BETA

Activities of Brice HORTEFEUX related to 2022/2143(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on the implementation of the principle of primacy of EU law
2023/11/07
Committee: AFCOJURI
Dossiers: 2022/2143(INI)
Documents: PDF(207 KB) DOC(68 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Jana TOOM', 'mepid': 124700}, {'name': 'Cyrus ENGERER', 'mepid': 209091}]

Amendments (10)

Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the principle of primacy is not enshrined in the Treaties, but has developed over decades through the case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); whereas, ever since its landmark Costa v E.N.E.L. judgment of 15 July 1964 in Case C-6/646, the CJEU has reaffirmed that EU law takes precedence over the law of the Member States, regardless of the rank of the national legislation or the time of its adoption; whereas the principle of primacy therefore applies to any provision of domestic law, including provisions of a constitutional nature, in accordance with the well-established case-law of the CJEU; _________________ 6 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 1964, Costa v E.N.E.L., C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.;
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that, by their accession to the EU, the Member States have adhered to a certain number of core values and principles, which they share and have undertaken to respect at all times; recalls that these include the principle of primacy which may not, however, impinge upon the sovereignty of the constitutional order of the Member States or the direct expression of the will of the people of a Member State in a referendum;
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls in this regard that, in accordance with consistent case-law and on the basis of Article 4(2) TEU, although the Member States have a certain degree of discretion in implementing the principles of EU law, their obligations as to the result to be achieved do not vary from one Member State to another and the executive force of EU law may not vary from one Member State to another; emphasises that the same logic applies within the Member States, as compliance with EU law and its principles may not vary over time as a result of national legal, political or social changes;
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that it is up to the CJEU, given its exclusive competence to provide the definitive interpretation of EU law, to define the scope of the principle of primacy; notes that such a definition cannot, therefore, be left to national courts on the basis of their interpretation of EU law or provisions of national lawMember States to define the scope of the principle of primacy when the rule or principle of EU law interferes with the Member States' fundamental interests;
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Points, however, to the negative consequences of any decision of a national constitutional court that challenges the principle of primacy; stresses that, if every national constitutional court could decide on the limits of the primacy of EU law, the effectiveness and uniformity of EU law would be seriously jeopardised; underlines that challenging CJEU judgments on the basis of national constitutional reservations concerning respect for EU competences or the national constitutional identity genuinely undermines the CJEU’s authorityStresses that every national constitutional court must be able to decide on the limits of the primacy of EU law with a view to safeguarding the Member State's fundamental interests;
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. BelievAcknowledges that the case-law of any national constitutional court challenging the principle of primacy has an important influencemay have an impact on the doctrines of the constitutional courts of the other Member States with regard to the scope of the primacy of EU law; points, therefore, to the risk that this could pose to the effectiveness and uniformity of EU law;
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Encourages the Commission to initiate infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU in response to judgments of national constitutional courts that challenge the principle of primacy; underlines that such procedures provide the opportunity for supreme courts to engage in a judicial dialogue; stresses also the need to make clear to other national constitutional courts that there are consequences for failing to respect the principle of primacy;deleted
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Acknowledges that infringement procedures against judicial decisions are often criticised for potentially jeopardising the independence of the judiciary; points out, however, that judicial independence is aimed at shielding courts from exposure to political pressure, but not from accountability for not complying with the applicable law;deleted
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates that, although it is not enshrined in the Treaties, the principle of the primacy of EU law applies to, and its effects are binding on, all bodies of the Member States at all tim the principle of the primacy of EU law is not enshrined by the Treaties;.
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends nevertheless that, in the event of a revision of the Treaties, the principle of primacy be codified; recalls that the precedence of EU law was explicitly laid down in the Constitutional Treaty; regrets the fact that this primacy clause was not included in the Treaty of Lisbon;deleted
2023/09/06
Committee: JURIAFCO