31 Amendments of Paulo RANGEL related to 2017/0360R(NLE)
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
Paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
- the functioning of a free and independent media;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its deep concern that, despite three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, multiple exchanges of views in the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, alarming reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, and four infringements procedures launched by the Commission, the rule of law situation in Poland has not only not been addressed but has seriously deteriorated since the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Denounces that, during the COVID-19 outbreak, but not linked with the COVID-19 outbreak, legislation is being debated or even rushed through in Parliament in very sensitive areas such as abortion, sexual education, the organisation of elections or the term of office of the President, the latter even requiring a change to the Constitution; underlines that this could amount to abuse of the fact that citizens cannot organise or protest publicly, which would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the legislation adopted;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern that the OSCE concluded that media bias and intolerant rhetoric in the campaign for the October 2019 parliamentary elections were of significant concern20 and that, while all candidates were able to campaign freely, senior state officials used publicly funded events for campaign messaging; notes, furthermore, that the dominance of the ruling party in public media further amplified its advantage21 ; _________________ 20OSCE/ODIHR, Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions after its Limited Election Observation Mission, 14 October 2019. 21OSCE/ODIHR, Limited Election Observation Mission Final Report on the parliamentary elections of 13 October 2019, Warsaw, 14 February 2020.
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned that the new Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Matters of the Supreme Court (hereinafter the ‘Extraordinary Chamber’), which is composed in majority of judges nominated by the new National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) and risks not to qualify as independent tribunal in the assessment of the CJEU, is to ascertain the validity of general and local elections and to examine electoral disputes; this raises serious concerns as regards the separation of powers and the functioning of Polish democracy, in that it makes judicial review of electoral disputes particularly vulnerable to political influence22 ; _________________ 22Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, CDL-AD(2017)031, para. 43; Third Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520 of 26 July 2017, para. 135.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that, already in 2017, changes in the method of nomination of candidates to the position of the First President of the Supreme Court deprived the participation of the Supreme Court judges in the selection procedure of any meaningful effect and put the decision in the hands of the President of the Republic; denounces that recent amendments to the act on the Supreme Court even further reduce the participation of the judges in the process of selection of the First President of the Supreme Court by introducing a position of First President ad interim appointed by the President of the Republic and by reducing the quorum in the third round to 32 out of 1205 judges only, thereby effectively abandoning the model of power-sharing between the President and the judicial community enshrined in Article 183(3) of the Polish Constitution26 ; _________________ 26Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, CDL-PI(2020)002, paras 51-55. (The number of judges of the Supreme Court has been increased from 120 to 125 by virtue of the Ordinance of the President of the Republic of Poland of 3 June 2019, amending the relevant Regulation of the Supreme Court.)
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that upon conclusion of the term in office of the First President of the Supreme Court in April 2020, the President of Poland nominated as subsequent Acting First President of the Supreme Court a judge whose independence and impartiality could be put into question; notes that the above- mentioned Acting President, as well as his successor, also nominated as Judge of the Supreme Court by the new NCJ, were responsible for organising the election of candidates for the next First President of the Supreme Court by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Is deeply concerned that the process of electing the candidates did not conform to the rules of procedure of the Supreme Court and violated basic standards of deliberation among the members of the General Assembly; further states its concern about reports of attempts by the Acting Presidents to inhibit dialogue among the judges who participated in the election and about alleged attempts to manipulate the vote in the General Assembly;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Notes with regret that doubts concerning the validity of the election process in the General Assembly as well as the impartiality and independence of the Acting Presidents during the election process could undermine the legitimacy of the new First President of the Supreme Court nominated by the President of Poland on 25 May 2020, and could thus put into question the independence of the Supreme Court;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)
Paragraph 16 d (new)
16d. Regrets that on 25 May 2020, the President of Poland nominated the new First President of the Supreme Court, although the General Assembly of the Supreme Court had not yet officially submitted a list of candidates to the President, as required by Article 183 of the Polish Constitution, which further undermines the separation of powers and negatively affects the legitimacy of the new First President of the Supreme Court; recalls that a similar violation of law by the President of Poland occurred when nominating the President of the Constitutional Tribunal;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that, in 20178, two new chambers within the Supreme Court were created, namely the Disciplinary Chamber and the Extraordinary Chamber, which were staffed with newly appointed judges selected by the new NCJ and entrusted with special powers – including the power of the Extraordinary Chamber to quash final judgments taken by lower courts or by the Supreme Court itself by way of extraordinary review, and the power of the Disciplinary Chamber to discipline other (Supreme Court) judges, creating de facto a “Supreme Court within the Supreme Court”;30 _________________ 30OSCE-ODIHR, Opinion of 13 November 2017, p. 7-20; Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, para. 43; Recommendation (EU) 2018/103, para. 25; GRECO, Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report on Poland (Rule 34) of 18-22 June 2018, para. 31; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 8. (The new Act on Supreme Court was adopted in December 2017, however, from an organisational standpoint, both the new chambers were created and began to adjudicate at the end of 2018. The first nominations for judges in the newly- created chamber of the Supreme Court were delivered by President Duda on September 20th 2018 and October 10th 2018.)
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 11
Subheading 11
The rules governing the organisation of the ordinary courts and, the appointment of courts presidents and the retirement regime for judges of the ordinary courts
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Regrets that the Minister of Justice, who is, in the Polish system, also the Prosecutor General, obtained the power to appoint and dismiss court presidents of the lower courts at his discretion during a transitional period of six months, and that in 2017-2018 the Minister of Justice replaced over aone hundred and fifty court presidents and vice-presidents; notes that, after this period, removal of court presidents remained in the hands of the Minister of Justice, with virtually no effective checks attached to this power; notes, furthermore, that the Minister of Justice also obtained other “disciplinary” powers vis-à-vis court presidents, and presidents of higher courts, who in turn, now have large administrative powers vis- à-vis presidents of lower courts36 ; regrets this major setback for the rule of law and judicial independence in Poland37 ; _________________ 36Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para. 45. 37See also Council of Europe, Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE-BU), CCJE- BU(2018)6REV, 18 June 2018. (The total number of Presidents and Vice- Presidents of the courts who have been expelled on the basis of the provisions cited is 158 - according to data officially provided by the Ministry of Justice upon the request by the Polish Judges’ Association ‘Iustitia’.)
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Recalls that the CJEU found in its judgement of 5 November 201938a that the provisions of the Polish law amending the law on the organisation of the ordinary courts, which lowered the retirement age of judges of the ordinary courts, whilst allowing the Minister of Justice to decide on the prolongation of their active service, and which set a different retirement age depending on their gender, are contrary to Union law; _________________ 38aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland, C- 192/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:924.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Recalls that the CJEU found in its judgement of 5 November 201943a that lowering the retirement age of public prosecutors is contrary to Union law because it establishes a different retirement age for men and women who are public prosecutors in Poland; _________________ 43aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2019, Commission v Poland, C- 192/18 ECLI:EU:C:2019:924.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17
Subheading 17
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Is deeply concerned by the excessive use of libel cases by some politicians against journalists, including by sentencing with criminal fines and suspension from exercising the profession of journalist; fears for a chilling effect on the profession and independence of journalists and media46 ; calls on the Commission to propose an Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) Directive that will protect the media from vexatious lawsuits in the Union that are intended to silence, intimidate or bankrupt them; _________________ 46Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, 2020 Annual Report, March 2020, p. 42.
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Is concerned about reported cases of detention of journalists for doing their job when reporting on anti-lockdown protests;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 b (new)
Paragraph 37 b (new)
37b. Is concerned by the actions carried out by the Polish authorities in recent years, including a re-shaping of the public broadcaster into a pro-government broadcaster, hindering public media and their governing bodies of independent or dissenting voices and exercising control over the broadcasting content, the latest example involving the Polish public Radio Three (known as Troika), which was accused of censoring an anti-government song that topped the charts, with the internet links and news about the song disabled on the station’s website shortly after the chart show was broadcast; notes with regret that since 2015 Poland has fallen in the World Press Freedom Index from 18th to 62nd place; recalls that Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected; recalls that Article 54 of the Polish Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and forbids censorship;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Polish authorities to modify the act of 15 September 2017 on the National Institute for Freedom - Centre for the Development of Civil Society49 , in order to ensure access to state funding for critical civil society groups at all levels, and a fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds to civil society, in a continually shrinking space for it to operate, and ensuringe pluralistic representation; calls for the rapid adoption of the Rights and Values Programme with adequate funding for the Union values strand; _________________ 49OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the Draft Act of Poland on the National Freedom Institute - Centre for the Development of Civil Society, Warsaw, 22 August 2017.
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Is deeply concerned about the transmission of personal data from the Universal Electronic System for Registration of the Population (PESEL register) by the Ministry of Digital Affairs of Poland to the operator of the postal services on 22 April 2020, aimed at facilitating the organisation of the presidential election on 10 May 2020 via postal ballot, despite the lack of a proper legal basis, as the bill allowing for an all- postal election was not adopted by the Polish Parliament until 7 May 2020; notes furthermore that the PESEL register is not identical to the voters register and includes also personal data of citizens of other EU Member States, thus the above-mentioned transfer could constitute a potential breach of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679; recalls that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) discussed this matter during its meeting on 5 May 2020 and underlined in its subsequent statement that public authorities may disclose information on individuals included in electoral lists, but only when this is specifically authorised by Member State law;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Reiterates its deep concern expressed in its resolution of 14 November 2019, also shared by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights51 , over the original text of the draft law amending Article 200b of the Polish Penal Code, submitted to the Sejm by the ‘Stop Paedophilia’ initiative, for its extremely vague, broad and disproportionate provisions, which de facto seeks to criminalise the dissemination of sexual education to minors and whose scope potentially threatens all persons, in particular parents, teachers and sex educators, with up to three years in prison for teaching about human sexuality, health and intimate relations; stresses the importance of health and sexual education; _________________ 51Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Statement of 14 April 2020.
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that Parliament has strongly criticised, already in its resolutions of 14 September 2016 and 15 November 2017, any legislative proposal that would prohibit abortion in cases of severe or fatal foetal impairment, emphasizing that universal access to healthcare, including sexual and reproductive healthcare and the associated rights, is a fundamental human right52 ; _________________ 52See as well Statement of 22 March 2018 by UN Experts advising the UN Working Groupaccording to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, women’s sexual and reproductive health is related to multiple human rights, including the right to life and dignity, freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, the right of access to health care, the right to privacy, the right to education and the prohibition onf discrimination, against women, and Statement of 14 April 2020 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.s is also reflected in the Polish Constitution;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43a. Recalls Parliament’s criticism regarding the stance of the Polish government towards women’s rights; calls on the Polish government to take a firm stand on women’s rights; calls on Poland to respect the case law of the ECtHR in this regard;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 b (new)
Paragraph 43 b (new)
43b. Stresses that in the area of sexual and reproductive health the Union has complementary and supportive competence while legislative powers in that regard lie with the Member States;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to take appropriate action on and strongly condemn any xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech53 ; _________________ 53EP Resolution of 15 November 2017, para. 18; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 14; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, CCPR/C/POL/CO/7, paras 15-18.
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recalls its stance expressed in its resolution of 18 December 2019, when it strongly denounced any discrimination against LGBTI people and the violation of their fundamental rights by public authorities, including hate speech by public authorities and elected officials, in the context of elections, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’, and recalled on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimins the condemnation of such actions by the Commission as well as international organisations;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Calls on the Polish government to comply with all provisions relating to the rule of law and fundamental rights enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and international human rights standards, and to engage directly in dialogue with the Commission; stresses that such a dialogue needs to be conducted in an impartial, evidence-based and cooperative manner while also respecting the competences of the Union and its Member States as enshrined in the Treaties, and the principle of subsidiarity; calls on the Polish government to cooperate with the Commission pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation as set out in the Treaty; calls on the Polish government to swiftly implement the rulings of the CJEU and to respect the primacy of Union law;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Calls on the Commission to make full use of the tools available to it, to address a clear risk of a serious breach by Poland of the values on which the Union is founded, in particular expedited infringement procedures and applications for interim measures before the CJEU, as well as budgetary toolsexplore whether there are budgetary tools that can be introduced in this regard as a last resort; calls on the Commission to continue to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;