13 Amendments of Jan-Christoph OETJEN related to 2021/2180(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
— having regard especially to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council Press and Information and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities (Article 2 TEU values) and in the Copenhagen Criteria – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union and they cannot just be disregarded or reinterpreted after accession; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the principle of sincere cooperation in Article 4 (3) TEU provides for an obligation of Member States to actively seek compliance with the EU Treaties, to facilitate the achievement of Union tasks and to obtain from any contravening measures;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas without meaningful recommendations and effective follow- up, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the judgements of the European Court of Justice of 16th of February 2022 and its conclusions that the EU indeed has competences regarding the Rule of Law in the Member States, that Rule of Law conditionality mechanism is in line with EU law, and that the actions brought by Hungary and Poland against the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation should be dismissed;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic spacesituation of the civic space in the Member States deserves a separate subheadingchapter in the report; and deserves the creation of a ‘European civic space index’;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time and importance should be devotedgiven to the Commission’s country visits, including on siteespecially on site; calls on the Commission to raise greater awareness of these visits among the public in order to foster a rule of law culture at national level; furthermore it calls on the Commission to organise communication campaigns about the importance of respecting the Rule of Law;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is of the opinion that the Rule of Law report is currently a descriptive documentation of the situation in the Member States; stresses that a thorough analysis of the state of play in the Member States require an analysis and an overall evaluation of the Rule of Law in the Member States; calls on the Commission therefore to develop a Rule of Law index based on an objective and non- discriminative point system, which as a ‘traffic light’ assessment could signal the level of the rule of law in the Member States;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Is strongly of the opinion that the Rule of Law cycle can be effective only if the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Art. 4 (3) TEU is equally respected and applied by the European institutions and the Member States;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Underlines its concern at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism, antigypsyism and anti- Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people especially people living in marginalised settlements, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rightis particularly concerned about the deterioration of the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights of women in some Member States, including the imposition of highly restrictive laws on abortion; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rights; strongly reiterates its call on the Commission to include within the scope of future reports an in-depth assessment of the persistent violations of democracy and fundamental rights throughout the Union, including equality and the rights of persons belonging to minorities;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short or ill-timed and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holiday due to the limits of their capacities and their financial resources; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Reiterates that the annual report should serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay; reiterates its call on the Commission to create a direct link between the Annual Rule of Law reports and the Rule of Law Conditionality mechanism;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to actively and systematically monitor the implementation of EU law and to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter-State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;