Activities of Angel DZHAMBAZKI related to 2021/2025(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (29)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s first ever Rule of Law Report as a positive addition to the EU’s toolbox to prevent and address rule of law issues in Member States;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 otherned after a thorough analyses involving all Member States and the Union as a wholeir specificities;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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; cCalls 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 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the Commission’s report is a response to the Council’s failuredecision not to trigger the procedure under Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as requested by the Commission in 2017 and Parliament in 2018; regrets that the Council has failed to resume hearings under Article 7 of the TEU since December 2019; notes that the failure to apply Article 7 of the TEU, also due to the requirement of unanimity for the sanctions mechanism, enables continued divergence from the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
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
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the report fails to fully address all Union values set out in Article 2 of the TEU, such as democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates the need to have a single monitoring system for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights applicable equally to all Member States and based on clear and transparent criteria in order to avoid any politicization, as proposed by Parliament1 ; calls on the Council and the Commission to engage in discussions to set up such a mechanism via an interinstitutional agreement; _________________ 1European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0251).
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets the institutional inactivity towards the international crime of illegal migration;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. regrets the inexplicable delays concerning murders committed from the extreme-left;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the methodology of the report, which focuses on four pillars: independence of the judiciary, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism, and checks and balances; considers however that some of these pillars could be easily manipulated and are not a clear indicator of the purposes that the report wants to achieve, therefore invites the Commission to include in the next editions further pillars such as for example an assessment of how the right to a fair trial is guaranteed in Member States, with particular attention paid to the right of defence, and equality between prosecution and defence parties; believes that the report should go beyond monitoring and include preventive and corrective elements with a clear outline of enforcement measures;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. regrets the fact that the extreme- left violence and hate-speech have not been treated with equal attention in all Member States, compromising the citizens' trust to the Rule of Law;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be a subject of serious concern in some Member States; expresses its regret that Hungary and Poland 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 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
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 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
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 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that civil society organisations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and facedisregard national seovere restriction of the civic spaceignty wherever they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that civil society organisations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and 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 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission not to use allthe tools at its disposal to counter violations of EU values, such as infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, actions to ensure compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice and applications for interim measures before the Court; welcomes the new rule of law conditionality mechanism and to punish Member States; recalls that the Union, in accordance with Article 4(2) TEU, shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EUeir national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is of great significance and commends the effortmay 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 indispensableto be used for political purposes; urges the Commission to make robustthe 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 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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;