9 Amendments of Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI related to 2018/0902R(NLE)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Expresses deep concern about the deliberate and systematic efforts of the Hungarian Government to undermine the founding values of the Union enshrined in Article 2 TEU, in particular through the removal of the constitutional checks and balances, by the limitation of the independence of the judiciary, by intentional alterations of the national electoral system and by hampering freedom of expression; highlights that these trends have substantially worsesome of the institutions of the EU to undermine the Treaties, in particular through the arbitrary use of the values enshrined since the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU and have been severely amplified by the COVID-19 crisis Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Respects the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern about the steps the Hungarian Government has taken to further limit the independence of the judiciary, in particular by weakening the powers of the National Judicial Council, which damages mutual trust Takes note of the internal judicial reforms in Hungary, stressing the EU, as national judgat these are judges of first instance of EU law and guarantee equality between EU citizens; highlights, furthermore, that the Hungarian Government increasingly relies on the Hungarian Constitutional Court to avoid compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thereby undermining the primacy of EU lawmatters that fall within the exclusive competence of the Member State;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. InsistUnderlines that the Council’s has a constitutional obligation to organise hearings, enshrined in Article 7(1) TEU, should be implemento hear the Member Stated in an open, regular and structured manner; inquestion and not to organize endless hearings; emphasistes that in all proceedings related to Article 7 TEU, Parliament and the Commission should be treated equally; calls on the Council to systematically provide the Member State concerned with recommendations, and to oversee the implementation thereof on a regular basis, following the hearings under Article 7 TEUit is the Council that has a leading role and other institutions may only be present in it if the Treaty allows for it; calls on the Council to promptly conclude all the Article 7 TEU procedures with a vote;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the judgments of the CJEU in cases C-156/21 and C-157/21 of 16 February 2022, which confirms the validity of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, a; notes wit is based on an appropriate legal basis ah concern that the CJEU is one of the institutions that take opportunities to extend its compatible with the procedure laid down in Article 7 TEUpowers beyond those conferred by the Treaties;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 43 #