What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Changed:on monitoring the application of European Union law in 20232023, 2024 and 20242025

(2025/2016(INI))

The European Parliament,

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

Added:– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000,

Added:– having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights of 17 November 2017,

– having regard to the Commission report of 25 July 2024 entitled ‘Monitoring the application of EU law 2023 Annual Report’ (COM(2024)0358),

Changed:– having regard to the availableCommission report of 21 October 2025 entitled ‘2025 Annual Overview Report on Simplification, Implementation and Enforcement’ (COM(2025)0871), and to the European Commissioners’ 2025‘2025 Annual Progress Reports on Simplification, Implementation and EnforcementEnforcement’ of September 2025,

– having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2023 on monitoring the application of European Union Law in 2020, 2021 and 20221,

Changed:– having regard to theits Interinstitutionalresolution Agreementof between9 theJune European2016 Parliament,for thean Councilopen, ofefficient theand independent European Union administration2 and to its proposal for a regulation of the European CommissionParliament and of 13the AprilCouncil 2016for onan Betteropen, Law-Making2,efficient and independent European Union administration contained therein,

Added:– having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2023 with recommendations to the Commission on Digitalisation and Administrative Law3,

Added:– 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-Making4,

5 unchanged paragraphs

– having regard to the Commission communication of 21 May 2025 entitled ‘The Single Market: our European home market in an uncertain world – A Strategy for making the Single Market simple, seamless and strong’ (COM(2025)0500),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘Moving forward together: A Bolder, Simpler, Faster Union’ (COM(2025)0045),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification’ (COM(2025)0047),

– having regard to the Commission staff working document of 14 July 2023 entitled ‘Stocktaking report on the Commission working methods for monitoring the application of EU law’ (SWD(2023)0254),

– having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report 28/2024 entitled ‘Enforcing EU law’,

Changed:– having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 28 August 2025 entitled ‘A simpler and faster Europe’3,Europe’5,

4 unchanged paragraphs

– having regard to the report by Mario Draghi of September 2024 entitled ‘The future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe’,

– having regard to the report by Enrico Letta of April 2024 entitled ‘Much more than a Market’,

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Petitions,

Changed:– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A10-0000/2025),(A10-0037/2026),

Change 1

Removed:A. whereas pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 288 and 291(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States bear the primary responsibility for transposing, applying and implementing EU law correctly, harmoniously and within the set time limits; whereas EU legislation should be drafted in a way that facilitates its transposition into national law; whereas EU legislation is effective only in so far as it is, on the one hand, transposed on time, in a complete and accurate manner and, on the other hand, properly applied within the national legal frameworks by the Member States, which is necessary to guarantee the benefits of EU policies for all EU citizens and a level playing field for businesses across the internal market;

Added:A. whereas EU law-making is driven by the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; whereas the uniform, consistent and effective application of EU law across all Member States is necessary for achieving the EU’s objectives, ensuring the proper functioning of the single market and maintaining an area of freedom, security and justice; whereas the EU’s external credibility depends on its ability to ensure full compliance with these values and principles internally;

Removed:B. whereas the Commission did not publish an annual report on monitoring the application of EU law for 2024, thereby breaking a practice that has been in place for over 40 years, since 1983;

Added:B. whereas pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 288 and 291(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States bear the primary responsibility for transposing, applying and implementing EU law correctly, harmoniously and within the set time limits; whereas the principle of sincere cooperation entails the responsibility to facilitate the completion of the EU’s tasks and to refrain from any measure that could jeopardise the attainment of the EU’s objectives; whereas EU legislation is effective only in so far as it is, on the one hand, transposed on time, in a complete and accurate manner and, on the other hand, properly applied within the national legal frameworks by the Member States, which is necessary to guarantee the benefits of EU policies for all EU citizens, including the protection of their fundamental rights, and a level playing field for businesses across the internal market; whereas, in this context, enforcement of EU law is key to maintaining a level playing field between Member States;

Added:C. whereas the quality, clarity, coherence and accessibility of EU legislation are essential preconditions for its correct, effective, timely and complete transposition and application; whereas complexity, overlapping acts, divergent definitions and ambiguous drafting increase the risk of delays, divergent interpretation and weak compliance; whereas EU legislation should be drafted in a clear, rational and technically transposable manner, enabling Member States, citizens and businesses to understand, apply and invoke their rights and obligations under EU law; whereas technological advances, including artificial intelligence (AI), create new opportunities to improve legislative drafting, monitoring, compliance assessment and communication with citizens and businesses, provided that their use is governed by transparent, ethical and data-secure frameworks;

Added:D. 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 the timely and consistent initiation of infringement procedures by the Commission constitutes a complementary instrument to guarantee compliance with EU law; whereas dialogue with national authorities seems to be the Commission’s preferred way to solve infringement procedures, as opposed to bringing Member States before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which it sees as a measure of last resort; whereas in 2016, in its work on infringement cases and complaints, the Commission decided to prioritise the most serious breaches of EU law significantly affecting the interests of citizens and businesses; whereas 2017 was the first year in which the Commission applied this new, more targeted approach;

Added:E. whereas public consultations and ex ante and ex post impact assessments are essential tools for well-informed, efficient, accountable and transparent law-making;

Added:F. whereas petitions and complaints submitted to Parliament are a valuable source of information on shortcomings and gaps in the implementation of EU law at national level, and can contribute to monitoring the correct application and transposition of EU legislation by Member States across all policy areas; whereas a significant number of petitions concern the implementation of EU environmental legislation, the protection of fundamental rights, and respect for the rule of law and democracy; whereas citizen input such as this provides valuable insights into the real-life application of EU law and should systematically inform monitoring and enforcement practices;

Added:G. whereas, regrettably, the Commission did not publish an annual report on monitoring the application of EU law for 2024, thereby breaking a practice that has been in place for over 40 years, since 1983;

Added:H. whereas the Commission’s 2025 Overview Report on Simplification, Implementation and Enforcement places a strong emphasis on simplification initiatives; whereas this emphasis should be counterbalanced by an equally detailed analysis of implementation and enforcement; whereas without oversight and effective and efficient enforcement by the Commission, cross-border business and the free movement of people, goods, capital and services in the EU could be severely hampered; whereas the Commission should take enforcement actions to guarantee all rights under EU law, particularly human rights; whereas the effectiveness and credibility of EU law depend on its capacity to deliver tangible social, environmental and economic benefits to all citizens and regions, ensuring that no one is left behind in the application of EU rules; whereas the principle of parliamentary scrutiny of the Commission’s activities, including the Commission’s monitoring of the application of EU law, is essential to ensure democratic accountability to EU citizens and to strengthen public trust in the EU’s institutions;

Added:I. whereas the number of closed infringement cases fell dramatically from 1 030 in 2023 to 535 in 2024; whereas the number of open cases increased from 1 461 in 2023 to 1 493 in 2024; whereas the number of new infringement cases increased from 528 in 2023 to 567 in 2024; whereas for 2025, preliminary figures covering the period from 1 January to 31 July 2025 show that 345 cases were closed and 1 559 cases were active; whereas data is either incomplete, not yet available, or not reported on the Commission website; whereas in 2023, 2024 and 2025, environment was consistently the policy area where the most infringement proceedings were active; whereas in 2023, this policy area was followed by those of energy and transport; whereas in 2024 it was followed by those of justice and consumers, and mobility and transport; whereas in 2025 it was followed by those of justice and consumers, and energy;

Added:J. whereas there are cases of persistent breaches of EU law and systematic non-implementation of CJEU judgements by certain Member States;

Monitoring and enforcement of EU law

Change 2

Changed:1. Takes note of the Commission’s 2023 report on monitoring the application of EU law; believes that this report is a crucial tool for enabling scrutiny of the correct transposition and implementation of EU law;

Change 3

Changed:2. Regrets that the Commission did not publish an annual report on monitoring the application of EU law for 2024;2024, thus breaking with a practice established over 40 years ago in 1983; stresses that regular, annual monitoring of the application of EU law is an essential instrument through which the Commission fulfils its role as the guardian of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU, as it helps to ensure and monitor that EU law is correctly applied and enforced across all the Member States and to track progress made in this area;area in a transparent manner accessible to all; believes that the yearly report on monitoring the application of EU law is a crucial tool for enabling scrutiny of the correct transposition and implementation of EU law, and for safeguarding the institutional balance as provided for in the Treaties; stresses that Parliament must be kept constantly informed and that it relies on this reporting, both as a co-legislator and in its exercise of political scrutiny, under Article 14(1) TEU, overof the Commission to ensure that it exercises its prerogatives adequately; stresses the importance of ensuring annual monitoring of the application of EU Law Country by Country, in order to prevent violations of fundamental rights and of the rule of law as a consequence of a lack of compliance; calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to freedom of expression, media pluralism, equality and non-discrimination, the breach of which could have a direct impact on citizens’ trust in the EU; considers that transparent and accessible reporting contributes to keeping citizens informed about EU law implementation and reduces the space for misinformation regarding the functioning of the EU; notes with concern that national constitutional and supreme courts in some Member States have been undermining the well-established doctrine of the primacy of EU law; stresses that such developments should always lead to swift enforcement activities by the Commission, including infringement procedures;

Change 4

Removed:3. Takes note of the shift in the Commission’s approach to launching a new reporting cycle on monitoring the application of EU law with annual progress reports on simplification, implementation and enforcement by each Commissioner, and an annual overview report on simplification, implementation and enforcement; stresses the importance of the annual overview report in allowing for a horizontal assessment of the state of play regarding the application and enforcement of EU law;

Added:3. Notes the Commission’s shift toward a new reporting cycle on monitoring the application of EU law, with annual progress reports on simplification, implementation and enforcement by each Commissioner, and an annual overview report on simplification, implementation and enforcement; welcomes the 2025 Annual Overview Report, and the Commissioners’ 2025 Annual Progress Reports, covering the period from 1 January to 31 July 2025, as a valuable source of factual information on the state of EU law implementation across sectors and Member States; notes that the reports are clearly presented; regrets the fact, nevertheless, that the analysis remains overly focused on achievements, with insufficient attention paid to persistent challenges and systemic enforcement gaps; notes that insufficient comparative data and outcome-oriented indicators limit the assessment of real progress over time; emphasises that the annual overview report must go beyond a descriptive exercise and provide a substantive, critical assessment of systemic challenges and shortcomings in the application and enforcement of EU legislation, including a clear and transparent identification of shortcomings and steps envisaged to address them; calls on the Commission, in future overview reports, to ensure a coherent approach, and that chapters on simplification are counterbalanced by an analysis of implementation and enforcement; calls on the Commission to move beyond formalistic, procedural monitoring focused merely on the transposition of directives; stresses that monitoring should capture the substantive effectiveness of EU law in achieving its objectives; requests that the Commission publish the methodology applied in preparing the overview reports in order to ensure transparency and effective parliamentary scrutiny; underlines the importance of good cooperation among the institutions, in particular through the sustained Structured Dialogue between the Commission and Parliament, to ensure full transparency and accessibility, and to enhance the reports’ credibility and usefulness for policymakers and citizens;

Removed:4. Welcomes the available Commissioners’ 2025 Annual Progress Reports on Simplification, Implementation and Enforcement, reporting on the period 1 January to 31 July 2025; acknowledges these reports as a valuable source of information on the state of EU law implementation across various sectors and the Member States; notes favourably that the structure of the reports is well organised and clearly presented; regrets, nevertheless, that the analysis remains overly focused on achievements, with insufficient attention paid to persistent challenges and systemic enforcement gaps; urges the Commission to revise its methodology in this regard to include clear identification of shortcomings and the steps the Commission envisages to address them;

Added:4. Calls for enhanced transparency in cooperation between the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the implementation and enforcement of EU law, including through regular structured dialogues, systematic sharing of data, and timely transmission of relevant documents to Parliament in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making;

Removed:5. Notes with concern the absence of any reference in the available sectoral progress reports to the EU Pilot procedure, its current functioning or its role in facilitating early problem-solving prior to the launch of formal infringement proceedings; considers that this omission undermines the completeness of the reports and weakens the overall understanding of the enforcement life cycle;

Added:5. Regrets the lack of information on essential EU policy priorities in the Commission annual report on monitoring the application of EU law of 2023, as well as in its overview report on simplification, implementation and enforcement;

Removed:6. Reaffirms that respect for the rule of law is a fundamental precondition for the effective implementation and uniform application of EU law across all the Member States;

Added:6. Stresses the need to strengthen ex ante mechanisms ensuring that legislative proposals comply fully with the distribution of competences laid down in the Treaties, so as to avoid situations in which acts adopted through the full ordinary legislative procedure and endorsed by the Member States may subsequently be annulled, even partially, on the grounds of legal basis or competence; underlines that enhanced legal scrutiny at all stages of the legislative process is essential to safeguard the stability, predictability and credibility of EU legislation; stresses the need for the Commission to ensure systematic compliance checks in order to prevent EU legislation from encroaching on areas excluded from EU competence, particularly in sensitive domains;

Added:7. Calls on the Commission to publish an annual transparency report devoted specifically to the monitoring, simplification and enforcement cycle, detailing methodological changes, data sources, challenges encountered and consultations held with stakeholders and national administrations;

Added:8. Notes the references in the Commission’s 2025 overview report and in the available sectoral progress reports to the pre-infringement procedure dialogues (formerly known as EU Pilot), their current functioning and their role in facilitating early problem-solving prior to the launch of formal infringement proceedings: considers, however, that these references should be more detailed;

Added:9. Stresses that petitions received by Parliament constitute a vital instrument for identifying shortcomings in the implementation of EU law, including systemic or structural breaches in Member States; urges the Commission, therefore, to ensure that information and findings emerging from petitions are taken into account and integrated into its enforcement and monitoring processes; asks the Commission, in particular, to provide detailed statistical data on the number of petitions followed up by the Commission, including those that have led to further investigations through EU Pilot processes or infringement procedures;

Added:10. Expresses concern about the regular lack of impact assessments accompanying legislative proposals, in particular legislative proposals with possible substantial impacts on fundamental rights; stresses that impact assessments contribute to the quality of EU legislation and therefore facilitate its implementation, as well as improve the transparency and accountability of the EU institutions; highlights the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders and civil society organisations in the drafting of impact assessments;

Added:11. Recommends that the Commission extensively involve stakeholders, civil society organisations and independent experts when monitoring the implementation of EU law, making full use of their expertise and knowledge about local implementation;

Added:12. Reaffirms that respect for the rule of law is a fundamental precondition for the effective implementation and uniform application of EU law across all the Member States and recognises the essential role of law enforcement in protecting fundamental rights; stresses that the proper and uniform application of EU law in the areas of freedom, security and justice is essential for safeguarding fundamental rights, mutual trust and the rule of law across the EU; notes with concern persistent shortcomings in the transposition and implementation of key legal instruments; expresses strong support for the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism and calls on the Commission to apply it consistently and in an objective and transparent manner; stresses the urgent need for increased scrutiny of Member States’ compliance with the EU’s fundamental values, namely the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; underlines that the mechanism enshrined in Article 7 TEU is an essential enforcement tool in the event of a clear risk of a serious breach; stresses that respect for the rule of law concerns not only the Member States but also the EU institutions, which should be held accountable for compliance with the Treaties;

Added:13. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to enforce Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law6, as well as the Digital Services Act7, to ensure robust legal and institutional protection against hate speech, discrimination and violence, in both physical and digital environments;

Added:14. Calls for stronger cross-border cooperation among judicial and law enforcement authorities to effectively combat serious crime, corruption and terrorism; supports the further digitalisation of justice tools, including the full deployment of e-Evidence and e-CODEX; underlines the importance of reinforcing the role and operational capacity of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO);

Added:15. Stresses that when the Commission enforces fundamental rights protections under the Charter of Fundamental Rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it should have due regard for the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights;

Added:16. Endorses the strategic recommendations set out in the Draghi and Letta reports, and highlights their relevance for strengthening the EU’s implementation capacity, modernising the Single Market and ensuring more coherent and results-oriented governance of EU law across policy areas;

Infringement procedures

Change 5

Changed:7.17. Expresses strong concern over the Commission’s reluctance to initiate infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union,CJEU, even in cases involving clear and persistent breaches of EU law; stresses thaturges the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, mustto make full use of all available enforcement tools and not shy away from using litigation as an essential enforcement tool to ensure compliance and uphold the authority of EU law; regrets that the initiation of infringement procedures remains selective, given the Commission’s approach to prioritising breaches it deems to have the most significant impact on public and business interests8, and expresses concern that possible infringements of EU law are not systematically followed by enforcement action; highlights the importance of effective monitoring and preventive action in order to ensure that citizens do not bear the cost of incomplete transposition or incorrect application of EU law by Member States;

Change 6

Removed:8. Regrets that not all potential infringements are being initiated, given the Commission’s approach to prioritising breaches it deems to have the most significant impact on public and business interests4;