25 Amendments of Gunnar BECK related to 2020/2072(INL)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States and the EU itself; recalls in particular the importance of upholding the rule of law and the obligation of Member States to ensure effective judicial protection, which is against transgressions both by member states, the EU institutions or private parties or emanations of the state alike. The protection of the rule of law within the sphere of application of Union law, a core value of the Union as a community based on international law;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers thatRejects the proposal to establish a Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights; however, if established; the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarilynot anticipate or aim ato preventing and addressing any threat to the thought crimes or perceived threats against the declaratory Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear r, but be triggered only if a violation of such a value which isk arises in a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggeredlso enshrined in the constitutions of all Member States has established on the balance of probabilities by the Commission which must submit a reasoned report before any action may be taken;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all contribute to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Tres well as observe the principles of conferral and subsidiarity in Art. 5 TEU and therefore should together with the Member Staties; calls for such activities to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement and for existing mechanisms to be consolidated, while setting out detailed assessments of the situations in all Member States, determining preventive and corrective actionontribute to the defence of the Union and national constitutional values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary, including independent and impartial from europhile and integrationist interests, is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independencethe protection of all rights guaranteed by Union legislation are protected; stresses that every national court should protect national constitutions against ultra vires interpretations of Union law;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that for effective implementation, in accordance with Article 295 TFEU and their power of self- organisation, the three institutions should establish a joint body responsible for coordobservance of all treaty obligations including all imitations on the EUs powers, in accordance with Article 295 TFEU, the three institutions should continue to proceed by way of inter- inasting their cooperation in this fieldtutional agreements;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycleany criticism of alleged violations of the rule of law should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and throughout respect the wording of the EU Treaties in accordance with the standards set by generally accepted methods of treaty interpretation such as the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties and lead to effective and realistic measures;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law, and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture basedat such training both include the teaching onf the principles of mutual trustoper rules of treaty interpretation and of the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and include training on skills and non-legal issues so that judges are better prepared to resist undue pressureemit of treaty- based international courts according to the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties of 1969, and be discharged by institutions outside the EU by legal specialist who have no personal, professional or financial interests in the extension, either of the competences of the European Union, or asserting the sovereign rights of EU Member States where these have been indisputably ceded to the EU by clear and precise words in the EU Treaties;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and include training oin skills and non-legal issuocial sciences so that judges are better prepared to resist undue pressure;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Observes that considerable differences remain in the level of participation in training across Member States and types of legal professions; calls on the Commission to identify the reasons for those differences and address them and ensure that the legal traditions of member states are respected and the Union law does not undermine the upcoming European judicial training strategy and to assess the impact of those differencat rich pluralistic tradition any further than is absolutely necessary to observe a common interpretation of EU rules oin the independence, quality and efficiency of Mose areas where EU legislation leaves no discretion to member Sstates’ judiciaries in applying the common rules they agreed to;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the operation of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the institutions should, in accordance with Article 11 TEU, maintain an open dialogue with representative stakeholders; the Annual Monitoring Cycle should therefore provide for compulsory consultations with organised civil society, and their views and contributions should be made public in that procesthe member states and international courts including the International Court of Justice and constitutional courts of the Member States to arrive at a general, widely accepted legal methodology for assessing alleged treaty violations;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Observes that considerable differences remain in the level of participation in training across Member States and types of legal professions; calls on the Commission to identify the reasons for those differences and address themtake them into account in the upcoming European judicial training strategy and to assess the impact of those differences on the independence, quality and efficiency of Member States’ judiciaries;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the potential of judicial training of generally accepted international and not merely Euro-centric methods of treaty interpretation for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of conferral, of subsidiarity and of the primacy of Union law within its own undisputed sphere of authority;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the uso improve the practice of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of subsidiarity and primacy of Union law;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recognises that in the Annual Monitoring Cycleany information gathering exercise related to alleged treaty violations, the Member States should be given an opportunity to present their positions in full, while not hampering the efficiency of the procedure;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 68 #
7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants;
Amendment 70 #
8. Considers that the assessment carried out in the context of the Annual Monitoring Cycles based on a generally accepted international legal methodology for assessing alleged treaty violations should inform Commission decisions about whether to launch systemic infringement procedures in those cases where a treaty violation is more likely than not on the balance of probabilities;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle, while considering the gravity of the possible consequences of rule of law violations and the scale of its effects, a special procedure for urgent cases of violation of Union values should be considered in case where the EU institutions have disregarded the limits of their powers under the EU Treaties;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that addressing persisting gender and cultural gaps in in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, effectiveness and independenceif strict equality is practically impossible, complex equality is best achieved through a comprehensive pleasure-versus-pain calculus which does not merely take account of the politically privileged gender, LBGT and ethnic minority concerns, but aims to level out all involuntarily incurred or unmerited social advantages and disadvantages by offsetting unalterable variables with those open to adjustment by state action.
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that addressing persisting gender and cultural gaps in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, effectiveness and independence.
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the need to protect Union values in this contextthe EU legal order against transgressions by both the Union institutions and member states; therefore, in the event of Treaty changes being made in the future, the effectiveness of the Article 7 procedure should be enhanced by removensuring the requirement for unanimity and reinforcing the sanction mechanismprocedure observes generally accepted international standards of enquiry and is monitored by judicial panels;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Points out that professional competence should continue to be the first recruitment criterion for judges, regardless of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs.