Activities of Daniel FREUND related to 2021/2025(INI)
Shadow opinions (2)
OPINION on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report
OPINION on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report
Amendments (12)
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
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 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 budgetwhich 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 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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 strategieslegislation, 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 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
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 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
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 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
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;