17 Amendments of Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA related to 2020/2072(INL)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States; recalls in particularStresses the importance of upholding the rule of law and the obligation of Member States to ensure effective judicial protection, which is a core value of the Union as a community based on law;
Amendment 9 #
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 or in part of a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all contribute to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties; calls for such activities to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement and for existing mechanisms to be consolidated, while setting out detailed assessments of the situations inbased on equal respect to all Member Sstates, determining preventive and corrective action and without political bias;
Amendment 27 #
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; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law, and that the decisions they make must be respected and guaranteed by all other national and European courts; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that judicial decisions of higher bodies should not be contradicted or challenged by lower judicial bodies of other Member States; stresses that, in order to ensure better judicial cooperation and effectiveness, it is essential to respect the sovereignty and independence of the highest judicial bodies of the Member States given that they are the primary guardians of the rule of law in those countries;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and lead to effective and realistic measures; stresses that if the Commission fails to follow these principles and this tool ends up being used to put pressure on Member states to join the political agenda of the main European political parties, it will lose its credibility;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Condemns all forms of coercion, harassment, pressure, intimidation and/or physical or verbal violence against judges and prosecutors, especially in their private lives, at their homes or in their family settings; considers that judges and lawyers should be able to carry out their duties without public authorities or officials questioning their legitimacy, capability or independence;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of subsidiarity and primacy of Union law; considers that references for a preliminary ruling should be settled as quickly as possible to prevent parties from being left defenceless; to this end, priority should be given to involving lawyers and officials from the country whose court has submitted the issue in order to save time on translating and interpreting documents, evidence, statements, etc.;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that there is no greater expert on the laws of a Member State than the highest judicial body of that legal order; points out that the Court of Justice of the European Union should not interfere in matters that are an exclusively national competence;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to assess, standardise and simplify ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle, while considering the gravity of the possible consequences of rule of law violations and the scale of its effects, a special procedure for urgent cases of violation of Union values should be consideredif the European Council, acting by unanimity with the exception of the State concerned, determines the existence of urgent cases of violation of Union values, a swift decision should be taken in accordance with Article 7 TEU;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the need to protect Union values in this context; therefore, in the event of Treaty changes being made in the future, the effectiveness of the Article 7 procedureto learn from our mistakes; therefore, in the event of Treaty changes, sovereignty and independence of the Member states' highest judicial bodies should be enhanced bas they aremoving the requirement for unanimity and reinforcing the sanction mechanism the main guarantors of the citizens rights and the rule of law;