24 Amendments of Jaak MADISON related to 2021/2180(INI)
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools availableone of the tools to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas it is not necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union, since any such mechanism would be interpreted and applied by the Commission who has a track record of instituting infringement proceedings based on subjective and political convictions;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the factnotes that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the factNotes 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 space deserves a separate subheading in the report;
Amendment 146 #
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 should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the factEmphasises that all Member States armust be scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the fact that several Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to be mentioned several times by the Commission ais points of concern in the synthesis report; recalls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addresdisproportionally focussed on Member States that refused the rule of law situation in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia in its plenary resolutions; further recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group o succumb to the Commission’s political ideologies, whilst ignoring breaches in Member States thast also addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Sloveniare governed by parties affiliated to the EPP and S&D, for example;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomNotes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; calls on the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete acdraws attention to the fact that there is no EU- wide definition of the concept of the rule of law; draws attentions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendationsthe fact that the various legal jurisdictions of the Member States attach different definitions to the concept of the “rule of law” and that this difference in national law should be respected and celebrated;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets the factNotes that the 2020 report might fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected wrecalls that then countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rightsncept of rule of law should not be given the Commission’s subjective interpretation;
Amendment 244 #
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 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, 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 rightsparticularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-western sentiment in Europe, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; ombudspersons, professional associations and other stakeholders; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that the Commission mustshould take into account relevant information from pertinent sources and recognised institutions; recalls that the findings of relevant international bodies, such as those under the auspices of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, are of crucial importance; believes that EFRIS is a useful source of information in this regard;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that cooperation with the Council of Europe and other international organisations is of particularmight be of relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU; calls on the Commission to analyse systematically data on non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and views of the UN Treaty Bodies concerning individual communications;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. ReiteratBelieves that the annual report shcould serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Convoluntary guidebook for Member States but reiterates the fact that the various legal jurisdictionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regards of the Member States attach different definitions to the concept of the “rule of law” and that this difference ing non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delayational law should be respected and celebrated;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. RecallBelieves 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 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 declinedings are an instrument to pursue political goals by punishing Member States that do not subscribe to leftist ideologies;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls the importance ofBelieves that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysi´s intent is to punish Member States that that do not subscribe to leftist ideologies; uargues the Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to explore the full potenat the conditionality will become yet another political of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule lawsanctioning mechanism in addition to Article 7 proceedings;
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regretWelcomes the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;