26 Amendments of Kinga GÁL related to 2020/2129(INL)
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the rights to an effective remedy and fair trial are basic human rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter; stresses that the Union, as part of its commitment to promote, protect and fulfil human rights worldwide, must promote the rights of victims of business-related human rights violations and abusesviolations of internationally legally binding human rights rooted in human dignity that amount to criminal offences in third countries, in line with Directives 2011/36/EU1 , and 2012/29/EU2 of the European Parliament and of the Council; _________________ 1 Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1). 2 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57).
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) highlight the duty of states to protect against human rights abuseviolations within their territories, jurisdictions, or both, by third parties, including businesses; further emphasises that, independently of the ability and willingness of states to fulfil their human rights obligations, businesses have the responsibility to respect internationally legally binding human rights wherever they operate and to address adverse human rights impactviolations with which they arhave connecmmitted, including by enabling providing remedies to victims;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that corruption in the context of judicial proceedings can have a devastating effect on the lawful administration of justice and judicial integrity, and intrinsically violate the fundamental right to a fair trial, the right to due process and the victim’s right to effective redress; stresses that corruption generally leads to systematic abuseviolation of human rights in the business context, for example, by preventing individuals from fairly accessing goods and services that states are obliged to proviensure in order to meet their human rights obligations, by encouraging wrongful acquisition or appropriation by businesses of land, or by granting licences or concessions to businesses in the extractive sector;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets that despite attempts by European companies to implement their corporate responsibility policies to respect human rights, and various polices and laws in place to encourage or require due diligence across different Member States, only 37% of businesses are currently undertaking due diligence in their supply chains and only 16% cover the entire value chain; stresses that protection of internationally legally binding human rights and prevention of business-related abuses and violations cannot be achieved with current policies and that binding Union legislation is necessary to bridge this gap;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that corporations and investors are calling for mandatory human rights due diligence at Union level, to harmonise standards, and secure a global level playing field and greater legal and business certainty; stresses that any regulatory requirements need to be sufficiently clear for companies to be able to comply with those requirements and know how to avoid sanctions, and due diligence legislation should ensure competitive advantage for European companies in the short and medium term;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission to propose Union mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation imposing legal obligations on Union companies and companies domiciled or operating in the Union internal market and establishing effective monitoring, enforcement and remedy mechanisms; stresses that the legislation should focus on the first tier of the supply chain (T1) outside the EU;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recommends that due diligence as required by Union legislation be extended to all potential or actual adverse impacts which the company has or may have caused, contributed to or with which it may bviolations of internationally legally binding human rights which the company has or may have directly linkcaused; this extends to, but is not limited to, abuseviolations across the entire value chain, including the parent undertaking, all subsidiaries, direct and indirect suppliers and subcontractors or other business partners;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that Union legislation cover all companies and all sectors, including state-owned enterprises, the bankingand provide spector and financial institutions, including the European Investment Bankial exemptions for SMEs in order to avoid disproportionate administrative and regulatory burdens on these small businesses;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner; recommends that due diligence obligations should apply to all business- related violations of internationally legally binding human rights abuses;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recommends that Union mandatory due diligence legislation be adopted to require companies to identify and address their impacts with reference to all internationally recognised human rights including, as a minimum, those encompassed by the UDHR, all nine core international human rights treaties bearing in mind that not every Member State has ratified all the nine treaties, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and all fundamental ILO conventions, as well as the ECHR and ICESCR, which are binding on Council of Europe member states and also bind Member States as a result of Union law and the common constitutional traditions of the Member States;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Council have stated that climate change has an adverse impact on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights; underlines that the member states of the United Nations have an obligation to respect human rights when addressing adverse impacts of climate change; points out that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has confirmed that Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR impose a positive obligation for State Parties to take appropriate measures to prevent dangerous climate change; insists that climate change mitigation and adaptation in line with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals must form part of businesses’ human rights and environmental due diligence obligations under the legislation;
Amendment 122 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that some businesses are accused of profiting from or even complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity due to their own activity or that of their business partners in conflict-affected areas or to their business relationships with state- or non-state actors involved in conflicts globally; Recommends that, in order to prevent substantial risks of grave violations of internationally legally binding human rights abuses and serious breaches of international law, the scope of due diligence under Union legislation be extended to breaches of international criminal law and international humanitarian law in which businesses may be implicated;
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recommends that, requirements for corporate mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence be grounded in the principle of corporate responsibility to respect universal human rights as articulated by the UNGPs; businesses should avoid infringing human rights and address adverse human rights impacts with which they are directly or indirectly connected, entailthem in case of violations, having in prlactice that they should have in place an embedded human rightse a specific policy, a human rights due diligence process and appropriate and adequate measures to facilitate access to effective remedies for business-related violations of internationally legally binding human rights abuses, including at company level, and other grievance mechanisms;
Amendment 147 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that universal human rights impacts can be specific to certain rights holders and vulnerable groups due to intersecting factors such as agender, sex, ethnicity, religion, social and employment status, migrant or refugee status, exposure to conflict or violence or other factors; this must be reflected in the due diligence processes, including the human rights impact assessment phase and remedy procedures;
Amendment 154 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the risk of business- related human rights adverse impactviolations does not always depend on the size of the company; insists that the scope of due diligence obligations must be based on the risk of adverse impactviolations and must be specific to the country and sector of activity; recalls that according to the UNGPs, three factors should be taken into account in assessing the severity of business impacts on human rights: the scale of the impact, the scope of the impact and whether the impact is irremediable;
Amendment 162 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Notes that human right riskviolations are context-specific and that, to accurately assess human rights risks, prevent, mitigate and remedy adverse impactthese violations, businesses should include in their analysis, in addition to information from employees, right-holders, affected communities and workers’ representatives, information from reliable independent expert sources, for which transparency is key; stresses in this regard, the key role of national human rights institutions, NGOs human rights oversight bodies such as the United Nations, ILO and Council of Europe, OSCE supervisory mechanisms, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as relevant sources of information and reporting;
Amendment 167 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Notes that in order to assess human rights riskviolations, independent and non- ideological monitoring of human rights impacts and working conditions in supply chains is essential, in particular by means of monitoring, which has workers and affected communities at its core and fully involves relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 186 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Notes that rights holders primarily affected by business-related human rights abuseviolations often lack adequate access to information about their rights and about how they are given effect in domestic legislative systems, and have difficulty accessing state agencies and organisations concerned with protection and enforcement of their rights; recommends that the legislation encourage businesses to engage with all affected and potentially affected stakeholders, with their representatives, or both, including workers’ representatives, at all stages of the due diligence process, from development to monitoring and evaluation, in a timely and meaningful manner;
Amendment 192 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 6
Subheading 6
Protection of whistle-blowers, human rights, human dignity and environmental defenders
Amendment 196 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Suggests that the companies establish effective alert mechanisms; through recourse to such mechanisms any interested party, including trade unions, consumers, journalists, civil society organisations, including Churches and faith based organisations, lawyers, and human rights and environmental defenders, or members of the public, should be able to warn the company of adverse impacts and human rights violations;
Amendment 204 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Highlights the fact that, as recalled by the UNGPs, states have the duty to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that those affected by business-related internationally legally binding human rights abuseviolations have access to an effective remedy; Rrecommends that the legislation makes specific reference to this obligation in line with the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law;
Amendment 218 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Insists that access to evidence and time limitations can be major practical and procedural barriers faced by victims of human rights abuseviolations in third countries, obstructing their access to effective legal remedies; stresses that that the burden of proof should be shifted from the victims to the company and that the legislation must require companies to disclose all necessary information for interested parties to engage in judicial proceedings and for victims to access remedies;
Amendment 224 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recommends that the legislation establishes guidance regarding the elements of an effective, fair and equitable operational grievance mechanism, with a view to defining appropriate measures to prevent harm, including providing adequate access to remedies; stresses that it is necessary to clarify the precise scope of the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in remedies;
Amendment 231 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Calls for measures to ensure that Union due diligence legislation is adequately monitored and enforced by national and Union bodies with appropriate duties and powers in accordance with their respective competences; such bodies should have competence to investigate abuseviolations, initiate enforcement actions and to support victims, for instance through legal advice, technical support and representation;
Amendment 240 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Stresses that criminal law and criminal justice are indispensables ultima ratio instruments might be necessary means of human rights protection against severe human rights violations;
Amendment 246 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recommends that the legislation include criminal liability provisions for companies and directors and management that are held responsible in the event of the most severe violations of universal human rights.