Mr President, the fact that this report is the final subject for this week’s part-session does not mean it is unimportant. Quite the contrary, we are all interested in a Citizens’ Europe, in a Europe for the citizens. It is our duty to consider the interests of the European citizen, to ensure that Community law is applied in all of the Member States and that the European Commission, the guardian of the treaties, monitors this process with the utmost vigilance. The figures for 1998, in the report drawn up by the European Commission services, do not, sadly, indicate any significant improvement, and require vigilance from the outset. Few areas are spared and Parliament must pick out those which are particularly prone to difficulties: the environment, social conditions and public procurement contracts. Having said that, I am convinced that, in future, we will need to extend our vigilance to other spheres of activity. The European Parliament must also reiterate its request for information concerning the application of international standards. All of the Member States are affected to a greater or lesser degree by the problems of applying Community law. This is why I wanted to stress just how important it is that they behave in an exemplary manner in the period prior to several successive enlargements. How can we demand that those countries wanting to join the European Union apply Community laws if Member States are themselves unable to respect them? If additional information is necessary, this is also in the interests of the citizen, who is becoming increasingly involved in the process of monitoring Community law. This is where the whole question of the infringement procedure comes in. The European Commission should not advocate more selectivity in dealing with cases which may give rise to an infringement procedure, a proposal according to which the Commission could abstain from intervening in cases of limited importance, such as, for example, the mutual recognition of qualifications. We must protest most strongly against such a move, which could not be justified on the grounds of cost and effectiveness. In doing so, the European Commission would find itself turning away from its role as guardian of the Treaties and would deny European citizens access to justice. As for methods, I think they can be improved. As has been indicated several times by the European Ombudsman, it is important to safeguard the rights of individuals through improved confidentiality, better access to documents and justification of the European Commission’s decisions on classification. In the same vein, more data should be obtained on Member States’ responsibility for damages suffered by private individuals. Nobody would think of doubting the importance of petitions, which play a significant part in signalling that, in some instances, Community law has not been applied in Member States. In this spirit, we are urging that special publicity be given to all complaints in order that any action taken is made more obvious. Bearing in mind the approach that has been adopted, however, which centres above all on defending the working methods of the Committee on Petitions, I do not wish to support Amendment No 2. The attention paid to the CELEX and EUR-LEX databases, that is to say improved access and ongoing optimisation is, I believe, beneficial to the citizen. Consolidated documents should be associated with some indication of the successive amendments introduced, as required by Amendment No 1. I therefore support this amendment. Finally, there is the problem of the preliminary question. I do not believe that it needs to be called into doubt in principle, but we can look into its forms. When such questions are badly drawn up, the effect can run counter to the aim of legal clarification. I therefore suggest that the Court of Justice reconsider the way this procedure works. Moreover, I believe that, in order to clarify the text of Recital G, which reads: “whereas it is primarily national courts that must apply Community law”, it would be preferable to state “control the application of Community law”. There is also, finally, the matter of relations with public administrations which are having to come to grips with new Community standards. The current state of affairs in Europe’s construction tends to emphasise the principle of subsidiarity. In consideration of this key principle, I am opposed to Amendment No 3. I do not consider creating a European administrative law to be appropriate. In conclusion, the fact remains that the aim of a control system is to penalise non-application of the law. With this in mind, I want to stress the importance of the procedure outlined in Article 228(2), of the Treaty. This is a new procedure, and is certainly a deterrent in effect, and the Commission should be less reluctant to consider it in future. By voting in favour of this resolution, we will be sending out a positive signal, from a European Parliament which is in tune with the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE