Mr President, the Commission’s report on monitoring the application of Community law is a most important document because it reveals the true situation in the European Union and more sittings should perhaps have been devoted to it, not just the Friday sitting. The rapporteur, Mrs Grossetête, has produced an extremely balanced report containing a series of accurate observations which deserve special attention. The two reports quite rightly divide the subject of the application of Community law into three dimensions: the non-transposition of Community law and the incompatibility of transposition measures with the letter of Community law and application methods. As far as non-application is concerned, there are still serious delays in certain sectors, including the social sector, to which, I am sorry to see, the Commission’s report only devotes a few lines, despite the fact that the issues in question relate to social cohesion. There are numerous reasons for non-transposition and they need to be studied. Also, it is time that we considered political methods for reducing delays. For example, what if each country were to appoint a uniform body at the highest political level which would be responsible, vis-à-vis the European Union, for transposing Community law correctly and on time? What if each country which took over the presidency had to make a prompt, public declaration of its country's degree of compliance with Community law, given that it does not make sense for a country to be responsible for administering political matters when it has not honoured its own commitments? It might also be useful if the state of compliance of each country were publicly announced before each summit. Negligence in transposing Community law in the past did not have the same repercussions as it has on a single economic area in which the idea of not having a uniform legal Community order at the same moment in time is inconceivable As far as the method of applying Community law is concerned, this issue relates mainly to the legislative system, both national and Community, and to the appointment of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman. The two basic problems relating to the legislative system are: first, often unjustified recourse to the procedure for obtaining preliminary rulings from the European Court and, as Mr Álvarez has mentioned, poorly prepared references and, secondly, the failure to take such recourse on crucial issues. Despite appearing different, both have the same root cause, which is the national judges' lack of familiarity with Community law. A general campaign is needed here. We need to propose to the Member States that all judges should gradually be trained and that this should be the sine qua non for the promotion of older judges to more senior positions and for the admission of newcomers to the bench. The present Grotius and Falcone programmes have become out-dated as a result of developments. Finally, I should like to say a brief word about where the Committee on Petitions can play an important part in improving the degree of application of Community law. This committee forms the interface between the European citizen, the European Parliament and the Commission. We need to upgrade this committee if we are to uncover omissions in the practical application of Community law. I am in favour of Mr Álvarez's proposals, which really do form the starting point for European administrative Community law.

Political group: PSE