2020/2072(INL) The Establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2020/10/05
Lead committee dossier:
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2020/10/05
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | LIBE | ŠIMEČKA Michal ( Renew) | BILČÍK Vladimír ( EPP), BARLEY Katarina ( S&D), BAY Nicolas ( ID), LAGODINSKY Sergey ( Verts/ALE), KEMPA Beata ( ECR), BJÖRK Malin ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | WÖLKEN Tiemo ( S&D) | Geoffroy DIDIER ( PPE), Ilhan KYUCHYUK ( RE), Manon AUBRY ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | AFCO | CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz ( S&D) | Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA ( RE), Vladimír BILČÍK ( PPE), Nikolaj VILLUMSEN ( GUE/NGL), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA ( ECR) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 47
Legal Basis:
RoP 47Subjects
Events
2020/10/05
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
2020/07/01
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/05/27
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2020/05/27
EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2020/05/04
EP - WÖLKEN Tiemo (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2020/02/19
EP - CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2019/12/02
EP - ŠIMEČKA Michal (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
Amendments | Dossier |
182 |
2020/2072(INL)
2020/07/17
JURI
89 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 a (new) - whereas the independence, quality and efficiency of national justice systems are crucial for the achievement of effective justice in civil, commercial and administrative cases for citizens and businesses; whereas the EU Justice Scoreboard provides substantive data on these parameters and represents a tool of comparison;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at envisaging measures to prevent
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing and addressing any threat to any of the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear risk arises in a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Highlights, once again, that the EU still requires more effective legal instruments to prevent and address threats and violations of the common values, principles and rights enshrined in Article 2 TEU and the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union; recalls, in this regard, that the European Parliament has already submitted a far-reaching proposal aimed at establishing an objective, impartial, evidence-based and non-discriminatory EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Invites the Commission as Guardian of the Treaties to further substantiate its annual reporting on the application of the Charter by establishing a monitoring exercise and dialogue with the Member States within the framework of the future Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights with the aim of ensuring that national legislative and judicial measures and practices with regards to civil, administrative, commercial and procedural law are aligned with the provisions of the Charter;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that associations, trade unions, civil society organisations, human rights defenders and national human rights institutions should form an integral part of the process regarding the monitoring of respect for the rule of law and the publication of recommendations by the panel of independent experts;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Highlights the need to ensure full objectivity when drawing up evaluation metrics and criteria as part of the Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights, in order to prevent the creation of double standards and the concentration of scrutiny on certain Member States for purely political reasons;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Welcomes the steps undertaken by the Commission to set up a horizontal monitoring system - in the form of a Rule of Law review Cycle - to oversight the respect of the rule of law at the EU level, but calls on the Commission to further develop such proposal under the framework of Article 295 TFEU, as repeatedly requested by the Parliament; considers that such an arrangement wold favour a better coordination among the EU institutions while providing for clear rules in terms of interinstitutional cooperation, tasks and responsibilities;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Emphasises that the EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should, in accordance with Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be based on respect for Member States’ national identities and fundamental political, constitutional and judicial structures;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Considers it of paramount importance that the periodic review under the mechanism be based on the inextricable relationship between democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, encompassing all the aspects enlisted in Article 7 of the Parliament's proposal for a draft interinstitutional agreement on a European Union Pact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 b (new) - whereas according to Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union, the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (The Charter), which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties; whereas under the guidance of the European Court of Justice, the Charter is applied by Member States’ judicial authorities only when implementing European legislation, however, it is important for the fostering of a common legal, judicial and rule of law culture that the rights as enshrined in the Charter are always taken into account including in civil and administrative proceedings;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Calls on the Commission to reconsider its evaluation concerning the establishment of a representative panel of independent experts supporting the drafting of the annual report on democracy, the rules of law and fundamental rights, as a mean to strengthen the actual and perceived objectivity and independence of the periodic assessment;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; underlines that judicial independence is integral to judicial decision-making and a requirement resulting from the principle of effective legal protection set out in Article 19 TEU; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence; urges the Commission to use all the instruments at its disposal against any attempt by national governments to endanger the independence of their judiciary and to timely inform Parliament of any such situation; points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that citizens accurately perceive the interference from government and politician as the main reason for the lack of independence in their respective judicial systems; defends, in this context, that the principle of separation of powers entails that those investigating and deciding on disciplinary sanctions for judges should be appointed in a manner that is free from political influence and that judges who are members of existing national Councils for the Judiciary should be proposed, selected or elected by their peers;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that all public authorities in the Member States must always act within the limits of the law while observing the values arising from fundamental rights in a democracy, under the control of an independent and impartial judiciary system, which is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights, both material and procedural, deriving from Union law are protected; stresses that every national court is also a European court, and is responsible for both applying Union law and initiating the preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 of the TFEU, with a view to ensuring consistency and uniformity when applying Union law; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence and call into question the very legal, political and economic bases of how the European Union works;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; reiterates its call to replace the existing partially applicable instruments for monitoring of those matters, such as the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria, with a thorough and harmonised analysis applicable to all Member States; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts and lawyers be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that all rights deriving from Union law are protected; stresses that every national court is also a European court when applying Union law, and that the decisions they make must be respected and guaranteed by all other national and European courts; is worried that recent attacks on the rule of law have mainly consisted of attempts to jeopardise judicial independence;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary, including independent and impartial from europhile and integrationist interests, is an indispensable cornerstone of the rule of law; highlights that the requirement that courts be independent is of the essence to the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and a fair trial and to ensure that
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing and addressing any threat to the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear risk arises in a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered; points out that the Union has no legally binding mechanism in place to regularly monitor the compliance of Member States and Union institutions with Union values; considers that the main purpose of any such mechanism should be to prevent and address any clear risk of a serious breach of those values; considers, in this regard, that in any future proposal for an interinstitutional agreement for an Union Pact for DRF, emphasis should be put on preventive and corrective elements.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Emphasises that an independent and impartial judiciary
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Highlights the importance of the Sibiu Declaration of May 2019, in which the European leaders unanimously committed to continue to protect our way of life, democracy and the rule of law in the European Union; to this end, invites the Commission, the European Council and the Council to prioritise action in this area, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, which gave rise to autocratic and illiberal tendencies in several Member States;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers that judicial decisions of higher bodies should not be contradicted or challenged by lower judicial bodies of other Member States; stresses that, in order to ensure better judicial cooperation and effectiveness, it is essential to respect the sovereignty and independence of the highest judicial bodies of the Member States given that they are the primary guardians of the rule of law in those countries;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Underlines that the system of requirements laid down in the context of the rule of law and based on the principle of democracy was originally created and incorporated into the Treaties in order to improve the democratic and efficient functioning of the EU institutions and thus enable them to perform their tasks within a single institutional framework;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Reminds that the principle of legal certainty is essential to the confidence in the judicial systems and the rule of law. It is also essential to productive business arrangements to generate development and economic progress.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Emphasises that the European Union should fulfil its role of examining its institutions to see whether their functioning is in compliance with the principle of democracy and the rule of law;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law, and th
Amendment 39 #
3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and include training on skills and non-legal issues so that judges are better prepared to resist undue pressure; in this regard, calls on the Commission to develop common judicial training standards and promote institutional cooperation on judicial training in the EU;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that such training must be adequately funded and that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus and resources on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and include training on skills and non-legal issues so that judges are better prepared to resist undue pressure;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights that training of justice professionals is essential to the proper implementation and application of Union law and thus to the strengthening of a European common legal culture based on the principles of mutual trust and the rule of law; considers that the upcoming European judicial training strategy must put additional focus on promoting the rule of law and judicial independence and
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses the need for adequate funding to train professionals and to ensure the smooth day-to-day running of the judicial system, including measures to guarantee respect for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; urges the Member States to increase their national justice budgets where they do not allow for the smooth day-to-day running of the judicial system, including funds to guarantee dignified detention conditions, combat overpopulation in prisons and provide suitable alternatives to imprisonment;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Welcomes the fact that, until now, the European networks have played an essential role in promoting exchanges of ideas and good practices within the EU’s judicial system; urges the Commission to identify further measures to support these networks, such as the European Judicial Training Network, so that they can focus on projects that promote the rule of law, particularly in Member States facing these types of problems;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Condemns all forms of coercion, harassment, pressure, intimidation and/or physical or verbal violence against judges and prosecutors, especially in their private lives, at their homes or in their family settings; considers that judges and lawyers should be able to carry out their duties without public authorities or officials questioning their legitimacy, capability or independence;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines the importance of promoting knowledge of EU law and the national legal systems, enhancing understanding, trust and cooperation between judges and prosecutors within the Member States as well as strengthening public trust in judicial professionals;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Observes that considerable differences remain in the level of participation in training across Member States and types of legal professions; calls on the Commission to identify the reasons for those differences and address them in the upcoming European judicial training strategy and to assess the impact of those differences on the independence, quality and efficiency of Member States’ judiciaries; emphasises the need for closer cooperation among the bodies responsible for constitutional supervision; calls on the Commission to identify support measures to promote and strengthen the projects of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Observes that considerable differences remain in the level of participation in training across Member States and types of legal professions
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Observes that considerable differences remain in the level of participation in training across Member States and types of legal professions; calls on the Commission to identify the reasons for those differences and
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing and addressing any threat to the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear risk of infringement of these values arises in a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered; recalls that failure to adhere to EU values may have a negative impact on the European project itself, particularly when it comes to the fundamental rights of European Union citizens, thereby diminishing mutual trust between Member States;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of subsidiarity and primacy of Union law; considers that references for a preliminary ruling should be settled as quickly as possible to prevent parties from being left defenceless; to this end, priority should be given to involving lawyers and officials from the country whose court has submitted the issue in order to save time on translating and interpreting documents, evidence, statements, etc.;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of subsidiarity and primacy of Union law; emphasises that improving the skills and knowledge of European judges and prosecutors when it comes to identifying and responding to the challenges they face when applying the principle of the rule of law will help to ensure the uniform application of appropriate mechanisms to prevent its infringement;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that preliminary rulings clarify the manner in which the law of the European Union is to be applied; considers that recourse to this procedure allows for uniform interpretation and implementation of the European legislation; Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of subsidiarity and primacy of Union law;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the potential of judicial training of generally accepted international and not merely Euro-centric methods of treaty interpretation for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly through the use of references for a preliminary ruling and the interaction between the principles of conferral, of subsidiarity and of the primacy of Union law within its own undisputed sphere of authority;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the potential of judicial training for improving the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly t
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that there are still significant differences among Member States regarding the number of pending cases and that the building up of backlogs has increased in some Member States; notes that the protection of the rule of law is dependent on the efficiency of justice systems and that there should not be a two-speed Union when it comes to the delivery of justice;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that there is no greater expert on the laws of a Member State than the highest judicial body of that legal order; points out that the Court of Justice of the European Union should not interfere in matters that are an exclusively national competence;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points to the complementarity that should exist between the EU Justice Scoreboard, which allows for an overview comparison between Member States, and the Annual Monitoring Report on Union Values as an in-depth qualitative mapping of the concrete situation in each Member State; suggests, once again, incorporating the EU Justice Scoreboard within the annual report drafted in the framework of the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing and addressing any threat to the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear risk arises in a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered; believes that the monitoring of respect for the rule of law by the Member States and the publication of recommendations to that end should be based on the work of a panel of qualified, independent and impartial experts;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points to the complementarity that should exist between the EU Justice Scoreboard, which allows for an overview comparison between Member States, and the Annual Monitoring Report on Union Values as an in-depth qualitative mapping of the concrete situation in each Member State; calls for the objective use and consideration of EU Justice Scoreboard data, without any discrimination against certain countries in the conclusions of the Annual Monitoring Report.
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points to the complementarity that should exist between the EU Justice Scoreboard, which allows for an overview comparison between Member States, and the Annual Monitoring Report on Union Values as an in-depth qualitative mapping of the concrete situation in each Member State, and calls on the Commission to present again the anti-corruption reports that have been discontinued since 2016, as a further useful evaluation tool;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points to the complementarity that should exist between the EU Justice Scoreboard, which allows for an overview comparison between Member States' judicial systems, and the Annual Monitoring Report on Union Values as an in-depth qualitative mapping of the concrete situation in each Member State;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to consider linking the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights to the proposed regulation on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, in order to strengthen the synergy between the different EU instruments aimed at protecting and promoting the rule of law and fundamental rights;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, including the possibility to follow court proceedings online, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants; in this context, points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that nationwide data collection across all justice areas is still not possible in all Member States and recalls that having access is a valuable and necessary assessment tool;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants, with particular attention to unaccompanied minors; calls on the Commission to monitor the correct application of Directive (EU) 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to promote faster digitalisation at all levels of the Member States’ judicial systems, to use artificial intelligence as a means of ensuring access to the justice system, and to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities and migrants;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of
Amendment 68 #
7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to assess ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or belonging to vulnerable groups, such as national minorities
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to assess, standardise and simplify ICT tools and other means put in place by Member States at the disposal of citizens to facilitate their access to justice, in particular citizens with disabilities or
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Emphasises the need to ensure that the EU instruments for ensuring the rule of law are consistent and complementary: the EU’s Rule of Law Report, the Justice Scoreboard, which forms the basis for both the EU Rule of Law Report and the Country-Specific Recommendations in the European Semester, the procedures laid down in Article 7 TEU, infringement actions, and the future conditionality of the MFF in relation to the rule of law;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Believes that the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria should be reviewed in the light of the most recent judicial reforms in those two Member States;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Emphasises the need to replace the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Romania and Bulgaria with the EU Rule of Law Report in order to ensure equality among all the EU Member States; considers that the scope and the assessment methodology of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism and the Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights are similar and would, therefore, lead to discrepancies in terms of the responsibilities of the Member States;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation in Member States of adequately funded legal aid schemes and to the quality of the legal assistance provided, and to assess any obstacles currently preventing citizens without resources from effectively accessing justice; similarly, calls on the Commission to look at the recoverability of legal fees as it too can be a deterrent when it comes to accessing justice; points to the conclusion of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard that legal aid has become less accessible in some Member States over the years; stresses that the availability of legal aid and the level of court fees can have a major impact on access to justice, as well as an dissuasive effect for people in poverty;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation in Member States of adequately funded legal aid schemes
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes that Article 41 EUCFR recognises the right to a good European Union administration; observes that with the development of the competences of the Union, citizens are increasingly confronted with the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, without always having their procedural Rights adequately protected; notes that the existing rules and principles on good administration are scattered across a wide variety of sources; stresses that in a Union under the rule of law it is necessary to ensure that procedural Rights and obligations are always adequately defined, developed and complied with; recalls its resolutions of 15 January 2013 and 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration; considers that the Union should lead by example and adopt an administrative procedural code and, in this regard, calls once more on the Commission to put forward a proposal for a regulation on administrative procedure for the European Union;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Condemns any instances where court actions can be abused against the values and rights any legal system is called to protect; urges the Commission to look attentively into any cases where the introduction of court actions and the financial costs they entail for the defendant are being used in Member States for purposes that go against a rule of law culture, like, for instance, the existence of a free and plural media and independent academics, researchers, trade unionists, human rights defenders and civil society organisations; furthermore calls on the Commission to take any action and measures necessary in line with the powers conferred to it by the Treaties in order to end such practices and ensure the accountability of those allowing such practices to occur;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that whistleblowers play a critical role in the protection of the rule of law in the EU and the Member States; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the transposition and application of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that addressing persisting gender and cultural gaps in in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, effectiveness and independence
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that addressing persisting gender and cultural gaps in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, impartiality, effectiveness and independence.
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that addressing persisting gender, ethnic and cultural gaps in in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, effectiveness and independence.
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that addressing persisting gender
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that addressing persisting gender and cultural gaps in the composition and structure of Member States’ judicial systems is necessary to enhance their quality, effectiveness and independence.
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Believes that addressing persisting gender
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Stresses the need to ensure adequate funding for the sectoral ‘Justice’ and ‘Rights and Values’ Programmes in the upcoming multiannual financial framework, as these programmes aim to promote and ensure the development of a common European culture of judicial systems, the rule of law and EU values.
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Points out that professional competence should continue to be the first recruitment criterion for judges, regardless of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Considers that the EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights should be a core element of the conditionality of financial aid for the Member States.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the Union mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights should primarily aim at preventing and addressing any threat to the Union values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) before any clear risk arises in a Member State or in part of a Member State and Article 7 TEU should be triggered;
source: 655.686
2020/07/20
AFCO
93 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Recalls that the EU architecture on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has been in continuous development ever since the creation of the European Community (EC) and that after its introduced in the EC by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, it was progressively anchored and strengthened in the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon and that at present respect for the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights are recognized as the founding values of the Union; whereas this process must be further advanced;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States, which is deeply regrettable; underlines that the Union is founded on a set of common principles of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; recalls in particular the importance of upholding the rule of law and the obligation of Member States to ensure effective judicial protection, which is a core value of the Union as a community based on law;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Recalls that the EU still has no effective mechanisms to monitor, prevent and put an end to systemic threats to the rule of law and democracy in the Member States; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission communication on further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union and the actions set out therein; calls on the Commission to implement the proposed rule of law framework without undue delay; considers necessary to put in place sanctions that could be effective, dissuasive and proportionate;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Notes the contradiction that whereas future Member States are vetted for their compliance with these values before they accede to the Union, no similar method exists to supervise adherence to these foundational principles after accession in the European Union;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Recalls that the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a legal obligation foreseen under Article 6(2) TEU; recalls that the accession to ECHR will constitute a further step in the process of European integration and will enhance the coherence between the Union and the Council of Europe’s further strengthening the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms within the EU; regrets the lack of progress made so far to fulfil this Treaty obligation; calls on the Commission to step up efforts to respect the Treaties and conclude the negotiations without undue delay;
Amendment 14 #
1 b. Highlights that the lack of monitoring, evaluating and supervisory mechanisms for the EU's legal founding principles would not constitute a problem if Member States adhered to these principles after their accession into the European Union;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Acknowledges that the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights must be linked to strengthening democratic functioning in the Union; regrets that previous requests for dialogue with particular governments led to limited solutions only;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 e (new) 1 e. Demands to strengthen the Court of Justice of the European Union by introducing an instrument of individual complaint for citizens; underlines the need to establish a mechanism for arbitration of constitutional matters; proposes that this topic be debated during the course of the upcoming Conference on the Future of Europe;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU a
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all pay special respect to comply with it during their functioning and contribute to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 a (new) -1 a. Recalls that the EU has codified in its accession criteria that EU membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities; points out however that the EU lacks effective tools to enforce these criteria once a country has become part of the EU;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all contribute to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties; calls for such activities to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement and calls for
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all contribute to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties; calls for such activities to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all contribute, without political bias, to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties; calls for such activities to be governed by an interinstitutional agreement and for existing mechanisms to be consolidated, while setting out detailed assessments of the situations in all Member States, determining preventive and corrective actions;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Insists that the Union institutions are to practise mutual sincere cooperation in line with Article 13(2) TEU and therefore should all contribute to the defence of the Union values in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaties;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Points out that the principle of rule of law is not only biding for the Member States, but for the institutions of the European Union as well as stated in Article 263 TFEU and in the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legal certainty, access to justice together with non-discrimination and equality before the law are indispensable cornerstones of rule of law,
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Proposes that the panel of independent experts consists of one expert appointed by each Member State’s parliament among former constitutional court or supreme court judges, as well as ten experts nominated by academia, civil society and international organisations and appointed by the European Parliament;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Underlines that the system of requirements laid down in the context of the rule of law and based on the principle of democracy was originally created and incorporated into the Treaties in order to improve the democratic and efficient functioning of the EU institutions and thus enable them to perform their tasks within a single institutional framework.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2 c. Emphasises that the European Union should fulfil its role of examining its institutions to see whether their functioning is in compliance with the principle of democracy and the rule of law;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States and the EU itself; recalls in particular the importance of upholding the rule of law and the obligation of Member States to ensure effective judicial protection
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that for effective implementation, in accordance with Article 295 TFEU and their power of self- organisation
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that for effective implementation, in accordance with Article 295 TFEU
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that for effective implementation, in accordance with Article 295 TFEU and their power of self- organisation, the three institutions should establish a joint body responsible for coordinating their cooperation in this field; notes,however, that unnecessary creation of new structures or duplication should be avoided and integration and incorporation of existing instruments should be the preferred option;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that for effective implementation, in accordance with Article 295 TFEU and their power of self- organisation, the three institutions should establish a joint advisory body responsible for
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that for effective
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and lead to effective and realistic measures; stresses that if the Commission fails to follow these principles and this tool ends up being used to put pressure on Member states to join the political agenda of the main European political parties, it will lose its credibility;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and lead to effective
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and lead to effective and realistic measures; believes in this regard, that the assessment should be carried out by an independent panel of experts and that its findings should be made public;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence from the assessment of the panel of independent experts and lead to effective
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed, at all its stages, by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence, protected from any malicious disinformation strategy and lead to effective and realistic measures;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and lead to effective and realistic
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle should be governed by the principles of transparency, impartiality, and equality between Member States, be based on objective evidence and measurable indicators and criteria and lead to effective and
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Recalls that while in the EU legal framework the rule of law is explicitly mentioned as a value which is common to the EU and its Member States (Article 2 TEU), the EU Treaties do not provide a definition of the notion; points out that the rule of law is a complex and in many aspects vague concept and therefore the setup of the Annual Monitoring Cycle would require a consensus on the principles of the rule of law common to all Member States; considers that the strict minimum of the meaning of the rule of law is a system where laws are applied and enforced and that in the definition of the concept the Commission should use a broad definition, drawing on principles set out in the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the principles expressed by the Venice Commission;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Notes that any monitoring of rule of law should respect the national identity and constitutional structure of the Member States as endorsed by the Treaties (Article 4 (2) TEU);
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Stresses that the rule of law is intrinsically linked to respect for democracy and for fundamental rights and that therefore the three principles must be jointly monitored;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the operation of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the institutions should, in accordance with Article 11 TEU, maintain an open dialogue with representative
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the operation of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the institutions should, in accordance with Article 11 TEU, maintain an open dialogue with representative stakeholders; the Annual Monitoring Cycle should therefore provide for compulsory consultations with organised civil society at all stages of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, and their views and contributions should be made public in that process; suggests the European Ombudsman and other EU bodies contribute with input to the independent panel of experts where relevant;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the operation of the
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the operation of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the institutions should, in accordance with Article 11 TEU, maintain an open dialogue with representative stakeholders; the Annual Monitoring Cycle should therefore provide for compulsory consultations with organised civil society, and their views and contributions should be
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that, both in the process of establishment of the Interinstitutional Agreement and in the operation of the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the institutions should, in accordance with Article 11 TEU, maintain an open dialogue with representative and impartial stakeholders; the Annual Monitoring Cycle should therefore provide for compulsory and open consultations with organised civil society, and their views and contributions should be made public in that process;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new) Stresses that the Council of Europe plays a crucial role in monitoring the respect of fundamental rights and the rule of law in Europe. Insists therefore that consultations with the Council and foremost the Venice Commission should take place on a regular basis and that their assessment should inform the evaluations and recommendations of the new joint monitoring mechanism.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Points out that in the case of Romania and Bulgaria a Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was set up when they joined the EU on 1January 2007 as a transitional measure to assist the two countries to remedy shortcomings in the fields of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime and that 13 years after their accession the mechanism is still applied in case of both counties; considers that the Annual Monitoring Cycle, which would apply equally to all member States of the European Union should replace the CVM; considers that the benchmarks set up by the European Commission for assessing progress within the CVM could be used within the framework of the Annual Monitoring Cycle;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that in
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that in the Annual
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that in the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the Member States should be given an opportunity to present their positions in full, while not hampering the efficiency of the procedure; underlines the importance of Member States' active and responsible approach to the Annual Monitoring Cycle;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States; notes that the COVID-19pandemic has been used to limit citizens’ rights and fundamental freedoms as embedded in the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU, including unjustified censorships, fuelling discrimination, disinformation and hate speech; recalls in particular the importance of
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recognises that in the Annual Monitoring Cycle, the Member States should be given
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Notes that the Member States are the Masters of the Treaties, any debate regarding the reform of the monitoring mechanisms should only be conducted during the Conference on the Future of Europe, monitoring of rule of law should be negotiated with the Member States accordingly, takes the view that the Article 7 TEU procedure is the only 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 rule of law shall respect the principles of objectivity, non- discrimination, equal treatment, with a non-partisan and evidence-based approach;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Highlights that in order to ensure success in defence of EU values, appropriate financial support should be established to civil society organisations which defend the democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights both at national and regional levels, as provided in the proposal of the Regulation on the Rights and Values programme, as well as overall support be given to individuals reporting breaches of the EU values.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Insists that the Annual Monitoring Cycle be fully integrated with the Regulation on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States1 , linking budget transfers to the results of the monitoring process, while protecting the legitimate interests of the final recipients and beneficiaries of Union funds; considers necessary that, the afore mentioned Regulation, includes sufficiently defined and measurable criteria and indicators to assess breaches of the rule of law and trigger sanctions; _________________ 1Proposal for a Regulation on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States COM/2018/324 final
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States;
Amendment 70 #
8. Considers that
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Considers that the assessment carried out in the context of the Annual Monitoring Cycle should
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Considers that the assessment carried out in the context of the Annual Monitoring Cycle should inform Commission decisions about whether to launch systemic infringement procedures;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle, while considering the gravity of the possible consequences of rule of law violations and the scale of its effects, a special procedure for urgent cases of violation of Union values should be considered in case where the EU institutions have disregarded the limits of their powers under the EU Treaties;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle, while considering the gravity of the possible consequences of democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights violations and the scale of its effects, a
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle, while considering the gravity of the
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle,
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Insist that, regardless of the annual cycle, while considering the gravity of the possible consequences of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights violations and the scale of its effects,
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines furthermore that while considerable delay in rendering judgments, in particular in the rule of law-related cases, may result in irreversible and severe harm caused by rule of law backsliding, more consideration should be given to strengthening the Court of Justice of the European Union’s potential and role in defending the rule of law; considers that such an option could be to provide for an accelerated procedure in all such cases, systematically applying interim relief; further recalls the Union has a legal obligation under Article 6(2) TEU to access the European Convention on Human Rights; reiterates the need for a swift conclusion of the process in order to ensure a consistent framework for human rights protection throughout Europe and achieve coherence between the European Union and the Council of Europe’s human rights system;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines furthermore that while considerable delay in rendering judgments, in particular in the rule of law-related cases, may result in irreversible and severe
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Stresses that any mechanism is incomplete without positive incentives such us concrete funding to support civil society organisations working on advancing fundamental rights, the rule of law and democratic principles; emphasises the importance of upholding the Union Values Strand in the Rights and Values programme in the MFF 2021- 2027;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10 b. Calls to use the revision of the mandate of the Fundamental Rights Agency with a view to strengthening its ability to act in defence of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, such us providing assistance and expertise on draft EU legislation on its own initiative and not only when it is formally requested;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the need to protect Union values in this context
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the need to protect Union values in this
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the situation with regard of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights has substantially deteriorated in a number of Member States; recalls in particular the importance of upholding the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights and the obligation of Member States to ensure effective judicial protection, which is a core value of the Union as a community based on law;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the need to protect
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Highlights that the Conference on the Future of Europe provides a momentum for better understanding the need to protect Union values in this context; underlines that the Conference on the Future of Europe will bring new impetus to European discussion on strengthening European democracy; therefore, in the event of Treaty changes being made in the future, the effectiveness of the Article 7 procedure should be enhanced by removing the requirement for unanimity and reinforcing the sanction mechanism;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11.
source: 655.681
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2020-07-23Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/1 |
|
2020-07-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2020-10-19T00:00:00New
2020-10-05T00:00:00 |
2020-07-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/0/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.810
|
2020-07-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs |
|
2020-06-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
forecasts |
|
2020-06-16Show (3) Changes
events |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |