Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | ZWIEFKA Tadeusz ( PPE), REGNER Evelyn ( S&D), KARIM Sajjad ( ECR), MARINHO E PINTO António ( ALDE), HAUTALA Heidi ( Verts/ALE), FERRARA Laura ( EFDD) | |
Committee Opinion | ECON | ||
Committee Opinion | ENVI | GUTELAND Jytte ( S&D) | Jørn DOHRMANN ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | IMCO | ||
Committee Opinion | TRAN | ||
Committee Opinion | LIBE | UNGUREANU Traian ( PPE) | Hugues BAYET ( S&D), Filiz HYUSMENOVA ( ALDE) |
Committee Opinion | AFCO | CASTALDO Fabio Massimo ( EFDD) | Sylvie GOULARD ( ALDE), Enrique GUERRERO SALOM ( S&D), Morten MESSERSCHMIDT ( ECR), György SCHÖPFLIN ( PPE), Josep-Maria TERRICABRAS ( Verts/ALE) |
Committee Opinion | PETI | ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa ( PPE) | Notis MARIAS ( ECR), Felix REDA ( Verts/ALE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 412 votes to 99 with 10 abstentions, a resolution on the 30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU Law (2012-2013).
Members welcomed the Commission’s 30th and 31st annual reports on the application of EU law and noted that Parliament could assist in reviewing the implementation of legislation through its scrutiny of the Commission.
In a European Union founded on the rule of law and on the certainty and predictability of laws, Parliament considered that EU citizens must, as of right, be the first to be made aware , in a clear, accessible, transparent and timely manner, whether and which national laws have been adopted in transposition of EU laws, and which national authorities are responsible for ensuring they are correctly implemented.
Ensure a better implementation of legislation : stressing that citizens and businesses expect a simple, predictable and reliable regulatory framework, Members urged the Commission, when drafting and assessing legislation, to take greater account of the burden it may impose on SMEs. As for the Commission and the Member States, they should coordinate their efforts at an earlier stage of the legislative process with a view to ensuring that the end result can be implemented more effectively.
Respecting primary law : the resolution stressed the European institutions' duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law or decide, implement and impose on Member States social, economic or other policies. It also emphasised the duty to assist Member States by all means available in their efforts to respect democratic and social values and to transpose EU legislation in times of austerity and economic constraints.
In this context, Members expressed concern that the austerity measures imposed on over-indebted EU Member States, which were subsequently incorporated in acts of secondary EU law before being transposed into domestic legislation, during the period covered by the two annual reports under examination, and in particular the drastic cuts in public spending, have had the effect of significantly reducing the capacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assume their responsibility correctly to implement EU law.
New methods for the transposition of EU law : Parliament noted that the implementation and transposition of EU law remained uneven across Member States. Citizens who wished to live, work or do business in another Member State faced the daily reality of ongoing difficulties. Parliament stressed that late transposition, incorrect transposition and bad application of EU law could result in differentiation between Member States and distort the level playing field across the EU.
Members reiterated the need for the Commission to focus on effective problem-solving, effective management and preventive measures, but suggested that it should also think of new ways, other than formal infringement procedures, of improving the transposition and enforcement of EU law.
Gold-plating : Parliament noted the Commission’s use of the term ‘gold-plating’, which referred to obligations that go beyond EU requirements, that is, an excess of norms, guidelines and procedures accumulated at national, regional and local levels interfering with the expected policy goals. The Commission was called upon to clearly define the term . Such a definition must make it clear that Member States have the right to set stricter standards where necessary, while taking into account the fact that better harmonisation in the implementation of EU environmental law is important for the functioning of the internal market.
Respecting transposition deadlines : Parliament noted that the decrease in late transposition infringements over the last five years could be explained by the use of EU Pilot and other mechanisms (including SOLVIT 2), and by the introduction in Article 260(3) TFEU of the ‘fast-track’ procedure for penalties in cases of non-transposition. It stressed that the timely transposition of directives should remain a top priority within the Commission and that transposition deadlines have to be enforced.
Enhancing the legal framework and the legitimacy of EU Pilot: the increase in the number of new EU Pilot files, in particular relating to the environment, taxation, justice and customs, during the period under examination, as well as the decrease in the number of open infringement cases, points to a positive tendency in Member States as regards the implementation of EU law, demonstrating that EU Pilot has proved to be effective in achieving early resolution of potential infringements. The resolution stressed, nevertheless, the need to reinforce the legal status and strengthen the legitimacy of EU Pilot, through more transparency and greater participation by complainants and by the European Parliament.
More efficient cooperation between the EU institutions : whilst welcoming the Commission services’ commitment to strengthen the exchange of information with the Committee on Petitions, Parliament deplored the fact that Parliament, which directly represented European citizens and was now a fully-fledged co-legislator that was more and more closely involved in complaints procedures, did not yet automatically receive transparent and timely information on the implementation of EU laws.
Members urged more effective and efficient cooperation between the EU institutions, and expects the Commission to apply in good faith the clause of the revised Framework Agreement on relations with Parliament in which it undertakes to ‘make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, included, if so requested, on the issues to which the infringement procedure relates’.
Citizens’ complaints : since the EU had been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 TEU), Members reiterated that careful monitoring of Member States’ and EU institutions’ acts and omissions was of utmost importance.
Parliament pointed out that petitions submitted by EU citizens or residents of a Member State referred to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights, home affairs, justice, the internal market, health, consumers, transport, taxation, agriculture and rural development and the environment. Such a situation called for increased efforts from Member States and for ongoing monitoring by the Commission, especially in the following areas:
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings : in 2013, most late infringement cases were launched due to the late transposition of Directive 2011/36/EU; right of asylum : a large number of complaints had been lodged in this area. The full transposition and effective implementation of the Common European Asylum System was an absolute priority; Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Parliament reiterated that the right of free movement was one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the right of EU citizens to move freely and reside and work in other Member States needed to be guaranteed and protected; environment: stressing that failing to implement environmental policy – including the costs of infringement proceedings –were estimated at around EUR 50 billion per annum, Parliament called on the Commission to be more rigorous in relation to the application of EU environmental legislation and to conduct faster and effective investigations into infringements relating to environmental pollution.
Members stated that environmental, food safety and health standards should not be undermined in the context of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) programme. In relation to REFIT the Commission needed to facilitate dialogue on regulatory fitness with citizens, Member States, business and civil society at large, so as to ensure that the quality and social aspects of EU legislation were preserved.
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Kostas CHRYSOGONOS (GUE/NGL, EL) on the 30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU Law (2012-2013).
Members welcomed the Commission’s 30th and 31st annual reports on the application of EU law and noted that Parliament could assist in reviewing the implementation of legislation through its scrutiny of the Commission.
In a European Union founded on the rule of law and on the certainty and predictability of laws, Members considered that EU citizens must, as of right, be the first to be made aware, in a clear, accessible, transparent and timely manner, whether and which national laws have been adopted in transposition of EU laws, and which national authorities are responsible for ensuring they are correctly implemented.
Ensure a better implementation of legislation : stressing that citizens and businesses expect a simple, predictable and reliable regulatory framework, Members urged the Commission, when drafting and assessing legislation, to take greater account of the burden it may impose on SMEs. As for the Commission and the Member States, they should coordinate their efforts at an earlier stage of the legislative process with a view to ensuring that the end result can be implemented more effectively.
The report stressed the European institutions' duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law or decide, implement and impose on Member States social, economic or other policies. It also emphasised the duty to assist Member States by all means available in their efforts to respect democratic and social values and to transpose EU legislation in times of austerity and economic constraints.
In this context, Members expressed concern that the austerity measures imposed on over-indebted EU Member States, which were subsequently incorporated in acts of secondary EU law before being transposed into domestic legislation, during the period covered by the two annual reports under examination, and in particular the drastic cuts in public spending, have had the effect of significantly reducing the capacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assume their responsibility correctly to implement EU law.
New methods for the transposition of EU law : the implementation and transposition of EU law remain uneven across Member States, which, combined with language problems, excessive bureaucracy and a knowledge deficit, has created a Union that is not citizen-friendly. Members welcomed the Commission’s increasing use of implementation plans for new pieces of EU legislation addressed to the Member States, but also suggested that it should also think of new ways, other than formal infringement procedures , of improving the transposition and enforcement of EU law.
Gold-plating : the report noted the Commission’s use of the term ‘gold-plating’, which refers to obligations that go beyond EU requirements, that is, an excess of norms, guidelines and procedures accumulated at national, regional and local levels interfering with the expected policy goals. The Commission is called upon to clearly define the term . Such a definition must make it clear that Member States have the right to set stricter standards where necessary, while taking into account the fact that better harmonisation in the implementation of EU environmental law is important for the functioning of the internal market.
Respect of transposition deadlines : the report noted that the decrease in late transposition infringements over the last five years can be explained by the use of EU Pilot and other mechanisms (including SOLVIT 2), and by the introduction in Article 260(3) TFEU of the ‘fast-track’ procedure for penalties in cases of non-transposition. It stressed that the timely transposition of directives should remain a top priority within the Commission and that transposition deadlines have to be enforced.
Enhancing the legal framework and the legitimacy of EU Pilot : the increase in the number of new EU Pilot files, in particular relating to the environment, taxation, justice and customs, during the period under examination, as well as the decrease in the number of open infringement cases, points to a positive tendency in Member States as regards the implementation of EU law, demonstrating that EU Pilot has proved to be effective in achieving early resolution of potential infringements. The report stressed, nevertheless, the need to reinforce the legal status and strengthen the legitimacy of EU Pilot, through more transparency and greater participation by complainants and by the European Parliament .
More efficient cooperation between the EU institutions : whilst welcoming the Commission services’ commitment to strengthen the exchange of information with the Committee on Petitions, the report deplored the fact that Parliament, which directly represents European citizens and is now a fully-fledged co-legislator that is more and more closely involved in complaints procedures, does not yet automatically receive transparent and timely information on the implementation of EU laws.
Members urged more effective and efficient cooperation between the EU institutions, and expects the Commission to apply in good faith the clause of the revised Framework Agreement on relations with Parliament in which it undertakes to ‘make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, included, if so requested, on the issues to which the infringement procedure relates’.
Citizens’ complaints : the report pointed out that petitions submitted by EU citizens or residents of a Member State refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights, home affairs, justice, the internal market, health, consumers, transport, taxation, agriculture and rural development and the environment. Such a situation calls for increased efforts from Member States and for ongoing monitoring by the Commission.
Members deplored that in 2013, most of the late infringement cases were launched due to the late transposition of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings . They stressed that the current situation in the Mediterranean has increased the likelihood of trafficking, and called on the Member States to take an extremely firm line with perpetrators of such crimes and to protect the victims as effectively as possible.
Asylum remains an area where a large number of complaints have been lodged. This is why the full transposition and effective implementation of the Common European Asylum System is an absolute priority.
The Commission is called upon to be more rigorous in relation to the application of EU environmental legislation and to conduct faster and effective investigations into infringements relating to environmental pollution.
Lastly, Members stressed that environmental, food safety and health standards should not be undermined in the context of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) programme.
PURPOSE: report of the 31st Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (2013).
CONTENT: this EU Report reviews the performance on key aspects of the application of EU law and highlights strategic issues.
1) Transposition of the Directives : late transposition of directives remains a persistent problem hindering delivery of tangible benefits for citizens. The timely transposition of directives remains a top priority within the Commission's EU law policy.
There were more directives to transpose in 2013 compared to the previous year (74 in contrast to 56 in 2012) but fewer than in 2011 (131). However, there was only a slight increase in new late transposition infringements in 2013 compared to the previous year (478 new late transposition infringements were launched in 2013 compared to 447 procedures in 2012).
The four policy areas where the most new late transposition infringements were launched in 2013 were environment (168 procedures), health and consumers (58), internal market and services (47) and transport (36).
Although the timely transposition of directives continues to be a challenge in many Member States, the report noted that:
· Denmark, Latvia and Malta maintained a very low number of late transposition infringement cases over the past three years;
· Greece and the Czech Republic made good progress in reducing their late transposition infringements during the same period.
In 2013, the Commission continued to refer a number of late transposition infringements to the Court of Justice with a request for daily penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. Member States increased their efforts to achieve complete transposition before the judgment of the Court of Justice during 2013.
2) Pre-infringement phase : complaints by citizens, businesses and stakeholder organisations make a significant contribution to monitoring the respect of EU law obligations. In 2013, the Commission received more new complaints (3505) than in any of the previous three years . As a result, the total number of open complaints increased by approximately 19% during 2013. The three Member States against which the most complaints were filed were:
· Italy: 472 complaints, most of them related to employment (120 complaints), internal market and services (81) and environment (64);
· Spain: 439 complaints, especially in connection with employment (100 complaints), justice and environment (65 each); and
· Germany: 297 complaints, mainly related to justice (64 complaints), internal market and services (57) and environment (53).
According to the report, 72% of new complaints were concentrated in the following five policy areas : justice (590), environment (520), internal market and services (494), employment (470) and taxation and customs union (452).
The European Parliament alerted the Commission to shortcomings in the way Member States implement and apply EU law by way of petitions and questions in the following areas:
environment, home affairs , justice, health, transports, taxation, agriculture and rural development.
The Commission considers that the high and rising number of complaints indicates that citizens are more and more aware of the benefits that flow from the full and correct application of EU rules. At the same time, this is an indication of the expectation that the implementation of EU law requires increased efforts from the Member States and on-going monitoring from the Commission.
3) Infringement procedures : at the end of last year, 1,300 infringement cases remained open. The number of open infringement cases has continued to fall.
The overall decrease of formal infringement procedures during the past five years (from nearly 2,900 to 1,300) reflects in part that problems have been solved with the use of EU Pilot, a Commission initiative aimed at rapidly resolving problems related to the application of EU law in compliance with EU law.
The report shows that the structured dialogue via EU Pilot has proven effective in the early resolution of potential infringements, to the benefit of citizens and business alike. The situation varies across Member States :
· the Czech Republic and Portugal have managed to halve the number of their infringement cases during this period and the Netherlands and Luxembourg have also significantly improved their results;
· however, Slovenia, Cyprus and Romania saw their number of infringement cases rise over the past five years, although their total cases are at average level.
The Commission will continue its active monitoring of the application of EU law. This includes proactive assistance to the Member States and, if necessary, the launch of formal infringement proceedings.
The Commission presented its 30th Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (2012). The report reviews the performance on key aspects of the application of EU law and highlights strategic issues.
The main conclusions of the report are the following:
Transposition of Directives : in 2012 the number of late transposition infringements decreased significantly, distributed proportionally between Member States. At the end of 2012, 418 late transposition cases were open, which represents a 45% decrease when compared to the 763 cases at the end of 2011.
The four policy areas where the most late transposition infringements were launched in 2012 were transport (115 procedures), health and consumers (108), environment (63) and internal market and services (53).
For some directives (e.g.: Directive on the energy performance of buildings ; Directive "Omnibus 1"; Directive on Intelligent Transport Systems ; Directive amending the Community code on medicinal products for human use ), infringement procedures were launched against more than two thirds of the Member States.
In 2012, the Commission referred a number of late transposition infringements to the Court with a request for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU (12 Member Stateswere involved in 35 such decisions). The report notes that t he transposition performance of the Netherlands and that of Sweden have particularly improved but in general the ranking of Member States as regards late transposition infringements did not change.
Despite the positive tendency, a large number of directives still have to be transposed and implemented. Reducing late transposition is a Commission priority and the Member States are therefore invited to keep up efforts to transpose EU law correctly.
Pre-infringement phase : citizens, businesses, NGOs or other organisations file complaints to the Commission frequently.
The three Member States against which the most complaints were filed were: Italy (438), Spain (306) and France (242). Similar to 2011, citizens, businesses and organisations reported irregularities especially in connection with environment, justice and internal market and services (588, 491 and 462 complaints, respectively).
Petitions by citizens to the European Parliament as well as questions from Members of Parliament could also raise perceived deficiencies in the way Member States apply EU law. Most frequently, these concerned environmental issues.
The report notes that Member States have demonstrated great willingness to solve problems before formal steps are taken . With the joining of Malta and Luxembourg, all 27 Member States participate in EU Pilot, the on-line platform operated by the Commission to assist fast problem-solving. Exchanges of views in EU Pilot allowed for a quick resolution of nearly 1200 potential infringements in 2012.
Infraction procedures : at the end of 2012, 1343 infringement cases were open. The number of open infringement cases has continued to fall - from nearly 2900 cases in 2009, to 2100 cases in 2010 and to 1775 cases in 2011.
Together with the decrease of the number of formal infringement procedures, there were also fewer cases that the Commission had to refer to the Court. The general ranking of Member States as regards the total number of infringement did not change materially: those Member States had the fewest and the most infringement proceedings which had similar results in the previous year. Environment, transport, taxation and internal market remained the policy areas where the Commission initiates infringements most frequently.
This general trend is partly attributable to the successful co-operation between the Member States and the Commission. Where the Commission launched formal procedures, Member States have made further attempts to achieve compliance with EU law.
Better Governance for the Single Market (SM) : t o accelerate Member States' full compliance with the SM rules, the Commission Communication on the subject identified new targets for handling infringements of core EU Single Market law : i) 'Zero tolerance' (0%) as regards the timely and correct transposition of core EU Single Market law ; ii) reduction of the duration of infringement procedures to 18 months; and iii) achieving full compliance with the judgments of the Court within 12 months.
In addition, the Communication encourages the Member States to submit draft implementation measures and explanatory documents in relation to core laws.
As the Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue the active monitoring of the application of EU law.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2015)748
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0322/2015
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A8-0242/2015
- Committee opinion: PE554.885
- Committee opinion: PE552.097
- Committee opinion: PE554.844
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE557.316
- Committee opinion: PE549.428
- Committee draft report: PE554.915
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2014)0612
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Contribution: COM(2013)0726
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: COM(2013)0726
- Supplementary non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex COM(2013)0726
- Committee draft report: PE554.915
- Committee opinion: PE549.428
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE557.316
- Committee opinion: PE552.097
- Committee opinion: PE554.844
- Committee opinion: PE554.885
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2015)748
- Contribution: COM(2013)0726
Activities
- Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ
Plenary Speeches (3)
- 2016/11/22 30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law (2012-2013) (debate) HU
- 2016/11/22 30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law (2012-2013) (debate) HU
- 2016/11/22 30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law (2012-2013) (A8-0242/2015 - Kostas Chrysogonos) HU
- Therese COMODINI CACHIA
- Ivan JAKOVČIĆ
- Notis MARIAS
- Marlene MIZZI
- Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marie-Christine ARNAUTU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jonathan ARNOTT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Zigmantas BALČYTIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Hugues BAYET
Plenary Speeches (1)
- José BLANCO LÓPEZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marie-Christine BOUTONNET
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Steeve BRIOIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Gianluca BUONANNO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- James CARVER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Nicola CAPUTO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Salvatore CICU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Alberto CIRIO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Javier COUSO PERMUY
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mireille D'ORNANO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Georgios EPITIDEIOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Lorenzo FONTANA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Doru-Claudian FRUNZULICĂ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Enrico GASBARRA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Arne GERICKE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Tania GONZÁLEZ PEÑAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Pablo IGLESIAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marc JOULAUD
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Philippe JUVIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Barbara KAPPEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Afzal KHAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ivana MALETIĆ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Andrejs MAMIKINS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- António MARINHO E PINTO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Dominique MARTIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- David MARTIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sophie MONTEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Franz OBERMAYR
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Florian PHILIPPOT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marijana PETIR
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Andrej PLENKOVIĆ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Salvatore Domenico POGLIESE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Franck PROUST
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Claude ROLIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Virginie ROZIÈRE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Lola SÁNCHEZ CALDENTEY
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Siôn SIMON
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Branislav ŠKRIPEK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Monika SMOLKOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Davor ŠKRLEC
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Beatrix von STORCH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Richard SULÍK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Eleftherios SYNADINOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Adam SZEJNFELD
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Pavel TELIČKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Traian UNGUREANU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Miguel VIEGAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Inês Cristina ZUBER
Plenary Speeches (1)
Votes
A8-0242/2015 - Kostas Chrysogonos - § 5 #
DE | FR | PL | ES | IT | NL | BE | CZ | RO | HU | HR | BG | AT | PT | SE | MT | GB | IE | SI | LV | EL | LT | FI | DK | LU | EE | SK | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
62
|
52
|
37
|
33
|
54
|
18
|
16
|
17
|
24
|
14
|
9
|
10
|
14
|
13
|
17
|
5
|
43
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
4
|
7
|
7
|
11
|
4
|
2
|
10
|
|
PPE |
158
|
Germany PPEFor (27)Albert DESS, Andreas SCHWAB, Angelika NIEBLER, Axel VOSS, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Burkhard BALZ, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Elmar BROK, Herbert REUL, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Manfred WEBER, Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Rainer WIELAND, Renate SOMMER, Sabine VERHEYEN, Sven SCHULZE, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN
|
France PPEFor (17) |
Poland PPEFor (18)Adam SZEJNFELD, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Dariusz ROSATI, Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA, Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI, Jan OLBRYCHT, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jarosław WAŁĘSA, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
|
Netherlands PPE |
4
|
Czechia PPEFor (7) |
11
|
Hungary PPEFor (10) |
4
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (6) |
5
|
Portugal PPEFor (6) |
3
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
|||||
ALDE |
48
|
1
|
3
|
Netherlands ALDEFor (5) |
Belgium ALDE |
3
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
|||||||||
ECR |
45
|
Germany ECRFor (7) |
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom ECRFor (9) |
1
|
2
|
2
|
||||||||||||||||
Verts/ALE |
32
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (8) |
3
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||||||
GUE/NGL |
34
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (7)Abstain (1) |
2
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||
ENF |
28
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
35
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
United Kingdom EFDDFor (3) |
1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
NI |
2
|
1
|
1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
S&D |
115
|
Germany S&DAgainst (11) |
2
|
Spain S&DAgainst (6) |
Italy S&DAgainst (18)
Alessia Maria MOSCA,
Andrea COZZOLINO,
Brando BENIFEI,
Caterina CHINNICI,
Cécile Kashetu KYENGE,
Damiano ZOFFOLI,
Elena GENTILE,
Elly SCHLEIN,
Enrico GASBARRA,
Flavio ZANONATO,
Goffredo Maria BETTINI,
Isabella DE MONTE,
Luigi MORGANO,
Nicola CAPUTO,
Nicola DANTI,
Pier Antonio PANZERI,
Renata BRIANO,
Silvia COSTA
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
Romania S&DFor (1)Against (8) |
3
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
Portugal S&DAgainst (4) |
Sweden S&DAgainst (6) |
3
|
United Kingdom S&DAgainst (14) |
1
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
A8-0242/2015 - Kostas Chrysogonos - § 21/1 #
FR | IT | DE | ES | RO | HU | PT | NL | AT | BE | LT | BG | FI | DK | CZ | HR | SK | IE | SI | MT | LU | EL | LV | EE | SE | PL | GB | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
52
|
52
|
66
|
34
|
23
|
16
|
14
|
19
|
17
|
16
|
8
|
10
|
7
|
11
|
18
|
8
|
12
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
18
|
38
|
49
|
|
PPE |
155
|
France PPEFor (17) |
Germany PPEFor (24)Albert DESS, Andreas SCHWAB, Angelika NIEBLER, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Herbert REUL, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Manfred WEBER, Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Rainer WIELAND, Renate SOMMER, Sabine VERHEYEN, Sven SCHULZE, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN
|
11
|
Hungary PPEFor (10) |
Portugal PPEFor (6) |
Netherlands PPE |
Austria PPEFor (4)Against (1) |
4
|
1
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (6) |
1
|
1
|
Czechia PPEFor (7) |
3
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
Poland PPEFor (17)Adam SZEJNFELD, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Dariusz ROSATI, Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA, Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI, Jan OLBRYCHT, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jarosław WAŁĘSA, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
Abstain (1) |
|||||
S&D |
132
|
Italy S&DFor (22)Alessia Maria MOSCA, Andrea COZZOLINO, Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Damiano ZOFFOLI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Enrico GASBARRA, Flavio ZANONATO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Silvia COSTA, Simona BONAFÈ
|
Germany S&DFor (14)Against (1) |
8
|
2
|
Portugal S&D |
2
|
Austria S&D |
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
Sweden S&D |
2
|
United Kingdom S&DFor (17) |
||||
Verts/ALE |
38
|
3
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (10) |
3
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|||||||||||
ALDE |
51
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
Netherlands ALDEFor (6) |
1
|
Belgium ALDEAgainst (1) |
3
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
||||||||
GUE/NGL |
34
|
2
|
3
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (8) |
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||
ENF |
27
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||
NI |
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
31
|
1
|
Italy EFDDFor (7)Abstain (2) |
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
United Kingdom EFDDAgainst (16) |
||||||||||||||||||||
ECR |
48
|
2
|
Germany ECRAgainst (8) |
2
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
Poland ECRAgainst (15) |
United Kingdom ECRAgainst (9) |
A8-0242/2015 - Kostas Chrysogonos - § 21/2 #
EL | IE | FI | LT | EE | LU | SI | SE | LV | HR | AT | MT | PT | DK | HU | ES | BE | SK | FR | NL | BG | CZ | IT | GB | RO | DE | PL | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
4
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
17
|
6
|
9
|
17
|
5
|
14
|
11
|
17
|
35
|
16
|
12
|
54
|
18
|
10
|
18
|
59
|
50
|
24
|
66
|
36
|
|
Verts/ALE |
37
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (10) |
|||||||||||
GUE/NGL |
34
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (8) |
||||||||||||||||
ENF |
29
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
||||||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
38
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
Italy EFDDFor (7)Against (1) |
United Kingdom EFDD |
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||
NI |
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
ALDE |
51
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
8
|
Belgium ALDEAgainst (5) |
3
|
Netherlands ALDEAgainst (6) |
1
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
|||||||
ECR |
46
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
United Kingdom ECRAgainst (9) |
Germany ECRAgainst (8) |
Poland ECRAgainst (11)Abstain (2) |
|||||||||||||||
S&D |
136
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
Sweden S&DAgainst (5)Abstain (1) |
1
|
1
|
Austria S&DFor (1)Against (4) |
3
|
Portugal S&DFor (1)Against (4) |
3
|
3
|
Spain S&DAgainst (9)Abstain (1) |
2
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
Italy S&DFor (1)Against (21)
Alessia Maria MOSCA,
Andrea COZZOLINO,
Brando BENIFEI,
Caterina CHINNICI,
Cécile Kashetu KYENGE,
Damiano ZOFFOLI,
David Maria SASSOLI,
Elena GENTILE,
Enrico GASBARRA,
Flavio ZANONATO,
Goffredo Maria BETTINI,
Isabella DE MONTE,
Luigi MORGANO,
Michela GIUFFRIDA,
Nicola CAPUTO,
Nicola DANTI,
Pier Antonio PANZERI,
Renata BRIANO,
Roberto GUALTIERI,
Silvia COSTA,
Simona BONAFÈ
|
United Kingdom S&DFor (1)Against (17) |
Romania S&DAgainst (9) |
Germany S&DFor (1)Against (13)Abstain (1) |
2
|
|||
PPE |
156
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
Austria PPEFor (1)Against (4) |
2
|
Portugal PPEAgainst (6) |
1
|
Hungary PPEFor (1)Against (9) |
4
|
5
|
France PPEAgainst (17) |
Netherlands PPE |
Bulgaria PPEAgainst (6) |
Czechia PPEAgainst (7) |
Italy PPEFor (1)Against (12) |
Romania PPEFor (1)Against (10) |
Germany PPEAgainst (24)
Albert DESS,
Andreas SCHWAB,
Angelika NIEBLER,
Christian EHLER,
Daniel CASPARY,
Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH,
Elmar BROK,
Herbert REUL,
Hermann WINKLER,
Ingeborg GRÄSSLE,
Jens GIESEKE,
Joachim ZELLER,
Karl-Heinz FLORENZ,
Manfred WEBER,
Markus PIEPER,
Monika HOHLMEIER,
Norbert LINS,
Peter JAHR,
Rainer WIELAND,
Renate SOMMER,
Sabine VERHEYEN,
Sven SCHULZE,
Thomas MANN,
Werner KUHN
|
Poland PPEAgainst (18)
Adam SZEJNFELD,
Barbara KUDRYCKA,
Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI,
Bogdan Brunon WENTA,
Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA,
Danuta Maria HÜBNER,
Dariusz ROSATI,
Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA,
Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI,
Jan OLBRYCHT,
Jarosław KALINOWSKI,
Jarosław WAŁĘSA,
Jerzy BUZEK,
Julia PITERA,
Krzysztof HETMAN,
Marek PLURA,
Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN,
Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
|
A8-0242/2015 - Kostas Chrysogonos - § 39 #
DE | IT | ES | RO | FR | PL | CZ | BE | HU | NL | PT | SE | BG | AT | GB | SK | LT | HR | IE | FI | SI | MT | LU | EE | LV | EL | DK | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
67
|
56
|
34
|
23
|
55
|
38
|
18
|
15
|
17
|
18
|
14
|
18
|
10
|
17
|
49
|
11
|
8
|
9
|
5
|
7
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
4
|
10
|
|
PPE |
155
|
Germany PPEFor (25)Albert DESS, Andreas SCHWAB, Angelika NIEBLER, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Elmar BROK, Herbert REUL, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Manfred WEBER, Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Rainer WIELAND, Renate SOMMER, Sabine VERHEYEN, Sven SCHULZE, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN
|
Italy PPEFor (11)Against (2) |
11
|
France PPEFor (17) |
Poland PPEFor (18)Adam SZEJNFELD, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Dariusz ROSATI, Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA, Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI, Jan OLBRYCHT, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jarosław WAŁĘSA, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
|
Czechia PPEFor (7) |
4
|
Hungary PPEFor (10) |
Netherlands PPE |
Portugal PPEFor (6) |
3
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (6) |
5
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
||||
S&D |
136
|
Germany S&DFor (15) |
Italy S&DFor (22)Alessia Maria MOSCA, Andrea COZZOLINO, Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Damiano ZOFFOLI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Enrico GASBARRA, Flavio ZANONATO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Silvia COSTA, Simona BONAFÈ
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
Portugal S&D |
Sweden S&D |
2
|
Austria S&D |
United Kingdom S&DFor (18) |
4
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
|||||
ALDE |
49
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Netherlands ALDEFor (5) |
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
||||||||
Verts/ALE |
38
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (10) |
3
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|||||||||||
GUE/NGL |
34
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (8) |
3
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||
ECR |
48
|
Germany ECRAgainst (1) |
2
|
Poland ECRAgainst (2) |
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
United Kingdom ECR |
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|||||||||||||||
NI |
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
34
|
Italy EFDD |
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
United Kingdom EFDDAgainst (15) |
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||
ENF |
29
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
A8-0242/2015 - Kostas Chrysogonos - Résolution #
DE | IT | ES | RO | FR | AT | CZ | PT | HU | NL | BE | SE | FI | BG | LT | HR | DK | IE | SI | MT | SK | LU | EE | LV | EL | PL | GB | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total |
64
|
59
|
30
|
23
|
53
|
17
|
18
|
14
|
15
|
18
|
16
|
18
|
8
|
10
|
8
|
8
|
11
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
11
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
4
|
36
|
50
|
|
PPE |
151
|
Germany PPEFor (25)Albert DESS, Andreas SCHWAB, Angelika NIEBLER, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Elmar BROK, Herbert REUL, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Manfred WEBER, Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Rainer WIELAND, Renate SOMMER, Sabine VERHEYEN, Sven SCHULZE, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN
|
11
|
5
|
Czechia PPEFor (7) |
Portugal PPEFor (6) |
Hungary PPEFor (10) |
3
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
Bulgaria PPEFor (6) |
1
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
Poland PPEFor (16)Adam SZEJNFELD, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Dariusz ROSATI, Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA, Jan OLBRYCHT, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jarosław WAŁĘSA, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
|
||||||
S&D |
127
|
Germany S&DFor (12) |
Italy S&DFor (22)Alessia Maria MOSCA, Andrea COZZOLINO, Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Damiano ZOFFOLI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Enrico GASBARRA, Flavio ZANONATO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Silvia COSTA, Simona BONAFÈ
|
Romania S&DFor (8) |
Austria S&D |
4
|
Portugal S&D |
1
|
2
|
2
|
Sweden S&D |
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
United Kingdom S&DFor (18) |
|||||
ALDE |
51
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
Netherlands ALDEFor (6) |
Belgium ALDE |
3
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||
Verts/ALE |
38
|
Germany Verts/ALEFor (10) |
3
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
|||||||||||
GUE/NGL |
34
|
Germany GUE/NGLFor (8) |
3
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||
NI |
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
EFDD |
38
|
Italy EFDDFor (12)Abstain (4) |
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
United Kingdom EFDDAgainst (16) |
||||||||||||||||||||
ENF |
29
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
||||||||||||||||||||
ECR |
48
|
Germany ECRAgainst (8) |
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
Poland ECRAgainst (15) |
United Kingdom ECRAgainst (9) |
Amendments | Dossier |
210 |
2014/2253(INI)
2015/04/01
PETI
58 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 b (new) -1b. Implementation and transposition of EU laws remain uneven across Member States which, combined with linguistic problems, excessive bureaucracy and a knowledge deficit, have created a Union that is not citizen-friendly; Notes that citizens who wish to live, work or do business across Europe face the daily reality of ongoing difficulties due to uneven implementation of EU law in the legal systems of the different Member States;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is attaching ever more importance to petitions as a source of information on citizens’ complaints and potential infringements of EU law in its actual implementation, as evidenced by the fact that the two annual reports paid particular attention to petitions; notes that this has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of petitions that were forwarded by the Committee on Petitions to the Commission with requests for information; regrets, however, the delays in receiving responses from the Commission regarding numerous petitions, when it is asked to give an opinion;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is attaching ever more importance to petitions as a source of information on citizens’ complaints against public authorities, including the European Union and potential infringements of EU law in its actual implementation, as evidenced by the fact
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Also notes the need for a constructive dialogue with the Member States within the Committee on Petitions and asks the Member States concerned by the relevant petitions to send representatives to address the Committee during its meetings.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights and the environment; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of incomplete transposition or
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights and the environment, home affairs, justice, health, transports, taxation, agriculture and rural development; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of incomplete transposition or misapplication of EU law, which requires increased efforts from the Member States and on-going monitoring from the Commission;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens, or resident in a Member state, refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights and the environment; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of incomplete transposition or lack of appropriate enforcement leading effectively to a misapplication of EU law;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights, a lack of transparency and the environment; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of incomplete transposition or misapplication of EU law;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights and the environment; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of absent, flawed or incomplete transposition or misapplication of EU law;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Points out that there continue to be difficulties in dialogue with certain Member States and regions, which are reluctant to provide the documents or explanations requested;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 a (new) -1a. Reiterates its view that Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) defines the fundamental role of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties; Calls on the Commission to continue with its active monitoring of the application of EU law in order to ensure timely and correct implementation and proper transposition;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Highlights that late transposition of directives remains a persistent problem hindering delivery of tangible benefits for citizens;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Welcomes the Commission's acknowledging of the vital role played by the complainant in helping the Commission detect infringements of EU law 1 a ; __________________ 1a COM(2012)154 final.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the lower number of directives to be transposed in 2013 (74) in comparison with the 2011 figure (131); highlights, nevertheless, the higher number of directives to be transposed in
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates that reducing late transposition is a long-established priority of the Commission's policy and should remain one of its top priorities; Welcomes the lower number of directives to be transposed in 2013 (74) in comparison with the 2011 figure (131); highlights, nevertheless, th
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the lower number of directives to be transposed in 2013 (74) in comparison with the 2011 figure (131) and the fact that timely transposition of directives remains a top priority within the Commission's policy; highlights, nevertheless, the higher number of directives to be transposed in comparison with the 2012 figure (56);
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that, despite the low number, late transposition of Directives remains a persistent problem hindering delivery of tangible benefits for citizens; Notes that although timely transposition of Directives continues to be a challenge in many Member States, Denmark, Latvia and Malta maintained a very low number of late transposition infringement cases over the past three years;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Notes that the four policy areas where the latest transposition infringements were launched continue to be environment, health and consumer rights, internal market and services and transport; Is of the opinion that having identified the problematic areas, the Commission and Member States should set out the actions to be taken to ensure the full and prompt transposition of European Union law in each area;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Stresses that the Commission should follow in a closer manner the transposition of Directives prior to the transposition deadline and where a risk of late transposition exists provide clarification of the legal framework in these fields in order to help Member States improve implementation in ways which reap concrete benefits in the daily lives of citizens;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 d (new) 4d. Notes that timely transposition of EU legislation is essential for the smooth functioning of the EU, but so is the proper implementation of EU law; Stresses that very often deficiency and different standards comes from the fact that member States transpose EU laws in a different way, therefore calls on the Commission to implement a better review mechanism to examine how EU rules apply in practice at all levels in the various Member States, and how citizens and businesses are empowered to exercise their rights;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Points out that in order to improve transposition, application and enforcement of EU law, the Commission should make compliance with EU law a real political priority by building a strong partnership and collaboration among all the stakeholders involved in shaping, implementing and enforcing such legislation and in particular with the European Parliament and the Member States;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that a total of 731 infringement cases were closed because the Member State in question had demonstrated its compliance with EU law; points out that the Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, of which 31 (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commission; in order to put these statistics for 2013 in perspective, reminds that until now 3274 (87,3%) infringement judgments delivered by the Court were in favour of the Commission.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that a total of 731 infringement cases were closed because the Member State in question had demonstrated its compliance with EU law; points out that the Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, of which 31 (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commission; asks the Commission to pay special attention to the actual enforcement of all these judgements;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that a total of 731 infringement cases were closed because the Member State in question had demonstrated its compliance with EU law; points out that the Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, of which 31 (59.6 %) were
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that the four policy areas where the most new late transposition infringements where launched in 2013 were environment (168 procedures), health & consumers (58), internal market & services (47) and transport (36); highlights a direct and proportional link between the number of petitions received and the infringement procedures opened by the Commission;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes the high number of infringement cases closed in 2013 before reaching the Court of Justice
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes the number of infringement cases closed in 2013 before reaching the Court of Justice (200 out of 484); considers it essential, therefore, to continue to carefully
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes the number of infringement cases closed in 2013 before reaching the Court of Justice (200 out of 484); considers it essential, therefore, to continue to carefully monitor Member State actions, taking into consideration the fact that some of the petitions still refer to problems that persist even after the matter has been closed;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Feels that, in light of the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, EU legislation must be even more transparent and must be implemented effectively, bringing benefits in terms of human rights and social cohesion, while full attention should be paid to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, including at regional level;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Reiterates the Commission focus on effective problem solving, effective management and preventive measures, but suggests that the Commission should think of new ways, other than formal infringement procedures, to improve the transposition and enforcement of EU law;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the building blocks of European citizenship, as laid down in Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 227 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); points out that this right provides the necessary tools for increasing public participation in the European Union’s decision-making process and contributes to the identification and assessment of possible loopholes in the actual implementation of EU legislation; underlines, in the light of the above, the Committee on Petitions’ crucial role as the effective juncture between EU citizens, Parliament and the Commission;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the EU Pilot procedure is fully operational in all Member States and has produced impressive results so far, in particular with regard to the gathering of information and the improvement of the specific situation causing concern to citizens, as indicated by the reduced number of infringement procedures; invites the Commission to involve the petitioners in the process of EU Pilot cases deriving from petitions, in order to facilitate also the dialogue between those and the national authorities concerned; suggests that shorter periods should be established for these cases which are deemed of urgency and where the Commission might need to act soon;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the EU Pilot procedure is fully operational in all Member States and has produced
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the EU Pilot procedure is fully operational in all Member States and has produced impressive results so far, in particular with regard to the gathering of information and the improvement of the specific situation causing concern to citizens, as indicated by the reduced number of infringement procedures; calls nonetheless for the continuation of intensive efforts to keep citizens informed about the EU Pilot system;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the EU Pilot procedure is fully operational in all Member
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Notes the need for a fruitful and accelerated exchange of information between the European Commission and the Member States, as the lack of response or the delays in dispatch of information from the latter to the former also impact on the effective processing of petitions by the Committee on Petitions;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Welcomes Member States' efforts to settle the infringement cases without court proceedings within the EU pilot, which have led to a decrease in formal infringement procedures, but hopes that the Commission will clarify its legal status and will provide more information to the benefit of citizens and business alike;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Reiterates that more transparency, legal clarity and access to information on the whole pre-infringement and infringement procedure in the context of the EU Pilot and the annual report on the monitoring of the application of EU law is needed in particular when it comes to complainants;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – point a (a) improved communication between the two parties, in particular with regard to the initiation and progress of infringement procedures by the Commission, including the EU Pilot procedure, so as to make sure that the European Parliament is fully informed with a view to constantly improving its legislative work,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the building blocks of European citizenship, as laid down in Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 227 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); points out that this right provides the necessary tools for increasing public participation in the European Union’s decision-making process and for notifying EU institutions of potential violations of EU law by the authorities of Member States; underlines, in the light of the above, the Committee on Petitions’ crucial role as the effective juncture between EU citizens, Parliament and the Commission;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – point a (a) improved communication between the two parties, in particular with regard to the initiation and progress of infringement procedures by the Commission, including the EU Pilot procedure, especially with regard to petitions,
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – point b (b) efforts to be made to give information and access to relevant information relating to the pre-infringement and infringement procedure to the Committee on Petitions within a reasonable timeframe, allowing the committee to respond to citizens
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – point b (b) efforts to be made to give all the relevant information to the Committee on Petitions within a reasonable timeframe, allowing the committee to respond to citizens’ requests more effectively,
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – point c c) the Commission to take into account the reports of the Committee on Petitions, and
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the increasing use by the Commission of implementation plans for new pieces of EU legislation addressed to the Member States, which reduce the risks to timely and correct implementation and, in turn, have an impact on the number of relevant petitions submitted. Feels that it should be appreciated that Member States are endeavouring to eliminate infringements, when they are identified, without resorting to judicial process.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the increasing use by the Commission of implementation plans for new pieces of EU legislation addressed to the Member States, which reduce the risks to timely and correct implementation, pre- empt transposition and application problems and, in turn, have an impact on the number of relevant petitions submitted.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Underlines that given its gathered expertise in misapplications and loopholes in EU legislation, the Petitions committee is by default suitable to engage in the revision of current pieces of EU legislation;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Points out that in relation to the Commission initiative on EU regulatory fitness known as REFIT, the Commission needs to facilitate dialogue on regulatory fitness with citizens, Member States, business and civil society at large so as to ensure that quality legislation and social aspects of EU legislation are preserved and that one ideal does not progress at the expense of the other;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Asks the Commission and the Court of Justice of the EU to apply proactively the precautionary principle foreseen in the article 191 TFEU, establishing injunction measures when necessary , particularly in cases deriving from petitions concerning projects where a breach of the EU legislation in the environmental field can be foreseen;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the building
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the building
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses the vital role of citizens, businesses, NGOs and other stakeholders, when it comes to monitoring the shortcomings in the transposition and/or application of EU law by Member State authorities; Acknowledges in this regard the important role of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission, as well as questions from Members of Parliament, which are among the first signs that problems exist relating to bad implementation of EU law and help draw attention to misapplication and potential violations of EU law;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Points out that citizens, businesses, NGOs and other organisations frequently file complaints with the Commission and that in 2013, the Commission received more new complaints (3505) than in any of the previous three years increasing the total number of open complaints by 19%; Calls on the Commission to improve its current practices to inform citizens in a timely and appropriate manner of any actions and steps taken in response to processing their complaints including giving prior notice to the complainant before closing a file;
source: 554.703
2015/05/07
AFCO
32 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Whereas in line with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on explanatory documents1 a the Commission has reported to the two legislators on its implementation; ___________ 1a OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the introduction of the EU Pilot mechanism which, via its online platform, facilitates communication between the Commission and Member States so as to
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the introduction of the EU Pilot mechanism which, via its online platform, and with the involvement of citizens, civil society and the European Parliament itself, facilitates communication between the Commission and Member States so as to avoid, where possible, the need for infringement proceedings
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the introduction of the EU Pilot mechanism which, via its online platform, facilitates communication between the Commission and Member States so as to avoid infringement proceedings being initiated wherever possible, but reminds the Commission that this system must not in any way undermine the rights of EU citizens under the rule of law or serve to justify direct or indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 9 TEU, and calls on the Commission to itself inform citizens in an appropriate, comprehensible and timely manner on the follow-up given to their reports of potential non-compliance;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points out that EU Pilot is a working tool that has no legal status and that allows a discretionary power to the Commission that does not comply with the proper standards of transparency and accountability; considers that these shortcomings can be addressed through the adoption of a legally binding act that should clarify the legal rights and obligations of individual complainants and the Commission;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the new practice whereby the Commission can ask the Member States, in justified cases, to include explanatory documents when they notify the Commission of their transposition measures; reiterates, however, its call for mandatory correlation tables on the transposition of Directives;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Insists that these explanatory documents need to be publicly available in all EU languages;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Recalls that the European Parliament, in its resolutions, called on the Commission to propose binding rules in the form of a regulation; deplores that no follow-up has been made to these resolutions and calls, therefore, once again on the Commission to propose a legal act in the form of a regulation under the legal basis of Article 298 TFEU, so as to ensure full respect for citizens’ right to good administration as set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Warmly welcomes the innovation in the Lisbon Treaty under which the Commission will be able to impose penalties on Member States for late transposition without needing to wait for an initial ruling;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Deplores the fact that the European Parliament, which
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that in a European Union founded on the rule of law and on the certainty and predictability of laws, EU citizens must be the first to be made aware in a clear, transparent and timely manner (including via the internet) whether and how their national parliaments have significantly been involved in these decisions by also having had the opportunity to vote following the basic principle of subsidiarity, whether and which national laws have been adopted in transposition of EU laws, whether and which nationally existing laws may be curtailed and which national authorities are responsible for rejecting their implementation and/or ensuring they are correctly implemented;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Deplores the fact that the European Parliament, which is now a fully-fledged co-legislator and an institution directly representing the citizens, does not yet receive transparent and timely information on the implementation of EU laws, when such information is essential
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Deplores the fact that the European Parliament, which is now a fully-fledged co-legislator and an institution directly representing the citizens, does not yet
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Deplores the fact that the European Parliament, which is now a fully‑ fledged co-legislator and an institution directly representing the citizens, does not yet receive transparent and timely information on the implementation of EU laws, when such information is essential, including for purposes of adopting amendments aimed at improving those laws; improved communication between the European Parliament and national parliaments could be a helpful step in this regard;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Regrets the fact that REFIT was the result of a unilateral decision by the Commission, with no real social and parliamentary dialogue;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that the enhanced transparency of the EU could boost the participation of the EU nationals in the new framework of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI);
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Recalls that, in the revised Framework Agreement on relations with Parliament, the Commission undertakes to ‘make available to Parliament summary information concerning all infringement procedures from the letter of formal notice, included, if so requested, on the issues to which the infringement procedure relates’, and expects this clause to be applied in good faith in practice;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the creation within the relevant Directorates-General (DG IPOL, DG EXPO and DG Research) of an autonomous system for ex-post assessment of the impact of the main EU laws adopted by the European Parliament under codecision and in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, including via cooperation with the national parliaments; points out that in order to establish an efficient system to assess the implementation of directives, effective cooperation between the EU institutions needs to be set up.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for the creation within the relevant Directorates-General (DG IPOL, DG EXPO and DG Research) of an autonomous system for ex-post assessment of the impact of the main EU laws adopted by the European Parliament under codecision and in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, including via cooperation with the national parliaments and potential national referenda.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Emphasises that the European Parliament and other EU institutions should be in possession of detailed information on the implementation of directives by individual Member States, including information on delays in transposing them into national legislation.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Given the fact that the persistent delay in the transposition of directives is hindering the development of citizens’ rights, calls for the creation of a mechanism to prioritise the infringements that pose the greatest risks and have the greatest impact on citizens and businesses.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that in a European Union founded on the rule of law and on the certainty and predictability of laws, EU citizens must be the first to be made aware in a clear, transparent and timely manner (including via the internet) whether and which national laws have been adopted in transposition of EU laws, and which national authorities are responsible for ensuring they are correctly implemented; points to the need to further intensify cooperation between the European Parliament (and its Members) and the national parliaments with the aid of the European affairs committees that keep the transposition of EU legislation into national legal systems permanently under review; maintains that EU law has to be transposed properly and promptly into the legal order of each Member State so as to avoid unnecessary delay and infringement proceedings;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Emphasises that a certain degree of homogeneity is needed with regard to the transposition of legislation, without prejudice to the time required for the application thereof.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Calls for a higher degree of cooperation between the Commission, the Member States, the European Parliament and the national parliaments.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 d (new) 4d. Calls for the legal status of ‘EU Pilot’ acts to be defined in order to guarantee the citizens’ right to an effective remedy, including at the pre-litigation stage.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that in a European Union founded on the rule of law and on the certainty and predictability of laws, EU citizens
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that in a European Union founded on the rule of law and on the certainty and predictability of laws, EU citizens must be the first to be made aware in a clear, accessible, transparent and timely manner (including via the internet) whether and which national laws have been adopted in transposition of EU laws, and which national authorities are responsible for ensuring they are correctly implemented;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that in a European Union
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. The coherence of European Union legislation is inherently desirable, hence member state authorities are urged to avoid the practice of ‘goldplating’, as this often gives rise to marked divergences in the implementation process at the member state level and that, in turn, weakens respect for European Union legislation as citizens become aware of noteworthy variations across the EU;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point a (new) (a) Following the ideas of subsidiarity as well as direct democracy, both, national parliaments and a majority of people expressing their democratic will in a referendum, may that be on national, regional or other level, should be also able to wield power, even if this leads to a rejection of EU law proposals.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the introduction of the EU Pilot mechanism which, via its online platform,
source: 557.146
2015/05/26
ENVI
38 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Underlines that the Commission has the power and duty to oversee the application of EU law and to launch infringement procedures against a Member State that has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission to examine whether the failure to implement certain directives can be ascribed to the unclear wording of these directives and whether it will therefore be necessary to revise them;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission, with a view to obviating the need for infringement procedures, where possible to develop the informal rules into a standard procedure for consultation with Member States in order to make monitoring and enforcement more predictable;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Welcomes, and emphasises the importance of, the role played by members of the public, firms and organisations in drawing attention to possible breaches of EU law;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Highlights the important role played by the European Parliament, through petitions and questions, in drawing attention to shortcomings in the application of EU law by the Member States;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, as regards cases of bad application of EU law, the Commission
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, as regards cases of bad application of EU law, the Commission mainly relies on complaints; deplores the fact that individual complaints are often treated with considerable delays; encourages the Commission to address cases of strategic importance and cases which set precedents, which can be expected to be of greatest significance in attaining agreed environmental objectives;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, as regards cases of bad application of EU law, the Commission mainly relies on complaints; deplores the
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, as regards cases of bad application of EU law, the Commission mainly relies on complaints; deplores the fact that individual complaints are often treated with considerable delays; encourages the Commission to address cases of strategic importance; urges the Commission to introduce a system which does not rely solely on complaints, but which instead seeks, by means of the systematic assessment of legislation, to forestall complaints at an earlier stage and remedy shortcomings;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, as regards cases of bad application of EU law, the Commission
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that citizens and businesses expect a simple, predictable and reliable regulatory framework;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to review the effectiveness of the penalties imposed on Member States which have been shown to have breached EU law, given that the fines are ultimately paid by European taxpayers, and not by those responsible for the breaches themselves, in particular in cases involving the violation of environmental law; calls, therefore, for more detailed consideration to be given to ways of applying the ‘polluter-pays’ principle effectively;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Points out that the four sectors in which the largest number of new infringement procedures for late transposition were initiated in 2013 were: the environment (168 procedures), health and consumer protection (58), the internal market and services (47) and transport (36); points out, further, that petitions have been instrumental in enabling the European Parliament to draw the Commission’s attention to shortcomings in the application of EU environmental law by Member States;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to submit a new proposal on access to justice in environmental matters
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal on access to more detailed information on the actual stage of the implementation in the Member States for relevant stakeholders, a new proposal on access to justice in environmental matters and a proposal on environmental inspections;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to submit a new proposal on access to justice in environmental matters and a proposal on environmental inspections, possibly without increasing red tape and administrative costs;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Expresses its concern that the Commission’s communication policy regarding the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) overstates the difficulty of implementing environmental and health legislation; calls on the Commission not to lower its level of ambition and calls for public policy objectives, including environmental and health standards, not to be jeopardised;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Expresses its concern that the Commission’s communication policy regarding the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) overstates the difficulty of implementing environmental and health legislation; acknowledges the need for better regulation and urges the Commission to reduce red tape;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Expresses its concern that the Commission's communication policy regarding the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) overstates the difficulty of implementing environmental and health legislation; expresses its concern about potential deregulation and takes the view that the REFIT Programme should not be used to undermine environment, food safety and health legislation;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Deplores the fact that EU environmental and health legislation continues to be affected by high numbers of cases of late transposition, incorrect transposition and bad application by the Member States; notes that the Commission’s 31st annual report on the application of EU law shows that in 2013 the biggest category of infringement proceedings was environment-related; recalls that the costs of failing to implement environmental policy – including the costs of infringement proceedings – are high, being estimated at around EUR 50 billion per annum (COWI et al. 2011); stresses that, moreover, the implementation of environmental policy would yield many socioeconomic benefits which are not always registered by cost-benefit analyses;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Urges the Commission to use the REFIT programme to develop proper accountability mechanisms which improve the preparation and implementation of legislation;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes the Commission's use of the term ‘gold plating'
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to treat all Member States equally, regardless of their size or when they joined the EU;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Underlines the need to maintain a high level of environmental protection and
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission not to rely too heavily on ex ante conditionalities when assessing whether a Member State is entitled to EU funding;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Urges the Commission, when drafting and assessing legislation, to take greater account of the burden it may impose on SMUs;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Calls on the Commission to use ex ante conditionalities to assess whether a Member State is entitled to EU funding only in cases where it is clear that EU law is not being implemented and where the consequences thereof are far-reaching, and not in cases where it is the method of implementing EU law which is at issue.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate their efforts at an earlier stage of the legislative process with a view to ensuring that the end result can be implemented more effectively;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Encourages the Commission to enhance the multi-level cooperation in the EU Pilot programme between national, regional and local authorities with a view to facilitating the correct and comprehensive application of EU law;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to be more rigorous in relation to the application of EU environmental legislation and to conduct faster and effective investigations of infringements relating to environmental pollution;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that late transposition, incorrect transposition and bad application of EU law can result in differentiation between Member States and distort a level playing field across the EU;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Calls on the Commission to take stronger action against the late transposition of environmental directives and to make stronger use of penalty payments;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to solve implementation problems informally; urges the Commission to adopt an approach based on maximum transparency in providing interested members of the public with all the information available, including that concerning pre-infringement procedures; urges the Commission to proceed with formal infringement procedures where informal agreements are not properly implemented by Member States;
source: 557.251
2015/05/28
JURI
82 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) - having regard the Better Regulation package adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the area of justice there were 61 infringement cases open in 2012 and 67 in 2013; points out that most of these cases concerned citizenship and free movement of persons;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Calls on the Commission to make compliance with EU law a real political priority to be pursued in close collaboration with Parliament, which has a duty (a) to keep the Commission politically accountable and (b), as co- legislator, to make sure that it is itself fully informed with a view to constantly improving its legislative work;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Deplores the lack of attention paid by the Commission in the compliance with EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Member States while implementing EU law, therefore calls on the Commission as the Guardian of the Treaties, to undertake a more ambitious approach in order to effectively monitor the compliance with Article 2 TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights' legal principles;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; reminds however that ex-post evaluations should never replace the Commission's duty as guardian of the Treaties to monitor effectively and timely the application of Union law by Member States and to take all necessary steps to ensure good application thereof;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that the European Council conclusions of June 2014 identified the consistent transposition, effective implementation and consolidation of the legal instruments and policy measures in place as the overall priority in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) for the next five years; asks the Commission to put more emphasis on overseeing and ensuring the concrete implementation of EU law by the Member States; considers that this must be a political priority in view of the wide gap which is often observed between policies adopted at Union level and their implementation at national level; encourages national parliaments to become more involved in the European debate and the monitoring of the application of EU law, in particular in the field of home affairs;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the provisions/adoption of the Commission’s 30th and 31st annual reports on the application of EU law, and notes that, according to these reports, the main fields in which Member States have failed to correctly implement EU law during the year 2012 were transport, protection of health and consumers, protection of the environment,
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that in its Resolution of 11 September 2013, the European Parliament reminded that the Commission should pay attention to the fact that, with their policies, some Member States and regions are endangering the survival of languages inside their borders, even if those languages are not in danger in the European context, and called on the Commission to consider the administrative and legislative obstacles posed to projects relating to these languages; calls on the Commission in that regard to take into thorough consideration the minority rights perspective while evaluating the application of EU law;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission’s 30th and 31st annual reports on the application of EU law, and notes that, according to these reports, the
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that not only in the AFSJ but also in the other policy areas, there is a need to enhance the access of citizens to information with regard to the implementation of EU law; calls on the Commission to identify the best possible ways to achieve this, to make use of the existing communication tools in order to enhance transparency, and to ensure proper access to information on the implementation of EU law; calls on the Commission to propose a legally binding instrument on the administrative procedure concerning handling the citizens' complaints;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the Commission's 30th and
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that not only in the AFSJ but also in the other policy areas, there is a need to develop and enhance the access of citizens to information with regard to the implementation of EU law; calls on the Commission to identify the best possible ways to achieve this, to make use of the existing communication tools in order to enhance transparency, and to ensure proper access to information on the implementation of EU law;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses the importance of strengthening the effectiveness of implementation and infringement proceedings, in particular with regard to the Single Market, and the Single Market for services, due to its huge potential to deliver jobs, growth and competitiveness to the EU;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that not only in the AFSJ but also in the other policy areas, there is a need to enhance the access of citizens to information and documents with regard to the
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Notes the importance of monitoring the impact on competitiveness, economic growth and job creation when assessing the application of EU law;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Considers that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has so far been interpreted and applied in the narrowest possible sense by the Commission, with a compliance requirement only in the application and implementation of EU law by Member States; insists that the Charter of Fundamental Rights must become a real legal tool for the protection of citizens' rights, to be directly applied in conjunction with Article 2 TEU, and used for infringement procedures against Fundamental Rights violations;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 c (new) 2 c. Notes that the Parliament could assist in reviewing the implementation of legislation and through its scrutiny of the Commission by stepping up dialogue on implementation and enforcement and by means of implementation reports ;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Reminds that European institutions, and in particular the Commission and Council, must fully apply and comply with EU law and case law in the field of transparency and access to documents; calls in this regard for an effective application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents and of the related judgements from the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the efforts made by the Commission during the past years and acknowledges the range of measures that have been put in place to assist Member States with implementation (correlation tables, conformity checking, scoreboards and barometers, guidelines, etc); considers, however, that the information on the implementation of EU law in the AFSJ should be more structured, detailed, transparent and accessible; points out that the annual monitoring report could be supplemented by other measures that would allow Parliament to be more regularly and thoroughly informed about the state of implementation, delays, incorrect transposition, incorrect implementation and infringement procedures, with regard to each legal instrument adopted in the area of justice and home affairs, as well as in other fields.
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the decrease in late transposition infringements in 2012
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the efforts made by the Commission during the past years and acknowledges the range of measures that have been put in place to assist Member States with implementation (correlation tables, conformity checking, scoreboards and barometers, guidelines, etc);
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Reminds of the legally binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; calls on the Commission to ensure correct implementation of the Charter by the Member States; asks the Commission to use the expertise of the Agency for Fundamental Rights for identification of violations of the Charter and to start the infringement procedures where such violations occur;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the decrease in late transposition infringements in 2012 compared to the previous year was mainly due to the fact that there were less directives to transpose in 2012 compared to the previous years; recognises, however,
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Stresses that the timely transposition of directives should remain a top priority within the Commission and transposition deadlines have to be enforced
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Welcomes the efforts made by the Commission during the past years and acknowledges the range of measures that have been put in place to assist Member States with implementation (correlation tables, conformity checking, scoreboards and barometers, guidelines, etc); considers, however, that the information on the implementation of EU law in the AFSJ should be more structured, detailed, transparent and accessible; points out that the annual monitoring report could be supplemented by other measures that would allow Parliament to be more regularly and thoroughly informed about the state of implementation, delays, incorrect transposition, incorrect implementation and infringement procedures, with regard to each legal instrument adopted in the area of justice and home affairs; asks the Commission in accordance with paragraph 44, second subparagraph of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission of 2010 to make available to Parliament summary information on infringement procedures launched with regard to the former third pillar instruments and on the issues to which they relate.
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the increase in the number of new EU Pilot files, relating in particular to the environment, taxation and customs union, judicial affairs, the internal market and services, during the period under examination and the decrease in the number of open infringement cases show that enforcement of EU law is neither sufficiently transparent and effective nor subject to any real control by the complainants and the interested parties, and regrets that, despite its repeated requests, Parliament still has limited and inadequate access to information about the
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Recalls that the smooth functioning of a true European area of justice with respect for the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States is vital for the EU and that the complete, correct and timely implementation of the EU legislation is a prerequisite condition to achieve this objective.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the increase in the number of new EU Pilot files during the period under examination and the decrease in the number of open infringement cases show th
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the increase in the number of new EU Pilot files during the period under examination and the decrease in the number of open infringement cases
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Notes the lack of legal status and legitimacy of the EU Pilot and considers that legitimacy can only be ensured by enabling transparency, participation of complainants and European Parliament in the EU Pilot and legality can be ensured through the adoption of a legally binding act containing the rules governing the whole pre-infringement and infringement procedure; considers that such a legally binding act should clarify the legal rights and obligations of individual complainants and the Commission, respectively, and should strive to allow participation of complainants into the EU Pilot;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Calls, therefore, once again on the Commission to propose binding rules in the form of a regulation under the new legal basis of Article 298 TFEU, so as to ensure full respect for the citizens' right to good administration as set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Draws attention to the fact that the austerity measures imposed on Member States have resulted in public spending cuts which may make it more difficult for government bodies and the courts in some Member States to apply EU law correctly;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect of human rights (Article 2 TEU),
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. E
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5а. Calls on the Commission to respond swiftly when citizens raise the alarm about clear breaches of EU law, chiefly in the fields of judicial cooperation and the protection of children’s interests;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with Member States, but points out th
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with Member States, but
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with Member States
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Notes that the Members States when applying EU legislation should avoid the so-called "gold plating", by which unnecessary burdens are added to EU legislation which leads to a misconception of EU legislative activity and increases unjustified EU scepticism amongst the citizen;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas Article 51 CFREU limits Member States’ obligation of compliance with the Charter to situations where they are implementing EU law
|