2019/2132(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Cristina MAESTRE MARTÍN DE ALMAGRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that ensuring the effective and uniform application of EU law is crucial for upholding the rule of law, which is one of the founding values of the Union and its Member States, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; ~~is, therefore, worried about the increasing~~notes a high number of petitions expressing citizens’ concerns over violations of the rule of law in the Member States~~, including regarding disputed reforms of national judiciarie~~ and welcomes the participation of the citizens in exercising their rights; stresses that non-compliance with the rule of law, including by sub-national entities, has a direct impact on citizens’ lives, as demonstrated in petitions received and by the outcome of Special Eurobarometer 489; while respecting the subsidiarity principle, calls on the Commission to respect the commitments made in its 2019 communication entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union: A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343), in order to promote a culture of respect for the rule of law, reinforce cooperation with national authorities and ensure an effective common response to actual threats within the Union;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens, 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; underlines the importance of petitions as one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law; recalls that petitions are the cornerstone of participatory democracy and that as such, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate; considers that the conference on the future of Europe should lead to increased public involvement;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens, 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; underlines the importance of petitions as one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law; recalls that petitions are the cornerstone of participatory democracy and that as such, in due respect also of the spirit of article 11 TEU, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens, 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; underlines the importance of petitions as one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law, as well as loopholes within the acquis; recalls that petitions are the cornerstone of participatory democracy and that as such, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasises the important role played by the social partners, NGOs, European citizens and other stakeholders in monitoring and reporting on shortcomings in the transposition and implementation of EU law by Member States; welcomes, therefore, greater public awareness regarding re- examination of EU legislation, including the crucial role of whistle-blowers in the private and public sector; stresses that EU citizens are entitled to prompt, clear, genuinely accessible and transparent information regarding laws adopted by Member States for the transposition of EU law into national legislation and the national authorities responsible for ensuring the proper implementation thereof;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Recommends that any inter- parliamentary debate on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights include civil society and public involvement, for example by petitioning Parliament and through the European Citizens’ Initiative;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Stresses the important role played by Parliament where shortcomings in the implementation of EU law by Member States are identified thanks to petitions and questions;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the committee on petitions receives a significant number of petitions each year from concerned citizens expressing dissatisfaction with the state of implementation of EU law in the Member States, and that the large majority of these petitions are transmitted to the Commission for in-depth investigation; welcomes the Commission involvement in the procedure and finds it important that the members of the European Parliament can question the outcomes and the recommendations and underlines that the spheres of EU competence should be respected;

Amendment 17 #

Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

3a. Calls on the Commission accordingly to deal with petitions more effectively by responding promptly and comprehensively;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that the Committee on Petitions receives significant number of petitions from citizens disadvantaged as a result of decisions taken by national judiciaries; underlines that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right and must be respected by judicial authorities in all Member States;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to examine thoroughly the petitions relating to the rights of persons with disabilities; urges the Commission to effectively implement and enforce the EU environmental legislation, considering the amount of petitions received in 2018 related to non-compliant landfills, inadequate treatment of urban waste water or bad air quality in certain areas;

Amendment 2 #

Dolors MONTSERRAT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that ensuring the effective and uniform application of EU law is crucial for upholding the rule of law, which is one of the founding values of the Union and its Member States, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; is, therefore, worried about the increasing number of petitions expressing citizens’ concerns over violations of the rule of law in the Member States, including regarding disputed reforms of national judiciaries; stresses that non-compliance with the rule of law, including by sub-national entities, has a direct impact on citizens’ lives, as demonstrated in petitions received and by the outcome of Special Eurobarometer 489; calls on the Commission to respect the commitments made in its 2019 communication entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union: A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343), in order to promote a culture of respect for the rule of law, reinforce cooperation with national authorities and ensure an effective common response to actual threats within the Union; points out that Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union requires the Union to respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties, as well as their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, especially those that seek to ensure their territorial integrity, maintain public order and safeguard national security;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment, as clearly set out in its 2017 annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (COM(2018)0540), to placing great value on the contributions of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in detecting alleged breaches of EU law; notes, in this regard, the Commission’s efforts to illustrate the impact of petitions on its enforcement action in a number of policy areas ~~such as the environment, migration, taxation and the internal market; deplores, however, the lack of figures on the number of petitions handled by the Commission and the number~~; deplores, however, that the Commission did not publish the number of petitions that lead to the initiation of EU Pilots and infringement procedures;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment, as clearly set out in its 2017 annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (COM(2018)0540), to placing great value on the contributions of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in detecting breaches of EU law; notes, in this regard, the Commission’s efforts to illustrate the impact of petitions on its enforcement action in a number of policy areas ~~such as the environment, migration, taxation and the internal market~~; deplores, however, the lack of figures on the number of petitions handled by the Commission and the number that lead to the initiation of EU Pilots and infringement procedures;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment, as clearly set out in its 2017 annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (COM(2018)0540), to placing great value on the contributions of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in detecting breaches of EU law; notes, in this regard, the Commission’s efforts to illustrate the impact of petitions on its enforcement action in a number of policy areas such as the environment, migration, taxation and the internal market; ~~deplor~~underlines, however, the large amount of petitions received referring to violations and misapplication of EU law in those fields, in addition to many other areas of activity; deplores the lack of figures on the number of petitions handled by the Commission and the number that lead to the initiation of EU Pilots and infringement procedures;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcome~~Recalls the Commission’s commitment, as clearly set out in its 2017 annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (COM(2018)0540), to placing great value on the contributions of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in detecting breaches of EU law; notes, in this regard, the Commission’s efforts to illustrate the impact of petitions on its enforcement action in a number of policy areas such as the environment, migration, taxation and the internal market; deplores, however, the lack of figures on the number of petitions handled by the Commission and the number that lead to the initiation of EU Pilots and infringement procedures;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that, under the new policies adopted by the Commission to ensure compliance with EU law, the aim of the EU Pilot is not to prolong the infringement procedure, which is itself a means of entering into problem-solving dialogue with a Member State but, on the contrary, help to solve the problems effectively; welcomes the Commission’s decision1a to address infringements immediately and supports its efforts to resolve implementation problems informally; calls on the Commission to improve the EU Pilot problem-solving system; _________________ 1a OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes, in this regard, the~~Requests increased transparency and the disclosure of more information ~~in the 2018 report~~ about the number of petitions dealt with by the Commission and about its follow-up actions; ~~notes, however,~~regrets that in the large majority of cases the Commission did not open an investigation and did not take any further action; is particularly concerned, in this respect, about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at national, regional or local level; ~~acknowledg~~notes that this practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which essentially aims to direct citizens to the national level ~~when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms~~; instensifies, however, the Parliament’s repeatedly expressed opposition to the approach established therein and urges for its withdrawal;

Amendment 26 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes, in this regard, the increased transparency and the disclosure of more information in the 2018 report about the number of petitions dealt with by the Commission and about its follow-up actions; notes~~, however,~~ that in the large majority of cases the Commission did not open an investigation and did not take any further action; ~~is particularly concerned, in this respect, about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at~~therefore acknowledges the fact that many of the petitions concern local or regional authorities and are rightly forwarded to national, regional or local level; acknowledges that this practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes, in this regard, the increased transparency and the disclosure of more information in the 2018 report about the number of petitions dealt with by the Commission and about its follow-up actions; notes, however, that in the large majority of cases the Commission did not open an investigation and did not take any further action; is particularly concerned, in this respect, about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at national, regional or local level; calls on the Commission to improve, in this respect, its handling of petitions addressed by providing timely and in- depth answers; considers insufficient the Commission’s replies merely stating that it does not have competence to take further actions at EU level; calls on the Commission to work collaboratively with Member States for the effective resolution of petitions; acknowledges that this practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms;

Amendment 28 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Cristina MAESTRE MARTÍN DE ALMAGRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes, in this regard, the increased transparency and the disclosure of more information in the 2018 report about the number of petitions dealt with by the Commission and about its follow-up actions; notes, however, that in the large majority of cases the Commission did not open an investigation and did not take any further action; is particularly concerned, in this respect, about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at national, regional or local level and urges the Commission to initiate inquiries in a larger number of cases; acknowledges that this increased transparency practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes, in this regard, the increased transparency and the disclosure of more information in the 2018 report about the number of petitions dealt with by the Commission and about its follow-up actions; notes, however, that in the large majority of cases the Commission did not open an investigation and did not take any further action~~; is particularly concerned~~ due to the fact that no breach of EU law has been detected; notes, in this respect, about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at national, regional or local level in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; acknowledges that this practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that ensuring the effective and uniform application of EU law is crucial for upholding the rule of law, which is one of the founding values of the Union and its Member States, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; is, therefore, worried about the increasing number of petitions expressing citizens’ concerns over violations of the rule of law in the Member States, including regarding disputed reforms of national judiciaries; stresses that non-compliance with the rule of law, including by sub-national entities, has a direct impact on citizens’ lives, as demonstrated in petitions received and by the outcome of Special Eurobarometer 489; calls on the Commission to respect the commitments made in its 2019 communication entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union: A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343), in order to promote a culture of respect for the rule of law, reinforce cooperation with national authorities and ensure an effective common response to actual threats within the Union; reminds the Commission that the work done to ensure the effective enforcement of existing EU law is of equivalent importance to the work devoted to developing new legislation;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 31 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Cristina MAESTRE MARTÍN DE ALMAGRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates its concern that this approach may cause citizens to believe that their voice goes unheard by the EU institutions ~~and may ultimately deprive them of legal protection should a remedy at EU level prove more effective due to the national circumstances or the nature of the interests involved~~; calls on the Commission to clarify how it intends to address the gap between citizens’ expectations and reality regarding the possibility of obtaining a remedy at EU level, and to explain how its approach fits with its role as a guardian of the Treaties and its oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the TEU;

Amendment 32 #

Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates its concern that this approach may cause citizens to believe that their voice goes unheard by the EU institutions and may ultimately deprive them of legal protection should a remedy at EU level prove more effective due to the national circumstances or the nature of the interests involved; stresses the disappointment that the Commission’s practice causes to citizens who look up to the EU for the protection of their rights and to the Commission, in particular, as guardian of the Treaties under Article 17 TEU; calls for the above enforcement policy to be reconsidered, so as to ensure that it by no means jeopardises the handling of certain cases whose effective resolution might be better achieved at EU level; calls on the Commission to clarify how it intends to address the gap between citizens’ expectations and reality regarding the possibility of obtaining a remedy at EU level, and to explain how its approach fits with its role as a guardian of the Treaties and its oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the TEU;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that the Commission must prevent the situations where its services or staff refuse to act presuming that protection of the EU is a primary duty of member states’ authorities, especially if these authorities act apparently ineffectively in a concrete case; considers that if national institutions do not provide effective protection of EU law the Commission has to proactively and timely come into play with all its prerogatives, tools and powers; suggests that Commission should also provide the possibility for petitioners, after receiving a negative answer, to get a review from another Commission’s competent person, ideally with a nationality different than the concerned Member State of the petition;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Suggests that concerning concrete petitions, the Commission should by default evaluate the willingness and ability shown by national authorities to solve the stated problem of implementation of the EU law; reminds that for this purpose the Commission enjoys a wide array of sources: the European Commission’s Annual report on monitoring the application of EU law itself, its EU Justice Scoreboard and the European Semester’s information, the decisions of the Court of Justice and other sources, such as the forthcoming annual Rule of Law report;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recognises, in this regard, that it is essential to continue fostering closer cooperation and strengthening the links with the national parliaments in the law- making process; stresses that delays in implementation are detrimental to legal certainty; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take stronger action against late and faulty transposition of directives to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of EU law, thus guaranteeing the rule of law and democracy; underlines the importance of petition-based fact-finding missions to Member States so as to improve the investigation of petitioners’ claims, and as a unique means of getting closer to citizens and demonstrating that their concerns are taken seriously; urges the Commission, therefore, to take due consideration of Parliament’s fact-finding visit reports and resolutions based on petitions;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. In this regard it calls on the Commission to re-establish a wider use of the EU Pilot problem-solving mechanism intended to swiftly resolve potential breaches of EU law at an early stage without having to have recourse to a formal infringement process in a significant number of cases; stresses that a close and structured dialogue between the Commission and the Member States at an early stage is a key element to the effective and correct application of EU law;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Stress~~Deplores that, despite its efforts over recent years to enhance the transparency of its monitoring and enforcement activities (e.g. through a centralised platform providing infringement-related information), the Commission has not yet responded to Parliament’s repeated calls to be regularly informed about every EU Pilot opened and infringement procedure initiated, especially when they result from petitions; stresses the importance of receiving regular updates on developments in infringement procedures related to open petitions, while respecting the confidentiality requirements laid down in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); regrets the still existing lack of commitment shown by the Commission when responding to the concerns raised in EU Pilot procedures; reminds the Commission about citizens’ high expectations of transparency with respect to its oversight activities; urges the Commission, therefore, to share this information with Parliament in a spirit of sincere cooperation in order to enable Parliament to exercise its scrutiny over the executive under Article 14 of the TEU and, ultimately, to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of the Commission’s enforcement action, build trust in the EU project and, ultimately, enhance the legitimacy of the EU Pilot procedure;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that, despite its efforts over recent years to enhance the transparency of its monitoring and enforcement activities (e.g. through a centralised platform providing infringement-related information), the Commission has not yet responded to Parliament’s repeated calls to be regularly informed about every EU Pilot opened and infringement procedure initiated, especially when they result from petitions; stresses the importance of receiving regular updates on developments in infringement procedures related to open petitions, while respecting the confidentiality requirements laid down in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); reminds the Commission about citizens’ high expectations of transparency with respect to its oversight activities; urges the Commission, therefore, to share this information with Parliament on a timely manner and in a spirit of sincere cooperation, in order to enable Parliament to exercise its scrutiny over the executive under Article 14 of the TEU and, ultimately, to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of the Commission’s enforcement action;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that ensuring the effective, equal and uniform application of EU law is crucial for upholding the rule of law, which is one of the founding values of the Union and its Member States, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; is, therefore, worried about the increasing number of petitions expressing citizens’ concerns over alleged violations of the rule of law in the Member States, including regarding disputed reforms of national judiciaries; stresses that non-compliance with the rule of law, including by sub- national entities, has a direct impact on citizens’ lives, as demonstrated in petitions received and by the outcome of Special Eurobarometer 489; calls on the Commission to respect the commitments made in its 2019 communication entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union: A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343), in order to promote a culture of respect for the rule of law, reinforce cooperation with national authorities and ensure an effective common response to actual threats within the Union;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the importance of finally deploying within the EU law the access to justice pillar of the Aarhus convention, in order to ensure individual citizens’ and civil society organisations’ right to bring before the CJEU cases of possible breach of environmental legislation, as a means of effective redress;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the number of new complaints registered by the Commission in 2018 and 2017 reached its highest level since 2011, with a record 3 850 new complaints in 2018; welcomes citizens’ increasing empowerment as regards the process of monitoring and enforcing EU law, as evidenced by the significant flow of complaints and petitions; points out, however, that, as is the case for petitions, the number of complaints leading to investigations remained very low in 2018 and in 2017 as a proportion of the total number of complaints received; ~~asks the Commission to clarify how it intends to address the gap in citizens’ expectations regarding the possibility of obtaining a remedy at EU level;~~

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the number of new complaints registered by the Commission in 2018 and 2017 reached its highest level since 2011, with a record 3 850 new complaints in 2018; welcomes citizens’ increasing empowerment as regards the process of monitoring and enforcing EU law, as evidenced by the significant flow of complaints and petitions; points out, however, that, as is the case for petitions, the number of complaints leading to investigations remained very low in 2018 and in 2017 as a proportion of the total number of complaints received; ~~asks the Commission to clarify how it intends to address th~~calls for a more transparent implementation of the enforcement policy; encourages the Commission to take a more active gap ~~in citizens’ expectations regarding the possibility of obtaining a remedy at EU level~~proach when collecting information and responding to citizens’ concerns, in particular to tackle the “Blame Brussels” culture;

Amendment 43 #

8. Notes that the number of new complaints registered by the Commission in 2018 and 2017 reached its highest level since 2011, with a record 3 850 new complaints in 2018; welcomes citizens’ increasing empowerment as regards the process of monitoring and enforcing EU law, as evidenced by the significant flow of complaints and petitions; ~~points out, however, that, as is the case for petitions,~~notes also that the number of complaints leading to investigations remained ~~very~~ low in 2018 and in 2017 as a proportion of the total number of complaints received; ~~asks~~suggests that the Commission toshould clarify ~~how it intends to addres~~its actions as well as the lack of actions, thus the gap in citizens’ expectations regarding the possibility of obtaining a remedy at EU level;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Encourages the European Commission to work on new mechanisms to reduce the time of response when processing a complaint.

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Points out that those citizens directing their petitions and complaints to the Parliament and Commission, respectively, have in principle a positive opinion towards the Union, and are thus doing so in full conviction that the EU level will reveal itself as a fruitful political space to resolve their concerns effectively; underlines that a manifest failure to properly handle their cases at this level is likely to disappoint their initial expectations and perceptions towards the usefulness of the Union; considers hence that the current trend concerning the treatment of petitions is rather likely to increase the disaffection already existing in some Member States;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Points to the existence of the provision within the article 265 TFEU whereby the Commission or other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies could be brought before the CJEU if it is considered that they failed to act;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls, in this regard, that both the European Court of Auditors’ 2018 Landscape Review entitled ‘Putting EU law into practice: The European Commission’s oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union’ and the 2017 decision of the European Ombudsman setting out suggestions following her strategic inquiry OI/5/2016/AB on timeliness and transparency in the European Commission’s handling of infringement complaints invite the Commission to ensure that pre-infringement cases are dealt with in a more timely ~~and~~, transparent ~~way~~and equitable way, taking into account the principle of subsidiarity and equal treatment.

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Recalls~~, in this regard,~~ that both the European Court of Auditors’ 2018 Landscape Review entitled ‘Putting EU law into practice: The European Commission’s oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union’ and the 2017 decision of the European Ombudsman setting out suggestions following her strategic inquiry OI/5/2016/AB on timeliness and transparency in the European Commission’s handling of infringement complaints invite the Commission to ensure that pre-infringement cases are dealt with in a more timely and transparent way.

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (2012/2024(INL)), particularly its request to the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Emphasises that a lack of enforcement not only undermines the efficiency of the internal market, but also has a direct impact on individual rights and consequently affects the credibility and image of the Union; notes with concern the growing populisms and Euroscepticism and therefore calls the Commission to redouble its efforts to safeguard the integrity of the EU legal order; underlines, in this regard, that implementation and enforcement are founded on the distribution of powers conferred by the Treaties, and that the Member States and the Commission therefore have a shared responsibility to implement and enforce European law, with the Commission as the ultimate guardian of the treaties; points out, at the same time, that all EU institutions share the responsibility of ensuring implementation and enforcement of EU law, as provided for in the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to examine in detail complaints about differences in the quality of food labelled with the same brand name in different Member States; urges the Commission to end unfair practices and ensure equal treatment for all consumers;

Amendment 51 #

Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts in improving the enforcement of EU rules on labour mobility with the creation of the European Labour Authority; calls, however, for the timely adoption of the legislative and non- legislative initiatives required to make the European Pillar of Social Rights a reality for citizens;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Calls on the Commission to examine the discrimination practised on the basis of official language(s) of a Member State in schools and public administration within territories that have more than one official language, which hampers free movement and breaches the internal market (Article 26(2) TFEU);

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Stresses that memorandums of understanding concluded between EU institutions and Member States are not considered EU acts pursuant to Article 288 of the TFEU;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9c. Expresses its concern that fiscal policy measures (including pension, healthcare and public service cuts) and the reforms provided for in the structural adjustment programmes have not achieved the anticipated results;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)

9d. Calls on the Commission, in view of the numerous petitions received on insecure employment. to verify the compatibility of zero-hour contracts with EU employment law, including the directive on part-time work;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 e (new)

9e. Calls on the Commission to monitor with particular care the implementation of EU legal provisions to deal with instances of corruption that directly compromise the functioning of the internal market and to take appropriate countermeasures;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Points out that the European Parliament is the institution directly chosen by the citizens and, considering its paramount role of scrutiny, reminds the Commission’s obligation of accountability to the European Parliament, especially within the framework of the Committee on Petitions; notes furthermore the role of scrutiny of the European Parliament in calling the Commission’s attention to shortcomings in the application to EU law in Member States by means of petitions; reiterates its call on the Commission for more transparency, as well as to effectively use and further improve the existing monitoring mechanisms and periodic assessment tools, in order to duly monitor and assess the correct and timely implementation of EU law as Guardian of the Treaties, in full respect for the principles of good and effective administration laid down by Articles 298 of the TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the CFREU;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the vital importance of efficiency, transparency and accountability in the drafting and implementation of EU legislation by the its institutions; emphasises in particular the principle of democratic accountability – and the role that Parliament plays in ensuring it – as well as the right of EU citizens to justice and sound administration, as stipulated in Articles 41 and 47 of the CFREU; points out that, in line with these rights and principles, citizens should be given appropriate and easy access to draft legislative acts concerning them;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recognises the impact of effective implementation of EU law when it comes to enhancing the credibility of the European institutions; considers, therefore, that the annual report published by the Commission, the right of petition and the European Citizens’ Initiative are valuable tools for enabling EU legislators to identify potential gaps;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens, 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; underlines the importance of petitions as a means for citizens and residents to feel involved in the activities of the Union, as it is one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law and on potential lacunae; recalls that the right to petition~~s are~~ is the cornerstone of participatory democracy and European citizenship and that as such, it~~hey~~ contributes to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate; calls for the Commission’s commitment to take an active role in actions required by petitioners in order to achieve real change in citizens’ lives;

source: 646.941

2020/10/16 AFCO 43 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission reports on monitoring the application of EU law. Stresses that ensuring compliance with the EU law is essential to create a level playing field within the Member States. Believes that the reports are crucial tools to ensure the democratic scrutiny over the correct transposition and implementation of EU law. Considers such monitoring essential to identify risks to the rule of law before they can reach a point where a formal response is required. Stresses the need to continuously improve the mechanisms designed to ensure that rule- making is in full compliance with the Treaties, notably the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU);

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Emphasises the principle of transparency as enshrined in the EU Treaties, as well as the right of EU citizens to justice and good administration, as stipulated in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; points out that those rights and principles require citizens to be given adequate access to drafts of the legal acts that concern them; insists that those rights and principles should also be of paramount importance to the Member States when proposing draft acts aiming at implementing EU law;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Notes that the Commission no longer uses the EU Pilot as the default mechanism to engage in dialogue with Member States on alleged breach of EU Law; recalls that resolution rates of EU pilots was at the level of 77% in 2017 and 2019 and at the level of73% in 2018;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the crucial role of national parliaments, and where relevant regional parliaments, in the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft EU laws and in their correct implementation by the Member States; reconfirms its resolution of 17 January 2019 on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU; urges the Council to implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman, to systematically record the identity of Member State governments when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies; to develop clear and publicly available criteria for how it designates documents as ‘LIMITE’, in line with EU law; to systematically review the ‘LIMITE’ status of documents at an early stage, before the final adoption of a legislative act, including before informal negotiations in trilogues, at which point the Council will have reached an initial position on the proposal;

Amendment 13 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the crucial role of national parliaments in the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft EU laws and in their correct implementation by the Member States; notes that the existing forms of cooperation with national parliaments - like inter-parliamentary delegations, or procedures involving national parliaments in information-exchange regarding law- making and application - could be improved, calls for discussing possibilities for enhancing cooperation in the field of the application of the principles of subsidiarity and in defining the role of the principle of proportionality during decision-making and the application of norms during the Conference on the Future of Europe;

Amendment 14 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the crucial role of national parliaments in the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft EU laws and in their correct implementation by the Member States; considers that attempts against the constitutional integrity of the Member States constitutes a violation on the implementation of the EU Law;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the crucial role of national parliaments in the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft EU laws ~~and in their correct implementation by the Member States~~so that Member States are then better able to implement them correctly and promptly;

Amendment 16 #

Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Highlights that the respect for the rule of law is a precondition for guaranteeing a healthy democratic environment and protect citizens' fundamental rights. Stresses that that ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities, safeguarding the pluralism and independence of the media, stepping up the fight against corruption and the infiltration of organized crime into the legal economy are only some of the fundamental pre-conditions for guaranteeing a fair treatment before the law, the defence of citizens' rights, prevent abuses and ensure the accountability of those who administer public goods. Regrets that the available tools provided for by the Treaties do not represent a sufficient deterrent to Member States. Calls on the Conference on the future of Europe to address this issue and decide to overcome the unaniminity rule in Council in the context of Article 7 procedures.

Amendment 17 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes the importance of avoiding unnecessary complexity and reducing administrative burdens for citizens and businesses alike, calls for the need to provide all necessary help to avoid over- regulation when transposing and applying European Union law;

Amendment 18 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Recognizes that after the number of infringement procedures decreased between 2016-2018 the number of procedures increased again from 2018 to 2019, emphasizes the importance of proper dialogues between the European Commission and Member States at the pre-litigation stage; underlines that Member States need to be able to properly transpose European Union law into their own legal system, calls for appropriate timing in legislative procedures to provide sufficient time needed for transposition;

Amendment 19 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Stresses that the proper application of European Union law and the fulfilment of the obligations arising therefrom are the joint responsibility of the Member States and the institutions and bodies of the European Union, with regard to obligations stemming from the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 2 #

Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to continuously improve the mechanisms designed to ensure that rule-making is in full compliance with the Treaties, notably the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); supports the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (the ‘Mechanism’) to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions, consisting of an Annual Monitoring Cycle on Union values, covering all aspects of Article 2 TEU and applying equally, objectively and fairly to all Member States, while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

Amendment 20 #

Rainer WIELAND, László TRÓCSÁNYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for improvements to the EU law-making process, which relies on transparency and accountability in legislative drafting, together with civil society participation, where appropriate; echoes that the effectiveness of the EU’s legal acts –which hinges on the correctness and timeliness of their implementation – forms the cornerstone of legal certainty and better application; recalls the efforts of EU institutions to set up a common database and website for all parts of the legislative procedure; deplores these efforts have not yet reached their aim; considers necessary existing databases and websites as well as this future one allow for finding input by all involved individually such as voting records and amendments per Member State or Member of the European Parliament;

Amendment 21 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for improvements to the EU law-making process, which relies on transparency and accountability in legislative drafting~~, together with civil society participation, where appropriate~~; echoes that the effectiveness of the EU’s legal acts –which hinges on the correctness and timeliness of their implementation – forms the cornerstone of legal certainty and better application;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Deplores inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of EU law which can be attributed to incorrect translations of legal texts; calls therefore on the European Commission to increase efforts to ensure that adopted EU legislation is correctly translated;

Amendment 23 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that proper transposition and implementation of EUuropean Union law, on the basis of Article 197 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is of the utmost importance; calls for appropriate ex post impact assessment of EU law, including sustainability impact assessments; and for appropriate ex ante assessment beforehand during legislative procedures, in line with the pledge of the European Parliament and the Council to carry out impact assessments in relation to their substantial amendments to the Commission's proposal when they consider this to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process;

Amendment 24 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Sandro GOZI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that proper transposition and implementation of EU law, on the basis of Article 197 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), is of the utmost importance; calls for appropriate ex post impact assessment of EU law, including sustainability and gender impact assessments;

Amendment 25 #

Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Welcomes that the new IIA on better law-making contains provisions that aim at improving the implementation and application of EU law, inter alia, through better identification of national measures that are not strictly related to the Union legislation (gold-plating) and expects Member States to clearly indicate and document such measures; underlines 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; in this respect calls on the Commission to provide regular information on the documentation of gold-plating measures;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes the particular lack of transposition, implementation and supervision of EU law in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in contrast to the great urgency with which legislative proposals in this field are often pushed by the Commission and the Council during the EU legislative procedure; Emphasises that the decentralised system of supervision proves to be inadequate in many fields, such as regarding data protection and anti money laundering; Calls on the Commission and on national authorities to pro-actively and comprehensively monitor and enforce the application of EU law in this area;

Amendment 27 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Recognizes that for the proper functioning of the internal market citizens and entrepreneurs need to be informed regarding questions arising from everyday application of EU law, calls for strengthening cooperation through SOLVIT and other means necessary in this field;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the important role also played by the social partners, gender equality bodies and civil society organisations in monitoring and promoting effective redress under EU law; encourages the Commission to raise awareness of the rights of citizens and businesses under EU law, and to further support complainants by improving their understanding of pre- litigation procedure; underlines the important role of whistleblowers in monitoring the proper application of Union law; urges Member States to implement the European minimum protection rules agreed in March 2019; formally adopted in October 2019 well ahead of the deadline 2 years later; urges Member states to use the room left by the directive for a broadest possible scope and financial compensation for those who suffer from their reporting on breaches of Union law;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the important role also played by the social partners and civil society organisations in monitoring and promoting effective redress under EU law; encourages the Commission to raise awareness of the rights of citizens and businesses under EU law, and to further support complainants by improving their understanding of pre-litigation procedure; consequently, urges the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to open more investigations in those cases in which a possible infringement of EU Law has been detected, giving guarantees to citizens that their voice is heard by the EU institutions.

Amendment 3 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 30 #

Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Regrets that the Commission can only rely on infringment procedures to ensure the proper application and implementation of the EU law. Notes with concern that infringment procedures have the contradictory effect to place on citizens the ultimate burden of Member States failures in applying the EU law. Welcomes that the EU-Pilot mechanism is not used sistematically any longer as it has been recognised that it added an additional bureaucratic layer to the procedure without a real added value. Believes that the Conference on the Future of Europe would be an opportunity to discuss new procedures to ensure a more effective application and implementation of the EU law eventually leading to Treaty changes.

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to enhance public debate on its annual report on the monitoring of the application of EU law and to further support Member States in transposing and implementing EU legislation through institutional and administrative capacity-building initiatives; stresses the need for opening this public debate giving the widest possible participation to citizens, in order to find new mechanism for a better implementation of the EU Law, which can also be done together with the civil society in the Conference on the Future of Europe;

Amendment 32 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission to enhance public debate on its annual report on the monitoring of the application of EU law and to further support Member States in transposing and implementing EU legislation through institutional and administrative capacity-building initiatives; suggests to examine the role of non legally binding guidance documents that aim to assist the Member States in the implementation process;

Amendment 33 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Deplores the continuous decline of infringement procedures by the Commission despite rather growing deficits in proper implementation of Union law, among others in the domains of independence of courts, independence of the European Central Bank, anti- money laundering, citizenships for sale; calls on the Commission to regard its role as guardian of the Treaties as central and react with infringement procedures wherever necessary to uphold the proper application of Union law to guarantee legal safety for EU citizens and businesses;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Regrets that there has been a 20% increase in the number of infringement proceedings on EU single market related legislation since December 2017, including 15.6% since 2018, and calls on Member States to transpose EU law quicker and more diligently;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to pursue and intensify dialogue and exchange of best practices in order to tackle the lack of clarity and transparency in rule-making;

Amendment 36 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Recalls that the application of EU Law includes the full respect of shared values, including fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law as set on Article2 TEU; Is concerned, in this context, with the deteriorating situation in some Member States as outlined on the “The rule of law situation in the European Union - 2020 Rule of Law Report”;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Notes with concern that the EU average for transposition delays has increased with directives in 2019 having taken three months longer to be transposed into national legislation than in 2018;

Amendment 38 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Underlines the importance of the principle set out in paragraph 43 of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation (also known as ‘gold- plating’), such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents; notes that this information is often still lacking; calls on the Commission and the Member States to act jointly and consistently to tackle the lack of transparency and other problems related to ‘gold-plating’ as this practice can put unnecessary burdens on citizens, businesses and administrations;

Amendment 39 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Reaffirms that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the exclusive competence to interpret EU law;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to continuously improve the mechanisms designed to ensure that rule-making is in full compliance with the Treaties, notably the principles of conferral, legal certainty, equality before the law, subsidiarity and proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU);

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls the need to fully safeguard the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law, thus its sentences prevail over the jurisprudence of national courts, including constitutional ones; therefore highlights, this same need in the context of Brexit and the future relationship with the UK.

Amendment 41 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls the need to fully safeguard the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law in the ~~context of Brexit and~~implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and with regards to the future relationship with the UK.

Amendment 42 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Acknowledges and recalls the role of the European Court of Justice as the sole institution in charge of ruling on the validity of Acts of the EU institutions, thus ensuring the correct interpretation and application of EU Law;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls on the European Commission to launch infringement procedures if a Member State does not apply or respect the fundamental values referred to in Article 2 TEU, including the rule of law;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses the importance of the rule of law as precondition for the proper monitoring and application of EU law; emphasises its grave concerns with the generalised deficiencies regarding the rule of law in a number of Member States as described in the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; calls on Council to work as a matter of urgency with Parliament towards an agreement on Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes the 10% decrease of new infringement procedures open in 2018 compared to 2017; regrets, however, the increase in the number of new infringement procedures in 2019; welcomes the consecutive decrease in new late transposition cases both in 2017, 2018 and 2019; regrets that, despite recent progress, timely and correct application of EU law remain a matter of concern in a number of Member States;

Amendment 7 #

László TRÓCSÁNYI, Kinga GÁL, Brice HORTEFEUX, Loránt VINCZE, Paulo RANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Underlines that the norms of the European Union need to be formulated in a clear, understandable way, respecting the principle of legal clarity, transparency and the principle of legal certainty, stresses that European Union law needs to clearly define the rights and obligations that the addressees of the norms, especially the European Union institutions and the Member States need to follow;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Considers the EU’s legal order of European and national courts interpreting EU law as central for the proper application of EU law; deplores the effect of the German Supreme Court decision of 5 May 2020 regarding the European Central Bank’s bond purchase programme (PSPP) creating a lack of clarity in the EU’s legal order; calls on the Commission to launch an infringement procedure against Germany in order to achieve necessary clarity on the EU’s legal order;

Amendment 9 #