BETA
Home MEPs Dossiers Committees Subjects Blog About Dumps

11 Amendments of Mary HONEYBALL related to 2011/0901B(COD)

Amendment 23 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) As a consequence of the progressive expansion of its jurisdiction since its creation, the number of cases before the General Court has been steadily increasing over the years, resulting over time in an increase in the number of cases pending before that Court. This has an impact on the duration of proceedings.deleted
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 29 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
(2) At present, the duration of proceedings does not appear to be acceptable from the point of view of litigants, particularly in the light of the requirements set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.deleted
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 32 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) The situation in which the General Court finds itself has structural causes relating, inter alia, to the increase in the number and variety of legal acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, as well as to the volume and complexity of the cases brought before the General Court, particularly in the areas of competition and State aid.deleted
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) Consequently, the necessary measures should be taken to address this situation, and the making use of the possibility, provided for by the Treaties, of increasing the number of Judges of the General Court would allow for a reduction within a short time of both the volume of pending cases and the excessive duration of proceedings before the General Court.deleted
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 46 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Taking into account the likely evolution of the workload of the General Court, the numberhe number of Judges may be increased up to a maximum of 40. The Court of Judgesstice should be fixed at 56 at the end of a three-stage process, it being understood that at no point of time can there be more than two Judges sitting at the General Court appointed upon a proposal by the same Member Statecite evidence to justify any increase considered necessary, including economic or structural necessities.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 50 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) In order to rapidly reduce the backlog of pending cases, twelve additional Judges should take office …2 . __________________ 2 OJ: insert ‘in September 2015’, or ‘upon entry into force of this Regulation’ if the date of entry into force of this Regulation is after 31 August 2015.deleted
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 68 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) In September 2019, the remaining nine additional Judges should take office. In order to ensure cost effectiveness, this should notorder to ensure cost effectiveness at all levels, increases in the number of Judges should not necessarily entail the recruitment of additional legal secretariesstaff or other support staff. Internal re-organisation measures within the institution should ensure that efficienbest use be made of existing human and budgetary resources.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 72 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) It is necessary to adapt accordingly the provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the partial replacement of Judges and Advocates-General that takes place every three years.deleted
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 77 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) Any increase in staffing levels at the Court of Justice should be, insofar as possible, undertaken within the existing budget for the institution. Where an increase in budget is deemed necessary, the justifications for such an increase must be set out.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 86 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2
Protocol No 3
Article 48
(2) Article 48 is replaced by the following : ‘Article 48 The General Court shall consist of: (a) 40 Judges as from …*; (b) 47 Judges as from 1 September 2016; (c) two Judges per Member State as from 1 September 2019.’ __________________ * OJ: insert ‘1 September 2015’, or t at least one Judge per Member State, which may be increased by up to twelve additional Judges. Such an increase, providing for up to twelve additional Judges, may be made if the court of Justice furnished date of entry into force of this Regulationetailed evidence showing it to be objectively necessary ifn that date is after 1 September 2015e light of an increased caseload.
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 102 #
Mary HONEYBALL
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2 a (new)
Protocol No 3
Article 48 a (new)
(2a) The following Article is inserted: ‘Article 48a Where one or more additional Judges’ posts are to be filled, the Government of a Member State should endeavour to propose a nominee of the opposite sex to the sitting judge from that Member State.’
2015/09/25
Committee: JURI
@parltrack
@parltrack@eupolicy.social
[javascript protected email address]
code AGPLv3.0+
data ODBLv1.0
site content CC-By-Sa-3.0

ParlTrack - 2011-2024

© European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament
Hosted by AS250.net Foundation