2017/0360R(NLE) | [ParlTrack]

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Takes note of the order of the CJEU of 8 April 202033 instructing ~~the~~ Poland to immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and calls on the Polish authorities to swiftly implement the judgment; calls on the Commission to submit an additional request seeking that payment of a fine be ordered as Poland has not complied in full with the interim measures ordered; calls on the Commission to urgently start infringement proceedings in relation to the national provisions on the powers of the Extraordinary Chamber, since its composition suffers from the same flaws as the Disciplinary Chamber; _________________ 33Order of the Court of Justice of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland, C-791/19 R, ECLI:EU:C:2020:277.

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Takes note of the order of the CJEU of 8 April 202033[1] instructing the Poland to immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court ~~and calls on~~; takes note of the information provided by the Polish authorities ~~to swift~~on the timely implementation of the judgment~~; calls on the Commission to urgently start infringement proceedings in relation to the national provisions on~~ within the deadline in connection with the ~~pow~~Orders of the ~~Extraordinary Chamber, since its composition suffers from the same flaws as the Disciplinary Chamber; _________________ 33~~Acting First President of the Supreme Court No. 55/2020 on the execution of the CJEU ruling; Order of the Court of Justice of 8 April 2020, Commission v Poland, C-791/19 R, ECLI:EU:C:2020:277.

Amendment 109 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that it is up to the Member States to establish a council for the judiciary, ~~but~~and that~~, where such council is established,~~ its independence ~~must be~~in Poland is guaranteed in line with European standards and the constitution; rec~~all~~ognises that, following the ~~2017-2018~~ reform of the NCJ, the body responsible for safeguarding the independence of the ~~courts~~judiciary and judges in accordance with Article 186(1) of the Polish Constitution, the judicial community in Poland ~~lost the power~~did not lose its right to delegate representatives to the NCJ, and hence its influence on recruitment and promotion of judges; recalls that before the 2017 reform, 15 out of 25 members of the NCJ were judges elected by their peers, while since the 2017 reform, those judges are elected by the Polish Sejm; strongly regrets that, taken in conjunction with the immediate replacement in early 2018 of all the members appointed under the old rules, this measure between 2017 and 2018, and thus is abled to a far-reaching politicisation of the NCJ34; _________________ 34Consultative Council of European Judges, Opinions of the Bureau of 7 April 2017 and 12 October 2017; OSCE/ODIHR, Final Opinion on Draft Amendments to the Act of the NCJ, 5 May 2017; Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, p. 5-7; GRECO, Ad hoc Report on Poland (Rule 34) of 19-23 March 2018 and Addendum of 18-22 June 2018; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 42 and 61.influence the recruitment and promotion of judges;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)

- having regard to its legislative resolution of 17 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Rights and Values programme 16a, _________________ 16a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0407.

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that it is up to the Member States to establish a council for the judiciary, but that, where such council is established, its independence must be guaranteed in line with European standards and the constitution; recalls that, following the 2017-2018 reform of the NCJ, the body responsible for safeguarding the independence of the courts and judges in accordance with Article 186(1) of the Polish Constitution, the judicial community in Poland lost the power to delegate representatives to the NCJ, and hence its influence on recruitment and promotion of judges; recalls that before the 2017 reform, 15 out of 25 members of the NCJ were judges elected by their peers, while since the 2017 reform, those judges are elected by the Polish Sejm; strongly regrets that, taken in conjunction with the ~~immediate replacement in early 2018~~premature termination in early 2018 of the mandates of all the members appointed under the old rules, this measure led to a far-reaching politicisation of the NCJ34 ; _________________ 34Consultative Council of European Judges, Opinions of the Bureau of 7 April 2017 and 12 October 2017; OSCE/ODIHR, Final Opinion on Draft Amendments to the Act of the NCJ, 5 May 2017; Venice Commission, Opinion of 8-9 December 2017, p. 5-7; GRECO, Ad hoc Report on Poland (Rule 34) of 19-23 March 2018 and Addendum of 18-22 June 2018; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 42 and 61.

Amendment 111 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls that the Supreme Court (Labour Chamber), implementing the criteria set out by the CJEU in its judgment of 19 November 2019, found in its judgment of 5 December 2019 and in its decisions of 15 and 23 January 2020 that the decisive role of the new NCJ in the selection of the judges of the newly created Disciplinary Chamber undermines the latter’s independence and impartiality; is concerned about the legal status of the judges appointed or promoted by the NCJ in its current composition and about the impact their participation in adjudicating may have on the validity and legality of proceedings;

Amendment 113 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Recalls that the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) suspended the new NCJ on 17 September 2018 for reason of no longer fulfilling the requirements of being independent of the executive and legislature and is now considering expelling the new NCJ entirely35; _________________ 35ENCJ, Letter of 21 February 2020 by the ENCJ Executive Board. See as well the letter of 4 May 2020 by the European Association of Judges in support of the ENCJ.deleted

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Recalls that the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) suspended the new NCJ on 17 September 2018 for reason of no longer fulfilling the requirements of being independent of the executive and legislature and ~~is now considering expelling the new NCJ entirely~~has initiated the expulsion procedure in April 202035 ; _________________ 35 ENCJ, Letter of 21 February 2020 by the ENCJ Executive Board. See as well the letter of 4 May 2020 by the European Association of Judges in support of the ENCJ.

Amendment 115 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

~~26. Calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of 12 May 2011 on the NCJ and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;~~deleted

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of 12 May 2011 on the NCJ as amended in 2017 and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. CDoes not see sufficient grounds to calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of 12 May 2011 on the NCJ and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Calls on the Commission to start infringement proceedings against the act of ~~12 May~~8 December 20117 on the NCJ and to ask the CJEU to suspend the activities of the new NCJ by way of interim measures;

Amendment 119 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Tomas TOBÉ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 22

— having regard to the four infringement procedures launched by the Commission against Poland in relation to the ~~reform of~~changes to the Polish judicial system, of which the first two resulted in judgments of the Court of Justice finding violations of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union enshrining the principle of effective judicial protection, while the two other procedures are still pending,

Amendment 120 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Re~~gret~~cognises that the Minister of Justice, who ~~is,~~ in the Polish system, is 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 a hundred court presidein accordance with the principle of Member States’ sovereignty over the organisation of the judiciary, has been given the power to appoints and ~~vice-presidents; notes that, after this period, removal of court presidents remained~~dismiss court presidents of the lower courts, as ins the ~~hands of th~~case Min~~ister of Justice, with virtually no effective checks attached to this power; notes, furthermore, that the Minister of Justice also obtained other~~ many other Member States; recognises that the Minister of Justice in Poland, as in other Member States, has “disciplinary” powers ~~vis-à-vis~~over court presidents, and presidents of higher courts, who in turn~~, now~~ have ~~large~~ administrative powers ~~vis-à-vis~~over 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.;

Amendment 121 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS

Motion for a resolution
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 122 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Re~~grets that~~cognises that the Polish authorities, by way of the act of 20 December 2019 amending the act on the common courts and certain other acts that entered into force on 14 February 2020, were able, in accordance with the principle of the sovereignty of Member States in terms of the organisation of the judiciary, to changed the composition of the assemblies of judges and moved some of the powers of those bodies of judicial self- government to the colleges of courts presidents appointed by the Minister of Justice~~38; _________________ 38Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 46 to 50.~~;

Amendment 123 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 124 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Denounces the new provisions introducing further disciplinary offences and sanctions in respect of judges and court presidents, as they pose serious risk to judicial independence39; denounces the new provisAcknowledges the relevance of new legislations prohibiting anyll political activityies of judges, obliging ~~judges~~them to disclose publicly their membership in associations and restricting substantively the deliberations of judicial self-governing bodies, which go beyond the principles of legal certainty, necessity and proportionality in restricting the judges’ freedom of expression40; _________________ 39OSCE/ODIHR, Urgent Interim Opinion on the Bill Amending the Act on the Organization of Common Courts, the Act on the Supreme Court and Certain Other Acts of Poland (as of 20 December 2019), 14 January 2020, p. 23-26; Venice Commission and DGI ofin order to strengthen the effective separation of powers and ensure the Cofuncil of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 44-45. 40OSCE/ODIHR, Urgent Interim Opinion, 14 January 2020, p. 18-21; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 24-30tioning of apolitical and impartial courts;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Deplores the abuse of disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors in Poland; is deeply concerned by the motion filed by the National Prosecution Office to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court to waive the immunity of Judge Igor Tuleya; is similarly concerned by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against other judges, including Krystian Markiewicz, Chairperson of the Polish Judges’ Association “Iustitia”, and Paweł Juszczyszyn; calls on Polish authorities to stop using disciplinary proceedings to disguise politically motivated reprisals against specific judges and prosecutors for applying EU law or their public defence of the rule of law in Poland;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Expresses concern regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against common court judges in reference to their judicial decisions or public statements in defence of judicial independence;

Amendment 127 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Calls on the Polish authorities to remove the new provisions (on disciplinary offences and other) that prevent the courts from examining questions of independence and impartiality of other judges from the standpoint of Union law and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), hence depriving judges from exercising their duties under Union law to put aside national provisions conflicting with Union law41; _________________ 41OSCE/ODIHR, Urgent Interim Opinion, 14 January 2020, p. 13-17; Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, paras 31-43.Recognises, in the light of the explanations provided by the Polish authorities aimed at ensuring the functioning of a judicial system characterised by stability and integrity, the legitimacy of introducing provisions that prevent the courts from examining questions of independence and impartiality of other judges;

Amendment 128 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Welcomes the Commission’s initiation of infringement proceedings in relation to the aforementioned new provisions; calls on the Commission to request the CJEU to use the expedited procedure and to grant interim measures, when it comes to a referral of the case to the CJEU;deleted

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. ~~Welcomes the Commission’s initiation of~~Does not see, in the light of the explanations provided by the Polish authorities and the findings of the present proceedings, any grounds for the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings in relation to the aforementioned new provisions; calls on the Commission to request the CJEU to use the expedited procedure and to grant interim measures, when it comes to a referral of the case to the CJEU;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)

- having regard to the results of the LGBTI Survey II conducted by the Fundamental Rights Agency, which highlight an increase in intolerance and violence in Poland towards LGBTI persons, a complete disbelief in the government’s combat against prejudice and intolerance by Polish LGBTI respondents, recording the lowest percentage across the Union (only 4%), and the highest percentage of respondents avoiding going to certain places for fear of being assaulted, harassed or threatened (79%),

Amendment 130 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Condemns the smear campaign against the Polish judges and involvement of public officials therein; calls on the Polish authorities to refrain from activities undermining the authority of the judiciary;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. ~~Denounces~~Recognises that the merger of the office of the Minister of Justice and that of the Public Prosecutor General, the increased powers of the Public Prosecutor General vis-à-vis the prosecution system, and the increased powers of the Minister of Justice in respect of the judiciary (act of 27 July 2001 on the organisation of common courts) and the weak position of checks to these powers (National Council of Public Prosecutors), which result in the accumulation of too many powers for one person and have direct negative consequences for the independence of the prosecutorial system from the political sphere, as stated by the Venice Commission42; _________________ 42Venice Commission Opinion of 8-9 December 2017 on the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s office, as amended, CDL- AD(2017)028, para. 115.fall under the sole competence of the Member States as regards the organisation and structure of the judiciary:

Amendment 132 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Concurs with the Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ~~and~~, the Group of States against Corruption and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers that the aforementioned separate ~~reform~~changes to the judicial system, considering their interaction and overall impact, amount to a serious, sustained and systemic breach of the rule of law, enabling the legislative and executive powers to influence the functioning of the judiciary in a critical manner, thereby significantly weakening the independence of the judiciary in Poland43 ~~; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103~~; condemns the destabilizing impact on the Polish legal order of the measures taken and appointments made since 2016; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; United Nations, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Statement of 25 June 2018; GRECO, Follow-up to the Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report (rule 34) – Poland, 6 December 2019, para. 65; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 4.

Amendment 134 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Concurs with the Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Group of States against Corruption that the aforementioned separate reforms to the judicial system, considering their interaction and overall impact, amount to a serious, sustained and systemic breach of the rule of law, enabling the legislative and executive powers to influence the functioning of the judiciary in a critical manner, thereby significantly weakening the independence of the judiciary in Poland43 ; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; GRECO, Follow-up to the Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report (rule 34) – Poland, 6 December 2019, para. 65; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 4.Recalls that at this stage of the procedure it is for the Council to determine whether the aforementioned separate reforms to the judicial system amount to a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. ~~Concurs with the Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Group of States against Corruption that~~In the light of the explanations provided by the Polish authorities and the findings made in the course of this procedure, the a~~fore~~bove-mentioned ~~separate~~ reforms to the judicial system, ~~considering~~given their ~~inte~~ractionale and ~~overall impact, amount to~~purpose, do not constitute a serious, ~~sustained~~persistent and systemic breach of the rule of law~~, enabling the legislative and executive powers to influence the functioning~~ and make it possible to strengthen the principle of tche judiciary in a critical manner, thereby significantly weakening the independence of the judiciary in Poland43; _________________ 43Recommendation (EU) 2018/103; GRECO, Follow-up to the Addendum to the Fourth Round Evaluation Report (rule 34) – Poland, 6 December 2019, para. 65; PACE, Resolution 2316 (2020) of 28 January 2020 on the functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, para. 4.cks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial authorities by jointly shaping the judicial system in Poland;

Amendment 136 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15

~~Protection of fundamental rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, in Polan~~deleted

Amendment 137 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 16

~~The right to a fair trial~~deleted

Amendment 138 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Is concerned about reports alleging undue delays in court proceedings, difficulties in accessing legal assistance during arrest, and instances of insufficient respect for the confidentiality of communication between counsel and client44; _________________ 44UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, para. 33.deleted

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Is concerned about reports alleging undue delays in court proceedings, difficulties in accessing legal assistance during arrest, and instances of insufficient respect for the confidentiality of communication between counsel and client44 ; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the situation of lawyers in Poland; reminds of the right of all citizens to being advised, defended and represented by an independent lawyer according to Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; _________________ 44UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, para. 33.

Amendment 14 #

Maria WALSH

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)

Amendment 140 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. ~~Is concerned about~~Takes note of reports alleging undue delays in court proceedings, difficulties in accessing legal assistance during arrest, and instances of insufficient respect for the confidentiality of communication between counsel and client44 ; _________________ 44UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, para. 33.

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Is concerned that, since the entry into force on 14 February 2020 of the amendments to the act on the Supreme Court, only the Extraordinary Chamber can decide whether a judge or tribunal or court is independent and impartial, hence depriving citizens of an important element of judicial review at all other instances45; _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59.deleted

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Is concerned that, since the entry into force on 14 February 2020 of the amendments to the act on the Supreme Court, only the Extraordinary Chamber, whose independence and impartiality itself is in question, can decide whether a judge or tribunal or court is independent and impartial, hence depriving citizens of an important element of judicial review at all other instances45 ~~; _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59~~; recalls that according to the case law of the Court of Justice, the right to a fair trial obliges every court to check of its own motion whether it fulfils the criteria of independence and impartiality; 45a _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59. 45aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 26 March 2020, Simpson v Council and HG v Commission, Joined Cases C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II, ECLI:EU:C:2020:232, para 57.

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. ~~Is concerned~~Notes that, since the entry into force on 14 February 2020 of the amendments to the act on the Supreme Court, only the Extraordinary Chamber can decide whether a judge or tribunal or court is independent and impartial, hence depriving citizens of an important element of judicial review at all other instances45 ; _________________ 45Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, para 59.;

Amendment 144 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)

35a. Calls on the Polish authorities to implement fully the judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving the CIA secret prisons in Poland;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17

~~The right to information and freedom of expression, including academic freedom~~deleted

Amendment 146 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17

~~The right to information and freedom of expression, including academic freedom~~Freedom and pluralism of the media

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 17

The right to information and freedom of expression~~, including academic freedom~~

Amendment 148 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)

35a. Reiterates that media freedom and pluralism is inseparable from democracy and the rule of law and that the right to inform and the right to be informed are part of the core basic democratic values on which European Union is founded;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Recalls that in its resolution of 14 September 2016, Parliament has expressed its concern about already adopted and newly suggested changes to Polish media law; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessment of the legislation adopted as regards its compatibility with Union Law, in particular, regarding the legislation on public media;deleted

Amendment 15 #

Malin BJÖRK

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 a (new)

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Recalls that in its resolution of 14 September 2016, Parliament has expressed its concern about already adopted and newly suggested changes to Polish media law; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessment of the legislation adopted as regards its compatibility with Union Law, in particular~~, regarding the~~ with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Union legislation on public media;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)

36a. Recalls that, in its resolution of 16 January 2020, Parliament has called on the Council to address in the hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU any new developments in the field of freedom of expression, including media freedom; condemns cases of censoring content by the public broadcasters in Poland;

Amendment 152 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
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 Polish authorities to set up an independent and impartial regulatory body, in cooperation with journalists’ organisations, for monitoring, documenting and reporting on attacks against journalists as well as on lawsuits intended to silence or intimidate independent media and to guarantee access to the appropriate legal remedies; calls on the Polish authorities to fully implement Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors; _________________ 46Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists, 2020 Annual Report, March 2020, p. 42.

Amendment 154 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)

37a. Expresses concern over use and threat of libel litigation against academics and the Polish Ombudsman; calls on Polish authorities to respect freedom of speech and academic freedom; denounces attempts to silence the Polish Ombudsman, an independent institution enshrined in the Polish Constitution;

Amendment 156 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Tomas TOBÉ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS

Motion for a resolution
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 158 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Calls on the Polish parliament to repeal Chapter 6c of the act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance – Committee for the Prosecution of the Crimes against the Polish Nation, which jeopardises freedom of speech and independent research by rendering it a civil offense that is actionable before civil courts to cause harm to the reputation of Poland and its people, such as by making any accusation of complicity of Poland or Poles in the Holocaust47; _________________ 47See as well the Statement of 28 June 2018 by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.deleted

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 b (new)

- having regard to the issue paper of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights of December 2017 entitled ‘Women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe’,

Amendment 160 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Calls on the Polish parliament to repeal Chapter 6c of the act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance – Committee for the Prosecution of the Crimes against the Polish Nation, which jeopardises freedom of speech and independent research by rendering it a civil offense that is actionable before civil courts to cause harm to the reputation of Poland and its people, such as by making any accusation of complicity of Poland or Poles in the Holocaust47 ; _________________ 47See as well the Statement of 28 June 2018 by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.deleted

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 18

~~Freedom of assembly~~deleted

Amendment 162 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

Amendment 163 #

Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Isabel SANTOS, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Pietro BARTOLO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government- approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48 ; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people who participate in peaceful assemblies or counter-demonstrations and to drop criminal charges against peaceful protesters; urges the authorities moreover to adequately protect peaceful assemblies; is concerned about the current ban on public assemblies without the introduction of a state of natural disaster due to the COVID-19 pandemic and insists on the need to apply the principle of proportionality when restricting the right to assembly during the COVID-19 crisis; _________________ 48 See as well the Communication of 23 April 2018 by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks.

Amendment 164 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government-approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people whocalls that on 2 April 2017, an amendment to the act on public assemblies came into force, with Article 12(1) of the act being amended through the introduction of a rule stipulating that different assemblies may not be held within 100 metres of each other, thus the amendment reduces the likelihood of threat to the safety of participatents in ~~peaceful~~concurrent assemblies ~~or counter-demonstrations and to drop criminal charges against peaceful protesters; _________________ 48 See as we~~by increasing the distance between them, while their participants are able to express their opinions; recalls th~~e Commu~~at persons or organicsation ~~of 23 April 2018 by UN Experts~~s have the right to uorg~~e Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks~~anise assemblies once the formal requirements set out in the act of 24 July 2015 have been met.

Amendment 166 #

Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Patryk JAKI, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Reiterates its call on the Polish government to respect the right of freedom of assembly by removing from the current act of 24 July 2015 on public assemblies, as amended on 13 December 2016, the provisions prioritising government-approved ‘cyclical’ assemblies48; urges the authorities to refrain from applying criminal sanctions to people whocalls that persons or organisations shall have the right to organise assemblies after meeting the formal requirements set out in the act of 24 July 2015, and that police officers shall take action only against persons who violate the prevailing legal order, first of all by trying to separate them from participatents in ~~peaceful assemblies or counter-demonstrations and to drop crimi~~the assembly who are peacefully demonstrating their views; recalls, furthermore, that the Constitutional Tribunal cha~~rges against peaceful protesters; _________________ 48 See as well the Communication of 23 April 2018 by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks.~~s pointed out that the introduction of the institution of cyclical assemblies is an additional and new way of defining the legal framework for the exercise of freedom of assembly;

Amendment 167 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 19

~~Freedom of association~~deleted

Amendment 168 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

Amendment 17 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25 c (new)

- having regard to the 2019 recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) on adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights and the WHO Regional Office for Europe standards for sexuality education in Europe: a framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists,

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
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, and a fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds to civil society, ensuring pluralStresses that, within the framework of existing legislation, the fair, impartial and transparent distribution of public funds is fully ensured, and that the procedure for allocating funds is also regulated by the act on the National Freedom Institute; notes that, in accordance with the procedure, each application for funding is assessed by two external experts, and that all conditions of each open competition are the subject of public consultations with non- governmental organisati~~c representation; _________________ 49OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the Draft Act of Poland on the National Freedom Institute - Centre for th~~ons and are also approved by the Council of the National Freedom Institute before each open competition is announced; stresses that all NGOs and NGO coalitions have the right to submit their comments and amendments to the chart; points out that the eligibility criteria are pluralistic and include Deve~~lopment of Civil Society, Warsaw, 22 August 2017.~~ryone, and that all civil society groups and NGOs that meet the definition set out in Article 3 of the act on public benefit and volunteerism can apply for grants;

Amendment 171 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

Amendment 172 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 20

~~Privacy and data protection~~deleted

Amendment 173 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Reiterates its conclusion set out in its resolution of 14 September 2016 that the procedural safeguards and material conditions laid down in the act of 10 June 2016 on anti-terrorist actions and the act of 6 April 1990 on the police for the implementation of secret surveillance are not sufficient to prevent its excessive use or unjustified interference with the privacy and data protection of individuals, including of opposition and civil society leaders50; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessment of that legislation as regards its compatibility with Union Law, and urges Polish authorities to fully respect the privacy of all citizens; _________________ 50UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, paras 39-40. See as well Communication by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks, 23 April 2018.deleted

Amendment 174 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. ~~Reiterates its conclusion set out in its resolution of 14 September 2016 that the procedural safeguards and material conditions laid down~~Stresses that the act of 10 June 2016 on counter-terrorist activities provides a legal basis for systemic solutions adopted in Poland in the field of counter-terrorist activities, and the provisions contained therein are aimed, inter alia, at enabling the authorities and other entities to take effective and proportionate action against terrorist threats; points out, therefore, that the provisions adopted in theis act ~~of 10 June 2016 on anti-terrorist actions and the act of 6 April 1990 on the police for the implementat~~concerning the possibilities of carrying out operational monitoring refer only to a person who is suspected of being likely to engage in terrorist activity and who is not a Polish citizen; stresses, moreover, that in Poland the processing of information by the authorities, including personal data, is carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the provisions of secret surveillance are not sufficient to prevent its excessive use or unjustified interference with the privacy and data protection of individuals, including of opposition and civil society leaders50; repeats its call on the Commission to carry out an assessmethe act of 14 December 2018 on the protection of personal data processed in connection with preventing and combating crime and the act of 5 August 2010 on the protection of classified information, as well as in the rules governing the individual authorities; points out that the rules laid down in the aforementioned acts are in line with the standards of EU law established in this matter, including Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the competent authorities for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, the free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA; states that, pursuant to Article 20 of the acts of 4 April 1990 on police, the police have the right to process information, including personal data, in accordance with their statutory tasks and subject to regulatory restrictions; points ofut that legislation as regards its compatibility with Union Law, and urges Polish authorities to fully respect the privacy of all citizens; _________________ 50UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), Concluding observationsoperational monitoring (covert surveillance) may take place only with the consent of the court, provided that it aims to detect and identify the perpetrators, as well as to obtain and consolidate evidence seized by public prosecution, of intentional crimes set out in Article 19(1), points 1-9 of this act, and provided that other measures have proved ineffective or will not be useful; points out that the act allows that in urgent cases, if this could result in the loss of information or the obliteration or destruction of evidence of a crime, the police, with the written consent onf the ~~sev~~competenth p~~eriodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, paras 39-40. See as well Communication by UN Experts to urge Poland to ensure free and full participation at climate talks, 23 April 2018.~~rosecutor, may exercise this right without the consent of the court; notes that they are nevertheless obliged to apply to the court at the same time for the issuance of an appropriate provision to that effect; points out that if the court does not give its consent within five days from the date of the operational control order, it shall be suspended and the materials collected during the control shall be recorded in the minutes, provided that their destruction is recorded; notes that the principle being applied is one of judicial and prosecutorial review;

Amendment 175 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 176 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21

~~Sexual education~~deleted

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21

~~Sexual education~~deleted

Amendment 178 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21

SComprehensive sexuality education

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21

~~Sexual e~~Education

Amendment 18 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the values ~~of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out~~laid down in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and embedded in international human rights treaties;

Amendment 180 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21

~~Sexual e~~Education

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

Amendment 183 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
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~~Stresses that 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; _________________ 51 Human Rights, Statement of 14 April 2020.ment to the Penal Code was drawn up by the citizens’ initiative ‘Stop Paedophilia’ and refers to the criminalisation of the promotion of paedophilic behaviour, and emphasises that this does not constitute the criminalisation of education, but a ban on promoting paedophilia; Council of Europe Commissioner for

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~Stresses that 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.ment to the Penal Code was drawn up by the citizens’ initiative ‘Stop Paedophilia’ and refers to the criminalisation of the promotion of paedophilic behaviour; emphasises that this does not constitute the criminalisation of education, but a ban on promoting paedophilia;

Amendment 185 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
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 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; calls on the Polish Parliament to refrain from adopting the proposed draft law amending Article 200b of the Polish Penal Code and on the Polish authorities to ensure that young people have access to comprehensive sexuality education in line with the World Health Organisation standards and that those who provide such education and information are supported in so doing in a factual and objective manner; _________________ 51Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Statement of 14 April 2020.

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
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 187 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42a. Stresses that age-appropriate and evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education is key to building young peoples’ skills to form healthy, equal, nurturing and safe relationships, free from discrimination, coercion and violence; believes that comprehensive sexuality education also has a positive impact on gender equality outcomes, including transforming harmful gender norms and attitudes towards gender-based violence, helping prevent intimate partner violence and sexual coercion, homophobia and transphobia, breaking the silence around sexual violence, sexual exploitation or abuse, and empowering young people to seek help; urges Poland to ensure access to scientifically accurate and comprehensive sexuality education for all primary and secondary school children in line with WHO standards;

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42a. Recalls that, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union must fully respect the ‘responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’ and, at the same time, has the task of supporting, complementing and coordinating the development of education;

Amendment 189 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

~~Sexual and reproductive health and rights~~deleted

Amendment 19 #

Roberta METSOLA, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union ~~and as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and embedded in international human rights treaties~~;

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

~~Sexual and reproductive health and rights~~deleted

Amendment 191 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

~~Sexual and reproductive health and rights~~deleted

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

~~Sexual and reproductive health and rights~~Family law

Amendment 193 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

~~Sexual and reproductive health and r~~Women’s Rights

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

Amendment 195 #

Roberta METSOLA, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ; calls on the Polish Parliament to reject any legislative proposal that seeks to further erode women’s sexual and reproductive rights; strongly affirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services is a form of violence against women and girls; calls on the Polish authorities to recognise the inalienable right of women to physical and autonomous decision-making as regards the right to access the full range of reproductive health services, including safe and legal abortion, and to take measures to implement fully the judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Poland, which has ruled that restrictive abortion laws and lack of implementation violates human rights; _________________ 52See as well Statement of 22 March 2018 by UN Experts advising the UN Working Group on discrimination against women, and Statement of 14 April 2020 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
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, thereby virtually banning access to abortion care in Poland as most legal abortions are performed under this ground, 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 Group on discrimination against women, and Statement of 14 April 2020 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)

- having regard to the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union and the Member States meeting within the Council on ensuring respect for the rule of law of 16 December 2014;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas~~, in contrast to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,~~ the scope of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is ~~not~~ limited to the obligations under the Treaties, ~~as indicated in the Commission Communication of 15 October 2003,~~ and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under ~~Member States’ competences~~the competences of the Union, and Union monitoring mechanisms are only possible to this extent; whereas, additionally, the Council Legal Service recalled in its legal opinion of 27 May 2014 that there is no legal basis in the Treaties empowering the institutions to create a new supervision mechanism of the respect of the rule of law by the Member States, additional to what is laid down in Article 7 TEU;

Amendment 200 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
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, a~~gainst 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 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. ~~Recalls that Parliament has strongly criticised, already in its resolu~~Stresses that the draft amendment to the act of 7 January 1993 on family planning, protections 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 Group on discrimination against women, and Statement of 14 April 2020 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.the human foetus and the conditions of admissibility for the termination of pregnancy, which is being negotiated in the Polish Parliament, is a citizens’ initiative that is being negotiated in accordance with the applicable legal provisions; notes, however, that the Government of the Republic of Poland is not working on an amendment to the act on access to abortion;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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 204 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

Amendment 206 #

Roberta METSOLA, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

Amendment 208 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Recalls that previous attempts to further limit the right to abortion, which in Poland is already among the most restricted in the Union, were halted in 2016 and 2018 as a result of mass opposition from Polish citizens as expressed in the ‘Black Marches’; calls for the law limiting women’s and girls’ access to the emergency contraceptive pill to be repealedinternational law does not recognise the so-called right to abortion and no binding treaty recognises such a right, and that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that the right to private life cannot be interpreted as consenting to the so-called right to abortion; recalls that such a right cannot, furthermore, be considered to emerge as an international custom, since in the vast majority of countries which allow access to abortion, such access constitutes immunity from criminal proceedings and is not defined as a right;

Amendment 209 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)

44a. Stresses that women who decide to end a pregnancy either travel to another country to obtain safe and legal abortion services or undergo potentially unsafe procedures at home and might risk their lives during these procedures; reaffirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services, including safe and legal abortion, is a form of violence against women and girls;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas, in contrast to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the scope of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union ~~is not limited to the obligations under the Treaties~~comprises all foundational principles of the European Union referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, as indicated in the Commission Communication of 15 October 2003, and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competences;

Amendment 210 #

Sylwia SPUREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)

44a. Notes that in 2016 the Ministry of Justice prepared a draft motion for consideration to denounce the Istanbul Convention, which is the most comprehensive instrument that sets legally binding standards to prevent gender-based violence; moreover, is deeply concerned that the Polish Deputy Minister of Justice has recently declared that Poland should denounce the Convention;

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 23

~~Hate speech, public discrimination and intolerant behaviour against minorities and other vulnerable groups, including LGBTI people~~deleted

Amendment 212 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 23

Hate speech, public discrimination, violence against women and domestic violence and intolerant behaviour against minorities and other vulnerable groups, including LGBTI people

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
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.deleted

Amendment 214 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

~~45.~~ Reiterates its call on the Polish ~~45.~~ government to take appropriate action on and strongly condemn any xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech53 ; urges to take all necessary measures to firmly combat racist hate speech and incitement to violence, including on the Internet, and publicly condemn and distance itself from racist hate speech by public figures, including politicians and media officials, to address prejudices and negative sentiments towards national and ethnic minorities, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers and to ensure effective enforcement of the laws declaring illegal parties or organizations which promote or incite racial discrimination; _________________ 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 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. ~~Reiterates its call on~~Stresses that the Polish gGovernment 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), Concludconducts monitoring of crimes motivated by prejudice, and the scope of this monitoring includes information about preparatory proceedings for hate crimes conducted (by the police) throughout the country; points out that hate crimes, due to their high social harmfulness, are included in the Priorities of the Police Commander in Chief; notes that educational activities are also conducted ing o~~bservations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 23 November 2016, CCPR/C/POL/CO/7, paras 15-18.~~rder to provide police officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to prevent and combat hate crimes;

Amendment 216 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 217 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Encourages the Polish authorities to give practical and effective application to the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention, including by ensuring application of the existing legislation across the country, as well as the provision of a sufficient number and quality of shelters for women victims of violence and their children;

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Welcomes the actions of Polish authorities condemning xenophobic and fascist hate crime or hate speech and calls on Polish authorities to further taking of appropriate actions in this regard;

Amendment 219 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)

45b. Urges the Polish authorities to take all measures to eliminate structural discrimination against Roma, to continue its efforts to end all segregation in education faced by Roma children, to take measures to end extreme poverty among Roma, provide genuine solutions for housing problems and to take effective measures to end unemployment among Roma and to eliminate the wage gap;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas~~, in contrast to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the scope~~ the scope of application of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is ~~not li~~determitned to the obligations under the Treaties, as indicated in the Commission Communication of 15 October 2003, and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competencesby the scope of the Commission proposal and, in the absence of an extension of the scope of the proposal, Parliament cannot arbitrarily determine the area covered by the procedure;

Amendment 220 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)

45b. Recalls that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland confirms the prohibition of discrimination against anyone on any grounds;

Amendment 221 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 223 #

Maria WALSH

Motion for a resolution
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 called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination;~~ the banning of and inadequate protection against attacks on Pride marches and awareness-raising programmes and actions such as Rainbow Friday, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’ and adoption of ‘Regional Charters of Family Rights’ or key provisions from such charters, discriminating in particular against single-parent and LGBTI families, and called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination; calls on the Commission to launch infringement proceedings in relation to such declarations of local governments, bearing in mind that homophobic statements constitute discrimination in employment and occupation when they are made by persons who may be perceived as having a decisive influence on recruitment policy of local government; calls on the Polish authorities to adopt legislation addressing the situation of same sex unions and parents with a view to ensuring their enjoyment of the right to non-discrimination in law and in fact in accordance with relevant case law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;

Amendment 224 #

Malin BJÖRK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 225 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
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 called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination;~~ the banning of and inadequate protection against attacks on Pride marches and awareness-raising programmes and actions such as Rainbow Friday, as well as the declarations of zones in Poland free from so-called ‘LGBT ideology’ and adoption of ‘Regional Charters of Family Rights’ or key provisions from such charters, discriminating in particular against single-parent and LGBTI families, and called on the Commission to strongly condemn such public discrimination; calls on the Commission to launch infringement proceedings in relation to such declarations of local governments, bearing in mind that homophobic statements constitute discrimination in employment and occupation when they are made by persons who may be perceived as having a decisive influence on recruitment policy of local government; calls on the Polish authorities to adopt legislation addressing the situation of same sex unions and parents with a view to ensuring their enjoyment of the right to non- discrimination in law and in fact in accordance with relevant case law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 227 #

Amendment 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 229 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the procedure under Article 7 TEU has its limits set by the reasoned proposal submitted by the Commission, and any matters not covered by it cannot be subject to the European Parliament’s consent procedure;

Amendment 230 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)

46a. Calls on the Polish authorities to refrain from detaining migrant and asylum-seeking children and families with children, to ensure that asylum seekers are properly registered by border guards and promptly referred to asylum authorities and granted access to a lawyer, to increase the duration and amount of the financial support provided to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in order to facilitate their full integration into society and to remove all barriers that impede access by undocumented migrant women to affordable maternal health care throughout pregnancy;

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)

46a. Recalls its position outlined in its resolution of 18 December 2019 on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, including LGBTI free zones, and condemns the law suits against the civil society activists who published the so called “Atlas of Hate” that documents the spread of homophobia in Poland, and rejects the way the current legal framework and courts and these lawsuits are being used to silence LGBTI activists and prevent them from exercising their right to free speech;

Amendment 233 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Notes that the lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland has already started affecting mutual trust between Poland and other Member States, especially in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured;deleted

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Notes that the lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland has already started affecting mutual trust between Poland and other Member States, ~~especially~~ in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, given that national courts have refused to or hesitated to release Polish suspects under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) procedure due to profound doubts about the independence of the Polish judiciary; points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured;

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. ~~Not~~Recognises that the ~~lack~~issue of independence of the judiciary in Poland hais a~~lready started affecting~~n area under the exclusive competence of that Member State and cannot constitute grounds for mutual mistrust between Poland and other Member States, ~~especially~~including in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; ~~points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured;~~

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Notes in case the Council would determine that there is lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland ~~has already starte~~, this could affect~~ing~~ mutual trust between Poland and other Member States, especially in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; points out that mutual trust between the Member States can be restored only once respect for the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is ensured;

Amendment 238 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 239 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Calls on the Polish gGovernment 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; ~~calls on the Polish government to swiftly implement the rulings of the CJEU and to respect the primacy of Union law;~~

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. Underlines that the Member States of the European Union have, in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, freely and voluntarily committed themselves to the common values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union;

Amendment 240 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. ~~Calls on~~Affirms that the Polish gGovernment tois complying 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 tohat it is engageing directly in dialogue with the Commission; ~~calls on~~acknowledges the measures taken by the Polish gGovernment to swiftly implement the rulings of the CJEU and to respect the primacy of Union law;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

Amendment 242 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Jana TOOM, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Nathalie LOISEAU, Hilde VAUTMANS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)

48a. Calls on the Council and the Commission to refrain from narrowly interpreting the rule of law principle, and to use the Article 7(1) TEU procedure to its full potential by addressing the implications of the Polish government’s action for all the principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU, including democracy and fundamental rights, such as freedom of association, women’s rights, media freedom and the right to free and fair elections;

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

Amendment 244 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Calls upon the Council to resume the formal hearings - the last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearings all the latest and major negative developments in the areas of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Council to finally act under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure by finding that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, in the light of overwhelming evidence thereof as displayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European organisations, the case-law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights and reports by civil society organisations; strongly recommends that the Council address concrete recommendations to Poland, as provided for in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendationsadopt a final position under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. ~~Calls upon~~Sees no need for the Council to resume ~~the~~ formal hearings -in the ~~last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearing~~context of taking into account all the latest and major clarifications provided by the Polish authorities allnd the ~~latest and major negative developments~~findings of this procedure in the areas of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Council to finally act under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure by finding that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, in the light of overwhelming evidence thereofStrongly recommends that the Council, when formulating possible recommendations, conduct as di~~splayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European~~ alogue with the Polish authorities in accorgdanisations, the case-law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights and reports by civil society organisations; strongly recommends that the Council address concrete recommendations to Poland, as provided for in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involvedce with the principle of partnership and respect for Polish sovereignty, especially in areas not covered by EU competences;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Calls upon the Council to resume the formal hearings - the last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearings all the latest and major negative developments in the areas of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Council to finally act under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure by finding that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, in the light of overwhelming evidence thereof as displayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European organisations, the case-law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights and reports by civil society organisations; strongly recommends that the Council address concrete recommendations to Poland, as provided for in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; calls ~~on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;~~ furthermore on the Council to commit to assessing the implementation of these recommendations in a timely manner and, should conditions warrant it, move forward under Article 7(2) TEU; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved; points out the need for informing, in a transparent manner, about the proceedings in the Council in order to allow for meaningful participation and oversight by all European institutions and civil society;

Amendment 247 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Calls upon the Council to resume the formal hearings on the situation in Poland - the last one of which was held as long ago as December 2018 - as soon as possible and to include in those hearings all the latest and major negative developments in the areas of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; urges the Council to finally act under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure by finding that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, in the light of overwhelming evidence thereof as displayed in this resolution and in so many reports of international and European organisations, the case-law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights and reports by civil society organisations; strongly recommends that the Council address concrete recommendations to Poland, as provided for in Article 7(1) TEU, as a follow-up to the hearings, and that it indicate deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; calls on the Council to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved, as well as to allow for a meaningful participation of civil society organisations in the matter;

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
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 tools; calls on the Commission to continue to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved; also calls on the Commission to make full use of the tools mentioned and to consider further measures in the event of a repeated threat to the principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU by a Member State;

Amendment 251 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. ~~Calls on~~Urges 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 tools; calls on the Commission to continue to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involvedput an end as soon as possible to all actions against Poland that violate the rights of sovereign Member States to internal reform, which are supported by false, unilateral arguments and are becoming part of the political game against Poland in its capacity as a full member of the European Union;

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
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 tools; strongly supports the Commission’s approach on inclusion of rule of law conditionality in the future Multiannual Financial Framework; calls on the Commission to continue to keep Parliament regularly informed and closely involved;

Amendment 253 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS

Motion for a resolution
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 tools~~explore 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;

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the President, government and parliament of the Republic of Poland, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.deleted

Amendment 26 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. Points out that the European Parliament’s role in the consent procedure is described in Article 7 and cannot be otherwise usurped; recalls that, according to Article 269 TFEU, only procedural matters can be challenged before the CJEU under Article 7 TEU;

Amendment 27 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3

~~- the protection of fundamental rights, including rights of persons belonging to minorities;~~deleted

Amendment 29 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Tomas TOBÉ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)

- the functioning of a free and independent media;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 b (new)

- having regard to the Council Legal Service’s legal opinion of 27 May 2014 on the compatibility of the Commission’s Communication on a new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law with the Treaties;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates its position, expressed in several of its resolutions on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland, that the facts and trends mentioned in this resolution taken together represent a systemic threat to the values of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and constitute a clear risk of a serious breach thereof;deleted

Amendment 31 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 33 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates its position, expressed in several of its resolutions on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland, that the facts and trends mentioned in this resolution taken together represent a systemic threat to the valuesConfirms that an assessment of a possible breach of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) anshould con~~stitute a clear risk of a serious breach thereof~~ly be made once the reform process in the areas concerned has been completed;

Amendment 34 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)

(1) Takes note of the explanations provided by the Polish government as regards the reasons for the introduction of the reform of the judiciary and considers these explanations to be legitimate and convincing in the context of the concerns expressed by Member States;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Expresses its deep concern that, despite three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, 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; is of the opinion that discussions in the Council under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure have been neither regular nor structured, and have failed to address the substantial issues that warranted the procedure’s activation and to fully grasp the impact that the Polish government’s action is having on all Article 2 TEU principles;

Amendment 36 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Exp~~Stresses ~~its deep concern that, despite three hearings of Poland having be~~that the Polish Government h~~eld in the Council, alarming reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe,~~as thoroughly and repeatedly explained the reasons behind the reform of the judiciary in Poland and fou~~r 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~~tlined its basic principles; welcomes the fact that the presentations were comprehensive, addressing all concerns and questions raised by Member States and the European Commission;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Exp~~Stresses ~~its deep concern t~~that the Polish Government hats, ~~despite three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, alarming reports by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe,~~pursuant to Article 7, thoroughly and repeatedly explained the reasons behind the reform of the judiciary in Poland and fou~~r 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~~tlined its basic principles welcomes the fact that the presentations were comprehensive, addressing all concerns and questions raised by Member States and the European Commission;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Expresses its deep concern that, despit~~Takes note of the three hearings of Poland having been held in the Council, ~~alarming~~the critical 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 39 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Tomas TOBÉ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 4 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2018 on media pluralism and media freedom in the European Union,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 42 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the Commission’s reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017 in accordance with Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding the rule of law in Poland: proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law[16] has a limited scope, namely the rule of law situation in Poland in the strict sense of independence of the judiciary; ~~sees an urgent need to widen the scope of the reasoned proposal by including clear risks of serious breaches of other basic values~~calls on the Commission and the Council to refrain from narrowly interpreting the rule of law principle, and to use the Article 7(1) of the TEU procedure to its full potential, namely to address the implications of the Polish government’s action for all the principles enshrined in Article 2 of the ~~Union~~TEU, especially democracy and respect for human rights;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that the Commission’s reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017, submitted in accordance with Article7(1) TEU, concerns the rule of law in Poland within the strict sense of independence of the judiciary;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the latest developments in the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary and preventive Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) as put forward by Parliament in its resolution of 25 October 2016; recalls that if the Commission and Council continue to reject the establishment of a Pact for DRF, Parliament could take the initiative to launch a pilot DRF report and an interparliamentary debate;

Amendment 46 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the ~~latest developments~~Article 7 TEU procedure ins the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary and preventive Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolution of 25 October 2016ly procedure available under the Treaties to safeguard the rule of law and no complementary and preventive Union mechanism can be put forward by the EU institutions; underlines that any monitoring of the rule of law shall respect the principles of objectivity, non-discrimination, equal treatment, a non-partisan and evidence-based approach;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Takes the view that the latest developments in the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary and preventive Union mec~~Notes that the Council has so far not identified a risk of serious breach by Poland of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; emphansis~~m on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolut~~es that the Council is the only EU institution with such a competence under the provisions of ~~25 October 2016~~Article 7(1) TEU;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the latest developments in the ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU once again underline the imminent need for a complementary ~~and~~, preventive and binding Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights as put forward by Parliament in its resolution of 25 October 2016;

Amendment 49 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)

(1) Takes the opinion that, in the light of the Polish Government’s explanations and Parliament’s findings, there is no risk of a serious violation of the values expressed in Article 2 TEU being committed by Poland, and that the outcome of this procedure against Poland arising from the Commission’s proposal does not provide sufficient grounds for concluding that an additional new mechanism for the evaluation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights is necessary;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

~~— having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of sexual education in Poland9, _________________ 9~~deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0058.

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 51 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates its position on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, including the need to safeguard the rights of beneficiaries, and calls on the Council to start interinstitutional negotiations as soon as possible;Stresses that the conditionality of the disbursement of EU funds must be based on objective and measurable criteria; notes that any non-economic and political criteria create a flagrant risk of their instrumentalisation and introduce uncertainty for the beneficiaries of EU funds; recalls Opinion No 1/2018 of the European Court of Auditors, which expressly draws attention to the above- mentioned element and to the risk of loss of funding by the beneficiaries of funds.

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Reiterates its position as regards the budget envelope for the new Rights and Values Programme within the next Multiannual Financial Framework, and calls to ensure that adequate funding is provided for national and local civil society organizations to grow grassroots support for democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights in the Member States, including Poland;

Amendment 54 #

Tomas TOBÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that Parliament must give its consent to the Multiannual Financial Framework; reiterates its demand for a mechanism to protect the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States; stands ready to reject any proposal that would not sufficiently meet these standards;

Amendment 55 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

~~Functioning of the legislative and electoral system in Polan~~deleted

Amendment 56 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2

~~Usurpation of powers of constitutional revision by the Polish parliament~~deleted

Amendment 57 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2

~~Usurpation of powers of constitutional revision by the Polish parliament~~deleted

Amendment 58 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Denounces that the Polish parliament assumed powers of constitutional revision which it did not have when it acted as the ordinary legislature in adopting the act of 22 December 2015 amending the act on the Constitutional Court and the act of 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal, as found by the Constitutional Tribunal in its judgments of 9 March, 11 August and 7 November 201617; _________________ 17See Venice Commission Opinion of 14 October 2016 on the Law of 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal, Opinion no. 860/2016, para. 127; Commission Reasoned Proposal of 20 December 2017, paras 91 and following.deleted

Amendment 59 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Regrets, furthermore, that many particularly sensitive legislative acts have been adopted by the Polish parliament at a time when independent constitutional review of laws can no longer be effectively guaranteed, such as the act of 30 December 2015 amending the act on Civil Service and certain other acts, the act of 15 January 2016 amending the act on the police and certain other acts, the act of 28 January 2016 on the public prosecution office and the act of 28 January 2016 - regulations implementing the act on the public prosecution office, the act of 18 March 2016 amending the act on the Ombudsman and certain other acts, the act of 22 June 2016 on the National Media Council, the act of 10 June 2016 on anti-terrorist actions and several other acts fundamentally reorganising the judicial system18; _________________ 18See Commission Reasoned Proposal of 20 December 2017, paras 112-113.deleted

Amendment 6 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

~~— having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of sexual education in Poland9, _________________ 9 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0058.~~deleted

Amendment 60 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3

~~The use of expedited legislative procedures~~deleted

Amendment 62 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Deplores the frequent use of expedited legislative procedures by the Polish parliament for the adoption of crucial legislation redesigning the organisation and functioning of the judiciary, without meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including the judicial community19; _________________ 19ENCJ, Warsaw Declaration of 3 June 2016.deleted

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Deplor~~Notes the frequent use of expedited legislative procedures by the Polish parliament for the adoption of crucial legislation redesigning the organisation and functioning of the judiciary, without meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including the judicial community19 ; _________________ 19ENCJ, Warsaw Declaration of 3 June 2016.;

Amendment 64 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 66 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
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 adoptedStresses that the proposal concerning abortion is a citizens’ initiative, submitted on 30 November 2017, and under current Polish law it had to be taken into consideration and submitted for parliamentary action;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
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 adoptedStresses that the proposal concerning abortion is a citizens’ initiative, and not a government one, and was submitted on 30 November 2017 by a group of at least 100 000 entitled persons and initiated by the ‘Stop Abortion’ Legislative Initiative Committee; recalls that, in accordance with the regulations in force, the project was submitted for parliamentary action and has been on the agenda for over two-and-a-half years;

Amendment 68 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 69 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Recalls that the Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 December 2013 on sexual and reproductive health and rights (2013/2040(INI)) ‘notes that the formulation and implementation of policies on SRHR and on sexual education in schools is a competence of the Member States’;

Amendment 7 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

— having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2019 on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, including LGBTI free zones10, _________________ 10 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0101.deleted

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4

~~Electoral law and organisation of elections~~deleted

Amendment 71 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes with concern that the OSCE concluded that media bias and intolerant rhetoric in the campaign were of significant concern20and 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.deleted

Amendment 72 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
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 74 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
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.deleted

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
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 influence and is capable of creating legal uncertainty as to the validity of such review22 ; _________________ 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 77 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
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 78 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Is concerned, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, about the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament shortly before the presidential elections which change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23and which moreover run counter to the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24; _________________ 23Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.deleted

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 8 #

Patryk JAKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Beata KEMPA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

~~— having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2019 on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, including LGBTI free zones10, _________________ 10~~deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0101.

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Is concerned, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, about the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament shortly before the presidential elections which change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 and which moreover run counter to the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24 ; notes with concern that the elections, originally scheduled to be held on 10 May 2020, were eventually postponed without respecting formal legal requirements; _________________ 23Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Is concerned, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, about the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament shortly before the presidential elections which change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 and which moreover run counter to the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal when constitutional review was still effective; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24 ; _________________ 23Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Is concerned, while r~~Recognis~~ing~~es the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 health crisis, a~~bout~~nd thus the amendments to the electoral legislation being considered in the Polish parliament ~~shortly before the presidential elections which~~which would change the practical organisation of the elections in order to proceed to a vote by postal services, which could impede the elections from taking a fair, secret and equal course, respectful of the right to privacy and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 and which moreover run counter to the case law; notes that voting by postal services could be a possibility to hold elections in these difficult times, while it is important to carefully consider its circumstances and to draw conclusions from the practices of othe ~~Polish Constitutional Tribunal~~r Member States holding elections by postal services; stresses, moreover, that it is very difficult to organise a genuine election campaign giving an equal share of attention and equal opportunities to all candidates and programmes and allowing for real public debate in the midst of an epidemic24 ; _________________ 23Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 24OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on the draft act on special rules for conducting the general election of the President of the Republic of Poland ordered in 2020 (Senate Paper No. 99), 27 April 2020.

Amendment 83 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes that the Venice Commission provides clear guidelines on the holding of general elections during public emergencies including epidemics; is concerned that recent changes to the electoral law in Poland are not compatible with the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters; further notes that while the Code foresees the possibility of exceptional voting modalities, any amendments to introduce these may only be considered in accordance with best European practices ‘if the principle of free suffrage is guaranteed’; considers that this is not the case with regard to the amendments to the electoral framework for the presidential elections that are due to take place in 2020;24a _________________ 24aVenice Commission, CDL- PI(2020)005rev-e Report - Respect for Democracy Human Rights and Rule of Law during States of Emergency - Reflections, p. 23.

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 6

~~Reform of~~Changes to the justice system – general considerations

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recognises that while the organisation of ~~the~~ justice ~~system is a national competence; reiterates that, all the same,~~in the Member States falls within their competence, the Member States are required to comply with their obligations under Union law when exercising this competence, as repeatedly held by the CJEU; reiterates that national judges are ~~essentially~~ also European judges, applying Union law, which is the reason why the Union, including the CJEU, has to watch over the independence of the judiciary in all the Member States as one of the exigencies of the rule of law and as laid down inmaking their independence a common concern for the Union, including the Court of Justice; calls on the Polish authorities to uphold and maintain the independence of Polish courts; calls on the Commission and the Council to take all necessary measures to ensure that Polish courts remain independent and are able to ensure effective judicial protection as required by Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter;

Amendment 86 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recognises that the organisation of the justice system is a national competence; reiterates that, all the same, national judges are essentially also European judges, applying Union law, which is the reason why the Union, including the CJEU, has to watch over the independence of the judiciary in all the Member States as one of the exigencies of the rule of law and as laid down in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Recognises that the organisation of the justice system is a national competence; reiterates that~~, all the same,~~ national judges are essentially also European judges, applying Union law, whi~~ch is the reason why~~lst the Union, including the CJEU, has ~~to watch over~~no competence to speak out regarding the independence of the judiciary in ~~all~~ the Member States ~~as one of the exigencies of the rule of law and as laid down in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter~~;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls that the acts concerning the Constitutional Tribunal adopted on 22 December 2015 and 22 July 2016, as well as the package of three acts adopted at the end of 2016, seriously affected the Constitutional Tribunal’s independence and legitimacy and ~~were therefo~~that the first two acts were declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal on respectively 9 March 2016 and 11 August 2016; recalls that those judgments were not published at the time nor implemented by the Polish authorities; seriously deplores the lack of independent and effective constitutional review in Poland since the entry into force of the aforementioned legislative changes25 ; invites the Commission to consider launching an infringement procedure in relation to the legislation on the Constitutional Tribunal; _________________ 25 Venice Commission Opinion of 14-15 October 2016, para. 128; UN, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 31 October 2016, paras 7-8; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520.

Amendment 89 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Recall~~Considers that the a~~cts concerning~~ssessment of the legal nature of the Constitutional Tribunal ~~adopted on 22 December~~’s statements of 9 March 20156 and ~~22 July 2016 seriously affected~~11 August 2016 on the Cunconstitutional Tribunal’s independence and legitimacy and were therefore declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal on respectively 9 March 2016 and 11 August 2016; recalls that those judgments were not published at the time nor implemented by the Polish authorities; seriously deplores the lack of independent and effectivity of the laws concerning the Constitutional Tribunal remain outside the Union’s competence and that, in the light of subsequent legislative developments and the case-law of the cConstitutional ~~review in Poland25; invites the Commission~~Tribunal, these statements are of historical value, making it superfluous to consider launching an infringement procedure in re~~lation to the legislation~~spect onf the Constitutional Tribunal; _________________ 25Venice Commission Opinion of 14-15 October 2016, para. 128; UN, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 31 October 2016, paras 7-8; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520.provisions concerning the Constitutional Tribunal;

Amendment 9 #

Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Isabel SANTOS, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Pietro BARTOLO, Sylwia SPUREK, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Bettina VOLLATH, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

~~— having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences13, _________________ 13~~deleted Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0054.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls that the acts concerning the Constitutional Tribunal adopted on 22 December 2015 and 22 July 2016 seriously affected the Constitutional Tribunal’s independence and legitimacy and were therefore declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal on respectively 9 March 2016 and 11 August 2016; recalls that those judgments were not published ~~at the time~~ nor implemented by the Polish authorities; seriously deplores the lack of independent and effective constitutional review in Poland25 ; invites the Commission to consider launching an infringement procedure in relation to the legislation on the Constitutional Tribunal, its current unlawful composition and its active role in preventing compliance with the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019; _________________ 25Venice Commission Opinion of 14-15 October 2016, para. 128; UN, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 31 October 2016, paras 7-8; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1520.

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
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 120 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 ; notes with concern the irregularities surrounding the nomination of the First President ad interim and his further actions; notes that, on 25 May 2020, the President of the Republic of Poland did not choose the candidate with the largest support among the Supreme Court judges as First President of the Supreme Court; _________________ 26Venice Commission and DGI of the Council of Europe, Urgent Joint Opinion of 16 January 2020, CDL-PI(2020)002, paras 51-55.

Amendment 92 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Rec~~alls that, already in 2017,~~ognises that the changes in the method of nomination of candidates to the position of the First President of the Supreme Court ~~deprived~~take into account 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 Presiden, while the role of the President of the Republic of Poland in this procedure is consistent with the principle of governmental checks and balances; recognises that the introduction of the post 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 120 judges only, thereby effectively abandoning the model of power-sharing between thejudge ad interim holding the office of First President of the Supreme Court is a systemic solution aimed at ensuring the effective conduct of the election of the First President ~~and~~of 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.Supreme Court without undue delay;

Amendment 93 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Tomas TOBÉ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS, Isabel WISELER-LIMA

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Roberta METSOLA, Paulo RANGEL, Jeroen LENAERS, Vladimír BILČÍK, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Kris PEETERS

Motion for a resolution
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 98 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Shares the Commission’s concern~~Recognises that the powers of the President of the Republic (and in some cases also the Minister of Justice) to exercise influence over disciplinary proceedings against Supreme Court judges by appointing a disciplinary officer who will investigate the case, excluding the disciplinary officer of the Supreme Court from an on-going proceeding, risks to run counter to the principle of separation of powers and may affect judicial independence27; _________________ 27See Commission Reasoned Proposal of 20 December 2017, COM(2017) 835, para. 133. See also OSCE-ODIHR, Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017), 13 November 2017, p. 33.of Poland to appoint a disciplinary officer in disciplinary proceedings against Supreme Court judges are part of the mechanism of governmental checks and balances;

Amendment 99 #

Beata KEMPA, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Recall~~Notes that the ~~CJEU found in its judgment of 24 June 201928that lowering the retirement age of sitting judges~~Polish authorities have adopted an amendment to the act ofn the Supreme Court is contrary to Union law and breaches the principle of the irremovability of judges and thus that of judicial independence, after it had earlier granted the Commission’s request for interim measures on the matter by order of 17 December 201829; notes thatn order to comply with the CJEU’s order, which is seen as evidence of the willingness of the Polish authorities ~~passed an ame~~to cooperate andm ent to the act on the Supreme Court in order to comply with the CJEU’s Order, the only instance so far in which they undid a reform of the justice system following a decision by the CJEU; _________________ 28Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland, C- 619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531. 29Order of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2018, Commission v Poland, C- 619/18 R, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1021.gage in dialogue with the EU bodies, including in the reform of the judiciary following the CJEU ruling, although this area remains an exclusive competence of the Member States;

source: 652.541

2020/06/10 FEMM 105 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Citation 1

~~- having regard to the issue paper of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights of December 2017 entitled ‘Women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe’,~~deleted

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Citation 3 b (new)

- having regard to the results of the LGBTI Survey II conducted by the Fundamental Rights Agency, which highlight an increase in intolerance and violence in Poland towards LGBTI persons, and where Polish LGBTI respondents demonstrate a complete disbelief in the government’s combat against prejudice and intolerance, recording the lowest percentage across the EU (only 4%), and Poland registers the highest percentage of respondents avoiding going to certain places for fear of being assaulted, harassed or threatened (79%);

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Deplores the fact that this campaign to discredit Poland in the eyes of the European Parliament is an example of the modus operandi of the EU, which actively distorts national democratic processes and undermines Europe’s diversity;

Amendment 101 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Council to address these issues in the context of its current hearings on the situation in Poland, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU.

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Recalls that Article 7 TEU can be triggered where there is determination that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2; strongly believes that contraventions of women’s, LGBTI+ people’s and other minorities’ rights seriously breach the values of equality and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities enshrined in Article 2 TEU and that such contraventions should trigger the Article 7 procedure; urges the Commission to monitor the situation of these values in the Union closely and launch proceedings under Article 7(1) where there is evidence of a clear risk of a serious breach of these values by a Member State;

Amendment 103 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Notes that in Poland, the subject ‘Education for family life’ (WdŻ) has been taught for 21 years and includes sexuality in an integrated way, i.e. taking account of both the biological sphere and the value-based mental, emotional, social and spiritual spheres. This approach gives young people an opportunity for full and proper development; further notes that it is mandatory for schools to provide WdŻ classes but that they are not compulsory for pupils, out of respect for the constitutional priority which parents have in their children’s education, in accordance with their values and convictions;

Amendment 104 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Strongly regrets recent legal changes by the Sejm, under which medical facilities would no longer be legally obliged to indicate another facility in case of denial of abortion services due to personal beliefs; calls on the Polish government to urgently reverse these changes, to address gaps in service provision resulting from doctors who refuse healthcare services on conscientious objection grounds, and to legislate to ensure that in the event of refusal to perform a medical procedure, the medical facility must indicate another specialist or facility which will perform the procedure;

Amendment 105 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6d. Reiterates its concerns about already ongoing, extensive, and inappropriate use of conscientious objection including the absence of a reliable referral mechanism for access to abortion in practice, and lack of timely appeals processes for women who are denied abortions; notes that under human rights law, the right of conscientious objection is not absolute and is subject to limitations to protect the rights of others and that concerning healthcare, conscientious objection is also constricted by articles protecting the right to life, health and privacy;

Amendment 11 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Samira RAFAELA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ

Draft opinion
Citation 4

- having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 21 and 35 thereof,

Amendment 12 #

Irène TOLLERET, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Samira RAFAELA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Citation 4

- having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 1, 2, 3, 10, 21, 35 and 345 thereof,

Amendment 13 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Citation 4 a (new)

- having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), on the founding values of the Union, and Article 7 TEU, on determining the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2,

Amendment 14 #

Irène TOLLERET, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Samira RAFAELA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Citation 5

- having regard to Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on equality between women and men, ~~and~~ Article 9 TFEU, on combating social exclusion and a high level of education, training and protection of human health, Title IV TFEU on free movement of persons, services and capitals and Title V TFEU on area of freedom, security and justice,

Amendment 15 #

Nicolaus FEST, Christine ANDERSON, Simona BALDASSARRE

Draft opinion
Citation 5 a (new)

- having regard to the UN convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly the preamble, which notes that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,

Amendment 16 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 TEU and embedded in international human rights treaties; whereas those values, which are common to the Member States and to which all Member States have freely subscribed, constitute the foundation of the rights enjoyed by those living in the Union; whereas Article 7 TEU foresees the possibility to suspend certain rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to a Member State, including voting rights in the Council, where there has been a determination of the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2;

Amendment 17 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas policy-making in the area of sexual education and access to health care in the field of sexual and reproductive health, in accordance with Article 168 TFEU, are Member State competences, although the EU can contribute to the promotion of best practices among the Member States;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas provision of accessible and affordable sexual and reproductive health and rights, including contraception and safe and legal abortion, is related to multiple human rights, including the right to life and dignity, freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to access healthcare, the right to privacy, the right to education and the prohibition of discrimination; whereas the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services is a form of violence against women and girls; whereas the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on several occasions that restrictive abortion laws and lack of implementation violates the human rights of women;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas international law does not recognise the so-called right to abortion, and whereas the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed that there is no right to abortion or its performance, and that the right to private life cannot be interpreted as granting the so-called right to abortion1; 1. A. B. C.v. Ireland, [GC], N°25579/05, 16 December 2010, § 213.’Article 8 cannot be interpreted as meaning that pregnancy and its termination pertain uniquely to the woman’s private life as, whenever a woman is pregnant, her private life becomes closely connected with the developing foetus.’

Amendment 2 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Citation 1

~~- having regard to the issue paper of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights of December 2017 entitled ‘Women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe’,~~deleted

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas age-appropriate and evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education is key to building children’s and young peoples’ skills to form healthy, equal, nurturing and safe relationships, free from discrimination, coercion and violence as well as having a positive impact on gender equality outcomes, including transforming harmful gender norms and attitudes towards gender-based violence, homophobia and transphobia and contributes to decreased adolescent pregnancy, reduced risk-taking, and increased use of condoms and other forms of contraception;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 22 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives are before the Polish Parliament, one of which seeks to tighten up even further a law on abortion which is already one of the most restrictive in the EU, and the other to make providing sexual education to minors a criminal offence punishable by imprisonmentand whereas their content and possible adoption come under the sovereignty of Poland;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives are before the Polish Parliament, one of which seeks to tighten up even further a law on abortion which is already one of the most restrictive in the EU, and the other to make providing sexual education to minors a criminal offence punishable by imprisonmentdeals with revision of the law on family planning, protection of the human foetus and conditions for the admissibility of the termination of pregnancy, and the other with the criminalisation of promoting paedophile behaviour;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the Poland’s Act of 1993 on Family Planning, Protection of Human Fetus and the Conditions of Legal Pregnancy Termination is one of the most restrictive laws on abortion in the European Union; whereas the new proposal known as “Stop Abortion” bill which seeks to amend the criminal code to eliminate legal access to abortion in cases of severe or fatal fetal anomaly would, in effect, result in a near total denial of access to legal abortion in Poland as most legal abortions are performed under this ground;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights are essential to achieving gender equality and access to evidence-based comprehensive sexuality and relationship education is key to building children’s and young peoples’ skills to form healthy, equal, nurturing and safe relationships, address gender norms and prevent discrimination and all forms of abuse and gender-based violence;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the assessment of the arguments for the implementation of civic initiatives is carried out, in accordance with Polish law, by the Sejm and the Senate. The decision in this regard remains in the hands of both chambers of the Parliament of the Republic of Poland and the President of the Republic of Poland;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas the “Stop paedophilia” bill would, in effect, prohibit sexuality education, criminalise teachers, health care workers and other educational professionals, and promote stigma, harmful stereotypes and homophobia; whereas the bill would contravene Poland’s international human rights obligations;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the Sejm was legally obliged, within six months of taking up its duties, to consider draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives; whereas on 16 April 2020 the Polish Parliament voted to refer back to committee the two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives on access to abortion and on the sexual education of minors; whereas the dates on which the parliamentary committees will study the bills have not yet been announced;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to its Resolution of 10 December 2013 on sexual and reproductive health and rights1a, 1a P7_TA(2013)0548

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the members of the Sejm were democratically elected on the basis of proportional representation, and whereas the Polish people elected their representatives freely and in the exercise of their sovereignty;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

~~D. whereas in 2018 the draft law imposing restrictions on abortion triggered massive protests throughout Poland and beyond;~~deleted

Amendment 32 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas in 2018 ~~the draft law imposing restrictions on abortion~~a citizens’ initiative, which gathered the signatures of over 450 000 Polish citizens, concerning an amendment to the law on family planning, protection of the human foetus and conditions for the admissibility of the termination of pregnancy triggered ~~massive~~ protests throughout Poland and beyond, which represents both the expression of functioning democratic mechanisms and the taking into consideration of a citizens’ initiative;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas in 2016 an attempt to introduce a total ban on the right to abortion sparked a mass mobilisation of women and civil society organisations and the ‘Black Monday’ women’s strike; whereas in 2018 the draft law imposing restrictions on abortion triggered massive protests throughout Poland and beyond;

Amendment 34 #

Irène TOLLERET, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Samira RAFAELA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas in 20186, 2018 and 2020 the draft law imposing restrictions on abortion triggered massive protests throughout Poland and beyond;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas since the beginning of 2019 in Poland, there were over 80 instances, where regions, counties or municipalities have passed resolutions declaring themselves free from so-called “LGBT ideology”, or have adopted "Regional Charters of Family Rights” or key provisions coming from them, discriminating in particular single-parent and LGBTI families; whereas the creation of LGBTI free zones, even if it does not consist in the introduction of a physical border, represents an extremely discriminatory measure limiting the freedom of movement of the EU citizens;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas in the Republic of Poland, everyone has the right to health, and women in the stages of pregnancy, labour and delivery enjoy special legal protection in Poland; Article 68(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 states that: ‘Public authorities shall ensure special health care to children, pregnant women, handicapped people and persons of advanced age.’;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas in 2019, the Polish people freely chose to elect to the Sejm a majority of members whose stance on abortion was known to the electorate; whereas it is not for supranational or foreign institutions and NGOs to state their opinions on matters of national competence when citizens can vote freely and governments and assemblies are elected democratically;

Amendment 38 #

Da. whereas in the past the UN Human Rights Committee has called on Poland to refrain from adopting any legislative reform that would amount to a retrogression of already restrictive legislation on women’s access to safe and legal abortion; whereas the ECtHR has ruled against Poland in several cases owing to Poland’s restrictive interpretation of this right;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the fact that on 16 April 2020 the Polish Parliament ~~voted to refer back to committee~~did not adopt the two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives on access to abortion and on the sexual education of minors but objects to these bills being referred back to committee for further consideration given that each would significantly undermine human rights and the prospect of any future vote on these bills presents a potential threat to the EU’s founding principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU, notably the respect for human rights and dignity, non-discrimination and equality, including equality between women and men, as well as for the work of civil society;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Citation 2

~~- having regard to the 2019 recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) on adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights,~~deleted

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the fact that on 16 April 2020 the Polish Parliament voted to refer back to committee the two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives on access to abortion and on the sexuality education of minors; is deeply concerned over the repetitive attempts to present, consider and reform laws with the aim to restrict women’s rights and gender equality;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes the fact that on 16 April 2020 the Polish Parliament voted to refer back to committee~~Regrets that Parliament did not flatly reject these two draft laws ~~stemming from citizens’ initiative~~; and rejects any attempts to backtrack on SRHR and LGBTI rights, and in this con ~~access to abortion and on the~~text condemn[ed] the attempts to further criminalise abortion care, stigmatise HIV-positive people, and undermine young people’s access to sexuality education ~~of minors~~in Poland;

Amendment 42 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that, on 16 April 2020, the Polish Parliament voted to refer back to committee the two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives on ~~access to abortion and on the sexual education of minors~~the revision of the law on family planning, protection of the human foetus and conditions for the admissibility of the termination of pregnancy, and the criminalisation of promoting paedophile behaviour;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 44 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST, Simona BALDASSARRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that on 16 April 2020 the Polish Parliament voted to refer back to committee the two draft laws stemming from citizens’ initiatives on access to abortion and on the sexual education of minors;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is encouraged that citizen-led democratic tools are fully operational in Poland

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Polish Government and Members of the Polish Parliament to halt consideration of these two draft laws, given that a vigorous, necessary and legitimate debate is under way in the country and throughout Europe in response to the moral issues and grievances they raise, and that the lives and fundamental rights of thousands of women, couples and families, many of them among the youngest and most vulnerable in society, would be irreparably damaged; Urges Members of the Polish Parliament to refrain from any further attempts to restrict women’s and adolescents’ sexual and reproductive health and rights;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Polish Government to halt consideration of these two draft laws, given that a vigorous, necessary and legitimate debate is under way in the country and throughout Europe in response to the moral issues and grievances they raise, and that the lives and fundamental rights of thousands of women, couples ~~and familie~~, families, children and adolescents, many of them among the youngest and most vulnerable in society, would be irreparably damaged as could the lives and rights of sexual and reproductive health educators including teachers, outreach workers, health care personnel, and rights activists;

Amendment 5 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST, Simona BALDASSARRE

Draft opinion
Citation 2

~~- having regard to the 2019 recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) on adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights,~~deleted

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Calls on~~Encourages the Polish Government to ~~halt~~carefully consider~~ation of~~ these two draft laws, given that a vigorous, necessary and legitimate debate is under way in the country and throughout Europe ~~in response to~~to honestly evaluate the moral issues and ~~grieva~~concerns they raise, and that the lives and fundamental rights of thousands of babies, women, couples and families, many of them among the youngest and most vulnerable in society, would deliberately be irreparably damaged and ended;

Amendment 51 #

Robert BIEDROŃ, Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Evelyn REGNER, Terry REINTKE, Eugenia RODRÍGUEZ PALOP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point 1 (new)

(1) Regrets recent legal changes by the Sejm, under which medical facilities would no longer be legally obliged to indicate another facility in case of denial of abortion services due to personal beliefs; Calls on the Polish government to revert these changes and to adopt measures to compensate for deficiencies in service provision caused by doctors who decide to invoke conscientious objection to refuse healthcare services, and to include in the law a rule that in the event of refusal to perform a medical procedure, the medical facility must indicate another specialist or facility which will perform the procedure;

Amendment 52 #

Robert BIEDROŃ, Evelyn REGNER, Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Terry REINTKE, Eugenia RODRÍGUEZ PALOP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Polish Parliament to reject any legislative proposal that seeks to further erode women’s sexual and reproductive rights and on the Polish authorities to recognise the inalienable rights of women to physical and mental integrity and autonomous decision- making as regards, to the right to access the full range of reproductive health services, including safe and legal abortion and to take measures to implement fully the judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Poland, which has ruled that restrictive abortion laws and lack of implementation violates human rights;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates its concerns about already ongoing, extensive, and inappropriate use of the conscience clause including the absence of reliable referral mechanism for access to abortion in practice, and lack of timely appeals processes for women who are denied abortions; Notes that under human rights law, the right of conscientious objection is subject to limitations to protect the rights of others and that concerning healthcare, conscientious objection is also constricted by articles protecting the right to life, health and privacy;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers that legislation on abortion, as with all laws, comes under national sovereignty, primarily that of each country’s parliamentary institutions, and that the European Parliament should not become involved in a national, democratic matter in Poland;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that policy-making in the area of sexual education and access to health care in the field of sexual and reproductive health are Member State competences;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls for the law limiting women and girls’ access to the emergency contraceptive pill to be repealed;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2e. Strongly affirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services is a form of violence against women and girls and reminds that the unavailability of scientifically accurate information violates the rights of individuals to make informed choices about their own SRHR;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)

2f. Calls on the Polish Parliament to refrain from adopting any policy that would restrict access to comprehensive sexuality education; Call on the Polish authorities to ensure that young people have access to such an education in line with the World Health Organisation standards and that those who provide it are supported in doing so in a factual and objective manner;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)

2g. Encourages the Polish authorities to give practical and effective application to the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention, including by ensuring application of the existing legislation across the country, as well as the provision of a sufficient number and quality of shelters for women victims of violence and their children;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Citation 3

~~- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of sexual education in Poland (2019/2891(RSP))~~deleted

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Is concerned at the loss of women’s rights and at the level of protection in Poland of the right of women and adolescent girls to health, of which sexual and reproductive health is an essential component, and of the rights of young LGBTI people, whose health and physical safety are particularly at risk;deleted

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 62 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasizes that universal access to healthcare, including sexual and reproductive healthcare and related rights, is a fundamental human right; Is concerned at the loss of women’s rights and at the level of protection in Poland of the right of women and adolescent girls to health, of which sexual and reproductive health is an essential component, and of the rights of young LGBTI people, whose health and physical safety are particularly at risk; reminds that the measures that roll back protections for women’s rights and self-determination violate Poland’s international human rights obligations to protect women’s rights to privacy, health, and freedom from inhuman treatment;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Is concerned at the loss of women’s rights and at the level of protection in Poland of the right of women and adolescent girls to health, of which their sexual and reproductive health and rights is an essential component, and of the rights of ~~young~~ LGBTI people, whose ~~health~~mental and physical health and safety are particularly at risk; deplores the government’s continuing attacks on women’s rights activists and organisations through raids, defunding and intimidation, heavily impacting their work and creating an environment of fear;

Amendment 64 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Is concerned about the ~~loss~~backlash of women’s rights and ~~at the level of~~inadequate protection in Poland of the right of women and adolescent girls to health, of which sexual and reproductive health is an essential component, which includes the right to access information about sexual and reproductive health and rights, and of the rights of young LGBTI people, whose health and physical safety are particularly at risk;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Is concerned at the ~~loss of~~danger to women’s ~~rights~~health and at the level of protection in Poland of the right of women and adolescent girls to health, of which sexual and reproductive health is an essential component, and of the rights of young LGBTI people, whose health and physical safety are particularly at risk;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stress that unhindered and timely access to reproductive health services and respect for women’s reproductive autonomy and decision-making is critical to protecting women’s human rights and gender equality; reminds that International human rights bodies have repeatedly affirmed that highly restrictive abortion laws contravene human rights standards and must be reformed; recalls that Parliament has strongly criticised, already in its resolutions of 14 September2016 and 15 November 2017, any legislative proposal that would prohibit abortion in cases of severe or fatal foetal impairment, thereby virtually banning access to abortion care in Poland as most legal abortions are performed under this ground;

Amendment 67 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST, Simona BALDASSARRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the fact that the issue of reproductive health has been included in the National Health Programme for the 2016-2020 period and in the health policy programme entitled: ‘Programme for comprehensive protection of reproductive health in Poland’, which aims primarily to increase the availability of high-quality diagnostic and infertility services;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the Polish government's efforts at protecting the rights of women by tackling Islamisation, which presents one of the largest threats to the rights of women and sexual minorities;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that legislation on abortion must go hand in hand with measures to prevent abortion, given the large number of contraceptive techniques in existence today;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Citation 3

~~- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of sexual education in Poland (2019/2891(RSP)),~~deleted

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses that women who decide to end a pregnancy either travel to another country to obtain safe and legal abortion services or undergo potentially unsafe procedures at home and might risk their lives during these procedures, particularly poor women; reaffirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services, including safe and legal abortion, is a form of violence against women and girls;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Urges the Polish authorities to respect the right of women to make autonomous decisions about their own bodies and reproductive functions, which are at the very core of their fundamental right to equality and privacy concerning intimate matters of physical and psychological integrity; calls for the law limiting women’s and girls’ access to the emergency contraceptive pill to be repealed;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Strongly reiterates that access to comprehensive, age-appropriate information about sex and sexuality and access to sexual and reproductive health care, including sexual education, family planning, contraceptive methods and safe and legal abortion, is essential to create a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Reiterates that young people must be empowered and protected through age- appropriate information about sex and sexuality and access to sexual and reproductive healthcare; Stresses that rather than protecting young people, lack of information and education about sex and sexuality risks the safety and well- being of young people by leaving them vulnerable to sexual exploitation, abuse and violence, including girls and young LGBTI people who are particularly impacted by inequitable gender and social norms; demands that educators, doctors and carers been supported, protected and encouraged to be able to provide these informations;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. Recalls that education, in addition to being a stand-alone human right, is a precondition for the enjoyment of other fundamental rights and freedoms; recalls that Poland has a duty under international human rights law to provide mandatory, age-appropriate, standardised, evidence-based and scientifically accurate comprehensive sexuality education; recalls that such education is a necessary part of the school curriculum to meet the World Health Organization standards for Europe to educate and protect young people; affirms that such education should encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, sexual expression, relationships and consent as well as information about negative outcomes or conditions such as STIs and HIV, unintended pregnancy, sexual violence and harmful practices such as grooming and FGM;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 76 #

Irène TOLLERET, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Samira RAFAELA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Polish Government to condemn and take appropriate legal measures against the resolutions adopted by regional and local authorities concerning the establishment of ‘LGBTI- free areas’ in Poland, which violate fundamental rights and fuel more hatred, fear and threats against LGBTI + people in Poland; calls on the Commission to assess whether the creation of LGBTI free zones consists in a violation of the freedom of movement and residence in the EU, infringing Article3 (2) TEU, Article 21 TFEU, Title IV and V TFEU and Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; calls on the Commission to assess whether Poland has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties and it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter, in accordance with Article258 TFEU; urges the Polish Government to take steps to protect LGBTI + people and to combat all human rights violations faced by them in Poland;

Amendment 78 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Samira RAFAELA, Hilde VAUTMANS, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Polish Government to condemn and take appropriate legal measures against the resolutions adopted by regional and local authorities concerning the establishment of ‘LGBTI- free areas’ in Poland, which violate fundamental rights and fuel more hatred, fear and threats against LGBTI + people in Poland; urges the Polish Government to take steps to protect LGBTI + people and to combat all human rights violations faced by them in Poland; ; Recalls its position outlined in its resolution of 18 December 2019 on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, and condemns the law suits against the civil society activists who published the so called ”Atlas of Hate” that documents the spread of homophobia in Poland, and rejects the way the current legal framework and courts and these lawsuits are being used to silence LGBTI activists and prevent them from exercising their right to free speech;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Polish Government to condemn and take appropriate legal measures against the resolutions adopted by regional and local authorities concerning the establishment of ‘LGBTI- free areas’ in Poland, which violate fundamental rights and fuel more hatred, fear and threats against LGBTI + people in Poland; urges the Polish Government to take steps to protect LGBTI + people and ~~to combat~~address all human rights violations ~~faced by them in Poland;~~LGBTI+ people and organisations in Poland; call on the Polish Government to ensure the rights and freedoms of the civil society organisations working to ensure representation of women’s and LGBTI+ peoples interests in public policy and society at large.

Amendment 8 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST, Simona BALDASSARRE

Draft opinion
Citation 3 a (new)

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 81 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Polish Government to urgently condemn and take appropriate legal measures against the resolutions adopted by regional and local authorities concerning the establishment of ‘LGBTI- free areas’ in Poland, which violate fundamental rights and fuel more hatred, fear and threats against LGBTI + people in Poland; urges the Polish Government to take steps to protect LGBTI + people and to combat all human rights violations faced by them in Poland;

Amendment 82 #

Vera TAX, Evelyn REGNER, Robert BIEDROŃ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to launch infringement proceedings in relation to the establishment of “LGTBI-free areas”, bearing in mind that homophobic statements constitute discrimination in employment and occupation when they are made by persons who may be perceived as having a decisive influence on recruitment policy of local government; calls on the Polish authorities to adopt legislation addressing the situation of same sex unions and parents with a view to ensuring their enjoyment of the right to non- discrimination in law and in fact in accordance with relevant case law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;

Amendment 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Urges the European Commission to investigate whether EU cohesion funds have been used by these regions for anti- LGBTI+ propaganda, and if that is the case, calls for suspension of further funding until there are sufficient guarantees that European financial resources will not be used for actions violating EU values.

Amendment 84 #

Arba KOKALARI, Christine SCHNEIDER, Pernille WEISS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Condemns that Poland has introduced "LGBT-free zones" which now has been declared in a third of Polish municipalities, and seriously violates human rights and discriminates LGBT- people;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland upholds the prohibition of discrimination against any person on any grounds;

Amendment 86 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Calls on the Polish Government to include sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the Criminal Code;~~deleted

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Calls on the Polish Government to include sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the Criminal Code;~~deleted

Amendment 88 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Calls on the Polish Government to include sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the Criminal Code;~~deleted

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Polish Government to include sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics as a protected personal characteristics in the Criminal Code to ensure the rights of all LGBTI+ people in Poland;

Amendment 9 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ

Draft opinion
Citation 3 a (new)

- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 13 February 2019 on Experiencing backlash in women’s rights and gender equality in the EU (2018/2684(RSP)),

Amendment 90 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the lack of comprehensive sexuality and anti-discrimination education in line with international standards in Poland and curricula perpetuating homophobia, discriminatory attitudes, gender stereotypes, and myths about sexuality and reproductive health; calls on the Polish government to integrate comprehensive, systematic and scientifically-proof sexuality and anti- discrimination education in school curricula in line with European and international standards and ensure that it is provided by qualified teachers or educators; calls on the Polish authorities to refrain from taking any disciplinary action against or stigmatising teachers and educators for their teachings related to sexuality and anti-discrimination;

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Encourages all Member States to do all they can to protect and not threaten fundamental human rights by recognising that all babies lives matter; black babies lives matter, white babies lives matter, European and non-European babies lives matter, LGBTi babies lives matter, heterosexual babies lives matter;

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Polish Government to comply with the recommendations made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of sexual education in Poland, as well as with those of the Council of Europe and the WHO.deleted

Amendment 93 #

Hilde VAUTMANS, Karen MELCHIOR, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Radka MAXOVÁ, Samira RAFAELA, Irène TOLLERET, María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS, Susana SOLÍS PÉREZ, Chrysoula ZACHAROPOULOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Polish Government to comply with the recommendations made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of comprehensive sexuality education in Poland, as well as with those of the Council of Europe and the WHO.

Amendment 95 #

Christine ANDERSON, Nicolaus FEST, Simona BALDASSARRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Calls on~~Encourages the Polish Government to ~~comply with the recommendations made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 14 November 2019 on the criminalisation of~~ensure a priority role for families in providing top quality age appropriate relationship and sexual education in Poland, asnd wel~~l as with those of the Council of Europe and the WHO~~comes the Polish government's efforts against the promotion of underage sexual activity.

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out the worrying tendency of shrinking space for civil society and the increasing bureaucratisation and funds restrictions for fundamental rights organisations, including women’s rights organisations and activists; Calls on the polish authorities to ensure adequate funding to be available for organisations promoting SRHR and LGTBI+ rights, including through different funding instruments at EU level, such as the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021 – 2027 Rights and Values programme and other EU pilot projects;

Amendment 97 #