Press CC on the youtube click to get English Subtitles

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

Consideration of draft report on the implementation of Directive 2008/52/EU on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters

It is clear that the principle of access to justice is fundamental and its realisation is one of the main objectives of the EU-policy in the field of civil justice cooperation. Effective and efficient justice systems are of great importance, inter alia, to the proper functioning of the internal market, to economic stability, to investment and to competitiveness. In line with this principle, mediation could be seen as a means to improve the efficiency of justice system and to reduce the hurdles that lengthy and costly judicial procedures create for citizens and businesses. It can therefore contribute to economic growth. Mediation may also contribute to maintaining good relationship between the parties as, contrary to judicial proceedings, there is no ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ party, which is particularly important, e.g. in family law cases.
For these reasons the european legislator introduced the Mediation Directive (2008/52/EC). Its central objective is the facilitation of access to alternative dispute resolution and the promotion of amicable settlement of disputes, as well as a balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings. Although compulsory mediation would promote the use of mediation as an alternative to in-court-dispute resolution, such a development could be viewed as being contrary to the voluntary nature of mediation. As the European Court of Justice has already held , prior implementation of an out-of-court settlement procedure for specific disputes would not be problematic. However a series of safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure that effective judicial protection is not hampered.
As a result adequate safeguards need to be put in place in mediation processes to limit the risk that weaker parties, such as consumers and unrepresented litigants, are being deprived of their right to an independent judicial determination or have the perception that they are being deprived of it. It is therefore of utmost importance that mediations ensure that weaker parties do not settle a dispute without understanding their proper legal rights and that more powerful parties do not use speedy dispute resolution procedures, including mediation, as a means of avoiding their legal obligations or improving improperly their legal position against other parties.
Throughout the last years the implementation of this Directive was assessed by several studies and reports. Some of the main findings of these studies are the following:
Almost all Member States opted to extend the Directive’s requirements transposing measures to domestic cases too. However the objectives of the mediation directive towards encouraging the use of mediation and especially achieving a “balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings” have not been achieved. Mediation is used in less than 1% of the cases in court on average in the majority of Member States.
A number of Member States allow the use of mediation in civil and commercial matters, including family and employment matters, while not explicitly excluding mediation for revenue, customs or administrative matters or for the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority.
All Member States foresee the possibility for courts to invite the parties to use mediation, with fifteen Member States introducing the possibility for courts to invite parties to information sessions on mediation.
Less than half of the Member States have introduced an obligation in their national laws to spread information about mediation.
Eighteen Member States introduced binding quality control mechanisms.
Nineteen Member States require the development of and adherence to codes of conduct.
Seventeen Member States encourage training or regulate it in their national legislation.
In this regard it shall be also highlighted that at present there is no reliable and comprehensive statistical data on mediation. Furthermore there is a lack of information regarding mediation and its advantages in most Member States. That is why data collection and information on mediation matters shall be efficiently improved (for example through well organised information campaigns and through the obligatory creation of national registers of mediated proceedings) to further promote mediation and increase public trust in its effectiveness, as well as to achieve improved cooperation between legal professionals.
In this perspective I would like to recommend the competent authorities to assess the need to develop EU-wide quality standards for the provision of mediation services, especially in the form of minimum standards ensuring consistency, while taking into account the fundamental right of access to justice as well as local differences in mediation cultures.
Moreover the Commission shall undertake a detailed study on the obstacles to the free circulation of foreign mediation agreements in the Union, as well as to provide financial incentives for the parties, in order to use mediation as an affordable and effective way to solve conflicts in internal and cross-border disputes in the EU. In any case the rule of law and ongoing international developments shall be taken into account also in this field.

Thank you for your attention
(deadline for tabling amendments is 08.04.2017 AT 12:00 ...)

23.3.2017

Brussels, 28.11.2016

CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT OPINION:
On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work

Cancer at work is the biggest individual threat when looking at the number of deaths in the developed world and this serious and preventable disease is rapidly becoming the most dangerous killer at places of work in most countries in the world. Especially in the EU, it is estimated that more than 100.000 deaths result each year from occupational-related cancer. Recent global data indicate that more than 600.000 fatal work-related cancers occur every year. It is a fact that cancer is the leading cause of work-related deaths in the EU accounting for 53% of annual occupational deaths. Around 20 million EU workers are exposed to carcinogens at work.
Notably for workers and their families, occupational cancer results not only in substantial loss as far as quality of life is concerned, but also in direct health care costs and indirect loss of present and future earnings. Occupational cancer impacts the economy at large too, reducing labour supply and productivity and increasing the burden on public finances through avoidable public expenditure on health care and other benefits. Finally, occupational cancer implies businesses staff replacement costs, productivity losses and the need to pay higher wages to compensate for the higher occupational risk.
The present proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work, which is supported by an impact assessment, seeks to guarantee a high level of protection of workers’ health and safety in the EU, through the introduction at EU level of better occupation standards, regarding workers’ exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work.
Specifically, the main objectives of the proposal are a) to improve workers’ health protection by reducing occupational exposure to chemical agents that may cause cancer or mutations; b) to ensure more clarity and to create a better level playing field for economic operators; and c) to increase the effectiveness of the EU framework for workers’ protection by updating it on the basis of available scientific evidence. These objectives are consistent with the fundamental right to life and to fair and just working conditions which respect his/her health, safety and dignity as set out in Articles 2 and 31 respectively of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This proposal seeks to bring within the scope of the aforementioned Directive a number of chemical agents that are recognised as human carcinogens in countries outside the EU or by international organisations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer, but they are not yet classified under the current EU system. Specifically, it proposes to revise or to introduce EU-wide occupational exposure limit values for 13 chemical agents - including among others hardwood dust, vinyl chloride monomer respirable crystalline silica dust, hydrazine, refractory ceramic fibres etc. - on the basis of the latest scientific evidence, thus harmonising widely varying national limit values, where existent. This is estimated to save around 100.000 lives by 2069 for a total monetised health benefit quantified between at least 34 and 89 billion Euros.
As a result, I strongly support the aforementioned proposal, albeit with a number of amendments, which aim mainly at stressing the need for a precautionary approach regarding the implementation of this proposal. The limit values of such chemical agents should be therefore revised regularly in the light of the latest scientific and technical information and data as well as in the light of the latest improvements in measurement techniques, risk management measures and other relevant factors.
The precautionary principle can be defined as a general principle of EU law intended to be applied in order to ensure a high level of protection of health, consumer safety and the environment in all the Union’s spheres of activity . Whether or not to invoke the precautionary principle is a decision exercised where scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are indications that the possible effects on the environment, or human, animal or plant health may be potentially dangerous and inconsistent with the chosen level of protection . This principle is thus particularly important where there are uncertainties as to the impact of dealing with mixtures especially of toxic agents on workers’ health.
The above circumstances call essentially for the establishment of an effective cancer- or other related health problems-prevention paradigm that takes into account multiple interacting factors and the latest improvements in measurement techniques, risk management measures and other relevant factors. It shall be highlighted that more efforts are required in order to efficiently protect workers from the risks related to carcinogens and mutagens at work, as there are still various substances that are not included in the list of the proposal, that can potentially have an adverse impact on the health of workers . All substances that can increase the risk of occupational cancers must be covered by the EU legislation, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights to life, health and work for all involved human beings.
The European Union, the Member States but also the international community must strive hard towards this goal. International cooperation could help significantly to promote an ambitious program for “zero work-related cancer”. The cooperation between WHO, ILO and other institutions is therefore crucial. An efficient european programme supported by a well organised awareness campaign could be launched on the “Elimination of Occupational Cancer”. Finally emphasis should be laid on launching substitution of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances in the authorization and restriction processes, where that is feasible.

(Deadline for tabling Amendments 08.12.2016)

Thank you....

CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW 2015

I would like to warmly thank all colleagues, who in total tabled 72 amendments regarding the draft report on monitoring the application of EU Law 2015. Your important contribution may improve and enrich the content of this report, where possible. Given that the appropriate application of the european law may lead to a fair, solid and inclusive Europe, I can confirm that I will take into account especially the amendments which in my opinion seek to safeguard the above mentioned crucial aim[1]. Same applies for amendments which stress the need to effectively protect the fundamental european values and rights enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights, as well for amendments that contribute to further clarifications of this report. Though I fear that it will be difficult to draft enough comprehensive compromise amendments, as the most of the tabled amendments are self-contained. As a result they can not easily be covered by compromise amendments.
On the other hand I would also like to express my regret for some amendments that delete parts of my report, which intend to stress the negative effects of the implementation austerity measures in Member States on european legal institutions and on european citizens. In my view it is indispensable especially in times of economic and political crisis to highlight for example the fact that all EU institutions even when they act as members of groups of international lenders, are bound by the EU Treaties and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also necessary for a just and appropriate application of the EU-law to stress that EU institutions should refrain from signing and implementing agreements or memoranda whose consistency with EU law but also their effectiveness is highly disputed, as they negatively affect the rights and lives of many european citizens; and in fact it is almost impossible for individual and Member States, within the existing legal framework of the EU to litigate succesfully against such infringements.
It takes strength and courage to admit the present deficiencies regarding the application of the EU but it is absolutely worthy. Because the acceptance of crucial real facts may open the way for a fairer and better european construct.
Thank you

[1] For example Amendment 11 of Mr. Cavada that stresses the need to establish a new mechanism, providing a single and coherent framework, building on existing instruments and mechanisms, which should be applied in a uniform manner to all EU institutions and all its Member States;

23.3.2017

Brussels, 28.11.2016

CONSIDERATION of a DRAFT OPINION:
On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 Directive 2009/101/EC (COM(2016)0450 – C8 0000/2016 – 2016/0208(COD))
Nowadays there is a growing european and global consensus that threats associated with money laundering and terrorist financing are constantly evolving. It is not a rare phenomenon that the modern financial system is being used for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (e.g. the recent terror attacks in Paris). Its loopholes can facilitate tax avoidance and evasion, contributing to crime, non-transparency and wealth inequality and damaging the stability and reputation of the financial sector.
The present proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 Directive 2009/101/EC aims to improve recent EU legislation on financial checks and transparency in order to further the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
Regarding this issue following five main problems have already been identified:
- 1. Suspicious transactions involving high-risk third countries are not efficiently monitored due to unclear and uncoordinated customer due diligence requirements;
- 2. Suspicious transactions made through virtual currencies are not sufficiently monitored by the authorities, which are unable to link identities and transactions; - 3. Current measures to mitigate money laundering/terrorist financing risks associated with anonymous prepaid instruments are not sufficient;
- 4. Financial Intelligence Units have limitations in the timely access to – and exchange of – information held by obliged entities;
- 5. Financial Intelligence Units lack access or have delayed access to information on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts.
Under these circumstances, it is important to strike the right balance between putting in place sufficient checks and controls in order to tackle the aforementioned problems and protecting adequately the privacy and the related fundamental rights of the involved persons. Clear rules are required, that can effectively reinforce the vigilance by banks, lawyers, accountants and all other professional concerned.
In this context and in line with the proposal of the Commission Financial Intelligence Units shall be able to associate virtual currency addresses to the identity of the owner of virtual currencies. The threshold for payments using anonymous prepaid cards without carrying out systematic due diligence checks shall be reduced to 150 EUR and the due diligence check exemption for online payments shall be confined. Though it should be considered that these restrictions must not be so tight that such cards become unusable in practice.
Moreover central registries of the holders of bank accounts shall be set up in the Member States. Finally, increased obligations to declare, and provide access to information on the beneficial ownership of corporate structures, trusts, and similar arrangements, as well as common standards for dealing with financial transactions to and from high-risk third countries shall be introduced.
As a result the main lines of the Commission’s proposal shall be supported, with, however, some amendments that aim to strengthen the combat against money laundering and terrorist financing and to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights also in this issue. To protect the legal economy in times of crisis, there must be no legal loopholes for organised crime to slip through. The current financial system should never function as laundromats for mafia money, or enable the funding of terrorism. In any case the EU institutions in proper cooperation with the Member States must continue to step up their efforts to effectively tackle this highly important matter.
(Deadline for tabling amendments 07.12.2016)

Thank you...