6 Amendments of Katarina BARLEY related to 2021/2071(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Regrets that the Commission committed1a not to propose any measures under the regulation until it develops guidelines, whose finalisation is subject to the delivery of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the action for annulment brought by Hungary and Poland; reminds that actions brought before the CJEU shall not have suspensory effect in accordance with the Treaties. _________________ 1aEuropean Council conclusions of 11 December 2020, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/4 7296/1011-12-20-euco-conclusions-en.pdf
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that the application ofcalls that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation , as adopted by the co-legislators, does not foresee the development of any guidelines therefore its application cannot be subject to their adoption of guidelines, and urges the Commission to avoid any further delay in its application; reminds that guidelines cannot alter, expand or narrow a regulation and that they must respect the intention of the co-legislators;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Commission has begun toTakes note of the draft guidelines of the Commission on the application of the Regulation; requests that, if the Commission deems such guidelines necessary, Parliament be consulted prior to their adopis of the opinion that the guidelines simply repeat the provisions of the regulation, have little or no added value and merely delay the application of the regulation;.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recallminds that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulationin accordance with the regulation, the Commission shall take into account relevant information when assessing the possibly breaches of the rule of law by a Member State from available sources and recognised institutions, including judgments orf the intention of the co-legislators; asks the Commission to avoid Court of Justice of the European Union, reports of the Court of Auditors, the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report and EU Justrict or exhaustive definitions of the concepts, as this would be in contradiction with the Regulation; considers that interprete Scoreboard, reports of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the EuropeanPublic Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) as relevant, and conclusions and recommendations of abstract concepts is a dynamic process which cannot be predefined in one document; believes that the guidelines should fully respect the interpretation of relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Venice Commission.relevant international organisations and networks, including Council of Europe bodies such as the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and the Venice Commission, in particular its rule- of-law checklist, and the European networks of supreme courts and councils for the judiciary;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Is of the view that the Commission already has reasonable grounds to consider the triggering of the procedure in accordance with Article 6(1) of the regulation; and urges the Commission to act promptly and to avoid any further delay in the application of the regulation;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. asks the Commission to include in its annual Rule of Law Report a dedicated section with an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of the rule of law in a particular Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way;