Activities of Anna Júlia DONÁTH related to 2020/2026(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
A statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations (debate)
Opinions (1)
OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on a statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations
Amendments (13)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. non-profit organisations (NPOs) are increasingly involved in economic activities and contribute to the rapid development of the social economy including by engaging with citizens to better understand their needs and empower them, bringing societal benefits in terms of citizens welfare, the fight against climate change, quality employmentand inclusive employment at local, national and European level, including for persons with disabilities and persons belonging to marginalised communities and the fight against social exclusion and discrimination; whereas the development of the social economy directly contributes to the strengthening of the single market;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated NPOs’ central role in providing information and support to citizens, and highlighted their important role in providing care, including medical and social, especially to vulnerable and marginalized people and communities;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. NPOs play a central role in democracy by exercising public oversight over political power, articulating aspirationnd relaying aspirations and interests present in society, carrying out advocacy, contributing to informed policy- making and fostering active citizenshipwith their expertise and knowledge of the ground and fostering active and responsible citizenship leading to increased public debate and pluralism in society; whereas, to this end, civil society organisations must benefit from an enabling environment that allows them to thrive throughout the Union;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. Article 11 TEU acknowledges the role of NPOs in democratic life and specifies that institutions shall give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action, and that institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to freedom of association at all levels; whereas, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society, inasmuch as it allows citizens to act collectively in fields of mutual interest; whereas barriers to the development of cross-border civic action are of a nature as to significantly limit the attainment of this objective
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. Restrictions of the space in which they operatcivic space have been reported by NPOs throughout the Union, related to the regulatory environment under which they operate with (changes in) legislation that affect their work, their finances and funding, their right to participation with increasing difficulties in accessing decision-makers and providing input into law- and policy- making and to an unsafe environment with increasing attacks and harassment, including negative discourse aimed at delegitimising and stigmatising NPOs;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. IThe European Court of Human Rights has recognized that the state has a positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of the right to freedom of association and found that “genuine and effective respect for freedom of association cannot be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere", whereas in its judgment in Case C-78/181 , the Court of Justice held that freedom of association does not only include the ability to create or dissolve an association but also covers the possibility for that association to act in the meantime; _________________ 1Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C- 78/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:476, paragraph 113.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital G
Recital G
G. The Court of Justice of the European Union has produced concrete case law2 on the principles of non- discrimination and free movement of capital applied to cross-border donations; whereas and organisations established in another Member State; whereas despite this guidance from the Court, these principles are still not universally applied in Member States and the Commission has not put forward positive steps to address this at EU level. _________________ 2Judgment of the Court of 14 September 2006, Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer v Finanzamt München für Körperschaften, C-386/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:568, Judgment of the Court of 27 January 2009, Hein Pershe v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid, C-318/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:33 and Judgment of the Court of 10 February 2011, Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v Belgian State, C- 25/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:65.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. One third of the EU population lives in regions close to internal borders between Member States with an increasing number of cross-border initiatives however often hampered by discrepancies in the regulatory environment and development of the nonprofit sector on both sides of a border;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the long-overdue creation of a Statute for European Associations is a crucial step in fostering civic space at Union level, cross-border cooperation and dialogue, exchanges between citizens and reflection on common history and values; points out that such a Statute would help European civil society to structure itself, in particular by facilitating the development of European networks; considers that European Associations could be instrumental in enhancing civic participation in Union policy-making;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that, in light of the growing number of threats which transcend national boundaries such as environmental damages, pandemics or the misuse of digital technologies, the potential of cross- border NPO activities should be unlocked in order for them to best harness their local, national and EU-level expertise so as to further strengthen their role in the protection and promotion of fundamental rights, the fight against discrimination and the support of citizens, especially marginalized and vulnerable people; emphasises that cross-border activities should both mean activities or cooperation carried out in more than one Member State and activities furthering the Union’s objectives or contributing to the promotion and safeguarding of its values;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that NPOs cannot thrive at Union level if the space in which they operate is being eroded or deliberately restricted in a number of Member States; considers therefore that the setting of common minimum standards for rules and procedures applying to NPOs will also help to provide a minimum level of protection throughout the Union and to spread best practices; from national regulations or practices which affect freedom of association and to spread best practices; calls in particular for ensuring that reporting and transparency requirements imposed on NPOs respect the principles of necessity and proportionality so as to enable public scrutiny without imposing unduly burdensome requirements;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that national bodies designated for the oversight of NPOs must be legally distinct and functionally independent of their respective governments and of any other public or private body.