With three signatures, on the discretionary powers of the Supervisory Commission with regard to the application of EU law by the Member States (Articles 17 and 258 TFEU) 

The petitioner, referring to the power conferred on the Commission by the EU Treaty (Article 17(1)) to ‘oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union’ and its role as ‘guardian of the Treaties’, complains that this provision gives the Commission a wide margin of discretion as to ‘whether or not’ and ‘when’ to decide to initiate an infringement procedure against Member States that fail to fulfil their obligations (Articles 258 and 260 TFEU). As evidence of this, he cites excerpts from the Communication of the Commission of 19 January 2017 ‘EU Law: Better results through better application’ (2017/C 18/02). In point 3, the Commission makes the exercise of this discretionary power subject to the definition of strategic priorities (citing judgments of the Court of Justice, including that of 14 September 1998 in Case T-571/93, which emphasises the fact that citizens will not succeed in actions brought against the Commission if it declines to initiate an infringement procedure). In point 8 of the annex to this Communication, the Commission mentions the one-year time limit for examining citizens’ complaints, but stresses that this time limit is not absolute. The petitioner also refers to the conclusions (Decision of 14 September 2017) of the European Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry on the timing and transparency of infringement proceedings, which, while acknowledging that the above-cited Communication is a positive sign in that the Commission is well aware of the problem and intends to remedy it, makes eight recommendations with a view to achieving more substantial progress in this area. In conclusion, the petitioner calls on Parliament to intervene, by means of appropriate legislative acts, to reduce the Commission’s margin of discretion in the exercise of the Member States’ powers of control, in which its institutional role as the guardian of the Treaties is expressed.