Testo integrale 
Mercoledì 11 febbraio 2015 - Strasburgo Edizione rivista

17. Quadro dell'UE in materia di democrazia, Stato di diritto e diritti fondamentali (discussione)
Video degli interventi

  Preşedinte. - Trecem la următorul punct pe ordinea de zi, respectiv, declarațiile Consiliului și ale Comisiei privind cadrul UE pentru democrație, statul de drept și drepturile fundamentale. În acest sens, dați-mi voie să o invit din nou pe doamna secretar Kalniņa-Lukaševica să ia cuvântul pentru Consiliu (2015/2558(RSP)).


  Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, President-in-Office of the Council. - We have a very important debate tonight. The Union is founded on values including respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. These are the common values of the Member States, and they are an essential element of the European Union’s identity.

Member States have to ensure that their internal orders fully respect the rule of law and other fundamental values. The Commission, Parliament and the Council play an important role in safeguarding these essential principles. We recognise that the European Parliament plays an important role in making sure that the Commission and the Council carry out their duties.

As you may recall, in June 2013 the Council stated that respecting the rule of law is a prerequisite for the protection of fundamental rights and called on the Commission to take forward the debate in line with the Treaties on the possible need for and shape of a collaborative and systematic method to tackle these issues. The same month, this Parliament called on the EU institutions to develop the necessary EU tools to fulfil the Treaty obligations on fundamental values. The Commission contributed to this debate by means of a communication in March 2014. These initiatives complemented the already-existing tools: the infringement procedure applicable in the case of a breach of EU law, and the ‘atomic bomb’ option provided by Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows for the suspension of voting rights in the event of a serious and persistent breach of EU values.

The Council discussed on several occasions how to better safeguard the rule of law in the Union. In December last year the Council adopted conclusions establishing an annual political dialogue among Member States to promote and safeguard the rule of law within the EU. The dialogue will respect certain principles such as objectivity, non-discrimination and equal treatment. It will also respect the principle of conferred competences, and it will have to ensure an inclusive approach. This exercise will have to be based on mutual trust. The Presidency will play a central role in making sure that these principles are respected throughout the debate. Right now the Council is working towards organising its first political debate on the rule of law in the course of this year. I am convinced that this dialogue will help us to ensure that the rule of law will continue to be a commonly-shared fundamental value underpinning this Union.

I thank you for your attention and am looking forward to a really good debate.


  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law. When President Eisenhower marked the first Law Day with these words in 1958, World War II had been over for barely a dozen years. The memories were raw, the images and the fear etched into minds. It has now been 70 years. We commemorated the liberation of the terror camps in this very Hemicycle when we last met in January. President Schulz and I were at Terezin only two weeks ago.

Seventy years, yet the alarming backdrop to this anniversary – not just the headlines but also the trends, the patterns that we see – this backdrop has come as a harsh, sobering call for vigilance. This is why I welcome this timely debate. This House’s vigilance on fundamental rights is of utmost importance. We cannot let our societies imperceptibly slip back. We cannot allow illiberal logics to take hold. There is no such thing as ‘illiberal democracy’. Our Union is built on a break from the past, on the principle that societies should be free and open, sheltered from arbitrariness and force. This great leap: that is what Europe stands for. All too often we take all of this for granted.

So I cannot repeat it often enough. There can be no Europe without full respect for our common values. Compromising on common values is compromising on the very fabric of European cooperation and therefore weakening it and bringing it to a standstill.

The Commission is dedicated to advancing fundamental rights and the rule of law. I have been entrusted by President Juncker with a duty of special significance – and of huge significance to me personally: that of steering and coordinating this work. It is everyday work: mainstreaming fundamental rights is a reflex throughout the policy cycle, from inception to implementation. Together with Commissioners Jourová and Avramopoulos we form a fundamental rights project team, and I will invite other Commissioners to join if necessary. Our aim is to pursue with a 360-degree approach to ensure that fundamental rights are effectively enforced and protected in Member States, based on information gathered on the ground.

I am well aware that this House has on different occasions called for an effective and binding instrument supplementary to Article 7. We can clearly all agree on the aim behind these calls, ensuring our common values are fully respected and enforced. The key issue for discussion is that of the best means to achieve this objective.

To me, all institutions have important, complementary roles to play. Last December the Council and the Member States agreed to establish an annual dialogue to that effect, and I believe that our debate today serves very much the same purpose. The Commission has its own role, and in line with the Treaties, in recent years it has taken firm action by exerting political pressure, but also by successfully involving the Court of Justice when the rule of law was threatened, for instance on the unlawful retirement of judges or on measures affecting the independence of supervisory authorities. Our approach to infringements pays special attention to rule-of-law-related cases, where implementation of EU legislation raises problems of compatibility with certain aspects of the rule of law. This includes, for example, the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, or cases where enforcement bodies have insufficient powers or independence.

Since December what we call the ‘ex-Third Pillar’ measures in police and judicial cooperation can also be subject to infringement procedures, and here, too, the Commission is ready to take action. I will personally see to it that the Commission acts in a non-ideological manner and assesses each case fairly and objectively, based on the facts of the case and on the law.

The Commission will act impartially and treats all Member States equally. Our purpose is not to sanction individual Member States per se, but rather to address issues through targeted intervention to restore the correct application of EU law.

Article 7 provides for potentially far-reaching sanctions. It is not limited in scope to areas covered by EU law, but rather designed to address clear risks of a serious breach. However, past experience has shown that this instrument, which can be triggered by the Commission, the European Parliament or one third of Member States, is not always suited to swift and effective intervention. In particular, there are situations which do not fall under the scope of EU law and cannot be said to meet the threshold of Article 7, but which do raise concern regarding the respect of the rule of law in particular Member States.

For this reason, last March the Commission established the EU Rule of Law Framework, which sets out how the Commission will react in this sort of case. It can enter into a political dialogue with the Member State concerned when there is an emerging systematic threat to the rule of law, to prevent it escalating further. When such a rule-of-law crisis emerges in a Member State, the framework also allows the Commission to react swiftly, following an objective assessment of the situation and with full respect to the principle of equal treatment of Member States. The objective is to find a solution with the Member State concerned and to avoid having to trigger the mechanisms of Article 7.

Parliament will have an important political role in supporting the Commission’s efforts to convince the Member State concerned to put an end to the rule-of-law crisis. Parliament would be regularly informed of the progress made at each stage of the process. We are keeping a close eye on all issues arising in Member States relating to the rule of law, and I will not hesitate to use the framework if required by the situation in a particular Member State.

Let me also use this occasion to address a related issue. Many of you may also wonder about the state of play concerning EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, following the opinion of the Court of last December. Accession to the ECHR remains a top priority for the Commission and for me personally. I strongly believe that it would lead to a further strengthening of fundamental values.

However, the opinion of the Court has raised a number of significant challenges, and some of them are not easy to meet – which is why I believe we need a reflection period, giving us time for consultations with stakeholders on the best way forward. Though Parliament has welcomed the EU Rule Of Law Framework and the annual debate in the Council, I am aware that there are renewed calls to establish new additional mechanisms for the permanent and regular monitoring that the Member States comply with the EU fundamental rights. My conviction and policy has always been that, if current tools do not deliver, we will have to improve them.

I am always ready to reflect on how to enhance respect for our values. However, before embarking on a long discussion on possible new instruments, we must be clear on the problem at stake. Can we say to our citizens that we need yet another monitoring mechanism to fight against radicalisation and extremism, or do we just need to better use the existing and recently-established tools?

Experience has shown that there is not so much a need for new reporting or monitoring mechanisms, but rather for the improvement of the European Union’s capacity to act and intervene in certain types of crisis situations relating to the rule of law. That is why, in our view, the framework is well targeted on the key issue at stake, and much already exists in terms of reporting mechanisms and information sources on compliance with fundamental values and the rule of law in Member States. Numerous actors, including Union institutions and agencies – particularly the Fundamental Rights Agency (which, I must say, carries out excellent work) but also the Council of Europe and its Venice Commission, as well as many NGOs – all perform regular monitoring activities and make important assessments. Efforts to make this information more accessible and easier to use must certainly be encouraged.

This is why I intend the Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights – this is something I announced in Parliament at my hearing – to take place in the autumn, in October or perhaps at the beginning of November. I want all relevant stakeholders – including, of course, Parliament – to take part. I would like to announce here today that I plan for the theme of this year’s Colloquium to be about tolerance, namely how to prevent and combat anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-minority hatred in our societies, which are some of the biggest challenges we face today. I hope that you will engage actively in this important event. I want it to be a visible and meaningful debate.

Together, by speaking up and speaking jointly, we can send a powerful political message. I think that would also mean more to our citizens than a protracted institutional debate about mechanisms because, at the end of the day, this is about societies and what binds us together: how we can combat fear – numbing fear, paralysing fear, fear of the other. That is when our common values really have a meaning – what we owe to these values, to our own history, to the future for our children and grandchildren. This is the debate and the actions that citizens expect of us.


  Daniel Buda, în numele grupului PPE. – Jacques Chevalier a definit statul de drept ca fiind tipul de regim politic în care puterea statului se află încadrată și limitată de către drept. Statul de drept a fost și va constitui o preocupare majoră a oricărei societăți moderne, de aceea valori precum demnitatea umană, libertatea, democrația, egalitatea, toleranța, securitatea și nu numai trebuie să constituie numitorul comun într-o Europă unită, o Europă deschisă și sigură, aflată permanent în serviciul cetățeanului și a întreprinderilor noastre. Aceste valori au fost și vor fi inalienabile și imprescriptibile. O Europă consolidată, cu state membre consolidate, reprezintă o centură de siguranță pentru orice persoană, indiferent de naționalitatea sa, așa cum o justiție independentă și eficientă poate stimula mediul de afaceri, investițiile și crearea locurilor de muncă. Existența oricărui derapaj de la aceste valori este de natură să creeze insecuritate, care ne poate afecta viața de zi cu zi. De aceea, existența unor mecanisme eficiente, care să permită sancționarea oricăror încălcări ale drepturilor și libertăților fundamentale individuale este absolut necesară. Cu atât mai mult cu cât aceste valori, care consfințesc statul de drept, pot fi ușor volatilizate și chiar și democrațiile considerate ca fiind consolidate. Uniunea Europeană în ansamblu și România, în special, au demonstrat că au capacitatea de a crea mecanisme și instituții capabile să garanteze securitatea statului de drept. Actualul sistem de monitorizare permite identificarea și intervenția acolo unde se constată încălcări ale legislației Uniunii Europene la nivelul fiecărui stat membru. Se impune, însă, mai departe, o colaborare și mai strânsă între Parlamentul European, statele membre, Comisie și Consiliu, care să consolideze strategiile în domeniul justiției, atât la nivelul fiecărei țări, cât și la nivelul Uniunii Europene, ca o garanție a funcționării statului de drept.



  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Köszönöm szépen a lehetőséget, tisztelt Képviselő úr, Buda úr! Én nagyon örültem a felszólalásának, tényleg minden szavával azonosulni tudok, minthogy nagyrészt egybecseng, sőt szerintem teljesen egybecsengett mindazzal, amit Timmermans úr is mondott. De kérdezem Öntől tisztelettel, hogy ugyanezeket szokták Önök mondani a saját néppárti csoportjukon belül annak a Fidesznek, amelyik Magyarországon egy olyan kormányt működtet, amelyiknek a vezetője kitartóan illiberális demokráciáról beszél. Amelyik bizonyítottan százával küldte politikai okokból kényszernyugdíjba a bírákat, és aki bizonyítottan zavaros hátterű hatósági vezetőket nevez ki, illetve tart hivatalban.


  Daniel Buda (PPE), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Cred că discuția există la nivelul fiecărui grup, până la urmă ce se întâmplă în fiecare țară trebuie să fie o preocupare a acelei țări și, într-adevăr, trebuie ca la nivelul Comisiei și Consiliului să fim atenți pentru a nu exista derapaje de la democrație și, acolo unde acestea există, să se intervină.


  Birgit Sippel, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie sind das Fundament der EU, und wer an ihnen rüttelt, rüttelt an der Europäischen Union. Die Achtung europäischer Werte ist eine rechtliche Verpflichtung für alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten, und zwar nicht nur, wenn sie EU-Recht umsetzen, sondern immer. Oft werden diese Werte jedoch missachtet, teilweise systematisch. Fehlende Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, der Medien, unzureichende Rechte für die parlamentarische Opposition, Hetze gegen oder Ausgrenzung von Minderheiten sind da nur einige Beispiele.

Wir als Europäer dürfen nicht danebenstehen und nur zuschauen, wenn fundamentale Werte derart missachtet werden. Mehrfach hat das Europäische Parlament daher einen unabhängigen Expertenausschuss zur Überwachung der Grundrechte in allen EU-Staaten gefordert, der frei von politischer Einflussnahme agieren kann. Weder Rat noch Kommission konnten bisher überzeugende Konzepte vorlegen. Die kürzlich beschlossenen jährlichen Mittagessen der Mitgliedstaaten zu Fragen der Rechtsstaatlichkeit sind sicher ein guter Anfang, reichen aber nicht aus und sind vor allem keine politisch neutrale und regelmäßige Überprüfung aller Mitgliedstaaten. Auch der von der Kommission vorgestellte Rahmen zum Schutz der Rechtsstaatlichkeit scheint bisher nur auf dem Papier zu stehen.

Das Europäische Parlament sollte regelmäßig über ergriffene Maßnahmen informiert werden. Geschehen ist das bisher nicht, entweder weil nichts stattgefunden hat oder das Parlament nicht informiert wird.

Ich fasse zusammen: Nach all den Grundrechtsdebatten der letzten Jahre nähern sich Rat und Kommission jetzt mit Trippelschritten dem Problem an. Okay, aber es reicht nicht. Wir brauchen die Bereitschaft aller Mitgliedstaaten und der Kommission, systematische Grundrechtsverletzungen offen zu benennen und, wenn nötig, mit Sanktionen zu belegen. Das ist unsere Verantwortung als Vertreter einer Union der Werte.


  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, our shared values of freedom, democracy and tolerance are, of course, the very foundations of Europe and this Union. Too often I think, though, this Parliament tries to quantify in a scientific way values which simply cannot be quantified. It has been my long experience in life that scoreboards, monitoring indicators and benchmarks often do little to reflect or alleviate the realities of any situation.

I believe that instead of developing binding instruments to punish Member States and providing tools for political point-scoring, we should instead ask ourselves, ‘are such mechanisms the most appropriate vehicles for honest, frank and open discussions, and hopefully, therefore, solutions?’

What we need to do is to develop debate and action across the EU on how we can improve fundamental rights and the rule of law within our countries and how we can better, therefore, the lives of our citizens. This Parliament and the Commission should look at how it can help remove barriers to the job market, increase access for those with disabilities, eradicate discrimination against LGBTI persons, assist with social mobility, help create more jobs for young people and remove burdensome red tape from the economy and our businesses, so that Europe’s economy and opportunities for citizens can grow.

Opportunities and economic progress in Member States is how you promote fundamental rights. A helping hand is always better than a scolding tongue. We are not each other’s masters, but instead we are each other’s partners. What we do not need are new ways to threaten each other. What we do need to do is to focus on better law-making, better implementation and better and positive ways of talking to one another.


  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I have to say that I am a bit disappointed because Commissioner Timmermans said that we do not need a protracted institutional debate about mechanisms. I think that is exactly what we need because the fundamental rights and the fundamental values that this Union is based on are laid down in Article 2 of the Treaties. It is the most important article. It is the highest article in the hierarchy and yet the enforcement of that article is the weakest of all the articles in the Treaty.

I remember the debates about the eurozone. We said at the time that we did not need binding instruments in the eurozone, we have a gentleman’s agreement and all the Member States will simply have to live up to their commitments. Well, we have seen what that led to. I think it is about time that this European Union, which is developing into a political union, equips itself with the instruments to enforce those values that it is so proud of. We should not only be talking – not only words, no matter if they are in five or six languages – but we should have action in all the languages.

We do need binding instruments, not just conventions, not just silent diplomacy, colloquia – we need binding instruments. That is why my group, the ALDE Group, has proposed the Democratic Governance Pact. We have offered it to the Commissioner and we have debated it since. It can be adopted on the basis of existing treaties and would be similar to the Stability and Growth Pact. It would have similar mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of the values that are all dear to us. For example, we have devised one instrument – and I will show it to you, it looks like a bingo card, it is actually a scoreboard. We have scored all 28 Member States against a set of indicators, like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal treatment, freedom of religion, etc. We have been nice and we have not put the names of the Member States here. I can only tell you that the ones with only green scores are Denmark and Sweden but the rest we will keep anonymous.

If we did this exercise with Parliament, with the Council, the Commission and with the national parliaments every year – and here I take up your proposal for an annual debate simultaneously in all the institutions about the state of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in all Member States, because there I concur very much with the Commissioner – all Member States should be treated equally and should be scrutinised in the same way.

There would be no more debates about single Member States here, or indeed monitoring mechanisms for Bulgaria and Romania as we have them, or only the candidate Member States. No, all Member States should be scrutinised. We will scrutinise not just their budget. We will not talk only about debt and budget deficits but will also talk about the enforcement of our shared values and make the European Union a community of values.


  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Η δημοκρατία και τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα, στα οποία υποτίθεται ότι στηρίζεται η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της ιδρυτικής της Συνθήκης, αμφισβητούνται σήμερα στην πράξη από τα ίδια τα όργανα της Ένωσης.

Όταν η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή απαντά γραπτώς σε ερώτησή μας ότι τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα δεν ισχύουν στα πλαίσια των μνημονίων, αυτό σημαίνει ότι οι πολίτες των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης τα οποία τελούν υπό καθεστώς μνημονίου αντιμετωπίζονται ως Ευρωπαίοι δεύτερης κατηγορίας και τα κράτη αυτά ως αποικίες χρέους.

Όταν, ακόμη, ο Επίτροπος Katainen δηλώνει ανερυθρίαστα ότι δεν αλλάζουμε πολιτική ανάλογα με τα αποτελέσματα των εκλογών, αυτό υποδηλώνει περιφρόνηση για τη δημοκρατία. Οι δικτάτορες του 20ού αιώνα παρεμπόδιζαν τη διενέργεια εκλογών με τη χρήση στρατιωτικής βίας, ενώ ο μετανεωτερικός αυταρχισμός των ευρωπαϊκών ελίτ του 21ου αιώνα επιχειρεί ουσιαστικά να ακυρώσει τις εκλογές μέσω οικονομικού εκβιασμού.

Η Ευρώπη χρειάζεται αλλαγή πορείας.


  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het Lets voorzitterschap legt ons nog een keer uit dat de Raad heeft bedacht dat ze eens per jaar een gesprek met elkaar voeren over de staat van de grondrechten in Europa. Collega Sippel noemde het een 'middageten', een 'lunch'.

Commissaris Timmermans legt uit dat hij niet ideologisch en onpartijdig zijn werk wil doen zoals het een echte scheidsrechter betaamt. Het probleem alleen is dat een scheidsrechter scheidsrechtert in een spel waar spelregels voor zijn. En die ontbreken hier. Je kunt niet onpartijdig zijn, als je niet weet waar je je aan moet houden.

En waarom hebben we de spelregels voor een Europese toets van de grondrechten nog niet? Omdat de politieke wil ontbreekt. Omdat we ons toch elke keer weer ook in dit Huis afvragen of we er zin in hebben om dit politiek op te spelen? Durven we het beestje bij zijn naam te noemen? Durven we onze vrienden stevig aan te spreken? En het antwoord daarop is blijkbaar 'nee'.

Maar waar we mekaar aanspreken op een begrotingstekort, horen we mekaar ook aan te spreken op respect voor vrije pers, op vrijheid van vereniging, op antidiscriminatie en dat gebeurt niet. Het gebeurt op het moment dat iemand lid wordt van de voetbalclub, maar zodra iemand lid ís van de voetbalclub van 28 spelers, dan zeggen we: je mag vals spelen!

Voorzitter, dat kan niet. En het kan ook niet dat commissaris Timmermans elke keer maar blijft zeggen dat we er wel uitkomen met de bestaande regels. De bestaande regels worden niet toegepast, omdat de politieke wil in de Raad en in dit Huis ontbreekt. Ik verwacht eigenlijk van u dat u daar nu eens een keer stappen voor onderneemt. Ik verwacht van het Lets voorzitterschap dat ze zelf het lef hebben om een evaluatie te doen.


  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, esiste un notevole divario tra il riconoscimento giuridico e l'applicazione politica dei diritti fondamentali. Nonostante le enunciazioni degli articoli 2, 6 e 7 del trattato sull'Unione europea, sui diritti di milioni di cittadini europei si ripercuotono comunque gli effetti negativi e disastrosi di crisi economiche, di politiche di austerità, di attività illecite, come corruzione e forme diverse di criminalità.

L'Unione europea ha urgente bisogno di una strategia interna sui diritti fondamentali, sulla democrazia e sullo Stato di diritto, in modo da assicurare coerenza con il quadro strategico già previsto in materia nelle relazioni esterne. Ad oggi non vi è un meccanismo per valutare e garantire efficacemente la tutela e la promozione dei valori europei comuni, sanciti nella legislazione europea e in quella nazionale. L'articolo 7 del trattato sull'Unione europea è rimasto lettera morta e il meccanismo alternativo, che ci ha proposto la Commissione nella sua recente comunicazione sullo Stato di diritto, non è affatto ambizioso per prevenire le violazioni dei diritti fondamentali dell'Union europea.

È necessaria la previsione di effettive e adeguate modalità di monitoraggio e di intervento e l'applicazione di sanzioni quando si verificano violazioni di tali diritti. Le Istituzioni dell'Unione europea, e in particolare la Commissione, hanno dunque il dovere di assicurare che tutte le politiche europee siano sottoposte a un'attenta analisi, al fine di assicurare che l'Unione non contribuisca direttamente o indirettamente a violazioni di diritti fondamentali sul proprio territorio.


  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). - Voorzitter, het is door een aantal mensen al genoeg gezegd vandaag, maar de rechtsstaat is het fundament onder onze samenleving en de rechtsstaat is datgene wat ons in Europa bindt. Het kan niet genoeg benadrukt worden, niet alleen voor onze eigen burgers, maar ook voor de geloofwaardigheid van de EU als geheel. Als wij met kanditdaat-lidstaten praten, als wij met mensen en met landen praten waarmee wij partnerschappen sluiten, overeenkomsten sluiten, blijven wij hameren op de rechtsstaat. En terecht, want zonder een goed functionerende rechtsstaat kan geen democratie functioneren, kan geen economie functioneren. Daarom is het juist belangrijk dat wij dat naar buiten toe blijven preken – practice what you preach. Wij moeten ervoor zorgen dat wij onze eigen zaakjes goed op orde houden.

Ik ben blij dat u hier bent, mijnheer Timmermans, want twee jaar geleden stuurde u, toen als minister van buitenlandse zaken van Nederland, met drie van uw collega's een brief over dit onderwerp met het dringende verzoek ook binnen de EU meer te doen op het gebied van de fundamentele vrijheden. Een jaar later, nu ongeveer een jaar geleden – en daar wil ik ook graag mevrouw Viviane Reding voor complimenteren – is binnen de mogelijkheden die het Verdrag biedt, een nieuw kader voor de grondrechten binnen de EU uitgewerkt.

Mijn vraag aan u, commissaris Timmermans, is eigenlijk heel simpel: terugkijkend op de brief die u twee jaar geleden stuurde, terugkijkend op de ervaringen die we nu hebben een jaar nadat de Commissie haar nieuwe mededeling over het kader voor de fundamentele vrijheden gepubliceerd heeft, bent u tevreden met wat er op dit moment gedaan wordt en zijn er mogelijkheden binnen de huidige kaders om toch nog iets meer te doen om ervoor te zorgen dat alle landen, onafhankelijk van waar ze in Europa liggen, onafhankelijk van wat voor regeringen er aan de macht zijn, de fundamentele vrijheden bovenaan de agenda hebben staan?


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, Vicepresidente Timmermans, se ha intervenido en este Parlamento Europeo en muchas ocasiones para afirmar que lo que empezó siendo una crisis financiera y económica se transformó en una crisis social como consecuencia de la exasperación de las desigualdades. Y, finalmente, en una crisis política y moral como consecuencia de la sensación de injusticia y de desesperanza, que ha sido el caldo de cultivo del populismo, la xenofobia y, en definitiva, las ideas cada vez más rabiosamente antieuropeas, que ponen en cuestión el estado de la calidad de la democracia y de los derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea.

Estoy de acuerdo en que la clave de bóveda de la construcción europea no está ni en la reducción del déficit ni en el control de la deuda, sino en el artículo 2 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, que es el que señala la importancia de los valores fundacionales: el Estado de Derecho, la dignidad de la persona, los derechos fundamentales, la democracia representativa y el respeto a las minorías. Y, por tanto, hay que afirmar con toda claridad que este Estado de Derecho y derechos fundamentales y calidad de la democracia está declinando en Europa porque no existen mecanismos que garanticen la efectiva implementación y aseguración de esos principios en los distintos Estados miembros.

Es el llamado «dilema de Copenhague»: existen unos rigores en el control de acceso al club, pero a partir de ahí no existe ningún control sobre el mantenimiento de la calidad de los estándares democráticos, de protección de las minorías y de prohibición de la discriminación y la persecución de esas minorías en la Unión Europea. No nos bastan los principios establecidos en la Comunicación de la Comisión de 2014, ni tampoco en el diálogo entre los Estados miembros a través del Consejo.

Nos hace falta —claro que sí, estoy de acuerdo— establecer unos mecanismos eficaces de aseguración, y por eso hay que establecer un punto intermedio entre la persuasión y la infracción o, en su caso, la imposición de las sanciones previstas en el artículo 7 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, de prácticamente imposible cumplimiento. Tenemos que encontrar un camino intermedio entre la persuasión y el procedimiento de infracción o las sanciones previstas en el artículo 7, pero sobre todo, tenemos que saber que la democracia no puede ser dada por sentada ni por hecha. Democracy cannot be taken for granted in Europe.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR) - Aj na margo svojích predrečníkov o kontrole a dohľade tu musím povedať pár slov. Prirodzeným priestorom pre rozvoj demokracie a ľudských práv sú samotné členské štáty. Každý z nich musel prejsť náročným procesom a splniť tzv. kodaňské kritériá.

Ja som presvedčený, že nikto nechce spochybňovať vlastné hodnoty. Ak máme v EÚ niektoré problémy či nedostatky, snažme sa o nich viesť otvorenú diskusiu. Mám totiž obavu z toho, že sa voči členským štátom začnú uplatňovať prísne kontrolné mechanizmy a poučovanie. Z našej histórie vieme, že tam, kde končí kultúra diskusie, tam sa začína diktatúra príkazov.

Preto tiež so značným znepokojením sledujem v posledných dňoch niektoré reakcie v EP v súvislosti so slovenským referendom o ochrane prirodzenej rodiny. Od svojich kolegov tu v EP očakávam toleranciu a rešpekt voči slobode prejavu. Preto sa pýtam: je každý, kto vyjadril svoj pozitívny postoj k prirodzenej rodine hrozbou pre demokraciu?

Členské štáty majú dostatočné mechanizmy na zaistenie demokracie a ochrany ľudských práv. Európska komisia by ich mala rešpektovať. Občanom aj štátom samotným patrí priestor na to, že sa vedia rozhodnúť správne a nepotrebujú nad sebou neustálu kontrolu. Európsky parlament musí rešpektovať zvrchovanosť členských štátov, a nie ich kontrolovať. A predovšetkým má viesť úctivý dialóg namiesto represie.

Žiadam preto, aby v tomto dokumente bol takýto prístup zachovaný a boli vypustené návrhy sankcionovania či adresovania členských štátov v mene akýchsi vágnych návrhov ako je “málo demokratický proces” a podobne.

(Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty (článok 162 ods. 8 rokovacieho poriadku)).




  Péter Niedermüller (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Képviselő Úr! Nem lep meg, amit mondott, mert ön már néhány nappal ezelőtt egy körlevélben fordult az Európai Parlament képviselőihez, amelyben kiállt az azonos neműek házasságát elitélő és diszkrimináló szlovákiai népszavazás mellett. Muszáj megkérdeznem Öntől, képviselő úr, hogy gondolja, hogy egy kisebbséggel szembeni diszkriminatív eljárás összhangba hozható az európai alapjogokkal. Pontosan arról van szó, hogy ezeknek az alapjogoknak a kisebbségeket kell megvédeni. Azt szeretném megkérdezni Öntől, miért gondolja, hogy ezek a vélemények összhangban állnak az Európai Unió alapjogaival.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR), odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty Žiadne menšiny samozrejme nemôžu byť diskriminované a takisto je treba mať jasné, kto sú menšiny. Takže, každému patria základné ľudské práva definované v roku 1948, o žiadnych iných neviem.

(Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty (článok 162 ods. 8 rokovacieho poriadku)).


  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card question. – Mr Škripek, you were talking about values being imposed and about dictatorship, but is it not true that the referendum failed – fortunately I would say – because only 20% of people bothered to turn out? So that means that the vast majority of people in Slovakia show a lot more respect for LGBT people than you just suggested.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR), odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty Vážená pani kolegyňa, to je v poriadku, koľko ľudí prišlo k urnám. Obrovská štvavá antikampaň, ktorá bola vedená, bola veľmi neférová a nepravdivá, takže ja sa predovšetkým ohradzujem voči tomu, aby tu bol vedený akýkoľvek nátlak voči zvrchovanému členskému štátu, pretože tu platí dohoda, že v otázkach etiky a svedomia každý štát, vo vnútorných otázkach ohľadom rodiny, napríklad, si rozhoduje každý štát, ako on chce. Za druhé, naše referendum je vyjadrovanie názoru našich občanov. Nechápem, čo sa vám na tom nepáči.


  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). - Fru talman! När ett land vill gå med i EU ställer vi mycket höga krav. Bland annat ska man respektera grundläggande fri- och rättigheter, man ska vara en fungerande rättsstat, en fungerande demokrati. Men problemet infinner sig när landet väl är medlem i EU. Då saknas det verktyg för att följa upp att man fortsatt respekterar de här kriterierna och vi står inför fullbordat faktum – Köpenhamnsdilemmat.

Och vi kan räkna upp exempel: Ungern, där mediafriheten kränks och rättsväsendets oberoende har inskränkts; Litauen, som har antagit homofoba lagar; Rumänien, som systematiskt diskriminerar delar av sin befolkning, nämligen romerna.

Idag påför vi sanktioner mot de medlemsländer som inte respekterar ekonomiska överenskommelser, men med mänskliga rättigheter kan man göra nästan vad som helst. Nu är det dags att vi inför sanktioner mot länder som inskränker medborgerliga rättigheter, och vi har sett exempel. ALDE har en fullständig resultattavla för de här rättigheterna som Sophia in 't Veld demonstrerat. Dags att gå från ord till handling.

\*(Talaren samtyckte till att besvara en fråga (blått kort) i enlighet med artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen).


  Daniel Buda (PPE), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Aș vrea să o întreb pe antevorbitoarea mea dacă are cunoștință de faptul că în România toate minoritățile naționale au posibilitatea să învețe în limba lor și că România a fost dată ca exemplu de respectare a drepturilor minorităților naționale în toată Europa.


  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), svar ("blått kort"). – Herr ledamot! Om rumänerna talar sitt språk i skolan, för de rumäner som är romer och sitter och tigger utanför våra matbutiker och utanför våra postkontor i Sverige. I min hemstad Uppsala räknade jag förra veckan till 32 personer på ett par hundra meter inne i stan som tigger, bokstavligen i en snödriva, för att de är diskriminerade systematiskt i ditt hemland.


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, Mr Škripek’s words made me decide to focus on the issue of LGBTI rights and the fight against homophobia in this common Europe.

Mr Škripek, I was quite surprised. You mentioned there is pressure on the sovereign state, and you meant Slovakia, because of the referendum you held. Nobody pressured the Slovak government or the Slovak parliament to decide on a referendum on homophobia. You said there was a huge campaign against this referendum and that was not fair. Well, the pictures I saw, most of them, there was even the Pope that you used in order to support you.

I also had the chance to speak with Vice-President of the Commission Timmermans recently: we really need an action plan, a road map against homophobia in our common Europe because we have infringement procedures for laws but we do not have something that helps LGBTI people to get their rights when it comes to information, for example. Lithuania has prohibited a book of fairy tales that shows LGBT people. We really need an implementation of that with mechanisms and monitoring mechanisms to make sure that LGBTI people have the right to live in freedom all over Europe.

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - Mindenképpen üdvözlendő, hogy az Európai Unió intézményei közül a Tanács és a Bizottság is foglalkozni kíván a tagállamokban felmerülő jogállamisággal kapcsolatos problémákkal. Itt a Parlamentben számos kérdés kapcsán nyíltan elmondjuk a véleményünket, ám sajnos az eddigi tapasztalat azt mutatta, hogy a Bizottság kompetenciahiányra hivatkozva érdemben nem foglalkozott ezekkel a témákkal. A tagállamok képviselőiből álló Tanács pedig mindig ódzkodott az egyes konkrét esetek vizsgálatától. Az állampolgárok bizalmáért egyre jobban meg kell küzdenünk, és csakis úgy lehetünk méltók erre a bizalomra, ha nyíltan és őszintén beszélünk a problémákról.

Ha demokráciáról és jogállamiságról beszélünk, akkor őszintén meg kell vizsgálnunk azokat a tagállamokat, amelyekben bizony komoly kételyek merülnek fel a jogállamiság területén. Ha az alapvető jogokról kezdünk párbeszédet, akkor nem csupán a tagállamok álláspontját kell meghallgatni a Tanácsnak és a Bizottságnak, hanem például az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek panaszait is komolyan kell venniük az uniós testületeknek. Egyszerűen azért, mert Európa csak úgy lehet valóban a polgároké, ha egyetlen társadalmi csoport igényeit sem söpri a szőnyeg alá. Nem térek ki a részletekre. Tudjuk, hogy a nemzeti kisebbségek, az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek jogai területén Görögország, Franciaország, Szlovákia és Románia a sereghajtó.

Azt gondolom, hogy a jogállamisággal kapcsolatos párbeszéd akkor lehet a legeredményesebb, ha a Tanács és a Bizottság a tagállamokban előforduló legjobb gyakorlatok cseréjének ösztönzésével próbálja meg javítani az általános képet. Ennek az ösztönzésnek azonban nyíltan hangot is kell adjanak az uniós testületek, még akkor is, ha egyes tagállamok nem fognak örülni ennek. Egy dolog biztos: a valódi párbeszéd elmulasztásával az Unió végérvényesen beismeri, hogy semmiféle előrelépést nem tud kieszközölni a tagállamokban az alapvető jogok érvényesítése területén.

(A felszólaló hozzájárul egy, az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése értelmében feltett kék kártyás kérdés megválaszolásához).


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR), въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Уважаеми колега Шогор, не смятате ли, че вътрешният ред на всяка една държава трябва да се определя от населението и от законите на тази държава и че прекаленото намесване във вътрешните работи на суверенни държави в края на краищата би имало обратен ефект?


  Csaba Sógor (PPE) , kékkártyás válasz – Nem gondolom.


  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich begrüße die Entscheidung des Rates, einen politischen Dialog zum Schutz der Grundwerte und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit einzuführen und auch das Verfahren der Kommission, mit dem systembedingten Verletzungen der Grundwerte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit entgegengewirkt werden soll. Beide Initiativen sind ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Die Europäische Union ist eben nicht nur ein gemeinsamer Binnenmarkt, sie beruht vielmehr auf gemeinsamen Werten. Und die Europäische Union muss entschieden für die Einhaltung der europäischen Grundwerte eintreten. Das ist eine Frage der eigenen Glaubwürdigkeit. Nur wer sein eigenes Haus in Ordnung hält, kann auch nach außen gegenüber Dritten glaubhaft auftreten. Deshalb darf es in dieser Frage unter uns Europäern keine Rabatte geben.

Da wir einer europäischen Wertegemeinschaft verpflichtet sind, greift meines Erachtens auch das Prinzip der Nichteinmischung in innere Angelegenheiten eines Staates nicht. Unsere Staaten sind mittlerweile so eng miteinander verbunden, dass nationale Politik zwangsläufig auch Bestandteil der europäischen Innenpolitik ist. Doch auch wenn die Maßnahmen von Rat und Kommission ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung sind, so muss ich doch sagen, sie sind eben nur ein erster Schritt. Einen wirklichen innereuropäischen Grundrechtemechanismus haben wir damit leider noch nicht.

Eine Diskussion im Rat – etwa einmal pro Jahr, und dann wahrscheinlich hinter verschlossenen Türen – ist einfach zu wenig. Rat und Kommission sollten sich den Vorschlag des Parlaments noch einmal genau anschauen. Es geht um die Einrichtung eines Kopenhagen-Mechanismus, das heißt, eines Mechanismus, der die Einhaltung der Grundrechte und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit in allen Mitgliedstaaten regelmäßig überprüft, und zwar durch unabhängige Experten und unter Zugrundelegung objektiver Daten und anerkannter Indikatoren. Wir brauchen einen echten Grundwerte-TÜV. Dazu könnte auch die Grundrechteagentur einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten.


  Fernando Maura Barandiarán (ALDE). - Señora Presidenta, este debate nos plantea la necesidad de hacer autocrítica. Autocrítica porque seguimos hablando de la defensa de la libertad de expresión como un valor auténticamente europeo y, sin embargo, ¿podemos decir que todos los Estados miembros cumplen con el artículo 11 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales? Y cito: «Se respetan la libertad de los medios de comunicación y su pluralismo».

En Hungría, por ejemplo, la cadena nacional de televisión es un medio para la propaganda del Gobierno de Orbán. Existe un impuesto sobre los ingresos de publicidad dirigido a controlar los medios de comunicación privados de oposición, y los periodistas sufren una presión política inaudita. Esto no lo digo yo, lo dice un informe reciente del Consejo de Europa que confirma que los estándares democráticos y la situación de los derechos humanos en Hungría están en claro retroceso.

Es la hora de exigir que la Unión Europea desempeñe un papel para asegurar que los derechos fundamentales sean respetados en todos los Estados miembros sin excepción.


  Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE). - Tisztelt Elnök asszony! Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Az alapvető jogok és a jogállamisággal kapcsolatos európai viták az elmúlt időszakban, azt kell hogy mondjam, kudarcosnak minősíthetők. Nem volt képes az Európai Unió hatékonyan fellépni azokkal a jogsérelmekkel kapcsolatban, amelyek Magyarországon, és más tagállamokban is felmerültek. Ennek több oka van, és itt sokat beszéltünk azokról a szükséges eljárásokról és intézményekről, amelyek szükségesek ahhoz, hogy megfelelőképpen szankcionáljuk az ilyen jogsértéseket.

Én egy másik dologra hívnám fel ugyanakkor a figyelmet: amíg nincsenek olyan mechanizmusok, amelyek időben figyelmeztetnek, amelyek megnyomják a vészcsengőt az európai intézményeknél, hogy baj van az egyes tagállamokban, és ezek függetlenek a politikai döntéshozataltól, addig nem várható, hogy hatékony válaszlépés születik az európai intézmények részéről.

Sok kritika érte a Magyarországgal kapcsolatos eljárást, hogy itt politikai döntéshozatal folyik, de természetesen amíg a jelzése a jogsértésnek csak politikai úton lehetséges, és nincs intézményesült formája annak, hogy hogyan lehet a vészcsengőt megnyomni, addig ezek a viták politikaiak is fognak maradni. Köszönöm!


  Artis Pabriks (PPE). - Madam President, this discussion shows that we are not a perfect institution, we are not perfect societies, we are not perfect countries, but at the same time we must remember that sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In particular, we can all state, and we know, that fundamental rights are basics for our institutions in the European Union, but if we look at history we also know that they have been applied differently: differently in west and east, differently in north and south.

I am not speaking here about the League of Nations and those days when countries like Czechoslovakia had to implement rights for minorities which none of the other countries which suggested this implementation did themselves.

I can say the same about all those countries which joined the European Union later on, via the Copenhagen criteria, which have implemented things like national minorities’ rights which still do not exist, maybe, in many other countries.

By stating this, I would like to say that we have to stick not only to fundamental rights but also to other principles which rule the European Union such as the Montesquieu principle of division of roles, of division of powers, and also the principle that it is the courts which can decide and not some political institutions. In this discussion, I see that somebody is willing to create a political institution which will sometimes take the role of the courts, but I find creating a new institution at this moment counterproductive.

Moreover, let us remember that even in this Chamber in the European Union we have people who are influenced by certain types of NGOs which are getting money, or by parties which are getting money, from countries outside the European Union which do not care about fundamental rights or democracy or anything else, but which complain and create discord among us here.

So let us try to use all the mechanisms that we do have. Let us stick to fundamental divisions of powers, and we will be much more successful than here today.


  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i sistemi europei di tutela dei diritti, quello della CEDU e quello sviluppatosi in ambito comunitario, costituiscono degli argini contro i rischi di degenerazione delle democrazie e sono volti ad assicurare il rispetto dei valori fondamentali dell'Unione.

Ma vi sono ancora lacune ed elementi di debolezza di tali sistemi. La Carta dei diritti, ad esempio, trova sì applicazione nei confronti degli Stati, ma solo nell'ambito del diritto dell'Unione. È una limitazione discutibile che può determinare discriminazioni davvero contradditorie trattandosi di diritti fondamentali. La procedura d'infrazione, poi, riguarda solo le violazioni di specifiche disposizioni dei trattati lasciando scoperte molte condotte che pure ledono o minacciano i principi dello Stato di diritto. Di ancora più difficile utilizzo sono le farraginose procedure previste dall'articolo 7 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea per i casi di evidente rischio di violazione grave o di violazione grave e persistente di tali principi.

Apprezzabile quindi l'idea della Commissione di aprire il dialogo sui diritti fondamentali nell'Unione europea e di attivare una sorta di meccanismo di preallarme in tutti i casi di violazione sistemica dei diritti e dei valori fondamentali, a prescindere da specifiche violazioni dei trattati o da elementi di collegamento con il diritto dell'Unione. Apprezzabile ancora il tentativo della Commissione di definire meglio il concetto di Stato di diritto elencandone alcuni principi essenziali strettamente collegati alla tutela dei diritti fondamentali. Apprezzabile, nel suo complesso, il nuovo quadro operativo delineato dalla Commissione, che però va messo in atto al più presto iniziando da quelle situazioni che oggi destano maggiore preoccupazione, assicurando quindi protezione dalla discriminazione e dall'emarginazione, dalla persecuzione e da ogni violazione dei diritti fondamentali.


  Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz (ALDE). - Señora Presidenta, la transparencia y las buenas prácticas en la gobernanza democrática serían las mejores profilaxis contra la corrupción; también lo son para defender los derechos fundamentales. El desprestigio de la vieja política tiene que ver con la opacidad y las malas prácticas, como si los políticos y los gobiernos estuviéramos por encima de los ciudadanos, y no a su servicio. El mecanismo del artículo 7 no se desarrolla a la luz del artículo 2 del Tratado.

Algunas de las malas prácticas tienen que ver con la politización de los poderes, que deben ser independientes, y esto afecta a los derechos fundamentales. En España, por ejemplo, la politización de los órganos de gobierno del poder judicial y la politización de los órganos de control de las cajas de ahorro nos ha costado a los españoles el doble que todos los recortes del año pasado, en dinero, pero también en control social impropio.

La mala gobernanza democrática nos hace más pobres y menos libres; por eso, señor Timmermans, le rogamos un largo, largo y necesario debate.


  Monica Macovei (PPE). - În primul rând, ce înseamnă statul de drept? Cetățenii și cei care îi guvernează trebuie să respecte legea. Statul de drept se aplică și relațiilor dintre actorii privați din societate, nu numai cetățenilor și celor aflați la putere. Mai departe. Cum trebuie făcute legile? Cum trebuie tratați suspecții de infracțiuni? Cum trebuie stabilite și colectate impozitele? Toate acestea fac parte din statul de drept, pentru că trebuie reglementate de legi care trebuie aplicate întocmai. Legea, într-un stat de drept, trebuie aplicată întotdeauna și egal pentru fiecare. Nu există excepții. Fără stat de drept nu funcționează societatea, nu funcționează justiția, nu funcționează democrația, nu funcționează nici economia. Statul de drept este diferența dintre dictatură și democrație. Nu există încălcări mici sau încălcări mari ale statului de drept, există încălcări și atât. Și fiecare încălcare este o alunecare către dictatură. Statul de drept mai înseamnă că trebuie să ne comportăm așa cum prevede legea. Nu există stat de drept atunci când politicienii schimbă des legea pentru că nu le place legea și nu le servește propriului interes. Tocmai de asta avem legi: ca politicienii și toți cetățenii să-și adapteze comportamentul față de lege, nu ca politicienii (pentru că pot, nu? sunt în Parlament sau în Guvern) să schimbe legea des, de câte ori nu le convine. De asemenea, stat de drept înseamnă că legea trebuie să fie publică, clară, previzibilă, ca toată lumea să-și poată adopta comportamentul față de această lege. Parlamentele au responsabilitate în primul rând pentru calitatea, claritatea legilor pe care le adoptă.


  Péter Niedermüller (S&D). - Elnök Asszony, Alelnök Úr! Az Európai Parlament joggal lehet büszke arra, hogy a világon mindenütt kiáll az emberi jogok mellett. És ez nagyon fontos, hiszen az emberi jogok, az alapvető jogok jelentik az Európai Uniónak a lényegét, az alapjait.

Többen megkérdeztük már, én is megkérdezem: joggal várjuk-e el az Unióba belépni szándékozó országoktól, hogy tiszteletben tartsák az alapvető értékeinket? De mi van azokkal az uniós országokkal, amelyek már tagjai az Uniónak, és mégsem tartják be az alapvető jogokat?

Ön, Alelnök Úr, azt mondta néhány perccel ezelőtt, hogy nincs illiberális demokrácia. Ön is, én is pontosan tudjuk, hogy a magyar kormány az illiberális demokráciát építi, és azt hirdeti. És én persze értem, hogy mind a Parlament, mind a Bizottság bele van fáradva a magyar ügyekbe. De mégis meg kell kérdeznem, mi lesz az Európai Unióból, ha sem a Bizottság, sem a Parlament nem hajlandó kiállni az alapvető értékei mellett? Mit mondjunk azoknak az állampolgároknak, akik szenvedő alanyai a jogsértéseknek, a jogbiztonság hiányának? Sőt, ebben a Parlamentben is vannak olyan demokratikus erők, amelyek párt- vagy frakcióérdekekből fedezik az illiberális demokráciát, a nem demokratákat. Mit mondjunk a választópolgároknak ezekben az esetekben? Azt gondolom, nem fordíthatunk hátat az érdekeiknek, nem hátrálhatunk meg gyáva módon, hanem igenis ki kell állni ezek mellett az értékek mellet minden körülmények között.

Azt gondolom, Európának, az Európai Uniónak nincs más jövője, mint az értékeihez való ragaszkodás. Azt gondolom, hogy az a feladatunk, hogy kidolgozzuk azokat a hatékony mechanizmusokat, amelyeknek a segítségével ezek az esetek megelőzhetőek. Monitoroznunk kell az alapvető jogokat mindenütt Európában. Határozott és bátor lépésekre van szükségünk akkor, amikor ezt megköveteli a helyzet. Nem bújhatunk el a saját gyávaságunk mögé, mert az ennek az Európai Uniónak a végét jelenti.


  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señora Presidenta, Europa es democracia y derechos humanos, y no podemos responder a las amenazas contra nuestra seguridad recortando libertades: nos ha costado mucho conseguirlas y disfrutarlas, nos hacen mejores. Acabar con ellas es el objetivo del terrorismo y, por eso, pedimos más competencias y capacidad para que las instituciones europeas garanticen que todos los Estados miembros cumplan siempre los criterios de Copenhague.

Felicito a ALDE, y especialmente a nuestra responsable de libertades, por defender estas ideas en la propuesta de pacto para la gobernanza democrática y en nuestro documento sobre terrorismo. No es fácil, porque a veces hay que poner el dedo en la llaga, y en España, por ejemplo, quieren instaurar la prisión permanente revisable o tipificar como delitos actividades políticas.

Me gustaría que, ante estas reformas y ante la escasa independencia que muestra allí el poder judicial, las instituciones europeas recordasen, como han hecho hoy respecto al incumplimiento en España de la Decisión marco 2008/909/JAI sobre la justicia penal, que hay límites que no se pueden traspasar. Europa necesita herramientas para corregir cualquier decisión que incumpla la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales.

Señor Timmermans, le invito a que vigile muy de cerca las reformas que está realizando el Gobierno español.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Die Europäische Union ist nicht nur eine Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft, sie ist vor allem eine Wertegemeinschaft. Das wurde auch in den Kopenhagen-Kriterien 1993 so definiert. Seither kommt es aber immer wieder zu Diskussionen, ob Mitgliedstaaten sich auch nach erfolgter Aufnahme daran orientieren. Dies wird logischerweise häufig politisch kontrovers diskutiert. Auch gibt es nur recht allgemeine Sanktionsmechanismen.

Eine derartige Situation ist unbefriedigend, weil sie es einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten – wie im Falle Ungarns – erlaubt, sich über die einmal eingegangenen Verpflichtungen oft mutwillig hinwegzusetzen. Wir brauchen daher dringend einen Mechanismus, der klare Verbindlichkeiten herstellt. Das auf die lange Bank zu schieben, wäre grob fahrlässig und würde die Zukunftsfähigkeit der Union beschädigen.


  Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, l'ADN européen repose sur des valeurs fondamentales, partagées et immuables. Parmi elles, citons l'égalité, la liberté, la démocratie, le respect de la dignité humaine, les droits de l'homme et l'état de droit.

Pour rejoindre l'Union européenne, un État est tenu de répondre aux critères de Copenhague afin que soient garantis le respect, la protection et la promotion des droits fondamentaux. Ces critères ne valent pas uniquement au moment de l'adhésion à l'Union, mais doivent rester une réalité au quotidien.

Pourtant, la démocratie et l'état de droit ne sont pas protégés de la même manière dans tous les États membres. Les droits et libertés de nombreux citoyens sont bafoués et ignorés au sein même de l'Union. Les personnes vulnérables, les Roms, la communauté LGBT, les journalistes ou encore les migrants et les demandeurs d'asile sont les plus touchés par les discriminations, la marginalisation, voire les maltraitances.

Pour faire vivre l'esprit de Copenhague, le Parlement européen appelle de ses vœux l'adoption d'un instrument d'évaluation du respect des valeurs européennes dans l'Union. Il est essentiel que ce mécanisme de contrôle régulier s'inscrive dans une logique de dialogue permanent sur les droits fondamentaux et soit assorti de procédures d'infraction et de sanctions plus efficaces. Il aurait vocation à compléter la procédure prévue à l'article 7 du traité, qui permet de suspendre le droit de vote d'un État au Conseil en cas de violation grave des valeurs européennes – une sanction bien difficile à mettre en œuvre aujourd'hui.

La Commission a-t-elle l'intention de mettre en place prochainement ce dispositif permettant le contrôle du respect des critères de Copenhague?

(L'oratrice accepte de réponse à une question "carton bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ze zdumieniem słucham tych głosów. Gdyby uznać za prawdziwe te ostatnie 3 głosy, można by odnieść wrażenie, że Europa jest obszarem łamania praw człowieka. Dotyczy to przede wszystkim krytyki Węgier. Ja tego punktu widzenia w ogóle nie podzielam. Uważam, że powinniśmy w większym stopniu ufać tradycjom demokratycznym państw członkowskich. Mam pytanie, czego właściwie Pani żąda? Czego Państwo żądacie? Jakich działań Państwo żądacie?


  Christine Revault D'Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D), réponse "carton bleu". – Madame la Présidente, c'est curieux, je n'ai pourtant pas cité de pays. Malheureusement, tant qu'il y aura des violations des droits de l'homme dans l'Union européenne, nous nous battrons pour qu'ils soient respectés et c'est pour cela que nous souhaitons absolument qu'il y ait enfin un état de droit européen.


  Μιλτιάδης Κύρκος (S&D). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, πριν από λίγες μέρες ήμουνα στην Τουρκία, στα πλαίσια της Μικτής Κοινοβουλευτικής Επιτροπής, και εκεί προσπαθούσα να εξηγήσω στους τούρκους συναδέλφους μου ότι ο σεβασμός του κράτους δικαίου αποτελεί προϋπόθεση για την προσχώρηση ενός κράτους στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και μία από τις κύριες αξίες στις οποίες βασίζεται η Ένωση μαζί με τη δημοκρατία και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα.

Μου επισήμαναν όμως κάτι που και εγώ ήξερα: υπάρχουν περιπτώσεις που οι μηχανισμοί που έχουν θεσπιστεί για τη διασφάλιση του κράτους δικαίου δεν λειτουργούν αποτελεσματικά, κι έτσι δημιουργείται απειλή για τη λειτουργία ολόκληρης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ως χώρου ελευθερίας, ασφάλειας και δικαιοσύνης. Πώς λοιπόν ζητάμε από αυτούς συμμόρφωση;

Είναι αλήθεια πως τέτοιες περιπτώσεις υπάρχουν. Πιστεύω λοιπόν ακράδαντα πως είναι απαραίτητο ένα νέο θεσμικό πλαίσιο· ας πούμε ο μηχανισμός της Κοπεγχάγης, όπως αναφέρθηκε νωρίτερα, θα μπορεί να αντιμετωπίσει αποτελεσματικά και με αντοχή στις πιέσεις τέτοιες περιπτώσεις, μια και ο σεβασμός του κράτους δικαίου συνδέεται άρρηκτα με τη δημοκρατία.


Interventions à la demande


  Patricija Šulin (PPE). - „Za vstop v Evropsko Unijo mora imeti vsaka država stabilne institucije, ki zagotavljajo demokracijo, biti mora pravna država, spoštovati mora človekove pravice in ščititi manjšine.ˮ

To je citat iz københavenskih meril, ki jih je morala med drugim zadostiti tudi Slovenija, da se je lahko pridružila Evropski uniji. A žal je slika danes v moji domovini drugačna.

V Sloveniji bomo praznovali 24. obletnico samostojnosti, a se še vedno soočamo z neuspelo tranzicijo, kar se najbolj kaže prav v stanju slovenskega sodstva. To je zelo selektivno glede tega, koga preganjati. Nekateri so obsojeni na podlagi indicev, pri drugih je gora dokazov premajhna. Veliko primerov tudi zastara.

Poleg tega je problem kakovost, kar kažejo podatki o številnih razveljavljenih sodbah zaradi kršenja človekovih pravic.

Pravosodni sistem v Sloveniji je velika, če ne celo glavna ovira za svobodno in demokratično družbo. Zato pozivam Evropsko unijo, da z veliko pozornostjo spremlja situacijo v slovenskem sodstvu.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'adozione del quadro strategico dell'Unione europea in materia di diritti umani e di democrazia segna una svolta nella politica dell'Unione. Passi in avanti sono stati fatti ma molto resta ancora da fare. Penso al ruolo che può avere l'Unione europea nella tutela dei diritti economici, sociali e culturali, nella lotta contro l'impunità, contro ogni forma di discriminazione, per i diritti delle donne e la parità di genere. Da questo punto di vista saluto con favore l'intervento del vicepresidente Timmermans.

Ora che la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea è diventata finalmente giuridicamente vincolante, l'azione dell'Unione non potrà quindi più limitarsi alla semplice censura e dovrà garantire il rispetto concreto dei diritti. È necessario costruire uno spazio europeo dei diritti volti a garantire il rispetto, la protezione e la promozione dei diritti fondamentali secondo la definizione dei criteri di Copenaghen. E questo deve essere uno spazio che non deve avere come confine solo l'Europa.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). - Κύριε Timmermans, η διγλωσσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σε σχέση με την προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι καταφανής. Πριν λίγες μέρες, στις 26 Ιανουαρίου, στη συνεδρίαση της Επιτροπής Αναφορών, έθεσα το ζήτημα ότι το μνημόνιο παραβιάζει τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα στην Ελλάδα και ζήτησα από την Επιτροπή να αναλάβει δράση, η οποία όμως δήλωσε αναρμοδιότητα, καθώς το μνημόνιο δεν εμπίπτει δήθεν στο δίκαιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Η θέση αυτή είναι πολιτικά και νομικά απαράδεκτη. Πολιτικά διότι δεν μπορεί να υπάρχει μια ειδική ζώνη όπου δεν ισχύουν τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, και νομικά διότι το μνημόνιο έχει ενσωματωθεί στο δίκαιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με την απόφαση 2010/320 του ECOFIN και δημοσιεύθηκε στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, στις 6 Ιουνίου του 2010, στη σελίδα 9.

Θα συνεχίσετε λοιπόν τους ισχυρισμούς ότι μπορεί η Τρόικα και το μνημόνιο να παραβιάζουν τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα στην Ελλάδα;


  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). - Gospođo predsjednice, članak 2. i članak 7. temeljnog ugovora su vrlo jasni. Definitvno sam jedan od onih koji smatra da svaku netoleranciju, nepoštivanje ljudskih prava treba zaista kažnjavati. Naravno, i u slučaju da su to i države treba i za to iskoristiti mehanizme koje će Europska komisija sad imati na raspolaganju.

Ali kolegice i kolege, Europska unija je ustvari najveće područje gdje se zaista i poštuju ljudska prava. I zato bih htio da možda ponekad okrenemo stvari i da počnemo govoriti o onim dobrim primjerima, jer Europa ima zaista iznimno puno odličnih primjera gdje se poštuju ljudska prava, promiče tolerancija i sve ono o čemu stalno govorimo u ovom Parlamentu.

U tom kontekstu i namjeravam izaći s inicijativma, pa očekujem od Komisije naravno da i podrži takve inicijative, jer imamo dobre primjere i njih trebamo iskazivati i pokazivati Europskoj javnosti.


  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). - Nós não reconhecemos autoridade moral e política à União Europeia para julgar ou avaliar a democracia em qualquer Estado soberano. Esta União Europeia, que critica países como a Venezuela ou Cuba e que financia ONG ditas democráticas nestes países, é a mesma que, cá dentro, lança milhares de seres humanos na pobreza e fomenta políticas de concentração da riqueza. É a mesma União Europeia que nem sequer respeita os referendos realizados no seu espaço que, certamente, todos se recordam.

Sejamos claros: segundo esta União Europeia, um país só é democrático quando se verga perante os mercados e perante os grandes grupos económicos que comandam a Europa. Este é, de facto, o verdadeiro critério de aferição. Por isso, defendemos que sejam os povos a determinar o seu futuro, sem manobras hipócritas de ingerência, determinadas por razões económicas e geoestratégicas e revelando, quase sempre, um completo desprezo pelas pessoas.


  Gerard Batten (EFDD). - Madam President, England has no need of an EU framework for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. We had a democracy that evolved over eight centuries. That democracy is now hollow, as most of our laws now come from the European Union and not our own democratically elected Parliament and government.

We had a rule of law that had evolved since the days of Alfred The Great, but English law is now superseded by EU law. Impartial English courts are now overridden by the political courts of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Our ancient protections of individual liberties such as Habeas corpus have been swept away by such measures as the European Arrest Warrant.

We had fundamental rights in England, developed over centuries under common law and such enactments as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. There is nothing that the EU can teach the English about democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.


  Kinga Gál (PPE). - Elnök Asszony! Az ítélkezés a bíróságokra tartozik, épp a jogállamiság elve alapján, és nem politikai fórumokra. Bármilyen jogállamisági mechanizmus csak akkor működhet megfelelően, eredményesen, ha valódi problémákat elemez, és nem mesterségesen kreáltakat, tényeken és objektív vizsgálatokon alapszik, nem pedig sajtóhíreken, vagy frusztrált politikai feljelentéseken.

Sokszor a tények másról beszélnek, mint a megalapozatlan és igaztalan állítások, akármilyen sokat is hajtogatják azokat. Nem Magyarország veszélyezteti ma az európai értékeket, nem a magyar kormánytól kell ma megvédeni a magyar polgárokat, és ezt pontosan értik a magyar polgárok otthon. Valódi problémákra kell koncentrálni, és ezt kérem Öntől, Biztos Úr, hogy minden egyes tagállamot egyenlő módon monitorizáljanak, és objektíven, egyenlő alapon mérjék, és valódi problémára koncentráljanak. Védje azokat, akik ma esetleg nem tartoznak a fősodorba, a hagyományos nemzeti kisebbségeket, akik ugyanolyan egyenlő jogú állampolgárai Európának.


  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D) - Ja som bola v tomto pléne opakovane tieňovou spravodajkyňou, ale aj spravodajkyňou k správe o základných právach. A práve z tejto pozície viem posúdiť, aké je dodržiavanie základných práv v Európskej únii a musím povedať, že naozaj v niektorých oblastiach je to veľmi slabé.

Ak chce byť EÚ tým, ktorý tretím krajinám odkazuje, ako sú u nich porušované ľudské práva, a chceme byť tým, ktorý chce pranierovať iné krajiny za nedodržiavanie základných práv, musíme, pán podpredseda Komisie, nájsť systém, ako zabezpečiť dodržiavanie práv v členských štátoch Európskej únie.

Bolo tu viackrát spomínané referendum na Slovensku. Chcem povedať, že som hrdá na občanov Slovenskej republiky, že len 20 % percent z nich prišlo vyjadriť sa proti menšine a musíme v budúcnosti, pán komisár, hľadať nástroje na to, ako zamedzíme tým nenávistným rečiam a tej nenávistnej kampani, ktorá v tejto referendovej kampani na Slovensku bola použitá, aby sa to nedostalo aj do iných krajín.


(Fin des interventions à la demande)


  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I will try and react to some of the remarks that were made.

First of all, the principle. The principle is this: throughout our history we have learned that democracy alone is not a guarantee for human rights and the rule of law. That is why we have a tripod – democracy, rule of law, human rights. One cannot take away the value of the other. When I express my reservations or my rejection of something that was once described as ‘illiberal democracy’, I just want to say that you cannot use the argument of a democratic majority – even if it is a two-thirds majority – to weaken the rules based on the rule of law or human rights. You cannot use two-thirds or even more of a political majority through democratic votes to weaken human rights in a Member State.

This is one of the fundamental principles upon which this Union is built, and this applies to every single Member State. You cannot say that this is interference in our internal affairs. Nobody forced any Member State to sign and ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Nobody forced any Member State to sign and ratify the Charter. But if you do, and you ratify it, it is national law, so it is by your own national law that you will be held accountable, not any other rule. So the principle will have to remain that, if we look at the situation in our Member States, we will have to look at all three in balance: democracy, rule of law and human rights. You cannot separate the three.

Secondly, I think that Ms in ’t Veld’s reasoning is seriously flawed on two levels. The first level of flawed reasoning is this: because the rule of law, human rights, etc. are at least as important as economic cooperation in Europe, let us use the way we look at economic cooperation as a model for how we look at human rights. That is flawed. You cannot create a mechanism which is applicable in economies, such as budget deficit or the level of state debt expressed in percentages, and apply it to issues of human rights and the rule of law. That does not work. It would be a tremendous loss of energy and loss of focus on the real issues if we were to embark on such a mechanism.

The second reason why I think this is flawed reasoning is that this Commission has been in its term of office for three months. The mechanism introduced by the Council was in December. We are still in the beginnings of trying to make the system we have work. Give it a chance. I think it is unfair already to say ‘well, whatever you have, I do not believe in it; I want my own new toy, which is a new mechanism which compares to the growth and stability pact’. I think it is flawed on those two levels.

I would like to say to those of you – especially to two Greek Members of the European Parliament (and I will be addressing you in English because I do not speak Greek) – as I said before, to be an ESM mechanism is the sovereign decision of the state concerned, and the responsibility then resides with that state to make sure it is applied in accordance with EU law. I would have welcomed it if those who raised the issue of human rights in this context had also distanced themselves from expressions such as ‘we all know that Jews do not pay taxes’ or homophobic expressions that we have also heard in that context. That is also the rule of law. Please be clear about that.

(interjection from Mr Marias, a Greek Member: ‘This does not apply to me!’)

This does not apply to you, Sir; it does not apply to your colleague in any sense. But we all have a responsibility if these things happen in our Member State – in the Union – to speak out against it. There is nothing that will prohibit you from speaking

(interjection from Mr Marias)

Thank you, Sir. As far as it concerns you, I am happy to hear that. But I did hear from the Independent Greeks utterances to that effect, Sir, and you will not be able to dispute that, I am afraid.

In general terms, if we really want to improve the situation of the rule of law, we all need to speak out within the responsibilities we have, and if there is a call for an independent mechanism, in that sense the Commission is an independent mechanism and we will look at the situation in Member States, take Member States to task if it is on issues such as freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary, the position of NGOs or any other issue related to the rule of law.

You have me on your side. I am strongly committed to this, but please let us try first to make the mechanisms we have effective before we start talking about new mechanisms.


  Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I have listened carefully to the range of views expressed during the course of this debate. As I said at the outset, the EU is not only based on respect for fundamental rights, it is also founded on the rule of law.

All Member States must ensure that their domestic order respects this key principle. The political dialogue established in December 2014, by means of the General Affairs Council conclusions on ensuring respect for the rule of law, reaffirms the commitment of Member States to safeguarding this essential element of our democracies. I am therefore convinced that the new dialogue will help us to ensure that the rule of law will continue to be a commonly shared objective of this Union.

The First Vice-President has mentioned EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. On 18 December 2014 the ECJ opinion put the EU in the spotlight. We look forward to the proposal from the Commission on the way forward. The Council remains firm in its commitment and its opinion that accession is an obligation and not an option.

It is remarkable that we have heard the call to create a new European mechanism for human rights monitoring here in Strasbourg, the city hosting a dozen various monitoring mechanisms. I agree with the First Vice-President that we should carefully assess the potential provided by the mechanisms which already exist. The tools are there. We simply need to learn how to use them.

The Council believes that political dialogue has potential if used in compliance with the principles outlined in last December’s conclusions. This is where the added value lies as opposed to yet another monitoring mechanism. I am sure that the Colloquy announced by Mr Timmermans will produce new ideas and recommendations. We look forward to it and to our further cooperation with the Commission and Parliament.


  La Présidente. - Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)


  Pál Csáky (PPE), írásban. Nagyon fontosnak tartom, hogy foglalkozzunk a demokrácia, a jogállamiság és az alapvető jogok témájával a parlamenti plenáris ülés keretében is. A vitában két létező problémára szeretném felhívni a figyelmet: Az első probléma a belső szabályok tisztázatlansága. Arra kérem Timmermans alelnök urat, hogy közösen gondoljuk át ezt a kérdést. Addig ugyanis, ameddig nem léteznek objektív kritériumok, illetve közös megoldások, fennáll a kettős mérce alkalmazásának lehetősége – az EU-n belül és kívül is. A kettős mérce érzékelhetően jelen van az uniós megközelítésekben, ha a demokrácia, jogállamiság és alapvető jogok védelmét vizsgáljuk. Néhány tagállammal szemben túl elnéző a Bizottság, másokkal szemben pedig bizonyos kérdésekben elhamarkodottan ítél. Ez nem jó így, ez aláássa az Európai Unió hitelességét. A másik lényeges elem, hogy van néhány tagállam, amely nem teljesíti azokat a feltételeket, amelyeket a belépéskor vállalt. Mindez azért fordulhat elő, mert nem következetes az EU-ba történő belépéskor vállalt kötelezettségek teljesítésének későbbi nyomon követése. Ezt a folyamatot is erőteljesebben kell ellenőriznünk. Az új Bizottság mandátumának elején jár még, így jó időben vagyunk, hogy a korábban említett kritériumok, illetve az alapvető jogok védelmét biztosító uniós garanciák tisztázásra és kiépítésre kerüljenek.


  Филиз Хюсменова (ALDE), в писмена форма. В съобщение на Комисията до Европейския парламент и до Съвета от 11.3.2014 г., в предишния си състав Комисията призна, че съществуващите механизми и процедури се оказват неподходящи за осигуряване на ефективна и навременна реакция по отношение на заплахите за принципите на правовата държава и основните човешки права. Изтъкнато бе, че е необходима съгласувана защита на принципите на правовата държава във всички държави членки за разглеждане на ситуации, в които няма конкретно нарушение на действаща разпоредба, не е налице "очевиден риск от тежко нарушение" или "налично тежко и продължаващо нарушение", както това се изисква от чл. 7 от Договора за ЕС, но в които заплахите за принципите на правовата държава са от системен характер и застрашават политическия, институционален или правов ред, нейното конституционно устройство, разделението на властите или съдебната система, или когато националните гаранции за защита на правовата държава не се справят достатъчно ефективно. Считам, че следва да направим всичко възможно за това настоящата Комисия да припознае прилагането на принципите на правовата държава като приоритет и да продължи да работи за осъществяване на контрол за спазването на ценностите на ЕС по отношение на всички държави членки, на равно основание.


  Емил Радев (PPE), в писмена форма. Уважаеми колеги, на 28-ми януари Европейската комисия прие поредния доклад за напредъка на България по механизма за сътрудничество и проверка. За пореден път България и Румъния са сочени с пръст за проблеми с организираната престъпност и корупцията. Но такива проблеми съществуват и в другите държави членки. Пример за това е докладът на ЕК от февруари 2014 г. за състоянието на борбата с корупцията в Европейския съюз. Считам, че публикуването на такива доклади би показало цялостната картина в Съюза, като така ще се избегне фокусът върху определени държави. Друг пример е предложението за общоевропейски механизъм за върховенството на закона, който да следи за зачитането на върховенството на закона и за отправянето на препоръки към държавите членки. През декември 2014 г. този механизъм беше заменен от диалог, осъществяван веднъж годишно и основаващ се на принципа на обективността, недискриминацията и равното третиране на всички държави членки. Вярвам, че тези два инструмента биха могли да заменят механизма за сътрудничество и проверка на България, който доказа своята неефективност и представлява двоен стандарт, прилаган спрямо страни като България по отношение на борбата с организираната престъпност и корупцията. В този контекст е крайно време механизмът за сътрудничество и проверка за България да бъде премахнат.


  Milan Zver (PPE), pisno. Evropska komisija je marca 2014 sprejela nov okvir za obravnavanje sistemskih tveganj za pravno državo, ki velja za vseh 28 držav članic EU. Pred tem je imela EU zelo malo pristojnosti, kadar so države članice kršile človekove pravice, načela pravne države in demokracije, če pri tem ni šlo za kršitev evropske zakonodaje. Novi okvir pa eksplicitno navaja, da obstajajo primeri, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe zakonodaje EU in zato se ne morejo šteti kot kršitev obveznosti iz pogodb o EU, a vzbujajo skrb, saj predstavljajo sistemsko grožnjo vladavini prava. EU s tem dobiva pristojnost, da ukrepa na področjih, ki so sicer v popolni pristojnosti držav članic - z namenom, da se zavaruje vladavino prava. Žal mi je, da Evropska komisija sama ne spoštuje svojih zavez. Nanjo sem naslovil več vprašanj glede sodnih postopkov proti predsedniku največje slovenske opozicijske stranke, Janezu Janši, ki je bil zaprt zaradi obtožbe, da naj bi na neznanem kraju ob neznanem času na neznan način sprejel obljubo nagrade. Človekove pravice in svoboščine niso bile kršene le Janezu Janši, ampak je to imelo velike posledice za celotno slovensko državo. Tudi predsednik Juncker je nedavno dejal, da EU ni le skupni trg, ampak je tudi skupnost vrednot – in vladavina prava je ena od temeljnih vrednot!

Note legali - Informativa sulla privacy