Visas tekstas 
Posėdžio stenograma
Ketvirtadienis, 2016 m. spalio 6 d. - Strasbūras Atnaujinta informacija

2. Sąjungos teisės taikymo stebėjimo politika. 2014 m. metinė ataskaita (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on ensimmäisenä Heidi Hautalan oikeudellisten asioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö unionin lainsäädännön soveltamisen valvonnasta: vuosikertomus 2014 (2015/2326(INI) (A8-0262/2016).


  Heidi Hautala, rapporteur. – Madam President, every year the Commission reports to Parliament and to the Council on the application of Union legislation. The current report is already the thirty-second of its kind. I had the honour to be the rapporteur for the 2014 report. We can soon discuss the key findings and conclusions, but before that let us think for a moment why these reports are made.

The European Union was founded to promote peace, democracy and the rule of law. Its purpose is to establish an internal market with a highly competitive social market economy and a high level of environmental protection. This all contributes to the well-being of all Europeans. If we want to meet these objectives, the EU and its Member States must not only make laws, but also implement and apply them. In 2014, environment, health, consumer protection, mobility and transport were again the policy areas with the highest number of new infringement cases. These are policy areas directly linked to the well-being of citizens and to the functioning of the internal market.

When it comes to monitoring the application of Union law, different institutions have different tasks. First and foremost, the responsibility for the correct application of EU law belongs to the Member States. The Commission is responsible for the monitoring and, if needed, the enforcement. Finally, this Parliament has a crucial role in exercising the political oversight of the Commission’s enforcement actions.

What are the key findings, then, of our political oversight this year? Firstly, the enforcement of EU law is not sufficiently transparent. The structured dialogue with Member States via the so-called ‘EU pilot system’ seems to have promoted the more efficient enforcement of EU law but, if Parliament and if other interested parties are kept in the dark, it will certainly generate problems in the future. We must ensure the utmost transparency.

Secondly, the EU legal system and its fundamental values, such as the rule of law and respect for human rights, can be a vital tool in tackling many of the problems the accession countries and the countries with association agreements are facing. Therefore, in order to provide suitable assistance to carry out necessary legal and judicial reforms, we need more systematic tools to assess the current state of compliance with the relevant EU acquis in these countries.

Thirdly, we could benefit from a more systematic approach here in the EU, too. This year, the Committee on Legal Affairs received opinions from three other committees – and I want to thank all these committees: Economic and Monetary Affairs, Employment and Social Affairs, and Petitions, for their contributions – but perhaps we could further improve our internal procedures so that in future the relevant committees could make even more precise act- and country-specific observations from their field of competence.

All in all, the credibility of the EU institutions does not lie only in the quality of our legislation, but also in its correct implementation and application. Therefore, I ask the Commission and the Council to pay close attention both to this report and to the speeches and comments of my colleagues.


  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European Union is founded on law and relies on law to ensure that its policies and priorities are realised in the Member States. The effective application, implementation and enforcement of the law is hence a high political priority for this Commission. Often, it is not the lack of EU legislation that is the source of problems; it is rather the lack of its effective application and redress for citizens. That is why the European Commission takes its role as Guardian of the Treaties so seriously. If Member States are breaching EU law, then we need to take steps to address this weakness and, where necessary, we may need to launch formal infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice. This unique and essential role of the Commission, overseeing the effective and efficient application of Union law in the Member States, is an integral part of the Better Regulation agenda. Through the annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law, the Commission reports on its work and explains how it exercises its powers as Guardian of the Treaties.

I want to thank Members for the preparatory work on the 2014 Annual Report. The Commission very much appreciates Parliament’s increased interest in implementation issues. The Annual Report reviews the Member States’ performance on key aspects of the application of Union law from the point of detection of a possible infringement to the pursuit of the case before the Court. We detect problems in the application of law ourselves, but we also rely on petitions and complaints from citizens and business. Hence your Petitions Committee plays an important role. Once we have identified a problem we can work with Member States to solve it through a system called the EU Pilot. If the problem cannot be solved we indicate infringement procedures. The Treaty allows us to request financial fines if Member States are late in transposition and we have not hesitated to do so.

Let me summarise the main findings of the 2014 Report. Citizens and businesses remain active in detecting and bringing forward violations of EU law. More than 3 500 complaints were received from citizens and businesses during the year 2014. We are determined to work with the Member States in improving compliance at an early stage and resolving potential infringements quickly, to the benefit of citizens and businesses. About 75% of alleged infringements were resolved at an early stage. As a result, the overall number of formal infringement procedures has continued to decrease. However, there is still a significant gap between what is in the EU rulebook and the rules applied on the ground.

How can we improve the implementation of EU law more generally? I strongly believe that we should strengthen our partnership with the Member States and support them in their task of timely transposition and correct application of the law. As part of our better regulation efforts, we deploy a wide array of tools, ranging from preventive measures and early problem solving to proactive monitoring and targeted enforcement.

You have raised a number of other issues in the Hautala report, to which I would like to respond. I note your increased interest as regards Parliament’s role in monitoring the implementation of EU law. Without prejudice to democratic control by Parliament, the Commission oversees the application of EU law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The infringement procedure has a specific bilateral nature. It is conducted solely between the Commission and the concerned Member State. This being said, the Commission will continue to provide Parliament with information on infringement proceedings in accordance with its commitments in the current Framework Agreement. This includes more detailed information, if requested, on specific infringement cases. As regards Parliament’s proactive contribution in monitoring the compliance with EU law of accession countries and countries with association agreements, I want to emphasise that the Commission will continue its regular reporting on the progress made by these countries.

I note your call for a legislative proposal on administrative procedures under Article 298 of the Treaty. I would like to stress that the Commission has already created a strong framework to protect complainants. Its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and the Communication on relations with the complainant offer a number of guarantees that safeguard complainants’ rights throughout the entire procedure. These include the right to be informed about any decision on his or her complaint, the right to be heard, prior notice before closing a case, and a timeframe for a final decision on complaints. Against this background, the Commission does not find it necessary to regulate this matter in a legislative act based on Article 298 of the Treaty.

Concerning the transparency of infringement procedures, and especially that of EU Pilot, the Commission is fully dedicated to delivering on the commitments stipulated in the Framework Agreement. I wish to underline that from the initial phase of infringement procedures, the Commission must also respect confidentiality vis-à-vis the Member States, as recognised by the Court of Justice. This means that transparency and access to a specific file has to be limited while the Commission conducts its initial investigation in order to clarify the often complex legal and factual background of the cases.

I also note your increased interest in better regulation. Our aim is to legislate in an open, transparent way, using the best evidence available and valuable stakeholder inputs. We also focus on ways to support implementation and are pleased to see that Parliament supports all these efforts.


  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – Madam President, every year the Commission launches 1 000 new infringement procedures against EU Member States due to the bad transposition of EU law. Since 2009 there have been 1 000 procedures per year.

This is the real sickness of the EU project. This is what is killing the EU and creating political disaffection everywhere: the inability of the EU to maintain the rule of law within its Member States. Poland and Hungary do not want to accept refugees, Italy does not want to apply European rules to solve the banking crisis, France is allowed not to comply with the public deficit rules because it is France – as President Juncker, incredibly, stated publicly – and Spain does not comply with the Late Payment Directive.

Spain is unwilling to force the big Spanish multinationals to pay SMEs’ bills at 30 days and allows them to pay at 250 days without sanction. In Spain one million workers of sovereign SMEs lost their jobs during the crisis due to these bad practices on the part of big multinationals allowed by the central government.

So, in my opinion, bad transposition of EU law, is the silent crisis of the European project. Countries in the south of Europe, which are the worst offenders regarding EU law, are the countries which most need to implement it to modernise their economy. So, finally, if Europe is not able to oblige Member States to comply with EU law, citizens will abandon all hope in the European project.


  Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz, autorka projektu opinii Komisji Zatrudnienia i Spraw Socjalnych. – Panie Przewodniczący! Opinia Komisji Zatrudnienia i Spraw Socjalnych, która dotyczy tego sprawozdania, została przygotowana w pełnej zgodzie, z dużą zbieżnością stanowisk, i zwraca uwagę na fakt, że opóźnienia i nieprawidłowości w transpozycji stanowią barierę dla rynku wewnętrznego i są sprzeczne z interesami obywateli: zarówno pracodawców, jak i pracobiorców. Dlatego należy pracować nad ograniczeniem tych opóźnień. To ograniczenie i poprawę sytuacji można uzyskać dzięki analizie przyczyn opóźnień, a także dzięki współpracy z państwami i partnerami społecznymi, wymianie informacji i dobrych praktyk. W tym kontekście komisja z zadowoleniem przyjmuje skuteczność działań w zakresie EU Pilot, a także wprowadzenie stron internetowych informujących o tym, z całą bazą danych naruszeń, i informujących na temat stosowania prawa Unii.

Komisja zwraca uwagę na potrzebę poddawania istniejącego prawodawstwa nieustannemu przeglądowi pod kątem zasady pomocniczości, ponieważ nadmierna regulacja może szkodzić pracodawcom i rynkowi pracy. I w kontekście tych poprzednich punktów komisja EMPL zwraca uwagę na fakt, że powołanie stanowiska pierwszego wiceprzewodniczącego w Komisji Europejskiej odpowiedzialnego za zagadnienia stosowania prawa, praworządności i praw podstawowych jest bardzo zbieżne z celami, które są tutaj przedstawione.


  Cecilia Wikström, föredragande av yttrande från utskottet för framställningar. – Fru talman! Som ordförande i utskottet för framställningar påminns jag hela tiden om att den lagstiftning som vi arbetar med här inte alltid genomförs korrekt ute i medlemsländerna. Jag påminns om hur viktigt det är att den också korrekt genomförs, implementeras, där ute och det oaktat vilket politikområde vi talar om, för det handlar faktiskt om vår trovärdighet som institutioner; det handlar om medborgarnas rätt att, oaktat var man bor, i vilket medlemsland, faktiskt ta del av den lagstiftning som vi genomför. Där lämnar medlemsländerna tyvärr en hel del övrigt att önska, och det gäller alla politikområden.

Vi tar emot framställningar som rör migrationspolitik, konsumentfrågor, miljöfrågor och allt möjligt mer. Vi ser, genom den ström av framställningar som vi tar emot, att det faktiskt finns en lucka mellan intentionen i lagstiftningen och genomförandet därute.

Som ordförande i detta utskott kommer jag att fortsätta synliggöra de här bristerna och påtala att en korrekt implementering krävs, och att medborgarna i hela EU har rätt att ta del av den lagstiftning vi arbetar med på ett likvärdigt sätt, överallt.


  Tadeusz Zwiefka, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Wydawać by się mogło, że po tylu latach istnienia Wspólnoty proces monitorowania wdrażania prawa wspólnotowego w systemach prawnych państw członkowskich jest zagadnieniem rutynowym, że to jest tylko coś, co musimy zrobić dla porządku. Rzeczywistość pokazuje, że jest jednak zupełnie inaczej. Powodów jest kilka, ale najważniejszy z nich polega na tym, że państwa członkowskie wciąż z taką lekką nieufnością podchodzą do tego, co my wspólnie z Radą Europejską tworzymy na płaszczyźnie wspólnotowej. Ta nieufność, czy to podejście związane z takim systemem dodatkowej kontroli skutkuje nakładaniem zupełnie niepotrzebnych przepisów krajowych na te, które są tworzone na poziomie Unii Europejskiej. Informowanie obywateli zaś polega na tym, że to ci niedobrzy urzędnicy oraz ten Parlament z Radą gdzieś tam w Brukseli tworzą prawo, z którym musimy sobie teraz poradzić, a wy jesteście niestety tymi osobami, które są tym najbardziej dotknięte.

Zgłaszam stanowczy protest w tej kwestii. Otóż my staramy się, tworząc prawo wspólnie z Radą, aby było ono przejrzyste i przede wszystkim potrzebne i skuteczne dla naszych obywateli i dla przedsiębiorców, bo ono ma ułatwiać im życie. Po to wdrażamy w proces legislacyjny parlamenty narodowe na wczesnym etapie legislacyjnym, by uniknąć później nieporozumień czy chęci takiego bądź innego podejścia do ustanowionego prawa wspólnotowego. Stąd bardzo cieszę się, że Komisja Europejska poważnie podchodzi do problemu monitorowania prawa i wskazuje na te uchybienia, które są sygnalizowane zarówno przez obywateli, jak i przez przedsiębiorców.

Chciałbym także bardzo serdecznie podziękować naszej sprawozdawczyni, Heidi Hautala, która po raz kolejny przygotowała znakomite sprawozdanie, wskazujące główne kierunki, z którymi mamy dzisiaj największe problemy.


  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Zwei Zahlen sind besonders interessant: Im Jahr 2014 sind bei der Kommission 3715 Beschwerden über potenzielle Verstöße gegen EU-Recht eingegangen. Und die zweite Zahl: Im selben Jahr leitete die Kommission 893 neue Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen die Mitgliedstaaten ein. Die verspätete und nicht ordnungsgemäße Umsetzung von europäischen Gesetzen hat zweifellos negative Auswirkungen auf die allgemeine Rechtssicherheit und natürlich auch auf die Wettbewerbsbedingungen im Binnenmarkt. Wenn man dann noch feststellen muss, dass ausgerechnet im Beschäftigungsbereich die meisten Beschwerden wegen der Verletzung des EU-Rechts eingegangen sind, dann braucht man sich auch nicht darüber zu wundern, weshalb die Bürgerinnen und Bürger wahrnehmen, dass sich ihre sozialen und Arbeitnehmerrechte nicht verbessern.

Wir erleben es leider immer wieder, dass bei Problemen lautstark mit dem Finger auf die da in Brüssel gezeigt wird. Ja, es ist ja ganz einfach und unglaublich populär, Brüssel zum Sündenbock zu erklären. Aber es darf so nicht weitergehen. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass, wenn über die Europäische Union und ihre Probleme gesprochen wird, ganz konkret Ross und Reiter genannt werden, dass ganz klar gesagt wird, wer wofür zuständig ist und die politische Verantwortung trägt.

Die Kommission ist verantwortlich für Gesetzesvorschläge, und sie ist Hüterin der Verträge. Und die Mitgliedstaaten sind dafür verantwortlich, einmal beschlossene europäische Gesetze auch fristgemäß umzusetzen und ordnungsgemäß anzuwenden. Dieser Verantwortung dürfen sie sich nicht entziehen, sie müssen ihre Pflichten ernst nehmen. Denn nur durch eine effiziente und wirksame Anwendung des EU-Rechts können die Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer und auch die Unternehmen von den Vorteilen der europäischen Gesetzgebung profitieren.


  Νότης Μαριάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ECR. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η εφαρμογή του Δικαίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης συχνά προσκρούει στις θεμιτές αντιρρήσεις, τόσο των κρατών μελών, όσο και των πολιτών, και αυτό γιατί ιδίως τα κράτη του ευρωπαϊκού Νότου συνήθως βρίσκονται αντιμέτωπα με την εκμεταλλευτική πολιτική που ασκούν εις βάρος τους τα κράτη του πλούσιου Βορρά. Από την άλλη πλευρά, οι πολίτες της Ένωσης βιώνουν την ανεργία και τη φτώχεια λόγω της μερκελικής λιτότητας και αντιστέκονται στην επιβολή της ανάλγητης νομοθεσίας των Βρυξελλών.

Καθώς η ίδια η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μεταλλάσσεται από μια Ένωση κρατών και λαών σε μια Γερμανική Ευρώπη, σε μια Ένωση των Δανειστών, όπου τα κράτη διαχωρίζονται σε δανειστές και οφειλέτες η ΕΚΤ αλλά και η Επιτροπή που υποτίθεται ότι είναι θεματοφύλακας του Δικαίου της Ένωσης μετατρέπονται, μέσω της τρόικας, σε όργανα των ίδιων των δανειστών που με τη δράση τους, ως μέλη της τρόικας, παραβιάζουν το δίκαιο της Ένωσης και τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα. Ως ευρωβουλευτής, αλλά και ως καθηγητής θεσμών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης, θεωρώ σημαντικό το γεγονός ότι πρόσφατα το Δικαστήριο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, με αφορμή το Κυπριακό μνημόνιο, τόνισε ότι τα θεσμικά όργανα της Ένωσης, όταν ενεργούν ως μέλη της τρόικας, δεσμεύονται από τις Συνθήκες και το Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων. Αναμένουμε να υπάρξει πλήρης εφαρμογή αυτής της απόφασης του Δικαστηρίου και του πνεύματος της απόφασης του Δικαστηρίου. Η Επιτροπή, ως μέλος της τρόικας, οφείλει να μην παραβιάζει θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα στην Ελλάδα και σε άλλες χώρες.


  António Marinho e Pinto, em nome do Grupo ALDE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, este relatório trata da aplicação da legislação da UE pelos Estados-Membros. Estão aqui envolvidos vários aspetos que importa abordar. Não podemos falar de Direito da União Europeia, mas antes de legislação da União Europeia.

Num Estado de direito são os tribunais que realizam o direito e a lei é apenas uma das fontes de direito. É imperioso, neste domínio, intensificar a cooperação, por um lado, entre as diferentes instâncias da União - designadamente a Comissão, o Parlamento e o Conselho - e, por outro lado, entre estes órgãos e cada um dos Estados-Membros.

Realizar o direito através da aplicação das leis implica resolver, com justiça, os litígios da vida social, principalmente os que afetam a vida das pessoas, das empresas e de outras associações entre si e entre elas e a UE e os Estados—Membros.

O Estado de direito é precisamente o Estado que é limitado nas suas atuações concretas pelas regras e princípios do direito. Por isso é necessário, é urgente, a criação de reservas de jurisdição para a União Europeia, sobretudo nas matérias relacionadas com o mercado único e na área dos direitos humanos, bem como a criação de tribunais da União em cada um dos Estados-Membros.

A integração europeia não passará de uma miragem enquanto não se derem passos concretos na uniformização das diferentes legislações e das diferentes jurisdições na Europa. É urgente, pois, uma maior integração na área da Justiça, até como fator de superação de muitos dos bloqueios atuais e mesmo de aprofundamento da própria coesão europeia. Sem reformas democráticas nos sistemas de Justiça da União e dos Estados—Membros não haverá verdadeira integração europeia.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”, nos termos do artigo 162.°, n.° 8, do Regimento)


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Tisztelt Képviselő Úr! Ön a beszédében többször is hivatkozott arra, hogy a bírósági megoldásoknak valamiféle elsőbbséget kéne adni. Én azért azt hadd kérdezzem meg Öntől, hogy Ön mennyire van megelégedve a jelenlegi bírósági gyakorlattal, amikor 4–5 évig is tud húzódni egy-egy ügynek a vitája?


  António Marinho e Pinto (ALDE), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Não estou contente. Estou muito descontente com os atrasos nos Tribunais da União. Mas estes atrasos são infinitamente menores do que os atrasos na justiça dos diferentes Estados-Membros.

Os atrasos na Justiça superam-se com novos magistrados, com magistrados verdadeiramente preparados e não com nomeações de comissários políticos em vez de juízes. Agilizar a justiça é entregar a sua administração a juízes, a magistrados e não advogados e não a políticos que vão momentaneamente fazer o papel que compete aos magistrados.

O problema do atraso na justiça na União, nos tribunais da União e nos tribunais dos Estados-Membros, é um dos problemas que ameaça a própria democracia e a essência do próprio Estado de Direito. Por isso deve ser uma prioridade da União, nomeadamente da Comissão, que nessa matéria tem poderes que o Parlamento não tem.


  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση σχετικά με την εφαρμογή του ευρωπαϊκού δικαίου το 2014 περιέχει ορθές διαπιστώσεις, όπως ότι τα θεσμικά όργανα της Ένωσης οφείλουν να σέβονται το πρωτογενές δίκαιο και ειδικότερα το Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων κατά τη θέσπιση του παραγώγου δικαίου της Ένωσης ή ότι και τα κράτη μέλη οφείλουν να σέβονται τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα. Όμως, η ίδια έκθεση εύστοχα επισημαίνει ότι το περιβάλλον και η υγεία, όπως και η προστασία των καταναλωτών, στάθηκαν και πάλι εκείνοι οι τομείς πολιτικής στους οποίους σημειώθηκαν οι περισσότερες παραβιάσεις, καθώς και ότι η εφαρμογή του ενωσιακού δικαίου δεν είναι επαρκώς διαφανής αλλά ούτε υπόκειται σε πραγματικό έλεγχο εκ μέρους των προσφευγόντων και ενδιαφερομένων. Αποδεικνύεται, άρα, ότι είναι ελλιπής o σεβασμός, τόσο των κρατών μελών όσο όμως και της ίδιας της Ένωσης, προς τις ιδρυτικές της αρχές όπως είναι δηλαδή ο σεβασμός στα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα και στο κράτος δικαίου. Η πορεία αυτή είναι αδιέξοδη και πρέπει να αλλάξει, διότι διαφορετικά η Ένωση θα κινδυνεύσει με διάλυση στο ορατό μέλλον.


  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dalla relazione sul controllo dell'applicazione del diritto dell'Unione europea, che ci sembra nel suo complesso condivisibile, emerge che la diminuzione delle procedure di infrazione non sarebbe tanto legata all'attività di monitoraggio e prevenzione svolta dalla Commissione, ma soprattutto al fatto che negli ultimi anni vi è stata una drastica riduzione delle proposte normative da parte della Commissione.

Tutto questo ci offre lo spunto per fare una riflessione, che naturalmente dovrebbe investire tutte le istituzioni dell'Unione europea, sulle ragioni di questo comportamento. Forse la Commissione ha regolamentato la maggior parte degli aspetti legati alla vita dei cittadini europei. Oppure, al contrario, si preferisce non intervenire su questioni che rischiano di far emergere e in certi casi di ulteriormente aggravare le divergenze tra gli Stati membri.

Io credo che invece ci siano ancora tante questioni sulle quali i cittadini europei aspettano delle risposte. Penso, in particolare, alla legislazione sulla lotta alla corruzione e alla criminalità organizzata, ma anche in tema di tutela dei whistleblower o alla normativa sulla trasparenza.

Infine, esprimo qualche perplessità sul fatto che le sanzioni pecuniarie possano essere un reale deterrente per il contrasto delle infrazioni, in quanto esse ricadrebbero in definitiva sulle spalle dei contribuenti. Probabilmente potrebbe essere più saggio ed efficace introdurre dei meccanismi dissuasivi come la sospensione del diritto di voto degli Stati che commettono delle infrazioni.


  Marie-Christine Boutonnet, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, ce rapport sur le contrôle de l'application du droit de l'Union suit le canon des précédents: toujours les mêmes rengaines.

Il demande à la Commission d'ériger la conformité au droit de l'Union au rang de réelle priorité politique. Ce Parlement et la Commission sont toujours prompts à s'ériger en pères fouettards vis-à-vis des États membres qui se comporteraient en mauvais élèves au regard de la doxa bruxelloise.

J'invite la Commission à montrer l'exemple et à ériger la conformité de ses actes aux traités en véritable priorité, en commençant par l'application et le respect du principe de subsidiarité prévu par l'article 5 du traité sur l'Union européenne. La Commission le méconnaît et ne respecte pas l'obligation de motivation des projets d'actes législatifs prévue par le protocole n° 2.

Les États membres, dans leur déclaration d'Édimbourg, en 1992, ont pourtant affirmé que l'Union européenne repose sur la subsidiarité, et ont même consacré celle-ci en tant que principe fondamental.

D'autre part, ce rapport ose affirmer qu'un euroscepticisme injustifié est dû aux mesures superflues "prises par les États membres lors de l'application des législations de l'Union".

Alors, vous ne seriez responsables de rien? Irresponsables du chômage de masse et de la destruction d'emplois partout en Europe. Irresponsables de la submersion migratoire, que vous avez organisée, et dont vous imposez la répartition aux peuples qui n'en peuvent plus et n'en veulent pas, comme nous l'a montré le référendum hongrois.

Vos politiques sont irresponsables. Vous n'avez besoin de personne pour provoquer le mécontentement et la colère des peuples, mais pour donner des leçons de morale, vous êtes toujours les premiers, à l'instar du ministre des affaires étrangères luxembourgeois, qui a appelé à exclure la Hongrie car elle ne respecterait pas les valeurs de l'Union. Je lui réponds: "Et le LuxLeaks?". Il y a un principe ici, qui est le principe de coopération loyale, qui veut également dire qu'il ne faut pas arnaquer ses petits camarades.

Vous osez tout et c'est même à cela que l'on vous reconnaît.


  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, the prime minister, Theresa May, has confirmed in no uncertain terms that Brexit is happening. The British people will get what they voted for: control of their money, control of their borders and the right to make their own laws.

Article 50 is to be invoked by the spring and, after 45 years of surrendering control to Brussels, British law will again rest supreme across the United Kingdom. So in this debate on the application and monitoring of EU law, I am glad to say that the great repeal bill will give our national parliament its say. The sole right to make laws on behalf of the British people will rest with the British parliament and its devolved assemblies.

So in this negotiation that is coming up I would urge all those people, on all sides, to be forward-thinking and outward-looking in defining a new and positive trading relationship with our neighbours in Europe, and outward-looking in embracing new opportunities with the rest of the world. Let us step up, not step back, and create a positive atmosphere for a new relationship within Europe.


  Pavel Svoboda (PPE). – Paní předsedající, mluvíme-li dnes o pravidelné zprávě o aplikaci práva Evropské unie, můžeme si připomenout slova prvního předsedy Evropské komise Waltra Hallsteina, který řekl: „Společenství je výtvorem práva, to je ta rozhodující novost, jež je odlišuje od předchozích pokusů o sjednocení Evropy, ne násilí, ne poroba jsou použity jako nástroj, ale duchovní kulturní síla, právo.“ Tato slova nám mohou připomenout, že právo nemůžeme vnímat jen jako technickou záležitost.

V této souvislosti bych chtěl podpořit Komisi v její roli strážkyně Smluv, protože se domnívám, že tato její specifická role je v současnosti zásadní, a je jedině dobře, pokud Komise vystupuje na obhajobu nejen litery, ale i ducha evropské legislativy. Pokud se společně dohodneme na určitých pravidlech, musíme prokázat vůli je také společně dodržovat a nalézt vůli je prosazovat. I tento moment v důsledku může přispět k pozitivnímu vnímání Evropské unie u jejích občanů. Zde bych také rád upozornil na související témata, a tím je kvalita přijímaných pravidel. V tomto směru doufám, že se společně s Komisí a Radou budeme ještě dále zlepšovat a najdeme společnou řeč, třeba i pokud jde o správní právo Evropské unie.


  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, la relazione evidenza l'esistenza di due problemi seri che dovrebbero essere, a mio parere, risolti rapidamente.

Il primo è relativo agli indicatori. La relazione si basa su indicatori puramente quantitativi, mentre a noi servono anche elementi di valutazione qualitativi per comprendere quali sono le ragioni e le caratteristiche della non applicazione in alcuni Stati delle norme europee. Abbiamo bisogno di esprimere un giudizio politico che si può dare soltanto se si hanno tutti gli elementi di valutazione che oggi purtroppo mancano. L'integrazione europea non la possiamo misurare solo con parametri asettici come sono quelli quantitativi.

La seconda questione è relativa alla trasparenza. Il Parlamento, come lei sa, ha un accesso difficile sia alla conoscenza del sistema pilota sia a quella relativa sui casi pendenti. Noi non siamo in grado di valutare se la riduzione del numero di procedure formali rispecchi realmente la maggiore attuazione del diritto dell'Unione europea, oppure se non sia il compromesso tra la Commissione e gli Stati membri. Allora, avere anche qui elementi di trasparenza renderebbe il suo lavoro, ma soprattutto il nostro intervento, molto più efficace e preciso.


  Ulrike Trebesius (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir reden hier im Parlament oft über europäische Ideale und große zivilisatorische Errungenschaften wie den Rechtsstaat. In diesem Sinne ist die Umsetzung des EU-Rechts, die heute hier besprochen wird, von großer Bedeutung, und ich freue mich, wie bei so vielen Details genau hingeschaut wird. Leider ist die EU bei den großen Dingen noch viel weniger genau. Auch 2014 wurden im Zuge der sogenannten Euro-Rettung massiv Gesetze gebrochen. So wurden 2014 beispielsweise 8,3 Mrd. EUR an europäischen Mitteln aus dem ESFS an Griechenland überwiesen.

Der ESFS ist eines der Instrumente der Europäischen Union. Die Vergabe dieser Mittel wurde von der Euro-Gruppe zu diesem Zeitpunkt mit dem Versprechen der Schuldentragfähigkeit Griechenlands verknüpft. Heute wissen wir, dass der IWF diese Schuldentragfähigkeit offiziell in Abrede stellt und einen Schuldenschnitt fordert. Wir haben schon vor 2014 festgestellt, dass die griechischen Schulden nicht tragbar sind, und auch die Eurogruppe muss sich darüber im Klaren gewesen sein. Hier liegt meiner Meinung nach ein klarer Rechtsbruch des Vertrages von Maastricht vor, und es ist doch immer wieder erstaunlich, wie wenig der Rechtstaat hier zählt, wenn es nur genügend Politiker gibt, die an solchen Rechtsbrüchen interessiert sind.


  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señora Presidenta, la aplicación de la legislación europea no es un debate técnico, es un debate político. Todos sabemos que la normativa europea se aplica y controla cuando favorece a los grandes capitales, pero se olvida cuando trata de proteger a los trabajadores europeos. Basta observar cómo la Comisión y la Unión Europea se afanan por hacer cumplir cada medida de austeridad, de recortes, de pérdida de derechos, y olvidan, deliberadamente, actuar en el campo social.

Pongo dos ejemplos: el dumping social. Tenemos directivas para exigir el control del cabotaje y las empresas buzón en el transporte por carretera, pero la Unión Europea no controla su aplicación; en cambio, cuando se intenta aplicar un salario mínimo a los transportistas, ustedes corren a invocar la normativa europea e impedir que se reconozca un derecho tan fundamental como el de «a igual empleo, igual salario».

Otro ejemplo: la normativa laboral. Ustedes intervienen alegremente en el marco laboral, por ejemplo, en el español; se han impuesto dos reformas, pero, mientras ustedes predican recortes y otros los aplican, se les olvida que la normativa europea se basa también en el principio de no discriminación, y tiene que ser el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea el que intervenga para reconocer derechos a los trabajadores temporales e interinos.

Pero, para que una ley sea justa, lo que hay que hacer es sobre todo aplicarla en beneficio de todas las partes, y no como se está haciendo.


  Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, le rapport 2014 sur le contrôle de l'application du droit de l'Union est écrit en termes diplomatiques. Il est cependant sévère pour la Commission de Bruxelles. Il pointe, par exemple, le favoritisme ou la lâcheté dont la Commission fait preuve à l'égard de l'Allemagne. Elle ouvre, en effet, rarement des procédures d'infraction contre le pays de Mme Merkel, alors qu'il est pourtant l'un des trois États de l'Union qui suscitent le plus de plaintes.

Pour le reste, le bilan de l'action de la Commission est effrayant: délais irréalistes imposés aux États pour appliquer les directives et règlements européens; manque de transparence dans tous les domaines, et pas seulement dans la négociation du TAFTA; mise à l'index du projet de code de procédure administrative, qui aurait pourtant assuré une protection accrue des administrés; et enfin, hélas, violation des traités, alors qu'elle en est officiellement la gardienne.

Un mot résume l'attitude de la Commission: "mépris" – mépris à l'égard du droit, mépris à l'égard du Parlement européen, mépris à l'égard des États et, enfin, mépris à l'égard des citoyens, qui s'en souviendront au moment de voter.


  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, είναι γεγονός ότι η ορθή και έγκαιρη μεταφορά του ενωσιακού δικαίου στα δίκαια των κρατών μελών πρέπει να αποτελεί μία από τις προτεραιότητες των κρατών. Αυτό θα συμβάλλει τόσο στην αύξηση της αξιοπιστίας των θεσμικών οργάνων, όσο και στην αντιμετώπιση κάποιων παρενεργειών που παρατηρούνται. Για να επιτύχει όμως αυτός ο στόχος δεν πρέπει να γίνεται αυτή η προσπάθεια ούτε υπό πίεση χρόνου, ούτε πρέπει να επιδιώκεται να εφαρμοστεί ομοιόμορφα σε όλα τα κράτη, διότι το κάθε κράτος έχει τις δικές του ιδιαιτερότητες που πρέπει να λαμβάνονται υπόψη. Παραδείγματος χάρη, με διαφορετικό τρόπο επηρεάζεται μια χώρα του Νότου από μια χώρα του Βορρά από μία οδηγία που αναφέρεται στα γεωργικά και τα κτηνοτροφικά προϊόντα.

Κανείς δεν μπορεί να κατηγορήσει την Ελλάδα, η οικονομία της οποίας έχει καταστραφεί από τα μνημόνια, επειδή καθυστερούν να γίνουν οι συναλλαγές μεταξύ των επιχειρήσεων. Εάν θέλουμε λοιπόν την ομαλή μεταφορά του δικαίου, πρέπει να προσεγγίσουμε το θέμα με πραγματιστική διάθεση. Διαφορετικά, οι καρεκλοκένταυροι των Βρυξελλών που έχουν την τάση να θεωρούν τα κράτη ως υποτελείς που πρέπει να εφαρμόζουν άμεσα και αναντίρρητα τις οδηγίες των προϊσταμένων τους θα έχουν πρόβλημα.


  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora Presidenta, analizamos hoy el trigésimo segundo informe sobre la aplicación del Derecho de la Unión Europea en el año 2014. Efectivamente, garantizar la aplicación de ese Derecho de la Unión Europea es esencial y tiene que ser una de las prioridades de la Comisión. Significará que la Unión Europea funciona en condiciones.

Hay tres actores. Por una parte, la Comisión: es responsabilidad suya tener un papel activo en mejorar la aplicación, la observancia y el control del cumplimiento de estas normas; pero también, el papel del Parlamento, concretamente con la Comisión de Peticiones, de poder controlar que ese funcionamiento sea real —los ciudadanos nos denuncian en la Comisión de Peticiones casos de mal funcionamiento y, por lo tanto, es una información muy útil para la Comisión—; y, por último, el papel de los Estados miembros.

Qué duda cabe de que han disminuido —lo hemos podido ver en este informe— los conflictos y los procedimientos de infracción, porque el diálogo estructurado entre los Estados miembros y la propia Comisión ha dado frutos. De hecho, el proyecto piloto de ese diálogo ha hecho que muchos procedimientos no llegaran al expediente de infracción, y eso creemos que es una buena noticia.

Es verdad que casi todas las infracciones versan sobre servicios, medio ambiente, transportes y todo lo que sería desarrollo, pero no es menos cierto que, si ponemos todos los esfuerzos por parte de todos los actores —los Estados miembros también, haciendo que las trasposiciones de las directivas se hagan en tiempo y forma, y también ponemos plazos de trasposiciones que sean realmente objetivos—, conseguiremos que los ciudadanos confíen de verdad en las instituciones europeas, y ese distanciamiento entre lo que hacemos en las instituciones y lo que reciben los ciudadanos se acorte, y crean muchísimo más en nosotros.


  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W 2014 r. Komisja Europejska otrzymała 3 715 skarg dotyczących domniemanych naruszeń prawa unijnego i wszczęła 893 nowe postępowania w sprawie uchybienia zobowiązaniom państw członkowskich. W latach 2010–2014 wszczęto 3 550 postępowań z powodu spóźnionej transpozycji 439 dyrektyw przez państwa członkowskie. Najwięcej postępowań w sprawie uchybienia toczyło się w odniesieniu do środowiska, transportu, rynku wewnętrznego i usług. W sprawozdaniu rocznym podkreślono też fakt, że liczba formalnych postępowań zmniejszyła się w ciągu ostatnich pięciu lat. Według Komisji jest to wynik odzwierciedlający skuteczność zorganizowanego dialogu z państwami członkowskimi poprzez procedurę EU Pilot. Niemniej jednak Parlament Europejski ma w dalszym ciągu stosunkowo ograniczony dostęp do tej procedury i toczących się postępowań. Samo egzekwowanie prawa Unii jest nadal niewystarczająco przejrzyste. Parlament Europejski powinien też odgrywać większą rolę w analizowaniu przestrzegania prawa przez kraje aplikujące do Wspólnoty i te, z którymi Unia Europejska podpisała już układy o stowarzyszeniu.

Na koniec pragnę podziękować sprawozdawczyni za bardzo dobry dokument.


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, kao zastupnica iz Hrvatske mogu iz prve ruke posvjedočiti u korist teze kako na razini države dolazi do dodatnog opterećivanja europskog zakonodavstva cijelim nizom procedura koje građanima i tvrtkama troše vrijeme i novac. No, ne mogu se složiti s izvjestiteljicom da je to glavni uzrok rasta euroskepticizma.

Ne bismo trebali zatvarati oči pred činjenicom da Unija u mnogim sferama ne funkcionira i prebacivati krivnju na države članice. One nose dio odgovornosti, ali nemojmo zaboraviti kako su očekivanja građana od supranacionalne razine drukčija i ako ih Unija ne opravda, gubit će sve više na popularnosti. Unija mora biti dodana vrijednost, u protivnom nam nije potrebna.

Da bi europsko zakonodavstvo bilo široko prihvaćeno i kvalitetno pripremljeno, moramo se vratiti istinskoj supsidijarnosti. Unija mora regulirati samo tamo gdje je to nužno kako bi se ostvarili najbolji rezultati. Daljnje miješanje u poslove države i nižih razina upravljanja donijet će nam samo još nereda i nezadovoljstva kod građana.

(Govornica se složila da odgovori na pitanje podizanjem plave kartice na osnovi članka 162. stavka 8. Poslovnika.)


  Evelyn Regner (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Abgeordnete: Die Mitgliedstaaten leben nicht auf dem Mars oder irgendwo anders, sondern sind als Ko-Gesetzgeber ebenfalls an der Gesetzgebung beteiligt. Ihr Redebeitrag lässt jetzt mehr oder weniger die Mitgliedstaaten so aussehen, als ob sie überrascht wären oder als ob das gar nichts mit ihren eigenen Pflichten zu tun hätte. Wie sehen Sie das?


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR), odgovor na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice. – Gđo Regner, kad smo postali članice EU-a očekivali smo da će EU biti krovna država, država koja će nama pomagati, a ne država koja će nama govoriti točno što treba, kada treba i gdje treba. Samo govoriti, a ne biti tamo da nam pomogne na našem putu.

Dakle, jedno je naređivati, a drugo je sudjelovati s nama i voditi nas. Ima puno država članica, pogotovo postkomunističkih zemalja kojima se cijelo vrijeme govorilo što i kako će raditi, a sada im se odjednom samo naređuje bez uputa kako to napraviti.


  Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, yksi tämän eurooppalaisen yhteisömme EU:n isoista ongelmista on yhdessä sopimiemme asioiden täytäntöönpano. Tämä on näkynyt muun muassa pakolaiskriisin ratkaisussa. Me sovimme yhdessä ensin minimaalisen pienistä kiintiöitä, emmekä sitten omissa maissamme kykene pitämään edes siitä minimistä kiinni. Tämä syö koko ajan yhteisen järjestelmämme uskottavuutta. Vaikka päätöksemme eivät aina olisikaan kansalaisille mieluisia, meiltä kuitenkin edellytetään kykyä tehdä päätöksiä ja myös toteuttaa niitä.


Komission tehtävä on tietysti valvoa lainsäädännön toimeenpanoa, ja tarpeen tullen komissio myös puuttuu jäsenmaiden toimintaan. Mutta mitkä ovat komission prioriteetit? Eniten uusia rikkomusmenettelyjä vuonna 2014 oli ympäristö-, terveys-, kuluttajansuoja-, liikkuvuus- ja liikenne-aloilla.


Talouskuripolitiikan toimeenpanoa jäsenmailta kyllä edellytetään ja sen toimeenpanoa komissio vahtii haukan lailla. Toivoisimme samanlaista intohimoa myös yhteisesti sovituissa ympäristö-, terveys-, kuluttaja- ja liikenneasioissa.


  Емил Радев (PPE). – Благодаря на г-жа Хаутала за изчерпателния доклад. Прилагането на правото на Европейския съюз от държавите членки е задължително условие за доброто функциониране на правовия ред на Съюза. По този начин ще засилим доверието и увереността в целите на Съюза пред нашите граждани.

И през 2014 г. околната среда и транспортът продължават да бъдат едни от областите, в които са образувани най-много нови производства по неизпълнение на правото на Европейския съюз. Като една от причините за неизпълнение можем да посочим нереалистичните срокове за прилагане на законодателството. Те оказват влияние върху навременното прилагане на европейското законодателство. В тази връзка вярвам, че европейските институции трябва да постигнат съгласие за по-подходящи срокове за прилагането на регламентите и директивите, като вземат надлежно предвид необходимите периоди за контрол и за консултации.

По-ясно и разбираемо законотворчество също ще спомогне за по-доброто и ефикасно прилагане на разпоредбите. В тази връзка Междуинституционалното споразумение за по-добро законотворчество е стъпка в правилната посока.

Виждаме, че системата EU Pilot също се утвърждава като полезна и оказва положително въздействие за насърчаване на по-ефикасното изпълнение на правото на Европейския съюз. Въпреки това Европейската комисия трябва да подобри прозрачността и да осигури достатъчно информация на Европейския парламент по висящите досиета.

И последно искам да обърна внимание на факта, че за пореден път призоваваме Европейската комисия да представи законодателно предложение относно административно-процесуалното право на Европейския съюз, като вземе предвид мерките, предприети досега в тази област от Европейския парламент, и документа, който изработихме в работната група по въпросите на административното право.


  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, două treimi din legislațiile naționale sunt influențate de deciziile luate la nivel european. Acest lucru este esențial pentru construcția unei Uniuni Europene unite și coerente. Cu toate acestea, legislația europeană este de foarte multe ori blamată pentru densitatea sa și pentru faptul că ar genera prea multă birocrație. Interesant este că totuși cetățenii solicită intervenția Uniunii în domenii în care nu există competențe, iar statele membre caută sprijinul Europei unite în situațiile dificile. Vedem acest lucru în numărul important de solicitări și petiții care vin către noi, fie din partea cetățenilor, dar și din partea statelor sau autorităților locale. Este clar că trebuie să creștem transparența privind procesul decizional european. Trebuie să implicăm mai direct cetățenii, să comunicăm cu societatea civilă și să veghem ca legislația europeană este cunoscută și mai ales înțeleasă înainte de a fi implementată. Acțiunea legală a Uniunii Europene trebuie să fie din nou percepută ca fiind rezultatul unei consultări largi și o expresie a interesului general și de aceea împreună cu colegii din Parlamentul European venim cu o serie de recomandări precum: creșterea interacțiunii online, dezvoltarea de consilii consultative sau stabilirea unui dialog instituțional mai transparent cu statele membre și grupurile vizate de măsurile europene.


  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – Každoročná správa Komisie o kontrole uplatňovania práva Európskej únie konštatuje, že najviac prípadov, kde si členské štáty nesplnili povinnosti, spadá do oblasti životného prostredia, dopravy, vnútorného trhu a služieb. Vítam, že za posledných päť rokov sa počet formálnych konaní o nesplnení povinností znížil, čo môže poukazovať na dosiahnuté pokroky v práci projektu in pilot. Európsky parlament má však aj v súčasnosti značne obmedzený prístup k informáciám, ktoré sú spracúvané v rámci predmetného projektu, a je preto náročné určiť, do akej miery zníženie počtu formálnych konaní o nesplnení povinností skutočne odráža lepšie dodržiavanie práva Únie členskými štátmi a nie kompromisné riešenia medzi Komisiou a členskými štátmi. Napriek viacerým pozitívnym výsledkom musíme preto pokračovať v prijímaní ďalších opatrení, aby sme dosiahli ešte vyššiu úroveň transparentnosti. Musíme ukázať občanom, že sme schopní lepšie kontrolovať a analyzovať, ako nakladajú jednotlivé členské štáty s peniazmi.


  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Ich möchte Ihnen vorweg, bevor ich zum Thema komme, zu Ihrem gestrigen bewegenden Redebeitrag in der Debatte über die Frauenrechte in Polen gratulieren. Es war wirklich bewegend.

Nun zum Monitoring: Die Europäische Union wurde auf Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Vorhersehbarkeit von Rechtsvorschriften gegründet. Jeder Bürger, jede Bürgerin hat das Recht, frühzeitig darüber informiert zu werden, ob und welche Rechtsvorschriften auf europäischer Ebene erlassen werden und welche nationale Stelle für ihre Durchsetzung zuständig ist.

Die Mitgliedstaaten werden bei ihrer Pflicht zur Umsetzung nicht überrascht. Sie sind ja von Anfang an als Ko-Gesetzgeber eingebunden, und dementsprechend müssen sie genau wissen, dass es dann natürlich so schnell wie möglich daran geht, die Vorschriften auch umzusetzen. Umso mehr ist es problematisch, wenn es gerade im Arbeitsrecht, im Sozialrecht immer wieder Verzögerungen gibt. Denn hier leiden die Bürgerinnen und Bürger mehr oder weniger sehr stark. Deshalb ihre große Aufgabe beim Monitoring.

Und schließlich noch die Bitte: Achten Sie darauf, dass es sich oftmals um Mindeststandards handelt! Nicht alles ist Überregulierung, es handelt sich oftmals um Mindeststandards, die auch übertroffen werden dürfen.


Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych se chtěl ve svém minutovém příspěvku zaměřit pouze na otázku těch transpozičních lhůt, protože, podle mého názoru, pokud není dlouhodobě naplňován závazek státu splnit přijetí normy evropského práva ve svém národním právu, tak dochází mnohdy k porušování práv občanů v EU. A tomuto bychom měli účinněji čelit.

Já nevím, zdali konstruovat nějaký nový právní nástroj, který by lépe na takovouto situaci reagoval na poli evropského práva, ale myslím si jednoznačně, že právě dlouhodobé porušování transpoziční lhůty ze strany členských států je naprosto nepřípustné.

Mohu to ilustrovat i na problému České republiky, kde je v současné době do autorského práva inkorporována směrnice Evropské unie právě se zpožděním, a toto zpoždění má za následek, že si občané nemohou nakoupit například autorská práva od některých jiných kolektivních správců registrovaných ve členských státech EU. Směrnice měla vnést do této věci větší soutěž, a to se zatím v České republice nestalo. Myslím si, že bychom se na to měli zaměřit.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, doresc mai întâi să o felicit pe raportoare și să spun că sunt de acord cu cele spuse în raport. Formele diferite de implementare în statele membre creează, până la urmă, discriminare între cetățeni. Așa cum ați spus și dumneavoastră, doamnă comisar, nu lipsa legislației europene este principala problemă. De multe ori, eu am impresia că există o suprareglementare. Problema este monitorizarea punerii în aplicare a dreptului Uniunii și măsurile luate în cazul încălcării drepturilor europene. Doresc să transmit percepția cetățenilor din țara mea, este datoria mea să fac acest lucru, ca o persoană aleasă să îi reprezint. Percepția multor cetățeni este că, pe de o parte, rezolvarea problemelor lor este greoaie și de multe ori aceeași petiție este rezolvată diferit, pe de altă parte cetățenii doresc o mai mare transparență, proceduri simplificate și măsuri clare asupra celor care încalcă dreptul european cetățenesc. S-au dat și aici exemple și vreau să mai adaug unul, pe care l-am întâlnit și în țara mea și anume: nu se respectă dreptul la contestație, termenul acela de rezolvare a contestației. Statele membre iau decizii înainte de a expira acel termen. De aceea, doamnă comisar, accentul trebuie pus, din punctul meu de vedere, pe monitorizare și luarea de măsuri imediate în cazul încălcării dreptului european.


(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I think that this is an extremely important debate which we have here because this is about something essential. Our goal is to ensure the timely – and I want to emphasise also what Mr Polčák has just said –application of EU law in the Member States. Not only that, this is also about the way we work, the methods we use, and about the cooperation of the Commission with the European Parliament and the Member States.

Although I would say the rules are very rigid, the message must be flexible, because we need to take the relevant approach to the cases which we work with. I can share with you one example: I am responsible for the integration of people in societies, for the very sensitive issue of the integration of Roma children into normal basic education, and we have three countries where we already have EU Pilot. For me, this is absolutely essential that I see the results in concrete time. The procedure itself, for me, is important and it exists, but I prefer to start EU Pilot and continuous dialogue and push the Member States. And I would emphasise the dialogue more than the push, because it is also in the interests of the Member States to change the situation. For me, reaching the next stage of the procedure is not as important as achieving the necessary results, which means that more people from Roma communities will have good quality education.

This debate is also very much connected to the Better Regulation system, which the Commission now has, meaning less new legislation, but more stress on the real application of EU law, and also more understanding of how the application of EU law works in practice. This has not been debated here at all, this effect, which gives us a chance to see better how it works in practice, and what should be corrected – because not everything which was adopted in the past is still valid and relevant for current problems. You know that we have review clauses in the EU legislation, so we must use this interaction to take the proper measures to adopt and to modify the legislation so that it better meets the needs of the 21st Century. In the digital agenda this is typical. We need to be able to have this interaction, and to understand what works, what poses big burdens on businesses and people. We must not only say that we want to cut red tape; we must do it. We must deregulate things which people across the EU are saying is making their lives more difficult and, of course, continue to check how it is with the gold-plating in the Member States. In many cases, the Member States say that Brussels gave us the legislation but in the end we see that it was the Member State which made it more difficult for the people. So this is about a method, it is about our contact with reality and the full understanding that we are here to improve the legislation and to improve the lives of people, to increase legal certainty and to contribute to increased trust.

Believe me, Mr Lebreton, who accused us of disregarding the interests of people (he is not here anymore but I would like to address him), when I became the Commissioner responsible for Justice I received hundreds of mails from people who complained about their situation and they shared with me their frustration that there is no justice for them in the EU and in their State. Maybe among the people sitting here watching us there is also such a frustration, perhaps they are not satisfied with the situation, that perhaps justice is here only for the rich or the young, and I can tell you that I read all the mails and I responded to all of them. The majority were individual cases where people were frustrated about the result of some poor decision, but many mails reflected the mistakes of the system and also the lack of application of EU law in their Member State. I found these mails alarming and we worked with them. For me this was a very important hint and impulse for the beginning of my work here, and I am sure all my colleagues experienced the same thing and we tried to work with all the complaints, be it from the European Parliament, from the Committee on Petitions, or be it directly from the citizens of the EU and of the Member States. This must be done on a continuous basis and I think this is our common goal. Thank you for this debate. I can assure you on behalf of the Commission that we have very high interest in continuing good cooperation with Parliament on better regulation and the better application of EU law.


  Heidi Hautala, rapporteur. – Madam President, I think that this debate shows that we are dealing with a very multifaceted, rich area where there are lots of angles that we can focus on. I would like to address a couple of them that were raised in the discussion and also in in your words, Commissioner Jourová.

First, I must say that I am – and I believe my colleagues are as well – disappointed that the Commission continues to dismiss the demand by Parliament to introduce a more open, efficient and independent EU administration on the grounds of Article 298 in the Treaties, because it seems that the Commission believes that this is an attack against it. It is not. It is also a reminder that the Commission is responsible for how the EU administration works in the bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, of which there are so many. How can you be so sure that the administration is open, efficient and independent in all those tens of different institutions?

Secondly, I would like to say that it is very important that we continue to open up what better regulation means. I would like to touch on the aspect of prevention. Last Friday, I organised a seminar in my home city of Helsinki with experts from consumer law authorities, consumer associations, trade associations and others. I must say that, when the subject is the digital agenda, under new proposals by the Commission on contracts on the purchase of digital content and tangible goods, many of these stakeholders and authorities complained about the complexity and the way in which these new proposals add to complexity. This means that it will be very difficult to apply this type of legislation properly.

I think there is no easy way out, but we need to work together and I hope that that in the next year the Parliament, when giving the answer to the Commission’s next report, will have a more structured cooperation. We also missed opinions from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Transport and Tourism, having seen that these are the areas where most of the infringements actually occur.


Puhemies. Keskustelu on päättynyt.


  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Komisijos metinėje Europos Sąjungos teisės taikymo stebėjimo ataskaitoje vėl pateikiama įdomi informacija apie esamą ES teisės įgyvendinimą ir jos praktinį taikymą. Ataskaitoje nurodoma, kad aplinka, transportas bei vidaus rinka ir paslaugos buvo tos politikos sritys, kuriose 2014 m. pradėta daugiausia pažeidimo nagrinėjimo procedūrų. Ataskaitoje taip pat pabrėžiama, kad per pastaruosius penkerius metus sumažėjo oficialių pažeidimo nagrinėjimo procedūrų skaičius. Reikia pabrėžti, jog už teisingą ES teisės įgyvendinimą ir taikymą visų pirma atsakingos valstybės narės ir jog valstybės narės, įgyvendindamos ES teisę, taip pat turi laikytis visų pagrindinių vertybių ir teisių, įtvirtintų Sutartyse ir ES pagrindinių teisių chartijoje. Tuo pačiu Parlamentas primena, kad Komisijai tenka atsakomybė stebėti ir vertinti, kaip įgyvendinama ES teisė, todėl nuolat ragina valstybes nares nuolat naudoti koreliacijos lenteles, tačiau pažymi, kad tai neatleidžia ES institucijų nuo pareigos gerbti ES pirminę teisę joms rengiant antrinės ES teisės aktus. Parlamentas taip pat turi atlikti itin svarbų vaidmenį vykdant politinę Komisijos vykdymo užtikrinimo veiksmų kontrolę, tikrinant metines ES teisės įgyvendinimo stebėjimo ataskaitas ir priimant atitinkamas Parlamento rezoliucijas.


  Dubravka Šuica (PPE), in writing. – I applaud the 2014 Report on Monitoring the Application of EU Law, which gives an overview of the actual implementation and practical application of EU law and which is useful because it shows the policy areas which had the most infringement cases. However, the enforcement of EU law is still not sufficiently transparent and thus, perhaps the Commission should consider the proposals made by the new Working Group on Administrative Law, as they could lead to greater efficiency within the EU's own administrative procedures. I support this Report because it is important that we closely monitor the application of EU laws. As Vice-Chair of the Delegation for relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, I firmly believe that the Parliament should play a more important role in the analysis of how accession countries and countries with association agreements comply with EU laws and that the Parliament can play a larger role in developing appropriate support for implementation of EU laws in these countries. Therefore, I support the suggestion that Parliament draft proper reports on all candidate countries in response to the annual progress reports released by the Commission, with the aim to give relevant committees the chance to deliver opinions.

Teisinė informacija - Privatumo politika