Activities of Jordi CAÑAS related to 2019/2132(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on monitoring the application of European Union law 2017, 2018 and 2019
Amendments (13)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
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 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 petitions are is the cornerstone of participatory democracy and European citizenship and that as such, ithey 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;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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; deplorunderlines, 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 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. StressDeplores 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 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
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 thcalls 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 levelproach when collecting information and responding to citizens’ concerns, in particular to tackle the “Blame Brussels” culture;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
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)
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);