9 Amendments of Tiemo WÖLKEN related to 2020/2072(INL)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing and addressing any threat to the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear risk arises in a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered; points out that the Union has no legally binding mechanism in place to regularly monitor the compliance of Member States and Union institutions with Union values; considers that the main purpose of any such mechanism should be to prevent and address any clear risk of a serious breach of those values; considers, in this regard, that in any future proposal for an interinstitutional agreement for an Union Pact for DRF, emphasis should be put on preventive and corrective elements.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; underlines that judicial independence is integral to judicial decision-making and a requirement resulting from the principle of effective legal protection set out in Article 19 TEU; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence; urges the Commission to use all the instruments at its disposal against any attempt by national governments to endanger the independence of their judiciary and to timely inform Parliament of any such situation; points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that citizens accurately perceive the interference from government and politician as the main reason for the lack of independence in their respective judicial systems; defends, in this context, that the principle of separation of powers entails that those investigating and deciding on disciplinary sanctions for judges should be appointed in a manner that is free from political influence and that judges who are members of existing national Councils for the Judiciary should be proposed, selected or elected by their peers;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and include training on skills and non-legal issues so that judges are better prepared to resist undue pressure; points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that not all Member States offer training on IT skills, court management and judicial ethics, as well as that the share of judges receiving such training is low in most countries;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that there are still significant differences among Member States regarding the number of pending cases and that the building up of backlogs has increased in some Member States; notes that the protection of the rule of law is dependent on the efficiency of justice systems and that there should not be a two-speed Union when it comes to the delivery of justice;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, including the possibility to follow court proceedings online, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants; in this context, points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that nationwide data collection across all justice areas is still not possible in all Member States and recalls that having access is a valuable and necessary assessment tool;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation in Member States of adequately funded legal aid schemes and to the quality of the legal assistance provided, and to assess any obstacles currently preventing citizens without resources from effectively accessing justice; similarly, calls on the Commission to look at the recoverability of legal fees as it too can be a deterrent when it comes to accessing justice; points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that legal aid has become less accessible in some Member States over the years; stresses that the availability of legal aid and the level of court fees can have a major impact on access to justice, as well as an dissuasive effect for people in poverty;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes that Article 41 EUCFR recognises the right to a good European Union administration; observes that with the development of the competences of the Union, citizens are increasingly confronted with the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, without always having their procedural Rights adequately protected; notes that the existing rules and principles on good administration are scattered across a wide variety of sources; stresses that in a Union under the rule of law it is necessary to ensure that procedural Rights and obligations are always adequately defined, developed and complied with; recalls its resolutions of 15 January 2013 and 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration; considers that the Union should lead by example and adopt an administrative procedural code and, in this regard, calls once more on the Commission to put forward a proposal for a regulation on administrative procedure for the European Union;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Condemns any instances where court actions can be abused against the values and rights any legal system is called to protect; urges the Commission to look attentively into any cases where the introduction of court actions and the financial costs they entail for the defendant are being used in Member States for purposes that go against a rule of law culture, like, for instance, the existence of a free and plural media and independent academics, researchers, trade unionists, human rights defenders and civil society organisations; furthermore calls on the Commission to take any action and measures necessary in line with the powers conferred to it by the Treaties in order to end such practices and ensure the accountability of those allowing such practices to occur;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that addressing persisting gender and cultural gaps in in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, effectiveness and independence.; points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that women still represent less than fifty percent of judges at the level of Supreme Courts in most Member States.;