63 Amendments of Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA related to 2021/2025(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s first ever Rule of Law Report as a positive addition to the EU’s toolbox to prevent and address rule of law issues in Member States;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9
Citation 9
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 21
Citation 21
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the Member States are independent and sovereign;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 29
Citation 29
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 32
Citation 32
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 33
Citation 33
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the Commission’s report is a response to the Council’s failuredecision not to trigger the procedure under Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as requested by the Commission in 2017 and Parliament in 2018; regrets that the Council has failed to resume hearings under Article 7 of the TEU since December 2019; notes that the failure to apply Article 7 of the TEU, also due to the requirement of unanimity for the sanctions mechanism, enables continued divergence from the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 35
Citation 35
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 39
Citation 39
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 43
Citation 43
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 44
Citation 44
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the report fails to fully address all Union values set out in Article 2 of the TEU, such as democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates the need to have a single monitoring system for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights applicable equally to all Member States and based on clear and transparent criteria in order to avoid any politicization, as proposed by Parliament1 ; calls on the Council and the Commission to engage in discussions to set up such a mechanism via an interinstitutional agreement; _________________ 1European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0251).
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses, in line with the Report, that effective justice systems which are independent and efficient are essential for upholding the rule of law; highlights, in particular, the need for the judiciary to be able to exercise its functions with full autonomy, without intervention from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers; emphasises that national justice systems are an area in which the Member States have exclusive competence and the European Union does not have competence;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 45
Citation 45
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets the institutional inactivity towards the international crime of illegal migration;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union; whereas Article 2 TEU applies not only and not even primarily to the Member States, but to the European Union and the rule of law should cover the EU institutions, all the more so that they have long been accused of democratic deficit;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcomen addition to the tools available to preserve the Union’s values, by addressing the situation in all EU Member States based on four pillars, with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of lawthe Union; whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepening;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; considers however that some of these pillars could be easily manipulated and are not a clear indicator of the purposes that the report wants to achieve, therefore invites the Commission to include in the next editions further pillars such as for example an assessment of how the right to a fair trial is guaranteed in Member States, with particular attention paid to the right of defence, and equality between prosecution and defence parties; believes that the report should go beyond monitoring and include preventive and corrective elements with a clear outline of enforcement measures;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. regrets the fact that the extreme- left violence and hate-speech have not been treated with equal attention in all Member States, compromising the citizens' trust to the Rule of Law;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the Commission’s first Rule of Law Report (2020 report) is limitextended in scope, as it does not covercovers more than just rule of law as one of all Union values as provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; whereas the notion of the rule of law has different and distinct manifestations in the Member States and there is no definition of it at the EU level;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be a subject of serious concern in some Member States; expresses its regret that Hungary and Poland lodgthe disparity in the criteria used ain action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protssessing justice systems in the various Member States, with assessment criteria twisted to criticise some countries but not others for similar situations; regrets in this regard the constant persecution of the Union budget in March 2021, which aims to address breaches of the rule of law with an impact on the Union’s financial interestose countries, such as Hungary and Poland, that do not conform to the ideology ruling in the institutions;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas while the 2020 report raises concerns and awareness, it does not provide a sufficient assessment of the effectiveness of the reforms carried out by each country, nor any concrete country- specific recommendations, which could jeopardise its intended preventive effectsbecause the Commission has no competences in this regard and the only recommendations regarding the rule of law may be addressed in accordance with procedure set up Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that civil society organisations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and facedisregard national seovere restriction of the civic spaceignty wherever they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission not to use allthe tools at its disposal to counter violations of EU values, such as infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, actions to ensure compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice and applications for interim measures before the Court; welcomes the new rule of law conditionality mechanism and to punish Member States; recalls that the Union, in accordance with Article 4(2) TEU, shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EUeir national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is of great significance and commends the efforts of the Commission to encourage structural reforms in the areas covered by the Report; believes, however, that while it is an essential monitoring tool, clear recommendations on the challenges identified and the required follow-up action is indispensable; urges the Commission to make robust use of infringement procedures where appropriate, to prevent backsliding onin which the Union has competence, while refraining from making a pronouncement on those competences that have not been bestowed upon it by the Treaties; believes, however, that while it is an essential monitoring tool, it is interesting that recommendations are made that are designed to direct and assist Member States in improving their compliance with the rule of law; reminds the Commission that it shall not interfere during infringement procedures in areas where it does not have competence, so as to respect the rule of law both in national justice systems and urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) of the TFEU and to inform the Parliament thereofin the Union;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notices with satisfaction that the Report contains separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodologynd that the methodology needs to be improved to make it common to all Member States; calls on the Commission, however, to provide a meaningfulsimple and clear comparison between the different national justice systems, to underline where best practices for comparable systems might be applied and how similar deficiencies could be addressed without a preconceived ideological slant;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls that the comparison between Member States is only to be used as a way of possibly assisting or helping Member States in their efforts to make their justice systems more effective; emphasises that this comparison is never to be used to disparage or undermine a national justice system and / or persecute those Member States that respect their constitutional framework and the rule of law, but do not act in accordance with the dominant ideology;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s first annual Rule of Law Report as part of the wider European rule of law monitoring and enforcement architecture, as it adds an important, potentially preventive tool to the Union’s rule of law toolbox;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the fact that justice systems, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space, are all part of the Commission’s annual overview of the rule of law situation in the Member States; encouragesnotes that the Commission to also highlight positive trends in Member Statehas no competences to determine whether the situation in Member States constitutes positive or negative trends that could serve as good examples for others to follow;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the potential preventive benefits of the annual Rule of Law Report; considers that a more thorough evaluation is needed to assess whether the report has had a preventive effect; considers that in any event this is clearly not the case as regards the Member States under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure; believes that the 2020 report should have provided more in-depth assessments, stating whether there is a risk of or actual breach of the Union values; considers these assessments necessary to identify follow- up actions and remedial measures and tools;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the annual reports shcould identify cross-cutting trends at Union level; believes that a Union-wide perspective is absent from the 2020 report; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain practices undermining the rule of law are becoming blueprints for others or when the gravity and scope of such practices have the potential to affect the Union as a whole;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Expresses its concern over the Commission's lack of impartiality in its first annual report, which displays greater flexibility over problems or a failure to mention them when the government of a Member State comes from one of the majority parties making up the Commission, but, when this is not the case, attempts to boost the arguments of the opposition parties in order to influence future electoral processes; regrets in this regard the failure to include the collusion by some national governments with attacks on freedom of expression and democratic rights when these are contrary to conservative ideas;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the monitoring of the independence, quality and efficiency of the Member States’ justice systems; considers that the enabling environment to ensure access to justice for all should also be monitored, including access to justice at Union level; considers thatorganization and functioning of state bodies, in particular the judiciary is one of the areports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chaptersas in which the Member States have not transferred competences to the European Union and despite this, the Commission evaluates them;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is alarmed by the stark deterioration of the independence of some Member States’ justice systems, as reflected in some country chapters; calls on the Commission to clearly assess and designate such shortcomings and findings identified as a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of lawNotes with concern that, apart from the reporting (objective) elements, the report contains evaluative (subjective) elements, without clearly delineating them; rebukes that when assessing similar legal regulations in force in different Member States, the Commission often points to reforms planned in a given area in the Member States, differently assessing solutions designed in some and identical solutions already in use in other Member States;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Decries the fact that the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice of the EU has been declared unlawful in Member States subject to Article 7 of the TEU; is appalled byCourt of Justice of the EU more and more often goes beyond its Treaty competences and rules ultra vires; supports the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments in the CJEU pose a systemic threat to the existence of the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges from the CJEU's side to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomNotes the dedication of a specific chapter to anti-corruption efforts in each country report; points out that while the existence of national anticorruption strategies can be considered progress, their effectiveness on the ground must also be assessed; notes that an assessment of the resilience of the anti-corruption framework to tackle corruption-related risks in the area of public procurement remains largely absent from the 2020 report; invites the Commission to place greater emphasis on the misuse of EU funds, particularly in view of the new conditionality mechanism;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomNotes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urginvites the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. DeplorNotes the lack of assessment as regards the public media sector at national level and its degree of independence from government or any other interference and an assessment of transparency of media ownership; believes that proper implementation of Article 30 of the 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive19 should be closely monitored; _________________ 19 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69.
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomNotes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 204 #
16. RegretNotes the fact that the 2020 report fails todoes not encompass fully the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding onbecause they are not the rule of law;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Encourages the Commission to consider including within the scope of future reports the application of all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights; sStresses that any action taken by a Member State when acting within the scope of EU law must respect the rights and principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomNotes the Commission’s announcement of its strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; believes that such an annual review should provide input for a comprehensive monitoring mechanism and that its methodology, cycle and scope should therefore be aligned with the annual reports;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, professional associations and other stakeholders; notes that three Member States refused to make public their submissions for the 2020 report; calls for transparency in the process and for all submissions to be made public;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that civil societythe Member States are key partners to identify rule of law violations and promote democracy and fundamental rights in countries where Union values have been eroded; considers that shadow reporting would bolster the efficiency and transparency of the processand therefore should hold a means of wielding influence on the reports’ final content; calls on the Commission to provide that each Member State, after the report has been prepared but before it has been published, have the opportunity to read it and raise objections or comments and the right of final acceptance of that part of the report that relates to themselves and any non- acceptance or dissent, as the case may be, should be indicated directly in the report;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that cooperation in the annual monitoring cycle with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, includStresses that the annual monitoring cycle should be an EU-only exercise and all sources that are not EU sources should be rejected ing through a more structured partnership, is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EUe selection of inputs to the report, which applies in particular to the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, of which the EU is not a member so far;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8
Subheading 8
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make mRecognises the leandingful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes that the Council’s hesitance to apply Article 7 of the TEU effectively is enabling continued divergence from the values provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; calls for a reflection at the Conference on the Future of Europe on a revision of the Article 7 TEU procedure in order to realign the majority requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 with a view to having super-majorities of four or five for both role of the Council in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. ReiteratStresses that the annual report should not serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the TEU, whether to activate the Rule of Law Framework or whether to launch infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the Court of Justice and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments concerning the protection of Union values;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls for the Commission to useStresses that the findings of the annual report in its assessment that forms the basis of the mechanism to protect the budget against breaches of the principle of the rule of law; reiterates its call on the Commission to dedicate a specific section of the annual report to an analysis of cases where breacheshould not constitute the basis for further assessments, findings or formulation of recommendations concerning individual Member States, made in areas of the principles ofr than 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 wa, e.g. in the field of economic and fiscal policy;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls on the Commission to assessinform in successive reports how the issues identified in the areas analysed in previous reports have evolved;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29