BETA

63 Amendments of Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA related to 2021/2180(INI)

Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; recalls further that the rule of law, as enshrined in EU primary law and further defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), is akin to democracy and fundamental rights, pluralism, justice, solidarity and fundamental rights, which are embedded in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; stresses that any backsliding on the rule of law in any given Member State or in the European Union itself automatically undermines EU values in the EU as a whole; agrees with the Commission that these values should never be taken for granted, even though the EU is recognised as having very high standards in this regard; recalls that these values are embedded in the Treaties, and cannot be modified or extended as a result of political shifts without the necessary legal amendments taking place; underlines the importance of the credible global example provided by the EU Member States in upholding the rule of law internally and in supporting democracy worldwide;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law by both national and Union administrations, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States and EU institutions comply with all principles of the rule of law and the division of competences as granted in the Treaties;
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law, and with the core principle in those areas in which the EU has competence, without encroaching in any circumstances on national competences ofr the primacy of EU lawconstitutions of the Member States;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that the Constitutional Courts of Romania1 a and Poland2 a ruled in 2021 that EU law does not have primacy over the national constitutions of the Member States and that it is not possible to interpret Union rules contrary to the constitutions of the Member States; recalls that the two judgments deal with completely different issues and are not related to each other; recalls that the constitutions of the Member States are the key to upholding the rule of law as they provide the legal basis for guaranteeing citizens' rights; _________________ 1 a Judgment of the Romanian Constitutional Court, 23 December 2021 2 a Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 7 October 2021
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recalls that, in addition to the recent judgments of the Polish and Romanian courts, there have also been court judgments in other countries calling into question the supremacy of EU law over national constitutions and over national legislation in matters that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union; recalls, specifically, that the German Constitutional Court, ruling on the purchase of debt, qualified the CJEU decision as non-binding, that the Italian Constitutional Court questioned the primacy of EU law throughout the 'Taricco' process, that the Czech Constitutional Court considered the CJEU judgment in the 'Landtová' case to be 'ultra vires', that the Danish Supreme Court found the CJEU's ruling in the 'Ajos' case to be inapplicable in Denmark, that the French Constitutional Council has limited the application of EU law in the French legal order, and that the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled on 28 April 2016 that there is a limit to the primacy of EU law;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Stresses that no EU body is above the constitution of any Member State and considers, accordingly, that the basic condition for the approval of any type of EU legislation should be that there is no conflict with national constitutions;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Recalls that the diversity of the European Union is based on the wealth and sovereignty of the various nations of which it is comprised; considers that due regard for national sovereignty should be the basic condition for any legislative initiatives or projects within the Union;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that measures taken in urgency can have democratic deficits, infringe rights and fundamental freedoms and lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutiny; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis; notes with concern that some constitutional courts have ruled that measures taken during the pandemic were contrary to national law;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that judicial accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence are crucial components of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary;
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Takes note, with great concern, of the two rulings of the Spanish Constitutional Court finding the two states of emergency declared by the socialist government to be contrary to the constitution; regrets that democratic governments use instruments that violate citizens' rights and freedoms; welcomes, on the other hand, the good work of the Constitutional Court in this respect in protecting citizens' rights in the context of the appeals lodged by the VOX political party; recalls, in this regard, that all administrative and governmental activity is subject to the law and the rule of law
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 22 #
4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation toNotes petitions1 on the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; recalls for an investigation into whether COVID-19-related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and proportionality was justified; requests an assessment of the checks and balances during the pandemic, especially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisisof guidelines in place before a crisis in order to ensure the proportionality and the necessity of the measures taken ; _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the Commission’s second Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the state of the rule of law is of great significance and is an essential monitoring tool; welcomes the importance that it rightly places on justice systems; stresses that effectiveness, independence and efficiency are three characteristics of justice systems which are equally essential for upholding the rule of law and which constitute the basis for mutual trust within the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice; notes the need for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to be able to exercise their functions with full autonomy and independence, without interference from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers; argues that this is an indispensable condition for ensuring equality and the protection of citizens’ rights under the law;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Is deeply concerned about the status of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the close connection between prosecutors and the government (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice) and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2 ; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 and the independence of the judiciary in Spain4 ; _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. 4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.deleted
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that independent lawyers are also essential to independent justice systems; reiterates the need for lawyers and the judiciary to be highly qualified and regularly trained in the rule of law and in EU law in general, and calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to include this area;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be an issue of serious concern in some Member States; condemns the continued political attacks on the independence of judiciary, the primacy of EU law and the implementation of the CJEU’s rulings in Hungary and Poland; notes with deep regret that these attacks have been worsening since the publication of the Report and often target judges and prosecutors who have contested the backsliding on judicial independence;deleted
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Regrets the recent political agreement between the Spanish Government and the Partido Popular for the partisan appointment of judges to the Spanish Constitutional Court; regrets that these appointments were made in response to the Constitutional Court's decision to uphold several appeals lodged by the VOX political party, with the aim of interfering in the normal functioning of democratic institutions; deplores the double standards of the EU institutions on the basis of the political colour of each government;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that the health crisis has unleashed widespread uncertainty among citizens, which has provided an ideal scenario for the public authorities to pursue their own agendas in a completely discretionary manner; notes that measures proposed to tackle COVID-19 have often been carried out on grounds not related to public health, based on so- called expert committees with questionable expertise and pursuing a political agenda, with the aim of spreading panic in society and expanding social and political control;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, both at national and EU level; condemns all national and regional governments on EU territory that refuse to follow judgments; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner and as soon as possible in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to comply with5 in those topics where the European Union has exclusive competences; _________________ 5 Petition No 0858/2017.
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Regrets the attitudes of the Catalan government authorities, boasting publicly of their refusal to comply with the judgments ruled by the competent courts in the field of education, flagrantly breaching the right of children to study in the official language of their Member State; considers that these attitudes and actions, together with the harassment of the plaintiffs, jeopardise the compliance of the rule of law and the separation of powers, thereby seriously harming the law and the rights of citizens;
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Regrets that political activity is carried out without following judicial criteria, be it for political or ideological reasons; regrets the partisan use of pardons, especially where there is no recommendation to that effect from the relevant judicial authority; recalls that judgments are reasoned and that judgments should not be remitted for mere political or strategic reasons;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU of 2 December 2021 to dismiss the action for annulment lodged by Hungary and Poland in March 2021 against Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget1; applauds the continued, thorough and consistent defence by the CJEU of the rule of law; _________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.deleted
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
9. Invites the Commission to take measures to strengthen corruption prevention6 in order to create more transparency in administration and improve access to information about lobbying and oversight of political party, trade unions, NGOs and employers' associations financing; _________________ 6 Petitions No 0822/2020 and 0194/2020.
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the language of the horizontal part of the Report is inadequate as regards the systematic character of the attacks on the independence of justice systems in Hungary and Poland; reiterates its calls on the Commission to provide a meaningful and easily readable comparison between the different national justice systems as regards the situation of the rule of law;deleted
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
12. Urges the Commission, furthermore, to make robust use of its toolkit, including infringement procedures and the conditionality mechanism, where appropriate, to quickly and efficiently address any backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems;deleted
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas withoutgiven the lack of impartiality on the part of the Commission, and without factual, effective follow- up devoid of ideological prejudices, 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 yearsnd may become a further instrument of political interference;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) TEU and to inform Parliament thereof; underlines that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself;deleted
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas it is 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
14. Recalls the important role of journalists and civil society in raising the alarm about, and drawing attention to, any breaches of the rule of law, including with regard to the proper functioning of justice systems, and; calls for them to be given enhanced protection against intimidation or violence; condemns the instrumental use of justice to undermine freedom of information, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU; regrets the use of self-appointed censors who exclusively follow political and/or ideological criteria; strongly condemns any kind of ideological censorship of any political party or citizen in the traditional media or on social media;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #
14a. Notes that the media constitutes a fundamental pillar in safeguarding public order and must therefore fulfil its obligations to provide truthful information to the public and avoid political interference; urges Member States to ensure real pluralism of their media, centered on the veracity and reliability of their sources of information; strongly condemns the manipulation or decontextualisation carried out by certain media;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
13. Observes that fake news and the resulting misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to our EU democracies10 especially when the source of misinformation is founded in the institutions of the European Union or the Member States; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Regrets that political institutions, politicians and associations financed by public funds openly reject court rulings that are not to their liking; regrets, in this regard, that certain political representatives publicly boast of their intention not to comply with court rulings; condemns any kind of harassment of claimants and, in particular, all political and social pressure placed on them, especially in the case of minors;
2022/01/21
Committee: JURI
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes agpropaganda campaigns that minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to defineare being targeted with hate crimes; Points out that the balance between hate speech and freedom of expression is very hard to define and therefore before taking legal or any other measures, detail analysis should be made; in this regard recalls the need of strict supervision of the codes and mechanisms used by social media platforms to make their assessments on posted content; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.deleted
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations is of particular importance; calls on the Commission to foster debates with civil society organisations in order to take note of all their concerns and involve them more effectively in follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of all civil society organisations., while noting at the same time that a clear set of rules on their financing should be developed;
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Deplores the actions of concealment and omission carried by public administrations in relation to the sexual abuse of minors under the care of regional administrations in Spain[1];recalls that the rights of minors must be protected super omnia; condemns those politicians who tried to dismiss parliamentary investigations aimed at clarifying responsibilities for ideological or partisan reasons16a; _________________ 16a Petition No 1313/2020 and 0468/2021
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16 b. Condemns the restriction to the freedom of movement of citizens affected by the "low emission zones" imposed in big cities; regrets that these arbitrary political measures mainly harm the most vulnerable citizens who cannot renounce to use their old cars16b _________________ 16b PetitionNo 1358/2020 and 0621/2021
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16 c. Shows its total solidarity and full support for all victims of terrorism; condemns the fact that current governments negotiate with the heirs of armed bands; regrets that there are still unsolved terrorist attacks, especially the 379 unsolved murders committed by the terrorist group ETA16c _________________ 16c Fact Finding Mission to Vitoria and Madrid, Spain for the 379 unsolved cases of murders perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA
2022/02/08
Committee: PETI
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the fact 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes 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 space deserves a separate subheading in the report;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
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 thatconducting an impartial analysis by listening to all parties involved; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomNotes the fact that all Member States are 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;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are being deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to fulfil all the criteria that define a democracy and become authoritarian regimes;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Regrets that the report does not include in more detail the huge backsliding on freedoms and the exercise of fundamental rights, which has occurred in the EU as a result of the pandemic, mainly due to the fact that this backsliding has been perpetrated by governments of parties that dominate the European Commission; underlines with concern that European instruments such as the EU Digital COVID Certificate have been used in circumvention of the law to curb fundamental rights and freedoms, running counter to the objectives that led to its creation; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to seek to ensure that good use is made of these instruments or to propose, through the legislative instruments at its disposal, the end of their implementation period;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Takes note, with great concern, of the two rulings of the Spanish Constitutional Court finding the two states of emergency declared by the socialist government to be contrary to the constitution; regrets that the Commission looks the other way when ideologically like-minded governments use instruments that violate citizens’ rights and freedoms;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the fact that several Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to be mentioned several times by the Commission as points of concern in the synthesis report; recalls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addressed 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 has also addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomNotes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; calls onreminds the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendationlimit its action to those areas where the Union has competences, without interfering in any way with the national competences of the Member States;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Recommends that the Commission indicate next to each of its recommendations the appropriate tools for the EU institutions to use if the shortcomings are not remedied; calls on the Commission not to hesitate in using those tools, especially when there is no trust in a quick implementation of the recommendations;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets the fact that the 2020 report fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
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 rights;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
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; 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;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that the Commission must 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Commission to invite the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to provide methodological advice and conduct comparative research to add detail in key areas of the annual report, bearing in mind that the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression and other fundamental rights have intrinsic links with the rule of law;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that cooperation with the Council of Europe and other international organisations is of particular 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Regrets the reluctance of the Commission and the Council to respond positively to Parliament’s call, in its resolution of 7 October 2020, for a joint EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls its position regarding the involvement of a panel of independent experts to advise the three institutions, in close cooperation with the FRA; asks its Bureau, in light of the reluctance of the Commission and the Council, to organise a public procurement procedure in order to create such a panel under the auspices of Parliament as a first step, in order to advise Parliament on compliance with Article 2 TEU values in different Member States;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of developing the FRA in accordance with principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights (the Paris Principles) in order for it to become a fully independent body providing impartial and publicly available positions on country-specific situations in the field of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; underlines that such development should go hand in hand with an increase in available resources;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution
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 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls the importance of 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 analysis; urges 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 potential of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Strongly regrets 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;deleted
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 375 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Notes that the Constitutional Courts of Romania1 a and Poland2 a ruled in 2021 that EU law does not have primacy over the national constitutions of the Member States and that it is not possible to interpret Union rules contrary to the constitutions of the Member States; recalls that the two judgments deal with completely different issues and are not related to each other; recalls that the constitutions of the Member States are the key to upholding the rule of law as they provide the legal basis for guaranteeing citizens' rights; _________________ 1 a Judgment of the Romanian Constitutional Court, 23 December 2021 2 a Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 7 October 2021
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. Recalls that, in addition to the recent judgments of the Polish and Romanian courts, there have also been court judgments in other countries calling into question the supremacy of EU law over national constitutions and over national legislation in matters that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union; recalls, specifically, that the German Constitutional Court, ruling on the purchase of debt, qualified the CJEU decision as non-binding, that the Italian Constitutional Court questioned the primacy of EU law throughout the 'Taricco' process, that the Czech Constitutional Court considered the CJEU judgment in the 'Landtová' case to be 'ultra vires', that the Danish Supreme Court found the CJEU's ruling in the 'Ajos' case to be inapplicable in Denmark, that the French Constitutional Council has limited the application of EU law in the French legal order, and that the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled on 28 April 2016 that there is a limit to the primacy of EU law;
2022/03/01
Committee: LIBE