Activities of Domènec RUIZ DEVESA related to 2019/2132(INI)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on monitoring the application of European Union law 2017, 2018 and 2019
Amendments (7)
Amendment 10 #
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 one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law; recalls that petitions are the cornerstone of participatory democracy and that as such, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate; considers that the conference on the future of Europe should lead to increased public involvement;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 28 #
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 and urges the Commission to initiate inquiries in a larger number of cases; acknowledges that this increased transparency practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 33 #
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; calls onregards this as inadmissible and urges 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 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
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.