9 Amendments of Jo LEINEN related to 2017/2011(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points to the need to rebuildEncourages trust in the EU’s institutions and those of the Member States, trust being the basis for good cooperation and effective application of EU law;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the unchecked expansPoints out that EU legislation ofis the EU’s acquis is detrimental to its proper application; stresses thereresult of a democratic process and cannot enter into force the importance of upholding the principles of subsidiarity and proportionalitywithout having obtained a qualified majority – and in some cases unanimity – of the Member States in the Council; welcomes the practice by the Commission of taking due account of the principles of better law- making when selecting priorities for monitoring the application of EU law in the Member States;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of transparency in the drafting and application of law by the EU institutions, the Member States and regional authorities; points out, that in the interest of both facilitating the implementation of EU law by the Member States and making it accessible to EU citizens, EU legislation needs to be clear, understandable, consistent and precise, while also taking into consideration the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU, which insists on the need for foreseeability and predictability in EU norms1 ; _________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2009, Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt, C-201/08 ECLI:EU:C:2009:539, paragraph 46.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. 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 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, given that those articles require citizens to have adequate access to drafts of the legal acts that concern them; insistrecalls that those rights and principles should also be of paramount importance to the Member States when proposing draft acts implementing EU law;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls, in this respect, for the commitment of all EU institutions engaged in the legislative process to further enhance the drafting quality of legislative texts, in line with the commitment undertaken in the Better Law-Making Agenda; considers that the 1998 Inter- institutional Agreement on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation should be substantially adapted in order to deliver on that objective;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the inclusion ofdialogue between national parliaments inand the law-making process will foster effective application of EU law; highlights, for that reason, the necessity to ensure genuine application of the yellow-card procedure as specified in Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionalityEU’s institutions in the law-making process could improve effective application of EU law;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Encourages the Commission to provide citizens with an integrated platform to help centralise complaints and irregularities in the implementation of EU legislation;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. InsistRecalls that national parliaments have an essential role to play in both pre- legislative scrutiny of draft legal acts and post- legislative scrutiny of their correct implementation of legal acts by the Member States; highlights its continued determination to support them in such efforts;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Supports the Commission initiative to provide enhanced guidance and assistance to Member States using concrete tools in order to achieve better implementation record of EU law;