Activities of Michal ŠIMEČKA related to 2017/0360R(NLE)
Shadow reports (1)
INTERIM REPORT on the proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law
Amendments (20)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22
Citation 22
— having regard to the four infringement procedures launched by the Commission against Poland in relation to the reform ofchanges to the Polish judicial system, of which the first two resulted in judgments of the Court of Justice finding violations of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union enshrining the principle of effective judicial protection, while the two other procedures are still pending,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in contrast to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the scope of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is not limited to the obligations under the Treatiescomprises all foundational principles of the European Union referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, as indicated in the Commission Communication of 15 October 2003, and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competences;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. Underlines that the Member States of the European Union have, in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, freely and voluntarily committed themselves to the common values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that the latest developments in the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary and, preventive and binding Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolution of 25 October 2016;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is concerned, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, about the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament shortly before the presidential elections which change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 and which moreover run counter to the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal when constitutional review was still effective; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24 ; _________________ 23Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recognises that while the organisation of the justice system is a national competence; reiterates that, all the same,in the Member States falls within their competence, the Member States are required to comply with their obligations under Union law when exercising this competence, as repeatedly held by the CJEU; reiterates that national judges are essentially also European judges, applying Union law, which is the reason why the Union, including the CJEU, has to watch over the independence of the judiciary in all the Member States as one of the exigencies of the rule of law and as laid down inmaking their independence a common concern for the Union, including the Court of Justice; calls on the Polish authorities to uphold and maintain the independence of Polish courts; calls on the Commission and the Council to take all necessary measures to ensure that Polish courts remain independent and are able to ensure effective judicial protection as required by Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recalls that the acts concerning the Constitutional Tribunal adopted on 22 December 2015 and 22 July 2016 seriously affected the Constitutional Tribunal’s independence and legitimacy and were therefore declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal on respectively 9 March 2016 and 11 August 2016; recalls that those judgments were not published at the time nor implemented by the Polish authorities; seriously deplores the lack of independent and effective constitutional review in Poland25 ; invites the Commission to consider launching an infringement procedure in relation to the legislation on the Constitutional Tribunal, its current unlawful composition and its active role in preventing compliance with the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019; _________________ 25Venice Commission Opinion of 14-15 October 2016, para. 128; UN, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 31 October 2016, paras 7-8; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520.
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that the CJEU found in its judgment of 24 June 201928 that lowering the retirement age of sitting judges of the Supreme Court is contrary to Union law and breaches the principle of the irremovability of judges and thus that of judicial independence, after it had earlier granted the Commission’s request for interim measures on the matter by order of 17 December 201829 ; notes that the Polish authorities passed an amendment to the act on the Supreme Court in order to comply with the CJEU’s Order, the only instance so far in which they undid a reform ofchanges to the justice system following a decision by the CJEU; _________________ 28Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland, C- 619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531. 29Order of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2018, Commission v Poland, C- 619/18 R, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1021.
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that it is up to the Member States to establish a council for the judiciary, but that, where such council is established, its independence must be guaranteed in line with European standards and the constitution; recalls that, following the 2017-2018 reform of the NCJ, the body responsible for safeguarding the independence of the courts and judges in accordance with Article 186(1) of the Polish Constitution, the judicial community in Poland lost the power to delegate representatives to the NCJ, and hence its influence on recruitment and promotion of judges; recalls that before the 2017 reform, 15 out of 25 members of the NCJ were judges elected by their peers, while since the 2017 reform, those judges are elected by the Polish Sejm; strongly regrets that, taken in conjunction with the immediate replacement in early 2018premature termination in early 2018 of the mandates of all the members appointed under the old rules, this measure led to a far-reaching politicisation of the NCJ34 ; _________________ 34Consultative Council of European Judges, Opinions of the Bureau of 7 April 2017 and 12 October 2017; OSCE/ODIHR, Final Opinion on Draft Amendments to the Act of the NCJ, 5 May 2017; Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, p. 5-7; GRECO, Ad hoc Report on Poland (Rule 34) of 19-23 March 2018 and Addendum of 18-22 June 2018; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 42 and 61.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of 12 May8 December 20117 on the NCJ and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Deplores the abuse of disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors in Poland; is deeply concerned by the motion filed by the National Prosecution Office to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court to waive the immunity of Judge Igor Tuleya; is similarly concerned by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against other judges, including Krystian Markiewicz, Chairperson of the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia”, and Paweł Juszczyszyn; calls on Polish authorities to stop using disciplinary proceedings to disguise politically motivated reprisals against specific judges and prosecutors for applying EU law or their public defence of the rule of law in Poland;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Concurs with the Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, the Group of States against Corruption and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers that the aforementioned separate reformchanges to the judicial system, considering their interaction and overall impact, amount to a serious, sustained and systemic breach of the rule of law, enabling the legislative and executive powers to influence the functioning of the judiciary in a critical manner, thereby significantly weakening the independence of the judiciary in Poland43 ; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; condemns the destabilizing impact on the Polish legal order of the measures taken and appointments made since 2016; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; United Nations, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Statement of 25 June 2018; GRECO, Follow-up to the Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report (rule 34) – Poland, 6 December 2019, para. 65; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 4.
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Is concerned that, since the entry into force on 14 February 2020 of the amendments to the act on the Supreme Court, only the Extraordinary Chamber, whose independence and impartiality itself is in question, can decide whether a judge or tribunal or court is independent and impartial, hence depriving citizens of an important element of judicial review at all other instances45 ; _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59; recalls that according to the case law of the Court of Justice, the right to a fair trial obliges every court to check of its own motion whether it fulfils the criteria of independence and impartiality; 45a _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59. 45aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 26 March 2020, Simpson v Council and HG v Commission, Joined Cases C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II, ECLI:EU:C:2020:232, para 57.
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Expresses concern over use and threat of libel litigation against academics and the Polish Ombudsman; calls on Polish authorities to respect freedom of speech and academic freedom; denounces attempts to silence the Polish Ombudsman, an independent institution enshrined in the Polish Constitution;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recalls its stance expressed in its resolution of 18 December 2019, when it strongly denounced any discrimination against LGBTI people and the violation of their fundamental rights by public authorities, including hate speech by public authorities and elected officials, in the context of elections, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’, and called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination; notes the lack of any improvement in the situation of LGBTI people in Poland since;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Notes that the lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland has already started affecting mutual trust between Poland and other Member States, especially in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured; considers the threat to the uniformity of the Union legal order posed by rule of law deconsolidation in Poland to be particularly serious;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Calls on the Polish government to comply with all provisions relating to the rule of law and fundamental rights enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and international human rights standards, and to engage directly in honest dialogue with the Commission; calls on the Polish government to swiftly and fully implement the rulings of the CJEU and to respect the primacy of Union law;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Calls on the Council and the Commission to refrain from narrowly interpreting the rule of law principle, and to use the Article 7(1) TEU procedure to its full potential by addressing the implications of the Polish government’s action for all the principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU, including democracy and fundamental rights, such as freedom of association, women’s rights, media freedom and the right to free and fair elections;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Calls upon the Council to resume the formal hearings - the last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearings all the latest and major negative developments in the areas of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Council to finally act under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure by finding that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, in the light of overwhelming evidence thereof as displayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European organisations, the case-law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights and reports by civil society organisations; strongly recommends that the Council address concrete recommendations to Poland, as provided for in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved; furthermore on the Council to commit to assessing the implementation of these recommendations in a timely manner and, should conditions warrant it, move forward under Article 7(2) TEU; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved; points out the need for informing, in a transparent manner, about the proceedings in the Council in order to allow for meaningful participation and oversight by all European institutions and civil society;