13 Amendments of Charles GOERENS related to 2022/2143(INI)
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, as a legal community, the EU is dependent on the effective and uniform application and enforcement of its law; 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; whereas, in the same spirit, the principle is a centre piece in the creation of an “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”, as foreseen by the Treaties;
Amendment 42 #
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 on countless occassions 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; whereas, by virtue of the same jurisprudence, the principle also applies to international agreements concluded by Member States where those agreements are covered by the sphere of competence of the EU; _________________ 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 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the case-law establishing the principle of primacy has been implicitis widely accepted by the Member States, which have never used a Treaty revision to lay downamended the Treaties to introduce exceptions to the precedenceimacy of EU law;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas severalcertain national constitutional courts have nevertheless defendargued 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 78 #
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 disapplyauthorities and courts cannot apply or enforce those national provisions, and that national authorities and courts interpret their national law in conformity with EU law; whereas the principle furthermore requires that conflicting national provisions must be repealed or amended to comply with EU law;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, in accordance with Article 258 TFEU, the Commission has the possibility, as guardian of the Treaties, the task 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;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that, by their accession to the EU, the Member States have adhered to a certain number ofthe EU acquis and all the core EU values and principles that underpin it, which they share and have undertaken to respect at all times; recalls that these include the principle of primacy;
Amendment 132 #
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(2) 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 163 #
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 jeopardisedcease to exist, and thereby the guarantee for equal treatment of citizens and businesses across the Union; 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, as well as the legitimacy and proper functioning of the EU;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the changes proposed by the Court in the pending draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; believes that a more balanced distribution of labour between the Court of Justice and the General Court should give way for a more intense judicial dialogue between EU and Member States’ courts and tribunals, enabling them to resolve persisting tensions surrounding the principle of the primacy of EU law; encourages the EU and national courts and tribunals to also intensify their judicial dialogue through informal channels;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. EncouragesCalls on 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 that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy; reiterates that challenges to the principle of primacy of EU law are sometimes part of a systemic undermining of the Rule of Law by a Member State government, which merit further action by the EU institutions, including activating and advancing Article 7 proceedings and the EU Rule of Law budget conditionality Regulation;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes that the general application and implementation of EU law is the very precondition for its primacy; calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to enforce EU law, in particular by increasing infringement actions where Member States are failing to implement EU law;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Notes that in some cases, Member State authorities are not implementing CJEU judgments, without this being followed by further enforcement action by the Commission, meaning that individuals and businesses have a judgement by the highest EU court ignored by their national authorities without any further available remedy; calls on the Commission to produce an implementation scoreboard for each CJEU judgement and, should implementation fail, initiate infringement procedures against the Member State;