2007/2205(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Parliament ~~is the main transnational legislative institution in Europe which, moreover,~~ has no legal personality; whereas as ~~such~~a result it is often impeded in protecting its prerogatives before national courts from problems that are peculiar to its special nature,

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to take account of ~~possible~~ requests by the European Parliament to ~~activate the~~bring infringement proce~~dure~~edings against any State ~~accused of having~~for breach~~ed a~~ of parliamentary prerogatives and urges the Commission therefore to inform it, through the Commissioner responsible or the Director- General of the Legal Service, but always in writing and exhaustively, of its reasons for any decision in this regard, especially should itasks that it be given a comprehensive statement of reasons by the competent Commissioner should the College decide not to take ~~any~~the action requested;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. UrSuggests th~~e application of the legal model under~~at an in-depth examination be carried out into whether the legal concept laid down in Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty ~~to all those~~may be applied in cases in which the prerogatives of the European Parliament are seriously under threat, so as to allow~~ing~~ Parliament to ask the Court of Justice for an opinion on the compatibility of a ~~certai~~given act of national law with primary Community law, without prejudice to the exclusive power of the Commission to decide whether or not to initiate infringement proceedings against the State which may have committed an infringement;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Proposes that the committee responsible be asked to study an amendment to Rule 1921(3) of its Rules of Procedure ~~to the effect that~~on the following lines: ‘3. The President shall, as appropriate, bring an action on behalf of Parliament, enter a defence, or intervene or otherwise submit observations, including as a party concerned or amicus curiae, in accordance with the recommendation of the Chairman of ~~its C~~the committee ~~on Legal Affa~~responsible expressing the view of that committee. Paragraphs 1 and 2 and the first s~~hould be expressly appointed to represent the European Parliament in court in all legal proceedings in which its prerogatives are at issue;~~ ubparagraph of this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings before national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and to any other judicial proceedings in which Parliament is given leave to intervene. The decision whether to seek leave to intervene should be taken in accordance with the recommendation of the Chairman of the committee responsible, expressing the view of that committee.’;

Amendment 5 #

Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. P~~roposes an amendment to Rule 19 of its Rules of Procedure to the effect that the Chairman of its Committee on Legal Affairs should be expressly appointed to~~oints out that the responsibility of representing the European Parliament in court in all legal proceedings in which its prerogatives are at issue must, in accordance with Rule 19 of its Rules of Procedure and with national parliamentary practice, continue to rest with its President;

source: PE-405.717

2008/04/28 AFCO 8 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. delete paragraph 2;

Amendment 2 #

Richard CORBETT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

"Suggests that an in-depth examination be carried out as to whether ~~the~~a legal mechanism similar to that laid down in Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty c~~an be applied in~~ould be developed to cater for cases in which the prerogatives of the European Parliament are seriously under threat, allowing Parliament to ask the Court of Justice for an opinion on the compatibility of a certain act of national law with primary Community law, without prejudice to the exclusive power of the Commission to decide whether or not to initiate infringement proceedings against the State which may have committed an infringement;"

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. amend paragraph 5 to read as follows: “5. Considers that court procedures which allow the European Parliament to take part in legal proceedings concerning Parliament’s own prerogatives before national judges should be developed;”

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

“A. whereas the European Parliament ~~has no legal personality; whereas it is, as such,~~is often impeded in protecting its prerogatives ~~before national courts~~ from problems that are peculiar to its special nature;”

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. amend recital B to read as follows: “B. whereas the European Parliament in this regard has a range of remedies available to it under the Treaty which ensure that the aforementioned prerogatives are protected vis-à-vis the other Community institutions, such as proceedings for failure to act (Article 232 of the EC Treaty) and proceedings for the annulment of Community acts (Article 230 of the EC Treaty),”

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. amend recital D to read as follows: “D. whereas the European Parliament has no power either to directly initiate infringement proceedings (Article 226 of the EC Treaty) against a Member State, since it can do so only through the Commission (deletion),”

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. amend recital E to read as follows: “E. whereas the lack of appropriate instruments with which to defend its own decisions can hamper the effectiveness of the European Parliament as a political and legislative body,”

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. amend recital J to read as follows: “J. whereas the European Parliament must be granted means of protecting its prerogatives vis-à-vis the judicial power, be that power represented by the Court of Justice or by the national courts, by analogy with the safeguards provided for by the national legal orders to the benefit of their national parliaments,”

source: PE-405.887

2008/05/07 AFCO 8 amendments...

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. amend paragraph 6 to read as follows: "Calls on the Commission to ~~examin~~propose the appropriate~~ness of proposing~~ legislative measures ~~concerning the court-related aspects of Parliamentary prerogatives, since these would be useful~~ in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the ~~rules conferring certain~~legal defence prerogatives on Parliament;"”

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5а. create recital Aa (new) Aa. whereas Parliament respects the right of initiative of the Commission but upholds its own right to request the Commission to submit legislative proposals (Article 192 of the TEC),

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. create recital Ba (new) Ba. whereas the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities establishes the liability of Member States in cases of failure to fulfil their obligations arising under the Treaties, whatever the state authority whose action or inaction has caused this failure, even in the case of a constitutionally independent institution,1 1 Judgment of 18 November 1970 , Commission v. Italy (ECR 1970, p. 961).

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. amend Recital C to read as follows: C. whereas, however, the European Parliament does not have the same direct instruments with which to defend effectively these prerogatives in the event of a national judgment in the area of the Community law which runs counter to those prerogatives, since it can’t directly bring an action before the Court of Justice to defend its decisions,

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. amend Recital E to read as follows: E. whereas the lack of appropriate instruments with which to defend effectively its own decisions can hamper the regular exercise of the activity of the European Parliament as a whole and of its Members in particular,

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Point 5 e (new)

5e. amend Recital G to read as follows: G. whereas, in order to obviate the above- mentioned problems, it would be advisable to strengthen the measures to protect parliamentary prerogatives in the European legal framework not by amending the EC Treaty, but by enhancing the collaboration with the Commission and/or by bringing subsequently joint actions in the procedure under Article 226 of the Treaty or by using the judicial review mechanisms and practices established by the Court of Justice,

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Point 5 f (new)

5f. amend Recital J to read as follows: J. whereas it would be opportune to grant the European Parliament similar, if not identical, measures to protect its prerogatives before the Court of Justice, by analogy with the safeguards provided for by the national legal orders to the benefit of their national parliaments,

Amendment 9 #