BETA

6 Amendments of Andrew DUFF related to 2011/2275(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that, despite the Council's opposition, for more than 10 years, Parliament and the Commission have tried in vainendeavoured to include in directives binding provisions on correlation tables, often rejected by the Council, and welcomnotes the agreement reached;
2012/06/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that correlation tables are an invaluable tool to enable the Commission and Parliament to oversee the correct transposition of directivesand application of Union law by the Member States because the relationship between a directive and the corresponding national provisions is often very complicated and sometimes almost impossible to trace back;
2012/06/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
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 under Article 260(3) TFEU;
2012/06/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the Commission's commitment to make use of the Article 260(3) TFEU instrument as a matter of principle in cases of failure to fulfil an obligation covered by this provision, which concerns the transposition of directives adopted under a legislative procedure;
2012/06/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
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 refers to such provisions in its justification for a directive and is of the opinion that the legal profession should be made more aware of them;
2012/06/01
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
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 choice of a regulation instead of a directive is more appropriate; notes that this 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’);deleted
2012/06/01
Committee: AFCO