2011/2275(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the specific section on petitions contained in the 28th annual report, as requested by Parliament, in which the Commission gives a breakdown of new petitions received; welcomes the Commission's report that ‘petitions to the European Parliament led to infringement proceedings’ in a number of areas; emphasises that, even wheren petitions do not concern infringements, they provide the Parliament and Commission with remarkable information on citizens‘ concerns;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Notes, in particular, the encouraging~~Points out that number of Member States participating in the EU Pilot project (18 by the end of 2010) and the large number of cases closed after the response from the Member State was assessed as acceptable (81 % of cases); welcomes the adoption of the first EU Pilot Evaluation Report in March 2010, and urges the adoption of future evaluation reports in a timely manner in order continually to assess the effective impact and enforcement capacity of this new mechanism stresses the importance of the quality of these assessments, both in terms of valid and verified information and in terms of respect for the general principles of administrative law recognised by the Court of Justice;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Welcomes the adoption of the first EU Pilot Evaluation Report in March 2010 and urges the adoption of future evaluation reports in a timely manner, in order to continually assess the effective impact and enforcement capacity of this new mechanism; takes note also of the revised guidelines for handling of relations with complainants annexed to the report;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. Agrees with the emphasis placed by the Commission on the importance of the rule of law while recalling that there is an inherent tension between this principle and the discretion enjoyed by the Commission as regards pursuing infringements and that avoidance of any arbitrariness in the use of discretionary powers requires genuine compliance with general principles of good administration, such as impartiality, objectivity and proportionality;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that citizens remain largely uninformed ~~about~~with regards to infringement proceedings, as evidenced by the significant number of petitions received ~~that, unknown to the petition~~which, unawares, refer to circumstances already under investigation; considers, ~~refer to circumstances already un~~in line with the conclusions of the Working Group set up by the Legal Affairs Committee, that the infringement proceedings should be includerd in~~vestigation~~ the framework of regulations on good administration based on Article 298 TFEU;

Amendment 14 #

Heinz K. BECKER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Reiterates that individual complaints by businesses and members of the public remain the main source for detecting breaches of European Union law and, subsequently, for the initiation of infringement proceedings; for this reason, calls for the introduction of more effective, legally binding administrative provisions to safely and reliably define the procedural relationship between the Commission and complainants before, during and after the infringement proceedings, and to thus strengthen above all the position of the individual complainant;

Amendment 2 #

Angelika WERTHMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that, although the Commission is right to emphasise that ‘the onus for the correct application of EU law is primarily on the Member States’ administration and judiciary’, citizens and residents of the EU regularly submit petitions in which they state that they face real impediments when trying to access redress through the national courts and administrations; emphasises, for that reason, that the European institutions also have a primary obligation to investigate Member States’ actions within the scope of enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms and should also consider information strategies to provide subsequent support also for petitioners in the Member States;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Points out that many petitions refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and invoke the values of the EU Treaties, evidencing a potentially significant disconnection between the values enshrined in the EU's primary law and th~~ose~~eir observanced by Member States;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Recalls that the original mandate for the Charter was to codify the fundamental rights enjoyed by EU citizens and that the heads of state and government repeatedly have solemnly declared that the Charter represents rights of EU citizens; calls on all Member States to reconsider the necessity of Article 51 of the Charter and encourages them to unilaterally declare that they will not limit the rights of individuals on the basis of that provisions in that article within their jurisdiction;

Amendment 5 #

Heinz K. BECKER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses that citizens, when submitting a petition to the European Parliament, expect to be protected by the provisions of the Charter, regardless of which Member State they reside in and whether or not EU law is being implemented; remains concerned, in this regard, that citizens feel misled about the actual scope of application of the Charter; considers it essential, therefore, to explain properly the subsidiary principle and to clarify the scope of application of the Charter from Parliament’s perspective on the basis of Article 51 of the Charter;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses that citizens, when submitting a petition to the European Parliament, may expect to be protected by the provisions of the Charter, regardless of which Member State they reside in and whether or not EU law is being implemented; remains concerned, in this regard, that citizens may feel misled about the actual scope of application of the Charter; considers it essential, therefore, to explain properly the subsidiary principle and to clarify the scope of application of the Charter from Parliament's perspective;

Amendment 7 #

Heinz K. BECKER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that a significant number of the petitions relating to fundamental rights concern the free movement of persons and that – as is clear from the 2010 report on citizenship of the European Union – the rights arising from citizenship of the European Union are an important prerequisite for citizens to make full use of the internal market; emphasises that this increased use by citizens can unlock the significant growth potential of the internal market and therefore, given the current economic challenges facing Europe, reiterates its call on the Commission and Member States to make greater efforts in this area to ensure the full and prompt transposition of European Union law;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses, in addition, that citizens may similarly feel misled about the applicability of community law in instances of late transposition; points to the distressing reality that citizens who cannot avail themselves of an applicable community law because it has not yet been transposed by the Member State in question find themselves without recourse to any redress mechanism;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Welcom~~Notes the emphasis placed in the Commission's report on the efficient management of infringement cases through the development and evaluation of new tools, such as EU Pilot and CHAP ~~(Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol)~~, the strengthening of preventive measures, and the possibility to request, at an earlier stage, financial sanctions against Member States in cases of late transposition of directives;

source: PE-489.651

2012/06/01 AFCO 19 amendments...

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 vain~~endeavoured to include in directives binding provisions on correlation tables, often rejected by the Council, and ~~welcom~~notes the agreement reached;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that European legal training is a key instrument to ensure the correct application of EU law and welcomes the Commission's initiative to prepare a Communication on this subject;

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~~;

Amendment 12 #

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 refer 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~~according to the consolidated case law of the Court of Justice;

Amendment 13 #

Andreas MÖLZER

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 explicitly refer to such provisions in its justification for a directive ~~and~~in order to make the directive easier to apply; is of the opinion that the legal profession should be made more aware of them;

Amendment 14 #

Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. DConsiders the choice of legal instrument to be a decisive element in good law-making, as the conditions of national systems of law can be taken into account during transposition into national law, so that European law can be incorporated more effectively into national law; draws attention to the direct applicability of provisions of directives when they are sufficiently precise and unconditional (‘direct effect’), suggests that the Commission refer 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;

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

Amendment 16 #

Zita GURMAI, Evelyn REGNER

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 resolvegive preferential use to regulations, whenever possible under the Treaties and the probinciplem of ~~Member States going beyond the standards required by a directive, entailing a protectionist effect (‘gold-plating’)~~subsidiarity;

Amendment 17 #

Andreas MÖLZER

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 relevant question could not be better regulated at national level or, vice versa, whether the choice of a regulation instead of a directive is more appropriate; notes that thise latter 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’);

Amendment 18 #

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), t~~he 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 bey~~o make more regular use of its powers under Article 260(3) TFEU to bring a case before the Court of Justice asking to impose on a Member State the payment of a lump sum or penalty where that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligationd t~~he standards required by a directive, entailing a protectionist effect (‘gold-plating’)~~o notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to act jointly and consistently to tackle the problem of 'gold-plating';

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 directives~~and 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;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the implementation of the tools for the management of cases related to the application of EU law (CHAP and EU Pilot) and the positive results they are producing and calls on the Commission to continue to develop them and improve its functioning;

Amendment 4 #

Zita GURMAI, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Regrets, however, the enormous number of non-communication cases (470 pending in 2010);

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point a (new)

(a) Points out that the petition is a proper instrument to be used by citizens, civil society organisations and enterprises to report on non-compliance with EU law by Member States' authorities at different levels; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to safeguard transparency of on- going infringement procedures by way of informing the citizens in a timely and appropriate manner of the action taken on their request;

Amendment 6 #

Gerald HÄFNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the importance of a good administration practice also with regard to infringement procedures and calls for the establishment of a 'procedural code' in the form of a regulation under the legal basis of Article 298 TFEU, setting out the various aspects of the infringement procedure;

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;

Amendment 8 #

Andreas MÖLZER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 9 #

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

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;

source: PE-489.456

2012/10/03 JURI 7 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 20101,

Amendment 2 #

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Deplores the absence in the above- mentioned new communication of any reference to EU Pilot, which is, as defined by the Commission itself, a ‘'well- established working method’2 2'which it uses to deal with complaints as a first step in the infringement procedure wherever there might be recourse to that procedure3 3; notes that EU Pilot is not even mentioned by name in the communication and that there is no reference to any of the rights or the protection accorded to the complainant under EU Pilot; concludes, therefore, that ~~all~~ decisions taken by the Commission which precede or exclude the infringement procedure do not always obey the rules of transparency and accountability and are ~~1 P7_TA-PROV(2011)0382 2 Commission’s Second Evaluation Report on EU Pilot (SEC(2011)1626), p. 7. 3 See the above mentioned report, p. 3. See the above-mentioned resolution of 25 November 2010.~~ made at the Commission's complete discretion alone;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the status of the ‘EU Pilot’ system and to define clearly the framework and rules of its application in such a way that they will be understood by citizens;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates its view that the discretionary power conferred by the Treaties upon the Commission in dealing with the infringement procedure must respect the rule of law, the principle of legal clarity, the requirements of transparency and openness and the principle of proportionality, and that nothing must under any circumstances jeopardise the basic purpose of that power, which is to guarantee the timely and correct application of Union law; ~~reiterates its belief that ‘absolute discretion coupled with an absolute lack of transparency is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law’4 ;~~

Amendment 5 #

Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers it of the utmost importance that the Commission should make use of this possibility, together with all other possible means of guaranteeing that Member States transpose Union legislation in a timely and correct fashion~~, especially with reference to environmental matters~~; those who are lagging behind and have not implemented the laws on time should be named;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

~~4 See the above-~~11 a. Calls on the Commission to transmit clear guidelines to the European Parliamenti on~~ed resolution of 25 November 2010.~~ creating, incorporating and applying correlation tables in Community law, and also to carry out a transparent evaluation, which will significantly contribute to the assessment of the implementation of this law at the Member State level;

Amendment 7 #