28 Amendments of Jean-Paul GARRAUD related to 2021/2025(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEUStresses that there is no legal basis in the EU Treaties that grants the Commission the competence to assess Member States' respect for or violation of the rule of law; recalls that according to Article 5 (1) TEU, the Commission should act in accordance with and within the boundaries of the Treaties; underlines that Article 2 TEU merely mentions the rule of law, but does not define it, nor does it give the Commission the power to enforce it; regrets that the Commission´s Rule of Law 2020 report mentions interpretation of the principle of the rule of law by the Court of Justice of the European Union, but fails to provide the references to the relevant case law;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (the Report) and the importance that it places on the justice system;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses, in line with the Report, that effective justice systems which are independent and efficient are essential for upholding the rule of law; highlights, in particular, the need for the judiciary to be able to exercise its functions with full autonomyindependence, without intervention or pressure from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available to preserve the Union’s values, by addressing the situation in all EU Member States based on four pillars, with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law; whereas it is intended as a yearly cycle to ensure the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepeninghas been turned into a political tool and serves as a threat targeting Member States that may refuse to fall into line with the Commission's societal projects;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be a subject of serious concern in some Member States; expresses its regretnotes that Hungary and Poland lodged, as they are entitled to do, an action for annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget in March 2021, which aims to address breaches of the rule of law with an impact on the Union’s financial interests;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is of great significance and commends the efforts of the Commission to encourage structural reforms in the areas covered by the Report; believes, however, that while it is an essential monitoring tool, clear recommendations on the challenges identified and the required follow-up action is indispensable; urges the Commission to make robust use of infringement procedures where appropriate, to prevent backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems and urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) of the TFEU and to inform the Parliament thereofUrges the Commission to favour dialogue and persuasion over infringement procedures and invoking Article 7(1) TFEU;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with satisfaction that the Report contains separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodology; calls on the Commission, however, to provide, in accordance with national legal traditions, a meaningful comparison between the different national justice systems, to underline where best practices for comparable systems might be applied and how similar deficiencies could be addressed;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the need to encourage Member States to continue their efforts to shore up the independence of the judiciary, in particular by abolishing special tribunals designed to remove ministers from their natural judges and by establishing a National Council of the Judiciary that is truly independent of political power;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’'s first annual Rule of Law Report awhich forms part of the wider European rule of law monitoring and enforcement architecture, as it adds an important, potentially preventive tool to the Union’s rule of law toolboxpolitical instrumentalisation of the concept of the rule of law, the intention of which is to standardise lifestyles within the EU by means of the law;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the Report rightfully addresses the necessary digitalisation of justice proceedings and training for judges, including on the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter); regrets that the Report is silent on training for advocates; regrets that the Report does not cover the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as the right to be defended and represented and the right to legal aid; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to those areas.
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Is deeply concerned about the compatibility of several harsh lockdown measures and the far-reaching restrictions placed on social life by the police with the principles of the rule of law; recalls that public gatherings to express discontent with public policy, including sanitary policy, is covered by Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter of Human Rights; calls on the Commission to go beyond the general observations from the 2020 report and scrutinize national lockdown measures and laws more thoroughly as of next year;
Amendment 71 #
3. Stresses the potential preventive benefits of the annual Rule of Law Report; considers that a more thorough evaluation is needed to assess whether the report has had a preventive effect; considers that in any event this is clearly not the case as regards the Member States under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure; believes that the 2020 report should have provided more in-depth assessments, stating whether there is a risk of or actual breach of the Union values; considers these assessments necessary to identify follow-up actions and remedial measures and toolsConsiders that the Article 7(1) TEU procedure is the only one that may lawfully be used to manage allegations of breach of the rule of law;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. DecriNotes the fact that the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice of the EU has been declared unlawful in Member States subject to Article 7 of the TEU; is appalled bytakes into account the growing resistance of some Member States to comply with CJEU rulings on the legitimate grounds of sovereignty or unconstitutionality; believes that these developments pose a systemic threat to the Union; considers, therefore, that forthcoming annual reports should consider challenges to the Union’s legal architecture and principles as serious violaconstitute a protest against a change in direction by the Union which seeks to impose one single view of the rule of law and the EU model of society regardless of the legal, constitutional and cultural traditions inof the assessmentMember States;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the dedication of a specific chapter to anti-corruption efforts in each country report; points out that while the existence of national anticorruption strategies can be considered progress, their effectiveness on the ground must also be assessed; notes that an assessment of the resilience of the anti-corruption framework to tackle corruption-related risks in the area of public procurement remains largely absent from the 2020 report; invites the Commission to place greater emphasis on the misuse of EU funds, particularly in view of the new conditionality mechanism;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Is concerned by the worsening state of affairs as regards freedom of expression and the acceptance of a wide variety of opinions on certain social networks; considers that their monopoly position makes them essential to modern political life and that the arbitrary censorship of legally-held opinions has a serious impact on citizens' freedom of expression; urges the Commission to propose a penalty system for platforms exercising censorship without a court order;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, professional associations and other stakeholders; notes that three Member States refused to make public their submissions for the 2020 report; calls for transparency in the process and for all submissions to be made public;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in enforcing Union values in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures; notes that the Council’s hesitance to apply Article 7 of the TEU effectively is enabling continued divergence from the values provided for in Article 2 of the TEU; calls for a reflection at the Conference on the Future of Europe on a revision of the Article 7 TEU procedure in order to realign the majority requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 with a view to having super-majorities of four or five for bothHighlights the fact that henceforth the Council is alone in being able to act in ongoing Article 7 TEU procedures;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 300 #
28a. Reiterates that the people are sovereign in a democracy and that the issue of respect for the rule of law shall not be used to restrict the exercise of power nor to influence the policy stance of democratically elected governments of the Member States when the rule of law is not being seriously and systematically breached, which the Council alone is able to determine through the procedure laid down in Article 7 TEU;