majority of the courts of the Member States complyhas not yet dealt with 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 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points, however, to the negative consequences of any decision of a national constitutional court that challenges the principle of primacy; 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 genuinely undermines the CJEU’s authority; points out in this regard that the CJEU should refrain from acting outside of its scope of competences;
Amendment 182 #
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 with 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;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the CJEU to refrain from issuing ultra vires judgments and to respect the power of the constitutional courts in the Member States to examine whether such a limit has been exceeded by the CJEU;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls for establishing a separate subsidiarity chamber in the CJEU, composed of presidents of national constitutional courts, to monitor EU legislation;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates that, although it is not 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 timin accordance with the constitutional arrangements of the Member States;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the CJEU and constitutional courts of the Member States.