Activities of Elena BĂSESCU related to 2011/2027(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the twenty-seventh annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009)
Amendments (7)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the fundamental importance of the rule of law as a condition not only for the legitimacy of any form of governance and administration and for genuine democracy in which specific actions comply with the general norms laid down, but also for the predictability and objective soundness of decisions, and as a guarantee that citizens can fully and effectively enjoy their rights underas provided by law;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that the petition processmechanism continues to be used by citizens, civil society organisations and enterprises mainly to report on, and complain about, non-compliance with EU law by Member State authorities on different levels, the main fieldissues invoked being related to the environment and the internal market but, with freedom of movement, fundamental rights and citizenship also featuring prominently;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that many petitions refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even when the Charter is not applicable to Member States' acts, whilst others invoke the values on which the EU is founded; is concerned that citizens feel misled about the actual scope of application of the Charter, and considers it verhighly important that the Charter's applicabilityenforcement be examined carefully in the context of petitions, complaints and own-initiative infringement cases;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that whilst the Commission is correct in pointing out that it is primarily the duty of Member States' judicial systems to act on infringements of EU law, citizens often face considerable difficulties related tostemming from national court procedures, some being prohibitively expensive, many too lengthy to be of actual relevance, and others simply not trustworthyansparent enough;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the 27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009) (COM (2010)0538)) shows that, despite a fall in the number of infringement cases opened by the Commission, it still dealt with around 2 900 complaints and infringement files at the end of 2009, and that Member States were still latehad delays with their transposition of directives in more than half of the cases, a situation which is far from satisfactory and for which the Member States' authorities bear most of the responsibility;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the shorter timeframes needed for investigating alleged infringements through use of the pilot project method, but considers that clarification and further information is needed from the Commission in order for the Parliament to be able to judge the success of this method from the viewpoint of view of actual compliance by Member States;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that greater access tofacilitating access to publicly available information on infringement files could be provided without jeopardising the purpose of the investigation and that an overriding public interest might well justify access to these files, particularly in cases involving human health and irreversible damage to the environmentinvestigation;