2021/2180(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; recalls further that the rule of law, as enshrined in EU primary law and further defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), is akin to democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates that as underlined by the CJEU, the European Union is based on the rule of law in which institutions are subject to judicial review of the compatibility of their acts with the Treaties and with the general principles of law, which include fundamental rights 1a; thus underlines that all the Union’s fundamental values as set out in Article 2 TEU are interdependent and construed in light of each other and shall all be monitored and safeguarded; stresses that any backsliding on the rule of law in any given Member State automatically undermines EU values in the EU as a whole; agrees with the Commission that these values should never be taken for granted, even though the EU is recognised as having very high standards in this regard; underlines the importance of the credible global example provided by the EU in upholding the rule of law internally and in supporting democracy worldwide; _________________ 1a Case C-50/00 P UPA [2002] ECR I- 6677,para. 38.

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that the Constitutional Courts of Romania1 a and Poland2 a ruled in 2021 that EU law does not have primacy over the national constitutions of the Member States and that it is not possible to interpret Union rules contrary to the constitutions of the Member States; recalls that the two judgments deal with completely different issues and are not related to each other; recalls that the constitutions of the Member States are the key to upholding the rule of law as they provide the legal basis for guaranteeing citizens' rights; _________________ 1 a Judgment of the Romanian Constitutional Court, 23 December 2021 2 a Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 7 October 2021

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Recalls that, in addition to the recent judgments of the Polish and Romanian courts, there have also been court judgments in other countries calling into question the supremacy of EU law over national constitutions and over national legislation in matters that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union; recalls, specifically, that the German Constitutional Court, ruling on the purchase of debt, qualified the CJEU decision as non-binding, that the Italian Constitutional Court questioned the primacy of EU law throughout the 'Taricco' process, that the Czech Constitutional Court considered the CJEU judgment in the 'Landtová' case to be 'ultra vires', that the Danish Supreme Court found the CJEU's ruling in the 'Ajos' case to be inapplicable in Denmark, that the French Constitutional Council has limited the application of EU law in the French legal order, and that the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled on 28 April 2016 that there is a limit to the primacy of EU law;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Stresses that no EU body is above the constitution of any Member State and considers, accordingly, that the basic condition for the approval of any type of EU legislation should be that there is no conflict with national constitutions;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Recalls that the diversity of the European Union is based on the wealth and sovereignty of the various nations of which it is comprised; considers that due regard for national sovereignty should be the basic condition for any legislative initiatives or projects within the Union;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that extraordinary measures taken in urgency can have democratic deficits ~~and lead~~, implying restriction of fundamental rights and affecting the normal functioning of constitutional and legal systems and public administrations, possibly leading, in certain cases, to corruption, and ~~that the~~constantly lacking proper scrutiny; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements, especially as regards justification of the necessity and proportionality of the measures, their legal basis and their limitation in time, ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that measures taken in urgency can have democratic deficits, infringe rights and fundamental freedoms and lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutiny; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis; notes with concern that some constitutional courts have ruled that measures taken during the pandemic were contrary to national law;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that measures taken in urgency ~~can have~~may lead to democratic deficits, and ~~lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutiny~~that they are often impaired by the lack of proper scrutiny and institutional checks and balances; reiterates that the rule of law is related to the effective judicial protection as provided in Article 19(1) TEU; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis and emergency circumstances;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that measures taken in urgency can have democratic deficits and lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutiny; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis; welcomes the ongoing efforts in that direction by Member States that are lacking such frameworks;

Amendment 18 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that measures taken in urgency ~~can have democratic deficits and lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutiny; stresses, therefore, the need for~~need to be followed by clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the ~~rule of law also during times of crisi~~law and the fundamental rights;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that certain measures taken in urgency can be considerably disproportionate and even have democratic deficits, and ~~lead to corruption, and that they lack proper scrutiny~~moreover can result in unjustified breaches of fundamental freedoms; stresses, therefore, the need for clear legal arrangements ensuring respect for the rule of law also during times of crisis;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; recalls further that the rule of law, as enshrined in EU primary law and further defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), is akin to democracy ~~and fundamental rights~~, pluralism, justice, solidarity and fundamental rights, which are embedded in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; stresses that any backsliding on the rule of law in any given Member State or in the European Union itself automatically undermines EU values in the EU as a whole; agrees with the Commission that these values should never be taken for granted, even though the EU is recognised as having very high standards in this regard; recalls that these values are embedded in the Treaties, and cannot be modified or extended as a result of political shifts without the necessary legal amendments taking place; underlines the importance of the credible global example provided by the EU Member States in upholding the rule of law internally and in supporting democracy worldwide;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Takes note, with great concern, of the two rulings of the Spanish Constitutional Court finding the two states of emergency declared by the socialist government to be contrary to the constitution; regrets that democratic governments use instruments that violate citizens' rights and freedoms; welcomes, on the other hand, the good work of the Constitutional Court in this respect in protecting citizens' rights in the context of the appeals lodged by the VOX political party; recalls, in this regard, that all administrative and governmental activity is subject to the law and the rule of law

Amendment 21 #

3 a. Notes the widespread use of a law of exception in different Member States to provide a legal base for the emergency measures adopted during the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; recognizes that these measures have had an intense impact on the rights and freedoms of citizens. Underlines the importance of assessing whether these emergency measures have been in line with the constitutional frameworks of the Member States; calls for applying effective controls on government actions to protect the rights of EU citizens;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased public awareness and scrutiny of the importance of the respect for the rule of law and how State authorities act intimes of crisis which is to the benefit of healthy and well- functioning justice systems that provide much needed checks and balances; notes, in this regard, that surveys show that, compared to 2020, the same Member States continue to cluster around the higher and lower end of the scale of perceived judicial independence;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that it is crucial to guarantee the rule of law, access to justice and functioning of the institutions also in exceptional circumstances; highlights that proper scrutiny on governments’ decisions by all relevant institutions during and after the decision process, but also by external investigations on these decisions and their application, shall be considered as central elements to the Rule of Law, including during times of crisis;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Notes that in some Member States, the legal regime under which fundamental rights have been restricted had not been clearly established. Points out the importance of having appropriate legislation that provides the necessary legal instruments to address pandemic crises, so that respect for the rule of law, as well as for fundamental rights and constitutional requirements, are guaranteed.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Reminds that an efficient and fair justice system ensuring access to justice to all requires the strengthening of measures aimed at limiting duration and costs of both contentious and administrative proceedings, as well as making sufficient legal aid and remedies available to citizens;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Welcomes that reforms to strengthen existing Councils of the Judiciary - whose role in safeguarding judicial independence is very important - are ongoing or have been completed; urges other Member States where such reforms have not yet advanced towards adoption or were not approved to continue focusing their efforts towards their achievement;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has also shown that high levels of digitalisation have increased the resilience and efficiency of justice systems in accelerating judicial procedures; agrees with the Commission that digitalisation should be fostered and investment in human and financial resources prioritised in some Member States in order to increase the efficiency of their justice systems~~; welcomes the fact that digitalising the public administration and the judiciary is a priority in many Member States’ Recovery and Resilience Plans~~, with the aim of strengthening the rule of law and the fundamental rights guarantees in the Union, particularly by facilitating access to justice; notes that such efforts should not hamper procedural rights of suspects or parties, including the right of defence or principle of equality of arms; welcomes the fact that digitalising the public administration and the judiciary is a priority in many Member States’ Recovery and Resilience Plans; highlights the growing importance of complaint-and- redress mechanisms put in place in relation to the digital market sphere, implying the need for judicial institutions to be properly staffed, trained and involved in order to be able to render decisions on technical matters within a short timeframe;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has also shown that high levels of digitalisation have increased the resilience and efficiency of justice systems and expedites decision making by public administrations; agrees with the Commission that digitalisation should be fostered to greater degree and investment in human and financial resources prioritised in some Member States in order to increase the efficiency of their justice systems; welcomes the fact that digitalising the public administration and the judiciary is a priority in many Member States’ Recovery and Resilience Plans;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has also shown that high levels of digitalisation have increased the resilience and efficiency of justice systems; agrees with the Commission that digitalisation should be fostered and investment in human and financial resources prioritised in some Member States in order to increase the efficiency of their justice systems, to facilitate access to legal aid and information; welcomes the fact that digitalising the public administration and the judiciary is a priority in many Member States’ Recovery and Resilience Plans;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; recalls further that the rule of law, as enshrined in EU primary law and further defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), is akin to democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates that protection of these fundamental values is a shared responsibility of all EU institutions and all Member States; stresses that any backsliding on the rule of law in any given Member State automatically undermines EU values in the EU as a whole; agrees with the Commission that these values should never be taken for granted, even though the EU is recognised as having very high standards in this regard; considers it necessary to support the constant and continuous strengthening and improvement of the rule of law in order to avoid any possible risk of regression; underlines the importance of the credible global example provided by the EU in upholding the rule of law internally and in supporting democracy worldwide;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Insists on the crucial importance of ensuring a strict implementation of the Rule of Law in the digital public and private space; warns against the use of algorithm-based tools in the judicial system and requires the sovereign discretion of judges and decision-making on a case-by-case basis to be upheld; calls on the Commission to impose a ban on the use of AI and related technologies for proposing judicial decisions, and a ban on any processing of biometric data, including facial images, for law enforcement purposes that leads to mass surveillance in publicly accessible spaces; further stresses that no AI system used by law enforcement or the judiciary should be enabled to harm the physical integrity of human beings, nor to distribute rights or impose legal obligations on individuals;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the Commission’s second Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the state of the rule of law is of great significance and is an essential monitoring tool that is also necessary for the prevention and even identification of possible risks of regression; welcomes the importance that it rightly places on justice systems; stresses that effectiveness, independence, impartiality and efficiency are ~~three~~ characteristics of justice systems which are equally essential for upholding the rule of law and which constitute the basis for mutual trust within the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice; notes the need for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to be able to exercise their functions with full autonomy, impartiality and independence, without interference from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers; argues that this is an indispensable condition for ensuring equality and the protection of citizens’ rights under the law, as well as public trust in EU and Member State institutions;

Amendment 32 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the Commission’s second Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the state of the rule of law is of great significance and is an essential monitoring tool; considers it vital to establish a European rule of law monitoring and enforcement architecture in the Union that is preventive and non-discriminatory; welcomes the importance that it rightly places on justice systems; stresses that effectiveness, independence and efficiency are three characteristics of justice systems which are equally essential for upholding the rule of law and which constitute the basis for mutual trust within the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice; notes the need for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to be able to exercise their functions with full autonomy and independence, without interference from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers; argues that this is an indispensable condition for ensuring equality and the protection of citizens’ rights under the law;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s second Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and ~~considers that the periodic review of the state of the rule of law is of great significance and is an essential monitoring tool; welcom~~stresses the importance that it rightly places on justice systems; stresses that effectiveness, independence ~~and~~, efficiency a~~re three~~nd neutrality are four characteristics of justice systems which are equally essential for upholding the rule of law and which constitute the basis for mutual trust within the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice; notes the need for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to be able to exercise their functions with full autonomy and independence, without interference from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers; argues that this is an indispensable condition for ensuring equality and the protection of citizens’ rights under the law; with regard to judges specifically, emphasises that the politicisation of some of their unions undermines their neutrality and credibility;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the Commission’s second Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the state of the rule of law is of great significance and is an essential monitoring tool; welcomes the importance that it rightly places on justice systems; stresses that effectiveness, independence and efficiency are three characteristics of justice systems which are equally essential for upholding the rule of law and which constitute the basis for mutual trust within the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice; notes the need for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to be able to exercise their functions with full autonomy and independence, without interference from any other institution or body, in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers; argues that this is an indispensable condition for ensuring equality and the protection of citizens’ rights under the law;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls that an efficient and fair justice system ensuring access to justice to all ~~requires~~does not depend only on an appropriate budget and financing, the strengthening of measures aimed at limiting the duration and costs of both contentious and administrative proceedings, as well as making sufficient legal aid and remedies available to citizens;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that ~~independent lawyers are also essential to independent justice systems; reiterates~~the existence of an efficient judicial system implies the need for lawyers to be free to display full independence and professional integrity in advising and representing their clients; stresses therefore that independent lawyers are also essential to independent justice systems; stresses the fundamental role of legal professions in ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and strengthening the rule of law; reiterates in this connection the need for lawyers and the judiciary to be highly qualified and regularly trained in the rule of law and in EU law in general, and calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to include this area;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that ~~independent lawyer~~strong lawyers' bars or associations are also essential to independent justice systems; reiterates the need for lawyers and the judiciary to be highly qualified and regularly trained in the rule of law and in EU law in general, and calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to include this area; further reiterates the importance of providing training modules on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for judges and legal practitioners in order to foster a common rule of law culture and ensure that the rights enshrined in the Charter are always taken into account in civil and administrative proceedings when implementing European law;

Amendment 38 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that independent lawyers are also essential to independent justice systems; reiterates the need for lawyers and the judiciary to be highly qualified and regularly trained in the rule of law and in EU law in general, and calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to include this area;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that independent lawyers are also essential to independent justice systems; reiterates the need for lawyers and the judiciary to be highly qualified ~~and regularly trained in the rule of law and in EU law in general, and calls on the Commission to extend the scope of its next Report to include this area~~;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reiterates that respect for the rule of law and hence for its key principles, such as legality, legal certainty, effective judicial protection, impartiality and independence of the judiciary, separation of state powers and full respect for fundamental rights, is closely linked to trust in public institutions at both EU and Member State level;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be an issue of serious concern in some Member States; condemns the continued political attacks on the independence of judiciary, the primacy of EU law and the implementation of the CJEU’s rulings in Hungary and Poland; notes with deep regret that these attacks have been worsening since the publication of the Report and often target judges and prosecutors who have contested the backsliding on judicial independence;deleted

Amendment 41 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be an issue of serious concern in some Member States; cwonde~~mns the continued political attacks on the independence of judiciary,~~rs why the primacy of EU law and the implementation of the CJEU’s rulings in Hungary and Poland; notes with deep regret that these attacks have been worsening since the publication of the Report and often target judges and prosecutors who have contested the backsliding on judicial independencethe Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain keep being called into question;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is deeply preoccupied by the fact that judicial independence continues to be an issue of serious concern in some Member States; condemns the continued political attacks on the independence of judiciary, the primacy of EU law and the implementation of the CJEU’s rulings in ~~Hungary and Poland~~the Member States under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure; notes with deep regret that these attacks have been worsening since the publication of the Report and often target judges and prosecutors who have contested the backsliding on judicial independence;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Regrets the recent political agreement between the Spanish Government and the Partido Popular for the partisan appointment of judges to the Spanish Constitutional Court; regrets that these appointments were made in response to the Constitutional Court's decision to uphold several appeals lodged by the VOX political party, with the aim of interfering in the normal functioning of democratic institutions; deplores the double standards of the EU institutions on the basis of the political colour of each government;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. To this regard, considers that the reports should go beyond a static annual snapshot and include any relevant information in the country chapters about the state of the rule of law, including on relevant antecedents and the political context in which new developments take place, so as to enable an accurate, dynamic and integral assessment of the de jure and de facto independence of judicial systems, including the independence of lawyers and the legal profession;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Defends the position that the principle of the separation of powers is essential to the proper functioning of justice systems across the EU and requires institutional structures where not only judges but also prosecution services are independent from undue political pressure; notes that cases like that of Poland where the Minister of Justice has a double role as Prosecutor General cannot ensure such separation of powers and is a worrying example of how this principle can be undermined; points to the importance of the rules governing judicial appointment in preventing the questioning of judges’ neutrality with regard to external factors such as the influence by the executive and legislative branches;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Defends the position that the principle of the separation of powers is essential to the proper functioning of justice systems across the EU and in ensuring their independence, impartiality and efficiency and requires institutional structures where not only judges but also prosecution services are independent from undue pressure, especially from political ~~pressure~~circles;

Amendment 48 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Defends the position that the principle of the separation of powers is essential to the proper functioning of justice systems across the EU and requires institution~~al structures where not only judges but also prosecution services are independent from undue political pressure~~s to refrain from exercising undue political pressure on the judicial structures;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Emphasises that, in order to properly support efforts to uphold the rule of law, strong and permanent interaction between Member States, EU institutions and EU policies is necessary; welcomes the approach adopted by the Commission based on close alignment of EU policies to respect for the rule of law as a means of contributing to economic recovery through structural reforms in Member States;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Recalls that for the purposes of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget2a, the rule of law includes the principles of legality, which implies a transparent, accountable, democratic and pluralistic law-making process; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness of the executive powers; effective judicial protection, including access to justice, by independent and impartial courts, also as regards fundamental rights; separation of powers; and non-discrimination and equality before the law; _________________ 2a Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses that the health crisis has unleashed widespread uncertainty among citizens, which has provided an ideal scenario for the public authorities to pursue their own agendas in a completely discretionary manner; notes that measures proposed to tackle COVID-19 have often been carried out on grounds not related to public health, based on so- called expert committees with questionable expertise and pursuing a political agenda, with the aim of spreading panic in society and expanding social and political control;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Believes that it is important to ensure accountability in the judiciary, especially where independence is questioned, and commends the examples seen in some Member States with regard to integrity frameworks strengthened by the application of general ethical principles to all categories of members of the judiciary, as well as other examples that include regular ethics training for judges, adopting new codes of ethics or putting in place measures like mandatory asset declarations;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Points out that the prosecution service is a key element for the capacity of the judiciary to fight crime and corruption; highlights the importance of guaranteeing the autonomy and independence of the prosecution service; stresses the need for safeguards to be put in place to help preserve the independence of the prosecution service so that it is free from undue political pressure, especially from the Government.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9 b. Underlines the important role of the Councils of the Judiciary in safeguarding judicial independence; considers it necessary to evaluate the reforms that are in the process of being adopted in different Member States and encourages the adaptation of the composition and functioning of these bodies to the standards established by the European Commission and the Council of Europe, and which have been endorsed by the EU Court of Justice.

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Regrets that political activity is carried out without following judicial criteria, be it for political or ideological reasons; regrets the partisan use of pardons, especially where there is no recommendation to that effect from the relevant judicial authority; recalls that judgments are reasoned and that judgments should not be remitted for mere political or strategic reasons;

Amendment 56 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU of 2 December 2021 to dismiss the action for annulment lodged by Hungary and Poland in March 2021 against Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget1 ; a~~pplauds the continued, thorough and consistent defence by the CJEU of the rule of law~~sks the Commission to include in the report a distinctive part with an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of the rule of law in a particular Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way; _________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU of 2 December 2021 to dismiss the action for annulment lodged by ~~Hungary and Poland~~the Member States under the Article 7(1) TEU procedure in March 2021 against Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget1 ; applauds the continued, thorough and consistent defence by the CJEU of the rule of law; _________________ 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law, and with the core principle of the primacy of EU law; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the rulings of national courts regarding the primacy of EU law over national constitutional norms and to promote a systematic dialogue between national courts and the CJEU on issues of potential conflict;

Amendment 60 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that the language of the horizontal part of the Report is inadequate as regards the systematic character of the attacks on the independence of justice systems in Hungary and Poland; reiterates its calls on the Commission to provide a meaningful and easily readable comparison between the different national justice systems as regards the situation of the rule of law;deleted

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Stresses the interdependence of the elements enshrined in Article 2 TEU and reiterates its call on the Commission to extend of the scope of the Report to all of the fundamental values of the EU; further calls that the Report reviews thoroughly all the pillars of the rule of law, including equality before the law, through monitoring the protection of fundamental rights of natural and legal persons, and in particular, the rights of minorities, the instruments employed in the fight against discrimination, hate crime and hate speech and a rigorous overview on access to justice and legal aid.

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Welcomes the fact that the 2021 Report contains again separate national chapters attempting to lay down a common methodology; calls however on the Commission to mention potentially applicable tools immediately next to each country-specific recommendation;

Amendment 65 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission, furthermore, to make robust use of its toolkit, including infringement procedures and the conditionality mechanism, where appropriate, to quickly and efficiently address any backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems; urges the Commission to ensure an immediate and adequate response to a refusal to implement and respect CJEU judgments, such as court actions under Article 260 TFEU; calls on the Commission to formally trigger the applicable procedures against any Member State responsible of breaches of the Rule of Law, notably the procedure provided under Article 6(1) of the Conditionality Regulation, inter alia by sending a written notification to the relevant Member State;

Amendment 68 #

12. Urges the Commission, ~~furthermore,~~to provide clear recommendations on the challenges identified and the necessary follow-up actions to the Member States; furthermore urges the Commission to make robust use of its toolkit, including infringement procedures and the conditionality mechanism, where appropriate, to quickly and efficiently address any backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission, furthermore, to take action to identify the imminent risk of regression and make robust use of its toolkit, including infringement procedures and the conditionality mechanism, where appropriate, to quickly and efficiently address any backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law, and with the core principle of the primacy of EU law; therefore has serious concerns about the recent developments where such principle has been rejected, as well as the role of the Court in interpreting and applying EU law;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission, furthermore, to make robust use of its toolkit, including infringement procedures, Art. 7 TEU procedure and the conditionality mechanism, where appropriate, to quickly and efficiently address any backsliding on the rule of law in national justice systems and to protect EU financial interests;

Amendment 71 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) TEU and to inform Parliament thereof; underlines that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself;deleted

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Urges the Council to resume and conclude all pending procedures under Article 7(1) TEU and to inform Parliament thereof; ~~underlines that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself;~~

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Urges the Council to resume all pending procedures under Article 7(1) TEU, ensuring that hearings under Article 7(1) TEU also address new developments, and to inform Parliament thereof; underlines that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself;

Amendment 75 #

14. Recalls the important role of journalists and civil society in raising the alarm about, and drawing attention to, any breaches of the rule of law, including with regard to the proper functioning of justice systems, and calls for them to be given enhanced protection against intimidation or violence; ~~condemns the instrumental use of justice to undermine freedom of information, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU~~underlines the importance of strengthening the transparency of public administrations and governments; points out the necessity to ensure access to trustworthy and reliable information sources in order to guarantee quality journalism and help to effectively tackle the spread of disinformation and misinformation; condemns the instrumental use of justice to undermine freedom of information, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU; urgently calls the Commission to present proposals for binding Union legislation on common and effective safeguards for victims of SLAAPs across the Union, including through a directive establishing minimum standards for protection against SLAAPs;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Recalls the important role of journalists and civil society in raising the alarm about, and drawing attention to, any breaches of the rule of law, including with regard to the proper functioning of justice systems, and calls for them to be given enhanced protection against intimidation or ~~violence; condemns~~violence; expresses concern that both journalists and civil society have seen their activities constrained by the effects of the pandemic restrictions; highlights the essential role of the media in providing reliable information and clarifying the actions taken by the authorities, particularly in times of crisis; welcomes the measures taken by certain Member States to support the media and journalists; condemns, at the opposite extreme, the instrumental use of justice to undermine freedom of information, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Recalls the important role of journalists and civil society in raising the alarm about, and drawing attention to, any breaches of the rule of law, including with regard to the proper functioning of justice systems, and calls for them to be given enhanced protection against intimidation or violence; ~~condemns the instrumental use of justice to undermine freedom of information, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU;~~ is concerned that an increasing number of Member States adopt measures which severely constraint the freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations, thus contributing to shrinking space for civil society; also condemns the instrumental use of justice to undermine freedom of information, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU; calls on the Commission to meet civil society alongside with national authorities during country visits online and offline, and to take their contributions seriously into account;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law~~, and with the core principle~~ in those areas in which the EU has competence, without encroaching in any circumstances on national competences ofr the ~~primacy of EU law~~constitutions of the Member States;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

Amendment 81 #

14a. Notes that the media constitutes a fundamental pillar in safeguarding public order and must therefore fulfil its obligations to provide truthful information to the public and avoid political interference; urges Member States to ensure real pluralism of their media, centered on the veracity and reliability of their sources of information; strongly condemns the manipulation or decontextualisation carried out by certain media;

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Similarly, recalls the role of whistleblowers in denouncing breaches of the rule of law and the need to protect whistleblowers; as such, believes that ongoing revisions of existing national legislation or introduction of new rules and national bodies or offices as witnessed in some Member States are very positive developments that should serve as a reference to other Member States where similar protection and institutional settings are not yet in place;

Amendment 83 #

15. Similarly, recalls the role of whistleblowers in denouncing breaches of the rule of law and the need to protect whistleblowers according to the minimum protection rules enshrined in Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Believes, moreover, that the rule of law relies on a system of institutional checks and balances based on high-quality public administration, the proper application of the law and the implementation of court decisions by public authorities; notes that legal certainty is essential for effectively fighting against corruption ~~and~~; to this end, recalls that it is necessary to establish a regulatory framework that allows the crime of corruption to be defined in a uniform and shared way within the Union, without which investigation and data collection work would be strongly compromised; believes that an efficient and transparent public administration with regulations and procedures in place that prevent illegal behaviour is equally indispensable.

Amendment 85 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Gunnar BECK, Jean-Paul GARRAUD, Alessandra BASSO, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Regrets that political institutions, politicians and associations financed by public funds openly reject court rulings that are not to their liking; regrets, in this regard, that certain political representatives publicly boast of their intention not to comply with court rulings; condemns any kind of harassment of claimants and, in particular, all political and social pressure placed on them, especially in the case of minors;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law ~~entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law, and~~has nothing to do with compliance with the ~~core~~alleged principle of the primacy of EU law;

source: 704.560

2022/01/25 BUDG 25 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget1 (Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation) entered into force on 1 January 2021 and has been binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States since that date; _________________ 1 OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 12 #

Bogdan RZOŃCA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalling its resolution of 8 July 2021 on the creation of guidelines for the application of the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget2 , insists that the Commission include in its annual Rule of Law Report a section dedicated to cases where breaches of the rule of law in a Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way; furthermore insists that findings published in the annual Rule of Law Report should not be subject to further informal exchanges with the concerned Member State for sending a notification under Article 6(1) of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; _________________ 2 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0348.

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission to use all tools at its disposal to counter violations of EU values, such as infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, actions to ensure compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice and applications for interim measures before the Court; welcomes the new rule of law conditionality mechanism and asks that it be fully enforced with regard to all EU funds, including Next Generation EU; recalls that accession to the Schengen Area cannot be limited to the rule of law, pointing out that no additional criteria other than the specified prerequisites laid down in the Schengen acquis should be required;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation applies both to individual breaches of the principles of the rule of law and to ‘systemic’ breaches that are widespread or are a result of recurrent practices or omissions by public authorities, or general measures adopted by such authorities; regrets that the structure of the 2021 Rule of Law Report does not always lend itself to the effective identification of such systemic breaches and calls on the Commission for improvements in this respect.deleted

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 18 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 19 #

Younous OMARJEE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that in accordance with the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, the rule of law must be understood in the light of the values and principles enshrined in Article 2 TEU, including fundamental rights and non- discrimination; is of the opinion that persistent violations of democracy and of fundamental rights, including attacks on freedom of the media and journalists, migrants, women’s rights, LGBTQIA+ rights and freedom of association and assembly, affect the projects that Member States decide to finance with Union funds and can have a sufficiently direct impact on the protection of the Union’s financial interests; calls on the Commission to act and to take this into account in the regulation;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

Amendment 20 #

Angelika WINZIG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Recalls that key prerequisites for economic activity are legal certainty and the upholding of rule and law standards; points out that, in view of an increasing tendency towards protectionism, the implementation of discriminatory measures against foreign investors and the growing arbitrariness in decisions taken by public authorities in some Member States, the economic dimension of the rule of law should be given greater consideration as an integral part of the Rule of Law Mechanism; regrets that the structure of the 2021 Rule of Law Report does not serve the effective identification of such breaches in the economic sector and calls on the Commission to improve the report in this respect;

Amendment 21 #

Jens GEIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Believes that the principle of the rule of law and the risks for the Union budget in case of breaches require a holistic approach for the protection of European public money; considers that the bodies charged with ensuring the proper management of Union funds need to cooperate as effectively as possible; calls on all Member states who have not done so yet to participate in the European Public Prosecutors Office;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes the reflection on the resilience of the justice system and stresses that an effective justice system is essential for upholding the rule of law; recalls that both access to justice and the efficiency of national courts were negatively impacted in the context of the pandemic with the partial closure of national courts and the use of digitalization for some of the legal proceedings;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to focus in the annual Rule of Law Report also on the country specific recommendations under the European Semester relevant for the annual Rule of Law report, in particular those linked to the independence of the judiciary and the public prosecutor as well as those linked to fighting corruption and ensuring transparency and integrity, where relevant;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Underlines the primordial role of civil society actors in the early identification of elements for the drafting of the annual Rule of Law Report and strongly insists that a proper consultation with reasonable timelines (in particular excluding the winter holiday period from the 2 months usually foreseen) is set by the Commission; further asks the Commission to reconsider the format of a one-size-fits-all questionnaire for providing input and that the consultation is followed up by a proper dialogue with the participating CSOs and that their input is fully reflected in the annual Rule of Law Report; encourages the Commission to seek further input from civil society on how to optimise the consultation process for future reports;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Is concerned by the spill over effects of the erosion of media freedom especially as regards the protection of the Union’s financial interests; urges the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism with a particular focus on the role media plays in fighting corruption; stresses the importance of assessing and monitoring the situation of the media in the Member States, in particular by examining measures taken by any government to silence critical media and/or to undermine freedom and pluralism, in order to prevent the risk of further concentration of information in the hands of a few, which could hamper the spread of free and independent information with a focus on both the public service and private media sector at national level and its de jure and de facto degree of independence from national authorities, political parties or any other interference, including the lack of an assessment of potential conflicts of interest and of media concentration and transparency of media ownership; highlights the need to ensure the financial independence of and conditions for sustainable activity by private media operators in order to avoid the political capture of the media;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas according to the statement1a of the European Commission: “the objective of the Rule of law Mechanism is preventive. It is separate from the other elements in the EU’s rule of law toolbox, and does not replace the Treaty-based mechanisms for the EU to respond to more serious rule of law related issues in Member States. These tools include infringement proceedings and the procedure to protect the founding values of the Union under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. It is also different from the budget conditionality procedure, which aims to protect the EU budget in situations where the Union’s financial interest might be at risk due to generalized deficiencies of the rule of law in a Member State”; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscor ner/detail/en/ip_20_1756

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Reiterates that the identification of breaches of the principles of the rule of law requires an objective, impartial, fair and thorough qualitative assessment by the Commission, which should take into account relevant information from available sources and recognised institutions; insists that the annual Rule of Law Report be used systematically for that assessment, , which cannot be provided by the Commission; recalls that the concept of the rule of law remains vague and can easily be used as an instrument of political pressure on certakin~~g into account the above-mentioned criteria~~ Member States;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to take immediate action under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation to make full use of its existing investigation tools without further delay in order to address rule of law deficiencies in Member States that could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget in a sufficiently direct way; calls on the Commission to apply the Common Provisions Regulation and Financial Regulation more stringently in order to tackle the discriminatory use of EU funds, in particular those of politically motivated nature;

Amendment 7 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to implement the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation without any further delay; recalls that concerning measures targeted at the budget in the event of violations of the rule of law in a Member State, the competences of parliamentary committees should be allocated on the basis of Annex VI of Parliament's Rules of Procedure when the infringements under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation procedure are dealt with within the Parliament;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Invites the Commission to include recommendations for the Member States to reduce the negative impact of the pandemic on the activity of the national courts and ensure compliance with one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law as to the effectiveness of a justice system;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Welcomes that the report assesses the state of the rule of law in every Member State; notes, however, that it fails to make a clear distinction between Member States with isolated shortcomings and those with systemic rule of law deficiencies; calls on the Commission to make this distinction in future reports;

source: 704.661

2022/02/01 AFCO 63 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the annual Rule of Law Report is a key element of the EU’s Rule of Law Toolbox; points out that both the efficiency of national courts and access to justice were adversely affected during the pandemic, with the partial closure of national courts and the - sometimes inefficient - use of digitalisation for some legal proceedings;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Takes the view that, despite that, the EU has sought to impose policies responsible for eroding rights, worsening social inequalities, increasing imbalances between countries, and imposing unequal relationships (of dominance and dependence), on the constitutions of the Member States by means of economic and political conditionality in access to funds, and through pressure, blackmail and the threat of sanctions;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that public debate about the report is central to the annual rule of law cycle and therefore that the time of its publication is key; regrets therefore the publication of the 2021 report just before parliamentary recess in mid-July; calls on the Commission to instate an annual EU Values Week each September, in which the report is presented to the European Parliament and national parliaments at the same time as the Justice Scoreboard, the Fundamental Rights Report, and the Media Pluralism Monitor;deleted

Amendment 12 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that public debate about the report is central to the annual rule of law cycle and therefore that the time of its publication is ~~key~~relevant; regrets therefore the publication of the 2021 report just before parliamentary recess in mid-July; calls on the Commission to instate an annual EU Values Week each September, in which the report is presented to the European Parliament and national parliaments at the same time as the Justice Scoreboard, the Fundamental Rights Report, and the Media Pluralism Monitor;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 14 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Brando BENIFEI, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that important elements of Parliament’s resolutions of 25 October 2016 and of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are still missing, in particular the panel of independent experts, widening the scope of the monitoring to include all values set out under Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the negotiation of an interinstitutional agreement for the establishment of an annual monitoring cycle; invites the Commission to better integrate the EU Justice Scoreboard in the annual rule of law report and to include in the next editions an assessment of how the right to a fair trial is guaranteed in Member States, with particular attention paid to the right of defence, the protection of victims of crimes, the fight against impunity, equality between prosecution and defence parties, and the length of court proceedings; calls on the Commission to also include in its next annual reports an evaluation of prison conditions, judicial backlogs, and the average duration of trials in all Member States;

Amendment 16 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Recall~~Notes that the important elements of Parliament’s resolutions of 25 October 2016 and of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights ~~are~~is still missing, ~~in particular~~namely the panel of independent experts~~, widening the scope to include all values set out under Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and the interinstitutional agreement for an annual monitoring cycle;~~.

Amendment 18 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Alin MITUȚA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to develop proposals to further strengthening of the Rule of Law toolbox if, despite the current instruments and efforts, significant violations of the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU persist; proposes to expand the scope of the non- discrimination clause in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and to render it universal, to enable the enforcement of the Rule of Law in Member States and the Union consistent with article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; calls, in the meantime, on all EU institutions to give the non-discrimination clause the broadest possible legal interpretation;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the annual Rule of Law Report is a key element of the EU’s Rule of Law Toolbox; welcomes the entry into force of the new rule of law conditionality mechanism; notes the importance of strengthening and streamlining existing mechanisms to ensure that the principles and values enshrined in the Treaties are upheld throughout the Union;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes recommendation 11 of the EU Citizens Panel 2 on Democracy and Values on the organisation of ‘annual conferences on the rule of law’ ensuring ‘socially diverse national delegations to the conference that include both citizens and civil servants’1a; notes that this recommendations fits with Parliament’s previous calls for an annual Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights cycle; calls on Commission and Council to reconsider their negative answers to Parliament’s request to open negotiations about its proposal; _________________ 1a European Citizens’ Panel 2: “European democracy / Values and rights, rule of law, security”, Recommendations, 2021

Amendment 21 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes Commission’s involvement of civil society actors, both through the online public consultation and the country visits and interviews, however believes that more transparency from the Commission on the methodology and selection process of stakeholders invited to consultation meetings, as well as closer consultation and collaboration with civil society to design a more straight forward and more easily accessible process, is needed;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes with concern that the report involves both objective reporting of the facts and highly subjective evaluations without making clear distinction between those two elements; strongly opposes the fact that the Commission applies double standards when it differently assesses similar legal regulations, those already in force in some Member States and those yet to be implemented in other Member States.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Denounces and firmly condemns attacks on democracy, social rights, freedoms and guarantees for citizens of any country and points out that every national population has the sovereign right to decide on its development path;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the inclusion of an overview per Member State of all enforcement actions undertaken by the Commission, including pending infringement proceedings, as well as the state of compliance with Court of Justice of the European Union and European Court of Human Rights rulings, feeding into a comprehensive Application of EU Law Scoreboard;deleted

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the inclusion of an overview per Member State of all enforcement actions undertaken by the Commission, including pending infringement proceedings, ~~as well as the state of compliance with Court of Justice of the European Union and European Court of Human Rights rulings,~~ feeding into a comprehensive Application of the EU Law Scoreboard;

Amendment 26 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Brando BENIFEI, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the inclusion of an overview per Member State of all enforcement actions undertaken by the Commission, including ~~pending~~ infringement proceedings, pending actions for failure to fulfil obligations, as well as the state of compliance with Court of Justice of the European Union and European Court of Human Rights provisional measures and rulings, feeding into a comprehensive Application of EU Law Scoreboard;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the inclusion of an overview per Member State of all enforcement actions related to the rule of law undertaken by the Commission, including pending infringement proceedings, as well as the state of compliance with Court of Justice of the European Union and European Court of Human Rights rulings, feeding into a comprehensive Application of EU Law Scoreboard;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Welcomes that the report assesses the state of the rule of law in every Member State; regrets, however, that it fails to make a clear distinction between Member States with isolated shortcomings and those with systemic rule of law deficiencies; calls on the Commission to make this distinction in future reports to prevent the report from being misused as a tool to relativize processes of autocratisation in some Member States;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to conclude each country chapter with a ‘traffic light’ assessment of the fulfilment of the conditions of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092);deleted

Amendment 3 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Brando BENIFEI, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

1. ~~Underlin~~Notes that the annual Rule of Law Report is a ~~key~~n element of the EU’s Rule of Law Toolbox; urges the Commission that such an instrument has to be used in good faith, should be written objectively by reflecting only facts, and should guarantee the equal treatment of all Member States;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to conclude each country chapter with a ‘traffic light’ assessment of the ~~fulfilment of the conditions of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092);~~ situation in each Member State with regards to the four pillars analysed by the Report and, more broadly, of each Member State’s compliance with the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; believes that such a ‘traffic light’ system could be useful to connect the annual report to the EU’s instruments to prevent and counter violations of the rule of law and, for example, to evaluate whether the conditions to activate the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092) are fulfilled; regrets that the Commission has not yet made full-use of this tool and asks the Commission to fully and proactively enforce it without delay with regard to all EU funds and programmes; recalls the Advocate General’s Opinions on Cases C- 156/21 and C-157/21, according to which the regime of conditionality was adopted on an appropriate legal basis, is compatible with Article 7 TEU and respects the principle of legal certainty;1a _________________ 1a Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C- 156/21 and Case C-157/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council; Poland v Parliament and Council

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ~~conclude each country chapter with a ‘traffic light’ assessment of the fulfilment of the conditions of~~use only Treaty-based tools to address the breaches of EU values; ; stresses that the Rrule of Llaw Cconditionality ~~Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092)~~mechanism should fully respect the provisions of the European Council conclusions of December 2020;

Amendment 32 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to conclude each country chapter with a ~~‘traffic light’~~n assessment of the fulfilment of the conditions of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092);

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to include recommendations for the Member States on mitigating the adverse impact of the pandemic on the work of the national courts and on ensuring compliance with one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law - more precisely the effectiveness of the justice system.

Amendment 34 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Brando BENIFEI, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes Commission proposals to include country-specific recommendations as of 2022, as per Parliament’s resolution of 25 October 2016; calls on the Commission to monitor and report on their implementation;deleted

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. WBel~~comes Commission proposals~~ieves that the report should go beyond monitoring and include country- specific recommendations regarding preventive and corrective actions that must be adopted by the Member States concerned, with a clear outline of enforcement measures and concrete proposals to tackle violations in the case of non-compliance; takes note, to this end, of the President of the European Commission’s commitment to include country-specific recommendations as of 2022,2a as per Parliament’s resolution of 25 October 2016; calls on the Commission to monitor and report on their implementation; _________________ 2a 2021 State of the Union Address by President Ursula von der Leyen, 15 September 2021

Amendment 36 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes Commission ~~proposals~~´s commitment to include country-specific recommendations as of 2022, as per Parliament’s resolution of 25 October 2016, which should be framed in the context of Member States’ obligations under EU law and international human rights law and standards, which would allow for tracking and evaluating progress and regression against an agreed, binding framework; calls on the Commission to monitor and report on their implementation;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes~~Take note of Commission's proposals to include country-specific recommendations as of 2022, as per Parliament’s resolution of 25 October 2016; ~~calls on~~underlines that the Commission ~~to monitor and report on their implementation~~has no competences in this regard and the only recommendations regarding the rule of law may be addressed to a Member State in accordance with procedure set up Article 7(1) TEU;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes~~Expresses its disapproval of the Commission proposals to include country- specific recommendations as of 2022, as per Parliament’s resolution of 25 October 2016; calls on the Commission to monitor and report on their implementation;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the annual Rule of Law Report is a key element of the EU’s Rule of Law Toolbox and should contain measured and transparent assessment criteria;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to link the Rule of Law Report and its recommendations to the instruments ensuring the application of EU law, such as infringement proceedings, Article 7 TEU procedures, and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; points out that accession to the Schengen Area cannot be centred solely on the rule of law, and stresses that no other criteria should be set for Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania beyond the specified prerequisites of the Schengen acquis;

Amendment 44 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to link the Rule of Law Report and its recommendations to the instruments ensuring the application of EU law, such as infringement proceedings, preliminary ruling proceedings, Article 7 TEU procedures, and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Underlines that while the 2020 Rule of Law Report has encouraged positive reforms related to the rule of law in a number of Member States, some serious concerns remain, however, with regard to a number of Member States, especially pertaining to the independence of the judiciary and the freedom and pluralism of media;

Amendment 46 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the EU institutions to read the annual reports on the rule of law in the light of the reports on fundamental rights published by the European Agency of Fundamental Rights, given the close connection between democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Is concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the fight against corruption, as it slowed down legal reforms or the adjudication of corruption cases in some Member States and increased the risk of corruption; stresses that while efforts to repress corruption have significantly increased in several Member States, yet others are cause for concern as regards the effectiveness of investigation and prosecution;

Amendment 48 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7 c. Strongly regrets the Council’s continued failure to move further the procedure under Article 7(1) TEU; recalls that only qualified majority is required to determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2; Regrets that, the Council, invoking theCOVID-19 pandemic, and the impossibility to hold physical Council meetings, only organised two hearings under Article 7 TEU since December 2019; points out that the hearings organised by the Council are neither regular nor structured, and call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the countries concerned, including deadlines; notes that the failure to progress in Article 7 TEU procedure enables continued divergence from the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, undermining those values and mutual trust between Member States and the EU as a whole; urges the French presidency of the Council to take the appropriate steps in order to move further the procedure under Article7(1) TEU;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the annual Rule of Law Report is a ~~key~~n element of the EU’s ~~Rule of Law~~ Toolbox;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Highlights that constitutional checks and balances at EU level should be included in the report; commits to requesting a Venice Commission opinion on key principles of democracy in EU governance, in particular the separation of powers, accountability and checks and balances; stresses the importance of the assessment by the Commission of respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to fair and impartial justice in each Member State, in order to avoid abuses and guarantee the rights of the defence;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Highlights that constitutional checks and balances at EU level should be included in the report; c~~Commits to requesting a Venice Commission opinion on key principles of democracy in EU governance, in particular the separation of powers, accountability and checks and balances;

Amendment 53 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Highlights that constitutional checks and balances at EU level should be ~~included in the report; commits to~~assessed, by requesting a Venice Commission opinion on key principles of democracy in EU governance, in particular the separation of powers, accountability and checks and balances;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Notes that several Member States’ positions in international press freedom rankings have declined; highlights the irreplaceable role of public service media and stresses that it is essential to ensure and maintain their independence from political interference; strongly condemns threats to media freedom, including harassment and attacks aimed at journalists and whistle-blowers, the disregard of their legal protection as well as media capture or politically motivated actions in the media sector;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Notes that since the publication of the 2014 anti-corruption report, the topic never again received similar attention despite subsequent reports including anti- corruption issues; calls on the Commission to biannually publish a dedicated anti-corruption report following the example of 2014, including an analysis of the EU institutions themselves;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Stresses the need for a functioning civil society throughout the Union through the Citizenship, Equality, Rights and Values programme and calls for the creation of the European statute for associations and non-profit organisations;

Amendment 58 #

Giuliano PISAPIA, Brando BENIFEI, Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Welcomes that civil society was consulted during the drafting process; stresses that civil society actors can provide valuable input for the assessment of country-specific situations and provide a more critical view than the concerned government; notes, however, that the consultation can be improved by ensuring, among others, a meaningful follow-up with civil society actors to their input given, sufficiently long timeframes for providing input and reconsidering the format of a one-size-fits-all questionnaire for providing input; encourages the Commission to seek further input from civil society on how to optimise the consultation process for future reports;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Council to discuss the report in all transparency and engage in dialogue with the European Parliament; calls on the European Council, too, to discuss the findings of the report, as the values of Article 2 TEU are a matter to be addressed at the highest political level; notes with concern that the failure to apply Article 7 TEU enables continued divergence from the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and weakens one of the most important instruments of the Union’s rule of law toolbox; welcomes therefore the hearings and general discussion respectively held at the General Affairs Council meetings of 22 June 2021 and 14 December 2021, and takes note of the French presidency’s commitment to hold formal hearings in the first half of 2022; underlines, however, that unanimity is not required to vote on Council recommendations nor to determine whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of Article 2 TEU values, and urges the presidency of the Council to take the appropriate steps to move forward with the ongoing procedures under Article 7(1) TEU; reiterates, finally, its call for Parliament to be able to present its reasoned proposal to the Council, to attend hearings, in particular when Parliament has initiated the procedure, and to be kept promptly and fully informed at every stage, including its respective parliamentary committees involved in the procedure.

Amendment 6 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Report as a positive addition to the EU’s toolbox to promote improvements as well as to prevent and address rule of law issues in Member States, and recalls that the Commission’s report was a commitment made by President Von Der Leyen in her political guidelines for the 2019-2024 Commission, ahead of her election;

Amendment 60 #

Paulo RANGEL, Sven SIMON, Vladimír BILČÍK, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Seán KELLY, Loránt VINCZE, Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. CUnderlines the importance of interinstitutional dialogue and cooperation on rule of law matters; calls on the Council to discuss the report in all transparency and engage in dialogue with the European Parliament; calls on the European Council, too, to discuss the findings of the report, as the values of Article 2 TEU are a matter to be addressed at the highest political level.

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Council to discuss the report, i~~n all transparency and engage in dialogue with the European Parliament~~ts methodology, and its findings; calls on the ~~European~~ Council, to~~o, to discuss the findings of the report, as the values of~~ end the Article 27(1) TEU ~~are a matter to be addressed at the highest political level~~procedure within the strict framework of the Treaties.

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Council to discuss the report in all transparency and engage in dialogue with the European Parliament; calls on the European Council, too, to discuss the findings of the report, as ~~the values of~~upholding the rule of law as set out in Article 2 TEU ~~are~~is a matter to be addressed at the highest political level.

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Underlines the importance of the ongoing Conference on the Future of Europe deliberations, notably in the “Values and rights, rule of law, security” panel, and takes note of the recommendations by the European Citizens’ Panel 2;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Calls on the Commission to continue to use all tools at its disposal to enforce EU values and prevent their violations; underlines the importance of the binding conditionality during the disbursement of the “Next Generation EU” payments and all other EU funds and payments;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that the supremacy or primacy of EU law over Member States' domestic law – established in the 'Constitutional Treaty', which was rejected by the peoples of a number of Member States – has no basis in the EU treaties;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Deplores that the subject of the report exceeds the scope of the Treaties; notes that the methodology of the Rule of Law Report is seriously flawed and has to be revised;

source: 703.030

2022/02/08 PETI 109 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law ~~in several Member States~~; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States comply with all principles of the rule of law;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the rule of law includes principles such as legality, legal certainty, the separation of powers, the prohibition of the arbitrary exercise of executive power, effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts in full respect of fundamental rights, the enforcement of judgments including the permanent subjection of all public authorities to established laws and procedures, and equality before the law; underlines that such principles are common to all Member States regardless of their distinct legal systems;

Amendment 100 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations is of particular importance; calls on the Commission to ~~foster debates~~strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with civil society organisations in order to take note of all their concerns and involve them more effectively in ~~follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer~~all phases of the review cycle; highlights the need to allow multilingual submissions and ensure thematically structured consultations to increase the efficiency of the process and the amount of valuable feedback as well as longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of all civil society organisations.;

Amendment 101 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations is of particular importance; calls on the Commission to foster ~~debates~~open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and with civil society organisations in order to take note of all their concerns and involve them more effectively in follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of all civil society organisations; urges the Commission, therefore, to step up and structure its monitoring of the situation of civic space in the Member States by creating a ‘European civic space index’ based on existing frameworks for measuring civic space, and by dedicating to civic space a fully-fledged chapter including country recommendations in its annual rule of law report.

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations and NGOs is of particular importance recalls that civil society organizations must be able to operate without unjustified interference by state authorities; calls on the Commission to foster debates with civil society organisations and NGOs in order to take note of all their concerns and involve them more effectively in follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of all civil society organisations. and NGOs, including smaller ones; calls on Member States to apply the principles of transparency and disclosure with regard to the selection of the civil society organisations and NGOs involved;

Amendment 103 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jana TOOM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. 16a (new) Proposes the creation of a "Citizen's Platform on the Rule of Law", a digital platform hosted by the European Parliament, which would enable citizens to report and share their experience of rule of law deficiencies, vulnerabilities and breaches; believes that this platform would be in line with the objectives et out in Article 11(1) TEU and with European Parliament's vocation to act asa bridge with citizens, as it would give them the opportunity to exchange experiences and views with each other, as well as create an accessible public forum whereby individual and collective testimonies can be directly shared and made visible to those monitoring the rule of law and the rest of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, such as the EU institutions, lawyers, civil society organisations, watchdogs, journalists, and researchers; highlights that there would be no obligation for the European Parliament to act on these testimonies, but the platform would provide deeper understanding of individual citizen's concerns, enable greater visibility of the threats to, deficiencies and breaches of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU across the Union, and ultimately strengthen the rule of law culture and the engagement of EU institutions with citizens; suggests that it could also provide information to create petitions for those reporting on the same issue;

Amendment 104 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Stresses the importance of credibility for the European Union in the context of accession;focusing on judicial independence for candidate and potential candidate countries, and at the meantime having controversies and unresolved problems on the same matter within the Union, is negative for the whole process.The Commission should take into account the Special Report of the European Court of Auditors on EU support for the rule of law in the Western Balkans of January 2022, as it supports this point. Calls on the Commission to avoid negative repercussions in the accession process due to weak credibility on rule of law. Points out that the Commission should proactively solve internal issues while simultaneously working on rule of law with candidate countries;.

Amendment 105 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Deplores the actions of concealment and omission carried by public administrations in relation to the sexual abuse of minors under the care of regional administrations in Spain[1];recalls that the rights of minors must be protected super omnia; condemns those politicians who tried to dismiss parliamentary investigations aimed at clarifying responsibilities for ideological or partisan reasons16a; _________________ 16a Petition No 1313/2020 and 0468/2021

Amendment 106 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Condemns the restriction to the freedom of movement of citizens affected by the "low emission zones" imposed in big cities; regrets that these arbitrary political measures mainly harm the most vulnerable citizens who cannot renounce to use their old cars16b _________________ 16b PetitionNo 1358/2020 and 0621/2021

Amendment 107 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Points out that on the 16 of February the Court of Justice of the European Union will release its judgement on the compliance of the conditionality requirement with the Treaty following the complaint filed by Poland and Hungary;

Amendment 108 #

Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16 c. Is concerned about the forest of Białowieża;as Petition 0805/2017 submitted by Polish citizens recalls, there is non-compliance with EU environmental law on forest management. Calls on the Commission to take into account the Petition and to investigate further the effects of the wall both on nature and on animals, and reiterates that the Commission should consider it in the country-specific recommendations for Poland;

Amendment 109 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16 c. Shows its total solidarity and full support for all victims of terrorism; condemns the fact that current governments negotiate with the heirs of armed bands; regrets that there are still unsolved terrorist attacks, especially the 379 unsolved murders committed by the terrorist group ETA16c _________________ 16c Fact Finding Mission to Vitoria and Madrid, Spain for the 379 unsolved cases of murders perpetrated by the terrorist group ETA

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the rule of law includes principles such as legality, legal certainty, the separation of powers, the prohibition of the arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the executive ~~power~~, effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts in full respect of fundamental rights, the timely enforcement of judgments including the permanent subjection of all public authorities to established laws and procedures, and equality before the law and the institutions;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the rule of law includes principles such as legality, legal certainty, the separation of powers, the prohibition of the arbitrary exercise of executive power, effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts in full respect of fundamental rights and the EU Law, the enforcement of judgments including the permanent subjection of all public authorities to established laws and procedures, and equality before the law;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Underlines the importance of the recommendations of the Parliament enshrined in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; notes with regret that the Commission did not adequately address all these recommendations in its 2021 Rule of Law Report and did not sufficiently cover all rule of law issues;

Amendment 14 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Considers that the overall Commission's method of assessing the situation of the Rule of law in the EU can be highly improved; calls on the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches as presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature in an equal manner can lead to underestimate the most serious breaches of the rule of law;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that judicial accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence are crucial components of the rule of law; ~~calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary;~~

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that judicial accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence are crucial components of the rule of law~~; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States~~ in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary;

Amendment 17 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that judicial ~~accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence~~independence1a and the accountability and functional independence of the prosecutors are crucial components of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States in order to increase citizens’ 'trust in the judiciary; _________________ 1a Justification: Judicial independence is an universal principle, whereas the level of independence of prosecutors varies in different Member States. Further more, there is widely accepted, including by the Venice Commission, that the prosecutors are part of the State policy apparatus, whereas the Courts are fully impartial and should not abide to State policies

Amendment 18 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that judicial accountability ~~and~~, prosecutorial and judicial independence and the enforcement of judgments are crucial components of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States ~~in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary~~or when Member States fail to act on violations carried out by sub-state entities, in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary, and by using all means at their disposal, especially the rule of law conditionality mechanism, where applicable;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that judicial accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence are crucial components of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary; calls on Member States to protect judges and prosecutors from political attacks and pressures, which attempt to undermine their work, so as to fully preserve their independence;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if ~~all~~the Member States comply with all principles of the rule of law;

Amendment 20 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that judicial accountability and prosecutorial and judicial independence are crucial components of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to enforce these core EU values when they are infringed by Member States, while respecting certain legality requirements (such as necessity and proportionality) and the competence of Member States, in order to increase citizens’ trust in the judiciary;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; ~~calls for an investigation into whether COVID-19-related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and~~in this regard, reminds that the Venice Commission is currently monitoring the measures taken in the Member States as a results of the pandemic and their impacts on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights and its monitoring should be an opportunity to investigate whether such measures were always proportiona~~lity was~~te and justified; ~~requests an assessment of the checks and balances during the pandemic,~~in this regard, stresses that Member States should capitalise from the COVID-19 esxpecially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisisrience to make sure that future crises will be handled with the necessary accountability and transparency; commends the efforts made by the Ombudspersons and human rights institutions to ensure the continuity of their work in spite of the great challenges they were facing; _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.

Amendment 22 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA

4. ~~Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to~~Notes petitions1 on the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; recalls for an investigation into whether COVID-19-related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and proportionality was justified; requests an assessment of the checks and balances during the pandemic, especially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the need ~~to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisis~~of guidelines in place before a crisis in order to ensure the proportionality and the necessity of the measures taken ; _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; calls on the Commission for an investigation into whether COVID-19- related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and proportionality was justified; requests an assessment of the checks and balances during the pandemic, especially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution~~; underlines the need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisis~~s of the states concerned; _________________ 1 Petitions Nos 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; calls for an investigation into whether COVID-19-related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and proportionality was justified; requests an assessment of the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches during the pandemic, especially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the ~~need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisis;~~essentiality of separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; calls ~~for an investigation into~~on the Commission to continue assessing in its future reports whether COVID-19-related measures were limited in time and whether their necessity and proportionality was justified~~; requests an assessment of~~, as well as the checks and balances during the pandemic~~, especially give~~; notes with concern that courts in several Member States have ~~already~~ ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisis, so that respect for the rule of law and for fundamental rights can be guaranteed; _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.

Amendment 26 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Points to the high amount of petitions1 in relation to the impact and challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic; calls for ~~an investigation into whether~~continuing the scrutiny of COVID-19-related measures weto ensure they are limited in time and ~~whether their~~comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality ~~was justified; requests an~~to the health risks; requests the Commission to fully report the outcomes of its assessment of the checks and balances during the pandemic, especially given that courts in several Member States have already ruled that certain measures were not consistent with the national constitution; underlines the need to have a clear legal regime in place before a crisis; _________________ 1 Petitions No 1438/2020, 1469/2020, 1493/2020, 1501/2020, 0038/2021, 0046/2021, 0053/2021, 0106/2021, 0152/2021, 0186/2021 and 0533/2021.

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the national justice systems and the activity of the courts; draws attention to the lack of participation and the non- involvement of national parliaments in the decision-making and the closure of parliaments during the pandemic, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency;deleted

Amendment 28 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 29 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the national justice systems and the activity of the courts; ~~draws attention to~~regrets the lack of participation and the non-involvement of national parliaments in the decision- making and the closure of parliaments in numerous Member States during the pandemic, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States comply with all principles of the rule of law; and the other values enshrined in Article 2 TEU.

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the ~~national~~ justice systems and the activity of the courts; draws attention to the lack of participation and the non-involvement of national parliaments in the decision- making and the closure of parliaments during the pandemic, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the national justice systems and the activity of the courts; draws attention to the lack of participation and the non-involvement of national parliaments in the decision- making and the closure of parliaments during the pandemic in some Member States, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency; welcomes the fact that some Member States restored strengthened parliamentary oversight after an initial period where this was curtailed.

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the national justice systems and the activity of the courts; draws attention to the lack of participation and the non-involvement of national parliaments in the decision- making and the closure of parliaments during the pandemic, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency of the executive;

Amendment 33 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that emergency regimes and decree-laws were urgently instated by governments in several Member States because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this has affected the functioning of the national justice systems and the activity of the courts; draws attention to the lack of participation and the non-involvement of certain national parliaments in the decision- making and the closure of parliaments during the pandemic, which has increased the power of governments and has led to a lack of accountability and transparency;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to improve the effectiveness of the judicial system also by developing ~~the digitalisation proces~~structural reforms and high- level of digitalisation, which has proven effective in backlogs ' prevention, especially during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic; stresses that adequate financial and human resources are key to develop effective justice systems;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to improve the effectiveness of the judicial system by implementing and developing the digitalisation process;

Amendment 36 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to improve the effectiveness of the judicial system by developing the digitalisation process; analogue procedural processes must be available on an equal footing with digital options in order to meet accessibility and the expectations and needs of all citizens;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 39 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Is ~~deeply~~ concerned about ~~the status of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the~~ close connections between public prosecutors and ~~the~~ governments (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice) and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2 ; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 and the independence of the judiciary in Spain4 ; _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. 4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.some Member States; therefore calls for impartiality and independence of the judiciary in these Member States;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law by both national and Union administrations, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States and EU institutions comply with all principles of the rule of law and the division of competences as granted in the Treaties;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. IReiterates its deeply concerned about the ~~status of Poland’s~~ lack of independence of the illegitimate "Constitutional Tribunal" of Poland, the close connection between prosecutors and the government (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice) and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2 ; ~~is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 and the independence~~reiterates that the illegitimate "Constitutional tribunal" was also used politically to attack women's rights in its ruling of 22 October 2020 (K1/20) and denounces that the severe restrictions on women's reproductive health and rights are unlawful; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in ~~Spain4 ;~~Hungary3. _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. ~~4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.~~

Amendment 41 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Cristina MAESTRE, Marc ANGEL, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ICriticises the fact that the report failed to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary; strongly regrets the failure of the Council to make progress by applying sanctions in the ongoing procedures under Article 7 TEU; is deeply concerned about the status of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the close connection between prosecutors and the government (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice) and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2 ; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 ~~and the independence of the judiciary in Spain4 ;~~ ; _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. ~~4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.~~

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Is deeply concerned about the status of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, ~~the close connection between~~direct dependence of the prosecutors ~~and the~~from government (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice), violating the principle of functional independence and accountability and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2 ; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 and the independence of the judiciary in Spain4 ;and the unaccountability of the Prosecutor-General in Bulgaria and his public statements, violating the political impartiality of his office and the presumption of innocence, expressed in the resolution of the European Parliament and numerous statements by the Commission. _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. 4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.

Amendment 44 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Is deeply concerned about the status of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, the close connection between prosecutors and the government (in particular the Public Prosecutor General/Minister of Justice) and the complete disregard for not only EU law requirements, but also European Convention on Human Rights and Polish Constitutional requirements2; is further concerned about the impartiality of the judiciary in Hungary3 and the independence of the judiciary in Spain4; highlights the repeated and widespread violations in Italy of human rights regarding dignity, equality, non- discrimination, work, individual freedom, health, education, legal defence and protection of juveniles and the elderly, as well as a number of fundamental individual freedoms, resulting from restrictive and punitive measures against citizens speaking out against government policy; expresses particular concern at the segregation of inhabitants of the larger islands of Sicily and Sardinia and of all the smaller islands owing to a ban on the use of public transport by those without vaccination certificates, the financial hardship being created for the elderly by denying them access to public pensions offices to withdraw their entitlements without a third vaccine dose and prohibiting healthy members of parliament from voting, even outdoors, without a COVID vaccination certificate, while MPs who have tested positive for COVID are allowed to do so; _________________ 2 Petitions No 0559/2020, 1154/2020, 1246/2020, 1360/2020 and 0869/2021. 3 Petition No 1512/2020. 4 Petitions No 1180/2020, 1182/2020, 1326/2020, 1367/2020, 1561/2020 and 0353/2021.

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Expresses alarm at the drift away from democratic values and at the strongly discriminatory policies being adopted by a number of Member States, especially Italy, as well as Austria, Germany, France and Latvia; strongly condemns all COVID countermeasures that infringe the fundamental rights of European Union citizens and calls on the Commission to urgently initiate any action, including infringement proceedings, that are necessary to bring them to a halt;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, ~~both~~ at national, EU and EUinternational level; and condemns ~~all national and regional governments on EU territory that refuse to follow judgments~~the lack of compliance with judgments of the CJEU and of national courts by the public authorities concerned ; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner and as soon as possible in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to comply with~~5 ; _________________ 5 Petition No 0858/2017~~; stresses that judgments from the European Court of Human Rights are binding on the states concerned and many Member States regularly fail to implement them; reiterates its call on the Commission to include in the country chapters data on non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as assessed by the Committee of Ministers.

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, both at national and EU level; condemns ~~all national and regional governments on EU territory that refuse to follow~~competent authorities at all levels on EU territory that do not consistently comply with judgments; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner and as soon as possible in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to ~~comply with5 ; _________________ 5 Petition No 0858/2017.~~respect;

Amendment 49 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, both at national and EU level; c~~ondemns~~alls on all national and ~~region~~local governments ~~on EU territory~~within the EU that refuse to follow judgments; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner ~~and as soon as possible~~ in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to comply with5 ; _________________ 5 Petition No 0858/2017.

Amendment 5 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States comply with all principles of the rule of law; stresses that the Rule of Law Report must be objective and assess all Member States according to the same criteria;

Amendment 50 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, both at national and EU level; condemns all national and regional governments on EU territory that refuse to follow judgments; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner and as soon as possible in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to comply with5 , in particular, those court sentences that seek to prevent discrimination on grounds of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation; _________________ 5 Petition No 0858/2017.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 52 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Regrets the attitudes of the Catalan government authorities, boasting publicly of their refusal to comply with the judgments ruled by the competent courts in the field of education, flagrantly breaching the right of children to study in the official language of their Member State; considers that these attitudes and actions, together with the harassment of the plaintiffs, jeopardise the compliance of the rule of law and the separation of powers, thereby seriously harming the law and the rights of citizens;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Invites the Commission to take measures to strengthen corruption prevention6 in order to create ~~more~~full transparency in administration and ~~improve~~ensure full access to information about lobbying and oversight of political party financing; _________________ 6 Petitions No 0822/2020 and 0194/2020.

Amendment 55 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Invites the Commission to take measures to strengthen corruption prevention6, including in the upper echelons of power, in order to create more transparency in administration and improve access to information about lobbying ands well as oversight of political party financing; _________________ 6 Petitions Nos 0822/2020 and 0194/2020.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Invites the Commission to take measures to strengthen corruption prevention6 in order to create more transparency in public administration and improve access to information about lobbying and oversight of political party financing; stresses that anti-corruption measures are key to defend the Union’s economic interests and its sustainable growth; emphasises that such measures, especially in pandemic-related processes, are imperative to prevent violations and malpractice threatening Member States and the Union’s recovery from the crisis; _________________ 6 Petitions No 0822/2020 and 0194/2020.

Amendment 57 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Invites the Commission to take measures to strengthen corruption prevention6 in order to create more transparency in administration and improve access to information about lobbying and oversight of political party, trade unions, NGOs and employers' associations financing; _________________ 6 Petitions No 0822/2020 and 0194/2020.

Amendment 58 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Warns Member States of the risks of jeopardising the fight against corruption and increasing breaches of the rule of law incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in its initial phase; underlines that those risks have increased due to the general acceleration of the decision- making process and the simplification of public administration procedures such as public procurement resulting in non- competitive or direct awards;

Amendment 59 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Calls on Member States to regulate the “revolving doors” phenomenon by disciplining the movement of high-level employees from public-sector jobs to private-sector jobs and vice versa with the aim of preventing conflict of interests; in this regard, encourages to follow best practice already enforced in some Member States, with special regard to the prevention and management of conflicts of interest;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States comply with all principles of the rule of law, as deficiencies in one Member State impact other Member States and the Union as a whole;

Amendment 60 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Expresses its concern about the s~~ecuri~~afety of whistleblowers who report acts of corruption7 or other illegal activities8 and thereupon experience violations of their fundamental rights; _________________ 7 Petition No 0242/2021. 8 Petition No 1056/2021.

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Expresses its concern about the security of whistleblowers who report acts of corruption7 or other illegal activities8 and thereupon experience violations of their fundamental rights; ; highlights how the COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled the importance of whistleblowing for public security and safety on a grand and smaller scale; emphasises how the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as any other crisis, could discourage potential whistleblowers fearing for their physical and financial integrity; _________________ 7 Petition No 0242/2021. 8 Petition No 1056/2021.

Amendment 62 #

Emmanouil FRAGKOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Regrets the lack of initiatives to uphold the human rights of the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, refugees and those expelled by the Turkish army, while expressing concern at the continuous waves of armed illegal migrants being sent in by Turkey, leading to social problems and demographic shifts in the free territories;

Amendment 63 #

Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that that the safety of journalists is not universally guaranteed; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the ~~need to protect journalists against threats and attacks~~key role of investigative journalists in the fight against corruption, fraud and illegal activities that negatively impact the EU budget; reiterates in this regard the need to protect investigative journalism from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), as well as personal harassment, intimidation and threats to life in order to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that ~~that~~ the safety of journalists is not ~~universally guaranteed~~guaranteed in a full manner; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to assure freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession;

Amendment 65 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

11. Regrets the fact that that the safety of journalists is not ~~universally guaranteed~~guaranteed across the European Union; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that ~~that~~ the safety of journalists is not universally guaranteed; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession; stresses the difficulties faced by journalists and media in providing citizens with fact-check information about the COVID-19 pandemic;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that that the safety of journalists is not universally guaranteed and that strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), often in combination with threats to physical safety, still represent a serious concern in several Member States; is particularly worried that online threats are on the rise across the EU, with female journalists and journalists of minority background particularly at risks; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession;

Amendment 68 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that that the safety of journalists is not universally guaranteed; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession and its independence from any form of political pressure or lobbying; calls on the Commission accordingly to introduce and strictly enforce appropriate limits on public funding for the press and the media in general and to impose a cap on private funding by specific groups or individuals;

Amendment 69 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that that the safety of journalists is not universally guaranteed; underlines the importance of media pluralism and the need to protect journalists against threats and attacks in order to prevent self-censorship and to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession; calls on the Commission to improve the instruments for assessing measures taken by governments that may undermine freedom of information and pluralism;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the important role of the Committee on Petitions in identifying and flagging possible breaches of the rule of law, taking into account the numerous petitions received from citizens concerned about breaches of the rule of law in several Member States; strongly believes that full protection of all EU citizens and their fundamental rights can only be ensured throughout the Union if all Member States fully comply with all principles of the rule of law;

Amendment 70 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Expresses its concern about journalists’ deteriorating economic and working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing crisis, underlining a substantial increase in the unemployment rates in the sector; welcomes the use of compensatory measures to support the sector; reminds that such measures should always comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, equal and non-discriminatory access;

Amendment 71 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Urges Member States to pay close attention to abuse of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and particularly on how they affect smaller news outlets and freelancers; notes that SLAPPs abuse and lawsuit increasing, including intimidating actions, may easily lead to media self- censorship;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Reiterates, that media independence is often violated through government subsidies and, most regretfully, through the abuse of EU funds, dedicated to the popularization of EU policies and programs;

Amendment 73 #

12. Draws attention to the need for better regulation and more transparency regarding social networking sites9 ; takes note of the insufficiency of the horizontal assessment of the media sector and the lack of representation of online media in the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law report (COM(2121)700); _________________ 9 Petitions No 1336/2020, 0036/2021, 0137/2021, 0691/2021 and 0719/2021.deleted

Amendment 74 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Draws attention to the need for better regulation and more transparency regarding social ~~networking site~~media platforms9 ; takes note of the insufficiency of the horizontal assessment of the media sector and the lack of representation of online media in the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law report (COM(2121)700); _________________ 9 Petitions No 1336/2020, 0036/2021, 0137/2021, 0691/2021 and 0719/2021.

Amendment 75 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Draws attention to the need for better regulation and more transparency regarding social networking ~~site~~platforms9; takes note of the insufficiency of the horizontal assessment of the media sector and the lack of representation of online media in the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law report (COM(2121)700); _________________ 9 Petitions Nos 1336/2020, 0036/2021, 0137/2021, 0691/2021 and 0719/2021.

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that fake news and the resulting misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to our EU democracies10 ~~; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns may lead~~, which must be combated with guarantees and without giving rise to any violation of ~~Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees~~ the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that fake news and the resulting misinformation aimed at EU citizens ~~are a threat to our~~have an impact on EU democracies10 ; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information ~~and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns~~ may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that fake news and the resulting misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to our EU democracies10 ; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information ~~and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns~~ may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.

Amendment 79 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that fake news and the resulting misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to ~~our EU democracies10~~democracy in the EU10, especially in the COVID-19 pandemic period; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders11; _________________ 10 Petitions Nos 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses that the rule of law is among the common values of the Union and thus essential to achieve its objectives; points out that its promotion and upholding is a shared responsibility between the EU and the Member States;

Amendment 80 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that ~~fake news and the resulting~~objectively, not ideologically, determined fake news and the resulting objectively, not ideologically, determined misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to ~~our EU~~ democracies10 ; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the indivisible and important right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders according to the core principle of freedom of speech and expression11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that fake news and the resulting misinformation aimed at EU citizens are a threat to our EU democracies10 especially when the source of misinformation is founded in the institutions of the European Union or the Member States; notes, however, that overly extensive control of false information and the increased promotion of disinformation campaigns may lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of borders11 ; _________________ 10 Petitions No 1310/2019, 0268/2020, 0743/2020 and 1293/2020. 11 Petition No 1336/2020.

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in ~~particular those related to religious bel~~cluding religious minorities, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minoritiefs, ~~political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define~~migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and LGBTI+ persons12; is deeply worried that International and national human rights bodies underlined the growing rate of hate speech online, often perpetrated by political figures, targeting minorities; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.

Amendment 83 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO, Cristina MAESTRE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundarspeech and hate crimes against women, black people and people of colour, migrants and refugees, LGTBIQ people 12 and minorities, in particular Roma, those related to religious beliefs a~~re hard to define~~nd political ideas ; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; ~~is aw~~deplores the large ~~of the difficult balance between~~number of petitions received in 2021 reporting hate speeches and ~~freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define~~hate crimes against LGBTQI+ people13a as well as restriction of the freedom of expression14a ; notes that most of them refer to a substantial lack of legal protection for LGBTQI+ citizens in some Member States; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021. 13a Petition No 0436/2021, 0471/2021 and 0480/2021 14a Petition No 0436/2021 and 0471/2021.

Amendment 85 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the ~~increase in hate crimes ag~~propaganda campaigns that minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ~~; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define~~are being targeted with hate crimes; Points out that the balance between hate speech and freedom of expression is very hard to define and therefore before taking legal or any other measures, detail analysis should be made; in this regard recalls the need of strict supervision of the codes and mechanisms used by social media platforms to make their assessments on posted content; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.

Amendment 86 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression ~~and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define~~but nevertheless considers it necessary for the Commission to condemn and penalise any public utterances - especially by those in positions of particular influence or institutional prominence - that are seriously discriminatory, inciting hatred of minorities or certain categories of individuals, even where motivated by ideological, political or public health concerns; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.

Amendment 87 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Ramona STRUGARIU, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; ~~is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define;~~regrets that this increase in hate crimes is also seen in the context of uncontrolled mass migration from outside the EU; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of speech and expression, but recognises that the boundaries are already defined with laws on defamation of character, libel, slander, defamation of honour, contempt, etc. _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.

Amendment 88 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is concerned about the increase in hate crimes against minorities, in particular those related to religious beliefs, political ideas and sexual orientation12 ; is aware of the difficult balance between hate speech and freedom of expression and acknowledges that the boundaries are hard to define; calls on the Commission to continue its work to establish effective criteria against this problem, and to do so without affecting the pluralism of the system; _________________ 12 Petitions No 0354/2020, 0657/2020, 1038/2020, 0471/2021, 0480/2021, 0667/2021, 0704/2021, 0725/2021, 0820/2021, 0855/2021 and 0894/2021.

Amendment 89 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Regrets that some Member States did not fully and correctly incorporate into national law the Council Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia1a ; deplores that the provisions of the Racial Equality Directive1b are still not correctly implemented in all Member States; _________________ 1a Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law 1b Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin

Amendment 9 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Jordi CAÑAS, Frédérique RIES, Jana TOOM, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Marie-Pierre VEDRENNE, Vlad GHEORGHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that the rule of law includes principles such as legality, legal certainty, the separation of powers, the prohibition of the arbitrary exercise of executive power, effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts in full respect of fundamental rights, the fight against impunity, the enforcement of judgments including the permanent subjection of all public authorities to established laws and procedures, ~~and~~ equality before the law;

Amendment 90 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.deleted

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report ~~should~~might be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report shcould ~~only~~ serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; ~~urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report;~~ _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ~~findings of the~~Commission's annual Rule of Law report and its findings should be operationalised in concrete policy actions ~~and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedure~~in order to make full and effective use of all tools available at Union level to address breaches of the rule of law, such as infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce ~~deadlines for the recommendations based on the~~in its subsequent reports country-specific recommendations accompanied by deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; emphasises citizens’ high expectations highlighted in petitions asking for a swift and effective Union level response to put an end to breaches of Rule of Law ~~report~~; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 94 #

Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments~~, such as infringement procedures~~ available under EU financial legislation and the applicable sector-specific and financial rules to effectively protect the EU budget, including interruption of payment deadlines, suspension of payments, financial corrections or exclusion of expenditure from EU financing, infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU, checks and audits, compliance with Article 61 of the Financial Regulation of the EU, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union addressing risks to the foundational values of the EU in the Member States; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the upcoming Rule of Law reports; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 96 #

Massimiliano SMERIGLIO, Marc ANGEL, Demetris PAPADAKIS, Pina PICIERNO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13, the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools, including the report on corruption in the context of the general rule of law mechanism, more effectively and in a more timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for complying with the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the findings of the Rule of Law report should be operationalised in concrete policy actions and that the report should only serve conjointly with other instruments, such as infringement procedures, the procedures enshrined in the Conditionality Regulation13 , the rule of law framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union; urges the Commission to use its tools more effectively and in a timely manner; asks the Commission to introduce deadlines for the recommendations based on the Rule of Law report as well as for the implementation of the policy actions; _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Amendment 98 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Emmanouil FRAGKOS, Cristian TERHEŞ, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations is of particular importance; calls on the Commission to foster debates with civil society organisations in order to take note of all their concerns and involve them more effectively in follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of all civil society organisations., while noting at the same time that a clear set of rules on their financing should be developed;

Amendment 99 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Underlines that the role of civil society organisations is of ~~particular~~ importance; calls on the Commission to ~~foster~~ debates with civil society organisations in order to take note of ~~all~~ their concerns and involve them ~~more effectively~~ in follow-up meetings; highlights the need to offer longer consultation periods to guarantee proper participation of ~~all~~ civil society organisations.

source: 703.216

2022/02/16 CONT 55 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Underlines that the Union’s budget and financial interests shall be implemented and protected in accordance with the general principles embedded in the Union Treaties, in particular the values in the Article 2 TEU, and with the principle of sound financial management enshrined in the Article 317 of the TFEU and in the Financial Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council; highlights that the Rule of law is both a guiding value and an essential precondition for compliance with those principles;

Amendment 10 #

Jean-François JALKH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls its resolution of 8 July 2021 on the creation of guidelines for the application of the Conditionality Regulation; insists that the Commission include in its annual rule of law reports a section dedicated to cases where rule of law breaches in a Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the Union’s financial interests in a sufficiently direct way;deleted

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls its resolution of 8 July 2021 on the creation of guidelines for the application of the Conditionality Regulation; insists that the Commission include in its annual rRule of law reports a section dedicated to cases where rRule of law breaches in a Member State have affected, could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the Union’s financial interests in a sufficiently direct way; calls on the Commission to present in its future reports a summary of the actions undertaken at national or EU level to address such cases, as well as to what extent they have protected the Union’s budget;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 13 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michal WIEZIK, Katalin CSEH, Gilles BOYER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Alin MITUȚA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 14 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls its resolution of 8 July 2021 on the creation of guidelines for the application of the Conditionality Regulation; insists that ~~the Commission include in its~~a more direct link between the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report and the triggering of the Conditionality Regulation should be established, for example by including in the annual rule of law reports a section dedicated to cases where rule of law breaches in a Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the Union’s financial interests in a sufficiently direct way ;

Amendment 15 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls its resolution of 8 July 2021 on the creation of guidelines for the application of the Conditionality Regulation; insists that the Commission include in its annual rule of law reports a section dedicated to cases where rule of law breaches in a Member State ~~could~~ affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the Union’s financial interests in a sufficiently direct way;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Regrets that the Commission has not implemented the recommendations included in Parliament’s resolution of 24 June 2021 and, as a result, that the 2021 report remains mainly descriptive and does not provide sufficient analysis or foresees remedies, which undermines its preventive role; recalls its request to the Commission to include country-specific recommendations on how to address the concerns identified or remedy Rule of law breaches, including concrete actions and deadlines for implementation, as well as to follow-up on the implementation of its recommendations and the remedial actions; reiterates that the annual reports shall assess the intensity of the Rule of Law breaches, as well as the systemic or isolated nature; believes that the Commission’s recommendations shall be linked to concrete Union tools, such as the Article 7 TEU procedures or the Conditionality Regulation, for cases where Member States fail the implementation;

Amendment 17 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Regrets that the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report is mostly descriptive and lacking clear conclusions, with precise follow-up actions and proposals of remedial measures ; regrets also the lack of prioritisation of the breaches of the rule of law listed in the report, with the same attention and tone given to systemic major breaches and to isolated minor ones; calls therefore on the Commission to address these shortcomings and improve the annual report to transform it into a comprehensive tool to be used by Member States to fix the identified rule of law breaches;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Welcomes that the report assesses the state of the rule of law in every Member State; notes, however, that it fails to make a clear distinction between Member States with isolated shortcomings and those with systemic rule of law deficiencies; calls on the Commission to make this distinction in future reports to prevent the report from being misused as a tool to relativize processes of autocratisation in some Member States;

Amendment 19 #

Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that the Conditionality Regulation imposes financial sanctions on a Member State, such as blocking access to European funds, in order to protect the EU budget; with this in mind, calls on the Commission to draw up a strategy which enables local authorities, as well as private entities, to access European funds directly from Brussels;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (the Conditionality Regulation) integrated the conditionality mechanism into a wider framework, requiring the Commission to use its own annual rule of law reports as a source for its assessments under the Regulation; calls on the Commission to implement the Conditionality Regulation without any further delay; recalls that for budget- related measures in the event of violations of the rule of law in a Member State, the competences of parliamentary committees should be determined on the basis of Annex VI of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure if the infringements under the Conditionality Regulation procedure are dealt with in Parliament;deleted

Amendment 20 #

Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK, Alin MITUȚA, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Regrets the mostly descriptive nature of the Commission's 2021 Rule of Law Report and calls on the Commission to address this aspect by including country-specific recommendations with regards to problems identified; furthermore asks the Commission to include yearly follow-ups on these matters until the full implementation of such recommendations;

Amendment 21 #

Jean-François JALKH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the four areas assessed in the 27 country chapters of the Commission’s 2021 rule of law report (the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism, and other institutional checks and balances) are key interdependent pillars for upholding the rule of law, fighting fraud and protecting the Union’s financial interests; welcomes the evaluation of the effects of COVID-19 on the four issues assessed; highlights the importance of continuing this evaluation in future annual rule of law reports; points out that COVID-19 pandemic has shortened legislative processes and reduced parliamentary debate and consultation of civil society and other stakeholders;deleted

Amendment 22 #

Katalin CSEH, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Pierre KARLESKIND, Ramona STRUGARIU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. 3. Stresses that the four areas assessed in the 27 country chapters of the Commission’s 2021 rule of law report (the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism, and other institutional checks and balances) are key interdependent pillars for upholding the rule of law, fighting fraud and corruption and protecting the Union’s financial interests; is of the opinion that other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist should be included into the evaluation, particularly a chapter on shrinking civic space; welcomes the evaluation of the effects of COVID-19 on the four issues assessed; highlights the importance of continuing this evaluation in future annual rule of law reports; points out that COVID- 19 pandemic has shortened legislative processes and reduced parliamentary debate and shortened or stopped consultation of civil society and other stakeholders;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the four areas assessed in the 27 country chapters of the Commission’s 2021 rRule of law report (the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media pluralism, and other institutional checks and balances) are key interdependent pillars for upholding the rRule of law, fighting fraud and protecting the Union’s financial interests; welcomes the evaluation of the effects of COVID-19 on the four issues assessed; highlights the importance of continuing this evaluation in future annual rRule of law reports to contribute to streamlining anti-corruption measures in pandemic-related areas, such as recovery funds, emergency legislation and medical care; points out that COVID- 19 pandemic has shortened legislative processes and reduced parliamentary debate and consultation of civil society and other stakeholders;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Points out that measures taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic often involve exceptional and necessary flexibility in administrative rules and controls in the interests of rapid reaction, and welcomes that the subsequent risks for the Rule of law and for the fight against corruption were mitigated in some cases by safeguards built into the national emergency regimes; recalls in this regard Parliament’s resolution of 15 December 2021 on preventive measures for avoiding corruption, irregular spending and misuse of EU and national funds in case of emergency funds and crisis-related spending areas; stresses that in emergency situations like the COVID-19 outbreak, the health sector is particularly exposed to corruption with regard to public procurement, medical-related services, and COVID-19 fraud;

Amendment 25 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Considers that the European Union should lead by example in its respect for the rule of law principles; reiterates therefore its call to the European Commission include in its annual Rule of Law Report an assessment of the EU institutions’ performance in the areas addressed by the report, where applicable;

Amendment 26 #

Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. In the spirit of setting a good example, calls on the Commission to include in future reports an assessment of the EU Institutions’ performance in the areas addressed by the Report, where applicable, and in particular as regards its anti-corruption framework;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Calls on the Commission to present in its next reports a chapter on the compliance of the institutions of the European Union with the rule of law, in particular on the situation within the Commission itself. The EU institutions should resolve numerous internal problems, such as: lack of transparency, obstruction of access to documents, the 'revolving door' problem, and corruption;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Highlights that Rule of law breaches in Member States can undermine economic and social recovery, particularly when affecting EU instruments for structural reforms such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the Structural Funds; asks the Commission to inform in the annual Rule of law reports on the relevant reform priorities included in the national Recovery and Resilience Plans that contribute to protect the EU budget and the Union’s financial interest in the four areas assessed;

Amendment 29 #

Jean-François JALKH, Joachim KUHS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Reiterates that the fight against corruption requires that breaches of the law be effectively pursued by investigative and prosecution services, that national courts be independent and that the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union be respected; points out that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the national justice systems’ vulnerability to disruption in emergency situations and thus, stresses the importance of investing in human and financial resources and digitalisation, as well as addressing structural obstacles, to improve significantly their efficiency and resilience;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 30 #

Jean-François JALKH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 31 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ramona STRUGARIU, Michal WIEZIK, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that corruption prevention policies cover many fields, typically including ethical rules, awareness-raising measures, rules on asset disclosures, incompatibilities and conflicts of interest, internal control mechanisms, rules on lobbying, and revolving doors; ~~reiterates the role of national measures in preventing fraud and corruption;~~ calls for further corruption prevention measures at the European level including transparency of ownership structures, prohibition of involvement of offshore or shell companies into the spending of European funds; reiterates the role of national measures in preventing fraud and corruption but considers that the EU institutions need to be fully equipped to prevent and investigate fraud and corruption; welcomes the Commission's adoption of the anti-money laundering (AML) package of proposals; calls on the European institutions to be ambitious in their negotiations and to reach an agreement as quickly as possible, particularly on the creation of a new European AML authority with strong direct supervisory powers on the riskiest obliged financial entities and on clear rules on Beneficial Ownership transparency;

Amendment 32 #

Katalin CSEH, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Pierre KARLESKIND, Ramona STRUGARIU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 33 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Lara WOLTERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 34 #

Matteo ADINOLFI, Joachim KUHS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines thate importance of corruption prevention policies covering many fields, typically including ethical rules, awareness-raising measures, rules on asset disclosures, incompatibilities and conflicts of interest, public procurement, internal control mechanisms, rules on lobbying, and revolving doors;, reiterates the important role of national measures in preventing fraud and corruption as well as calls for a strong focus on those cases related to the EU institutions; revolving doors cases and conflict of interest problems undermine the credibility of the EU institutions and therefore calls for a good example to be set by the EU towards citizens and nation states;

Amendment 35 #

Jean-François JALKH, Joachim KUHS, Matteo ADINOLFI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Reiterates its call for the Commission to assess not only the existence but the effectiveness of the national anti-corruption legislation, policies and strategies, including key elements such as clear and measurable objectives, adequate budgetary resources, regular evaluations and well-defined responsibilities for specialised institutions; appreciates that the report comments on the overall good performance of Member States in the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index and, in this regard, welcomes that ten Member States are in the top twenty of the countries perceived as least corrupt in the world and other fourteen Member States remain above the average or have improved their scores, while deeply regrets that some others have registered a significant deterioration in perceived corruption levels;

Amendment 36 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes with great concern the deteriorating situation of freedom of expression, protection of the right to information, and protection of journalists in 2021 compared to 2020 according to the Media Pluralism Monitor; recalls that media pluralism and media freedom is essential for the protection of the EU’s financial interests as investigative journalism is often at the source of the identification of issues such as corruption, fraud, or conflicts of interest in the use of EU funds;

Amendment 37 #

Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Pierre KARLESKIND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Deeply regrets the fact that the safety of journalists across the EU has been deteriorating in 20201a; highlights the key role of investigative journalists in the fight against corruption, fraud and illegal activities that negatively impact the EU budget; reiterates in this regard the need to protect investigative journalists from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) through a strong EU-wide legal framework, as well as against personal harassment, intimidation and threats to life in order to assure freedom of expression and the right to information and safeguard the journalistic profession. _________________ 1ahttps://rm.coe.int/final-version-annual- report-2021-en-wanted-real-action-for- media-freed/1680a2440e

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that transparency, access to public information, the protection of whistleblowers and an overall culture of integrity in public life are key to preventing and detecting corruption; expresses its concern about deteriorating developments in these areas in several Member States; calls on the Commission to act against the breaches it has identified in its previous annual rule of law reports;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that transparency, access to public information, media freedom and pluralism, the protection of whistleblowers and an overall culture of integrity in public life are key to preventing and detecting corruption as facilitate the public scrutiny and keep public trust; expresses its concern about deteriorating developments in these areas in several Member States; calls on the Commission, in coordination with the relevant EU and national institutions and bodies, to act against the breaches it has identified in its previous annual rRule of law reports;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (the Conditionality Regulation) integrated the conditionality mechanism into a wider framework, requiring the Commission to use its own annual rule of law reports as a source for its assessments under the Regulation; calls on the Commission to implement the Conditionality Regulation without any further delay by sending written notifications within the meaning of article 6(1) of the Regulation to concerned Member States; recalls that for budget- related measures in the event of violations of the rule of law in a Member State, the competences of parliamentary committees should be determined on the basis of Annex VI of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure if the infringements under the Conditionality Regulation procedure are dealt with in Parliament;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that transparency, access to public information, the protection of whistleblowers and an overall culture of integrity in public life are key to preventing and detecting corruption; expresses its concern about deteriorating developments in these areas in several Member States; calls on the Commission to act against the specific breaches it has identified in its previous annual rule of law reports, so as not to affect citizens and businesses not guilty of acts of corruption;

Amendment 41 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Is concerned about the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report’s findings that, in some countries, the state- sponsored harassment and intimidation of the LGBTI organisations is affecting their ability to access funding; calls on the Commission to take a closer look at the issue and to make sure that the non- discrimination principle governing the access to EU funds is fully complied with, everywhere in the EU; considers that these findings reinforce the long-standing position of Parliament that the scope of the Rule of Law report should be broadened to include all Article 2 TEU values;

Amendment 42 #

Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Welcomes the fact that the 2021 report pays particular attention to the financing of political parties due to its importance in shaping a European electoral space and influence on civil society; is concerned that political party financing can be used as a conduit for corruption, and supports the importance of transparency and the rigour of regulation; calls on the Commission to maintain its focus on this issue in future reports including, where necessary, on reforms that may affect compliance with the requirements for political parties members of European political parties;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes with concern that the contracts signed by the Commission with pharmaceutical companies developing COVID-19 vaccines have clauses that have not been published in their entirety for over a year;

Amendment 44 #

Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Stresses that NGOs should be obliged to disclose their sources of funding; stresses that all European bodies must disclose and publish a list of all NGOs they fund and the amount of this funding in order to be in compliance with the principle of transparency and the right of EU citizens to information;

Amendment 45 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Welcomes the variety of sources used by the European Commission to feed its assessment in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, including from civil-society organisations and NGOs; highlights, in this regard, the key role played by those grassroots organisations in identifying and reporting breaches of the Rule of Law at national and local level;

Amendment 46 #

Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the Commission’s annual rule of law reports to resolutely fight against systemic corruption and devise effective instruments for preventing, combating and sanctioning corruption and fighting fraud, as well as for regularly monitoring the use of public funds, including recovery and resilience facility funds. The Commission should focus in the coming years on the fight against corruption and organised crime, which have been fuelled by the COVID-19 pandemic. Organised crime groups are currently earning huge amounts of money from the trade in counterfeit medicines, vaccines, other medical equipment and false certificates.

Amendment 47 #

6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the Commission’s annual rule of law reports to resolutely fight against systemic corruption and devise effective instruments for preventing, combating and sanctioning corruption and fighting fraud, as well as for regularly monitoring the use of public funds, including recovery and resilience facility funds.; reiterates that in Member States with identified systemic corruption, where national preventive measures are not effective, the Commission must make full use of all tools available to protect the EU budget, including through suspensions of funds where necessary

Amendment 48 #

Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER, Pierre KARLESKIND, Alin MITUȚA, Olivier CHASTEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the Commission’s annual rule of law reports and its findings to resolutely fight against systemic corruption and devise all effective instruments available under EU financial legislation and the applicable sector- specific and financial rules for preventing, combating and sanctioning corruption and fighting fraud, as well as for regularly monitoring the use of public funds, including recovery and resilience facility funds.

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 5 #

Jean-François JALKH, Joachim KUHS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (the Conditionality Regulation) integrated the conditionality mechanism into a wider framework, requiring the Commission to use its own annual rule of law reports as a source for its objective assessments under the Regulation; calls on the Commission to implement the Conditionality Regulation without any further delay and without affecting EU citizens directly or indirectly; recalls that for budget-related measures in the event of violations of the rule of law in a Member State, the competences of parliamentary committees should be determined on the basis of Annex VI of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure if the infringements under the Conditionality Regulation procedure are dealt with in Parliament;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ~~use the Commission’s annual rule of law reports to resolutely~~ fight against systemic corruption and devise effective instruments for preventing, combating and sanctioning corruption and fighting fraud, as well as for regularly monitoring the use of public funds, including recovery and resilience facility funds.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Is concerned that in many Member States, the lack of adequate resources allocated for investigating corruption and prosecution authorities have created particular difficulties in hiring or retaining highly specialised personnel; points out that public officials need appropriate support, particularly in emergency situations, in order to secure the quality of the public administration, and how authorities apply the law and implement court decisions; reiterates that uniform, up to date and consolidated statistics across all Member States are instrumental to track the comparative success of the investigation and prosecution of corruption offences; calls, therefore, on the Commission to use its annual reports to support the Union-wide harmonisation of definitions of such offences, as well as a better use of data sets in order to obtain comparative data across the EU on the treatment of corruption cases;

Amendment 52 #

Katalin CSEH, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Emphasises that during the state of emergency direct public procurement was possible, especially for health material and equipment, without a great deal of transparency and without regard for legal limits in the field of public procurement; calls on the Commission and the competent European and national institutions to investigate potential mistakes in procurement made during the state of emergency;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Regrets the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary which can result in further backsliding not only in the above mentioned Member States but it seriously risk affecting other Member States in the Union as well;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Welcomes that civil society was consulted during the drafting process; stresses that civil society actors can provide valuable input for the assessment of country-specific situations and provide a more critical view than the concerned government; notes, however, that the consultation can be improved by ensuring, among others, a follow-up with civil society actors to their input given, sufficiently long timeframes for providing input and a coherent annual publication cycle, as well as reconsidering the format of a one-size-fits-all questionnaire for providing input; encourages the Commission to seek further input from civil society on how to optimise the consultation process for future reports;

Amendment 55 #

Elżbieta RAFALSKA, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Regrets that the draft country chapters were only shared with the respective Member State’s government, giving members of national parliaments the chance to provide input only after the final report was published; stresses the importance of consulting a comprehensive spectrum of all democratic parties in assessing a country-specific situation as governments naturally have an interest in a less critical assessment of the situation; calls on the Commission to provide national parliaments with the draft country chapter at the same time as they are provided to governments;

Amendment 6 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (the Conditionality Regulation) integrated the conditionality mechanism into a wider framework, requiring the Commission to use its own annual rule of law reports as a source for its assessments under the Regulation; calls, once again, on the Commission to implement the Conditionality Regulation without any further delay; recalls that for budget-related measures in the event of violations of the rule of law in a Member State, the competences of parliamentary committees should be determined on the basis of Annex VI of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure if the infringements under the Conditionality Regulation procedure are dealt with in Parliament;

Amendment 7 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER, Michal WIEZIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes the European Court of Justice decision to reject the actions brought by Hungary and Poland against the Conditionality Regulation; deplores the time wasted since its entry into force by the European Commission, who unilaterally decided to abide by non- binding European Council conclusions, which led the European Parliament to take action under Article 265 TFEU for failure to act; highlights that the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report contains multiple and detailed examples of breaches of the rule of law that fall within the scope of the Conditionality regulation, which should have led the European Commission to trigger the conditionality mechanism a long time ago;

Amendment 8 #

Pierre KARLESKIND, Katalin CSEH, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Ramona STRUGARIU, Gilles BOYER

1 b. Strongly regrets the fact that the Commission’s failure to act since January 2021 has let the rule of law situation to deteriorate in several Member States, as shown in the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

source: 719.707

2022/03/01 LIBE 379 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Article 2, Article 3(1), Article 3(3), second subparagraph, Article 4(3) and Articles 5, 6, 7, 11 and 419 thereof,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

~~— having regard to its resolution of 1 March 2018 on the Commission’s decision to activate Article 7(1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland4 , _________________ 4 OJ C 129, 5.4.2019, p. 13.~~deleted

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas there have been complaints from NGOs, professional associations of magistrates and Member States about the objectivity of the Rule of Law Reports and the sources of information chosen by the Commission for the reports;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)are lawsuits or other legal actions (e.g. injunctions, asset-freezing) brought forward by private individuals and entities, and also by public officials, public bodies and publicly controlled entities, directed at one or more individuals or groups, using a variety of legal bases mostly in civil and criminal law, as well as the threats of such actions, with the purpose of preventing investigation and reporting on breaches of Union and national law, corruption or other abusive practices or of blocking or otherwise undermining public participation;

Amendment 102 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Andrzej HALICKI, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas the fight against corruption and any other infractions is a key component the rule of law, emphasizes that it must be carried out in strict compliance with the law, the right to a fair trial and the effective guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas journalists and media outlets continue to be targeted through intimidation, threats on social media and physical attacks; whereas the spread of disinformation polarises society and weakens our democracy;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas the Commission is nowadays a politicised Commission; whereas the Treaties designate the Commission as the Guardian of the Treaties; whereas a politicised Commission cannot be trusted to apply the law equally;

Amendment 105 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Andrzej HALICKI, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)

Dd. whereas evidence shows that SLAPPs have become an increasingly widespread practice, as demonstrated by many cases throughout the Union, such as the chilling case of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was reportedly facing 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits (resulting in the freezing of her assets) across multiple jurisdictions on the day of her strongly condemned assassination on 16 October 2017, and the lawsuits her heirs continue to face;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)

Dd. whereas the media, both traditional and digital, are cornerstone of democratic societies and a guarantee against abuse of power; whereas the loss of media freedom weakens our democracies;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D e (new)

De. whereas SLAPPs can be a tool to reduce media pluralism at the systemic level by exercising a chilling effect on independent media;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D f (new)

Df. whereas victims and targets of SLAPP covers journalists, publishers and media organisations, academics, NGOs, civil society and other actors engaging in public participation, such as those working on human rights and environmental issues;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;deleted

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

Amendment 110 #

Emil RADEV, Vasile BLAGA, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report, in particular the expansion of the scope of its reporting to cover all values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the differentiation between systemic and individual breaches, and a more in-depth, transparent assessment; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;

Amendment 111 #

Thijs REUTEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; notes that the European Parliament is making regular use of this annual report as a source of information and input when discussing the rule of law situation in a specific Member State; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report and hopes that making it a core element of the EU's rule of law toolbox will lead to the removal of other duplicative mechanisms for some countries; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rrule of the law in the Member States, most of which are deeply rooted in the Western legal tradition in which the rule of law has thrived; respects the national deviations of the general concept of the rule of law as evidenced by the vastly differing legal traditions in the Member States; recalls that the concept of rule of Llaw ~~Report; considers that these recommendat~~cannot be construed as the Commission’s ~~remain valid and reiterates them~~subjective interpretation and application of the law;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Calls to the Commission's attention that, when drafting the Rule of Law Report, the sovereignty and constitutional order of each and every Member States have to be respected; notes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; ~~regret~~notes the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; ~~considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;~~

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; ~~regrets the fact~~notes that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; ~~considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;~~

Amendment 116 #

1. ~~Welcomes~~Underlines that the Commission’s second annual rule of law report~~; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 R~~ is yet another tool for political pressure; regrets the fact that the report does not present an objective and substantiated picture of the rule of Llaw ~~Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them~~situation in Member States; highlights that this report cannot serve as a basis for any further EU mechanisms and procedures;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s second annual rule of law report; regrets the fact that the Commission did not address in full the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report; considers that these recommendations remain valid and reiterates them;

Amendment 118 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Fabienne KELLER, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes that the Commission notices that the urgency measures in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic have put strains on democratic legitimacy, as well as on the normal working of constitutional and legal systems and public administration; regrets however that the Commission lacks the interest to scrutinise in depth the effect of repeated lockdowns, government-mandated vaccination, shutdowns of businesses, and restrictions on moving about anonymously through the vaccination passports have on individual liberty and hence the rule of law;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the judgements of the European Court of Justice of 16th of February 2022 and its conclusions that the EU indeed has competences regarding the Rule of Law in the Member States, that Rule of Law conditionality mechanism is in line with EU law, and that the actions brought by Hungary and Poland against the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation should be dismissed;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the 2021 Rule of Law report, like the 2020 one, does not have the name of the authors who wrote the report; calls on the Commission to be fully transparent about the report and disclose in the report the name of the people who wrote it;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission to disclose the text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of the pharmaceutical company on the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines; finds it unacceptable that the same Commission and its very President, which are disrespecting fundamental principles which are the bedrock of a democratic society, are assessing the performance of Member States with respect to these principles; states that any entity performing such a task must be above any suspicions and controversies, the Commission and its President being far from complying with these minimal requests;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail nor breadth in the 2021 report; ~~calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report~~suggests that the Commission analyses rule of law issues in each pillar in line with all the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, especially fundamental rights; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist, such as the prevention of abuse of powers, equality before the law and non-discrimination and aspects of the right to a fair trial; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report given its central importance of maintaining a fully democratic and inclusive society and of providing protection for minorities;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report; welcomes the Commission’s analysis of political pressure and influence on the media; calls on the Commission to provide clearer illustrations of systematic disinformation and foreign interference campaigns aimed at reducing public trust in state institutions and independent media;

Amendment 124 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Dragoş TUDORACHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements ~~of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist~~, such as the fight against impunity, judicial accountability, independence of prosecutors and judges, enforcement of sentences, and also others from the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; also calls for an examination of Member States' violations or when Member States fail to act on violations carried out by sub-state entities; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Notes that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 128 #

Emil RADEV, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 13 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Fabienne KELLER, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17

— having regard to its resolution of 19 April 2018 on the need to establish a European Values Instrument to support civil society organisations which promote fundamental values within the European Union at local and national level5 , _________________ 5 OJ C 390, 18.11.2019, p. 117.deleted

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space free of internal or external political interference to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic space free of internal or external political interference deserves a separate subheading in the report;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the ~~fact that the func~~Commission's search for a lean definition~~ing~~ of ~~justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain ext~~the rule of law by stating the key principles of legality, legal certainty, prohibition of the arbitrary exercise of executive power, effective judicial protection by independent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of other important elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report; nd impartial courts respecting fundamental rights in full, the separation of powers, permanent subjection of public authorities to established laws and procedures, and equality before the law; regrets however that the Commission defines the scope of the 2021 Rule of Law report in a way that does not follow the criteria of its own lean definition, such as anti-corruption, media pluralism and civic space;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that the functioning of justice systems, the anti- corruption framework, media pluralism and certain institutional issues related to checks and balances, including civic space to a certain extent, are all part of the Commission’s annual report; regrets, ~~however, that not all rule of law issues were covered in sufficient detail in the 2021 report; calls for the inclusion in the annual report~~that the report portrays political demands that fall outside the competence of othe~~r important el~~ Union, as general requirements ofor the ~~Venice Commission’s 2016 R~~rule of Llaw ~~Checklist; believes that civic space deserves a separate subheading in the report~~; underlines that this fully discredits the rule of law report as a whole;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points to the fact that the independence of lawyers and Bars is unconditionally interlinked with the independence of other actors of the judiciary and is therefore a part of the independence of the justice system; regrets, therefore, that the issue is not taken properly into consideration by the Commission and requests that in the 2022 Rule of law Report there is a more developed analysis of the independence of lawyers and Bars as indispensable component of the independence of the justice system, due process and of the rule of law;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that the prosecution service is a key element for the capacity of the judiciary to fight crime and corruption; highlights the importance of guaranteeing the autonomy and independence of the prosecution service; stresses the need for safeguards to be put in place to help preserve the independence of the prosecution service so that it is free from undue political pressure, especially from the Government.

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to put a specific focus on wiretapping software of mobile devices, that is misused by national governments in order to intercept the communication of journalists, lawyers, opposition politicians.

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Underlines the important role of the Councils of the Judiciary in safeguarding judicial independence; considers it necessary to evaluate the reforms that are in the process of being adopted in different Member States and encourages the adaptation of the composition and functioning of these bodies to the standards established by the European Commission and the Council of Europe, and which have been endorsed by the EU Court of Justice.

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Stresses that the report should include a thorough assessment of independence of Member States’ data protection authorities and of audiovisual media services regulators, which under EU law must be independent of their respective governments; emphasises that the degree of legal and functional independence of those bodies has a profound impact on the situation of the rule of law in Member States and in the EU;

Amendment 139 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site; takes note of the country-specific discussions under the framework of the Commission’s annual rule of law report during each Council Presidency; suggests to focus these discussions on the Member States with the most pressing rule of law issues to be discussed in the first place, instead of in alphabetical order; emphasises that increased transparency would enhance the rule of law dialogue within the EU and therefore invites the Council to make these country-specific discussions public, including detailed public conclusions;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18

— having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2018 on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded6 , _________________ 6 OJ C 433, 23.12.2019, p. 66.deleted

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; considers that a distinct new chapter on the European Union which would assess the situation in relation to separation of powers, accountability and checks and balances would be desirable; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to ~~devote greater efforts to~~continue deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site; welcomes the visits conducted by the Commission to national parliaments in order to present the findings of the report; calls on the Member States to cooperate proactively with the Commission and make public their written submissions;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments ~~and~~, national parliaments, and the European Parliament, as well as civil society and other national actors; urges the Commission to actively participate in public debates at local, regional and national level and to invest more into awareness-raising about the Union values and applicable tools, including the annual report, especially in those countries where there are serious concerns; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes ~~with satisfaction~~ that the report contains country-specific chapters; ~~commend~~notes the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on siteregrets, however, that the Commission only reiterates the opinion of civil society organisations that are financed from outside the EU without verifying these allegations and presenting justification or evidence; notes with concern that the Commission ignores the position of the constitutional organs of the Member States and rather takes into account the politically biased opinions of certain civil society organisations; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s understanding of national constitutional traditions and specificities;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that; believes that more time and importance should be ~~devoted~~given to the Commission’s country visits, ~~including on site~~especially on site; calls on the Commission to raise greater awareness of these visits among the public in order to foster a rule of law culture at national level; furthermore it calls on the Commission to organise communication campaigns about the importance of respecting the Rule of Law;

Amendment 144 #

Emil RADEV, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Vasile BLAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with satisfaction that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; proposes that the Commission publishes the input documents they receive from national governments so as to enable experts and civil society groups to fact-check them and to ensure full transparency; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for thatis in a bid to attain outreach to a wide and diverse range of stakeholders; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes ~~with satisfaction~~ that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, ~~as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that;~~ believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes ~~with satisfaction~~ that the report contains country-specific chapters; commends the Commission’s efforts to engage with national governments and national parliaments, as well as civil society and other national actors; encourages the Commission to devote greater efforts to ~~deepening the analysis, and invites the Commission to ensure proper resources for that~~conducting an impartial analysis by listening to all parties involved; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s country visits, including on site;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Is of the opinion that the Rule of Law report is currently a descriptive documentation of the situation in the Member States; stresses that a thorough analysis of the state of play in the Member States require an analysis and an overall evaluation of the Rule of Law in the Member States; calls on the Commission therefore to develop a Rule of Law index based on an objective and non- discriminative point system, which as a ‘traffic light’ assessment could signal the level of the rule of law in the Member States;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Highlights that the Covid-19 pandemic was used as an excuse by Member States to implement many non- transparent, non-democratic and even abusive measures at the expense of citizens fundamental and democratic rights like liberty, the right to free movement, access to justice, access to public information, privacy etc.;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Council and the Commission to provide adequate funding for an independent and European-wide, national, regional and local quality journalism that investigates in particular where violations and shortcomings have been identified;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Regrets that the Commission has not looked into the fact that in many Member States the courts have overturned many abusive measures imposed under the pretext of combating the spread of the Covid19 virus; points to the fact that in some Member States the courts either postponed unreasonably or found excuses not to rule definitively on cases related to these abusive measures raised;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Deplores that the Commission has not taken into consideration that in a number of Member States the governments have classified information on public procurement during the Covid- 19 pandemic, thus increasing the risk of corruption and mistrust among citizens; calls on these Member States to reverse these abusive measures and be fully transparent with these procurements;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Highlights that the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and its Protocols, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, especially in Article 3, guarantee, without discrimination, the respect for bodily integrity of any person, stating that one can receive a medical product only after “free and informed consent”; notes, with deep concern, that despite such provisions in EU law with respect to fundamental rights, many EU Members States, with the tacit approval of the European Commission, have imposed sanctions or restrictions to citizens who are not vaccinated, such as denying them access to employment, to public places like public transportation, hotels, restaurants etc. or even fining them, thereby coercing them into being vaccinated against their will; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to stop immediately any restrictive or punitive measures against people who are not vaccinated, and respect the right of all people to their bodily integrity;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Recalls with concern that the right to healthcare of all the people should be respected and calls on the Member States to remove any restrictions that would discriminate people in having access to proper healthcare based on their vaccination status;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. Highlights that the closing of educational facilities during the pandemic in all Member States has led to an unprecedented shift to online learning, even though the educational systems lacked the necessary digital infrastructure and that less than 40% of educators were ready to use digital technologies in teaching and that many low-income homes had no access to computers;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Notes the fact that all Member States are scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the fac~~Points out that all Member States arhave to be scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology~~; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature~~ , as they deserve the same treatment via an unique assessment instrument; notes with concern that, apart from the repor tin~~tensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urg~~g (objective) elements, the reports contain evaluative (subjective) elements, without clearly delineating them; rebukes that, when assessing similar legal regulations in force in different Member States, the Commission ~~to differentiate its~~often points to repfor~~ting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breach~~ms planned in a given area in the Member States, differently assessing solutions designed in some and similar solutions already in use in other Member States;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the fact that~~Notes that while all Member States are said to be scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches, there is an observable gap between the stated goal and the reality;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the fact that all Member States are scrutinised according to the same ~~indicators and methodology~~methodology; reinforces the need to put equal scrutiny on systemic vulnerabilities across all Member States; calls on the Commission to elaborate on its indicators used to assess the Member States' rule of law; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the fact that ~~all~~ Member States are not scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breachthe requirement of a comprehensive, comparative analysis has not been met neither from methodological nor from thematic aspects; notes with concern that the examination is even more tendentious than it was in the report of 2020 as several topics, notions and sources are being used mostly or solely in relation to a few Member States;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Stresses that all Member States are scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology, with no discrimination against any Member State; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic and deliberate breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the fact that all Member States are scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches in a clearer and more comprehensible way;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Emphasises that all Member States armust be scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; emphasises that presenting deficiencies or breaches of a different nature or intensity risks trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; urges the Commission to differentiate its reporting by distinguishing between systemic breaches of the rule of law and isolated breaches;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to include country chapters of all candidate and potential candidate countries to EU enlargement with an in-depth analysis on their justice systems, anti-corruption frameworks, on media freedom and pluralism, as well as on institutional checks and balances;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are being deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to fulfil all the criteria that define a democracy and become authoritarian regimes;deleted

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

— having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Regret~~Notes the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise ~~the~~any deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are being deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to fulfil all the criteria that define a democracy and become authoritarian regimes;

Amendment 171 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in ~~Poland and Hungary~~many Member States over different periods and by different levels of authority, from the executive level through procedures such as fast-tracking laws in periods of state emergencies, to the local level such as pervasive abuse by policing authorities; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are being deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to fulfil all the criteria that define a democracy and become authoritarian regimes;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are being deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to ~~fulfil~~meet all the criteria that define a democracy and become authoritarian or illiberal regimes;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the fact that the report fails to clearly recognise the deliberate process of the rule of law backsliding in Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are being deliberately, gravely, permanently and systematically violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to fulfil all ~~the~~or individual criteria that define a democracy and become authoritarian regimes;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Regrets that the report does not include in more detail the huge backsliding on freedoms and the exercise of fundamental rights, which has occurred in the EU as a result of the pandemic, mainly due to the fact that this backsliding has been perpetrated by governments of parties that dominate the European Commission; underlines with concern that European instruments such as the EU Digital COVID Certificate have been used in circumvention of the law to curb fundamental rights and freedoms, running counter to the objectives that led to its creation; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to seek to ensure that good use is made of these instruments or to propose, through the legislative instruments at its disposal, the end of their implementation period;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Takes note, with great concern, of the two rulings of the Spanish Constitutional Court finding the two states of emergency declared by the socialist government to be contrary to the constitution; regrets that the Commission looks the other way when ideologically like-minded governments use instruments that violate citizens’ rights and freedoms;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the fact that several Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to be mentioned several times by the Commission as points of concern in the synthesis report; recalls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addressed the rule of law situation in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia in its plenary resolutions; further recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group has also addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia; stresses that after having conducted several ad-hoc delegations to some of these Member States, the situation of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights is far worse than that exposed by the Commission in its report; believes that in order to better identify the backsliding countries the Commission should carry out a more comprehensive assessment of the same elements in all country chapters; recalls that it has criticised the partial account carried out by the Commission in some of these Member States and that it has called for real action and for making effective use of all the tools it has come up with in recent years;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the fact that ~~several Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to be mentioned several times by~~ the Commission ais ~~points of concern in the synthesis report; recalls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addres~~disproportionally focussed on Member States that refused the rule of law situation in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia in its plenary resolutions; further recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group o succumb to the Commission’s political ideologies, whilst ignoring breaches in Member States thast a~~lso addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia~~re governed by parties affiliated to the EPP and S&D, for example;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19

— having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2018 on the need for a comprehensive EU mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights7 , _________________ 7 OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 45.deleted

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the fact that several Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to be mentioned several times by the Commission as points of concern in the synthesis report and that no tangible improvements have been made since; recalls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addressed the rule of law situation in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia in its plenary resolutions; further recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group has also addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Regret~~Notes the fact that several Member States~~, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to b~~ were mentioned several times by the Commission as points of concern in the synthesis report; recalls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addressed the rule of law situation in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia in its plenary resolutions; further recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group has also addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia;

Amendment 184 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Re~~grets the fact that several Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland, had to be mentioned several times by the Commission as points of concern in the synthesis report; re~~calls that since June 2021 Parliament has also addressed the rule of law situation in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia in its plenary resolutions; further recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group has also addressed similar issues in Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia in an attempt to understand the internal political developments in these Member States and to shed light on the origins of this state of affairs;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 186 #

Marc ANGEL, Pierre KARLESKIND, Terry REINTKE, Maria WALSH, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Diana RIBA I GINER, Thijs REUTEN, Alice KUHNKE, Gwendoline DELBOS-CORFIELD, Katarina BARLEY, Dietmar KÖSTER, Clare DALY, Sylwia SPUREK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that in some circumstances, Member States deliberately resorted to measures which question the principle of the rule of law, such as legislation adopted in fast track procedures without public consultations or even, in exceptional cases, constitutional changes as a way to legitimise discriminatory policies that could otherwise not be legislated upon, such as provisions that specifically aim at LGBTIQ persons; recalls the Member States have a responsibility towards citizens in condition of vulnerability and should provide them with safety and protection from discrimination;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Is strongly of the opinion that the Rule of Law cycle can be effective only if the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Art. 4 (3) TEU is equally respected and applied by the European institutions and the Member States;

Amendment 188 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; calls on the European Court of Auditors to further work on their assessments of effectiveness of EU measures to support the rule of law; recalls that strengthening the rule of law is also linked to the fight against manipulative disinformation that is weakening our democratic institutions;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; calls therefore for an assessment of whether offences against the constitutional order, to which such practices and measures may give rise, should be included in the Union's list of serious crimes, given that they have a cross-border dimension or need to be combated on a common basis;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary8 , _________________ 8 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0014.~~deleted

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; calls on the Commission to clearly illustrate systematic disinformation and foreign interference campaigns with the aim of undermining public trust in state institutions and independent media, while pushing Member States towards authoritarian-style governance structures;

Amendment 191 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; stresses that internal rule of law deficiencies may have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the EU’s foreign policy, in particular towards its immediate neighbourhood and candidates and potential candidates for EU membership;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole; highlights that the intentional targeting of certain minority groups’ rights in some Member States have created and established a momentum elsewhere, as can be evidenced by backtracking on the rights of women and LGBTIQ persons.

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report shcould identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a whole;

Amendment 194 #

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect the Union as a wholeis full of factually unfounded findings based on vague concerns, value judgements and double standards in relation to some Member States; notes with concern the improper methodology and the lack of uniform standards in the report;

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that the annual report should identify cross-cutting trends at EU level; asks the Commission to identify instances where certain measures or practices that undermine the rule of law in one Member State become blueprints for others~~, or when the gravity and scope of such deficiencies have the potential to affect~~ and to watch out in particular for the risk that others follow suit; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to highlight the negative effect that breaches of the rule of law can have on the Union as a whole;

Amendment 196 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

8. Commends the effort of the 2021 report to compare the situation with that of the 2020 report; believes that it is necessary to identify clearly positive and negative trends as regards the rule of law situation and provide an analysis of the underlying reasons for that; invites the Commission to include an assessment of all rule of law measures implemented in the previous year, accompanied by an analysis of their effectiveness and possible avenues for improvement;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Commends the effort of~~Notes with regret that the 2021 report to compared the situation with that of the 2020 report; believes that it is necessary to identify clearly positive and negative trends as regards the rule of law situation and provide an analysis of the underlying reasons fo the 2020 report is even worse as the examination in the report is even more t~~hat~~endentious;

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Commends the effort of the 2021 report to compare the situation with that of the 2020 report; believes that it is necessary to identify clearly~~Notes that the Commission has no competences to determine whether a situation in a Member State constitute positive ~~and~~or negative trends as regards the rule of law situation ~~and provide an analysis of the underlying reasons for that~~;

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the 2021 report cshould have provided ~~clearer~~no assessments, stating whether there were deficiencies, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each of the pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breachbut only objective information regarding the situation in the Member States;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

— having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular the articles thereof relating to respect for and the protection and promotion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the Union, including Articles 70, 258, 259, 260, 263, 265 and 2657,

Amendment 20 #

Andrzej HALICKI, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary8 , _________________ 8 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0014.~~deleted

Amendment 200 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Birgit SIPPEL, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the 2021 report could have provided clearer assessments, stating whether there were deficiencies, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each of the pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breach; emphasises that the annual Commission report should not merely be a description of previous events, but instead an analytical and prescriptive instrument in order to fulfil its preventive and mitigative purposes;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the 2021 report could have provided clearer assessments, stating whether there were deficiencies, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each of the pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breach; calls specifically for an assessment of the improper use of surveillance tools and its impact on democratic processes within the EU as well as potential breaches of Article 2 TEU values in this context;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the 2021 report could have provided clearer assessments, stating whether there were deficiencies, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each of the pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between the four pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breach; reiterates the importance of using direct, unambiguous language, and to clearly underline the issue at hand in line with Commission's position;

Amendment 203 #

Andrzej HALICKI, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that the 2021 report ~~could have provided clearer assessments, stating whether there were defici~~fully echoes the findings of ideologically biased NGOs funded from outside the EU; notes that the disproportionate number of referencies~~, a risk of a serious breach or an actual breach of Article 2 TEU values in each~~ to findings of such NGOs entails that the Commission completely outsourced the work ofn the ~~pillars analysed in the country chapters; calls for a more integrated analysis on the interlinkages between~~report to these NGOs without checking the factual correctness of their statements; considers, therefore, that the fsour ~~pillars and of how combined deficiencies may amount to breaches or risks of a breach~~ces of the report are one-sided and politically biased, and thus, its findings are completely inaccurate;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recommends that the Commission includes in the framework of the annual report a new pillar assessing potential threats to democratic processes in the EU, such as the abuse of surveillance technologies by government officials for political gain;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; calls on the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendations; acknowledges that online platforms have a vast disruptive impact on the media sector, stresses, in this respect, that current legislation does not entirely provide for a fair environment in the public ecosystem, such as in the fight against disinformation and algorithmic accountability; considers that the adoption of relevant legislation, notably the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done in the European Media Act and through other relevant measures aimed at guarding the quality of our public information space;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 207 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; calls on the Commission to accompany such recommendations with binding deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendations; and, in addition, to submit a mid-year evaluation report on the progress made in this regard to the Parliament;

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report~~; calls on~~ because the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendationshas no competences in this regard and the only recommendations regarding the rule of law may be addressed in accordance with procedure set up in Article 7(1) TEU; calls on the Commission to abandon the idea of including recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; ~~calls on the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete ac~~draws attention to the fact that there is no EU- wide definition of the concept of the rule of law; draws attentions to ~~be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendations~~the fact that the various legal jurisdictions of the Member States attach different definitions to the concept of the “rule of law” and that this difference in national law should be respected and celebrated;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)

— having regard to the report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights of 10 September 2020 on Antisemitism: Overview of antisemitic incidents recorded in the European Union;

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report; ~~calls on~~reminds the Commission to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concrete actions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its recommendationlimit its action to those areas where the Union has competences, without interfering in any way with the national competences of the Member States;

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the Commission’s intention to include country-specific recommendations in the 2022 report~~; calls on~~ as the Commission ~~to accompany such recommendations with deadlines for implementation, targets and concret~~lacks the competence to do so; underlines that due to the lac~~tions to be taken; calls on the Commission to include in subsequent reports indications on the implementation of its~~k of objectivity and methodological mistakes, these reports cannot serve as a basis of any future mechanism or sanction, not even recommendations;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recommends that the Commission indicate next to each of its recommendations the appropriate tools for the EU institutions to use if the shortcomings are not remedied; calls on the Commission not to hesitate in using those tools, especially when there is no trust in a quick implementation of the recommendations;deleted

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recommends that the Commission indicate next to each of its recommendations the appropriate tools for the EU institutions to use if the shortcomings are not remedied; ~~calls on the Commission not to hesitate in using those tools, especially when there is no trust in a quick implementation of the recommendations;~~

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recommends that the Commission indicates next to each of its recommendations the non-exhaustive list of tools which are appropriate to~~ols for the~~ use by EU institutions ~~to use if~~in case the shortcomings are not remedied; calls on the Commission to not to hesitate in using those tools, especially when there is no trust in a quick implementation of the recommendations, without waiting for the next annual reporting cycle;

Amendment 218 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Highlights that the extraordinary situation imposed by the Covid pandemic pointed out the urgency to modernise and introduce digital elements in the justice proceedings and increased transparency in acquisitions;

Amendment 22 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2020 on the impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights,

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Regrets the fact that the 2020 report fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights;deleted

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Regret~~Notes the fact that the 2020 report ~~fails to fully~~does not encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, ~~which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights~~as they are not the rule of law;

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Regrets the fact that with the 2020 report fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rightthe Commission intends to excerpt pressure on Member States as regards the handling of specific cases; underlines that political debates should not be disguised as legal debates;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Regrets the fact~~Notes that the 2020 report might fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, ~~which are immediately affected w~~recalls that then co~~untries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights~~ncept of rule of law should not be given the Commission’s subjective interpretation;

Amendment 226 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Regrets the fact that both the 2020 and the 2021 reports fails to fully encompass the Article 2 TEU values of democracy and fundamental rights, which are immediately affected when countries start backsliding on the rule of law; reiterates the intrinsic link between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Is deeply concerned by the increasing level of corruption in certain Member States and the infiltration of organised crimes in the economy and public sector; reiterates that corruption is a serious threat to democracy, European funds and the rule of law; calls on the Commission to support and encourage appropriate instruments to the Member States in order to repress corruption and corruption-related crimes in a more consistent and effective manner;

Amendment 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Reaffirms the fact that EU law has primacy over national law, regardless of the way in which national justice systems are organised; deplores the serious and structural problems regarding judicial independence in certain Member States; invites the Commission to include strong binding recommendations in its 2022 report in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary in any EU Member State;

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses that recent revelations such as the NSO Pegasus scandal confirm that spying against human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents, among others, is an extremely alarming matter and appear to confirm the dangers of the misuse of surveillance technology by Member States to undermine the Rule of law and human rights;

Amendment 23 #

Terry REINTKE, Diana RIBA I GINER

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 a (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2020 on the rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria1b, _________________ 1b Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0264

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Points out that several Member States have long-lasting problems regarding the composition of their councils of the judiciary and appointment of judges, which are too often vulnerable to political interference; insists that Member States must fully comply with EU and international law regarding judicial independence;

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Calls on the EU institutions to read the annual reports on the rule of law in the light of the reports on fundamental rights published by the European Agency of Fundamental Rights, given the close connection between democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Recalls that media freedom and plurality are essential to democracy; is alarmed by the increasingly hostile environment in which media are operating inside many EU Member States, characterised by a high amount of violent incidents and threats against journalists, oppressive strategies by EU governments such as the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and smear campaigns, and increasing state control over public media; stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated challenges already faced by media operators; regrets that the 2021 report does not reflect the gravity of these trends, especially related to state control, strategic lawsuits and smear campaigns by certain EU Member States; urges the Commission to improve the media related chapters in this regard, to introduce EU legislation against the use of SLAPPs establishing minimum standards and to present an ambitious legal framework to counter the growing politicisation of the media in certain Member States in the upcoming Media Freedom Act; calls on the Commission to explore possibilities for additional and more flexible funding for independent, investigative journalism in the EU;

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Underlines that corruption is a powerful ally of organised crime and the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the risk of corruption and corruption-related crimes being committed to further infiltrate the legal economy; therefore urges the Commission to create stronger legislation to counter organised crime, especially the more aggressive type such as mafia-style crime;

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Welcomes the fact that the report includes a section on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rule of law; urges the Commission to assess in due course whether the measures taken by Member States were indeed time-limited, necessary and proportionate, while observing checks and balances;

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12c. Stresses that media freedom is closely related to artistic and academic freedom; underlines that the independence of education systems is under threat when the autonomous organisational structure of its institutions is not secured; calls, therefore, on the Commission to include all aspects of freedom of expression in its rule of law report;

Amendment 236 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Birgit SIPPEL, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12d. Welcomes the fact that many EU Member States are among the world’s best performers in the fight against corruption according to the 2020 Corruption Perception Index, as mentioned by the Commission report; is, however, deeply worried by the fact that there is significant difference among the individual Member States with the best performing ones placed at first place and the worst performing ones ranked at 78th place; regrets the strong deterioration observed in some other Member States and the continued emergence of corruption cases involving high level officials; reiterates that the existence of national anti-corruption strategies can only be considered successful once their implementation has been effectively carried out; recalls the need to establish a regulatory framework that allows for a definition of the crime of corruption that is uniform and shared at European level; urges the Commission to update and enhance the EU anticorruption policy and instruments and ensure the proper implementation and enforcement, in order to provide for commons standards and benchmarks as a precondition for strengthening the mutual trust and sincere cooperation; reminds the importance for EU Member States to engage with EPPO and support actively its tasks;

Amendment 237 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 e (new)

12e. Underlines that fair and free elections are among the absolute minimum standards for a functioning democracy and that every election process in the EU should be without any irregularities; urges the Commission to take all measures necessary once the risk of manipulation of elections in an EU Member State is identified; stresses that in case of the observation by the OSCE that elections have not taken place in a fair and free manner, strong consequences must be attached to this under the Article 7 Procedure;

Amendment 238 #

Anna Júlia DONÁTH, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Fabienne KELLER, Moritz KÖRNER, Ramona STRUGARIU, Hilde VAUTMANS, Olivier CHASTEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Malik AZMANI, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines its concern at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism, antigypsyism and anti- Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people especially people living in marginalised settlements, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; ~~emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority right~~is particularly concerned about the deterioration of the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights of women in some Member States, including the imposition of highly restrictive laws on abortion; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rights; strongly reiterates its call on the Commission to include within the scope of future reports an in-depth assessment of the persistent violations of democracy and fundamental rights throughout the Union, including equality and the rights of persons belonging to minorities;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 21 b (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2020 on the situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union - Annual Report for the years 2018 - 20191a, _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0512

Amendment 240 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines its concern at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rights, such as the use of excessive force by law enforcement authorities during protests and at the EU borders, the lack of guarantees and due process for detainees, incitation of hatred by political actors, the increase in the authorities’ powers to carry out mass surveillance and bulk collection of intercepted data, and restrictions imposed on civil society organisations receiving foreign funding or based on their religious affiliation;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines its concern at the fact that ~~women and~~ people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rightscontinue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union;

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines its concern at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim ~~hatred~~racism in Europe, Romani people, people of African and Asian descent and other persons belonging to racial, ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and ~~violations of~~ fundamental rights and minority rights violations; recommends that more attention is paid to political and media discourses fuelling hatred against minorities and the direct impact it has on adopting discriminatory laws or practices eroding the rule of law for all, including as a result of counter-terrorism and security policies;

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines its concern at the fact that ~~women and~~ people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rightsparticularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-western sentiment in Europe, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union;

Amendment 245 #

Amendment 246 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Malik AZMANI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Underlin~~Stresses witsh concern ~~at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, particularly at a time of~~ that discriminatory practices continue to occur, based on grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social orisgin~~g antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe, Romani people~~, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or andy other ~~persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Un~~opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental ~~rights and minority~~ rights;

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Underlines its concern at the fact that women and people in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities, children, religious minorities, ~~particularly at a time of rising antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe,~~ Romani people and other persons belonging to ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, LGBTI+ persons and elderly people, continue to see their rights not being fully respected across the Union; emphasises the obvious link between deteriorating rule of law standards and violations of fundamental rights and minority rights;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24

— having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2021 on breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary as a result of the legal changes adopted by the Hungarian Parliament12 , _________________ 12 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0362.deleted

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes with concern the numerous reports of significant and systematic violations of fundamental rights of migrants and asylum seekers across the EU and particularly at external borders; deplores that several Member States adopted national legislation which severely limits the rights of asylum seekers and in some cases even poses a threat to upholding the principle of non- refoulement and the right to an effective remedy; regrets that, despite calls from the European Parliament, the Commission did not finalize its assessment of the compatibility of numerous national legislative measures in the field of asylum and migration with EU law; reiterates that the respect of fundamental rights such as the right to asylum and right to effective remedy are an integral part of a fully functioning rule of law;

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Expresses particular concern about continued and systematic attacks on the fundamental rights of LGBTI+ persons, reinforced by the deterioration of the rule of law in several EU Member States; regrets that this development is not consistently reflected in the Commission’s rule of law report; calls on the Commission to systematically address this issue in all relevant country reports and the synthesis report;

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Welcomes the infringement procedures initiated by the Commission against Hungary and Poland as part of the July 2021 infringement package concerning the respect for the human rights of LGBTIQ persons and breaches of EU law, which constitute the first time the Commission has specifically initiated infringements to safeguard their rights;

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Restates that, in order to avoid duplication with the Rule of Law Report, the Cooperation and Verification Mechanisms for Romania and Bulgaria must be lifted;

Amendment 255 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Birgit SIPPEL, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Recalls the strong impact of measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the EU’s rule of law environment and fundamental rights, in particular in the area of justice, corruption and media freedom; stresses that monitoring of the use and proportionality of these measures should be continued until all measures are lifted without any exceptions; notes in this regard the risk of misuse of funds out of the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility; reiterates that these funds can only be distributed once these concerns have been fully addressed;

Amendment 256 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Expresses its concern about the shrinking civic space in various Member States, manifested through the prosecution and surveillance of media and journalists, human rights defenders and political opponents;

Amendment 257 #

Terry REINTKE, Diana RIBA I GINER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. Stresses the importance of public service media to provide fair and free coverage of public affairs, especially in election times; reminds that the Media Pluralism Monitor has identified the media’s political independence to be at high risk in several countries and that this marks a serious threat to the democratic governance of the EU as a whole; regrets that public service media are omitted from the annual report; calls on the Commission to review public service media thoroughly in its future reports;

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)

13d. Points out that strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) not only severely undermine the right of effective access to justice of SLAPP victims, and thereby the rule of law, but also constitute a misuse of Member States’ justice systems and legal frameworks, especially by hampering the ability of Member States to successfully address existing challenges, such as the length of proceedings and the quality of justice systems, as well as caseload administration and case backlogs;

Amendment 259 #

Terry REINTKE, Diana RIBA I GINER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 e (new)

13e. Deplores the fact that, in some Member States, freedom of expression, freedom of the arts and freedom of assembly are severely curtailed and restricted; recalls that many artists, journalists or activists have received and continue to receive heavy fines, long periods of exclusion from the public sector or have even been imprisoned or went to exile due to the existence of unjust national laws that criminalise, silence and restrict freedom of expression and freedom of the arts; calls on the Commission to assess the misuse of justice systems in the annual report;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to further strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; welcomes the Commission’s intention to present a legislative proposal on strengthening the role and independence of equality bodies; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; highlights that thematically structured consultations would ~~make the process more efficient and increase~~increase the efficiency of the process and the amount of valuable feedback; ~~stresses~~welcomes the fact that the consultation questionnaire ~~should~~now allows stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission, and calls on the Commission to adapt the structure of national reports if needed; calls on the Commission to review and improve online tools for stakeholder input and to be flexible regarding available space limits;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; ombudspersons, professional associations and other stakeholders; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; ~~stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;~~

Amendment 263 #

Emil RADEV, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Vasile BLAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; encourages the Commission to seek a deeper understanding of individual citizen's concerns and testimonies of rule of law deficiencies; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;

Amendment 264 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; calls on the Commission to organise the consultation of stakeholders through a transparent process, based on clear criteria; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;

Amendment 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; ~~stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;~~

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, ~~NGOs,~~ national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders; ~~considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phases of the review cycle;~~ highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;

Amendment 267 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the regular, inclusive and structured dialogue with governments and national parliaments, NGOs, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, equality bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders~~; considers that civil society organisations should be closely involved in all phase~~ and to duly take into account the information received from Member States; considers that the Commission should not copy-paste the political opinions of civil society organisations and base its findings ofn the ~~review cycle~~se opinions; highlights that thematically structured consultations would make the process more efficient and increase the amount of valuable feedback; ~~stresses that the consultation questionnaire should allow stakeholders to report aspects beyond the scope envisaged by the Commission;~~

Amendment 268 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Recalls that the exercise of fundamental freedoms, including the right to be critical in public, is an element of a free and democratic society; notes that strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) require a legislative European response that ensures the respect for democracy and fundamental rights and, inconsequence, also the rule of law; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to propose a directive against abusive litigation targeting journalists and rights defenders, emphasising that the scope must be comprehensive enough to encompass all those who are rights defenders, including individual activists;

Amendment 269 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Urges the Commission to provide an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the national frameworks for the protection of media freedom and media pluralism; it’s concerned for the political independence of the media as editorial lines reflect the strong polarization of the political scene in some Member States; stresses the importance to prevent the risk of further fostering the concentration of information in the hands of a few and preventing the spread of free and independent information;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24

Amendment 270 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. It’s concern about the persisting, and in some case increasing, number of acts of intimidation against journalists - including Slapp - in several Member States and that often lead to self- censorship and undermine freedom of expression; recalls on this regards that the growing deterioration of media freedom have so far resulted in the murder of investigative journalist in some Member States; urges the Commission to act swiftly with anti-Slapp legislation, as also requested by this Parliament;

Amendment 271 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Calls the Commission to monitor the protection scheme for whistleblowers who report organised crime, corruption and money laundering offences; to adapt appropriate instruments, procedures and encourage effective protection of whistleblowers for both public and private sector; welcomes the initiation of infringement procedures against countries that do not protect adequately;

Amendment 272 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;deleted

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society ~~is often~~was too short in the past and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; ~~calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions~~welcomes that the Commission allows multilingual submissions; calls on the Commission to define and publish in advance a timeline for upcoming reports setting dates for the several steps in the process including the consultation period, a calendar of country visits as well as a publication date of the report; notes that consultation can be ~~improv~~further substantiated by ensuring follow- up with civil society actors on the input they provide;

Amendment 274 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; invites the Commission to introduce the opportunity of year-round consultation for civil society instead of focusing mainly on time-limited calls for input; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;

Amendment 275 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; ~~notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;~~

Amendment 276 #

Emil RADEV, Ioan-Rareş BOGDAN, Vasile BLAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with independent civil society isorganisations that are free of internal or external political influence are often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;

Amendment 277 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with ~~winter~~annual holidays; calls on the Commission to allow ~~multilingual submiss~~submissions in all official languages of the Unions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;

Amendment 278 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; ~~notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring~~encourages the Commission to follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide where useful, and when initiated by stakeholders;

Amendment 279 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; calls on the Commission to allow ~~multilingual submission~~submissions in the official EU languages; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25

~~— having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2021 on LGBTIQ rights in the EU13 , _________________ 13 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0366.~~deleted

Amendment 280 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with civil society is often too short or ill-timed and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities~~, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holiday~~ due to the limits of their capacities and their financial resources; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with civil society actors on the input they provide;

Amendment 281 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that the time limits for consultation with ~~civil society~~all stakeholders is often too short and should be suitably adapted and flexible in order to allow for complete and comprehensive input; points out that this has made it more difficult for stakeholders to prepare and plan their contributions and awareness-raising activities, in particular if the consultation coincides with winter holidays; calls on the Commission to allow multilingual submissions; notes that consultation can be improved by ensuring follow-up with ~~civil society actors on the input they provide~~all stakeholders;

Amendment 282 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Proposes the creation of a "Citizen's Platform on the Rule of Law", a digital platform hosted by the European Parliament, which would enable citizens to report and share their experience of rule of law deficiencies, vulnerabilities and breaches; believes that this platform would be in line with the objective set out in Article 11(1) TEU and with European Parliament's vocation to act as a bridge with citizens, as it would give citizens the opportunity to exchange experiences and views with each other, as well as create an accessible public forum whereby individual and collective testimonies can be directly shared and made visible to those monitoring the rule of law and the rest of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, such as the EU institutions, lawyers, civil society organisations, watchdogs, journalists, and researchers; highlights that there would be no obligation for the European Parliament to act on these testimonies, but the platform would provide deeper understanding of individual citizen's concerns, enable greater visibility of the threats to, deficiencies and breaches of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU across the Union, and ultimately strengthen the rule of law culture and engagement of EU institutions with citizens; suggests that it could also provide information to create petitions for those reporting on the same issue;

Amendment 283 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses that, in order to prevent foreign interference in the Member States democracies and sovereignty as well as meddling with the EU democratic institutions, the NGOs must make public their funding sources; underlines that, in order to respect the transparency principle and the right to know of the European citizens, all European bodies must disclose and publish a list with all the NGOs they finance;

Amendment 284 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 285 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the Commission must continue to take into account relevant information from pertinent sources and recognised institutions in a systematic manner; recalls that the findings of relevant international bodies, such as those under the auspices of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, are of crucial importance; believes that EFRIS is a useful source of information in this regard; calls on the Commission to take better account of the data and findings from relevant indexes such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, or the Varieties of Democracy (V-DEM) project;

Amendment 286 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the Commission must take into account relevant information from pertinent sources and recognised institutions; recalls that the findings of relevant international bodies, such as those under the auspices of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, are of crucial importance; believes that EFRIS is a useful source of information in this regard; additionally encourages the Commission to take better account of the data and findings from relevant indices such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index or the Varieties of Democracy (V-DEM) project;

Amendment 287 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the Commission must take into account only relevant information from pertinent sources ~~and recognised institutions; recalls that the findings of relevant~~ ; stresses that subjective, judgmental, unreliable or unverifiable criteria must be avoided and efforts must be made to eliminate~~rnational bodies, such as those under the auspices of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, are of crucial importance; believes that EFRIS is a useful source of information in this regard;~~ sources of information which are not objective by nature; notes that some stakeholders and NGOs often act as pressure groups, which negates their objective character at the outset as a matter of principle;

Amendment 288 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that the Commission ~~must~~should take into account relevant information from pertinent sources and recognised institutions; recalls that the findings of relevant international bodies, such as those under the auspices of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, are of ~~crucial~~ importance; ~~believes that EFRIS is a useful source of information in this regard;~~

Amendment 289 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 29 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE

Motion for a resolution
Citation 25

~~— having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2021 on LGBTIQ rights in the EU13 , _________________ 13 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0366.~~deleted

Amendment 290 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 291 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 292 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Andrzej HALICKI, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 293 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the Commission to invite the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to provide methodological advice and conduct comparative research to add detail in key areas of the annual report, bearing in mind that the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression and other fundamental rights have intrinsic links with the rule of law; calls on the European Court of Auditors to further work on their assessments of the effectiveness of EU measures to support the rule of law; recalls that strengthening the rule of law is also linked to the fight against corruption and a key condition for economic growth;

Amendment 294 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls on the Commission to ~~invite the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to provide~~ensure it has the best methodological ~~adv~~practices and ~~conduct~~ comparative research to add detail in key areas of the annual report~~, bearing in mind that the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression and other fundamental rights have intrinsic links with the rule of law~~;

Amendment 295 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 296 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Andrzej HALICKI, Emil RADEV

17a. Calls on the Commission to be more transparent on the criteria they use to select information from civil society, international bodies, national authorities, and other stakeholders in the process of their rule of law reporting;

Amendment 297 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Stresses the importance of pluralistic, high-quality media, independent journalists, fact-checkers and researchers, and a strong public service media for lively and free democratic debate;

Amendment 298 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Andrzej HALICKI, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Underlines the importance of strategic communication to counter the most common anti-democracy narratives and explain EU action; calls for the improvement of EU strategic communication about the rule of law to increase its reach towards citizens within the EU;

Amendment 299 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)

17c. Acknowledges that the online platforms have a vast disruptive impact on the media sector, stresses, in this respect, that current legislation does not entirely provide for a fair environment in the online ecosystem, such as in the fight against disinformation and algorithmic accountability; Considers that the adoption of relevant legislation, notably the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done in the European Media Act;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

— having regard especially to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council Press and Information and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 26

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on media freedom and further deterioration of the rule of law in Poland14 , _________________ 14 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0395.~~deleted

Amendment 300 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)

17d. highlights the importance of the public media in Europe; calls on Member States to ensure stable, open, transparent, sustainable and adequate funding for public service media on a multi-annual basis in order to guarantee their quality and independence from governmental, political and other pressures;

Amendment 301 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that cooperation with the Council of Europe and other international organisations is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU; calls on the Commission to analyse systematically data on non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and views of the UN Treaty Bodies concerning individual communications;deleted

Amendment 302 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that cooperation with the Council of Europe and other international organisations ~~is of particular~~might be of relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU; ~~calls on the Commission to analyse systematically data on non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and views of the UN Treaty Bodies concerning individual communications;~~

Amendment 303 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that cooperation with the Council of Europe and other international organisations is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU; calls on the Commission to analyse systematically data on non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights ~~and views of the UN Treaty Bodies concerning individual communications~~;

Amendment 304 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that cooperation ~~with the Council of Europe and other international organisation~~between Member States is of particular relevance for advancing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU; calls on the Commission to analyse systematically data on non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights ~~and views of the UN Treaty Bodies concerning individual communications~~; urges the Commission to uphold its own rules in the area of transparency, anti- corruption and justice;

Amendment 305 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Stresses the indispensability of enforcing court sentences, both at national and EU level; condemns all national governments and sub-state entities on EU territory that refuse to follow judgments; emphasises that sentences of the Court of Justice of the European Union have to be implemented in a timely manner and as soon as possible in accordance with the Treaties, which the Member States agreed to comply with, in particular, those court sentences that seek to prevent discrimination on grounds of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation;

Amendment 306 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Stresses that the non- implementation of domestic and international court judgments leads to human rights violations that are left without remedy and that are possibly even recurring; highlights also that it creates a perception in the public that judgments can be disregarded, undermining the independence of the judiciary and the general trust in the force of fair adjudication, especially when state agencies are the ones that defy compliance with the judgments handed down by their own domestic courts, or when states start to tear up the fabric of international agreements by not complying with the judgments of international courts;

Amendment 307 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Strongly condemns EU Member States refusing to engage in the annual Rule of Law dialogue; considers this refusal to be enough for the Commission to accelerate and refine further the situation in these countries concerned;

Amendment 308 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Regrets the reluctance of the Commission and the Council to respond positively to Parliament’s call, in its resolution of 7 October 2020, for a joint EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement;deleted

Amendment 309 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 26

~~— having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on media freedom and further deterioration of the rule of law in Poland14 , _________________ 14 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0395.~~deleted

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 311 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 312 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Regret~~Welcomes the reluctance of the ~~19.~~ Commission and the Council to respond positively to Parliament’s call, in its resolution of 7 October 2020, for a joint EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement;

Amendment 313 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Regret~~Notes the reluctance of the Commission and the Council to respond positively to Parliament’s call, in its resolution of 7 October 2020, for a joint EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which should cover the full scope of Article 2 TEU values; ~~reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on an interinstitutional agreement;~~

Amendment 314 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Calls on the Commission to address in their upcoming Media Freedom Act a disbalance between traditional media and often unregulated media platforms; calls on the Commission to create fair conditions in the light of digital transformation of the media sector and the spread of online platforms;

Amendment 315 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls its position regarding the involvement of a panel of independent experts to advise the three institutions, in close cooperation with the FRA; asks its Bureau, in light of the reluctance of the Commission and the Council, to organise a public procurement procedure in order to create such a panel under the auspices of Parliament as a first step, in order to advise Parliament on compliance with Article 2 TEU values in different Member States;deleted

Amendment 316 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 317 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 318 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 319 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27

~~— having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2021 on the rule of law crisis in Poland and the primacy of EU law15 , _________________ 15 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0439.~~deleted

Amendment 320 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 321 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls its position regarding the involvement of a panel of independent experts to advise the three institutions, in close cooperation with the FRA; ~~asks its Bureau, in light of the reluctance~~calls ofn the Commission and the Council, to organise a public procurement procedure in order to create such a panel under the auspices of Parliament as a first step, in order to advise Parliament on compliance with Article 2 TEU values in different Member Statesto add their input as an annex to the report and include a justification of how these inputs were included in the annual report;

Amendment 322 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 323 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 324 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to explore the ~~full potential of developing~~closing down of the FRA in accordance with principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights (the Paris Principles) in order for it to become a fully independent body providing impartial and publicly available positions on country- specific situations in the field of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; underlines that such development should go hand in hand with an increase in availableto save €x million in available taxpayer resources;

Amendment 325 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of developing the FRA in accordance with principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights (the Paris Principles) in order for it to become a fully independent body providing impartial and publicly available positions on, within the scope of its mandate, with a view to provide methodological advice and conduct targeted comparative research to fill gaps and add detail in key areas of the rule of law report in addition to the countr~~y-specific situa~~ibutions in the ~~field of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights~~Agency already makes in terms of, for instance, using EFRIS and data on civic space; underlines that such development should go hand in hand with an increase in available resources;

Amendment 326 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 327 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Recalls the importance of independent national human rights institutions and national ombudsman bodies, in full compliance with the Paris Principles, as well as equality bodies, in preserving citizens' rights and being able to defend the rule of law at national, regional and local level;

Amendment 328 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Emphasises that any discussions about sanctions against a Member State must be based solely on objective and technical criteria and not on political considerations or motivations;

Amendment 329 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Reiterates that the annual report should serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay;deleted

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 27

~~— having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2021 on the rule of law crisis in Poland and the primacy of EU law15 , _________________ 15 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0439.~~deleted

Amendment 330 #

22. Reiterates that the annual report ~~should~~cannot serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delayany other mechanism or sanction;

Amendment 331 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 332 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Re~~iterates that the annual report should serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU,~~jects the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism; considers Regulation (EU, Euratom)2020/2092 on the Rrule of Llaw ~~Conditionality Regu~~a violation, of the ~~Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation~~unanimity principle enshrined in Article 7 TEU and therefore a breach of CJEU ~~judgments; calls on the institutio~~law; expects the lawsuits brought against t~~o activate such tools without delay~~he Regulation to be successful;

Amendment 333 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 334 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Reiterates that the annual report should serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the Commission to explicitly link these instruments to identified or possible rule of law issues in the report; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay;

Amendment 335 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Reiterat~~Believes that the annual report shcould serve as a ~~basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Con~~voluntary guidebook for Member States but reiterates the fact that the various legal jurisdiction~~ality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regard~~s of the Member States attach different definitions to the concept of the “rule of law” and that this difference ing n~~on-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay~~ational law should be respected and celebrated;

Amendment 336 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Reiterates that the annual report should serve as a ~~basis~~n important source and reference document for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non- implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay;

Amendment 337 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Reiterates that the annual report ~~should serve as a basis for~~must be fit to serve as a reference for the institutions when they are deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay;

Amendment 338 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Reiterat~~Stresses that the annual report should not serve as a basis for deciding whether to activate one or several relevant tools such as Article 7 TEU, the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Rule of Law Framework or infringement procedures, including expedited procedures, applications for interim measures before the CJEU and actions regarding non-implementation of CJEU judgments; ~~calls on the institutions to activate such tools without delay;~~

Amendment 339 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Recalls that the EC needs to immediately act upon and implement the conditionality mechanism, tool that has been in force since January 2021, in the case of those states that override the rule of law;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 28

— having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the EU: the undue use of actions under civil and criminal law to silence journalists, NGOs and civil society16 , _________________ 16 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0451.deleted

Amendment 340 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;deleted

Amendment 341 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 342 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 343 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance withbut not the common values enshrined in Article 259 TFEU; ~~is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;~~

Amendment 344 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Recall~~Believes that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declinedings are an instrument to pursue political goals by punishing Member States that do not subscribe to leftist ideologies;

Amendment 345 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; ~~is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report;~~ deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;

Amendment 346 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Recall~~Notes that ~~infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law~~ the Commission has evolved into a political player rather thand the ~~common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern~~Guardian of the Treaties; underlines that the nuMember ~~of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by~~States are, and should remain, the Masters of the Treaties; considers that the Commission has unhealthily outgrown the role it was assigned by the Treaties; hence notes that the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and tim is due to the politicised and therefore partial Commission; calls on applying the mechanism of the annual rule of law report on the Commission first and to suspend its application on the Member States until this has been done in a proper way; recalls in this context as examples for possible violations of the rule of law at Union level the alleged partiality of the European courts in certain issues, the breach of Union law by setting up the NGEU, as welyl a~~pplic~~s the violation of the pr~~eventive capacity of infringement procedures declines~~ohibition of monetary financing according to Article 123 TFEU;

Amendment 347 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter-State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; ~~is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines~~deplores the fact that the decision to launch an infringement procedure is not based on purely legal analysis; calls on the Commission to take action in all circumstances, not only when prosecution suits its political agenda;

Amendment 348 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to actively and systematically monitor the implementation of EU law and to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter-State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;

Amendment 349 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that infringement procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; ~~is surprised by the fact th~~calls on the Commission to systematically initiate infringement procedures ~~are not triggered systematically as soo~~, whenever appropriate, in cas ~~the relevant infringement is~~es of rule of law deficiencies that are documented in the ~~annual~~rule of law report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter-State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;

Amendment 35 #

~~— having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland17 , _________________ 17 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0455.~~deleted

Amendment 350 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

~~23.~~ Recalls that infringement ~~23.~~ procedures are the core instrument to protect and defend EU law and the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU; notes with concern that the number of infringement procedures launched by the Commission has plummeted since 2004; is surprised by the fact that infringement procedures are not triggered systematically at least as soon as the relevant infringement is documented in the annual report; deplores the Commission’s reluctance to exhaust the possibilities of infringement procedures against Member States as the instrument most tailored to resolve the issues efficiently and without delay; notes that this reluctance resulted in calls on Member States to initiate inter- State cases in accordance with Article 259 TFEU; is concerned that without systematic and timely application the preventive capacity of infringement procedures declines;

Amendment 351 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Recalls the importance of the preliminary rulings on the rule of law; takes the view that the relevant case-law of the CJEU helped define the rule of law; calls on the Commission to base its analysis on these definitions;

Amendment 352 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls the importance of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysis; urges the Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law;deleted

Amendment 353 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 354 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 355 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Recalls the importance of~~Believes that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysi´s intent is to punish Member States that that do not subscribe to leftist ideologies; uargues th~~e Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary; calls on the Commission to explore the full poten~~at the conditionality will become yet another political ~~of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law~~sanctioning mechanism in addition to Article 7 proceedings;

Amendment 356 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Birgit SIPPEL, Cyrus ENGERER, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls the importance of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysis; urges the Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary; recalls that the applicability, purpose and scope of the Regulation are clearly defined and do not need to be supported by further explanations; condemns the Commission’s intention to still draft guidelines even after the CJEU ruling confirming the legality and validity of the Regulation; calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law;

Amendment 357 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 358 #

24. Recalls the importance of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysis; ~~urges the Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary;~~ calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law;

Amendment 359 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls the importance of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation where breaches of the principles of the rule of law affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union; considers that the annual report is the most appropriate place to have a dedicated section and conduct a relevant analysis; ~~urges the Commission to launch the procedure enshrined in Article 6(1) of that regulation at least in the cases of Poland and Hungary;~~ calls on the Commission to explore the full potential of the Common Provisions Regulation and the Financial Regulation to protect the rule law;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 29

~~— having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on the first anniversary of the de facto abortion ban in Poland17 , _________________ 17 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0455.~~deleted

Amendment 360 #

Łukasz KOHUT, Bettina VOLLATH, Andrzej HALICKI, Robert BIEDROŃ, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 361 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Is concerned about the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law report’s findings that, in some countries, the state- sponsored harassment and intimidation of the LGBTIQ organisations affects their ability to access funding; calls on the Commission to assess the issue more closely and to ensure through the necessary means that the non- discrimination principle governing access to EU funds is fully complied with everywhere in the EU; considers that these findings reinforce the long-standing position of the Parliament that the scope of the Rule of Law report should be broadened to include all Article 2 TEU values;

Amendment 362 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal, which allows bypassing the governments, for which measures for the protection of the Union budget have been adopted in accordance with the procedure set out in the Article 6 of the Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, in order to ensure that end beneficiaries receive their allocations without the involvement of the governments facing severe allegations concerning breaches of the rule of law.

Amendment 363 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Considers that the Conditionality Regulation should not directly or indirectly affect European citizens, given that those responsible for breaches of the rule of law are government representatives or heads of state; calls on the Commission to ensure that those funds remaining in the consolidated EU budget can be accessed directly from Brussels by local public institutions or private entities;

Amendment 364 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Fabienne KELLER, Olivier CHASTEL, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Moritz KÖRNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Highlights that constitutional checks and balances at EU level should also be independently assessed; commits, to that end, to request a Venice Commission opinion on key principles of democracy in EU governance, in particular the separation of powers, accountability and checks and balances;

Amendment 365 #

Marc ANGEL, Pierre KARLESKIND, Terry REINTKE, Maria WALSH, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL, Hilde VAUTMANS, Diana RIBA I GINER, Thijs REUTEN, Alice KUHNKE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24b. Is concerned by the persistent failure by some Members States to implement CJEU judgements, which contribute to the erosion of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to report on the respective country chapters about the implementation of judgements by Member States in cases of partial or lack of implementation; encourages the Commission to engage with authorities in order to find suitable solutions for complete implementation and to update the information on an annual basis; recalls that the failure by Romania to implement the Coman & Hamilton judgement1a resulted in the plaintiffs having to resort to the ECtHR for redress; _________________ 1a Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (C-673/16), Relu Adrian Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne.

Amendment 366 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;deleted

Amendment 367 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

Amendment 368 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Strongly regret~~Welcomes the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

Amendment 369 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 31

— having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2021 on fundamental rights and the rule of law in Slovenia, in particular the delayed nomination of EPPO prosecutors19 , _________________ 19 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0512.deleted

Amendment 370 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Birgit SIPPEL, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place ~~on a regular basis~~at minimum once per Presidency and also address new developments~~; reiterates its call on the Council~~ affecting rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; emphasises that there is no need for unanimity in the Council in order to identify a clear risk of a serious breach of EU values under Art. 7(1), neither to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; reiterates its call on the Council to do so; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

Amendment 371 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Strongly regret~~Notes the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role d the procedures immediately as they are nothing more but openly political procedures which do not lead anywhere, but harm Europeand comope~~tences be respected~~ration;

Amendment 372 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly regrets the inability of the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide reasonable deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

Amendment 373 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

Amendment 374 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Strongly ~~regrets the inability~~calls ofn the Council to make meaningful progress in ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to ensure that hearings take place on a regular basis and also address new developments; reiterates its call on the Council to address concrete recommendations to the Member States in question, and to provide deadlines for the implementation of those recommendations; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

Amendment 375 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Notes that the Constitutional Courts of Romania1 a and Poland2 a ruled in 2021 that EU law does not have primacy over the national constitutions of the Member States and that it is not possible to interpret Union rules contrary to the constitutions of the Member States; recalls that the two judgments deal with completely different issues and are not related to each other; recalls that the constitutions of the Member States are the key to upholding the rule of law as they provide the legal basis for guaranteeing citizens' rights; _________________ 1 a Judgment of the Romanian Constitutional Court, 23 December 2021 2 a Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 7 October 2021

Amendment 376 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Calls on the Commission to closely monitor the rulings of national courts regarding the primacy of EU law over national legislation and in particular the incompatibility of certain articles of the Treaties with national constitutions; urges the Commission to ensure immediate and adequate responses to refusals to implement and respect CJEU rulings;

Amendment 377 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Commits itself to engage into regular consultations with the Member States’ governments and parliaments on findings of the annual report; calls on the Member States to ensure that their representatives at the highest possible level take part in the exchange with the Parliament on the rule of law;

Amendment 378 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Calls on the Commission to launch a dedicated programme that supports innovative initiatives with the aim of promoting formal and informal education with regard to the rule of law and democratic institutions among EU citizens of all ages, in particular among legal professionals;

Amendment 379 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)

25b. Recalls that, in addition to the recent judgments of the Polish and Romanian courts, there have also been court judgments in other countries calling into question the supremacy of EU law over national constitutions and over national legislation in matters that do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union; recalls, specifically, that the German Constitutional Court, ruling on the purchase of debt, qualified the CJEU decision as non-binding, that the Italian Constitutional Court questioned the primacy of EU law throughout the 'Taricco' process, that the Czech Constitutional Court considered the CJEU judgment in the 'Landtová' case to be 'ultra vires', that the Danish Supreme Court found the CJEU's ruling in the 'Ajos' case to be inapplicable in Denmark, that the French Constitutional Council has limited the application of EU law in the French legal order, and that the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled on 28 April 2016 that there is a limit to the primacy of EU law;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 31

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 31 a (new)

— having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2022 in cases C- 156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council,

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

— having regard to the judgments of the CJEU on 16 February 2022 in cases C-156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council on the measures for the protection of the Union budget,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the EU: the undue use of actions under civil and criminal law to silence journalists, NGOs and civil society(2021/2036(INI)),

Amendment 41 #

Łukasz KOHUT, Birgit SIPPEL, Bettina VOLLATH, Robert BIEDROŃ, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)

— having regard to European Court of Auditors Special Report 01/2022: EU support for the rule of law in the Western Balkans: despite efforts, fundamental problems persist,

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 a (new)

— having regard to judgments in Cases C-156/21 Hungary v Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v Parliament and Council,

Amendment 43 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Andrzej HALICKI, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 b (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2021 entitled ‘Europe’s Media in the Digital Decade: an Action Plan to Support Recovery and Transformation,

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 34 c (new)

— having regard to European Court of Auditors Special Report 09/2021: Disinformation affecting the EU: tackled but not tamed,

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 (Article 2 TEU values) – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union; whereas the Union's institutions must also respect the equality of the Member States under the Treaties as well as their constitutional and legal order, national identities as well as cultural traditions;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 (Article 2 TEU values) – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union; whereas the Union as a whole, its Member States and their subnational entities are bound by the rule of law;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 (Article 2 TEU values) and in the Copenhagen Criteria – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union and they cannot just be disregarded or reinterpreted after accession; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 (Article 2 TEU values) – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union; whereas the Union institutions must also adhere to the rule of law when they act;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 (Article 2 TEU values) – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, ~~may~~ pose a systemic threat to the Union and the rights and freedoms of its citizens;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13

— having regard to the Commission’s reasoned proposal for a Council decision of 20 December 2017 on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law, issued in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU (COM(2017)0835),deleted

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU 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 ~~(Article 2 TEU values)~~ – values that are common to the EU Member States and to which candidate countries must adhere in order to join the Union; whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values which, when undermined, may pose a systemic threat to the Union;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. considering that the supreme law of each state, validated through the direct vote of the citizens is the Constitution, and considering that European citizens have refused to adopt a Super-Constitution at European level, the European Treaties cannot themselves fulfil the role of the European Constitution and prevail over the national constitutions;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the EU conception of the rule of law is based, within EU law, on Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which lists the rule of law as one of the founding principles of the Union, equally ranked with human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, and respect for human rights, but not identical to these other founding principles;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the principle of sincere cooperation in Article 4 (3) TEU provides for an obligation of Member States to actively seek compliance with the EU Treaties, to facilitate the achievement of Union tasks and to obtain from any contravening measures;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas Article 5 TEU states that the EU may only exercise those powers conferred upon it in the Treaties by the Member States and that any powers not so conferred remain with the Member States;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas Article 2 TEU applies to the European Union and the Rule of Law Report should cover primarily the EU institutions, all the more so that they have long been accused of democratic deficit;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas there is not yet an agreed definition of the rule of law and a single system to assess the compliance with the rule of law at the level at EU, equally applied to all the Member States.

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A d (new)

Ad. whereas the Commission has blatantly violated the transparency principle and negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies contracts regarding the manufacturing of the anti- Covid-19 vaccines, which, to this day, are not public in their entirety;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A e (new)

Ae. whereas the European Ombudsman has conducted an investigation at the end of 2021 regarding the Commission President and the chief executive(CEO) of a pharmaceutical company who had exchanged texts and calls related to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, refusing to make them public afterwards. The Ombudsman found that it constituted maladministration, as the exchanges took place in the context of negotiations on a contract for the procurement of vaccines that was later concluded1a _________________ 1a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/rec ommendation/en/151678

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A f (new)

Af. whereas transparency is one of the key founding elements of the European Union and, despite this fact, the European Commission had not disclose the name of authors of the last two Rule of law reports, which raise doubts about the objectivity of these reports;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law;deleted

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addition to the tools available to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars ~~with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law~~;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the ~~annual rule of law review cycle is a welcome addi~~common understanding of the EU conception tof the ~~tools available to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law;~~ rule of law has evolved into a concept sui generis, which has not much to do with either the principle of ‘state rule through law’ or the traditional principle of the rule of law as found in Common law;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is a ~~welcome~~n addition to the tools available to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the annual rule of law review cycle is ~~a welcome addition to the tools available~~one of the tools to preserve the Article 2 TEU values by addressing the situation in all EU Member States in a report based on four pillars with a direct bearing on respect for the rule of law;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the Commission seeks on the one hand to bind the Member States to EU law, as under the ‘state rule through law’, putting the Union hierarchically above the Member States, while on the other hand it seeks to replace the traditional content of the rule of law by constructing an artificial and likewise unhistorical set of values and principles;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas without effective follow- up, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;deleted

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas ~~without~~given the lack of impartiality on the part of the Commission, and without factual, effective follow- up devoid of ideological prejudices, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, a~~s witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years~~nd may become a further instrument of political interference;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

— having regard to the EU Anti- Racism Action Plan 2020-2025 launched in September 2020,

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas without meaningful recommendations and effective follow- up, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas without effective follow- up, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively and timely address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, as witnessed ~~in several EU Member States~~across the EU in recent years;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas without ~~eff~~an objective, f~~ollow- up, the rule of law report may fail to prevent, detect and effectively address systemic challenges and backsliding on the rule of law, as witnessed in several EU Member States in recent years~~air, impartial and fact-based approach, the rule of law report is a tool which lacks credibility and cannot be taken into account in the context of any other mechanism;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the Commission uses the EU conception of the rule of law against Member States that do not subscribe to the set of values and principles it has constructed; whereas the Commission is instrumentalising the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism against Poland, Hungary and other states which insist on the supremacy of their traditional values and own, yet equally legitimate, acceptation of the rule of law; whereas this mechanism is a powerful political coercion tool that poses a potential threat to all Member States;

Amendment 75 #

Łukasz KOHUT, Bettina VOLLATH, Robert BIEDROŃ, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas in some Member States, like Hungary, Poland or Slovenia, we have seen a negative trend on the rule of law as governments have used the extraordinary measures adopted to counter the Covid pandemic as an excuse to weaken the democratic checks and balances and implement the legal reforms of the judiciary;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the majority of citizens in Poland does not support unlawful and anti-democratic actions, which were undertaken by the government facing severe allegations concerning breaches of the rule of law.

Amendment 77 #

Łukasz KOHUT, Birgit SIPPEL, Bettina VOLLATH, Andrzej HALICKI, Robert BIEDROŃ, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Cyrus ENGERER

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas the Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values Programme allows bypassing the governments and enables to support EU citizens directly.

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14

— having regard to the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights’ report of 22 September 2021 entitled ‘Protecting civic space in the EU’, and its other reports, data and tools, in particular the European Union Fundamental Rights Information System (EFRIS),deleted

Amendment 80 #

Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA, Fabienne KELLER, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Malik AZMANI, Dragoş TUDORACHE, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is not necessary ~~to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and~~ to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union, since any such mechanism would be interpreted and applied by the Commission who has a track record of instituting infringement proceedings based on subjective and political convictions;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union and prevent Member States from using the application of their domestic law to violate those values;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective single EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union, given that the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism is no longer relevant;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas ~~it is necessary to strengthe~~the rise in anti-semitism and any loss of woman’s rights in the Union can~~d streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are~~ be linked to an increase in the Islamisation of some Member States; notes that this is a catastrophic by-product of mass-immigration by third country nationals who have no intention of embracing or upheold ~~throughout the Union~~ing European values;

Amendment 84 #

Emil RADEV, Vladimír BILČÍK

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Unionunder the Treaties, the Commission has no competence to create additional mechanisms to monitor the rule of law in Member States;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld not only throughout the Union but also by candidate countries;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and to develop an single, effective EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms ~~and to develop an effective EU mechanism on~~to protect democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights effectively and to ensure that Article 2 TEU values are upheld throughout the Union;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the rule-of-law conditionality mechanism is applied unequally as there are a number of Member States which have institutional procedures and state action in place that contradict the traditional understanding of the rule of law; whereas the governing coalitions have the power to appoint Supreme Court judges in Germany; whereas a former deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag was elected to the Federal Constitutional Court, over which he is now presiding; whereas home affairs ministers in Germany have the power to order state attorneys to commence and cease criminal proceedings; whereas the German Government removed from his post the former President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution as he was unwilling to launch a surveillance procedure against Germany’s biggest opposition party; whereas, without delay, his replacement began working towards the launching of such a procedure immediately after taking office; whereas German Courts have already twice deemed such action a violation of the law; whereas the persecution of this opposition party is clearly politically motivated, as shown by the effort to stigmatise it ahead of a series of important regional elections and the Federal elections in the early autumn;

Amendment 89 #

Thijs REUTEN, Paul TANG, Franco ROBERTI, Elena YONCHEVA, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Petar VITANOV, Bettina VOLLATH, Pietro BARTOLO, Birgit SIPPEL, Giuliano PISAPIA, Katarina BARLEY, Łukasz KOHUT

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas, in certain Member States, journalists are increasingly subject to threats and attacks, in particular when investigating crime and corruption; whereas independence of media from political interference continues to be under threat in several Member States, including through the use of spyware tools by certain Member States to target journalists, opposition politicians and activists; whereas these unacceptable developments may have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press and may not be allowed to set precedent both within the EU and towards EU candidate and potential candidate countries;

Amendment 9 #

Vladimír BILČÍK, Isabel WISELER-LIMA, Andrzej HALICKI, Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)

— having regard to Regulation (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),

Amendment 90 #

Marc ANGEL, Pierre KARLESKIND, Terry REINTKE, Maria WALSH, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Philippe OLIVIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on Combatting Hate Speech has prepared a draft Committee of Ministers Recommendation on Hate Speech, which provides non- binding guidance on how to address the phenomenon, currently awaiting adoption in 20221a; whereas the newly established Committee of Experts on Combatting Hate Crime is tasked with preparing until end of 2023 a draft Committee of Ministers Recommendation on Hate Crime; _________________ 1a Draft text of the Committee of Ministers Recommendation on Combating Hate Speech, accessible at https://rm.coe.int/draft-recommendation- on-combating-hate-speech-public- consultation-v-18/native/1680a2ef25; News announced at https://www.coe.int/en/web/committee- antidiscrimination-diversity-inclusion/- /the-cdadi-finalised-important- deliverables-at-its-fourth-plenary- meeting.

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the EU needs to continue supporting journalism in the fast- changing digital environment; whereas editorially independent public service media are essential and irreplaceable in providing high-quality and impartial information services to the general public and must be protected from malign capture and strengthened as a fundamental pillar of the rule of law and the fight against disinformation;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas only Article7 of the TEU provides for a Union competence to supervise the application of the rule of law, as a value of the Union, in a context that is not related to a specific material competence or that exceeds the scope of competences; whereas Article 7 TEU does not set a basis to further develop or amend the procedure described within it;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the 2021 Flash Eurobarometer survey[1]shows clear public support for increased transparency and effective control on EU funds conditional upon the government’s respect for the rule of law and the implementation of the EU democratic principles; [1] https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/ detail/2573

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas it is necessary to strengthen and streamline existing mechanisms and develop an effective mechanism to ensure that the principles and values enshrined in the Treaties are upheld throughout the Union;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the rights to freedom of expression, to information and to public participation, are among the cornerstones of democracy;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the Member States introduced emergency measures to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas it is obvious that the Commission is not addressing violations of the rule of law equally; whereas the delay in the adoption of the Guidelines for the Rule of Law Mechanism demonstrates that the Commission is putting political considerations in the Council above EU law by which the Commission is bound;

Amendment 98 #