—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Articles 2 and 3 thereof,

—

having regard to the Commission’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 reports on monitoring the application of EU law (COM(2018)0540, COM(2019)0319 and COM(2020)0350),

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union — A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 June 2018 on monitoring the application of EU law in 2016 (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (3),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 December 2016 entitled ‘EU law: Better results through better application’ (4) (C(2016)8600),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 April 2012 entitled ‘Updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law’ (COM(2012)0154),

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (5),

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘2020 Rule of Law Report. The rule of law situation in the European Union’ (COM(2020)0580),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council based on Article 10 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime (COM(2016)0448),

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council entitled ‘Ninth progress report towards an effective and genuine Security Union’ (COM(2017)0407),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (6) (4AMLD), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (7) (5AMLD),

—

having regard to Review No. 07/2018 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Putting EU law into practice: The European Commission’s oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union (Landscape Review)’,

—

having regard to Review No. 02/2020 of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Law-making in the European Union after almost 20 years of Better Regulation’,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0270/2020),

A.

whereas pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 288(3) and 291(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States have the primary responsibility for transposing, applying and implementing EU law correctly and within the time limits set, and for providing sufficient remedies to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU competences; whereas EU legislation is effective only in so far as it is, on the one hand, transposed in time, in a complete and accurate manner and, on the other hand, properly applied in national law by the Member States, which is necessary to guarantee the benefits of EU policies to all European citizens and a level playing field for businesses across the internal market; whereas EU legislation should respect the principles of sincere cooperation, conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality;

B.

whereas it is necessary to recognise the importance of the active contribution of national parliaments to the proper functioning of the EU, and to ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure enshrined in Protocol 2 TFEU on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; whereas we should continue to foster closer cooperation with national parliaments in the law-making process; recalls that in 2019, 159 reports and no reasoned opinions were submitted out of a total of 4 918 reports and 439 reasoned opinions in the last nine years; whereas to date the ‘yellow card’ procedure has been activated only three times, and the ‘orange card’ has never been used;

C.

whereas dialogue between the EU Institutions and national authorities has been instrumental to resolving 90 % of infringement procedures since 2014 without the involvement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); whereas infringement procedures should be used as a measure of last resort; whereas, EU legislation should be formulated in a way that facilitates its transposition into national law;

D.

whereas EU Pilot procedures have been introduced in order to quickly resolve potential breaches of EU law at an early stage in appropriate cases through a structured problem-solving dialogue between the Commission and Member States; whereas their use has declined since 2017 as it has been recognised that it added an additional bureaucratic layer to the procedure without adding real value; whereas the Commission has not yet responded to Parliament’s repeated calls to be kept informed about EU Pilot and infringements procedure initiated, especially when they result from petitions;

E.

whereas in 2016 the Commission decided to prioritise the most serious breaches of EU law significantly affecting the interests of citizens and businesses in its work on infringement cases and complaints, and whereas 2017 was the first year in which the Commission applied this new, more targeted approach;

F.

whereas infringement procedures, together with other implementation and compliance-promoting mechanisms, guarantee that EU citizens and businesses are not negatively affected by the late or incomplete transposition or incorrect application of EU law by Member States; whereas infringement procedures are unfair insofar as they make citizens bear the cost of the incomplete transposition or incorrect application of European law by Member States; whereas more effective interinstitutional cooperation is desirable, both at national and EU level, and to introduce a new mechanisms or review the existing mechanisms to guarantee the correct application of EU law;

G.

whereas respect for the rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy, and underpins fundamental rights; whereas upholding the rule of law is a prerequisite for upholding all rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties and secondary legislation; whereas the EU has a role to play in resolving rule of law issues wherever they appear; whereas national courts in Member States ensure that the rights and obligations provided for under EU law are enforced effectively; whereas independent and effective justice systems in Member States are the basis for mutual trust, which is the bedrock of the common area of freedom, security and justice, an investment-friendly environment, the sustainability of long-term growth, and the protection of EU financial interests;

H.

whereas the protection of fundamental rights and civil liberties, impartial and independent courts, freedom of expression, media pluralism and independence from political influence or pressure, the respect of legality by subnational entities, and the fight against corruption and the infiltration of the legal economy by organised crime, are essential to guaranteeing equal treatment before the law, protecting citizens’ rights, preventing abuses and ensuring accountability of public office-holders; whereas media freedom, pluralism and independence are essential components of the right to freedom of expression, and whereas independent and free media play a crucial role in a democratic society, as specified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the TEU; whereas disinformation campaigns aimed at misleading the public about the EU’s activities also target the measures undertaken in order to ensure the proper application of EU law in Member States;

I.

whereas Article 21 of the Charter prohibits any form of discrimination, including on the basis of disability; whereas numerous legislative acts aimed at concretely implementing this fundamental principle are still not being correctly implemented in several Member States;

J.

whereas Europol found that between 0,7 % and 1,28 % of the EU’s annual gross domestic product was used for suspect financial activity, such as the laundering of illicitly obtained funds, and whereas the Commission has launched infringement proceedings against most Member States for failing to properly transpose the Anti-money Laundering Directives, in particular 4AMLD and 5AMLD;

K.

whereas some Member States have introduced schemes that either directly or indirectly sell EU citizenship, and whereas there are serious concerns that such schemes could be open to abuse, giving rise to issues relating to security and transparency, undermining citizens’ trust in EU values and principles, and facilitating terrorism, organised crime and money laundering;

L.

whereas, according to the Commission report, Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime (8) does not achieve the necessary minimum degree of approximation as regards directing or participating in a criminal organisation on the basis of a single definition of such an organisation; whereas the Framework Decision enables the Member States not to introduce the concept of criminal organisation into their national law, but to continue to apply current national criminal law by having recourse to general rules on participation in and preparation of specific offences, and whereas this may have the effect of creating additional disparities in the framework decision’s practical implementation;

M.

whereas the refugee crisis has demonstrated the need for urgent reform of the common European asylum system and for more effective burden sharing among Member States; whereas the mandatory schemes for the emergency relocation of asylum seekers from Italy and Greece have proved ineffective, involving, in particular, serious physical and psychological consequences on minors, and especially unaccompanied minors; whereas the Commission has launched infringement procedures against Czechia, Poland and Hungary for refusing to comply with relocation decisions;

N.

whereas the Schengen Borders Code allows internal border checks to be reinstated temporarily only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort; whereas many Member States have breached the rules by keeping border checks in place without due justification; whereas the Commission has not seen fit to bring infringement procedures against these Member States;

O.

whereas media freedom, pluralism and independence are essential components of the right to freedom of expression, and whereas the media play a crucial role in a democratic society, as specified in the Charter and the TEU;

P.

whereas the aim of the Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms is to limit the damage caused by the impact of economic crises on public budgets, restricting through bail-ins the effects of bank defaults on shareholders, bond holders and holders of current accounts with more than EUR 100 000; whereas current account holders, and hence savers, risk having to pay for mismanagement that causes banks to default, under the provisions of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), and in particular the bail-ins provided for by it;

Q.

whereas in 2019 the Commission continued to monitor Member States’ implementation of the Capital Requirements Directive IV, the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, the BRRD and the Bank Creditor Hierarchy Directive; whereas in 2019 infringement procedures were launched against 12 Member States for not adopting the measures necessary for the full transposition of the Bank Creditor Hierarchy Directive;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.