13 Amendments of Markus BUCHHEIT related to 2021/2180(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if allthe Member States comply with all principles of the rule of law;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that judicial accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence are crucial components of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; calls for an investigation into whether COVID-19-related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and proportionality was justified; requests an assessment of the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches during the pandemic, especially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisis;essentiality of separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the national justice systems and the activity of the courts; draws attention to the lack of participation and the non-involvement of national parliaments in the decision- making and the closure of parliaments during the pandemic, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to improve the effectiveness of the judicial system by developing the digitalisation process; analogue procedural processes must be available on an equal footing with digital options in order to meet accessibility and the expectations and needs of all citizens;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is deeply concerned about the status of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the close connections between public prosecutors and the governments (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice) and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2 ; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 and the independence of the judiciary in Spain4 ; _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. 4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.some Member States; therefore calls for impartiality and independence of the judiciary in these Member States;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, both at national and EU level; condemnsalls on all national and regionlocal governments on EU territorywithin the EU that refuse to follow judgments; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner and as soon as possible in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to comply with5 ; _________________ 5 Petition No 0858/2017.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets the fact that that the safety of journalists is not universally guaranteedguaranteed in a full manner; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to assure freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession;
Amendment 73 #
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Observes that fake news and the resultingobjectively, not ideologically, determined fake news and the resulting objectively, not ideologically, determined misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to our EU democracies10 ; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the indivisible and important right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders according to the core principle of freedom of speech and expression11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define;regrets that this increase in hate crimes is also seen in the context of uncontrolled mass migration from outside the EU; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of speech and expression, but recognises that the boundaries are already defined with laws on defamation of character, libel, slander, defamation of honour, contempt, etc. _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report shouldmight be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report shcould only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report; _________________ 13 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, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations is of particular importance; calls on the Commission to foster debates with civil society organisations in order to take note of all their concerns and involve them more effectively in follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of all civil society organisations.