What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P9_TA(2024)0108

reportReport on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report

(2023/2113(INI))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

PE754.695

European Parliament resolution of 28 February 2024 report on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report (2023/2113(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 2, 3(1), 3(3), second subparagraph, 4(3) and Articles 5, 6, 7, 11, 19 and 49 thereof,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,Union (TFEU), in particular to 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 267,

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Union (the ‘Charter’),

– having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union,Union (CJEU),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 5 July 2023 on the 2023 Rule of Law Report – the rule of law situation in the European Union (COM(2023)0800),

E. whereas Parliament has at various moments addressed the rule of law situations in Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia in its resolutions; whereas the Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group (DRFMG) of Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has also monitored certain issues in Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain;

F. whereas the Commission has suggested setting up an interinstitutional ‘contact group’ on the rule of law; whereas Parliament has taken up this suggestion and proposed to the Commission and the Council to create an ‘interinstitutional pilot project on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights’; whereas the Council Presidency has responded by stating that it might consider this after its evaluation of its rule of law dialogue and the Commission reiterated its openness to discussing an informal rule of law contact group;

F. whereas parliamentary elections took place in Poland in October 2023, ending the rule of the Law and Justice-led government; whereas the new government, representing a broad democratic coalition, made strong commitments to restore the rule of law and judicial independence in Poland and is cooperating to this end with the Commission and the Council of the EU;

G. whereas some Member State governments have unfortunately not made themselves available for an exchange of views in the DRFMG and have not answered its written questions or met with its members during missions in the Member States; whereas other Member States, however, have made themselves available for DRFMG sessions, questions and missions, as part of their joint responsibility for safeguarding EU values;

G. whereas the Commission has suggested setting up an interinstitutional ‘contact group’ on the rule of law; whereas Parliament has taken up this suggestion and proposed to the Commission and the Council to create an ‘interinstitutional pilot project on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights’; whereas the Council Presidency has responded by stating that it might consider this after its evaluation of its rule of law dialogue and the Commission reiterated its openness to discussing an informal rule of law contact group;

H. whereas some Member State governments have unfortunately not made themselves available for an exchange of views in the DRFMG and have not answered its written questions or met with its members during missions in the Member States; whereas other Member States, however, have made themselves available for DRFMG sessions, questions and missions, as part of their joint responsibility for safeguarding EU values;

Justice and prosecutorial systems

1. Reiterates that an independent judiciary is the backbone of the rule of law, as it is a precondition for an effective remedy when laws, rights, freedoms and democratic principles are withheld or violated; underlines that an independent and effective judiciary is not only vital in maintaining the rule of law and democracy in the Member States and the Union, but it is also key in implementing EU law, given that the Commission relies on the national judicial authorities to enforce EU law; expresses the importance of mutual trust, while also underlining that the Commission cannot ignore the shortcomings of national judicial authorities in some Member States or assume that they are all able to provide effective judicial remedies; notes, with concern, that while some judicial systems may look robust and satisfactory on paper, in some cases they are not immune to state capture, political interference or nepotism; is aware of the fact that this is difficult to detect by simply assessing the formal structures; urges the Commission, therefore, to conduct a more qualitative analysis, including contextual elements, particularly about long-term implementation;

2. Notes that the Commission finds wide disparities between EU Member States in terms of judicial independence and safeguards; notes that the report mentions a number of positive initiatives and ongoing developments concerning the Councils for the Judiciary, notably in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Hungary; notes that the Commission finds that concerns on the Councils for the Judiciary still have to be addressed in Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Spain and Cyprus; notes, with concern, that disciplinary proceedings may be used as a means of curtailing judicial independence, as is the case in Bulgaria and was the case in Poland under the Law and Bulgaria;Justice-led government; notes that the Commission has finally referred Poland to the CourtCJEU for violations of EU law by its Constitutional Tribunal; notes that the current Minister of Justice of the EuropeanRepublic Unionof (CJEU)Poland is committed to ending the unlawful disciplinary regime for violationsjudges ofin EUPoland, lawin byaccordance itswith Constitutionalthe Tribunal;CJEU and European Court of Human Rights rulings;

3. Notes that the Commission finds that whereas certain Member States, including Finland, Austria, Slovenia, Cyprus, Sweden and Hungary, have taken or announced initiatives to improve judicial appointment processes and the functioning of high courts, challenges persist in appointing high-level judges in Malta, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia and Ireland; highlights that the Commission finds that serious concerns persist in Poland regarding previously appointed Supreme Court judges, including its First President, and regarding the continuous non-implementation of a CJEU preliminary ruling on a judicial appointment to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control; notes that the Commission finds that in Slovakia the crime of abuse of law introduced for judges as regards their judicial decisions continues to raise concerns, as it has a negative psychological impact on judges and is burdensome for the investigatory authorities; highlights that serious concerns persist in Hungary regarding judicial independence, in contravention of the Commission’s super milestones, including the persistence of obstacles to preliminary references, problems with the allocation of cases in Kúria and the deficient system of nomination of the President of the Kúria;

17. Condemns the fact that Malta continues to operate its citizenship by investment (CBI) scheme, which brings a major risk of corruption and other crimes, especially in the light of the steps taken by several other Member States to ensure that investor citizenship schemes are abolished; notes the pending action brought before the CJEU by the Commission against Malta for its CBI scheme and reaffirms its position that the Commission should use its prerogative to propose legislation and initiate an EU legislative ban on all CBI schemes in the EU;

18. Acknowledges the important role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in safeguarding the rule of law and in combating corruption in the Union, and encourages the Commission to closely monitor Member States’ level of cooperation with the EPPO in subsequent reports; calls on the Member States that have not yet done so to join the EPPO; welcomes that fact that Poland has initiated the procedure to join the EPPO, which demonstrates the new government’s strong commitment to protecting the EU’s financial interests and to effectively fighting against corruption; considers that membership of the EPPO should be a precondition for receiving EU funds; reiterates its call for an expansion of the mandate of the EPPO;

19. Finds that European bodies, such as Europol, Eurojust, the European Court of Auditors, EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) should improve their cooperation to prevent corruption both in the EU Member States and in the European institutions; calls also, in this context, for the creation of an effective EU ethics body;

26. Considers that the transparency of media ownership is the basic minimum to preserve media pluralism; notes that the Commission finds that, since the 2022 rule of law report, new legislation increasing the transparency of media ownership or improving public availability of media ownership information has been adopted in Greece, Luxembourg and Sweden and that such legislation has been strengthened in Cyprus; notes that change remains pending in Bulgaria, Czechia and France; encourages the European institutions to finally adopt and implement a robust and ambitious Media Freedom Act to ensure the harmonisation of transparency of media ownership legislation at EU level;

27. Notes that the Commission finds that media regulators are insufficiently protected by safeguards against undue political influence, such as in Hungary, Slovenia and, until recently, Poland under its former Law and Poland,Justice-led government, and that the authorities lack resources, particularly in Greece and Romania; calls on the Commission to take all the necessary measures to ensure the effective implementation of Article 30 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, stipulating the requirement of safeguards for the independence of national regulatory authorities;

28. Stresses the importance of the editorial independence of public service media and the duty of all Member States to respect this; stresses the need to establish safeguards against internal and external interferences; considers that public service media should be shielded against political pressures, including undue dismissals, and that safeguards should be put in place to guarantee that editorial decisions can be taken freely; notes that the Commission finds that Luxembourg, Slovenia, Germany, Estonia, Slovakia and Czechia have taken initiatives to strengthen the legal safeguards or budgetary means to improve the independence of national public service broadcasters, with Cyprus, Ireland and Sweden also discussing reforms, and an absence of measures to that effect in Romania, Malta, PolandMalta and Hungary; notes the efforts by the new Polish Government to restore the independence of the public broadcaster; notes that the most recent Media Pluralism Monitor rated the risk to editorial autonomy and political independence in Malta as ‘high’, and re-evaluated the overall risk to media pluralism in Malta, changing it from ‘medium’ to ‘high’;

29. Notes, with concern, the planned restructuring of the Radio and Television of Slovakia (RTVS), the country’s main public broadcaster; underscores the importance of maintaining free, independent media as a cornerstone of a democratic society; regrets the decision of the Slovak Prime Minister and several government officials to halt communication with key media outlets, recognising this as a significant impediment to the public’s right to receive relevant governmental information; emphasises that such actions curtail media freedom and transparency and contribute to the spread of manipulative disinformation in public spaces;

33. Is alarmed by the persistence of SLAPPs across the European Union; calls on the Member States to implement Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 and adopt domestic anti-SLAPP measures to protect journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings; remarks that this can be done by removing prison sentences for defamation cases, decriminalising defamation and favouring civil or administrative procedures instead; welcomes the political agreement between the EU co-legislators on the anti-SLAPP directive; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of proposing further legislation to cover all SLAPP cases, including domestic cases; regrets that despite concerns raised by various international organisations, Malta’s proposed anti-SLAPP provisions are deemed not sufficient to protect the work of journalists ; reiterates its call on some Maltese politicians, including the former Maltese prime minister, to withdraw the libel cases inherited by Daphne Caruana Galizia’s heirs that are still ongoing several years after her assassination;

34. Calls on the Greek Government to address the serious challenges identified by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), an alliance that tracks, monitors and reacts to violations of press and media freedom, in particular related to arbitrary surveillance, impunity or crimes against journalists, SLAPPs, media independence and pluralism; welcomes the creation of a task force on the ‘protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals’, with the aim of strengthening the safety and independence of journalists and other media professionals, raising awareness, as well as monitoring the safety of journalists which the task force has initiated in line with Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1534 of 16 September 2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union; notes with great concern the recent detention of a reporter by the French authorities, apparently for the purpose of uncovering her sources, as well as the illegal wiretapping of a Dutch journalist working for ‘De Correspondent’;

35. Strongly condemns the lack of a decisive breakthrough in the investigation into the murder of Giorgos Karaivaz; notes that the two alleged killers were arrested more than two years after the murder on the basis of evidence that appears to have been available to the police the entire time; considers that the mastermind behind the murder has still not been identified; notes that Karaivaz – like Daphne Caruana Galizia and Ján Kuciak – was investigating corruption and crime, and may have made enemies in high places, including in political circles; points out that the suspected mastermind of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia has still not been convicted, nor have all the cases of corruption and crime she was investigating been adequately addressed by the authorities;

36. Condemns the illegal surveillance of journalists, in particular by means of spyware; is dismayed at the Commission’s refusal to implement all the recommendations of the Pegasus Special Inquiry Committee and considers it a failure to act; reiterates its call on the Commission to assess the fulfilment of the specific conditions for Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Poland and Spain set out in the Recommendation, the deadline for which was 30 November 2023; welcomes the creation of the special inquiry committee with investigative powers in the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish Parliament; calls for a thorough investigation of alleged severe violations of national and EU laws related to unlawful surveillance for political purposes by the Law and Justice-led government; is alarmed that the alleged list of victims is very long and includes multiple politicians, lawyers, prosecutors, journalists, business people, activists and other persons; points out that in none of the many cases of abuse of spyware against journalists, activists, politicians, lawyers and other political targets, has justice been served; concludes therefore that, contrary to the Commission’s assumption, many national authorities are neither willing nor able to address the matter, leaving the victims without effective remedy and democracy unprotected; is deeply concerned at the chilling effect of the impunity of spyware abuse on journalists and their sources; underlines that the illegitimate use of spyware by national governments directly and indirectly affects the integrity of decision-making, thereby undermining European Union democracy and highlighting the urgency for the greater transparency and legal accountability of the surveillance industry;

37. Recalls that the trade in and use of spyware need to be regulated strictly, that the use of spyware by Member States must be proportionate and must not be arbitrary, and that surveillance must only be authorised in narrowly, pre-determined circumstances; considers that effective ex ante mechanisms to ensure judicial oversight are critical to protecting individual freedoms; reaffirms that individual rights cannot be put at risk by permitting unfettered access to surveillance; underlines that the ability of the judiciary to perform meaningful and effective ex post oversight in the area of requests for surveillance for national security is also important in order to ensure that the disproportionate use of spyware by governments can be challenged;

44. Recalls its condemnation of the reported systemic discriminatory, non-transparent and unfair practices against companies in certain sectors in Hungary and the use of EU funds to enrich political allies of the government, contrary to EU competition and public procurement rules; is deeply concerned by the growing concentration of businesses in the hands of oligarchs with ties to the current government who have publicly signalled their intention to buy into key sectors, as well as by the targeting of the competitors of those businesses;

45. Recalls that, within the scope of application of the Treaties, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality is prohibited in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights,Charter, and that freedom of establishment, service provision and movement of capital are fundamental to the single market; underlines that the rules regarding equality of treatment forbid overt and covert discrimination by reason of nationality or, in the case of a company, its seat; underlines that the proper implementation of competition and public procurement rules is also in the interest of Hungarian companies;

46. Calls on the Member States to demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law to the international community and to implement all adopted EU restrictive measures accurately and consistently, and to prevent their circumvention; calls on the Commission to closely monitor this;

Civil society space

47. Acknowledges the crucial role civil society and a healthy civic space play in upholding and protecting the rule of law, and reiterates its call for a separate chapter to be dedicated to the condition of civil society in Member States; notes that the Commission finds that Malta, Ireland, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Germany have announced or initiated efforts to improve the framework for civil society, and finds that civil society faces particular challenges in Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy and France, and continued authoritarian and serious systemic restrictions in Hungary and Poland;Poland under its former Law and Justice-led government; calls on all Member States to accept civil society organisations (CSOs) as important stakeholders in democratic life and to create an enabling environment for civil society;

48. Calls on the Commission to further invest, through dedicated funding, in building capacity for CSOs to monitor and report on the rule of law situation in the Member States, such as through the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme, and to ensure adequate protection to CSOs engaging in this process; is concerned that the biased distribution of funding in certain countries impacts CSOs working on promoting the rights of vulnerable groups or working, more generally, for causes that governments do not support; encourages a thorough assessment of these issues in all countries covered by the report and stresses the need for country recommendations to address these issues; urges the Commission to consider direct management of EU funds, in order to ensure that eligible beneficiaries, such as CSOs, businesses and local authorities, receive the EU funding intended for them;

66. Calls for a European ban on ‘conversion practices’; calls for a ban on genital mutilation that also harms intersex people (intersex genital mutilation – IGM); calls for a ban on forced abortions and forced sterilisations, which constitute a form of gender-based violence and particularly harm people with disabilities; underlines the importance of respecting self-determination and autonomy and of promoting LGBTIQ+ people’s physical and mental health; underlines that its position on the proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence (COM(2022)0105) includes adding FGM, IGM and forced sterilisation to the list of so-called eurocrimes;

67. Reaffirms that women’s rights are human rights and that nothing can justify a regression in women’s rights and autonomy; condemns in particular the attack on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls taking place in several Member States; believes that the right to safe and legal abortion should be anchored in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;Charter;

68. Stresses that gender-based violence, both online and offline, is a particularly serious crime and a widespread violation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the Union which needs to be addressed with greater efficiency and determination on a common basis; stresses that gender-based violence is the result of societal and systemic structural gender inequalities that have a cross-border dimension; points, in particular, to the growing anti-gender, anti-LGBTIQ+ and anti-feminist movements, which are well-organised and have a cross-border nature; considers, in addition, that the cross-border dimension of gender-based cyber violence and the great individual, economic and societal impact of gender-based violence across all Member States reaffirm the need to combat gender-based violence in its multiple dimensions on a common Union basis;

71. Strongly deplores the numerous deaths of refugees and migrants at sea who are often victims of human trafficking and who have to face inhumane and degrading treatment without any consideration for their safety or fundamental rights; reminds the Member States of their obligation under the international law of the sea to assist persons in distress and calls for the establishment of a comprehensive EU search and rescue mission implemented by the Member States’ competent authorities and Frontex; notes the work of Frontex and its Fundamental Rights Officer, as well as of the EU Asylum Agency; stresses the need for an effective EU asylum system that respects human rights; notes the progress made on the New Pact on Asylum and Migration, making it possible to adopt the pact before the end of this legislative term;

72. Welcomes the fact that, on 15 February 2024, Greece became the 16th Member State to legislate marriage equality with the passing of a landmark bill by the Greek Parliament legalising same-sex marriage and granting full parental rights to same-sex couples;

Cross-cutting findings on the state of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across the EU

72.73. Expresses its deep concern, in light of the above, that democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across the EU are being eroded; highlights that whereas the state of affairs presented by the Commission’s rule of law report reveals many worrying developments, the situation looks even more concerning when taking other independent reports and sources into account; underlines that the erosion of these values in Member States compromises and undermines the EU institutions and the situation in the EU as a whole, even if some Member States are exemplary in protecting and promoting these values;

73.74. Underlines that this state of affairs is not merely an abstract conclusion but impacts the daily lives of EU citizens and businesses, as they experience, for example, an inefficient or non-independent judiciary and rampant corruption and cannot access independent and quality journalism; highlights that this undermines trust in our democratic system based on the rule of law; believes that restoring respect for EU values across the Member States is vital for avoiding the disintegration of our societies and Union; calls on the Commission, the Council and the European Council to fully acknowledge that democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are not only national matters, but are matters of direct concern for the European Union and its institutions;

74.75. Calls on the Member States to fully comply with the values on which the Union is founded, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; calls, in this regard, on the Member States to respect legality and legal certainty, to prevent abuses of power and to ensure equality before the law and non-discrimination, access to justice, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the protection of human rights, as these are key principles for the proper functioning of the mechanisms of checks and balances of every healthy democracy; calls on the Commission to independently analyse whether these principles are being complied with in all Member States;

Enforcement of EU law

75.76. Notes that the proper enforcement of all EU law is the very precondition for a union based on the rule of law; condemns the sometimes open and unashamed non-compliance of several Member States with EU law in various fields, such as the right to effective judicial protection, anti-corruption laws, asylum, the implementation of sanctions, and human rights law; underlines that this risks making the EU an area where some Member States feel more equal than others and citizens’ EU rights and freedoms are not evenly protected;

76.77. Reminds the Commission that it is first and foremost the guardian of the Treaties; underlines that issuing a report is not enough to reinforce our union based on the rule of law but that the report should lead to concrete enforcement action, especially where the recommendations are not fully complied with;

77.78. Strongly regrets the fact that the Commission is not taking stronger action to enforce EU law; calls therefore on the Commission to step up the number of new infringement procedures and to push forward existing infringement procedures with more audacity and urgency; calls on the Commission to systemically resort to expedited procedures and applications for interim measures before the CJEU; calls on the Commission not to use ‘dialogue’ with Member States or the ‘pilot’ procedure as an open-ended means to avoid launching actual infringement procedures; calls on the Commission to revise its policy, outlined in its 2022 communication on enforcing EU law, not to use infringement actions for ‘individual’ redress, as this policy has led to serious deprivation of rights for citizens across the EU, especially where their own governments are refusing to comply with EU law or CJEU judgments, also as most of these cases are not merely individual but address strategic and fundamental issues;

78.79. Notes the persistent problem of the incomplete implementation of ECtHR judgments, noting the decisions of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers; welcomes the inclusion of the systemic indicators on the implementation of ECtHR leading judgments in the rule of law report since its 2022 edition; calls on the Commission, however, to set up a scoreboard dedicated to monitoring the implementation of each and every CJEU and ECtHR judgment relating to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and to fully integrate it into the annual rule of law report; calls on the Member States to implement pending judgments without delay, and calls on the Commission to assess the consequences for the compliance with EU law and to take infringement action where needed;

The Rule of Law report as a tool

79.80. Welcomes the rule of law report as a crucial cornerstone of the EU rule of law toolbox and commends the Commission for delivering a diligently researched and well-written report; recalls that the annual rule of law report was introduced in response to a Parliament resolution adopted on the basis of a legislative own-initiative report in 2016;

80.81. Recognises that the rule of law report has become a benchmark for the EU institutions’ work on rule of law issues in the EU and in specific Member States; acknowledges the Commission’s continuous commitment throughout the years to enhancing the relevance of the report, such as by its inclusion of country-specific recommendations in the previous edition and an assessment of their fulfilment in the current report;

81.82. Acknowledges that the Commission’s rule of law report has become more comprehensive since its inception in 2020; deplores, however, the fact that essential elements from the 2016 Parliament resolution have not yet been implemented and that the Commission has not fully addressed the recommendations made by Parliament in its previous resolutions; calls on the Commission to take steps to address this; regrets, in particular, that the 2023 edition of the report was not significantly expanded by adding a comprehensive new pillar; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of important missing elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist, such as prevention of the abuse of powers, equality before the law and non-discrimination; reiterates its position that the report should cover the full scope of the values of Article 2 TEU, as these cannot be seen in isolation; calls on the Commission to expand the scope of the report next year;

82.83. Is concerned that the Commission, in its effort to be factual and even-handed, sometimes ends up being too diplomatic and imprecise when identifying rule of law problems in Member States; regrets that the use of euphemistic language and the artificial equal number of conclusions and recommendations per Member State conceals the very real differences between Member States; reiterates the recommendation to differentiate between systemic and individual breaches, to avoid the risk of trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are systematically, deliberately and gravely violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to meet all criteria that define a democracy; believes that the assessment of the fulfilment of the recommendations should be more precise and qualitative, not relying only on legislative changes but also on real and independent evidence of their implementation in practice; reiterates the need to set out a timeline, targets and concrete actions for the implementation of the recommendations and to detail the possible consequences in the event of non-compliance; notes the sometimes stark differences between the summaries of country chapters and the in-depth content of the chapters themselves, suggesting an editorial intervention;

83.84. Reaffirms that many of these challenges could be overcome by involving an independent panel of experts in the drafting of the report, as they would be less bound by diplomatic considerations; calls on the Commission to reconsider its position on this point and to explore all possibilities to involve independent experts in subsequent editions of the rule of law report; repeats its call on the Commission to invite the FRA to provide methodological advice and conduct comparative research in order to add detail in key areas of the annual report, given the intrinsic links between fundamental rights and the rule of law;

84.85. Acknowledges the Commission’s effort to conduct a wide range of consultations and collect various inputs in each Member State, including from national authorities and CSOs; calls on the Commission to expand this further and, as much as possible, to conduct on-site rather than virtual visits in Member States, as these could paint a fuller and more contextual picture of the local situation; recalls, in particular, the importance of consulting legal professionals, such as through bar associations and judges’ associations;

85.86. Recognises the role of notaries in numerous Member States, which functionally exercise court tasks; believes that notaries’ contribution to rule of law standards should be addressed in relevant country chapters of subsequent editions of the rule of law report;

86.87. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to expand the geographical scope of future rule of law reports to include candidate countries, in line with previous Parliament calls for it to do so;

87.88. Believes that continuously and ambitiously expanding the scope, candour and enforcement consequences of the report is the best way to ensure its continued relevance and impact;

88.89. Urges the Commission to invest more in awareness-raising about the Union’s values and applicable tools, including the annual report, especially in countries where there are serious concerns;

89.90. Affirms that the annual rule of law report is not an end in itself, as monitoring the situation is not enough but should rather lead to specific enforcement action on the identified shortcomings; calls, therefore, on the Commission to ensure that this rule of law report is indeed part and parcel of an entire process within the ambit of the rule of law mechanism as a whole, and to ensure full use of the complete rule of law toolkit at its disposal, including Article 7 TEU in cases where the rule of law report keeps finding continuous breaches year after year in certain Member States;

Interinstitutional cooperation and procedures on rule of law

90.91. Takes note of the Council’s evaluation of its rule of law dialogue and the Council’s stated position that it will consider further possible interinstitutional cooperation in that context; calls on the Council to make its rule of law dialogue more inclusive, by inviting other institutions and stakeholders to its sessions, in particular Council of Europe bodies such as the Venice Commission, the Human Rights Commissioner, as well as representatives of the European Parliament;

91.92. Regrets that the Commission and the Council have so far rejected Parliament’s offer to enter into an interinstitutional agreement on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reaffirms its willingness to resume talks on this agreement;

92.93. Calls on the other institutions, in the meantime, to at least explore further cooperation in the context of the proposed interinstitutional pilot on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, which would help build trust between the institutions in a practical way, in particular by sharing monitoring, dialogue and meeting practices;

93.94. Asks its Bureau, in the light of the reluctance of the Commission and the Council, to organise a public procurement procedure in order to create a temporary panel of independent experts under the auspices of Parliament, in line with the commitment undertaken in its previous resolutions, in order to advise Parliament on compliance with the values under Article 2 TEU in various Member States and to show by example how such a panel could work in practice;

94.95. Condemns the total lack of progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

95.96. Calls on the Commission to include, strictly monitor and safeguard the DRF conditions in all budgetary instruments and processes; reaffirms its serious concerns about the Commission decision considering that the horizontal enabling condition of the Charter had been fulfilled in relation to judicial independence, thus enabling the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10.210,2 billion, even though even following the recent reforms, Hungary does not meet the standard of judicial independence set out in the Charter; calls on the Commission and the Council to apply the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation further and without delay where needed, and not to lift the measures adopted in the case of Hungary until all the preconditions and milestones have been effectively fulfilled; calls on the Commission to rigorously verify that the rule of law related milestones in the various Member State recovery and resilience plans are fulfilled as a condition for disbursing funding when Member States make payment requests; calls on the Commission to assign the primary responsibility for the application of these conditions to the Commissioners responsible for the rule of law;

°

° °

96.97. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the governments of the Member States and the Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The founding values of our Union - democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights - cannot be taken for granted. They form the very pre-condition for our freedom, safety and prosperity. That is why they merit our defence every day.

We see that these values are under increasing pressure in our Union. In some Member States, citizens can no longer count on an independent judiciary, free and fair elections, and the protection of their rights. Other Member States’ governments are on a similar path, slowly but steadily eroding institutional checks and balances. Independent journalists and minorities are always the first to suffer.

Action needs to start from an independent and comprehensive monitoring of the situation. Following the Parliament’s 2016 proposal for the “Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Pact”, the Commission launched its first annual Rule of Law report in 2020. The Parliament welcomes this monitoring work of the Commission. It however also finds that the Commission is not painting a full and candid picture of the situation. Independent NGOs, academics, watchdogs and journalists often find the situation on the ground to diverge substantially from the Commission’s overly diplomatic language.

This report of the European Parliament aims to cover a wide range of concerns, without shying away from mentioning specific situations and Member States. That is awkward sometimes, but it must be done if we are to tackle the problems head-on. It is also necessary if we are to have a meaningful dialogue with the other EU institutions and with Member States’ governments and parliaments. We can learn from each other. The EU is fortunately still a place where so many citizens and authorities care for democracy, the Rule of Law and fundamental rights. We need to have an open conversation and get out of our institutional trenches.

The next step also needs to be enforcement. The findings of this report cannot be without consequences. For this, all options should be on the table: infringement procedures, funding conditionality, and the Article 7 TEU procedures. Unfortunately, the application of EU law has never been so lacklustre and needs an urgent and substantial boost. This report calls on the Commission to step up its game and fully play its role as Guardian of the Treaties. Without it, we are in a lawless zone, where some are more equal than others. That would be the very end of our Union based on the Rule of Law.

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

29.11.2023

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report

(2023/2113(INI))

Rapporteur for opinion (*): Adrián Vázquez Lázara

(*) Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

General

1. Recalls that the Union’s legal structure is based on the fundamental premise that each Member State shares with all the other Member States a set of common values on which the EU is founded, as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; 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; recalls that the rule of law and the rules-based international order are key to fighting the spread of authoritarian regimes and the violation of international law and help to consolidate democratic structures and protect human rights; stresses that any backsliding on the rule of law, which is based on the separation and balancing of powers, in any given Member State significantly affects the common area of freedom, security and justice, as well as mutual trust and mutual recognition as leading principles of EU law in this area;

2. Welcomes the Commission’s fourth Rule of Law Report (‘the Report’) and considers that the periodic review of the rule of law is an essential monitoring tool; stresses, in this context, the importance of the use of clear and objective criteria by the Commission when providing its assessment, thereby avoiding claims of unequal treatment of Member States or the use of selective data only; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s approach to receive Member States’ contributions, thereby fostering a common dialogue; welcomes the new classification adopted by the Commission as regards measuring progress on past recommendations, with four categories: (a) no progress, (b) some progress, (c) significant progress, and (d) full implementation; in view of the problems involved in the gathering of statistical data by Member States, points out the usefulness of Council of Europe tools such as the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) reports, thereby creating, as far as possible, convergence between the different data inputs;

Justice

3. Acknowledges the importance attached to justice systems by the rule of law reporting, particularly as regards the legality, independence and impartiality of judges and judicial appointments, promotions, dismissals and decisions; acknowledges that no common EU system of nomination of judges exists; recalls, however, that all Member States have to adhere to Council of Europe and CJEU minimum standards; stresses, in this context, the importance of independent councils of the judiciary, which must be composed by a substantial majority of judges elected by their peers and empowered with substantial authority over the selection, advancement and disciplinary procedures concerning judges; deeply regrets that not all Member States have fulfilled their obligations fully in this regard; deplores the devastating effect this has on the independence and integrity of their justice systems;

4. Acknowledges that almost two thirds of the recommendations issued in 2022 related to important reforms have been followed up to some extent; is concerned, however, by the number of issues identified in previous rule of law reports that remain unaddressed; urges the Commission to persist in its diligent monitoring of Member States’ legal frameworks in order to assess their alignment with the above-mentioned recommendations, and further calls on the Commission to become more insistent on the implementation of these critical reforms in cases where Member States’ systems do not meet the prescribed standards; calls on the Commission to take further steps to fully address the recommendations made by Parliament in its previous resolutions;

5. Welcomes the continuous support which is provided to relevant stakeholders via dedicated programmes, such as the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme; welcomes the funding through the Justice Programme to support judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters and to contribute to the further development of European justice, which involves strengthening democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;

6. Urges the Commission to invest more in awareness-raising about the Union’s values and applicable tools, including the annual report, especially in countries where there are serious concerns;

7. Acknowledges that a certain degree of progress can be seen in the last report in a number of different Member States as regards judicial independence; welcomes, in this regard, the withholding of EU funds, if necessary, under the conditionality mechanism, as confirmed by the CJEU, or under the Recovery and Resilience Facility; points out, however, that infringements of judicial independence are still a concern in some Member States, such as ongoing disciplinary procedures against judges for the content of their decisions, problems with the composition of councils of the judiciary and with the composition of the highest national courts in view of the principle of a court established by law, etc.;

8. Recalls that an efficient and fair justice system ensuring access to justice for all requires an appropriate budget and financing of judiciary bodies; regrets that the report still reveals the existence of serious deficiencies in this regard, specifically hampering, it would appear the adjudication of high-profile corruption cases; stresses, however, that sufficient legal aid and remedies have to be available also to citizens; calls, in this context, on the Commission to include in the next rule of law report assessments of the application of the EU acquis on legal aid in civil and criminal matters, such as Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2023 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, as CJEU case-law reveals that there are still questions about its interpretation;

9. Recalls that also prosecution services, regardless of their place in the national system of the division of powers between three branches of government, have to be independent of undue political pressure; notes that a certain degree of progress has been achieved in some Member States; regrets, however, that systems still exist where the government can issue binding decisions to prosecutors in particular cases, where the term of office is bound to a political process, or where the functions of minister and prosecutor general are combined, thus allowing for undue political influence and creating problems for mutual recognition;

10. Underlines, in particular, that the issue of ‘revolving doors’ is not confined solely to concerns about former ministers transitioning into the private sector after their tenure in public office, but extends to situations where individuals may assume critical roles within the judiciary or the prosecutor’s office immediately following their service as ministers or affiliation with a political party;

11. Calls on the Commission to give due consideration to such examples in its forthcoming reports addressing the rule of law within the European Union; urges the Commission to strongly call on Member States to refrain from these practices, specifically, by implementing legal provisions that proactively prevent former ministers and high-ranking political figures from assuming leadership positions within the high courts of justice or the prosecutor’s office, thereby safeguarding the independence and integrity of these vital institutions;

Fight against corruption

12. Recalls that the fight against corruption is essential to maintaining the rule of law and preserving and fostering citizens’ trust in public institutions; recalls, further, that to be effective, it requires a robust legal and administrative anti-corruption framework based on integrity, transparency and accountability, namely in public life, stressing the disclosure of declarations of interests and the protection of whistle-blowers where applicable;

13. States that corruption is a menace that can destroy democracies and undermine citizens’ trust in institutions, and has to be combated in all its forms; points out that corruption is the most common avenue by which organised crime infiltrates and controls the economy; is worried that the latest Report shows either no or only very slow progress in relation to anti-corruption prevention measures in several Member States; is extremely worried about the reluctance to establish registers of lobbyists, transparency registers and proper systems of asset declarations by public office holders and senior officials, as well as about the lack of political will to introduce strict rules within revolving doors policies; highlights, in this context, the importance of a transparent legislative procedure with far-reaching access to documents, and rules to ensure the highest degree of transparency and accountability in public administrations and public decision-making with a view to preventing corruption;

14. Calls, in this context, also for all EU institutions to adhere to the highest possible standards with a view to the prevention of corruption, such as, inter alia, the creation of an effective EU Ethics Body, the full application of Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents, and the full application of the conditionality principle as regards the EU Transparency Register; calls on the Member States to try to reach an agreement as soon as possible on the proposed directive on combating corruption with a view to establishing a common, homogeneous framework of codes of conduct, standards preventing conflicts of interest and rules ensuring the transparency of procedures;

15. Recognises the substantial increase in recent years in the quantitative significance of funds allocated by the European Union, including the NextGenerationEU funds; acknowledges that, as a result, the presence of legal provisions within Member States’ legislation designed to prevent the misuse of these funds has assumed the utmost importance;

16. Recalls that no sector is corruption-risk safe, including those that manage significant public funds or access to critical infrastructures and services, such as healthcare and construction; stresses that organised crime groups play an increasingly important role in activities which include counterfeiting, piracy and infringements of intellectual property rights, and which have skyrocketed in the digital environment; recalls that the criminal groups involved in these illegal activities often use the profits to finance other illegal activities;

17. Calls on the Commission, as part of its upcoming rule of law reports, to incorporate an evaluation of the evolution of Member States’ legislation in recent years pertaining to the oversight of the appropriate utilisation of public funds, as well as the legal mechanisms in place to address any improper use of public funds;

18. Recalls Parliament’s strong support for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); acknowledges the important role of the EPPO as an independent EU body in investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union; highlights that since starting its operations on 1 June 2021, EPPO has registered more than 4 000 crime reports from participating EU Member States and private parties and over 929 investigations have been opened (as of June 2022);

19. Urges the Commission, furthermore, in cases where the level of safeguards for public funds is found to have been lowered, to promptly engage with the affected Member State or Member States, requesting the expeditious implementation of the necessary measures to rectify this situation;

Civil society

20. Recalls its resolution of 11 November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the Union where it called on the Commission to propose a package of both soft and hard laws to address the increasing number of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs; welcomes the Commission legislative proposal and recommendation to the Member States of 27 April 2022 addressing Parliament’s call in this respect; stresses that SLAPPs are a particular form of harassment used primarily against journalists to prevent them from or penalise them for speaking up on matters of public interest by subjecting them to lengthy, burdensome and expensive lawsuits; calls on the Member States to keep up with the ambitions in the proposed measures and step up efforts to improve the safety and protection of journalists;

21. Notes with deep concern the overall shrinking of space for civil society in some Member States, which represents a serious threat to the rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights and other EU values; calls on the Commission to monitor the challenges and attacks faced by civil society as part of its annual rule of law assessment and reporting work and to include conclusions and targeted recommendations in its report; reiterates its call, in this regard, for a separate chapter to be dedicated to the state of civil society in the Member States;

22. Emphasises that the current legal framework at Union and national level is insufficient to establish and support a strong pan-European civil society, whose existence is necessary for democracy; believes, therefore, that a statute for EU cross-border associations and not-for-profit organisations will provide an extra layer of protection to civil society organisations facing undue hurdles to their establishment and operations.

ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR THE OPINION HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE