19 Amendments of Andrey SLABAKOV related to 2021/2025(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the high number of petitions received from citizens concerned about the breaches of the rule of law in their respective countries and with the consequences of such breaches on their lives; stresses that full protection of Union citizens’ rights can be ensured throughout the Union only if all Member States comply with all the principles underlying the rule of law, as deficiencies in one Member State have an impact on otherned after a thorough analyses involving all Member States and the Union as a wholeir specificities;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; cCalls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent experts in this annual exercise in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, despite repeated requests by Parliament, the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report fails to encompass the areas of democracy and fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to ensure equal treatment of all the Union’s founding values in its next report; believes that the Commission must also involve independent experts in this annual exercise as well as provide the name of the officials writing the report in order to guarantee full credibility, and also provide clear indications on follow-up actions for any shortcomings detected;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that the criteria applied to Member States in order to measure their compliance with the rule of law are not clear and identical, which creates a double standard and generates discrimination and mistrust; calls for the adoption of single criteria and equal evaluation standards for all Member States as underlined by both Commissioner Vice-President for Values and Transparency, Vera Jourova, and Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, as well as many MEPs in the LIBE Committee debates countless times;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Criticises the failure of the Council to make progress by applying sanctions in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 of the TEU, confirming that the Union remains structurally badly equipped to counter rule of law violations; hHighlights that, in any case, a full and effective use of all tools available at Union level, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Common Provisions Regulation and Conditionality Regulation1 , the Rule of Law Framework and Article 7 of the TEU, must be made to address breaches of the rule of law, following a specific well scrutinised procedure; underlines citizens’ high expectations expressed in petitions asking for a proper and rapid Union level response to put an end to such violations; _________________ 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.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Criticises the failure of the Council to make progress by applying sanctions in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 of the TEU, confirming that the Union remains structurally badly equipped to counter rule of law violations; highlights that, in any case, a full and effective use of all tools available at Union level, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Common Provisions Regulation and Conditionality Regulation1 , the Rule of Law Framework and Article 7 of the TEU, must be made to address breaches of the rule of law; underlines citizens’ high expectations expressed in petitions asking for a proper and rapid Union level response to put an end to such violations; emphasises that any discussions about sanctions against a Member State must be based solely on objective and technical criteria and not on political evaluations or motivations; _________________ 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.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Having regard to the implementation of the Rule of law report and in compliance with the European Commissioners narrative on this issue, calls for the end of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Regrets the institutional inactivity towards the international crime of illegal migration;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets that reforms adopted in some Member States have seriously threatened the independence of the justice system, increasing the influence of the executive and legislative branch over its functioning, thus leading the Commission to launch infringement proceedings and raise concerns in the context of procedures under Article 7 of the TEU; underlines that, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, the justice system and the judges must be protected from any pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from inside or outside the judiciary, including political authorities or intelligence agencies/secret services 1a 1b Paragraph22 of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities (https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_de tails.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805afb78) 1bParagraph27 of CCJE Opinion No. 21 (2018) Preventing corruption among judges (https://rm.coe.int/ccje-2018-3e- avis-21-ccje-2018-prevent-corruption- amongst-judges/native/16808fd8dd) _________________ 1bParagraph 27 of CCJE Opinion No. 21 (2018) Preventing corruption among judges (https://rm.coe.int/ccje-2018-3e- avis-21-ccje-2018-prevent-corruption- amongst-judges/native/16808fd8dd )
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that in many Member States the judiciary has overturned a series of abusive measures implemented under the pretext of combating the spread of the Covid19 virus; deplores, at the same time, that in some Member States the judiciary has avoided, under various pretexts, to judge and rule on the legality and proportionality of the anti-Covid19 measures, leaving citizens exposed to abusive measures;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. regrets the inexplicable delays concerning murders committed from the extreme-left;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. regrets the fact that the extreme- left violence and hate-speech have not been treated with equal attention in all Member States, compromising the citizens' trust to the Rule of Law;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the importance of strengthening independent journalism and access to pluralistic information as key enablers of rule of law and democratic accountability able to provide citizens with fact-checked information, thereby contributing to the fight against disinformation; deplores the fact that in a number of Member States, journalists have increasingly faced physical threats and online harassment, especially female journalists;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Deplores that in a number of Member States the governments have classified information on public procurement during the Covid19 pandemic which increased the risk of corruption for authorities and mistrust among citizens; calls on these Member States to reverse these abusive measures and provide full transparency in relation to journalists and citizens;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Notes with concern that the contracts signed by the European Commission with Covid19 vaccine companies have clauses that have not been made public yet; emphasizes that any official acts or contracts adopted or signed by the European entities or Member States that concern the health of European citizens must be public in its entirety;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that civil society organisations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and facedisregard national seovere restriction of the civic spaceignty wherever they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that civil society organisations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and face severe restriction of the civic space where they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled2 that legal civil society organisations that abide by the Rule of Law, must be able to operate without unjustified interference by the state, acknowledging that the right to freedom of association constitutes one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society, therefore there must be institutions assuring the transparency of their activities and sources of funding; is seriously concerned that some NGOs active in the area of migration and LGBTI+ rights are subject to smear campaigns, and face severe restriction of the civic space where they can operate. _________________ 2Judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v Hungary, C-78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraphs 112 and 113.
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Stresses that in order to prevent foreign interference in the sovereignty of Member States democracies and meddling with the EU democratic institutions, the NGOs must make public their funding sources; underlines that, in order to respect the transparency principle and the right to know of the European citizens, all European bodies must disclose and publish a list of all the NGOs that they finance and with what amounts.