91 Amendments of Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI related to 2017/0360R(NLE)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16
Citation 16
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set outlaid down in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and embedded in international human rights treaties;
Amendment 22 #
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 the scope of application of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is not lidetermitned to the obligations under the Treaties, 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’ competencesby the scope of the Commission proposal and, in the absence of an extension of the scope of the proposal, Parliament cannot arbitrarily determine the area covered by the procedure;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the procedure under Article 7 TEU has its limits set by the reasoned proposal submitted by the Commission, and any matters not covered by it cannot be subject to the European Parliament’s consent procedure;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. Points out that the European Parliament’s role in the consent procedure is described in Article 7 and cannot be otherwise usurped; recalls that, according to Article 269 TFEU, only procedural matters can be challenged before the CJEU under Article 7 TEU;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Paragraph 1 – indent 3
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates its position, expressed in several of its resolutions on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland, that the facts and trends mentioned in this resolution taken together represent a systemic threat to the valuesConfirms that an assessment of a possible breach of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) anshould constitute a clear risk of a serious breach thereofly be made once the reform process in the areas concerned has been completed;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)
(1) Takes note of the explanations provided by the Polish government as regards the reasons for the introduction of the reform of the judiciary and considers these explanations to be legitimate and convincing in the context of the concerns expressed by Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ExpStresses its deep concern tthat the Polish Government hats, despite three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, alarming reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe,pursuant to Article 7, thoroughly and repeatedly explained the reasons behind the reform of the judiciary in Poland and four infringements procedures launched by the Commission, the rule of law situation in Poland has not only not been addressed but has seriously deteriorated since the triggering of Article 7(1) TEUtlined its basic principles welcomes the fact that the presentations were comprehensive, addressing all concerns and questions raised by Member States and the European Commission;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 47 #
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 Union mecNotes that the Council has so far not identified a risk of serious breach by Poland of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; emphansism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolutes that the Council is the only EU institution with such a competence under the provisions of 25 October 2016Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its position on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, including the need to safeguard the rights of beneficiaries, and calls on the Council to start interinstitutional negotiations as soon as possible;Stresses that the conditionality of the disbursement of EU funds must be based on objective and measurable criteria; notes that any non-economic and political criteria create a flagrant risk of their instrumentalisation and introduce uncertainty for the beneficiaries of EU funds; recalls Opinion No 1/2018 of the European Court of Auditors, which expressly draws attention to the above- mentioned element and to the risk of loss of funding by the beneficiaries of funds.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Denounces that, during the COVID-19 outbreak, but not linked with the COVID-19 outbreak, legislation is being debated or even rushed through in Parliament in very sensitive areas such as abortion, sexual education, the organisation of elections or the term of office of the President, the latter even requiring a change to the Constitution; underlines that this could amount to abuse of the fact that citizens cannot organise or protest publicly, which would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the legislation adoptedStresses that the proposal concerning abortion is a citizens’ initiative, and not a government one, and was submitted on 30 November 2017 by a group of at least 100 000 entitled persons and initiated by the ‘Stop Abortion’ Legislative Initiative Committee; recalls that, in accordance with the regulations in force, the project was submitted for parliamentary action and has been on the agenda for over two-and-a-half years;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that the Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 December 2013 on sexual and reproductive health and rights (2013/2040(INI)) ‘notes that the formulation and implementation of policies on SRHR and on sexual education in schools is a competence of the Member States’;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recognises that the organisation of the justice system is a national competence; reiterates that, all the same, national judges are essentially also European judges, applying Union law, which is the reason whylst the Union, including the CJEU, has to watch overno competence to speak out regarding the independence of the judiciary in all the Member States as one of the exigencies of the rule of law and as laid down in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. RecallConsiders that the acts concerningssessment of the legal nature of the Constitutional Tribunal adopted on 22 December’s statements of 9 March 20156 and 22 July 2016 seriously affected11 August 2016 on the Cunconstitutional 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 effectivity of the laws concerning the Constitutional Tribunal remain outside the Union’s competence and that, in the light of subsequent legislative developments and the case-law of the cConstitutional review in Poland25; invites the CommissionTribunal, these statements are of historical value, making it superfluous to consider launching an infringement procedure in relation to the legislationspect onf the Constitutional Tribunal; _________________ 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.provisions concerning the Constitutional Tribunal;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that, already in 2017,ognises that the changes in the method of nomination of candidates to the position of the First President of the Supreme Court deprivedtake into account the participation of the Supreme Court judges in the selection procedure of any meaningful effect and put the decision in the hands of the President of the Republic; denounces that recent amendments to the act on the Supreme Court even further reduce the participation of the judges in the process of selection of the First Presiden, while the role of the President of the Republic of Poland in this procedure is consistent with the principle of governmental checks and balances; recognises that the introduction of the post of the Supreme Court by introducing a position of First President ad interim appointed by the President of the Republic and by reducing the quorum in the third round to 32 out of 120 judges only, thereby effectively abandoning the model of power-sharing between thejudge ad interim holding the office of First President of the Supreme Court is a systemic solution aimed at ensuring the effective conduct of the election of the First President andof the judicial community enshrined in Article 183(3) of the Polish Constitution26; _________________ 26Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, CDL-PI(2020)002, paras 51-55.Supreme Court without undue delay;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Shares the Commission’s concernRecognises that the powers of the President of the Republic (and in some cases also the Minister of Justice) to exercise influence over disciplinary proceedings against Supreme Court judges by appointing a disciplinary officer who will investigate the case, excluding the disciplinary officer of the Supreme Court from an on-going proceeding, risks to run counter to the principle of separation of powers and may affect judicial independence27; _________________ 27See Commission Reasoned Proposal of 20 December 2017, COM(2017) 835, para. 133. See also OSCE-ODIHR, Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017), 13 November 2017, p. 33.of Poland to appoint a disciplinary officer in disciplinary proceedings against Supreme Court judges are part of the mechanism of governmental checks and balances;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. RecallNotes that the CJEU found in its judgment of 24 June 201928that lowering the retirement age of sitting judgesPolish authorities have adopted an amendment to the act ofn 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 thatn order to comply with the CJEU’s order, which is seen as evidence of the willingness of the Polish authorities passed an ameto cooperate andm ent 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 of 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.gage in dialogue with the EU bodies, including in the reform of the judiciary following the CJEU ruling, although this area remains an exclusive competence of the Member States;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that, in 2017, two new chambers within the Supreme CPoints ourt were created, namely the Disciplinary Chamber and the Extraordinary Chamber, which were staffed with newly appointed judges selected by the new NCJthat the organisation and enstrusted with special powers – including the power of the Extraordinary Chamber to quash final judgments taken by lower courts or by the Supreme Court itself by way of extraordinary review, and the power of the Disciplinary Chamber to discipline other (Supreme Court) judges, creating de facto a “Supreme Court within the Supreme Court”;30 ; _________________ 30 OSCE-ODIHR, Opinion of 13 November 2017, p. 7-20; Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, para. 43; Recommendation (EU) 2018/103, para. 25; GRECO, Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report on Poland (Rule 34) of 18-22 June 2018, para. 31; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 8.cture of the judicial system falls under the sole responsibility of the Member States;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that the referring Supreme Court (Labour Chamber) subsequently concluded in its judgment of 5 December 2019 that the Disciplinary Chamber does not fulfil the requirements of an independent and impartiConstitutional tTribunal, and that the Supreme Court (Civil, Criminal and Labour Chambers) adopted a resolution on 23 January 2020 reiterating that the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court due to its lack of independence and therefore its decisions shall be considered null and void; notes with grave concern that the Polish authorities have declared that those decisions are of no legal significance when it comes to the continuing functioning of the Disciplinary Chamber and the NCJ, and that the Constitutional Tribunal has ‘suspended’ the resolution of 23 January 2020, creating a judgment has clarified the controversy over the Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber and averted the dangerous of judiciaryl duality in Poland and moreover openly defying the primacy of Union law and the status granted to the CJEU by Article 19(1) TEU32; _________________ 32Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 38.;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Takes note of the order of the CJEU of 8 April 202033[1] instructing the Poland to immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and calls on; takes note of the information provided by the Polish authorities to swifton the timely implementation of the judgment; calls on the Commission to urgently start infringement proceedings in relation to the national provisions on within the deadline in connection with the powOrders of the Extraordinary Chamber, since its composition suffers from the same flaws as the Disciplinary Chamber; _________________ 33Acting First President of the Supreme Court No. 55/2020 on the execution of the CJEU ruling; Order of the Court of Justice of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland, C-791/19 R, ECLI:EU:C:2020:277.
Amendment 109 #
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, butand that, where such council is established, its independence must bein Poland is guaranteed in line with European standards and the constitution; recallognises that, following the 2017-2018 reform of the NCJ, the body responsible for safeguarding the independence of the courtsjudiciary and judges in accordance with Article 186(1) of the Polish Constitution, the judicial community in Poland lost the powerdid not lose its right 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 2018 of all the members appointed under the old rules, this measure between 2017 and 2018, and thus is abled 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.influence the recruitment and promotion of judges;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. CDoes not see sufficient grounds to calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of 12 May 2011 on the NCJ and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Regretcognises that the Minister of Justice, who is, in the Polish system, is also the Prosecutor General, obtained the power to appoint and dismiss court presidents of the lower courts at his discretion during a transitional period of six months, and that in 2017-2018 the Minister of Justice replaced over a hundred court presidein accordance with the principle of Member States’ sovereignty over the organisation of the judiciary, has been given the power to appoints and vice-presidents; notes that, after this period, removal of court presidents remaineddismiss court presidents of the lower courts, as ins the hands of thcase Minister of Justice, with virtually no effective checks attached to this power; notes, furthermore, that the Minister of Justice also obtained other many other Member States; recognises that the Minister of Justice in Poland, as in other Member States, has “disciplinary” powers vis-à-visover court presidents, and presidents of higher courts, who in turn, now have large administrative powers vis-à-visover presidents of lower courts36; regrets this major setback for the rule of law and judicial independence in Poland37; _________________ 36Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 45. 37See also Council of Europe, Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE-BU), CCJE- BU(2018)6REV, 18 June 2018.;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Regrets thatcognises that the Polish authorities, by way of the act of 20 December 2019 amending the act on the common courts and certain other acts that entered into force on 14 February 2020, were able, in accordance with the principle of the sovereignty of Member States in terms of the organisation of the judiciary, to changed the composition of the assemblies of judges and moved some of the powers of those bodies of judicial self- government to the colleges of courts presidents appointed by the Minister of Justice38; _________________ 38Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 46 to 50.;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Denounces the new provisions introducing further disciplinary offences and sanctions in respect of judges and court presidents, as they pose serious risk to judicial independence39; denounces the new provisAcknowledges the relevance of new legislations prohibiting anyll political activityies of judges, obliging judgesthem to disclose publicly their membership in associations and restricting substantively the deliberations of judicial self-governing bodies, which go beyond the principles of legal certainty, necessity and proportionality in restricting the judges’ freedom of expression40; _________________ 39OSCE/ODIHR, Urgent Interim Opinion on the Bill Amending the Act on the Organization of Common Courts, the Act on the Supreme Court and Certain Other Acts of Poland (as of 20 December 2019), 14 January 2020, p. 23-26; Venice Commission and DGI ofin order to strengthen the effective separation of powers and ensure the Cofuncil of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 44-45. 40OSCE/ODIHR, Urgent Interim Opinion, 14 January 2020, p. 18-21; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 24-30tioning of apolitical and impartial courts;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Polish authorities to remove the new provisions (on disciplinary offences and other) that prevent the courts from examining questions of independence and impartiality of other judges from the standpoint of Union law and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), hence depriving judges from exercising their duties under Union law to put aside national provisions conflicting with Union law41; _________________ 41OSCE/ODIHR, Urgent Interim Opinion, 14 January 2020, p. 13-17; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 31-43.Recognises, in the light of the explanations provided by the Polish authorities aimed at ensuring the functioning of a judicial system characterised by stability and integrity, the legitimacy of introducing provisions that prevent the courts from examining questions of independence and impartiality of other judges;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Welcomes the Commission’s initiation ofDoes not see, in the light of the explanations provided by the Polish authorities and the findings of the present proceedings, any grounds for the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings in relation to the aforementioned new provisions; calls on the Commission to request the CJEU to use the expedited procedure and to grant interim measures, when it comes to a referral of the case to the CJEU;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. DenouncesRecognises that the merger of the office of the Minister of Justice and that of the Public Prosecutor General, the increased powers of the Public Prosecutor General vis-à-vis the prosecution system, and the increased powers of the Minister of Justice in respect of the judiciary (act of 27 July 2001 on the organisation of common courts) and the weak position of checks to these powers (National Council of Public Prosecutors), which result in the accumulation of too many powers for one person and have direct negative consequences for the independence of the prosecutorial system from the political sphere, as stated by the Venice Commission42; _________________ 42Venice Commission Opinion of 8-9 December 2017 on the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s office, as amended, CDL- AD(2017)028, para. 115.fall under the sole competence of the Member States as regards the organisation and structure of the judiciary:
Amendment 135 #
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 thatIn the light of the explanations provided by the Polish authorities and the findings made in the course of this procedure, the aforebove-mentioned separate reforms to the judicial system, consideringgiven their interactionale and overall impact, amount topurpose, do not constitute a serious, sustainedpersistent and systemic breach of the rule of law, enabling the legislative and executive powers to influence the functioning and make it possible to strengthen the principle of tche judiciary in a critical manner, thereby significantly weakening the independence of the judiciary in Poland43; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; 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.cks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial authorities by jointly shaping the judicial system in Poland;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15
Subheading 15
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 16
Subheading 16
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17
Subheading 17
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 18
Subheading 18
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government-approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people whocalls that on 2 April 2017, an amendment to the act on public assemblies came into force, with Article 12(1) of the act being amended through the introduction of a rule stipulating that different assemblies may not be held within 100 metres of each other, thus the amendment reduces the likelihood of threat to the safety of participatents in peacefulconcurrent assemblies or counter-demonstrations and to drop criminal charges against peaceful protesters; _________________ 48 See as weby increasing the distance between them, while their participants are able to express their opinions; recalls the Commuat persons or organicsation of 23 April 2018 by UN Expertss have the right to uorge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talksanise assemblies once the formal requirements set out in the act of 24 July 2015 have been met.
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government-approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people whocalls that persons or organisations shall have the right to organise assemblies after meeting the formal requirements set out in the act of 24 July 2015, and that police officers shall take action only against persons who violate the prevailing legal order, first of all by trying to separate them from participatents in peaceful assemblies or counter-demonstrations and to drop crimithe assembly who are peacefully demonstrating their views; recalls, furthermore, that the Constitutional Tribunal charges against peaceful protesters; _________________ 48 See as well the Communication of 23 April 2018 by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks.s pointed out that the introduction of the institution of cyclical assemblies is an additional and new way of defining the legal framework for the exercise of freedom of assembly;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 19
Subheading 19
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Polish authorities to modify the act of 15 September 2017 on the National Institute for Freedom - Centre for the Development of Civil Society49, in order to ensure access to state funding for critical civil society groups, and a fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds to civil society, ensuring pluralStresses that, within the framework of existing legislation, the fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds is fully ensured, and that the procedure for allocating funds is also regulated by the act on the National Freedom Institute; notes that, in accordance with the procedure, each application for funding is assessed by two external experts, and that all conditions of each open competition are the subject of public consultations with non- governmental organisatic representation; _________________ 49OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the Draft Act of Poland on the National Freedom Institute - Centre for thons and are also approved by the Council of the National Freedom Institute before each open competition is announced; stresses that all NGOs and NGO coalitions have the right to submit their comments and amendments to the chart; points out that the eligibility criteria are pluralistic and include Development of Civil Society, Warsaw, 22 August 2017.ryone, and that all civil society groups and NGOs that meet the definition set out in Article 3 of the act on public benefit and volunteerism can apply for grants;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 20
Subheading 20
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Reiterates its conclusion set out in its resolution of 14 September 2016 that the procedural safeguards and material conditions laid down in the act of 10 June 2016 on anti-terrorist actions and the act of 6 April 1990 on the police for the implementation of secret surveillance are not sufficient to prevent its excessive use or unjustified interference with the privacy and data protection of individuals, including of opposition and civil society leaders50; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessment of that legislation as regards its compatibility with Union Law, and urges Polish authorities to fully respect the privacy of all citizens; _________________ 50UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, paras 39-40. See as well Communication by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks, 23 April 2018.Stresses that the act of 10 June 2016 on counter-terrorist activities provides a legal basis for systemic solutions adopted in Poland in the field of counter-terrorist activities, and the provisions contained therein are aimed, inter alia, at enabling the authorities and other entities to take effective and proportionate action against terrorist threats; points out, therefore, that the provisions adopted in this act concerning the possibilities of carrying out operational monitoring refer only to a person who is suspected of being likely to engage in terrorist activity and who is not a Polish citizen; stresses, moreover, that in Poland the processing of information by the authorities, including personal data, is carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the provisions of the act of 14 December 2018 on the protection of personal data processed in connection with preventing and combating crime and the act of 5 August 2010 on the protection of classified information, as well as in the rules governing the individual authorities; points out that the rules laid down in the aforementioned acts are in line with the standards of EU law established in this matter, including Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the competent authorities for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA; states that, pursuant to Article 20 of the acts of 4 April 1990 on police, the police have the right to process information, including personal data, in accordance with their statutory tasks and subject to regulatory restrictions; points out that operational monitoring (covert surveillance) may take place only with the consent of the court, provided that it aims to detect and identify the perpetrators, as well as to obtain and consolidate evidence seized by public prosecution, of intentional crimes set out in Article 19(1), points 1-9 of this act, and provided that other measures have proved ineffective or will not be useful; points out that the act allows that in urgent cases, if this could result in the loss of information or the obliteration or destruction of evidence of a crime, the police, with the written consent of the competent prosecutor, may exercise this right without the consent of the court; notes that they are nevertheless obliged to apply to the court at the same time for the issuance of an appropriate provision to that effect; points out that if the court does not give its consent within five days from the date of the operational control order, it shall be suspended and the materials collected during the control shall be recorded in the minutes, provided that their destruction is recorded; notes that the principle being applied is one of judicial and prosecutorial review;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21
Subheading 21
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21
Subheading 21
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Reiterates its deep concern expressed in its resolution of 14 November 2019, also shared by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights51, overStresses that the draft law amending Article 200b of the Polish Penal Code, submitted to the Sejm by the ‘Stop Paedophilia’ initiative, for its extremely vague, broad and disproportionate provisions, which de facto seeks to criminalise the dissemination of sexual education to minors and whose scope potentially threatens all persons, in particular parents, teachers and sex educators, with up to three years in prison for teaching about human sexuality, health and intimate relations; stresses the importance of health and sexual education; _________________ 51Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Statement of 14 April 2020.ment to the Penal Code was drawn up by the citizens’ initiative ‘Stop Paedophilia’ and refers to the criminalisation of the promotion of paedophilic behaviour; emphasises that this does not constitute the criminalisation of education, but a ban on promoting paedophilia;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Recalls that, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union must fully respect the ‘responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’ and, at the same time, has the task of supporting, complementing and coordinating the development of education;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that Parliament has strongly criticised, already in its resoluStresses that the draft amendment to the act of 7 January 1993 on family planning, protections of 14 September 2016 and 15 November 2017, any legislative proposal that would prohibit abortion in cases of severe or fatal foetal impairment, emphasizing that universal access to healthcare, including sexual and reproductive healthcare and the associated rights, is a fundamental human right52; _________________ 52See as well Statement of 22 March 2018 by UN Experts advising the UN Working Group on discrimination against women, and Statement of 14 April 2020 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.the human foetus and the conditions of admissibility for the termination of pregnancy, which is being negotiated in the Polish Parliament, is a citizens’ initiative that is being negotiated in accordance with the applicable legal provisions; notes, however, that the Government of the Republic of Poland is not working on an amendment to the act on access to abortion;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Recalls that previous attempts to further limit the right to abortion, which in Poland is already among the most restricted in the Union, were halted in 2016 and 2018 as a result of mass opposition from Polish citizens as expressed in the ‘Black Marches’; calls for the law limiting women’s and girls’ access to the emergency contraceptive pill to be repealedinternational law does not recognise the so-called right to abortion and no binding treaty recognises such a right, and that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that the right to private life cannot be interpreted as consenting to the so-called right to abortion; recalls that such a right cannot, furthermore, be considered to emerge as an international custom, since in the vast majority of countries which allow access to abortion, such access constitutes immunity from criminal proceedings and is not defined as a right;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 23
Subheading 23
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Reiterates its call onStresses that the Polish gGovernment to take appropriate action on and strongly condemn any xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech53; _________________ 53EP Resolution of 15 November 2017, para. 18; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 14; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concludconducts monitoring of crimes motivated by prejudice, and the scope of this monitoring includes information about preparatory proceedings for hate crimes conducted (by the police) throughout the country; points out that hate crimes, due to their high social harmfulness, are included in the Priorities of the Police Commander in Chief; notes that educational activities are also conducted ing observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, CCPR/C/POL/CO/7, paras 15-18.rder to provide police officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to prevent and combat hate crimes;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Welcomes the actions of Polish authorities condemning xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech and calls on Polish authorities to further taking of appropriate actions in this regard;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)
Paragraph 45 b (new)
45b. Recalls that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland confirms the prohibition of discrimination against anyone on any grounds;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
Amendment 226 #
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’iterates its call that discrimination against LGBTI people by persons performing public functions, including hate speech and violation of personal rights should be denounced, and calleds on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. NotRecognises that the lackissue of independence of the judiciary in Poland hais already started affectingn area under the exclusive competence of that Member State and cannot constitute grounds for mutual mistrust between Poland and other Member States, especiallyincluding 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;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Calls onAffirms that the Polish gGovernment tois complying 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 tohat it is engageing directly in dialogue with the Commission; calls onacknowledges the measures taken by the Polish gGovernment to swiftly implement the rulings of the CJEU and to respect the primacy of Union law;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Calls uponSees no need for the Council to resume the formal hearings -in the last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearingcontext of taking into account all the latest and major clarifications provided by the Polish authorities allnd the latest and major negative developmentsfindings of this procedure 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 thereofStrongly recommends that the Council, when formulating possible recommendations, conduct as displayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European alogue with the Polish authorities in accorgdanisations, 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 involvedce with the principle of partnership and respect for Polish sovereignty, especially in areas not covered by EU competences;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51