2021/2180(INI) The Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law report
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | LIBE | REINTKE Terry ( Verts/ALE) | MANDL Lukas ( EPP), REUTEN Thijs ( S&D), DONÁTH Anna Júlia ( Renew), FEST Nicolaus ( ID), TERHEŞ Cristian ( ECR), DALY Clare ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | PETI | BENJUMEA BENJUMEA Isabel ( EPP) | Margrete AUKEN ( Verts/ALE), Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA ( RE), Massimiliano SMERIGLIO ( S&D), Sira REGO ( GUE/NGL), Gianna GANCIA ( ID), Cristian TERHEŞ ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | AFCO | IN 'T VELD Sophia ( Renew) | Gerolf ANNEMANS ( ID), João PIMENTA LOPES ( GUE/NGL), Paulo RANGEL ( PPE), Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI ( ECR), Daniel FREUND ( Verts/ALE), Giuliano PISAPIA ( S&D) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | ROBERTI Franco ( S&D) | Javier ZARZALEJOS ( PPE) |
Committee Opinion | CONT | SARVAMAA Petri ( EPP) | Younous OMARJEE ( GUE/NGL), Pierre KARLESKIND ( RE), Elżbieta RAFALSKA ( ECR), Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ ( S&D) |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider ( S&D) | Lefteris CHRISTOFOROU ( PPE), Younous OMARJEE ( GUE/NGL), Moritz KÖRNER ( RE), Bogdan RZOŃCA ( ECR) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54, RoP 57
Legal Basis:
RoP 54, RoP 57Events
2021/12/09
EP - BENJUMEA BENJUMEA Isabel (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in PETI
2021/10/25
EP - SARVAMAA Petri (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2021/10/21
EP - ROBERTI Franco (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2021/10/18
EP - IN 'T VELD Sophia (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2021/10/11
EP - REINTKE Terry (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2021/10/07
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2021/10/07
EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2021/10/01
EP - GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
Activities
- Malin BJÖRK
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Laura FERRARA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Kinga GÁL
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Maria GRAPINI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Monika HOHLMEIER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Sophia IN 'T VELD
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Othmar KARAS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Fabienne KELLER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Seán KELLY
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Ilhan KYUCHYUK
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Gilles LEBRETON
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Evelyn REGNER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Terry REINTKE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Paulo RANGEL
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Tom VANDENKENDELAERE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Clare DALY
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Gunnar BECK
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Vladimír BILČÍK
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Nicolaus FEST
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Pierre KARLESKIND
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Beata KEMPA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Alice KUHNKE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Diana RIBA I GINER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Michal ŠIMEČKA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Ivan Vilibor SINČIĆ
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Tineke STRIK
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Isabel WISELER-LIMA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Anna Júlia DONÁTH
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Loucas FOURLAS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Margarida MARQUES
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Bettina VOLLATH
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Moritz KÖRNER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Daniel FREUND
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Franco ROBERTI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Jean-Paul GARRAUD
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Julie LECHANTEUX
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Bogdan RZOŃCA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Beata MAZUREK
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Hélène LAPORTE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Klára DOBREV
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Mikuláš PEKSA
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Eugen TOMAC
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Łukasz KOHUT
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Gabriele BISCHOFF
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Clara PONSATÍ OBIOLS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Jean-Lin LACAPELLE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Dominik TARCZYŃSKI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Thijs REUTEN
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Ladislav ILČIĆ
Plenary Speeches (0)
Amendments | Dossier |
85 |
2021/2180(INI)
2022/01/21
JURI
85 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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) 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
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that measures taken in urgency
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
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
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
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;
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
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
Amendment 32 #
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.
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
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that an efficient and fair justice system ensuring access to justice to all
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the fact that lawyers are now part of the EU Justice Scoreboard’s questionnaire; stresses that
Amendment 38 #
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;
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
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 Amendment 41 #
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
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;
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
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
Amendment 48 #
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
Amendment 49 #
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
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 #
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
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 62 #
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 and to highlight where best practices for comparable systems might be applied and how similar deficiencies could be addressed;
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 #
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,
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,
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 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;
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;
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
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;
Amendment 78 #
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; clarifies that these are a particular form of harassment used against journalist and others involved in protecting the public interest often resulting in self-censorship; therefore welcomes the announced Commission legislative proposal and recommendation addressing such abusive lawsuits in 2022;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 14. Recalls the important role of journalists and civil society in raising the alarm about, and drawing attention to, any
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that respect for the rule of law entails compliance with EU primary and secondary law
Amendment 80 #
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 and pluralism, notably through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in the EU;
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
Amendment 85 #
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
source: 704.560
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2022-01-22Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs |
|
2022-01-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/5/rapporteur |
|
2021-11-20Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
2021-11-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2021-10-27Show (1) Changes
committees/3/rapporteur |
|