5 Amendments of Jo LEINEN related to 2017/2273(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes this first report on the monitoring of the application of EU law following the entry into force of the Better Regulation Agenda in 2015; recalls that the principles of better law-making encompass the requirement to demonstrate the need to legislate at EU level, in a way that is strictly proportionate to the aims of the legislative action, and to ensure that the legislation is correctly implemented at the right level; recalls that any expansion of EU law that is not built on such principles is detrimental to the proper application thereof; stresses, therefore, the importance of upholding the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. DRegrets that timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a matter of serious concern as shown by the large number of infringement procedures; deplores the high number of negative trends revealed in the current report, notably the substantial increase in the opening of infringement cases, representing a 67.5 % increase over the past year and a five-year peak, together with a recorded increase in complaints and a decrease in rates of resolution; notes that according to the breakdown of the infringement cases open at the end of 2016, the four policy areas in which the greatest number of transposition infringement proceedings were opened against Member States were the internal market, environment, financial stability, financial services and capital markets union, and mobility and transport; welcomes the decrease in the total number of new EU Pilot files, reaching its lowest level since 2011; notes the Commission’s aim, in line with its communication entitled ‘EU law: Better results through better application’1 , [1],to make use of the EU Pilot only where it provides effective added value in the infringement resolution process; welcomes the fact that the report acknowledges the role of Parliament in calling the Commission’s attention to shortcomings in the application of EU law in Member States by means of parliamentary questions and petitions; _________________ 1 C(2016)8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the crucial importance of transparency and accountability in the drafting and application of EU law by the EU institutions, meaning that EU legislation has to be clear, understandable, consistent and precise, while also taking into consideration the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ins; recognistes on the need for foreseeability and predictability in EU norms2 ; _________________ 2Judgment 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.essential role that social partners and civil society organisations play in monitoring and enhancing effective redress of EU law;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for all EU institutions engaged in the legislative process to commit to enhancing the drafting quality of legislative texts, in line with the commitment undertaken in the Better Law- Making Agenda; recalls that the 1998 Inter-institutional Agreement on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation needs to be substantially adapted in order to deliver on that objective;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Welcomes Commission's commitment to actively help Member States transpose and implement legislation by preparing implementation plans for certain Directives and Regulations; calls on the Commission to provide enhanced guidance and assistance to Member States via concrete tools in order to achieve better record of implementation of the EU law; encourages the Commission to assist Member States that might face a priori implementation and transposition challenges and address these accordingly by enhancing the institutional capacity of public authorities at a technical level.