Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2021/07/09 more...
- End of procedure in Parliament 2021/01/21
- Results of vote in Parliament 2021/01/20
- Decision by Parliament 2021/01/20
- Committee report tabled for plenary 2020/12/17
- Vote in committee 2020/12/10
Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | PIGNEDOLI Sabrina ( NA) | ADAMOWICZ Magdalena ( EPP), CHINNICI Caterina ( S&D), DURAND Pascal ( Renew), HAUTALA Heidi ( Verts/ALE), BUXADÉ VILLALBA Jorge ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | PETI | RUIZ DEVESA Domènec ( S&D) | Ádám KÓSA ( PPE), Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI ( ECR), Jordi CAÑAS ( RE) |
Committee Opinion | AFCO | SILVA PEREIRA Pedro ( S&D) | João FERREIRA ( GUE/NGL), Daniel FREUND ( Verts/ALE), László TRÓCSÁNYI ( PPE), Sandro GOZI ( RE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 504 votes to 123, with 61 abstentions, a resolution on monitoring the application of Union law 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Rule of law monitoring and annual reports
The resolution welcomed the Commission's annual reports on the application of EU law for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, including country reports, which are valuable tools for EU legislators to identify potential problems.
In view of the large number of petitions expressing citizens' concerns about alleged violations of the rule of law in Member States, Members welcomed the Commission's first annual report on the rule of law as a new preventative tool and as part of the new annual European Rule of Law mechanism.
Parliament called on the Commission to strengthen the public debate on its annual reports, stressing that civil society and other stakeholders, in particular whistleblowers, play an important role in monitoring and reporting on the application of EU law.
Infringements
Members expressed concern that, in 2019, the Commission launched 797 new infringement proceedings, which is more than in 2018 (644) and 2017 (716). However, the number of procedures for non-compliance with timely transposition obligations still open in 2019 has fallen to 599, 21 % fewer than the number of procedures still open at the end of 2018 (758).
In 2019, infringement proceedings were opened in the following main policy areas, ranked from high to low according to the number of cases: environment, internal market, industry, business and SMEs, mobility and transport. The report noted with regret that environmental legislation generated the largest number of transposition and enforcement issues in 2019 while in comparison in 2018 the environment was in third place in terms of number of new infringement procedures.
Members considered that the large number of infringement procedures shows that ensuring the timely, correct and effective application of EU law in the Member States remains a serious challenge and priority. They called on the Commission to reduce the average time for dealing with complaints and infringement procedures as well as the time taken to bring a Member States before the Court of Justice of the European Union as the sole institution in charge of ruling on the validity of EU law.
Inconsistencies and shortcomings in legislation
Parliament deplored the inconsistencies and shortcomings in European legislation designed to combat cross-border organised crime including, inter alia, drug trafficking or trafficking in human beings. It stressed the importance of legislation which enables law enforcement authorities to take effective action against illicitly obtained assets as well as an EU taxation legislation in order to make tax systems more transparent, accountable and effective, as well as to curb unfair competition between Member States, and the proliferation of tax havens.
Members welcomed on the other hand the Commission’s efforts to continue monitoring the full transposition of the procedural rights directives in the European area of freedom, security and justice. However, they expressed concern about the persistent difficulties encountered in transposing Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, assistance and protection of victims of crime.
Member States are urged to transpose EU legislation on fighting serious crime and terrorism.
Parliament expressed concern about the serious gaps exposed regarding the application of EU environmental and energy laws, particularly in the area of waste management and disposal, energy efficiency, the loss of biodiversity, the over-exploitation of natural resources and protected areas, the inadequate treatment of urban wastewater and air pollution, which also have serious impacts on human health. There are 19 ongoing infringement procedures for incorrect transposition of the provisions of the Environmental Liability Directive.
The Commission is called on to firmly guarantee the swift, complete and correct transposition of all EU environmental directives in all Member States.
Members also deplored the lack of homogeneity between Member States in implementing legislation aimed at building a social and inclusive Union and combating all forms of discrimination against vulnerable groups. They underlined the serious shortcomings and delays in the implementation of EU law on the European Pillar of Social Rights.
The resolution stressed that the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules on good administration applicable across the Union makes it difficult for citizens and businesses to easily and fully understand their rights under EU law.
Lastly, the Commission is called on to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic is not used by Member States as a pretext for the incorrect application of EU law, and that any delays in transposing directives into national legal orders are duly justified. Parliament regretted the Commission has not decided to launch infringement procedures against the Member States that have breached Schengen rules.
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Sabrina PIGNEDOLI (NI, IT) on monitoring the application of Union law 2017, 2018 and 2019.
EU legislation is effective only in so far as it is, on the one hand, transposed in time, in a complete and accurate manner and, on the other hand, properly applied in national law by the Member States, which is necessary to guarantee the benefits of EU policies to all European citizens and a level playing field for businesses across the internal market.
The committee welcomed the Commission’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 reports on monitoring the application of EU law, including the country-specific reports. It recognised that these annual reports, the right of petition and the European Citizens’ Initiative are valuable tools for enabling EU legislators to identify potential issues.
Monitoring and reporting
Members noted a significant number of petitions expressing citizens’ concerns over alleged violations of the rule of law in the Member States, and welcomed the participation of citizens in exercising their rights. The report recalled that every year Parliament receives a significant number of petitions from concerned citizens expressing dissatisfaction with the state of implementation of EU law in the Member States. Members are particularly concerned about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies fearing this may cause citizens to believe that their voice goes unheard by the EU Institutions.
Infringements
Members expressed concern that, in 2019, the Commission launched 797 new infringement proceedings, which is more than in 2018 (644) and 2017 (716). However, the number of procedures for non-compliance with timely transposition obligations still open in 2019 has fallen to 599, 21 % fewer than the number of procedures still open at the end of 2018 (758).
In 2019, infringement proceedings were opened in the following main policy areas, ranked from high to low according to the number of cases: environment, internal market, industry, business and SMEs, mobility and transport. The report noted with regret that environmental legislation generated the largest number of transposition and enforcement issues in 2019 while in comparison in 2018 the environment was in third place in terms of number of new infringement procedures.
Inconsistencies
Members deplored the inconsistencies and shortcomings in European legislation designed to combat cross-border organised crime including, inter alia , drug trafficking or trafficking in human beings. Members welcomed on the other hand the Commission’s efforts to continue monitoring the full transposition of the procedural rights directives in the European area of freedom, security and justice. However, they expressed concern about the persistent difficulties encountered in transposing Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, assistance and protection of victims of crime.
Member States are urged to transpose EU legislation on fighting serious crime and terrorism.
Serious gaps were also exposed regarding the application of EU environmental and energy laws, particularly in the area of waste management and disposal, energy efficiency, the loss of biodiversity, the over-exploitation of natural resources and protected areas, the inadequate treatment of urban wastewater and air pollution, which also have serious impacts on human health. There are 19 ongoing infringement procedures for incorrect transposition of the provisions of the Environmental Liability Directive.
The Commission is called on to firmly guarantee the swift, complete and correct transposition of all EU environmental directives in all Member States.
Members also stressed that the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules on good administration applicable across the Union makes it difficult for citizens and businesses to easily and fully understand their rights under EU law.
Lastly, the Commission is called on to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic is not used by Member States as a pretext for the incorrect application of EU law, and that any delays in transposing directives into national legal orders are duly justified.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)223
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T9-0011/2021
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0270/2020
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE660.169
- Committee opinion: PE658.830
- Contribution: COM(2019)0343
- Committee opinion: PE644.960
- Committee draft report: PE657.320
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2019)0343
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2019)0319
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2019)0319
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0540
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0540 EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2019)0319 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2019)0343 EUR-Lex
- Committee draft report: PE657.320
- Committee opinion: PE644.960
- Committee opinion: PE658.830
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE660.169
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)223
- Contribution: COM(2019)0343
Amendments | Dossier |
202 |
2019/2132(INI)
2020/01/29
PETI
56 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the right to petition the
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
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 #
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) Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that ensuring the effective
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
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
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;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 26 #
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
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes, in this regard, the increased transparency and the disclosure of more information in the 2018 report
Amendment 28 #
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
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
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
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 31 #
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
Amendment 32 #
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 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;
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) Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
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
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
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
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;
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;
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
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Recalls
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 #
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) 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
source: 646.941
2020/10/16
AFCO
43 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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 #
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 #
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
Amendment 16 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls for improvements to the EU law-making process, which relies on transparency and accountability in legislative drafting
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that proper transposition and implementation of E
Amendment 24 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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), and with the principle of sincere cooperation as set out in Article 13 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU);
Amendment 30 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 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 #
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 #
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
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 #
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
Amendment 42 #
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Notes that according to the breakdown of the new infringement cases open at the end of 2017, 2018 and 2019, the main policies areas in which the higher number of transposition infringement were opened against Member States were environment, mobility and transport, internal market, financial stability, financial services and capital markets;
source: 658.930
2020/11/04
JURI
103 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 2 — having regard to the Commission’s 2017, 2018 and 201
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas whereas Member States have the primary responsibility to transpose within the established deadlines and apply and correctly implement the provisions of EU law and that EU legislation is effective only if correctly transposed and applied by the Member States to guarantee a level playing field for citizens;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Reiterates that the EU institutions must also acknowledge and uphold the Member States’ laws, their irrevocable powers, their legislative institutions and their courts as an expression of the essential principle of institutional loyalty and the conferral of powers;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 c (new) 11 c. Recalls that in its resolutions of 15 January 2013 and 9 June 2016, Parliament called for the adoption of a regulation on an open, efficient and independent EU administration under Article 298 of the TFEU, and notes that this request has not been followed up by a Commission proposal; calls, therefore, once again on the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal on a European law of administrative procedure, taking into account the steps taken so far by Parliament in this field;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 c (new) 11c. Stresses the broad interpretation of the concept of equal pay for equal work given by the Court of Justice in its judgments and calls on the Commission to commit to doing more to counter discrimination and the gender pay gap at EU level; stresses the importance of collective agreements in ensuring equal pay, maternity leave, parental leave and other rights protected by EU legislation;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 c (new) 11 c. Strongly suggests a revision of the aforementioned mechanism with the aim of making it more functional and agile so local and regional authorities, and mostly national parliaments, are able to dedicate the essential time needed for a genuine debate on European politics, without being encompassed in a less efficient and counterproductive procedure;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas EU legislation is effective only if correctly transposed and applied by the Member States
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas EU legislation is effective only if
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas EU legislation is effective only if correctly transposed and applied by the Member States to guarantee citizens' rights and a level playing field
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the Member States against which the highest number of infringement procedures were open at 31 December 2019 were Spain (85), Greece (85), Italy (77) and Poland (74); whereas Cyprus (43), Greece (39), Bulgaria (39) and Romania (38) are the Member States against which the highest number of new infringement procedures were opened in 2019; whereas at the end of 2019, 1 564 cases remained open compared to 1 571 in 2018 and 1 559 in 2017;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) B a. Whereas it is necessary to recognize the importance of the active contribution of national parliaments to the proper functioning of the EU and in ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure enshrined in Protocol 2 TFEU on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas infringement procedures should be a measure of last resort to ensure EU law is correctly transposed and implemented; whereas EU legislation should be formulated in a way that facilitates its transposition into national law;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas infringement procedures are unfair insofar as they make citizens bear the cost of the incomplete transposition or incorrect application of European law by Member States, and whereas
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas infringement procedures a
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas infringement procedures are unfair insofar as they make citizens bear the cost of the incomplete transposition or incorrect application of European law by Member States, and whereas
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 2 — having regard to the Commission’s 2017, 2018 and 201
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the aim of informal ‘EU pilot’ procedures
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas informal ‘EU pilot’ procedures have often proved ineffective and, since 2017, have been used less than before;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) D a. whereas upholding the rule of law is a prerequisite for upholding all rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties and secondary legislation; whereas the EU has a role to play in resolving rule of law issues wherever they appear, since the rule of law is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union as one of the common values for all Member States;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas dialogue and loyalty among the EU institutions and the national authorities has helped resolve 90% of infringement procedures since 2014 without recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas respect for the rule of law
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas respect for the rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy and underpins fundamental rights, and whereas the protection of fundamental rights and civil liberties, respect for impartial, independent courts,
Amendment 27 #
E a. whereas national courts in Member States ensure that the rights and obligations provided under EU law are enforced effectively; whereas independent and effective justice systems in Member States are the basis for mutual trust, which is the bedrock of the common area of freedom, justice and security, an investment-friendly environment, the sustainability of long-term growth and the protection of EU financial interests;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. whereas art. 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits any form of discrimination, including that on the basis of disability, but that numerous legislative acts aimed at concretely implementing this fundamental principle are still not correctly implemented in several Member States;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) - having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘2020 Rule of Law Report. The rule of law situation in the European Union’ (COM(2020) 580);
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas a number of Member States have introduced schemes that either directly or indirectly sell EU citizenship, and whereas there are serious concerns that such schemes could be open to abuse, giving rise to issues relating to security and transparency, undermining public trust in EU values and principles and facilitating organised crime and money laundering;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas a number of Member States have introduced schemes that either directly or indirectly sell EU citizenship, and whereas the
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the refugee crisis has demonstrated the need for urgent reform of the common European asylum system and for more effective burden sharing among Member States
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the refugee crisis has demonstrated the need
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the refugee crisis has demonstrated the need for urgent reform of the common European asylum system and for more effective burden sharing among Member States, whereas the mandatory schemes for the emergency relocation of asylum seekers from Italy and Greece have proved ineffective involving, in particular, serious consequences of a physical and psychological nature, on minors and especially unaccompanied minors, and whereas the Commission has launched infringement procedures against Czechia, Poland and Hungary for refusing to comply with relocation decisions;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the refugee crisis has demonstrated the need for urgent reform of the common European asylum system and for more effective burden sharing among Member States, whereas the mandatory schemes for the emergency relocation of asylum seekers from Italy and Greece have proved ineffective, and whereas the Commission has launched infringement procedures against
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the Schengen Borders Code allows internal border checks to be reinstated temporarily
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the Schengen Borders Code allows internal border checks to be reinstated temporarily
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 a (new) - having regard to Review No. 07/2018 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Putting EU law into practice: The European Commission’s oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union (Landscape Review)’;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas media freedom, pluralism and independence are essential components of the right to freedom of expression, and whereas the media play a crucial role in a democratic society, as specified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the TEU; whereas disinformation campaigns aimed at misleading the public about the EU activities target also the measures undertaken in order to ensure the proper application of EU law in Member States;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas media freedom, pluralism and independence are essential components of the right to freedom of expression
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L a (new) La. whereas the aim of the Directive establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms is to limit the damage caused by the impact of the economic crises on public budgets, restricting through bail-ins the effects of bank defaults on shareholders, bond holders and, finally, holders of current accounts containing more than EUR 100 000; whereas with the BRRD provisions and in particular the bail-ins, current account holders, and hence savers, risk having to pay for mismanagement that causes a bank to default;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L b (new) Lb. whereas in 2019 the Commission continued to monitor Member States’ implementation of the Capital Requirements Directive IV, the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive and the Bank Creditor Hierarchy Directive; whereas in 2019 infringement procedures were launched against 12 Member States for not having taken the measures necessary for the full transposition of the Bank Creditor Hierarchy Directive;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 reports on monitoring the application of EU law, including the country-specific reports; takes the view that monitoring is essential in order to identify risks to the rule of law before they reach a point where they require a formal response; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s first yearly Rule of Law Report as a new preventive tool and part of the new annual European Rule of Law Mechanism, focused on four areas: justice systems, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and freedom, and other institutional issues linked to checks and balances;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 reports on monitoring the application of EU law, including the country-specific reports; takes the view that monitoring is essential in order to identify and preclude risks to the rule of law and the public rights and freedoms of EU citizens before they reach a point where they require a formal response;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Expresses its concern that, in 2019, the Commission launched 797 new infringement procedures, more than in 2018 (644) and 2017 (716); it is also a matter of concern that, in 2019, the Commission issued 316 letters of formal notice, compared to 157 in 2018 and 275 in 2017; despite this, 1 564 infringement proceedings were still pending in 2019, slightly less than the 1 571 that were still pending at the end of 2018 and slightly more than in 2017 (1 559);
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to base its action on the use of the ‘EU pilot’ scheme or any other similar out-of-court scheme so as to boost dialogue with the Member States as a fundamental, irreplaceable basis for remedying the incorrect or incomplete application of EU legislation; takes the view that the Commission should always go as far as possible in dialogue with national authorities before resorting to the CJEU, as court action should always be the last resort;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Underlines the crucial role of the Court of Justice of the European Union as the sole institution in charge of ruling on the validity of EU law, thus ensuring its correct interpretation and application by EU institutions and Member States; recalls that the preliminary ruling procedure is a fundamental mechanism of EU law, which gives national courts of Member States a possibility to request the Court of Justice of the European Union to issue a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 10 b (new) - having regard to Review No. 02/2020 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Law-making in the European Union after almost 20 years of Better Regulation’;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. notes that, according to these reports, the fields in which the greatest number of transposition infringement proceedings were opened against Member States in those years were the environment, mobility, transport and the internal market;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Points out that, in 2019, infringement proceedings were opened in the following main policy areas in order of magnitude: environment, internal market, industry, business and SMEs, mobility and transport; notes with regret that environmental legislation involved the largest number of transposition and enforcement issues in 2019; in 2018, by way of comparison, the environment was in third place regarding the number of new infringement procedures;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Calls on the Commission to enhance, where possible and appropriate, preventive instruments designed to help Member States to recognize transposition problems, address them at an early stage of the infringement procedures and help them find joined solutions and thus, enhance the effectiveness of EU legislation;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Encourages the Commission to enhance further its oversight of the way EU law is applied in Member States, in line with the Landscape Review by the European Court of Auditors; stresses that the Commission should promote compliance in a manner that is more consistent across different policy areas;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Considers that the large number of infringement procedures shows that ensuring the timely, correct and effective application of EU law in the Member States remains a serious challenge and priority; calls on the Commission to employ, where possible and necessary, implementation and compliance- promoting tools in order to ensure the correct implementation and enforcement of EU law; recalls that these tools include package meetings, implementation guidelines discussed with stakeholders and European Parliament, Transposition and Implementation Plans (TIPs), committees and expert groups; capacity building actions in Member States;
Amendment 55 #
1c. Welcomes the reduction in the number of transposition infringement proceedings still pending in 2019, numbering 599, 21% less than at the end of 2018 (758);
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 d (new) 1 d. Call on the Commission to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic is not used by Member States as a pretext for the incorrect application of EU law, and that any delays in transposing directives into national legal orders are duly justified;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Is seriously concerned at the fact that many Member States have not yet implemented the 4AMLD; welcomes the launch of infringement procedures; welcomes also the adoption by the European Commission of the communication entitled 'Towards a better implementation of the EU framework on combating money laundering and terrorist financing', which, together with a series of reports, can help European and national authorities to address money laundering risks, including those related to terrorist financing, more effectively; urges the Member States to duly transpose the 4AMLD; notes, however, that the large number of open infringement procedures could point to a failing in the law itself;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Is seriously concerned at the fact that many Member States have not yet implemented the 4AMLD;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Is seriously concerned at the fact that many Member States have not yet implemented the
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital -A (new) -A. whereas the correct application and enforcement of EU law remains a shared responsibility of Member States and EU institutions, in line with the principle of sincere co-operation set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Is seriously concerned at the fact that many Member States have not yet implemented the 4AMLD;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Recalls that the legislation which gives rise to the most flagrant infringement proceedings is the result of directives; recalls that regulations are directly and compulsorily applicable in all the Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission to make use of regulations as far as possible whenever it considers issuing legislative proposals; considers that such an approach could mitigate the risk of over-regulation in Member States;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Recalls that preliminary rulings help to clarify the manner in which the law of the European Union is to be applied; considers that recourse to this procedure allows a uniform interpretation and implementation of European legislation; encourages, therefore, national courts to refer questions to the CJEU in the event of doubt and thus prevent infringement proceedings;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Is concerned at the implications of certain investment and citizenship schemes recently adopted by a number of Member States
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Is concerned at the implications of certain investment and citizenship schemes recently adopted by
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Deplores the inconsistencies and shortcomings in the European legislation designed to combat cross-border organised crime; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring the correct transposition of the
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Deplores the inconsistencies and shortcomings in the European legislation designed to combat cross-border organised crime such as drug smuggling or illegal people-trafficking by mafia groups; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring the correct transposition of the framework decision on the fight against organised crime, using its enforcement powers under the Treaties; calls on the Commission to review the framework decision in the light of Article 83 TFEU, updating the definitions of criminal offences to emphasise the cross-border nature of criminal organisations, as repeatedly highlighted in the reports of the relevant European agencies, making the related penalties more severe and adding the offence of criminal association, as characterised, according to the mafia model, by intimidation tactics, a firm intent to take part in criminal activities by mere fact of association, and the ability to influence public bodies; would welcome, in this context, general European legislation on protecting those who cooperate with law enforcement authorities;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the importance of legislation which enables enforcement authorities to take effective action against ill-gotten assets to prevent criminals from reaping the spoils of their offences and then ploughing proceeds back into the legal economy or using them to finance other criminal activities; notes that European legislation is lacking in this regard, despite the forthcoming entry into force of Regulation 2018/1805, and calls on the Commission to review the entire legal framework for freezing and confiscating instrumentalities and criminal proceeds in the EU, paying particular attention to the seizure or confiscation of criminal proceeds
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Stresses the importance of legislation which enables law enforcement authorities to take effective action against ill-gotten assets to prevent criminals from reaping the spoils of their offences and then ploughing proceeds back into the legal economy or using them to finance other criminal activities; notes that European legislation is lacking in this regard, despite the forthcoming entry into force of Regulation 2018/1805
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas in 2016 the Commission decided to prioritise the most serious breaches of EU law significantly affecting the interests of citizens and businesses in its work on infringement cases and complaints, and whereas 2017 was the first year in which the Commission applied this new, more targeted approach;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to continue to monitor the full transposition of the procedural rights directives of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Area, however, underlines its concern about the persistent difficulties encountered in transposing the Directive 2012/29/ EU which establishes minimum standards on the rights, assistance and protection of victims of crime, as well as in relation to the infringement procedures opened against various Member States for failure to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/800 on procedural guarantees for suspected minors or accused in criminal proceedings;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Is concerned about the serious shortcomings and delays in the application of EU law that fall under the European Pillar of Social rights, in particular with regard to the application of the regulation on the protection of workers' health and safety at work, ranging from the Working Time directive, to the legislation on equal treatment and salary between women and men;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Regrets the persistent lack of homogeneity between Member States in the effective implementation of the diverse pieces of legislation aimed at building a social and inclusive Union and combating all forms of discrimination against vulnerable groups; stresses, in particular, the difficulties faced by people with disabilities, in particular those with hearing and visual impairments with regard, for example, to the not yet guaranteed accessibility to goods and services, such as the emergency number 112, or with regard to the directive on accessibility of websites or other mobile applications;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Criticises the
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Urges the Member States to transpose EU legislation
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Urges the Member States to transpose EU legislation on police and judicial cooperation, paying particular attention to the exchange of data and information; notes that in 2019 the Commission pursued infringement procedures against some Member States for failure to notify it of the adoption of the measures required to successfully transpose the Passenger Name Record Directive
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the EU institutions to
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the EU institutions to guarantee the full implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in all their decisions, actions and policies, as a way of upholding media pluralism and media freedom; expresses concern at the media landscape in the EU; strongly condemns practices designed to intimidate or threaten journalists
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Condemns a growing number of disinformation campaigns aimed at misleading the public about the EU activities and targeting also the measures undertaken in order to ensure the proper application of the EU law in Member States; calls on the Commission to counter this phenomenon as it seeks to undermine the democratic process and citizens’ trust in the democratic institutions of the EU; calls on the Commission to implement a clear, comprehensive and broad set of actions to tackle the spread and impact of online disinformation in Europe and ensure the protection of European values and democratic systems;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. expresses concern at the serious gaps in the application of EU environmental and energy laws, particularly in the area of waste management and disposal, energy efficiency, the loss of biodiversity, the over-exploitation of natural resources and protected areas, the inadequate treatment of urban wastewater and air pollution; calls on the Commission to firmly guarantee the swift, complete and correct transposition of all EU environmental directives in all Member States, in line with the priorities set in its communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. expresses concern at the serious gaps in the application of EU environmental law, particularly in the area of waste management and disposal, the over-exploitation of natural resources, the inadequate treatment of urban wastewater and air pollution which also have serious impacts on human health; calls on the Commission to guarantee the swift, complete and correct transposition of all EU environmental directives in all Member States, in line with the priorities set in its communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Notes with concern the shortcomings of Member States in the implementation of Natura 2000 network of protected areas and in taking the necessary conservation measures that are the key for the conservation of protected habitats and species; emphasizes that ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss is a major issue across the EU; recommends the Commission to put forward a new ecosystem restoration law that would build upon and go beyond existing obligations already required by the Habitats Directive and other EU legislation and would create synergies between the biodiversity and climate crisis agenda by putting a specific focus on biodiverse ecosystems with significant carbon storage and sequestration potential;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Notes with concern that there are 19 infringement procedures under way for incorrect transposition of provisions in the Environmental Liability Directive; states that the correct implementation of this Directive is fundamental to ensuring proper implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle and liability for environmental damage in general; calls for legal action by the Commission to guarantee the swift, complete and correct transposition of all the EU environmental directives in all its Member States, in line with the priorities it set in its Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application';
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Takes that view that the Commission ought, as a matter of course, to reassess the quality of its legislative work, in conjunction with Parliament and the Council; takes the view, in addition, that efforts should be made to establish whether difficulties or delays in the correct, complete and timely transposition of directives stem from a lack of clarity or from complexity in the provisions or drafting of the directives concerned, especially in the case of directives that were not transposed in a timely manner, correctly or fully by almost all the Member States;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Acknowledges the work carried out by the European Commission and its respect for the principle of subsidiarity; recommends the development of a more political approach to the subsidiarity control mechanism in the EU, in order to develop a greater added value for citizens, and a further involvement of the European Committee of the Regions in this regard, which can have the role of the guardian of the principle of subsidiarity representing regional and local authorities;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Regrets the inflating number of procedures has led the average time taken to investigate potential breaches of EU law to continuously increase since 2017; calls the Commission to reduce the average time to treat complaints and infringement procedures; calls the Commission, when appropriate, to drastically reduce the time taken to bring a Member States before the Court pursuant to Article 258 TFEU and Article 260 TFEU.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Calls on the Commission to provide more information on the criteria applied under the new methodological approach applied from 2017, aimed at determining the most serious infringement cases and complaints of EU law, against which to open an infringement procedure;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11 b. Stresses that the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of good administration across the Union makes it difficult for citizens and businesses to easily and fully understand their rights under Union law; emphasises, therefore, that codifying rules of good administration in the form of a regulation setting out the various aspects of the administrative procedure – including notifications, binding time limits, the right to be heard and the right for every person to have access to his or her file – is tantamount to reinforcing citizens’ rights and transparency; believes that this regulation would increase the effectiveness, efficiency and capacity of public administration and services and in this regard respond to the investment and reform needs across the European Union;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11 b. Regrets the current structure of the procedure for the subsidiarity control mechanism compelling national parliaments’ committees for the EU to dedicate excessive time to technical and legal assessments with short deadlines, and complicating or preventing them to have a more political approach in their agendas and thus for discussing on European politics; reminds that in 2019, 159 reports and 0 reasoned opinion have been submitted, out of a total of 4918 and 439 respectively in the last 9 years; recalls that, as of today, the “yellow card” procedure has been activated only three times, and the “orange card” has never been used;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11 b. Calls on the Commission to continue to strengthen and diversify the types of support provided to the relevant authorities of the Member States, at national and regional level, responsible for the transposition and application of European legislation, through a series of concrete initiatives and instruments such as, for example, preparing implementation plans, road maps, explanatory documents, dedicated websites, exchange of good practices;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Calls on the Commission to revise, as a matter of urgency, the Directive on the recovery and resolution of credit institutions by amending the bail-in mechanism to comply with the private savings principle so as to avoid savers being affected by losses caused by bank mismanagement;
source: 660.169
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE657.320New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-657320_EN.html |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.960&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PETI-AD-644960_EN.html |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-AD-658830_EN.html |
docs/6/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE660.169New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-660169_EN.html |
docs/7 |
|
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary |
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5/type |
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Decision by Parliament |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
events/2 |
|
events/3 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/5 |
|
forecasts |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Procedure completed |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
124747
|
committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
127096
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830&secondRef=02 |
forecasts |
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830 |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830&secondRef=02 |
docs/6/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE660.169
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE658.830 |
docs/6 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/6 |
|
procedure/title |
Old
Monitoring the application of European Union law 2017 and 2018New
Monitoring the application of European Union law 2017, 2018 and 2019 |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.960&secondRef=03
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/4 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
docs/3/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.960&secondRef=02
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
docs/3 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
docs/2/docs/1 |
|
docs/0 |
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
docs |
|
events/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
committees/2/rapporteur |
|
commission |
|