28 Amendments of Patryk JAKI 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 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 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 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 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
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 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 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 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 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21
Subheading 21
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 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
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 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 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 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;