Activities of Patryk JAKI related to 2022/2898(RSP)
Institutional motions (1)
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the 2022 Rule of Law report – the rule of law situation in the European Union
Amendments (24)
Amendment 25 #
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 – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union as part of the Copenhagen criteria, which cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted after accession, especially by the Commission and the Court of Justice; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union and the rights and freedoms of its citizens; whereas respect for the rule of law is binding on the Union as a whole, including its institutions and its Member States at all levels of governance, including subnational entities;
Amendment 26 #
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas there is not yet an agreed definition of the rule of law and a single system to assess the compliance with the rule of law at the level at the Union, equally applied to all Member States;
Amendment 29 #
Recital B
B. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe clearly expressed a desire for the EU to systematically uphold the rule of law across all Member States, to protect citizens’ fundamental rights and to retain the EU’s credibility when promoting its values abroad; whereas the European Parliament Delegation did not give its consent to the draft proposals of the Conference on the Future of Europe unanimously; whereas the Council reserved its position on each individual proposal; whereas there was no consensus among the national parliaments;
Amendment 34 #
Recital D
Amendment 38 #
Recital E
Amendment 43 #
Recital F
F. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop a single comprehensivethere exist already various EU mechanisms to protect democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights effectively and to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union as well as by candidate countries, albeit with different monitoring regimes, so that Member States are prevented from developing domestic law that runs counter to the protection of Article 2 TEU; whereas the Commission and the Council have continued to dismiss the need for an interinstitutional agreement on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rightsArticle 2 TEU so it is not necessary to create any new one;
Amendment 47 #
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s third annual rule of law report as part of the Commission’s rule of law toolbox; considers that while the; considers that the Commission has no competence to prepare such a report; represents a step towards a coherent mechanism to preserve Union values, the toolbox remainsminds that Article 2 TEU, which defines the core values of the Union, applies not only and not even primarily too flexible and too broad an approach to the rule of lawthe Member States, but to the European Union as such, so it is the Union institutions that should be covered by the report in the first instance;
Amendment 53 #
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 54 #
Paragraph 2
2. Notes someno improvements compared to previous annual reports, such as the addition of country-specific recommendations; notes also the special attention paid to the public service media and to measures to ensure the transparency of media ownership, including the Media Pluralism Monitor rank; notes that the Commission is still struggling, the assessment of the implementation of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights by the Member States, the attention paid to political party financing, the focus on equality bodies, national human rights institutions and ombudspersons, the monitoring of high-level appointments in the justice system and the increased attention paid to the legal professiono define what the rule of law is, as its report on the rule of law describes many different values listed in Article 2 of the TEU;
Amendment 59 #
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Condemns the Commission for its unequal treatment of the Member States described in the reports; condemns especially the Commission's different treatment of the same or similar legal solutions in different Member States; condemns the Commission for trying to impose ideological and religious solutions on Member States, in particular on LGBT and abortion;
Amendment 67 #
Paragraph 3
Amendment 69 #
Paragraph 4
Amendment 71 #
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that the intentional targeting of minority groups’ rights in someo date, no Member States has created and established momentum elsewhere, as can be evidenced by backtracking on the rights of women, including a deterioration in the situation in relation tobeen found to have breached the Article 2 TEU values, nor even been found to be at serious risk of violating them; underlines that the rights of women, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and of LGBTIQ+ persons, migrants and other minority groups; calls for a summary of the implementation of the EU anti-racism action plan in the report’s country chapters and an analysis of how the backlash in the rule of law affects different minority groupsgroups must not be part of the Commission's report;
Amendment 77 #
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the addition of country- specific recommendations, as a follow up to the reiterated calls from Parliament to this endStresses that the Commission has no competence to make either binding or non-binding recommendations on the Union's values contained in Article 2 TEU; recalls that the annual reports serve as a basis for informed discussions on the rule of law situation in Member States; acknowledges that these country- specific recommendations help to target specific issues with a view to achieving real improvements in Member States; deplores, however,deplores the fact that the recommendations are not bindingwere prepared; calls on the Commission to developstop immediately the annual rule of law cycle further by assessing the implementand especially preparation of the country- specific recommendations in the next annual report, with specific benchmarks and a clear timeline for implementation;
Amendment 80 #
Paragraph 7
Amendment 82 #
Paragraph 8
Amendment 89 #
Paragraph 9
9. Commends the efforts by the Commission to engage better with national stakensiders that information from Member States' authorities shoulders; recognises civil society as an essential actor for the rule of law, with be the basis for information; points out that civil society organisations are often political and important role to play in the follow-up to the annual report and its implementation; calls on the Commission to pursue the consistent involvement of civil society in the follow-up to the report at national level, in cooperation with the FRAdeological movements and may also be susceptible to disinformation and propaganda, including from third countries interested in destabilising Member States;
Amendment 94 #
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the need for country- specific recommendations on the national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights within the Union; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring and reporting on these national processes, including best practicat the primary responsibility for health protection and, in particular, healthcare systems continues to lie with the Member States;
Amendment 96 #
Paragraph 11
11. RegretNotes the absence of country- specific recommendations related to Member States’ unlawful use of surveillance spyware technologies, such as Pegasus or Predator, in spite of the concrete revelations on, and increasing evidence of, their use against journalists, politicians, law enforcement officials, diplomats, lawyers, business people, civil society actors and other actors; is extremely concerned about the related risks to civil society, democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights posed by national governments’ uncontrolled use of spyware; regrets the lack of cooperation by some Member States’ authorities with Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spywar; underlines that national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State;
Amendment 105 #
Paragraph 12
12. Reiterates its call on the Commission to expand the scope of its reporting to cover all values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on an intDeplores that the Commission is trying to make the impression that values enshrined in Article 2 TEU create obligations only for Member States and that it gives to the Commission an additional right to take stock of all aspects of the functioning of the Member States; underlinstitutionales that there are aglreement on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU valuesady different Treaty mechanisms and any duplication should be avoided;
Amendment 113 #
Paragraph 13
13. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoat the Council is avoiding voting ing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respectednderlines that this procedure should not be unnecessarily prolonged; urges the Council to schedule a vote and thus conclude the procedure;
Amendment 115 #
Paragraph 14
14. Strongly condemns Member States’ authorities that refuse to engage in the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Dialogueesses that the participation of Member States in the Commission's annual Rule of Law Dialogue is not mandatory; shows understanding for those Member States that had decided to suspend cooperation with the Commission, in particular due to its methodological errors in the preparation of the reports and due to unequal treatment of Member States;
Amendment 118 #
Paragraph 15
Amendment 122 #
Paragraph 16