MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary

3.5.2022 - (2022/2647(RSP))

to wind up the debate on the statements by the Council and the Commission
pursuant to Rule 132(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Sergio Berlato, Adam Bielan, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Ryszard Czarnecki, Angel Dzhambazki, Carlo Fidanza, Pietro Fiocchi, Raffaele Fitto, Anna Fotyga, Emmanouil Fragkos, Ladislav Ilčić, Patryk Jaki, Krzysztof Jurgiel, Karol Karski, Beata Kempa, Izabela‑Helena Kloc, Joanna Kopcińska, Zdzisław Krasnodębski, Elżbieta Kruk, Zbigniew Kuźmiuk, Beata Mazurek, Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska, Tomasz Piotr Poręba, Nicola Procaccini, Elżbieta Rafalska, Bogdan Rzońca, Jacek Saryusz‑Wolski, Vincenzo Sofo, Raffaele Stancanelli, Beata Szydło, Dominik Tarczyński, Hermann Tertsch, Grzegorz Tobiszowski, Alexandr Vondra, Witold Jan Waszczykowski, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Anna Zalewska, Kosma Złotowski
on behalf of the ECR Group

B9‑0262/2022

European Parliament resolution on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary

(2022/2647(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

– having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas only Article 7 TEU provides for a Union competence to supervise the application of the rule of law as a value of the Union; whereas Article 7 TEU does not establish a basis for further developing or amending the procedure described in it;

B. whereas Article 7(1) TEU stipulates that the Council must hear the Member State in question;

C. whereas during numerous hearings in the Council, Poland has extensively explained the rule of law situation in the country, answered all questions and, moreover, the Council had also been informed several times about the rule of law in Poland through state of play updates;

D. whereas the Article 7(1) TEU procedure has been ongoing for more than four years now, without yielding any meaningful results;

E. whereas the Article 7(1) TEU procedure is deepening the divisions among Member States, especially during the Russian invasion on Ukraine, and has generated significant political costs, with a resulting weakening of people’s confidence in the EU project;

1. Calls on the EU institutions to refrain from duplicating the current EU mechanism on the rule of law, and not to mix political, legal and economic questions such as infringement proceedings, the annual rule of law review, the Article 7 TEU procedure and protection of the EU budget;

2. Stresses in this regard that the aim of Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget is to protect the EU budget, not to protect values, and that these two issues should not be confused;

3. Points out that each institution has its specific role in the Article 7 TEU procedure and that Parliament has no right to participate in Council meetings;

4. Calls on the Council to stop organising hearings as all of the allegations contained in the reasoned proposals have been clarified by Poland, and to end the Article 7(1) TEU procedure;

5. Points out that Poland’s actions in the face of the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War shows the real and not the imaginary and theoretical importance of EU values such as solidarity and respect for human rights in the face of war;

6. Calls on the Commission not to confuse issues of EU values with the refugee crisis and to immediately grant Poland financial aid to help the millions of refugees welcomed by Polish citizens into their homes, despite the enormous difficulties;

7. Call on the Commission to urgently approve Poland’s national plans under the Recovery and Resilience Fund;

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