CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU-LAW 2015

At first I would like to welcome the Commission’s 2015 annual report on monitoring the application of EU law. The EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect of human rights (Article 2 TEU). As a result the careful monitoring of Member States’ and EU institutions’ acts and omissions is of utmost importance.
My point of view is that this report is devoting superficially its attention to the application of european law, while it seems to ignore substantial and persistent risks of breaches of fundamental european legal principles and values, that have a negative impact on the functioning of the EU, on the sustainability of the european integration project and above all on the lives of many european citizens.
According to this report the fields in which Member States were mostly subject to transposition infringement proceedings in 2015 were mobility and transport, energy and environment. In 2015 the Commission received 3.450 complaints reporting potential breaches of EU law, with Italy (637), Spain (342) and Germany (274) being the Member States that most complaints were filed against. It shall be mentioned that for the first time since 2011, the number of new complaints reporting potential breaches has decreased around 9% compared to 2014.
The vital role of citizens’, social partners’, organisations’ and other stakeholders’ complaints and petitions shall be highlighted and supported, when it comes to ensuring that Member States comply with Union law. The decrease of about 27% in the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2015 (881 against 1208 in 2014) is also noteworthy. It shall be stressed however that the average resolution rate remains stable compared to 2015 (75%).
Although it shall be recognised that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with the Member States, it shall be pointed out that this does not absolve the EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law, when they produce secondary EU law. Special attention should be given to the compliance or non-compliance of austerity measures to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
For example the privatisation of public assets of over-indebted Member States, when imposed by european institutions, may constitute a breach of primary EU law provisions, such as Article 345 TFEU, according to which the ‘Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules governing the system of property ownership’ in the Member States. This principle, which was included in the Schuman Declaration and has ever since been included in all treaties, is designed to respect Member States’ choices about the ownership of certain enterprises providing services to the general public.
Furthermore, it should be highlighted that if EU Member States have been in some cases forced by the so-called ‘Troika’ (that is the Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) to adopt and implement measures that breach their constitutional and international obligations to respect fundamental human rights, it is in fact almost impossible, within the existing legal framework of the EU to litigate against such infringements.
Several contemporary studies indicate that the austerity measures have had severe implications, in the first place on economic and social rights affecting in particular the right to education, health care, property and pension. Affected are also, labour rights, the freedom of information, the right to social security, the right to water, the right of access to justice, the principle of equality and the rule of law.
Greece is a clear example of this situation. Because of these measures nowadays a considerable part of the Greek citizens have inadequate access to medical care. Regarding child poverty, 37.8% of children (about 710.000) aged up to 17 in Greece were at risk of poverty and social exclusion in 2015, compared to 28.7% in 2010. Moreover, after 2010 it was noted a significant increase in suicide rates (approximately 35%) in comparison to the period between 2003 and 2010. For the first time after World War II deaths in Greece continuously outnumber births since 2011; while nearly half a million Greeks have emigrated abroad in search of better opportunities to live and to create a family.
In reality such measures imposed by EU-institutions have in some cases the effect of reducing significantly the capacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assume their responsibility to implement correctly EU law.
On the other hand it shall be underlined that the relevant Commissions’ Report also fails to mention the poor state of domestic transposition and practical implementation of EU-level asylum standards (for example regarding the implementation of the EU reception conditions Directive 2013/33 ) by EU member states. The same applies to the implementation of the relocation mechanism proposed by the Commission to deal with the refugee crisis by Member States (only about 5% of the agreed relocation target is implemented). The Commission must therefore pay particular attention to the correct implementation of measures adopted in the area of asylum and migration at EU level and to launch the necessary infringement proceedings.
In conclusion, the EU institutions shall be encouraged to assume their duty to respect all aspects of EU law, particularly when they create rules of secondary EU law, decide policies or sign agreements and Treaties with institutions outside of the EU. They should further be encouraged to assume their duty to assist, by all means available, EU Member States in their efforts to respect the values and the principles of the Union, especially in times of austerity and budgetary constraints and of intense increase of immigration flows.

Thank you,

The deadline for amendments is 8 March with a vote scheduled in JURI on 11 or 12 April.

Committe of Legal Affairs (JURI),
Brussels, 28.02.2017