2021/2025(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Points out that respect for the rule of law is at the core of not only internal market functioning but also cooperation in the field of justice based on mutual trust and recognition, as well as the protection of Union financial interests; stresses that, if it is to achieve a strong and sustainable recovery, especially from the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU must guarantee the functioning of its instruments in an environment based on respect for the rule of law;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent experts in this annual exercise as well as provide the name of the officials writing the report in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system and stresses the value of the specific assessments for each Member State; highlights the need for the European Commission, in the future framework established by the rule of law mechanism and the new reports, to extend the scope of assessment from the four main pillars - the judiciary, anti- corruption measures, media pluralism and other systems of institutional control and balance - to other fundamental issues, such as access to justice and the increasing need to digitise the judiciary in the Member States;

Amendment 11 #

Mario FURORE

2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent experts in this annual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected; calls on the Commission to cover the areas of democracy and fundamental rights in its annual country-specific recommendations;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and ~~the importance that it places on the jus~~its assessment of the 27 Member States; deeply regrets that the Commission did not provide an assessment of its own institutions to the rule of law; calls on the Commission to do so as of the 2021 Report; provides some suggestions: 1) the compatibility of the Next Generation EU programmes with the no bail-out clause of article 125 TFEU and the no debt clause of Article ~~system~~310 TFEU; 2) whether the ECB´s asset purchasing programs, such as PEPP, CSPP and PSPP, fall within the scope the Bank´s mandate;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes the high number of petitions received from citizens relating to discrimination faced by minorities, especially LGBTI persons; Condemns in the strongest way possible the fact that many of these petitions also highlight systemic discrimination and encouragement of hate speech by public authorities and elected officials in some Member States against LGBTI persons; Welcomes in that sense the commitment by the Commission to present an initiative to extend the list of ‘EU crimes 'under Article 83 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to cover hate crime and hate speech, including when targeted at LGBTIQ people, by the end of 2021;

Amendment 13 #

Cristian TERHEŞ, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that the criteria applied to Member States in order to measure their compliance with the rule of law are not clear and identical, which creates a double standard and generates discrimination and mistrust; calls for the adoption of single criteria and equal evaluation standards for all Member States as underlined by both Commissioner Vice-President for Values and Transparency, Vera Jourova, and Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, as well as many MEPs in the LIBE Committee debates countless times;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Reminds that, the main aim of the rule of law mechanism exercise should remain to encourage and support Member States to strengthen their rule of law culture, based on constructive dialogue, mutual trust, and sharing of best practices between the EU institutions and the Member States;

Amendment 15 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Frédérique RIES, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Stresses that more fact-finding missions need to be organised to assess the major rule of law concerns in relevant Member States;

Amendment 16 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Whereas the fight against discrimination in the EU is a shared responsibility; whereas acts of discrimination not only violates the EU fundamental rights, but also further contributes to the EU’s rule of law deterioration; notes that discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes against LGBTIQ people are still prevalent across the EU;

Amendment 16 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Andrey SLABAKOV, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Cristian TERHEŞ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Criticises the failure of the Council to make progress by applying sanctions in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 of the TEU, confirming that the Union remains structurally badly equipped to counter rule of law violations; hHighlights that, in any case, a full and effective use of all tools available at Union level, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Common Provisions Regulation and Conditionality Regulation1 , the Rule of Law Framework and Article 7 of the TEU, must be made to address breaches of the rule of law, following a specific well scrutinised procedure; underlines citizens’ high expectations expressed in petitions asking for a proper and rapid Union level response to put an end to such violations; _________________ 1 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.

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Reminds that the principle of legal certainty is essential to the confidence in the judicial systems and the rule of law. It is also essential to productive business arrangements to generate development and economic progress.

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Criticises the failure of~~Reminds the Council to make progress ~~by applying sanctions~~ in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 of the TEU, ~~confirm~~underlying that the Union ~~remains structurally badly equipped to counter~~is one of the places in the world with the highest rule of law ~~violation~~standards; highlights that, in any case, a full and effective use of all tools available at Union level, such as infringement procedures, ~~the procedures enshrined in the Common Provisions Regulation and Conditionality Regulation1 ,~~ the Rule of Law Framework and Article 7 of the TEU, must be made to address breaches of the rule of law; underlines citizens’ high expectations expressed in petitions asking for a proper and rapid Union level response to put an end to such violations; ~~_________________ 1 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.~~

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
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; Emphasizes that the rule of law means safeguarding fundamental and human rights of all members of the society, not just the will and might of the majority; notes that the democracy, fundamental and human rights and functioning institutions are the cornerstones of a flourishing society and that it is crucial to guarantee the the rule of law, access to justice and functioning of the institutions also in exceptional circumstances; 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; suggests that Member States together with the Commission assess possible needs to reinforce the constitutional guarantees of the independence of courts and judiciary in each respective Member State so that the proper functioning of the rule of law can be guaranteed and the rights of individuals and minorities can be protected also in exceptional circumstances and that the court system and the judiciary are able to withstand actions and measures that aim to weaken and undermine the rule of law;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Criticises the failure of the Council to make progress by applying sanctions in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 of the TEU, confirming that the Union remains structurally badly equipped to counter rule of law violations; highlights that, in any case, a full and effective use of all tools available at Union level, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Common Provisions Regulation and Conditionality Regulation1 , the Rule of Law Framework and Article 7 of the TEU, must be made to address breaches of the rule of law; underlines citizens’ high expectations expressed in petitions asking for a proper and rapid Union level response to put an end to such violations; emphasises that any discussions about sanctions against a Member State must be based solely on objective and technical criteria and not on political evaluations or motivations; _________________ 1 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.

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
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~~guaranteeing effective judicial protection anda fair trial in compliance with all rights, both substantive and procedural, deriving from Union law and for upholding the rule of law; highlights, in particular, that in order to achieve effective justice in civil, criminal, commercial and administrative cases for citizens and businesses it is necessary 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;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive rule of law methodology, which sets transparent and clear rules for assessment and ensures equal treatment of all Member States; reminds the Commission at its role as guardian of the Treaties to ensure the respect of EU law in an objective manner, while taking into account the concerns of all Europeans;

Amendment 2 #

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that 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, enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU;

Amendment 2 #

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. UEmphasizes the responsibility of the PETI committee in identifying and alerting to possible breaches of the rule of law; strongly believes that fundamental rights can be effectively guaranteed only if rule of law prevails; underlines the high number of petitions received from citizens concerned about the alleged breaches of the rule of law in their respective countries and with the consequences of such breaches on their lives, notably affecting legal certainty; stresses that full protection of Union citizens’ rights can be ensured throughout the Union only if all Member States comply with all the principles underlying the rule of law~~, as~~; is of the opinion, that deficiencies in one Member State could have an impact on other Member States and the Union as a whole;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to make a more effective and timely use of its power to refer a Member State to the Court of Justice of the European Union, asking the Court of Justice to order interim measures with a view to preventing the aggravation of serious and irreparable harm inflicted to Rule of Law;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Having regard to the implementation of the Rule of law report and in compliance with the European Commissioners narrative on this issue, calls for the end of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria;

Amendment 22 #

Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Andrey SLABAKOV, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Cristian TERHEŞ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Regrets the institutional inactivity towards the international crime of illegal migration;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses, in line with the Report, that effective justice systems which are independent and efficient, in both form and substance, 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;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Regrets that reforms adopted in some Member States have seriously threatened the independence of the justice system, increasing the influence of the executive and legislative branch over its functioning, thus leading the Commission to launch infringement proceedings and raise concerns in the context of procedures under Article 7 of the TEU; underlines that, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, the justice system and the judges must be protected from any pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from inside or outside the judiciary, including political authorities or intelligence agencies/secret services 1a 1b Paragraph22 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities (https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_de tails.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805afb78) 1bParagraph27 of CCJE Opinion No. 21 (2018) Preventing corruption among judges (https://rm.coe.int/ccje-2018-3e- avis-21-ccje-2018-prevent-corruption- amongst-judges/native/16808fd8dd) _________________ 1bParagraph 27 of CCJE Opinion No. 21 (2018) Preventing corruption among judges (https://rm.coe.int/ccje-2018-3e- avis-21-ccje-2018-prevent-corruption- amongst-judges/native/16808fd8dd )

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 24 #

Mario FURORE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out that Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has, for over 10 years, been receiving petitions in which a very high number of non-German parents expose systemic discrimination and arbitrary measures taken against them by the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in cross-border family disputes involving children, on matters concerning, inter alia, parental responsibility and child custody; believes that discriminatory practices should be deemed violations of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to play an active role in ensuring fair and consistent non- discriminatory practices with respect to parents in the handling of cross-border child custody cases throughout the Union;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 25 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Condemns political attacks and media campaigns occurred in some Member States against judges and prosecutors who took public positions to denounce reforms threatening the independence of the judiciary; emphasizes that in a recent decision the European Court of Human Rights1a reaffirmed the freedom of expression for prosecutors and judges to participate in public debates on legislative reforms affecting the fight against corruption, the judiciary and more generally on issues concerning the independence of the justice system; _________________ 1a Judgment of 5 May 2020 of the European Court of Human Rights, Kövesi v. Romania;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Stresses on current and further deterioration of democracy and rule of law puts additional risk of discrimination on LGBTIQ people;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that in many Member States the judiciary has overturned a series of abusive measures implemented under the pretext of combating the spread of the Covid19 virus; deplores, at the same time, that in some Member States the judiciary has avoided, under various pretexts, to judge and rule on the legality and proportionality of the anti-Covid19 measures, leaving citizens exposed to abusive measures;

Amendment 27 #

Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Andrey SLABAKOV, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Cristian TERHEŞ

Draft opinion
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 lodged an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general~~ the Report did not look into the remarks of the Deutsche Richterbund (DRB) and the Neue Richtervereinigung (NRV), which criticized the German Justice Ministers' ability to issue instructions to the public prosecutors, nor into the referenced requests for preglim~~e of conditionality for the protection 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 interests;~~ inary rulings4a, including a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of political appointments of judges and their membership of political parties4b, nor the nomination of the deputy leader of the CDU in the Bundestag as president of the German Federal Constitutional Court4c, urges the Commission therefore to open infringements procedures against Germany; _________________ 4aOJ EU of 3 June 2019, C 187, p. 52, cases C-272/19 and C-276/2020. 4bCJEU judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI, joined cases C-508/18 and C- 82/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456. 4c Beschluss vom 18. Februar 2020 - 2 BvR 2082/19.

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. regrets the inexplicable delays concerning murders committed from the extreme-left;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
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 lodged an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection 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 interests; asks the Commission to include in the report a distinctive part with an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of 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 way;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Stresses the utmost importance of ensuring independent and impartial justice systems as key pillars in adequately fighting against corruption, in protecting the financial interests of the Union concerning the correct use of EU funds as well as in increasing citizens’ trust in the judiciary;

Amendment 29 #

Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Andrey SLABAKOV, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Cristian TERHEŞ

Draft opinion
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 lodged an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection 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 interests; recalls that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 entered into force on the 1st of January2021 and is not subject to the adoption of guidelines or judicial interpretation;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
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 3 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Frédérique RIES, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU and without prejudice to Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in a respect of Article 4 TEU and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines the high number of petitions received from citizens concerned about the breaches of the rule of law in their respective countries and with the consequences of such breaches on their lives; stresses that full protection of Union citizens’ rights can be ensured throughout the Union only if all Member States comply with all the principles underlying the rule of law, as deficiencies in one Member State have an impact on other Member States and the Union as a whole; stresses that inadequate implementation of rule of law principles jeopardises EU objectives in all policy areas, thus creating an environment where legislation indifferent policy sectors cannot be executed in a correct and timely manner;highlights in this regard the responsibility of the EU institutions in assisting and monitoring the application of the rule of law by Member States

Amendment 30 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Andrey SLABAKOV, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Cristian TERHEŞ, Emmanouil FRAGKOS

Draft opinion
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 regre~~Takes note of the fact that Hungary and Poland lodged an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection 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 interests;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the importance of strengthening independent journalism and access to pluralistic information as key enablers of rule of law and democratic accountability able to provide citizens with fact-checked information, thereby contributing to the fight against disinformation; deplores the fact that in a number of Member States, journalists have increasingly faced physical threats and online harassment~~, especially female journalists~~;

Amendment 31 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Vlad GHEORGHE, Frédérique RIES

Draft opinion
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 lodg~~the disparity in the criteria used ain a~~ction for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the prot~~ssessing 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 th~~e Union budget in March 2021, which aims to address breaches of the rule of law with an impact on the Union’s financial interest~~ose countries, such as Hungary and Poland, that do not conform to the ideology ruling in the institutions;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. HCalls on the Commission to continue to assess rigorously and objectively whether press freedom is respected in all Member States; highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the importance of strengthening independent journalism and access to pluralistic information as key enablers of rule of law and democratic accountability able to provide citizens with fact-checked information, thereby contributing to the fight against disinformation; deplores the fact that in a number of Member States, journalists have increasingly faced physical threats and online harassment, especially female journalists; regrets that such attacks often lead to self-censorship and undermine citizens' right to information;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
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~~notes that Hungary and Poland lodged, as they are entitled to do, an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection 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 interests;

Amendment 32 #

Mario FURORE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the importance of strengthening independent journalism and access to pluralistic information as key enablers of rule of law and democratic accountability able to provide citizens with fact-checked information, thereby contributing to the fight against disinformation; notes with concern that online platforms and social networks based in third countries have even censored information from official sources and recognised media outlets in the EU Member States; deplores the fact that in a number of Member States, journalists have increasingly faced physical threats and online harassment, especially female journalists;

Amendment 33 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
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~~notes that Hungary and Poland lodged an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection 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 interests;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the importance of strengthening independent journalism, whistleblower protection and access to pluralistic information as key enablers of rule of law and democratic accountability able to provide citizens with fact-checked information, thereby contributing to the fight against disinformation; deplores the fact that in a number of Member States, journalists have increasingly faced physical threats and online harassment, especially female journalists;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
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 lodged an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection 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 interestStresses that judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law and Member States should focus all necessary efforts on ensuring that these principles are upheld; reiterates that without undermining the competence and status of Member States, continued mutual trust and efficient legislation is best fostered at national level through good and close cooperation, as well as the exchange of best practices;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Highlights that in order to be able to scrutinize decision-makers’ actions and to hold them accountable, in respect of the principle of rule of law, citizen’s must have the right tools at their disposal and be aware of their rights and obligations in the first place; Recalls in that sense the importance of petitions as a direct and simple tool for citizens to claim their rights and to hold decision-makers accountable;

Amendment 35 #

Cristian TERHEŞ, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Is also preoccupied that an increasing number of Member States adopt measures which severely constraint the freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations, sometimes targeting foreign organisations, thus contributing to shrinking space for civil society; calls on the Commission to meet civil society alongside with national authorities during country visits online and offline, and to take their contributions seriously into account;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Deplores that in a number of Member States the governments have classified information on public procurement during the Covid19 pandemic which increased the risk of corruption for authorities and mistrust among citizens; calls on these Member States to reverse these abusive measures and provide full transparency in relation to journalists and citizens;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation has entered into force and is binding in its entirety for all commitment appropriations and payment appropriations in all Member States and for the EU institutions; underlines the importance of the direct applicability of the Regulation since 1 January 2021, particularly in the context of the disbursement of the Next Generation EU funds, which will occur early in the budget cycle;

Amendment 36 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Criticises the deployment against journalists of 'SLAPP’ lawsuits namely those strategic lawsuits against public participation intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening the concerned persons with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls on the EU and its Member States to exercise political will and high commitment on all levels of authorities to alleviate discrimination; calls on the EU and its Member States to ensure proper and independent functioning of the judicial system in particular with regard to the protection of fundamental rights.

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Notes with concern that the contracts signed by the European Commission with Covid19 vaccine companies have clauses that have not been made public yet; emphasizes that any official acts or contracts adopted or signed by the European entities or Member States that concern the health of European citizens must be public in its entirety;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Stresses that, in order to improve the quality, efficiency, and independence of the judicial systems of Member States, the report should also address the persistent gender and cultural gaps in Member States' judicial systems, in particular in the fulfilment of senior positions;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to make sure that Member States’ comply with their obligations to guarantee an enabling environment for journalists, protect their safety as well as pro-actively promote media freedom and media pluralism;

Amendment 39 #

Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Andrey SLABAKOV, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Cristian TERHEŞ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Recalls that significant differences remain between Member States in the level of participation in training dedicated to the legal professions, and that such training is essential for the correct implementation and application of Union law; believes that the Rule of Law Report should include an analysis of national strategies for European judicial training to assess whether it is sufficiently geared to strengthen the common European legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 4 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the shared values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU, including the following, which form the cornerstone of our common European identity: democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights;

Amendment 4 #

1 a. Invites the Commission to provide in its further reports an assessment of the impact of identified deficiencies and breaches on the subsequent allocation of the EU funds under the conditionality mechanism; stresses the crucial role of rule of law enforcement tools in achieving effective implementation of the values enshrined in Art.2 TEU; calls, therefore, on the Commission to guarantee effective operationalisation of the Report findings in concrete policy actions; calls on the Commission to provide a higher level of visibility of NGOs contributions and public consultation results when drafting its future Reports;

Amendment 40 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Andrey SLABAKOV, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Cristian TERHEŞ, Emmanouil FRAGKOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is of great significance for EU democracy itself and commends the efforts of the Commission to encourage structural reforms in the areas covered by the Report; calls on the Commission to support and guide Member States in accessing the instruments and funds available to achieve structural reforms in areas such as technical assistance, and projects in the field of public administration and justice; urges the Commission, at the same time, to identify mechanisms to support and strengthen cooperation between Member States in efforts to uphold the rule of law; believes, however, that while ithe Report is an essential monitoring tool, clear recommendations on the challenges identified and the required follow-up action is indispensable; urges the Commission to use all measures to prevent Member States from falling short of their obligations and, as a last resort, to make robust use of infringement procedures where appropriate, to prevent backsliding on the rule of law 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 thereof;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ~~rul~~confirmed2 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 face sever~~may face restriction of the civic space where they ~~can~~ operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
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, women's right and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and/or SLAPPs(Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)and face severe restriction of the civic space where they can operate; Calls on the Commission to accelerate the setting up and the beginning of the actual work of the expert group on SLAPPs as foreseen in the European Democracy Action Plan, and to ensure any upcoming legislative proposal also addresses the above-mentioned. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.

Amendment 43 #

Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Andrey SLABAKOV, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
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 on the rule of law in national justice systems ~~and~~; urges the Commission to ensure an immediate and adequate response to a refusal to implement and respect CJEU judgments, such as court actions under Article 260 TFEU; urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) of the TFEU and to inform the Parliament thereof, and calls on the Council to ensure that hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU also address new developments;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that legal civil society organisations that abide by the Rule of Law, 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, therefore there must be institutions assuring the transparency of their activities and sources of funding; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and face severe restriction of the civic space where they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.

Amendment 44 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
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 face severe restriction of the civic space where they can operate.; deplores the stillpersistent phenomenon of strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP); highlights that politicisation in public procurement undermines good governance and underlines that the activities of NGOs and CSOs are crucial in countering this malpractice; believes that strong safeguard measures must betaken to prevent this phenomenon from occurring; _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.

Amendment 45 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
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 thereof~~in the Union;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Underlines the necessity to raise awareness among the EU citizens and residents on the means and procedures available at national and EU level to safeguard the respect of the rule of law and to report its breaches, with petitions to the European Parliament being one of such instruments; underlines that the redress of justice for those who became victims of the rule of law breaches is an essential element of building trust towards institutions and must be guaranteed by the Member States; invites in this regard the Commission to provide concrete recommendations to the responsible authorities in order to compensate the impacted individuals for the breaches of their fundamental rights.

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the periodic review of the rule of law ~~is of great significance and commends the effort~~may result useful and the following recommendations of the Commission tocould encourage structural reforms in the areas covered by the Report; believes, however, that while it is an essential monitoring tool, clear criteria should be developed in order to avoid recommendations on the challenges identified and the required follow-up action ~~is indispensable~~to be used for political purposes; urges the Commission to make ~~robust~~the necessary use of infringement procedures only where appropriate and where there is clear evidence of violations, to prevent backsliding on the rule of law 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 thereof;~~

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls for a comprehensive approach to fighting corruption based on prevention and repressive measures implying, inter alia, effective anti- corruption legal frameworks, the highest standards of transparency and integrity in all sectors of society, independent and impartial justice systems that effectively enforce anti-corruption legislation as well as effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions including the effective recovery of proceeds of corruption.

Amendment 47 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Vlad GHEORGHE, Frédérique RIES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Believes that a tight cooperation with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe is of great importance in order to receive concrete recommendations on how to improve the rule of law in the EU;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Regrets that freedom of association and the shrinking space for civil society are not part of the 2020 report; reiterates that civil society is essential for democracies to flourish and that shrinking space for civil society contributes to violations of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reiterates that the Union institutions should maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes with satisfaction that the Report contains separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodology; calls on the Commission, however, to provide a meaningful 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;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Stresses that in order to prevent foreign interference in the sovereignty of Member States democracies and meddling with the EU democratic institutions, the NGOs must make public their funding sources; underlines that, in order to respect the transparency principle and the right to know of the European citizens, all European bodies must disclose and publish a list of all the NGOs that they finance and with what amounts.

Amendment 49 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Regrets that the application of Co- operation and Verification Mechanism still prevents some EU citizens from fully benefitting of the area of freedom, security and justice.

Amendment 5 #

Gunnar BECK, Gilles LEBRETON, Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that attribution of the parliamentary report on the Commission´s Rule of Law Report to LIBE, with JURI and AFCO only providing opinions, already contains a certain biased approach to the theory of the rule of law from a positive-rights perspective, which is an contested interpretation of the concept in legal theory; suggests that a joint JURI-AFCO committee should draft the report, with LIBE providing an opinion, with a view to ensuring that the European Union strictly respects the limits of its powers to monitor obedience of the rule of law in Member States;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Highlights that the rule of law includes principles such as legality, implying a transparent, accountable, democratic and pluralistic process for enacting laws; legal certainty; prohibiting the arbitrary exercise of executive power; effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts, effective judicial review including respect for fundamental rights; separation of powers; and equality before the law;

Amendment 50 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes ~~with satisfaction~~ that the Report contains separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodology; calls on the Commission, however, to provide a meaningful 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; recalls however the different regional and geopolitical contexts affecting Member States and that a “one size fits all” approach should be avoided;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Highlights that adequate rule of law standards should be guaranteed for the EU citizens and residents during their exercise of freedom of movement rights within the EU; stresses that social and medical protection, as well as effective access to justice, must be fully guaranteed to seasonal workers and cross-border workers when they pursue their professional activity in another Member State.

Amendment 51 #

Vlad GHEORGHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ulrike MÜLLER, Frédérique RIES, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes with satisfaction that the Report contains separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodology; calls on the Commission, however, to provide, in accordance with national legal traditions, a meaningful 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;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Highlights that the capacity of the EU and its Member States to uphold the rule of law determines its international image and the credibility in promoting rule of law, democracy and human rights in third countries; warns about the risk of the interference of third countries in all democratic processes at EU level through, inter alia, international corruption schemes, which jeopardise the rule of law in the EU; stresses that EU citizens living in third countries must be treated with respect to the rule of law in their interaction with the authorities in their MS, as well as with EU authorities.

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notices ~~with satisfaction~~ that the Report contains separate national chapters a~~ttempting to lay down a common methodology~~nd that the methodology needs to be improved to make it common to all Member States; calls on the Commission, however, to provide a ~~meaningful~~simple 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)

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 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the need to encourage Member States to continue their efforts to shore up the independence of the judiciary, in particular by abolishing special tribunals designed to remove ministers from their natural judges and by establishing a National Council of the Judiciary that is truly independent of political power;

Amendment 55 #

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

6a. Considers that some forms of crime may distort the rule of law, calls on the Commission therefore to include in its next report a priority list of criminal threats of this kind, in order to find joint actions for a coordinated response to them;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Urges the Commission to continue reviewing whether the COVID-19 related emergency measures are subject to judicial oversight to ensure that they are justified, necessary and proportionate, and that access to judicial redress is not disproportionally affected by the closure of courts;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Invites the Commission to make further progress in implementing the recommendations of the European Ombudsman.

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses the importance for Member States to maintain a fair and equitable system of access to social entitlements, with due account for the needs of the most vulnerable groups, particularly during the ongoing pandemic.

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. NInsists on the crucial importance of ensuring a strict implementation of the Rule of Law in the digital public and private space; warns against the use of algorithm-based tools in the judicial system and requires the sovereign discretion of judges and decision-making on a case-by-case basis to be upheld; calls on the Commission to impose a ban on the use of AI and related technologies for proposing judicial decisions; notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges, including on the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter); regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.

Amendment 6 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Andrey SLABAKOV, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Cristian TERHEŞ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reiterates that the protection and strengthening of fundamental common values is a shared responsibility of the Member States and the EU institutions, which must cooperate in achieving this goal;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; c~~Calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent experts in this annual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;

Amendment 60 #

Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Javier NART, Jana TOOM, Karen MELCHIOR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges~~, including on the rule of law and~~; regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; reminds that the Charter of Ffundamental Rrights (the Charter)~~; regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocate~~ is applied by judicial authorities only when implementing European law, however, that for fostering a common rule of law culture, it is important that the rights as enshrined in the Charter are always taken into account in civil and administrative proceedings; calls therefore on the Commission to also consider Charter- focused training modules for judges and legal practitioners; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.

Amendment 61 #

7. Notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges, including on the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter); regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges, including on the rule of law ~~and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter)~~; regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls on the Commission to extend the scope of the Report in the field of political pluralism; recalls that according to the principles of the rule of law, citizens should not be intimidated to refrain expressing their views and from gathering with like-minded people, as such actions are rights enshrined in Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter of Human Rights; recalls that according to official statistics of the German Ministry of the Interior7a, almost 700 members, candidates and elected officials of the right-wing AfD party were physically assaulted in 2020, constituting 45% of all victims of political violence in Germany, up 36% compared to 2019, and more than 3 times the number of attacks of the second most assaulted political party; calls on FRA to conduct a similar study as the German Ministry of the Interior on EU scale; calls on FRA to include political affiliation in its assessment of hate crimes, and not only focus on crimes against ethnic and sexual minorities by solely relying on the heavily biased EU- MIDIS survey data; calls on the Commission to includes these findings in its reports as of next year, and formally recognizes political pluralism as a pillar of the rule of law, not only in the East, but also in the West; _________________ 7aKleine Anfrage des Abgeordneten Martin Hess u.a. und der Fraktion der AfD, 1. Februari 2021, BT-Drucksache 19/25517.

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Stresses how the measures taken following the COVID-19 pandemic in several Member States have given a further impetus to the use of ICT tools aimed at facilitating the communication of the courts with the parties and lawyers, thereby increasing transparency and allowing online access to judicial decisions; however, calls on the Commission to assess the impact of the digitalisation of justice on the most vulnerable citizens, i.e. those who do not have the means or do not have the necessary skills to access a digital justice system, in particular people at risk of poverty, the elderly, people with physical or mental disabilities and marginalized groups;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Underlines that hearings must be objective, fact-based and transparent, and that the Member States concerned must cooperate in good faith throughout the process in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3)of the TEU.

Amendment 66 #

Gunnar BECK, Gilles LEBRETON, Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Expresses concern at the move towards an entirely digital justice system, which, in the short term and as part of efforts to combat the pandemic, may slow down case-load processing, and in the long run could lead to inequality between citizens.

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Is deeply concerned about the compatibility of several harsh lockdown measures and the far-reaching restrictions placed on social life by the police with the principles of the rule of law; recalls that public gatherings to express discontent with public policy, including sanitary policy, is covered by Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter of Human Rights; calls on the Commission to go beyond the general observations from the 2020 report and scrutinize national lockdown measures and laws more thoroughly as of next year;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Stresses that in order to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, all Member States have had to impose certain restrictions on fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of movement, the freedom of assembly or the freedom to conduct a business; recalls that in order to ensure an effective balance of powers that protects and respects the rule of law, it is crucial to ensure that such restrictions of rights are necessary, proportionate, limited in time and subject to supervision by national parliaments and courts;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Stresses the Media Pluralism Monitor's lack of effectiveness, an instrument which is supposed to safeguard the media's 'freedom, market plurality, political independence and social inclusion'.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that the measures taken to combat the COVID-19 pandemic must be covered by a genuinely democratic debate, particularly within national parliaments.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament and some Member States, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass ~~the~~significant areas of democracy and fundamental rights~~; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent expert~~, including the rights of national and linguistic minorities; stresses the need for improvement concerning the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the expectations of Europeans go beyond the actual scope of the Charter; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union in its next report; believes that the Commission must consult as many stakeholders as possible, particularly legal practitioners and fundamental rights experts, from the Member States and European organisations in this annual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that the Member States are independent and sovereign;

Amendment 8 #

Sira REGO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve ~~independent experts in th~~external organizations, collectives and experts to contribute to bigger pluralism an~~nual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also~~d credibility; that selection of these external collaborators should be ruled by criteria of representativeness, pluralism and transparency; that Commission must provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Points out that the rule of law is based on the following principles: legality, separation of powers, equality before the law, legal certainty, prohibiting the arbitrary exercise of executive power, effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts and the existence of effective judicial review, ensuring respect for fundamental rights; stresses that compliance with these principles and the implementation thereof is essential in each Member State, strengthening and underpinning public and business confidence in the institutions at local and European level;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights, which should be scrutinised with equal importance; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent experts in this annual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;

source: 691.348

2021/04/22 AFCO 63 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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 10 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Regrets that the procedure under Article 7(1) of the Treaty on the European union (TEU) has failed to address rule of law issues and fundamental rights violations in the Member States. Recalls that serious violations of the rule of law are taking place in Poland and Hungary. Regrets that the Commission has very few tools at its disposal to prevent these issues to arise and to develop further.

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that the Commission’s report is a response to the Council’s failure 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 divStresses that there is no legal basis in the EU Treaties that grants the Commission the competence to assess Member States' respect for or violation of the rule of law; recalls that according to Article 5 (1) TEU, the Commission should act in accordance with and within the boundaries of the Treaties; underlines that Article 2 TEU merely mentions the rule of law, but does not define it, nor does it give the Commission the power to enforce it; regrets that the Commission's 2020 Rule of Law report mentions interpretation of the principle of the rule of law by jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, but fails to provide the refergence ~~from the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU~~s to the relevant case law;

Amendment 12 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that the Commission’s report iwas a response to the Council’s failure 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 TEUcommitment made by President Von Der Leyen in her political guidelines for the 2019-2024 Commission, ahead of her election;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that the Commission’s report is a response to the Council’s ~~failure~~decision 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 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 15 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that the Commission’s report is a partial response to the ~~Council’s failure 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~~Parliament´s report on EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2015/2254(INL)1a ; 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; and weakens one of the most important instruments of the Union´s rule of law toolbox; _________________ 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2015/2254(INL))

Amendment 17 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that the Commission’s report is a response to the Council’s failure 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 TEUinvites, therefore, the Council to resume hearings under Article 7 of the TEU as soon as possible and to determine whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the two Member States concerned of the values referred to in Article 2 of the TEU; reaffirms the role of Parliament, in accordance with Article 7 of the TEU, in monitoring compliance with Union values; reiterates its call for Parliament to be able to present its reasoned proposal to the Council, to attend Article 7 hearings when it is Parliament that initiated the procedure, and to be kept promptly and fully informed at every stage of the procedure; 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; believes that a stocktaking exercise on the effectiveness of Article 7 of the TEU is urgently needed and calls on the Commission in the next editions of the Report to include an evaluation of its implementation;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Regrets the Council’s failure to move further the procedure under Article 7(1) TEU, as requested by the Commission in 2017 and the Parliament in 2018; underlines, in the strongest terms, that only qualified majority is required to determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2; regrets that the Council has failed to resume hearings under Article 7 TEU since December 2019; notes with concern that the failure to progress in Article 7 TEU procedure enables continued divergence from the values enshrined in Article 2TEU; urges the Portuguese presidency of the Council to take the appropriate steps in order to move further the procedure under Article7(1) TEU;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
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, 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).’s subjects exceed the scope of the Treaties; regrets that the Commission instead of defending the letter of the Treaties, intended the report to serve as a lever for exerting pressure on the selected Member States;

Amendment 2 #

Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Notes that the Commission’s first ever Rule of Law Report ~~as a positive~~constitutes an addition to the EU’s toolbox ~~to prevent and address rule of law issues in~~and urges the Commission that such an instrument has to be used in good faith, should be written objectively by reflecting only facts, and should guarantee the equal treatment of all Member States;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the report fails to ~~fully address all~~comprehensively define 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,~~pluralism; recalls that according to the Commission’s own definition, “[u]nder the rule of law, and fundamental rights, 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 Mechanismll public powers always act within the constraints set out by law [...]”; strongly regrets that the report fails to take a critical look at the European Union’s own ~~Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0251).~~activities from aforementioned point of view;

Amendment 21 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
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 22 #

Draft opinion
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~~Considers the scope of the report can be broadened and fine-tuned as requested by the EP; reiterates the need to have a single monitoring system for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as proposed by Parliament1 ; calls again 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 23 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Underlines that the report is a first step to reply to Parliament´s requests but 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, 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 24 #

Draft opinion
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, including the rights of minorities; reiterates the need to have a single monitoring system for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, 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 25 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the methodology of the report, which focuses on ~~four~~a few pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; insists on the fundamental role that judicial independence plays in the protection of the values and legal order of the EU; recalls that national judges are judges of EU law and have obligations with regard to its interpretation and application, and that judicial independence is the foundation upon which mutual trust and judicial cooperation are built; invites the Commission to include in the next editions an assessment of how the right to a fair trial is guaranteed in Member States, with particular attention paid to the right of defence, the protection of victims of crimes and equality between prosecution and defence parties; believes that clear distinctions should be made in the report between single cases and systemic cases of violations of the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU; believes furthermore that the report should go beyond monitoring and include preventive and corrective elements with a clear outline of enforcement measures; and concrete proposals to tackle violations;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcome~~Questions the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; ~~invites the Commission to include in the next editions an assessment of how the right to a fair trial is guaranteed in Member States, with~~ deeply regrets that the Commission did not provide an assessment of its own institutions' adherence to the rule of law; calls on the Commission to do so as of the 2021 Report; provides some suggestions: 1) the comparticular 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 measurbility of the Next Generation EU programmes with the no bail-out clause of article 125 TFEU and the no debt clause of article 310TFEU; 2) whether the ECB's asset purchasing programs, such as PEPP, CSPP and PSPP fall within the scope of the Bank's mandate; strongly invites the Commission to treat all Member States on an equal footing in its assessments regardless of the Member State governments’ political stances;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes~~Notes that the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances, is seriously flawed and has to be revised; invites the Commission to include in the next editions 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 28 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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

4. Welcomes the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; invites the Commission to in the next editions broaden the scope of the report, or at least of its first pillar and to include in the next editions 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~~the equality between prosecution and defence parties and the length of trials; believes that the report should go beyond monitoring and include preventive and corrective elements with a clear outline of enforcement measures;

Amendment 3 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s first 1. ever Rule of Law Report as a ~~positive~~ n addition to the EU’s toolbox to prevent and address certain rule of law issues in Member States;

Amendment 30 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; invites the Commission to include in the next editions an assessment of how the right to a fair trial is guaranteed in Member States, with particular attention paid to the right of defence, the fight against impunity 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~~invites the Commission to include in future reports data related to the level of compliance of Member States with CJEU rulings and to signal the cases of resistance to apply them;

Amendment 31 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; notes with concern the growing amount of threats towards journalists in member countries and the risk for media pluralism and freedoms; invites the Commission to include in the next editions 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 32 #

Sandro GOZI, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; invites the Commission to include in the next editions 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 country specific preventive and corrective elements with a clear outline of enforcement measures to be taken with clear deadlines;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Stresses that the report of the Council of Europe 'Space' committee, which conducts a yearly assessment of prison systems in member states, found that Italy has the highest overcrowding rate amongst EU countries with 120 inmates for every 100 places; Notes that the slowness of civil criminal and administrative judicial procedures are now common practice, which, as the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has emphasized over time, "constitute a major danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law". Calls on the Commission to include in its report on the Rule of Law an evaluation of prison conditions, judicial backlogs and the average duration of trials for each Member State. Recommends when possible alternative measures such as parole, suspended and reduced sentences, probation and court supervision, and when relevant amnesties.

Amendment 34 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Regrets that, although independence of the judiciary is one of the four pillars, the Report did not look into the remarks of the Deutsche Richterbund (DRB) and the Neue Richtervereinigung (NRV), which criticized the German Justice Ministers' ability to issue instructions to the public prosecutors, nor into the referenced requests for preliminary rulings4a, including a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of political appointments of judges and their membership of political parties4b, nor the nomination of the deputy leader of the CDU in the Bundestag as president of the German Federal Constitutional Court4c; urges the Commission therefore to open infringement procedures against Germany; _________________ 4aOJ EU of 3 June 2019, C 187, p. 52, cases C-272/19 and C-276/2020. 4bCJEU judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI, joined cases C-508/18 and C- 82/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456. 4c Beschluss vom 18. Februar 2020 - 2 BvR 2082/19.

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Welcomes that the report assesses the state of the rule of law in every Member State; notes, however, that it fails to make a clear distinction between Member States with isolated shortcomings and those with systemic rule of law deficiencies; calls on the Commission to make this distinction in future reports to prevent the report from being misused as a tool to relativize autocratisation processes in some Member States;

Amendment 36 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Points out that the role of the rule of law monitoring mechanism in Member States should be to secure high rule of law standards based on objective standards and an approach based on impartiality and mutual respect and to remedy identified deficiencies based on a close dialogue and support provided by the Commission;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Believes that the report should go beyond monitoring and include clear recommendations regarding preventive and corrective actions that must be adopted by concerned Member;

Amendment 38 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls on the Commission to extend the scope of the Report with a fifth pillar, named 'political pluralism'; recalls that according to the principles of the rule of law, citizens should not be intimidated to refrain from expressing their views and from gathering with like-minded people, as such actions are rights enshrined in Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter of Human Rights; recalls that according to official statistics of the German Ministry of the Interior4d, almost 700 members, candidates and elected officials of the right-wing AfD party were physically assaulted in 2020, constituting 45% of all victims of political violence in Germany, and up 36% compared to 2019, and more than 3 times the number of attacks of the second most assaulted political party; calls on FRA to conduct a similar study as the German Ministry of the Interior on EU scale; calls on FRA to include political affiliation in its assessment of hate crimes, and not only focus on crimes against ethnic and sexual minorities, solely relying on the heavily biased EU- MIDIS survey data; calls on the Commission to include these findings in its reports as of next year, and to formally recognize political pluralism as a pillar of the rule of law, not only in the East, but also in the West of the EU; _________________ 4dKleine Anfrage des Abgeordneten Martin Hess u.a. und der Fraktion der AfD, 1. Februar 2021, BT-Drucksache 19/25517.

Amendment 39 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Stresses that the report should be seen as a preparatory tool for concrete action to address rule of law deficiencies in the Member States; believes that the report should therefore go beyond monitoring and include country-specific recommendations for preventive and corrective elements with a clear outline of enforcement and a mention of potentially applicable tools for the Commission to use next to each recommendation in case of non-compliance; requests the Commission in this regard to clearly identify those rule of law deficiencies with an impact on the sound financial management of the Union budget in the report to be used as a basis for triggering the rule of law conditionality mechanism;

Amendment 4 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s first ever Rule of Law Report as a meaningful and positive addition to the EU’s toolbox to prevent and address rule of law issues in Member States; notes Commission´s central role in addressing the rule of law issues and developing the tools further; yearly reporting allows for strengthening of the Commission´s work and also enables the communication of best practices between member states;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls on the Commission to further invest in tools for the collection and analysis of data, ensure the diversity of relevant information sources and ensure transparency about methodology and criteria when including or excluding facts, so as to further substantiate the findings in future reports;

Amendment 41 #

Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gunnar BECK, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. CRecalls ~~on the Commission to use all tools at its disposal to counter violations of EU values, such as infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, act~~that according to international law, as stated e.g. in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations5a, “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State”; calls on the Commissions 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 asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU; follow aforementioned principle in its relations with the Member States; invites the European Union to resort to tools adequate for an international organisation consisting of independent and sovereign nation states, such as sharing of best practices and providing assistance to the Member States, rather than to coercion and threats of punishment, in order to strengthen the rule of law in the EU Member States; is deeply concerned that the Commission’s willingness to interfere in internal affairs of the Member States, as well as its reluctance to consider the EU’s own deficiencies in complying with the rule of law principle, is a sign that it considers the EU to be sovereign and the Member States subordinated to it; _________________ 5aDeclaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/3dda1f 104.pdf

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission not to use ~~all~~the 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 th~~at it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU~~eir national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government;

Amendment 43 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to use ~~all~~only Treaty-based 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~~notes that the new rule of law conditionality mechanism ~~and asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU~~should fully respect the provisions of the European Council conclusions of December 2020;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to use all 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 ~~asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU;~~ reiterates it has entered into force and is binding in its entirety for all commitment appropriations and payment appropriations in all Member States and for the EU institutions; underlines the importance of the direct applicability of the Regulation since 1 January 2021, particularly in the context of the disbursement of the Next Generation EU funds which will occur early in the budget cycle;

Amendment 45 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to use all 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 asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU; Regrets that the Commission has not yet made use of this tool despite many breaches of the rule of law identified in the Report which have an impact on the sound financial management of the budget; calls on the Commission to make use of the mechanism immediately to address these deficiencies;

Amendment 46 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 48 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to use all 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 asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU; recalls that accession to the Schengen Area cannot be limited to the rule of law, pointing out that no additional criteria other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the Schengen acquis should be required;

Amendment 49 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Pascal DURAND, Sandro GOZI, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 5 #

Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes 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; underlines that it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and develop an effective mechanism to ensure that the principles and values enshrined in the Treaties are upheld throughout the Union;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls on the Commission to develop proposals to further strengthening of the Rule of Law toolbox if, despite the current instruments and efforts, significant violations of the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU persist; proposes to expand the scope of the non- discrimination clause in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and to render it universal, to enable the enforcement of the Rule of Law in Member States and the Union consistent with article 14 of the European Human Rights Convention; calls, in the meantime, on all EU institutions to give the non-discrimination clause the broadest possible legal interpretation;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Recalls that the accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a legal obligation provided for under Article 6(2) TEU; reiterates the need for a swift conclusion of the accession process in order to ensure a consistent framework for human rights protection throughout Europe and to further strengthen the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms within the Union; calls therefore on the Commission to step up efforts to fully implement the Treaties and conclude the accession process without undue delay;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. recalls the obligation of the EU to accede to the ECHR, as imposed by Article 6 TEU; calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that this obligation is respected as soon as possible, in full transparency and in order to increase the protection of individuals and the accountability of the European Institutions for their actions or omissions with regard to fundamental rights;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Underlines that both the European Democracy Action Plan and the revision of the strategy for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights should further contribute to protect and enforce EU values;

Amendment 54 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a deleterious impact on fundamental rights as well as on constitutional checks and balances; insists that any measures restricting the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should be transparent, proportional and temporary; calls on the Commission to further analyse measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in its 2021 report.in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic any measures restricting the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should be transparent, proportional and temporary;

Amendment 55 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has ~~had a deleterious impact on fundamental rights as well as on constitutional checks and balances~~forced national authorities to take previously unforeseen but necessary restrictions on the fundamental rights of citizens for the public good; insists that any measures restricting the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should be limited to what is necessary, transparent, proportional and temporary; calls on the Commission to further analyse measures taken in response to the COVID- 19 pandemic in its 2021 report.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a deleterious impact on fundamental rights as well as on constitutional checks and balances; insists that any measures restricting the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should be transparent, proportional and temporary; calls on the Commission to ~~further~~continue analyseing measures taken in response to the COVID- 19 pandemic in its 2021 report.

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Regrets that the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic, fundamental rights and rule of law violations and backsliding in the Member States; welcomes therefore that the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe clearly states that ‘European rights and values including the Rule of Law’ will be one of the topics of discussion in the upcoming Conference;1a invites the Conference to engage in a thorough discussion and reflection on the effectiveness of the EU’s existing tools to monitor, prevent and tackle violations of the principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU and to present concrete proposals to strengthen the EU’s toolbox; _________________ 1aJoint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe: Engaging with Citizensfor Democracy -Building a more resilient Europe, 10 March 2021

Amendment 58 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Welcomes the reflection on the resilience of the justice system and stresses that an effective justice system is essential for upholding the rule of law; recalls that both access to justice and the efficiency of national courts were negatively impacted in the context of the pandemic with the partial closure of national courts and the use of digitalization for some of the legal proceedings; Invites the Commission to include recommendation for the Member States to reduce the negative impact of the pandemic on the activity of the national courts and ensure compliance with one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law as effectiveness of a justice system.

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Welcomes that civil society was consulted during the drafting process; stresses that civil society actors can provide valuable input for the assessment of country-specific situations and provide a more critical view than the concerned government; notes, however, that the consultation can be improved by ensuring, among others, a follow-up with civil society actors to their input given, sufficiently long timeframes for providing input and reconsidering the format of a one-size-fits-all questionnaire for providing input; encourages the Commission to seek further input from civil society on how to optimise the consultation process for future reports;

Amendment 6 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes 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. Believes that the respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights underpins mutual trust and eventually the trust in the EU as a whole;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Is deeply concerned about the compatibility of several harsh lockdown measures and the far-reaching restrictions placed on social life and the enforcement of these measures by the police with the principles of the rule of law; recalls that public gatherings to express discontent with public policy is covered by articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter of Human Rights; calls on the Commission to go beyond the general observations from the 2020 Report and scrutinize national and regional lockdown measures and laws more thoroughly as of next year and, if need be, open infringement proceedings;

Amendment 61 #

Vladimír BILČÍK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Highlights the irreplaceable role of public service media and stresses that it is essential to ensure and maintain their independence from political interference; strongly condemns threats to media freedom, including harassment and attacks aimed at journalists, the disregard of their legal protection as well as media capture or politically motivated actions in the media sector; notes that several Member States’ position in international press freedom rankings have declined;

Amendment 62 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Giuliano PISAPIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls to address at the Conference on the Future of Europe the need to facilitate the procedures for the application of article 7 TEU, in particular in voting for the application of sanctions and ending unanimity decision making within the European Council.

Amendment 63 #

Paulo RANGEL, Vladimír BILČÍK, Sven SIMON, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Rainer WIELAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Regrets that the draft country chapters were only shared with the respective Member State’s government, giving members of national parliaments the chance to provide input only after the final report was published; stresses the importance of consulting a comprehensive spectrum of all democratic parties in assessing a country-specific situation as governments naturally have an interest in a less critical assessment of the situation; calls on the Commission to provide national parliaments with the draft country chapter at the same time as they are provided to governments;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes 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, while considering that further improvements are needed;

Amendment 8 #

Gunnar BECK, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Laura HUHTASAARI, Gilles LEBRETON, Antonio Maria RINALDI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s first ever Rule of Law Report as a positive addition to the EU’s toolbox to monitor, prevent and address rule of law issues in Member States;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that the attribution of the parliamentary report on the Commission's Rule of Law Report to LIBE, with JURI and AFCO only providing opinions, already contains a certain biased approach to the theory of the rule of law from a positive rights perspective, which is a contested interpretation of the concept in legal theory; suggests that future reports should be drafted by JURI-AFCO joint committees, with LIBE providing an opinion, with a view to ensuring that the European Union strictly respects the limits of its powers to monitor obedience of the rule of law in Member States;

source: 691.335

2021/04/26 LIBE 311 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7

— having regard to Article 49 TEU, the Copenhagen criteria and the body of Union rules that a candidate country must fulfil if it wishes to join the Union (the acquis),

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 33

— having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2018 on the need for a comprehensive EU mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights6 , _________________ 6 OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 45.deleted

Amendment 100 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the monitoring of the independence, quality and efficiency of the Member States’ justice systems and hence their capacity to provide for effective judicial protection to ensure compliance with Union law; considers that the enabling environment to ensure access to justice for all should also be monitored, including access to justice at Union level; considers that the reports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chapters to enable an accurate, dynamic and integral assessment of the de jure and de facto independence of judicial systems, including the independence of lawyers and Bars, as well as over a longer period of time than the previous twelve months;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the monitoring of the independence, quality and efficiency of the Member States’ justice systems~~; considers that~~ including the national prosecution services as those are essential preconditions not only of the rule of law within the Member States but also of the protection of the Union’s financial interests; considers that the integrity of the judges and prosecutors and other persons working in the justice systems and the enabling environment to ensure access to justice for all should also be monitored, including access to justice at Union level; considers that the reports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chapters;

Amendment 102 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes 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; points out that the right to access to justice is vital for the protection of all fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law; calls for direct, easily accessible instruments to be made available to individuals to counter violations of their fundamental rights by Member States, without giving the national courts or the EU institutions any margin of discretion; considers that the reports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chapters;

Amendment 103 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes 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 that the reports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include ~~information on relevant antecedents in the country chapters~~any relevant information about the state of the rule of law in the country, as well as situate new developments in their political context;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 105 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls to the Commission's attention for its following report on rule of law that in many Member States the judiciary has overturned a series of abusive measures implemented under the pretext of combating the spread of the Covid-19 virus; Deplores, at the same time, that in some Member States the judiciary has avoided, under various pretexts, to judge and rule on the legality and proportionality of the anti-Covid-19 measures, leaving citizens exposed to abusive measures;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Calls on the Commission to examine the levels of impunity in the Member States when assessing whether respect for effective judicial protection and systems of safeguards are adequate; reiterates that impunity is a systemic failure and that Member States must fight with all the means at their disposal to combat it; recalls that in a balanced judicial system, the level of protection for victims and defendants must be the same;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Welcomes the fact that appointment methods, in addition to mechanisms governing career advancement, disciplinary procedures and sanctions, have also been identified as indicators of judicial independence; stresses that the monitoring of these parameters must be constant in order to verify the real autonomy of the judiciary;

Amendment 108 #

Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Recalls that the Union's judicial architecture includes national justice systems; expresses its concern about the alleged political interference on the appointment of some members of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; recalls the lack of transparency in the nomination of the Portuguese European Prosecutor;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Calls to the Commission's attention the ongoing attacks to the Constitutional Courts and Ombudsmen in different Member States; emphases that these are critical institutions to safeguard the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the citizens and must be protected;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 33 a (new)

— having regard to the EU gender equality strategy 2020 -2025, the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030,

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Underlines that, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, the justice system and the judges must be independent, thus protected from any pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from inside or outside the judiciary, including political authorities or intelligence agencies/secret services; 1a 2a _________________ 1aParagraph 22 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities (https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_de tails.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805afb78 ) 2aParagraph 27 of CCJE Opinion No. 21 (2018) Preventing corruption among judges (https://rm.coe.int/ccje-2018-3e- avis-21-ccje-2018-prevent-corruption- amongst-judges/native/16808fd8dd )

Amendment 111 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Is alarmed by the stark deterioration of the independence of some Member States’ justice systems, as ref~~delected ~~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 law;~~

Amendment 112 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is alarmed by the ~~stark deterioration of~~EU's aggressive interference in 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~~; calls on the Commission to immediately desist from its arbitrary interpretation of the rule of law;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
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 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is alarmed by the stark deterioration of the independence of some Member States’ justice systems and the increasing open lack of compliance with EU law, including judgments of the Court of Justice, 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 law; is deeply concerned by the Commission’s failure to promptly and legally react with respect of the serious risks regarding the rule of law identified in country reports, particularly after these serious risks have become actual breaches of the rule of law;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Is alarmed by the stark deterioration of the independence of some Member States’ justice systems and equality bodies, 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 law;

Amendment 116 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

Amendment 117 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. 1. Highlights that, in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU, the Commission is to ensure the application of the Treaties and of secondary legislation, including in cases where risks of serious breaches of the values laid down in Article 2 TEU, identified in country reports, have effectively materialised following the publication of the 2020 report;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to implement an appropriate set of policies to combat judicial corruption in the Member States and, at the same time, provide for the exclusion and prosecution of corrupt magistrates in order to prevent serious breaches of the rule of law;

Amendment 119 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Decri~~Notes 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 by~~takes into account the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the legitimate grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments ~~pose a systemic threat to the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious viola~~constitute a protest against a change in direction by the Union which seeks to impose one single view of the rule of law and the EU model of society regardless of the legal, constitutional and cultural traditions inof the ~~assessment~~Member States;

Amendment 12 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 33 b (new)

— having regard to the Anti-racism Action Plan 2020-2025 and the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation,

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
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 by~~Court 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 121 #

Loránt VINCZE, Sven SIMON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Decries the fact~~Notes 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 by~~acknowledges the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that if these developments pose a systemic threat to the Union;, consider~~s, therefore, that~~ation should be given in forthcoming annual reports ~~should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment~~to assessing whether the legal structure and principles of the Union are not in conflict with the sovereignty and constitutionality of several Member States;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
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 S~~not applicable; tatkes subject to Article 7 of the TEU; is appalled by the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemicnote that some courts in some Member States have reservations to CJEU rulings; reminds that the competence conflict between EU law and constitutional reservations was never solved in the threat ~~to the Union; considers, therefore,~~ies; is of the view that forthcoming annual reports should consider those challenges to the Union’s legal architecture ~~and principles as serious violations in the assessment~~;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 124 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Decries th~~e fact that the initiation of preliminary ruling proce~~at the functioning of the preliminary ruling mechanism has been deliberately undermined in~~gs before the Court of Justice of the EU has been declared unlawful in Member States subject to Article 7 of the TEU; is appalled by the growing resistance of some Member States to~~ Poland and Hungary to prevent national judges from asking questions to the Court of Justice in relation to EU requirements relating to judicial independence; is appalled by the growing and deliberate lack of complyiance with CJEU rulings ~~on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality~~; believes that these unlawful developments pose a systemic threat to the Union and the functioning of its legal order; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider ~~challenges to the Union’s legal architect~~non-respect with the rulings of the CJEU as serious violations in the assessment; urges the Commission to ensure an immediate and legal response to any instance where national authorities refuse to comply with a specific judgment of the CJEU or more generally, the case law of the CJEU, such as couret a~~nd principles as serious violations~~ ctions under Article 260 TFEU; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the Polish Constitutional Tribunal's case regarding the ~~assessment~~primacy of national constitutional norms over EU law launched at the request of the Prime Minister;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
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 by the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemic threat to the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling regarding the primacy of national constitutional norms over EU law launched at the request of the Government of one country subject to Article 7; urges the Commission to ensure an immediate and adequate response to a refusal to implement and respect CJEU judgments, such as court actions under Article 260 TFEU;

Amendment 126 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
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~~political pressure in Member States subject to Article 7 of the TEU to prevent the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings by national courts before the Court of Justice of the TEU; is appalled by the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemic threat to the ~~Union~~unity of EU law and to the functioning of the Union as such; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the rulings of national courts regarding the primacy of EU law over national constitutional norms; urges the Commission to ensure immediate and adequate responses to refusals to implement and respect CJEU judgements, such as court actions following Article 260 TFEU;

Amendment 127 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Decries th~~e 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~~at the governments of Poland and Hungary have repeatedly attempted to prevent national courts from referring cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU; considers this practice to be in contravention of the Treaties and the CJEU's established interpretation of the relevant provisions; is appalled by the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemic threat to the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment;

Amendment 128 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
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 by the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemic threat to the Union; invites the Commission to include in future reports detailed data on Member States' compliance with ECJ rulings; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violations in the assessment;

Amendment 129 #

Sandro GOZI, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Notes that the slowness of civil, criminal and administrative judicial procedures are now common practice, which, as the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has emphasized over time, "constitute a major danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law"; calls on the Commission to include in its report on the Rule of Law an evaluation of prison conditions, judicial backlogs and the average duration of trials for each Member State; recommends, when possible, alternative measures such as parole, suspended and reduced sentences, probation and court supervision, and when relevant amnesties;

Amendment 13 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34

~~— having regard to its resolution of 13 February 2019 on experiencing a backlash in women’s rights and gender equality in the EU7 , _________________ 7~~deleted OJ C 449, 23.12.2020, p. 102.

Amendment 130 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Calls on the Commission to analyse in detail initiatives by Member States' governments that may jeopardise the independence of their national courts, in particular when a very high percentage of members of the judiciary or other involved party request it; recalls that the rule of law report must be objective and apply the same criteria when assessing all Member States;

Amendment 131 #

Terry REINTKE, Marc ANGEL, Liesje SCHREINEMACHER, Malin BJÖRK, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Moritz KÖRNER, Tineke STRIK, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER, Evin INCIR, Dietmar KÖSTER, Sylwia SPUREK, Hilde VAUTMANS, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Cyrus ENGERER, Alice KUHNKE, Łukasz KOHUT, Gwendoline DELBOS-CORFIELD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Is alarmed by the legislative measures adopted in some Members States under the pretext of COVID-19 measures; reaffirms its position that such measures need to respect EU fundamental rights and the rule of law and considers that equal treatment of persons is crucial1a; _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0307.

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Reminds that EU Member States are obliged to give effect to Union legislation and adhere to the European Court of Justice's decisions; to this end, points specifically to the right of same-sex couples to equal treatment as established in case C-673/16;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Emphasises that any discussions about sanctions against a Member State must be based solely on objective and technical criteria and not on political evaluations or motivations;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Expresses concern at the use of legal measures by governments and powerful individuals to silence critics, such as the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), or the use of laws curtailing the right to freedom of expression in a manner incompatible with international human rights law, for example against LGBTI and women’s activists;calls on the Commission to accelerate the setting up of the expert group on SLAPPs as foreseen in the European Democracy Action Plan, to begin its work as soon as feasible and to ensure any upcoming legislative proposal addresses these issues;

Amendment 135 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Reiterates that corruption is a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law and fair treatment for all citizens; stresses that, by diverting public funds away from their intended public use, corruption detracts from the level and quality of public services, thereby undermining fundamental rights; calls on the Member States and institutions to devise effective ways of combating corruption, regularly monitoring the use made of both European and national public funds;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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 137 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 138 #

Tineke STRIK, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes 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, and to review the proper functioning of investigation and public prosecution services in each Member State in relation to the investigation and prosecution of fraud, including tax fraud, corruption or other breaches of Union law relating to the implementation of the Union budget or to the protection of the financial interests of the Union;

Amendment 139 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes 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~~Regulation 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; stresses that Regulation 2020/2092 is in force since 1 January 2021 and calls for its immediate application in line with Parliament's resolution of 25 March 2021;

Amendment 14 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Lena DÜPONT

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on the anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd7a, _________________ 7a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0173.

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the dedication of a specific chapter to anti-corruption efforts in each country report since systemic corruption undermines both the functioning of the rule of law and the trust of citizens in the decisions taken by authorities, civil servants and the judiciary; 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 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 142 #

Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes 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 grou~~implementation and subsequent effectiveness on the ground are crucial for the rule of law and 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 143 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has recognised that corruption is a powerful ally of organised crime and therefore urges the Commission to create stronger legislation to counter organised crime, especially the more aggressive type such as mafia-style crime;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Is deeply concerned by the growing threat caused by corruption- related crimes and calls on the Commission to update and enhance where necessary the Union’s anti-corruption legislation, making use of the findings of the report to better respond to the identified deficiencies;

Amendment 145 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Paulo RANGEL, Lukas MANDL, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Is concerned by the rise of illiberal tendencies as well as corruption; underlines the dangers of this trend for the cohesion of the Union’s legal order, the functioning of its single market, the effectiveness of its common policies and its international credibility;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Calls on the Commission to provide for and adapt appropriate instruments and procedures to encourage and protect whistleblowers who report organised crime, corruption and money laundering offences, while providing the necessary security and confidentiality safeguards for citizens and public and private sector operators;

Amendment 147 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Fabienne KELLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcom~~Acknowledges the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urges the Commission to ~~provi~~include ain ~~assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism~~the report a chapter on monitoring the freedom and pluralism of expression of individuals, in particular those who do not express their consent to current events and denounce the current situation in a democratic manner;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urges the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism and make concrete recommendations for improving the situation; deems it important that the annual rule of law reports provide the basis for strong action on behalf of the European Commission in order to address the deficiencies identified;

Amendment 149 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urges the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism; stresses the importance of monitoring the situation of the media in the Member States in order to prevent the risk of further fostering the concentration of information in the hands of a few and preventing the spread of free and independent information;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 35

~~— having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2019 on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, including LGBTI free zones8 , _________________ 8 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0101.~~deleted

Amendment 150 #

Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and media pluralism as these are the cornerstone of democratic societies; welcomes in particular the focus on the situation of safety of journalists as this is becoming increasingly urgent matter in the EU; urges 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 151 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urges the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism; calls on the Commission to put a specific focus on murder cases of journalists with a particular focus on the effective subsequent criminal investigations and proceedings;

Amendment 152 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; urges the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism and an assessment of the degree of respect for the right of freedom of expression and opinion in the Member States;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcom~~Notes the inclusion in the report of a specific chapter on monitoring media freedom and pluralism; ~~urg~~invites 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 154 #

Magdalena ADAMOWICZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Is alarmed by the growing use of SLAPP to silence or intimidate investigative journalists and outlets and create a climate of fear around their reporting of certain topics; stresses that SLAPP actions attack democratic public participation, interfere with fundamental rights of individuals, such as freedom of expression and freedom to receive information, and therefore threaten democracy and the rule of law within the whole Union;

Amendment 155 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Calls on the Commission to continue to assess rigorously and objectively whether press freedom is respected in all Member States; insists on the need to examine measures taken by any government to silence critical media and/or to undermine freedom and pluralism;

Amendment 156 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores the lack of assessment as regards the public and private 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; calls in this regard on the Commission to examine attempts of intimidation and defamation of journalists, in particular by public service broadcasters; in this context, highlights the trend that increasingly also foreign journalists are directly attacked as public enemies for their investigative reports; _________________ 19 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69.

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores the lack of assessment as regards the public media sector at national level and its degree of ~~independence from government~~de jure and de facto independence from national authorities, political parties or any other interference and an assessment of media concentration and transparency of media ownership; deplores the lack of assessment of the jure and de facto degree of independence of national media regulatory bodies; believes that proper implementation of Article 30 of the 2018 Audiovisual and Media Services Directive19 should be closely monitored; _________________ 19 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69.

Amendment 158 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores 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; stresses how important it is for the Commission to monitor the existence of conflict-of-interest laws in the Member States, urging those without such laws to introduce them; 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 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores the lack of assessment as regards the public service 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~~and particularly its Article 30 should be closely monitored and infringement procedures should be initiated as a matter of priority; _________________ 19 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69.

Amendment 16 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 37

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary10 , _________________ 10 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0014.~~deleted

Amendment 160 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Deplor~~Notes 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 161 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores 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 162 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Invites the Commission to include an overview of the attacks against journalists across the Union and the responses provided by Member States in this regard in future rule of law reports;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is alarmed by the growing deterioration of media freedom and media pluralism in some Member States since the publication of the 2020 report; observes with concern that challenges to media freedom are interlinked with the undermining of artistic freedom and academic freedom; calls, therefore, for this pillar to be expanded to all aspects of freedom of expression and for the title of the pillar to be adapted accordinglyis deeply concerned at the abuses, crimes and deadly attacks being committed against journalists and media workers in the Union in view of their activities;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is alarmed by the growing deterioration of media freedom and media pluralism in some Member States since the publication of the 2020 report; recalls that threats and intimidation against journalists, including with regard to the disclosure of information on violations of fundamental rights, not only persist but are on the increase, and often lead to self- censorship and undermine the public's right to information; observes with concern that challenges to media freedom are interlinked with the undermining of artistic freedom and academic freedom; calls, therefore, for this pillar to be expanded to all aspects of freedom of expression and coexistence with hate crime and hate speech, and for the title of the pillar to be adapted accordingly;

Amendment 165 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is alarmed by the growing deterioration of media freedom and media pluralism in some Member States since the publication of the 2020 report; observes with concern that challenges to media freedom are interlinked with the undermining of artistic freedom and academic freedom; calls, therefore, for this pillar to be expanded to all aspects of freedom of expression and for the title of the pillar to be adapted accordingly; is concerned about the disinformation campaigns and uncontrolled spread of fake news in Europe during the COVID- 19 pandemic, which was primarily targeted at the governments of certain EU countries;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is alarmed by the growing deterioration of media freedom and media pluralism in some Member States since the publication of the 2020 report; observes with concern that challenges to media freedom are interlinked with the undermining of the freedom of expression, artistic freedom and academic freedom; recalls in this regard physical, psychological and economic threats directed towards journalists that have so far resulted in the murder of investigative journalists; calls, therefore, for this pillar to be expanded to all aspects of freedom of expression and for the title of the pillar to be adapted accordingly;

Amendment 167 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Is concerned by the worsening state of affairs as regards freedom of expression and the acceptance of a wide variety of opinions on certain social networks; considers that their monopoly position makes them essential to modern political life and that the arbitrary censorship of legally-held opinions has a serious impact on citizens' freedom of expression; urges the Commission to propose a penalty system for platforms exercising censorship without a court order;

Amendment 168 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Expresses concern about the threats and physical attacks against journalists in several Member States, as well as the growing practice of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), against which the Commission should urge Member States to legislate in order to protect journalists from this practice, for the purpose of effectively defending the freedom of journalists to inform and the right of citizens to be informed;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls on the Commission to assess in future reports the effect that hate crimes and hate speech have on the rise of violent outbreaks and dynamics of discrimination in Member States; recalls that hate crimes and hate speech are becoming normalised in many Member States, fuelled by the rise of extremist movements and their rhetoric, including those in power;

Amendment 17 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 39

— having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2020 on the proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law12 , _________________ 12deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0225.

Amendment 170 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Paulo RANGEL, Lukas MANDL, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Highlights the irreplaceable role of public service media and stresses that it is essential to ensure and maintain their independence and freedom from political interference; highlights the need to ensure financial independence and conditions for sustainable activity by private media operators to avoid political capture of the media;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Deplores that in a number of Member States the governments have classified information on public procurement during the Covid-19 pandemic, thus increasing the risk of corruption and mistrust among citizens; calls on these Member States to reverse these abusive measures and provide full transparency for journalists and citizens;

Amendment 172 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Observes with concern that challenges to media freedom are interlinked with the undermining of artistic freedom and academic freedom; calls, therefore, for this pillar to be expanded to all aspects of freedom of expression and for the title of the pillar to be adapted accordingly;

Amendment 173 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Observes that the deterioration of media freedom is leading to an increase in scapegoating and targeting of minorities, often government-led, for example against LGBTI people, migrants and refugees, leading to an increase in hate-speech against these groups and censorship of media;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic; notes with concern that the shrinking space for civil liberties in response to the pandemic has led to growing frustration among many citizens; warns that the channelling of this frustration has sometimes resulted in protests against the authorities or street violence; calls on the Commission to analyse these phenomena in its next report;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic; is alarmed by the pretext of Covid-19 emergency measures used to fast-track discriminatory legislation; calls on the Commission to continue its monitoring on exceptional measures to ensure that bills are prepared and enacted in a timely and transparent way, under parliamentary scrutiny and with open consultation of civil society;

Amendment 176 #

Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic; calls on the Commission to continue the monitoring of gradual lifting of the measures in a timely manner, with the focus on their impact on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, with specific regards to minorities, and to include it in the next report;

Amendment 177 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the report’s pillar on checks and balances, covering, inter alia, the process for preparing and enacting laws, the regime for the constitutional review of laws, the role of independent authorities and of civil society organisations in safeguarding the rule of law, and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic;

Amendment 178 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic; encourages the Commission to ensure that, during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, the rights of EU citizens are respected, protected and upheld by the Member States;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Welcom~~Notes the report’s pillar on checks and balances and its examination of exceptional measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic;

Amendment 18 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 40

~~— having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights13 , _________________ 13~~deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0251.

Amendment 180 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Fabienne KELLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Welcomes the reference to the role of ombudsperson institutions, as well as the fact that the Commission systematically included them in the fourth pillar of the country reports; calls on the Commission to pay more attention in the next annual cycle to the activities of national ombudspersons by going beyond acknowledging that ombudspersons institutions are established in Member States and looking more in depth into how they function, their degree of independence and their real contribution in terms of ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Reiterates its concern about the increasingly shrinking space for independent civil society in some Member States, in particular for women's rights organisations, LGBTI organisations and human rights defenders, including criminalisation of activities, unreasonable administrative burdens, restrictions in access to funding, decreasing financial support for conducting advocacy, as well as restrictions on freedom of assembly and organisation;

Amendment 182 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Notes with concern that the contracts signed by the European Commission with the pharma companies developing the anti-Covid-19 vaccines have sections and provisions which have not been made public yet; emphasizes that any official acts or contracts adopted or signed by the European entities or Member States that concern the health of European citizens must be public in their entirety;

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Stresses in particular the deterioration of the independence of some Member States’ equality bodies since the publication of the reports, which constitutes an immediate threat to the fundamental rights of citizens;

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Invites the Commission to define clear benchmarks on an enabling civic space;~~deleted

Amendment 185 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Fabienne KELLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Invites the Commission to define clear benchmarks on an enabling civic space; underlines the very important role civil society organisations play in defending the rule of law and European values on the ground, as well as in terms of providing valuable expertise; strongly believes that the Commission should institute a formal and continuous dialogue with civil society representatives on these issues and ensure their meaningful involvement in the elaboration of the annual rule of law report; highlights in this regard, based on the NGOs' experience from the 2020 cycle, that thematically structured consultations within the framework of the rule of law debates would increase the efficiency of the process and the amount of valuable feedback provided by the civil society; underlines that the deadlines imposed and the documents' formats used in the consultation process should be adequately adapted and flexible in order to allow for a complete and comprehensive input;

Amendment 186 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Invites the Commission to define clear benchmarks on an enabling civic space~~Stresses the importance of a healthy civic space to counterbalance the erosion of the rule of law and foster a rule of law culture; invites the Commission to deepen the assessment of civic space in the forthcoming 2021 report; considers beneficial to explore the definition of clear benchmarks on an enabling civic space to further strengthen this area of analysis in the long run, including, among others, the enabling legal environment for the exercise of civic freedoms, the framework for civic organisations’ financial viability and sustainability, access to and participation in decision-making, the right to access to information, safe space, including as regards incidence and responses to verbal and physical attacks, smear campaigns and legal harassment including through Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation;

Amendment 187 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Invites the Commission to define clear benchmarks on an enabling civic space;~~ Considers that, given the role of civil society in promoting, explaining, monitoring and holding governments accountable with regard to the realisation of Union values, including key building blocks of the rule of law, an additional chapter dedicated to monitoring the evolution of civic space in Member States should be added to each country report and the horizontal report;

Amendment 188 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Invites the Commission to define clear benchmarks con ~~an enabling~~cerning the breadth and openness of civic space;

Amendment 189 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Calls on the Commission to assess in future reports whether the exercise of political rights by citizens is guaranteed in all Member States; recalls that hate speech, hate crimes and ideologically motivated harassment can lead to a spiral of silence and under-representation in the political sphere and thus undermine ideological pluralism and fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to assess in future reports the situation of ideological and political pluralism in the Member States; regrets that political freedom and freedom of thought, which underpin ideological pluralism, are increasingly under siege from parliamentary bodies and even regional or national governments; condemns harassment and attacks against individuals or parties on political grounds; notes that such acts increase tension, polarisation and the normalisation of the curve of violence, accelerating the deterioration of the rule of law;

Amendment 19 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 43

— having regard to its resolution of 17 December 2020 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, the Interinstitutional Agreement, the EU Recovery Instrument and the Rule of Law Regulation16 , _________________ 16 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0360.deleted

Amendment 190 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Suggests therefore that such a chapter should focus on 1) the legal environment for the exercise of civic freedoms; 2) the framework for civic organisations’ sustainability and financial viability, including the issue of government-organized non-governmental organizations (GONGOs); 3) participation in decision-making, including the right to access to information; 4) safe space, including verbal and physical attacks, smear campaigns as well as legal, administrative and fiscal harassment, the chilling effect they trigger and the long term consequences in terms of active citizenship in the country;

Amendment 191 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Recalls the importance of independent national human rights institutions and ombudsman bodies, in full compliance with the Paris Principles, as well as equality bodies, in preserving citizens’ rights and being able to defend the rule of law at national level; is deeply concerned by recent attempts in a Member State subject to Article 7(1) TEU to undermine the independence of the national Ombudsman from the executive;

Amendment 192 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Recalls the importance of independent national human rights institutions and national ombudsman bodies, in full compliance with the Paris Principles, as well as equality bodies, in preserving citizens' rights and being able to defend the rule of law at national, regional and local level;

Amendment 193 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14 b. Regrets that freedom of association and the shrinking space for civil society are not part of the current report; reiterates that civil society is essential for democracies to flourish and that a shrinking space for civil society contributes to violations of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reiterates that the Union institutions should maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society;

Amendment 194 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regrets the non-implementation, which in itself constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law, by a Member State subject to Article 7 of the TEU of a CJEU ruling in relation to restrictions imposed on the financing of civil organisations by persons established outside that Member State; notes with concern that an increasing number of Member States are adopting legislation that severely impinges on the freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations;deleted

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 196 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 197 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regrets that the non- implementation, which in itself constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law, by ~~a Member State subject to Article 7 of the TEU~~Hungary of a CJEU ruling in relation to the unlawful restrictions imposed on the financing of civil organisations by persons established outside that Member State, continues to prevent civil society organisations from operating in an environment compliant with the rule of law; urges the Commission to refer Hungary to the CJEU and request dissuasive financial sanctions under Article 260 TFEU as a matter of urgency; notes with concern that an increasing number of Member States ~~are~~ adopt~~ing~~ legislation ~~that~~which severely ~~impinges on~~constraints the freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations thus contributing to a shrinking space for civil society in breach of the EU Treaties;

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regrets that the non- implementation, which in itself constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law, by a Member State subject to Article 7 of the TEU of a CJEU ruling in relation to restrictions imposed on the financing of civil organisations by persons established outside that Member State, perpetuates the process of shrinking space for civil society in that Member State; notes with concern that an increasing number of Member States are adopting legislation that severely impinges on the freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations;

Amendment 199 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Regrets the non-implementation, which in itself constitutes a serious violation of the rule of law, by ~~a Member State subject to Article 7 of the TEU~~Hungary of a CJEU ruling in relation to restrictions imposed on the financing of civil organisations by persons established outside that Member State; notes with concern that an increasing number of Member States are adopting legislation that severely impinges on the freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

— having regard to 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 budget1 , _________________ 1 OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 20 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 44

~~— having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2021 on the declaration of the EU as an LGBTIQ Freedom Zone17 , _________________ 17 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0089.~~deleted

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Regrets that the report fails to recognise in clear terms the deliberate process of democratic and rule of law backsliding organised by national authorities in some EU Member States and the ensuing progressive establishment of (semi-)autocratic regimes, based on the gradual annihilation of all checks and balances; calls on the Commission to acknowledge and take account of the multiple and authoritative annual reports and indexes which measures EU Member States’ adherence to democracy, rule of law and human rights over time;

Amendment 201 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Dietmar KÖSTER, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Regrets that the report fails to recognise in clear terms the democratic backsliding and the establishment of (semi-)autocratic regimes in some Member States, based on the gradual annihilation of all checks and balances;

Amendment 202 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Regrets the fact that the 2020 report fails to encompass fully the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, ~~which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law~~especially the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and of non- discrimination, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; calls on the Commission to assess the persistent violations of democracy and fundamental rights everywhere in the Union, including attacks against migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, women’s rights, LGBTIQ people’s rights, freedom of association and freedom of assembly;

Amendment 203 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Regrets the fact that the 2020 report fails to encompass fully the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities and non- discrimination, including gender equality, sexual and reproductive rights and LGBTIQ rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law;

Amendment 204 #

16. ~~Regret~~Notes the fact that the 2020 report ~~fails to~~does not encompass fully the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, ~~which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on~~because they are not the rule of law;

Amendment 205 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the Commission to include country chapters of all candidate and potential candidate countries to EU enlargement with an in-depth analysis on their justice systems, anti-corruption frameworks, on media freedom and pluralism, as well as on institutional checks and balances;

Amendment 206 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
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; s~~Stresses 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 207 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Lukas MANDL, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. EReiterates the intrinsic link that exists between the rule of law and fundamental rights and the need to increase awareness of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and the Charter; encourages the Commission to consider including within the scope of future reports the application of all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights; stresses 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; insists therefore, on the link between upholding the rule of law and the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, the right to a fair trial and the right to be advised, defended and represented, as well as the obligation to provide independent legal aid;

Amendment 208 #

Loránt VINCZE, François ALFONSI, Andrea BOCSKOR, Herbert DORFMANN, Łukasz KOHUT, Waldemar TOMASZEWSKI, Jana TOOM, István UJHELYI, Iuliu WINKLER, Tatjana ŽDANOKA, Antoni COMÍN I OLIVERES, Clara PONSATÍ OBIOLS, Carles PUIGDEMONT I CASAMAJÓ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Encourages the Commission to consider ~~including~~ within the scope of ~~futur~~the reports the application of all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights;, stresses that any action undertaken by a Member State when acting within the scope of EU law must respect the rights and principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; insists therefore, on the link between upholding the rule of law and the right to an effective remedy before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right to a fair trial and the right to be advised, defended and represented, as well as the obligation to provide independent legal aid;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Calls on the Commission to include in its next reports detailed analyses and recommendations on the situation of the rights of autochthonous national and linguistic minorities, including through the involvement of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; stresses that this is an area where it should establish strong links and synergies with the Council of Europe, and in particular with its Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

Amendment 21 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 45

— having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2021 on the application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092, the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism18 , _________________ 18 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0103.deleted

Amendment 210 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Strongly denounces that European and international legislation are not fully respected in some EU Member States, for example in the field of anti-discrimination or in the field of asylum, such as the non- implementation by a Member State subject to an Article 7 TEU of several CJEU and ECtHR rulings in relation to access to the asylum procedure, including the automatic and unlawful detention and the deprivation of food, thus violating the rights of migrants and asylum seekers to apply for international protection;

Amendment 211 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Strongly denounces that European and international legislation are not fully respected in some EU Member States, for example in the field of anti-discrimination or in the field of asylum, such as the non- implementation by Hungary of several CJEU and ECtHR rulings in relation to access to the asylum procedure, thus violating the rights of migrants and asylum seekers to apply for international protection;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17 b. Underlines with concern that people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, especially in times of rising anti-semitism and islamophobia in Europe, Roma and other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, migrants, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly persons, as well as women continue not seeing their rights fully respected across the Union; emphasizes the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and human rights and minority rights violations in those Member States;

Amendment 213 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 215 #

Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Vasile BLAGA, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates its calls and insist~~ence~~s on the need for a single monitoring mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, a~~s proposed by Parliament, to cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values~~pplying equally, objectively and fairly to all Member States, while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as proposed by Parliament, to cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values; Underlines that the mechanism should consolidate and supersede existing instruments to avoid duplication, in particular the Commission's annual rule of law report, the Commission's Rule of Law Framework, the Commission's annual reporting on the application of the Charter, the Council's Rule of Law Dialogue and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM);

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates its insistence on the need for a single monitoring mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as proposed by Parliament, to cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values; expresses regret and concern about the Commission's reluctance to initiate infringement proceedings with regard to the violations of the Charter;

Amendment 218 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates its insistence on the need for a single monitoring mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, in line with the same evaluation criterion for all EU Member States, as proposed by Parliament, to cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values;

Amendment 219 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Reiterates its insistence on the need for a single monitoring mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as proposed by Parliament in its resolution of 7 October 2020, to cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 50 a (new)

— having regard to the report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights of 10 September 2020 on Antisemitism: Overview of antisemitic incidents recorded in the European Union;

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Restates that, in order to avoid duplication with the rule of law report, the Verification and Cooperation Mechanisms for Romania and Bulgaria must be lifted;

Amendment 221 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Calls on the Member States to present annual reports on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as part of the Union’s annual reporting mechanism;~~deleted

Amendment 222 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Calls on the Member States to present annual reports on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as part of the Union’s annual reporting mechanism;~~deleted

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the Member States to present annual reports on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including equality and rights of persons belonging to minorities, as part of the Union’s annual reporting mechanism;

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the Member States to present annual reports on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, equality and rights of persons belonging to minorities as part of the Union’s annual reporting mechanism;

Amendment 225 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Welcomes 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 mPoints out that the mechanism should consolidate and supersede existing instruments to avoid duplication, in particular the Commission’s annual rule of law report, the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, the Commission’s annual reporting on the application of the Charter, the Council’s Rule of Law Dialogue and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), while increasing complementarity and coherence with other available tools, including procedures under Article 7 TEU, infringement proceedings and budgetary condit~~oring mechanism and that its methodology, cycle and scope should therefore be aligned wi~~ionality once in force; considers that the three institutions should use the findings from the Annual Monitoring Cycle in their assessment for the purposes of triggering Article 7 TEU and of budgetary conditionality once in force; stresses that the roles and prerogatives of each of the th~~e annual reports~~ree institutions must be respected;

Amendment 226 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Welcomes 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; commits in the future to combine its annual work on the rule of law and fundamental rights reports into one document, reflecting also on democracy, and to start working on it immediately after the rule of law report by the Commission is published;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement of its strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; considers that focusing annually on a single pre-defined topic would not allow to highlight other serious violations of the Charter taking place on a given year; 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 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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 229 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Welcomes 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~~, as well as the Democracy Action Plan; believes that the presentation of these reports should be aligned and interlinked as part of a broader annual monitoring cycle on Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 23 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
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 230 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Proposes to expand the scope of the non-discrimination clause in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and to render it universal, to enable the enforcement of the rule of law in the Member States and the Union consistent with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; calls, in the meantime, on all EU institutions to give the non-discrimination clause the broadest possible legal interpretation;

Amendment 231 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Regrets that the Commission did not consult stakeholders, including Parliament, on the development of the report’s methodology and preparation process, and that it didn't seek to obtain feedback on their workability; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders, especially for civil society organisations, to prepare and plan their contributions as well as for the domestic awareness-raising activities they intend to pursue for the launch of the report;

Amendment 232 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
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 233 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
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 234 #

Motion for a resolution
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 235 #

21. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, professional associations and other stakeholders, and to continue with the practice of allowing for both public and confidential reporting, in order to protect and support human rights defenders and rule of law specialists at risk of SLAPPs, prosecution or harassment by national authorities or their proxies; 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 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, Ombudsman and equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; ~~note~~regrets 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 237 #

Motion for a resolution
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; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle;

Amendment 238 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
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~~24 Member States ~~refused to~~transparently makde public their submissions for the 2020 report; calls for full transparency in the process and for all submissions to be made public;

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21 a. Calls on the Commission to invite the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to provide methodological advice and conduct targeted comparative research to fill gaps and add detail in key areas of the rule of law report in addition to the contributions the Agency already makes in terms of, for instance, using EFRIS and data on civic space;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), values which are common to the EU Member States and which EU candidates countries must adhere to in order to join the EU; 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 respect of the rule of law binds the Union as a whole, and its Member States at all levels of governance;

Amendment 240 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 241 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that ~~civil society~~the 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 process~~and 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 243 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that civil society 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 process; urges therefore the Commission to build on the good practice of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review process, and adapt the preparation process by requiring Member State contributions to be public and setting a deadline for public consultation well after the publication of all Member State contributions so as to enable effective shadow reporting;

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that civil society 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 process~~timeframes for consultation for civil society are too short and should be more predictable; notes that organising consultations before the annual release of public statistics impoverishes contributions; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; suggests making the framework for stakeholders’ contributions less rigid;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that civil society 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, with national authorities’ submissions made publicly available and then followed by contributions from civil society, including during country visits, would bolster the efficiency and transparency of the process;

Amendment 246 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Stresses that, in order to prevent foreign interference in the Member States' democracies and sovereignty as well as meddling with the EU democratic institutions, the NGOs must make public their funding sources; underlines that, in order to respect the transparency principle and the right to know of the European citizens, all European bodies must disclose and publish a list with all the NGOs they finance;

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22 a. Stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report elements beyond the scope followed by the Commission as these can help further assess the way power is exercised in a country and whether the constitutional setup provides efficient mechanisms to limits such exercise of power;

Amendment 248 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 249 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Considers that cooperation in the annual monitoring cycle with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, includ~~Stresses that the annual monitoring cycle should be an EU-only exercise and all sources that are not EU sources should be rejected ing th~~rough a more structured partnership, is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU~~e 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 25 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER, Dietmar KÖSTER

Motion for a resolution
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 respect of the rule of law binds the Union as a whole, its Member States and their subnational entities;

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers that cooperation in the annual monitoring cycle with the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly, including through a more structured partnership, is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU; recalls that accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a legal obligation provided for under Article 6(2) TEU; reiterates the need for a swift conclusion of the accession process in order to ensure a consistent framework for human rights protection throughout Europe and to further strengthen the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms within the Union;

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 252 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23 a. Calls on the Commission to regularize the schedule pertaining to the annual report's production, including the deadline for stakeholders' submissions, to make the process predictable for all institutions and stakeholders; calls on the Commission to ensure sufficient time for the preparation of stakeholders' submissions;

Amendment 253 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23 a. Stresses the need to involve a panel of independent experts in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Venice Commission in investigating and identifying potential breaches by a Member State;

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8

~~Institutional aspects of the EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights~~deleted

Amendment 255 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

~~24. Calls on the Commission and the Council to respond positively to Parliament’s call in its resolution of 7 October 2020 for an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;~~deleted

Amendment 256 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 257 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls on the Commission and the Council to respond positively to Parliament’s call in its resolution of 7 October 2020 for an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reiterates that such mechanism is necessary to reinforce the promotion and respect for Union values; recalls that this annual Cycle should be comprehensive, objective, impartial, evidence-based and applied equally and fairly to all Member States; recalls that findings of relevant international bodies, such as the ones under the auspices of the UN, OSCE and the Council of Europe, are of crucial importance for the assessment of the situation in Member States; believes that the European Union Fundamental Rights Information System EFRIS is a source of information in this regard;

Amendment 258 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Calls on~~Regrets that the Commission and the Council ~~to respond positively to~~have so far refused to engage with Parliament’'s call in its resolution of 7 October 2020 ~~for~~to establish, through an interinstitutional agreement, an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;

Amendment 259 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)

Country-specific recommendations

Amendment 26 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome 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 law; whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepeninghas been turned into a political tool and serves as a threat targeting Member States that may refuse to fall into line with the Commission's societal projects;

Amendment 260 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Tineke STRIK, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to provide for a true assessment of the situation of each of the Article 2 TEU values in the Member States and to adopt clear country-specific recommendations, with timelines and targets and concrete actions to be taken, in order to assist Member States in addressing the weaknesses identified in the report, and to be followed up in subsequent annual or urgent reports;

Amendment 261 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24 b. Recommends that the Commission aligns recommendations with potentially applicable tools to remedy the identified shortcomings; calls on the Commission to better follow-up on the implementation of the country-specific chapters by the Member States concerned by activating other rule of law tools to achieve results in case of non-implementation of the recommendations; underlines the importance of identifying clear positive and negative trends in each Members State and the need to give special attention to comparisons with the reports of the respective previous year;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Recommends that the Commission aligns each recommendation with potentially applicable tools to remedy the identified shortcomings; calls on the Commission to better follow-up on the implementation of the country-specific chapters by the Member States concerned by activating other rule of law tools to achieve results in case of non- implementation of the recommendations; considers that the Commission should increase referrals of infringement actions to the Court of Justice; underlines the importance of identifying clear positive and negative trends in each Member State and the need to give special attention to comparisons with the reports of the respective previous year;

Amendment 263 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 b (new)

Interinstitutional agreement

Amendment 264 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24 a. Considers the existing institutional arrangement behind the annual report to fall short of the Parliament's expectations; expects the Commission to create a permanent interinstitutional Working Group as proposed by the Parliament in its resolution of 7 October 2020;

Amendment 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)

24 c. Calls on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement in accordance with Article 295 TFEU in order to establish an objective and evidence-based monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding the three institutions to a transparent and regularised process, with clearly defined responsibilities, involving a panel of independent experts that shall advise the three institutions, in strong cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, so that the protection and promotion of all Union values becomes a permanent and visible part of the Union agenda;

Amendment 266 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24 b. Invites the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement in accordance with Article 295 TFEU; considers the proposal set out in the Annex to Parliament's resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights to constitute an appropriate basis for such negotiations;

Amendment 267 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24 b. Calls on the Commission and the Council to enter without delay into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement in accordance with Article 295 TFEU in order to establish an objective and evidence-based monitoring mechanism enshrined in a legal act binding the three institutions to a transparent and regularised process, with clearly defined responsibilities, involving a panel of independent experts that shall advise the three institutions, in strong cooperation with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, so that the protection and promotion of all Union values becomes a permanent and visible part of the Union agenda; commits in the meantime to launch a pilot project assessing the compliance with Union values with the involvement of independent experts;

Amendment 268 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful 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 bothHighlights the fact that henceforth the Council is alone in being able to act in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures;

Amendment 269 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make m~~Recognises 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 27 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a ~~welcome~~n 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 law~~the Union; whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepening;

Amendment 270 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Pietro BARTOLO, Petar VITANOV, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

Amendment 271 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. SReiterates that the DRF mechanism must complement and reinforce, and by no means substitute, the ongoing and future proceedings under Article 7 TEU; strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful 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; urges the Council to proceed without delay to vote under Article 7(1) TEU; calls on the Council to ensure that hearings under Article 7(1) TEU start again as a matter of urgency and also address new developments; reiterates its recommendation to the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, as enshrined in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; 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 procedures;

Amendment 272 #

Tineke STRIK, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. SReiterates that the DRF mechanism must complement and reinforce, and by no means substitute, the ongoing and future proceedings under Article 7 TEU; strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful 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 in fact enabling continued di~~vergence from~~sregard of the values provided for in Article 2 ~~of the TEU; calls for a reflection at the Conference~~TEU with increasing open non- compliance with judgments of the CJEU and the harassment onf th~~e Future of Europe on a revision of the~~ose seeking to uphold the rule of law in some EU Member States; calls on the Council to ensure that hearings under Article 7(1) TEU ~~procedure in order to realign the majority requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 with a view to having super-major~~are regularly organised and also address new developments; reiterates its recommendation to the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, as provided for in Article 7(1) of the TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; invities ~~of four or five for both procedures~~to reflect upon a revision of the Article 7 TEU procedure by the Conference on the Future of Europe in order to realign the majority requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2;

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful 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; regrets the Council’s failure to organise hearings under the pretext of the COVID-19 whereas there is no legal obligation whatsoever to require hearings in personas opposed to hearings via videoconferencing; requests the public release of any eventual legal opinion of the Council Legal Service arguing otherwise; 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 procedures;

Amendment 274 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful 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~~TEU is enabling continued divergence from the values provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; condemns the Council's reluctance to organize Article 7 TEU hearings under the pretext of the COVID-19 pandemic; calls for a reflection ats part of the Conference on the Future of Europe on a revision of the ~~Article 7 TEU procedure in order to realign the~~voting majorityies require~~ments of paragraphs 1 and 2 with a view to having super-majorities of four or five for both procedures~~d by Article 7 TEU in order to render its procedure more effective;

Amendment 275 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

Amendment 276 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. ~~Reiterat~~Stresses 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 277 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Reiterates that the annual report should 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; considers that the Conference on the Future of Europe should further assert the precedence of the EU legal order; invites the Conference on the Future of Europe to consider strengthening the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in protecting the Union’s founding values;

Amendment 278 #

Tineke STRIK, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Reiterates that the annual report should 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; recalls that infringement actions can be simultaneously launched in respect of issues identified in Article 7(1) TEU reasoned proposals as already established by the CJEU;

Amendment 279 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Reiterates that the annual report should 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; considers that the Conference on the future of Europe could further clarify in Treaty provisions the well-established legal principle on the primacy of EU law;

Amendment 28 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available to preserve the ~~Union’s values~~values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, by addressing the situation in all EU Member States based on four pillars, with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law; ~~whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepening;~~

Amendment 280 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Reiterates that the annual report should 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; stresses that the report should be in any case accompanied by actionable recommendations, including deadlines for implementation;

Amendment 281 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Welcomes that the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe identifies ‘European rights and values including the Rule of Law’ as one of the topics of discussion in the Conference;invites the Conference to reflect on the effectiveness of the EU’s existing tools to monitor, prevent and tackle violations of Article 2 TEU principles and to present concrete proposals to strengthen the EU’s toolbox;

Amendment 282 #

Lukas MANDL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Welcomes that the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe identifies ‘European rights and values including the Rule of Law’ as one of the topics of discussion in the Conference; invites the Conference to reflect on the effectiveness of the EU’s existing tools to monitor, prevent and tackle violations of Article 2 TEU principles and to present concrete actions to strengthen the EU’s toolbox;

Amendment 283 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

Amendment 284 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. ~~Calls for the Commission to use~~Stresses 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 of~~r 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 285 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. CStresses that the applicability, purpose and scope of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation is clearly defined in the legal text of the said Regulation; considers that the European Council conclusions on the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality contravene Article 17 and Article 15 TEU and Article 288 TFEU, and introduce unnecessary legal uncertainty considering some recent developments by Member States subject to Article 7 TEU; calls for action in this regard; recalls that said Regulation applies from 1 January 2021; calls for the Commission to use 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, as well as in any other relevant assessment for the purposes of existing and future budgetary tools; reiterates its call on the Commission to dedicate a specific section of the annual report to an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of 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 way; calls on the Commission to more vigorously apply the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to tackle discriminatory use of European funds, as it did when withholding funds for municipal or local governments proclaiming themselves to be ‘‘free from LGBTI ideology’’;

Amendment 286 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Lena DÜPONT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Calls for the Commission to use 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 breaches of the principles of~~underlines that the annual rule of law report is an independent and separate tool from the Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, which both serve different purposes: while the annual rule of law reporting has a preventive and informative character aimed at providing a broader overview of the situation and possible breaches regarding the rule of law in a ~~particular~~ll Member State ~~could affect or seriously r~~s independent of any link to the budget of the Union, Regulation (EU, Euratom)2020/2092 is a conditionality mechaniskm a~~ffecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way~~imed at sanctioning breaches or the risk of a breach with a direct link to the budget or financial interests of the Union;

Amendment 287 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Lena DÜPONT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. ~~Calls for the Commission to use the findings of the annual report in its assessment that~~Reiterates its positions as laid down in its resolution of 17 December 2020; stresses that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation has entered into force and is binding in its entirety for all commitment appropriations and payment appropriations in all Member States and 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~~EU institutions; underlines the importance of the direct applicability of the Regulation since 1 January 2021, particularly in the context of the disbursement of the NextGenerationEU funds which will occur early in the budget cycle; recalls that the Commission ‘shall be completely independent’, and its members ‘shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government’ in accordance with Article 17(3) of the TEU and Article 245 of the TFEU; recalls further that in accordance with Article 17(8) of the TEU, the Commission ‘shall be responsible to the European Parliament’; asks the Commission to include in its annual Rule of Law Report a dedicated section with an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of 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 way;

Amendment 288 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27 a. Emphasises the importance of keeping these two distinct legal tools clearly separated to avoid any kind of unlawful interference; acknowledges that the Commission can use the annual rule of law report as an important source of information when building cases for the application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092; is however of the opinion that concrete information relevant specifically for the application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 should not merely be included as a chapter of the annual rule of law report, but should be presented as a separate report under the auspices of DG BUDG, as this report would include information drawn from a variety of different sources besides the annual rule of law report, including but not limited to reports by the ECA, OLAF and EPPO, audit reports by the Commission and national audit authorities, judgments by the CJEU and national courts, analyses by the FRA and information from different systems such as EDES and ARACHNE; calls therefore on the Commission to provide a distinct report with information about breaches or potential breaches of the principles of rule of law by a Member State which could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way; asks the Commission to align with Parliament whether this report should be presented annually, or on a continuous semi-annual or quarterly basis;

Amendment 289 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Tineke STRIK, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27 a. Calls on the Commission to develop a culture of European values, including through strengthened efforts to promote European citizens’ education, which should include rule of law education;

Amendment 29 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Commission’s first Rule of Law Report (2020 report) is ~~limit~~extended in scope, as it ~~does not cover~~covers 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 290 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27 a. Calls for a strategic use of funding opportunities under the Regulation establishing the Rights and Values Programme in order to counteract threats to the rule of law identified in the annual report and more broadly support civil society organizations promoting the values listed in Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 291 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27 a. Calls on the Commission to launch a dedicated programme that supports innovative initiatives with the aim of promoting formal and informal education with regard to the rule of law and democratic institutions among EU citizens of all ages, in particular at local and regional level;

Amendment 292 #

Lukas MANDL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27 a. Urges the Commission to invest more into awareness-raising about the Union values and applicable tools, including the annual report, at the national level, especially in those countries where there are serious concerns;

Amendment 293 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)

27 b. Calls on the Council and the Commission to provide adequate funding for European-wide, national, regional and local civil society organisations and independent journalism to foster grassroots support for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in all Member States, in particular where violations and shortcomings have been identified; believes that adequate funding under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme is extremely important, including for strategic litigation;

Amendment 294 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 10 a (new)

Calls on the Council and the Commission to provide adequate funding for an independent and European-wide, national, regional and local quality journalism that investigates in particular where violations and shortcomings have been identified;

Amendment 295 #

Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)

27 b. Calls on the Member States to learn from best practices and to address identified gaps and adopt measures to improve the situation in all four main pillars identified in the rule of law report;

Amendment 296 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Lena DÜPONT, Lukas MANDL, Roberta METSOLA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the Commission to assess in successive reports how the issues identified in the areas analysed in previous reports have evolved; calls on the Commission to follow-up on its previous observations and analyse any positive or negative developments while highlighting in particular any systemic or reoccurring patterns of rule of law breaches;

Amendment 297 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the Commission to assess in successive reports how the issues identified in the areas analysed in previous reports have evolved, been solved, risk deteriorating or have further deteriorated, to identify trends and transversal issues and to put forward clear recommendations to remedy any risks or backsliding identified;

Amendment 298 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the Commission to assess in successive reports how the issues identified in the areas analysed in previous reports have evolved, clearly outlining positive and negative trends;

Amendment 299 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the Commission to ~~assess~~inform in successive reports how the issues identified in the areas analysed in previous reports have evolved;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

— having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Social Charter, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) and the conventions, recommendations, resolutions, opinions and reports of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the Human Rights Commissioner, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, the Steering Committee on Anti- Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion, the Venice Commission, the Advisory Committee on the FCNM, the Committee of Experts of the ECRML and other bodies of the Council of Europe,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Commission’s first Rule of Law Report (2020 report) is limited in scope, as it does not cover all Union values as provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became a fully-fledged component of the Treaties when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, and is therefore now legally binding on the institutions, agencies and other bodies of the EU and on the Member States when EU legislation is applied; whereas a genuine fundamental rights culture must be developed, fostered and strengthened in the EU institutions, but also in the Member States, in particular when they apply EU law domestically and in their relations with non-EU countries;

Amendment 300 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

28a. Reiterates that the people are sovereign in a democracy and that the issue of respect for the rule of law shall not be used to restrict the exercise of power nor to influence the policy stance of democratically elected governments of the Member States when the rule of law is not being seriously and systematically breached, which the Council alone is able to determine through the procedure laid down in Article 7 TEU;

Amendment 301 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28 a. Stresses the importance of promoting the findings of the annual report at the national level; encourages the Commission to foster debate around the report in national parliaments and engage with civil society organizations in the follow-up to the report;

Amendment 302 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Calls on the Commission to assess objectively, on the basis of common criteria accepted by all Member States, the degree of respect for the rule of law and the consolidation thereof;

Amendment 303 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

Amendment 304 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

Amendment 305 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Calls on the Commission to make clear in its annual Rrule of Llaw Rreports that not all rule of law shortcomings and violations are of the same nature and/or intensity and that when the values listed in Article 2 ~~of the~~ TEU are being violated deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically over a period of time, Member States cease being democracies and become instead elected autocracies; calls, therefore, on the Commission to separately assess countries under ongoing Article 7 TEU proceedings in-depth, in order to illustrate how the rule of law has been structurally undermined to facilitate the consolidation authoritarian-style governance structures;

Amendment 306 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Calls on the Commission to make clear in its annual Rule of Law Reports that not all rule of law shortcomings and violations are of the same nature and/or intensity and that when the values listed in Article 2 of the TEU are violated gravely, permanently and systematically, Member States cease being democracies; and become authoritarian regimes; calls, therefore, on the Commission to assess countries under ongoing Article 7 TEU proceedings in-depth, in order to illustrate how the rule of law has been structurally undermined to facilitate the consolidation authoritarian-style governance structures;

Amendment 307 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Calls on the Commission to make clear in its annual Rule of Law Reports that not all rule of law shortcomings and violations are of the same nature and/or intensity and that when the values listed in Article 2 of the TEU are violated gravely, permanently and systematically, Member States cease being democracies; stresses that the Commission's main priority should be to enforce EU law when breaches of Article 2 of the TEU occur and that its annual Rule of Law Reports should mainly contribute to that end;

Amendment 308 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Calls on the Commission to make clear in its annual Rule of Law Reports that not all rule of law shortcomings and violations are of the same nature and/or intensity ~~and that when the values listed in Article 2 of the TEU are violated gravely, permanently and systematically, Member States cease being democracies~~;

Amendment 309 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas respect for the rights of minorities is a part of the political criteria an accession-candidate country must fulfil at the time of accession; whereas while the Union has an important role in ensuring respect for the rights of national and linguistic minorities in candidate- countries, it so far hasn't yet adopted any benchmarks for its Member States in this area, thus making possible that Member States backtrack on their commitments; whereas the 2020 report, too, misses to cover the rights of national and linguistic minorities;

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29 a. Underlines that this report should serve as a basis for the prioritisation of follow-up actions by the EU regarding those Member States where shortcoming or deficiencies are witnessed, firmly placing the contribution of the report within the overarching democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights mechanism;

Amendment 311 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)

29 b. Commits to start working on the 2021 report as early as possible after its publication;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas the European Parliament has already called on the European Commission to adopt a common framework of Union minimum standards for the protection of rights of persons belonging to minorities, which are strongly embedded in a legal framework guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights throughout the Union1a; _________________ 1aEuropean Parliament Resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU (OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13)

Amendment 33 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 34 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
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 effects~~because 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 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas while the 2020 report raises concerns and awareness, it does not provide a sufficient assessment of the effectiveness of the ~~reform~~changes carried out by each country, nor any concrete country- specific recommendations or an examination of a country’s adherence to the rule of law over time, which could jeopardise its intended preventive effects;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

D a. Whereas there have been complaints from NGOs and professional associations of magistrates about the objectivity of the 2020 Rule of Law Report and the sources of information chosen by the Commission for the report;

Amendment 38 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

D b. Whereas there is no definition agreed yet of the rule of law and a single system to assess compliance with the rule of law at the level of the Union equally applied to all the Member States;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas without effective follow- up under an annual monitoring cycle, the 2020 report may fail to address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;deleted

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

— having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union of 23 May 2007 and Council Conclusions on EU priorities for cooperation with the Council of Europe 2020-2022,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas without effective and informed follow- up with the same assessment criteria for all EU Member States under an annual monitoring cycle, the 2020 report may fail to address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas without effective follow- up under an annual monitoring cycle, the 2020 report may fail to detect or address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas ~~without effective follow- up under an annual monitoring cycle, the 2020 report may fail to~~the report is an integral part of an annual monitoring cycle which has to be followed up in order to prevent and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;

Amendment 43 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

E a. Whereas the Commission has negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies contracts regarding the manufacturing of the anti-Covid-19 vaccines, which are not public in their entirety;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

Amendment 45 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Tineke STRIK, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas backsliding on the rule of law and fundamental rights in some countries is seriously affecting mutual trust in the functioning of the area of freedom, security and justice and threatening the Union objectives as enshrined in Article 3 of the TEU, as illustrated by several cases where the European Arrest Warrant was put under a strain due to profound doubts about the independence of the judiciary;

Amendment 46 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Fabienne KELLER, Hilde VAUTMANS, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Anna Júlia DONÁTH

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas ombudsperson institutions in the Member States play a critical role in safeguarding key principles of the Rule of Law, such as transparency, accountability and due process; whereas the COVID-19 crisis has brought about restrictions of fundamental rights that make it more important than ever to have effective checks and balances in place over the actions of the government and in defence of citizens' rights;

Amendment 47 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Paulo RANGEL, Lukas MANDL, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. Whereas the Covid-19 pandemic was used as an excuse by Member States to implement many non-transparent, non- democratic and even abusive measures at the expense of citizens' fundamental and democratic rights like the right to free movement, access to justice, access to public information, privacy etc.;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas according to the 2021 World Press Freedom Index the worrisome developments aimed at stifling free speech and press freedom set a bad example within the EU and EU accession candidates;

Amendment 49 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Tineke STRIK, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas emergency measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have put more pressure on fundamental rights and democratic checks and balances;

Amendment 5 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Paulo RANGEL, Lukas MANDL

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

— having regard to UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

F b. whereas several Member States’ positions in international press freedom rankings have declined; whereas according to the 2021 World Press Freedom Index Europe continues to be the most favourable continent for press freedom but violence against journalists has increased, and the mechanisms the European Union established to protect fundamental freedoms do not have sufficient effect in some cases;

Amendment 51 #

Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F e (new)

F e. whereas several Member States‘ positions in international press freedom rankings have declined; whereas according to the 2021 World Press Freedom Index Europe continues to be the most favourable continent for press freedom but violence against journalists has increased, and the mechanisms the European Union established to protect fundamental freedoms do not have sufficient effect in some cases;

Amendment 52 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Paulo RANGEL, Lukas MANDL, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)

F c. whereas the threats to media freedom include harassment and attacks aimed at journalists, disregard of journalists' legal protection as well as media capture or politically motivated actions in the media sector;

Amendment 53 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Paulo RANGEL, Lukas MANDL, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F d (new)

F d. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and develop an effective mechanism to ensure that the principles and values enshrined in the Treaties are upheld throughout the Union;

Amendment 54 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’'s first annual Rule of Law Report awhich forms 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~~political instrumentalisation of the concept of the rule of law, the intention of which is to standardise lifestyles within the EU by means of the law;

Amendment 55 #

1. Welcomes the Commission’s first annual Rule of Law Report ~~as part of the wider~~; considers it vital to establish European rule of law monitoring and enforcement architecture~~, as it adds an important, potentially preventive tool to the Union’s rule of law toolbox~~ in the EU; reiterates the importance of identifying in advance and preventing violations of fundamental rights and the rule of law instead of reacting ex post when such violations are repeated;

Amendment 56 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes 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~~; considers however that the 2020 report is overly descriptive and does not provide sufficient analysis;

Amendment 57 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes 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~~; encourages further development of this new tool for agenda-setting and preventive purposes;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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 a~~n important,~~ potentially preventive tool to the Union’s rule of law toolbox;

Amendment 59 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that Article 6 TEU requires the EU to accede to the ECHR; calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the aforementioned obligation is met as quickly as possible, on the basis of full transparency and with the aim of enhancing the protection of individuals and making the European institutions more accountable for their actions or failings regarding fundamental rights;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21

— having regard to the Commission’s reasoned proposal for a Council decision of 20 December 2017 on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law, issued in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2017)0835),deleted

Amendment 60 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Lukas MANDL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls to the Commission's attention that when drafting the Rule of Law Report the sovereignty and constitutional order of each and every Member States have to be respected;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that roles and prerogatives of respective institutions within the available procedures must be respected;

Amendment 62 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Stresses 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; encourages the Commission to also highlight positive trends in Member States that could serve as good examples for others to followexclusively a competence of the Member States; encourages the Commission not to interfere in any way in the justice or institutional systems of the Member States;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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; ~~encourages~~notes that the Commission ~~to also highlight positive trends in Member State~~has 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 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes 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; calls moreover for the inclusion in the annual reports of certain important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist, such as legal safeguards to prevent arbitrariness and abuse of power by public authorities, independence and impartiality of the Bar and equality before the law and non-discrimination; encourages the Commission to also highlight positive trends in Member States that could serve as good examples for others to follow;

Amendment 65 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 66 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Lena DÜPONT, Roberta METSOLA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the fact that the functioning of the 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; encourages the Commission to also highlight positive trends in Member States that could serve as good examples for others to follow;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Welcomes that all Member States are being scrutinised along the same indicators and in accordance with the same methodology; appreciates that the Commission includes observations and findings about all Member States; regrets, however, that the current presentation of the report neither differentiates between the severity of the identified rule of law issues nor whether these are of systemic nature or individual, disconnected breaches; is of the opinion that there is a serious difference between systemic and individual, disconnected breaches of the rule of law; emphasises that this equal presentation of breaches of different nature carries the risk of trivialising the most serious rule of law breaches; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic and individual, disconnected breaches of rule of law; calls on the Commission to update its methodology accordingly and keep Parliament informed without undue delay;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national Governments and national Parliaments as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote more efforts to deepen the country analyses with a view to better assess the severity of rule of law challenges; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site, in order to achieve broader engagement and dialogue with national authorities and civil society; considers that the Commission should raise greater awareness of such country visits to foster the emergence of a rule of law culture at national level;

Amendment 69 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Considers that the 2020 report is overly descriptive and does not provide sufficient analysis; and the Commission do not draw any conclusions on the state of the Rule of Law in the Member States and in the Union in general; believes the 2020 report fails to provide clear assessments stating whether there are serious deficiencies or a risk of a serious breach of the Union values in each of the pillars under analysis in the country chapters; considers these assessments necessary to identify follow up actions and remedial tools; considers it necessary that the report contains country specific recommendations on how to address the identified concerns and benchmarks to be followed up;

Amendment 7 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Citation 26

— having regard to the report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights ~~of 17 January 2018~~ entitled ‘Challenges facing civil society organisations working on human rights in the EU’, ~~and to its other reports and data,~~ published on 17 January 2018, the bulletins on the fundamental rights implications of the Coronavirus pandemic in the EU, published in 2020, and to the Agency’s other reports, data and tools, in particular the European Union Fundamental Rights Information System (EFRIS),

Amendment 70 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Stresses that the analysis and the conclusions of the reports should be directly contributing to the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism; calls on the Commission to clarify in the methodology the link between the two mechanisms;

Amendment 71 #

Nicolas BAY, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Tom VANDENDRIESSCHE, Harald VILIMSKY, Nicolaus FEST, Laura HUHTASAARI, Mara BIZZOTTO

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 toolsConsiders that the Article 7(1) TEU procedure is the only one that may lawfully be used to manage allegations of breach of the rule of law;

Amendment 72 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 73 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 sufficient 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~~formulate conclusions about the state of the rule of law and to identify follow-up actions and remedial measures and tools; calls on the Commission to include in the reports indication of such follow-up and remedial action, whose progress should be then illustrated in the following report;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the potential preventive benefits of the annual Rule of Law Report; considers that a more thorough ~~evaluation~~and objective evaluation, taking account of input from each Member State, 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 and transparent 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 for each of the Member States; the CVM should accordingly be eliminated to avoid duplicating Member State evaluation systems;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
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 in each of the pillars under analysis in the country chapters; considers these assessments necessary to identify follow-up actions and remedial measures and tools; calls for a synthetic approach in the horizontal report in order to clearly identify where the most important risks and problems lie across Member States;

Amendment 76 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
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; believes that the report should include country specific recommendations; calls on the Commission to draw conclusions from its own findings, design follow up actions and use all tools available to address the identified breaches, including the rule-of- law conditionality mechanism;

Amendment 77 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~und~~where the ~~Article 7(1) TEU procedure~~rule of law is in crisis; 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

~~4. Calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars included in the report and of how combined deficiencies may amount to systemic breaches of the rule of law;~~deleted

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Calls~~Is concerned by the spill-over effects of the erosion of media freedom into the other areas of analysis; considers smear campaigns against judges, legal professionals and civil society organisations and, in particular, strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) actions, as a limiting factor to their independence and capacity of action; calls, therefore, for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars included in the report and of how combined deficiencies may amount to systemic breaches of the rule of law;

Amendment 8 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 29

— having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights2 , _________________ 2deleted OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 162.

Amendment 80 #

Lukas MANDL, Paulo RANGEL, Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. CIs concerned by the spill-over effects of the erosion of media freedom into the other areas of analysis and the chilling effect of smear campaigns against academics, journalists, judges, legal professionals and civil society organisations and in particular strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) actions; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars included in the report and of how combined deficiencies may amount to systemic breaches of the rule of law;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars included in the report and of how combined deficiencies may amount to systemic breaches of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to propose EU Anti- SLAPP legislation to protect journalists from vexatious lawsuits;

Amendment 82 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for a ~~more~~n integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars included in the report and of how combined deficiencies may amount to systemic breaches of the rule of law; given that no democracy can function without independent courts, the independence of the judiciary in the Member States must be monitored;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars included in the report and of how combined deficiencies may amount to systemic breaches of the rule of law; and signal if those are affecting or risk affecting the financial interest of the Union;

Amendment 84 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 85 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Lena DÜPONT, Lukas MANDL, Roberta METSOLA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that the first rule of law report is mostly descriptive of the situation in the Member States; calls on the Commission to make the report more analytical in the future and also include specific assessments and recommendations to the Member States on how to improve or remedy the breaches; underlines that these recommendations should include deadlines for implementation, where appropriate, and asks the Commission to include a follow-up on the implementation of its recommendations in its future reports;

Amendment 86 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
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 87 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Tineke STRIK, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Dietmar KÖSTER, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the annual reports should 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, media freedom, check and balances or the fight against corruption in one Member State are becoming blueprints for others or when the gravity and scope of such practices have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; calls for the prioritisation of these Union-wide trends, including the increasing challenges by national Constitutional Courts to the EU legal architecture, in the analysis, to be able to direct remedial action at Union level;

Amendment 88 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Moritz KÖRNER, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the annual reports should 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; calls on the Commission to clearly illustrate systematic disinformation and foreign interference campaigns with the aim of undermining public trust in state institutions and independent media, while pushing Member States towards authoritarian-style governance structures;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the annual reports should 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; calls on the Commission to assess how such attacks compromise the quality of democracy in the Union and whether it is appropriate to reflect on the inclusion of offences against the rule of law and constitutional integrity in the Union's list of serious crimes;

Amendment 9 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 32

— having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2018 on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded5 , _________________ 5 OJ C 433, 23.12.2019, p. 66.deleted

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Considers that the annual reports should 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 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the annual reports should 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 measures or 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)

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 93 #

Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Moritz KÖRNER, Malik AZMANI, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Olivier CHASTEL, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Fabienne KELLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Regrets that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail by the annual report; invites the Commission to develop its country-specific expertise and capacity to react more promptly to negative developments in the Member States; calls on the Commission to devote sufficient resources to the monitoring and enforcement of the rule of law in the EU;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes that the rule of law report does not have the name of the authors who wrote the report; calls on the Commission to be fully transparent about the report and disclaim in the report the name of the authors who wrote it;

Amendment 95 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Moritz KÖRNER, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal ŠIMEČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Regrets that its findings on the rule of law situation in several Member States, such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Malta and Slovenia are not fully reflected in the Commission’s country reports;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Stresses that the laws, the democratic institutions, their independence, the checks and balances, the rule of law in a Member State have to be functional not only de jure but also de facto;

Amendment 97 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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 that~~organization and functioning of state bodies, in particular the judiciary is one of the are~~ports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chapters~~as in which the Member States have not transferred competences to the European Union and despite this, the Commission evaluates them;

Amendment 98 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 99 #

Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Lukas MANDL, Konstantinos ARVANITIS, Katarina BARLEY, Elena YONCHEVA, Łukasz KOHUT, Dietmar KÖSTER, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Petar VITANOV, Pietro BARTOLO, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the monitoring of the independence, quality and efficiency of the Member States’ justice systems and hence their capacity to provide for effective judicial protection to ensure compliance with Union law; considers that the enabling environment to ensure access to justice for all should also be monitored, including access to justice at Union level; considers that the reports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include information on relevant antecedents in the country chapters to enable a dynamic and integral assessment of the independence of judicial systems, including the independence of lawyers and Bars;

source: 691.450

2021/04/29 CONT 62 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Reiterates its warning that the Union is facing an unprecedented and escalating crisis of its founding values, which threatens its long-term survival as a democratic peace project; is gravely concerned by the rise and entrenchment of autocratic and illiberal tendencies, further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and economic recession, as well as corruption, disinformation and state capture, in several Member States; underlines the dangers of this trend for the cohesion of the Union’s legal order, the protection of the fundamental rights of all its citizens, the functioning of its single market, the effectiveness of its common policies and its international credibility;

Amendment 10 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Underlines the importance of the protection of the financial interests of the Union and the respect for the rule of law; expresses its concern over the potentially growing risk of misusing the Union’s budget as means to deteriorate the rule of law by some Member States;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reminds that it is essential that the legitimate interests of final recipients and beneficiaries are properly safeguarded when measures are adopted in the event of breaches of the principles of the rule of law;

Amendment 12 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Commission’s first Rule of Law Report as a basis on which to build the new cycle of the rule of law mechanism; welcomes the inclusion among its pillars of the justice system, the anti-corruption framework and other institutional checks and balances, as these are particularly relevant for monitoring the protection of the EU budget; Is of the opinion that the annual report is lacking conclusions on the state of the Rule of Law in the Member States and in the EU in general; considers that these are essential preconditions to identify follow-up actions; encourages the Commission to propose remedial measures and tools and allocate adequate timelines to them;

Amendment 14 #

Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Ramona STRUGARIU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Commission’s first Rule of Law Report as a basis on which to build the new cycle of the rule of law mechanism; welcomes the inclusion among its pillars of the justice system, the anti-corruption framework and other institutional checks and balances, as these are particularly relevant for monitoring the protection of the EU budget; calls on the Commission to assess any possible overlaps between the Rule of Law Mechanism and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Bulgaria and Romania and ensure a streamlined evaluation process;

Amendment 15 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Commission’s ~~first~~ Rule of Law Report as ~~a basis on which to build the new cycle of the rule of law mechanism~~the reflection of the European Rule of Law Mechanism, which is designed as a yearly cycle of dialogue and assessment in order to promote this principle and to prevent problems from emerging or deepening in the Member States; welcomes the inclusion among its pillars of the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, and other institutional checks and balances, as these are particularly relevant for monitoring the protection of the EU budget;

Amendment 16 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Michal WIEZIK, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Welcomes that all Member States are being scrutinised along the same indicators and in accordance with the same methodology; appreciates that the Commission includes observations and findings about all Member States; regrets, however, that the current presentation of the report neither differentiates between the severity of the identified rule of law issues nor whether these are of systemic nature or individual, disconnected breaches; is of the opinion that there is a serious difference between systemic and individual, disconnected breaches of the rule of law; emphasises that this equal presentation of breaches of different nature carries the risk of trivialising the most serious rule of law breaches; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic and individual, disconnected breaches of rule of law; calls on the Commission to update its methodology accordingly and keep Parliament informed without undue delay;

Amendment 17 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Welcomes that the report assesses the state of the rule of law in every Member State; notes, however, that it fails to make a clear distinction between Member States with isolated shortcomings and those with systemic rule of law deficiencies; calls on the Commission to make this distinction in future reports to prevent the report from being misused as a tool to relativize processes seriously undermining the state of the rule of law in some Member States;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that the analysis and the conclusions of the annual reports should be directly contributing to the Conditionality Mechanism; calls on the Commission to clarify in the methodology the clear link between the two mechanisms;

Amendment 19 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Michal WIEZIK, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

2b. Is of the opinion that the following Rule of Law Reports should build upon the findings of the first; calls on the Commission to follow-up on its previous observations and analyse any positive or negative developments while highlighting in particular any systemic or reoccurring patterns of rule of law breaches;

Amendment 2 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Underlines that the Union's financial interests shall be protected in accordance with the general principles embedded in the Union Treaties, in particular the values in the Article 2 TEU, and with the principle of sound financial management enshrined in the Article 317 of the TFEU;

Amendment 20 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Is of the opinion that the Commission should be making publicly available all its correspondence regarding the annual Rule of Law report with all stakeholders, including the Member States and NGOs in order to prove its impartiality;

Amendment 21 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Michal WIEZIK, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Asks the Commission to provide information in its~~Notes that the first Rule of Law Report is mostly descriptive of the situation in the Member States; calls on the Commission to make the report more analytical in the future and also include specific assessments and recommendations to the Member States on how to improve or remedy the breaches; underlines that these recommendations should include deadlines for implementation, where appropriate, and asks the Commission to include a follow-up on the implementation of its recommendations in its future reports; asks the Commission to provide information in separate future reports about the way Member States respect the rule of law and effectively protect the Union’s financial interests, for both EU budget revenue and expenditure, and to highlight serious risks to the Union budget; ~~insists that the reports should provide specific assessments and recommendations to the Member States;~~

Amendment 22 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Asks the Commission to provide information in its future reports about the way Member States respect the rule of law and effectively protect the Union’s financial interests, for both EU budget revenue and expenditure, and to highlight ~~serious risks to the Union budget~~which specific rule of law shortcomings pose a serious risks to the sound financial management of the Union budget, which can then serve as a basis for triggering the rule of law conditionality mechanism; insists that the reports should go beyond monitoring and provide specific assessments and ~~recommendations to the Member States;~~ country-specific recommendations for preventive and corrective elements to the Member States and mention potentially applicable tools for the Commission to use in case of non- compliance with the recommendations;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Asks the Commission to provide information in its future reports about the way Member States respect the rRule of lLaw and effectively protect the Union’s financial interests, for both EU budget revenue and expenditure, a~~nd to highlight~~s well as to put emphasis on cases where breaches of the principles of the Rule of Law in a particular Member State could affect or seriously risk~~s to the Union budget; in~~ affecting the Union's financial interests in a sufficiently direct way; emphasistes that the reports should provide specific assessments and recommendations to the Member States in order to strengthen their preventive role;

Amendment 24 #

Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 25 #

Jean-François JALKH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Asks the Commission to provide information in its future reports about the way Member States ~~respect the rule of law and~~ effectively protect the Union’s financial interests, for both EU budget revenue and expenditure, and to highlight serious risks to the Union budget; ~~insists that the reports should provide specific assessments and recommendations to the Member States;~~

Amendment 26 #

Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 27 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that the Commission shall take into account relevant information from pertinent sources and recognised institutions as relevant, with an emphasis on the European Court of Auditors, the EU Justice Scoreboard, the European Anti-Fraud Office, and the European Public Prosecutor's Office;

Amendment 29 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Member States to proactively participate in the procedure and engage themselves into meaningful dialogue and cooperation with the Commission in order to improve the state of the Rule of Law in each Member State and overall in the EU;

Amendment 3 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Recalls that the Union remains structurally ill-equipped to tackle democratic, fundamental rights and rule of law violations and backsliding in the Member States; regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes that the Council’s failure to apply Article 7 TEU effectively is in fact enabling continued divergence from the values provided for in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern the disjointed nature of the Union’s toolkit in that field and calls for it to be streamlined and properly enforced;

Amendment 30 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that the Rule of Law Report serves as one of the most important, but not only, source for investigating potential cases of breaches of the rule of law;

Amendment 31 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

4. Calls on the Commission to assess not only the existence but also the effectiveness of the national anti- corruption strategies, and to use that knowledge to update and enhance the Union’s anti-corruption framework; underlines that anti-corruption frameworks shall cover areas such as, inter alia, ethical rules, awareness-raising measures, rules on asset disclosures, incompatibilities and conflicts of interest, public procurement, internal control mechanisms, rules on lobbying, and revolving doors; highlights likewise that national strategies shall incorporate tools to prevent, detect risk, halt and sanction cases of corruption and fraud, as well as mechanisms to recover the profit from those cases;

Amendment 32 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. CWelcomes that one of the four chapters of the report is dedicated to the anti-corruption framework in place in Member States; Notes, however, that the assessment of these frameworks remains mainly descriptive and calls on the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the national anti- corruption ~~strategies~~legislation, policies and strategies, outline best practices, identify areas particularly sensitive to corruption and comes up with country-specific recommendations for improvement and to use that knowledge to update and enhance the Union’s anti- corruption framework; in future reports, similar to how this was done in the Commission’s Anti-Corruption Report in 2014;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the national anti- corruption strategies and to use that knowledge to update and enhance the Union’s anti-corruption framework; calls on the Commission to use the information and assessments of GRECO in this process;

Amendment 34 #

Jean-François JALKH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on ~~the Commission~~Member States to assess the effectiveness of their national anti- corruption strategies and to use that knowledge to update and enhance ~~the Union’s~~Member States’ anti-corruption frameworks;

Amendment 35 #

Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Ramona STRUGARIU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. In the spirit of setting a good example, calls on the Commission to include in future reports an assessment of the EU Institutions’ performance in the areas addressed by the Report, where applicable, and in particular as regards its anti-corruption framework;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that transparency, access to public information, the protection of whistleblowers and an overall culture of integrity in public life are key factors that enable corruption to be identified and prevented; underlines the importance of harmonising definitions and methodologies to obtain comparative data across the EU; underlines that there are ongoing challenges to collect information on the persons benefiting directly or indirectly most from the CAP and cohesion funds;

Amendment 37 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that transparency, access to public information, ~~the~~ protection of whistleblowers and an overall culture of integrity in public life are ~~key factors that~~ indispensable ~~corruption to be~~to identif~~ied~~y and to prevented~~; underlines the importance of harmonising definitions and methodologies to obtain comparative data across the EU~~ corruption;

Amendment 39 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that transparency, access to public information, ~~the protection of whistleblowers~~media freedom and pluralism, investigative journalism the protection of whistleblowers, the protection of journalists against SLAPP and an overall culture of integrity in public life are key factors that enable corruption to be identified and prevented; underlines the importance of harmonising definitions and methodologies to obtain comparative data across the EU;

Amendment 4 #

Jean-François JALKH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the rule of law is an essential precondition for compliance with the principle of sound financial management and for the protection of the Union’s and Member States’ financial interests, which can only be ensured if public authorities act in accordance with the law, if cases of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest or other breaches of the law are pursued effectively by national investigative and prosecution services, if national courts are independent, and if the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are respected; condemns the fact that this has become a political weapon of the Commission to interfere with national sovereignty;

Amendment 40 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Warns that the lack of uniform, up to date and consolidated statistics across all Member States hinder the assessment and comparison of data about the investigation and prosecution of corruption offences; calls, therefore, on the Commission to support and to promote the Union-wide harmonisation of definitions of such offences, as well as a better use of the existing data sets and the methodology to develop new ones in order to obtain comparative data across the EU on the treatment of corruption cases;

Amendment 41 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the importance of supporting and strengthening cooperation between the EU institutions, the Member States ~~and, in particular, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the fight against corruption~~in the fight against corruption; is of the opinion that fighting corruption requires not only a strong mandate but a further increased budget to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); Is of the opinion that OLAF should be focusing more on those Member States in its activity, which did not join to EPPO; recalls that Member States receiving grants from the EU budget should be required to join the EPPO, or, for those Member States availing of the JHA opt-out in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to have a relevant, independent national equivalent, working in close cooperation with the EPPO;

Amendment 43 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the importance of supporting and strengthening cooperation between the EU institutions, the Member States and, in particular, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the fight against corruption; welcomes in this regard that the revised OLAF regulation promotes a better follow-up of OLAF’s recommendations by the Member States as well as an enhanced admissibility of OLAF reports in national judicial and administrative proceedings;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the importance of supporting and strengthening cooperation between the EU institutions, the Member States and, in particular, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the fight against corruption; calls on the Commission to propose the provision of adequate budget, resources and or any kind of support necessary for the aforementioned institutions and bodies;

Amendment 45 #

Alin MITUȚA, Katalin CSEH, Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the importance of supporting and strengthening cooperation between the EU institutions, the Member States and, in particular, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the fight against corruption; calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide the EPPO with all necessary support in order to ensure its successful launch of activities;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 47 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 has been in force since 1 January 2021 and is not subject to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation.~~deleted

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom)~~Believes that the situation as regards the respect of the principles of the Rule of Law in some Member States is extremely worrying and seriously risks affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget; reiterates that the general regime of conditionality as defined in the Regulation 2020/2092 ~~has been~~is in force since 1 January 2021 and is not subjected to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation.; calls on the Commission for an immediate action under the aforementioned Regulation, using the existing investigation tools, without any further delay; insists in the role and competences of the Parliament, in particular the right to be duly informed by the Commission, in the procedures of the Rule of Law instruments;

Amendment 49 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 has been in force since 1 January 2021 and is not subject to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation; reiterates its call on the Commission to fulfil its obligations under this Regulation and provide Parliament with information as mentioned above by 1 June 2021, otherwise Parliament will have to consider that the Commission failed to act and subsequently shall take action under Article 265 of the TFEU.

Amendment 5 #

Katalin CSEH, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the rule of law is an essential precondition for compliance with the principle of sound financial management and for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, which can only be ensured if public authorities act in accordance with the law, if cases of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest or other breaches of the law are pursued effectively by investigative and prosecution services, if national courts are independent, and if the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are respected; Stresses however, that the above institutions in the Member States have to be functional not only legally but also in practice;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 has been in force since 1 January 2021 and is not subject to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation.; regrets that the Commission has not yet made use of this tool despite many breaches of the rule of law identified in the Report which have an impact on the sound financial management of the budget; calls on the Commission to make use of the mechanism immediately to address these deficiencies;

Amendment 51 #

Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 has been in force since 1 January 2021 and is not subject to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation; urges the Commission to strengthen the link between the Regulation and the Rule of Law Reports, since the latter could serve as an additional source of information to identify and act on breaches of the Regulation.

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 has been in force since 1 January 2021 and is not subject to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation, but it cannot be a weapon of political blackmail.

Amendment 53 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Michal WIEZIK, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

7. Reiterates that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 has been in force and applicable since 1 January 2021 and is not subject to the adoption of any guidelines or judicial interpretation.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Underlines that the annual Rule of Law report is an independent and separate tool from the Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, which both serve different purposes: while the annual Rule of Law reporting has a preventive and informative character aimed at providing a broader overview of the situation and possible breaches regarding the rule of law in all Member States independent of any link to the budget of the Union, Regulation (EU, Euratom)2020/2092 is a conditionality mechanism aimed at sanctioning breaches or the risk of a breach with a sufficiently direct link to the budget or financial interests of the Union;

Amendment 55 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Michal WIEZIK, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Emphasises the importance of keeping these two distinct legal tools clearly separated to avoid any kind of unlawful interference; acknowledges that the Commission can use the annual Rule of Law report as an important source of information when building cases for the application of Regulation(EU, Euratom) 2020/2092; is however, of the opinion that concrete information relevant specifically for the application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 shall not merely be included as a chapter of the annual Rule of Law report, but shall be presented as a separate report under the auspices of the responsible Commissioner, as this report would include information drawn from a variety of different sources besides the annual Rule of Law report, including but not limited to reports by the ECA, OLAF and EPPO, audit reports by the Commission and national audit authorities, judgments by the CJEU and national Courts; analyses by the FRA, information from different systems such as EDES and ARACHNE; calls therefore on the Commission to provide a distinct report with information and analyses of actual and potential cases where breaches of the principles of rule of law in Member States could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way; asks the Commission to discuss and agree with Parliament whether this report should be presented annually, or on a continuous semi-annual or quarterly basis;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes that civil society was consulted during the drafting process; stresses that civil society actors can provide valuable input for the assessment of country-specific situations and provide a more critical view than the concerned government; notes, however, that the consultation can be improved by ensuring, among others, a follow-up with civil society actors to their input given, sufficiently long timeframes for providing input and reconsidering the format of a one-size-fits-all questionnaire for providing input; encourages the Commission to seek further input from civil society on how to optimise the consultation process for future reports;

Amendment 57 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Believes that the situation as regards the respect of the principles of the rule of law in some Member States demands urgent attention; urges the Commission to make full use of its power of investigation for each case of a potential breach of the principles of the rule of law by a Member State which could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Regrets that the draft country chapters were only shared with the respective Member State’s government, giving members of national parliaments the chance to provide input only after the final report was published; stresses the importance of consulting a comprehensive spectrum of all democratic parties in assessing a country-specific situation as governments naturally have an interest in a less critical assessment of the situation; calls on the Commission to provide national parliaments with the draft country chapter at the same time as they are provided to governments;

Amendment 59 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Emphasises the clear relationship between the respect for the rule of law and the efficient implementation of the Union budget in accordance with the principles of sound financial management as laid down in the Financial Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

Amendment 6 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Michal WIEZIK, Jeroen LENAERS, Petri SARVAMAA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the rule of law is an essential precondition for compliance with the principle of sound financial management and for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, which can only be ensured if public authorities act in accordance with the law, if cases of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest or other breaches of the law are pursued effectively by investigative and prosecution services, if national courts are independent, and if the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are respected; however, this has become a political weapon of the Commission to interfere in national sovereignty;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on Parliament to establish a Working Group to closely scrutinise developments in relation to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 consisting of Members from the responsible lead Committees;

Amendment 61 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Reminds that the revised OLAF Regulation strengthens the way OLAF can conduct its own investigations, notably by reinforcing rules on the anti- fraud coordination services in the Member States and on the cooperation between OLAF and national competent authorities before, during and after an investigation;

Amendment 62 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Calls for a systemic and structural mechanism for the Parliament to introduce its findings to the Commission concerning deficits and breaches as regards the rule of law in the Member States; suggests such a mechanism to be proposed to the Commission by the Parliament at the earliest convenience;

Amendment 7 #

Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, David LEGA, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the rule of law is an essential precondition for compliance with the principle of sound financial management, as enshrined in Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, which can only be ensured if public authorities act in accordance with the law, if cases of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest or other breaches of the law are pursued effectively by investigative and prosecution services, if national courts are independent, and if the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are respected;

Amendment 8 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Caterina CHINNICI, Sándor RÓNAI, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights that the rRule of lLaw is an essential precondition for compliance with the principle of sound financial management and for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, which can only be ensured if public authorities act in accordance with the law, if cases of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest or other breaches of the law are pursued effectively by investigative and prosecution services, if national courts are independent, and if the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are respected, and if the public scrutiny is maintained by free, independent and pluralistic media;

Amendment 9 #