BETA

3 Amendments of Virginie JORON related to 2023/2113(INI)

Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the Commission’s fourth Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is an essential monitoring tool; stresses, in this context, the importance of the use of clear and objective criteria by the Commission when providing its assessment, thereby avoiding claims of unequal treatment of Member States or the use of selective data only; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s approach to receive Member States’ contributions, thereby fostering a common dialogue; welcomes thedeplores, however, the contemptuous and condescending new classification adopted by the Commission as regards measuring progress on past recommendations, with four categories: (a) no progress, (b) some progress, (c) significant progress, and (d) full implementation; in view of the problems involved in the gathering of statistical data by Member States, points out the usefulness of Council of Europe tools such as the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) reports3, thereby creating, as far as possible, convergence between the different data inputs; _________________ 3 CEPEJ evaluation cycles.
2023/11/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Urges the Commission to persist in its diligent monitoring of Member States’ legal frameworks in order to assess their alignment with the above-mentioned recommendations, and further calls on the Commission to become more insistent on the implementation of these critical reforms in cases where Member States’ systems do not meet the prescribed standards;deleted
2023/11/13
Committee: JURI
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges that a certain degree of progress can be seen in the last report in a number of different Member States as regards judicial independence; welcomes, in this regard, the withholding of EU funds, if necessary, under the conditionality mechanism6, as confirmed by the CJEU7, or under the Recovery and Resilience Facility8; points out, however, that infringements of judicial independence are still a concern in some Member States, such as ongoing disciplinary procedures against judges for the content of their decisions, problems with the composition of councils of the judiciary and with the composition of the highest national courts in view of the principle of a court established by law, etc.; _________________ 6 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1). 7 See, judgment of the Court of Justice (Full Court) of 16 February 2022, Hungary v the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, C- 156/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:97 and judgment of the Court of Justice (Full Court) of 16 February 2022, Poland v the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, C-157/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:98. 8 Regulation (EU) 2012/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ L 57, 18. 2. 2021, p. 17).points out, however, that infringements of judicial independence are still a concern in some Member States;
2023/11/13
Committee: JURI