9 Amendments of Gerolf ANNEMANS related to 2021/2025(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 TEUs to the relevant case law;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the report fails to fully address allcomprehensively 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 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomeQuestions 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 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
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 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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, actthat 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 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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;