Пълен текст 
Процедура : 2020/2072(INI)
Етапи на разглеждане в заседание
Етапи на разглеждане на документа : A9-0170/2020

Внесени текстове :


Разисквания :

PV 05/10/2020 - 15
CRE 05/10/2020 - 15

Гласувания :

PV 06/10/2020 - 9
PV 07/10/2020 - 11

Приети текстове :


XML 90k
Понеделник, 5 октомври 2020 г. - Брюксел Редактирана версия

15. Създаване на механизъм на ЕС за демокрацията, принципите на правовата държава и основните права (разискване)
Видеозапис на изказванията

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Michal Šimečka, a nome della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni, sull'istituzione di un meccanismo dell'UE per la democrazia, lo Stato di diritto e i diritti fondamentali (2020/2072(INI)) (A9-0170/2020).


  Michal Šimečka, rapporteur. – Mr President, we are of course here to discuss the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, but what we are really discussing – and should be debating – is the very future identity of the EU as a democratic peace project.

I grew up in Slovakia in the years after the Velvet Revolution. For people of my generation membership of the European Union basically meant a guarantee of life in freedom and democracy. The EU was meant to be a place where you don’t get imprisoned if you speak out freely, which is what the Communist regime did to my grandfather, who was a dissident intellectual. The EU was meant to be a place where you don’t get thrown out of your job for disagreeing with those in power, which is what happened to other members of my family.

But the problem is that this image of the EU, the image of my youth, the image of the EU as a guardian of democracy is now being shattered and instead it has developed a very high tolerance – an unacceptably high tolerance – for authoritarian politics. We have at least one Member State which can no longer be considered a democracy; we have another Member State – Poland – in which judges can be prosecuted for a verdict against the interests of the ruling party; and, in many other Member States, we have thousands on the street protesting against years of corruption and state capture, all of which begs the question where has the EU been while national governments have undermined democratic institutions or plundered public resources?

The proposal that we put before the plenary should put the EU in a position to do much more. What we need is a permanent, legally binding mechanism that, first of all, streamlines and makes more effective the rule of law instruments that we have; second, covers all aspects of Article 2 and all values enshrined there; and, third, ensures that compliance by Member States is not just reviewed periodically but also enforced. Enforcement action is precisely what has so far also been missing from the Commission’s otherwise thorough and very welcome report last week. But it is clear that monitoring alone will not bring back judicial independence in Poland, nor will it save the Index media in Hungary. We really we do need enforcement. For instance, in Poland, the Commission still hasn’t come up with a request to impose fines, despite the fact that the Polish Government is disrespecting the ruling of the European Court of Justice, and we can continue on and on.

But, equally importantly, the Council needs to stop diluting the budget conditionality proposal. We know that EU money has demonstrably fuelled the rise of authoritarian and corrupt politics in our Member States and this cannot continue. But the problem is that it will continue if the proposal of the German Presidency is adopted because it is weak and will not protect either the EU budget or the rule of law in Europe.

If the Commission and the Council are serious about restoring the EU as a community of shared values, I would expect them immediately to begin negotiations on the proposal that Parliament is putting forward for a binding mechanism as soon as possible. We know that there will be pushback and we know that some Member States might reject it outright, seeing as they are willing to hold the entire continent hostage to rule of law conditionality, but there is a piece of good news as well. The Council only needs a qualified majority to negotiate and adopt our proposal and therefore reclaim some of the EU’s aspiration for a democratic project.



  Tiemo Wölken, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Rechtsausschusses. – Herr Präsident! Wir stehen vor einer immer schärfer werdenden Grundwertekrise in der Europäischen Union, einer Krise, die das Überleben der Europäischen Union gefährden kann. Um nichts Geringeres als das Überleben der Europäischen Union geht es, wenn Journalistinnen und Journalisten in der Europäischen Union angegriffen werden, Korruption nicht bekämpft wird, die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz gefährdet wird.

Daher ist es richtig, dass die Kommission jährlich einen Bericht zur Rechtsstaatsituation verfasst, aber es ist ein Unding, dass in diesem Bericht gerade die Aspekte „Grundrechte“ und „Demokratie“ fehlen. Wie sonst sollen wir dagegen vorgehen, wenn in einem Mitgliedstaat zum Beispiel LGBTQI-freie Zonen geschaffen werden?

Wir brauchen daher den in diesem Bericht geforderten Überwachungsmechanismus für Demokratie, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Grundrechte. Dieser Mechanismus ist dann wirksam, wenn er mit einer starken Konditionalisierung im Haushalt unterstrichen wird. Dafür werden wir weiter kämpfen. Die Feinde der Rechtsstaatlichkeit finden ihren erbittertsten Widerstand hier in diesem Haus.

Ich möchte mich bei Michal für die sehr gute Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Ausschüssen bedanken und insbesondere für die Aufnahme von wichtigen Punkten zum Whistleblowerschutz, zur Förderung und der Aus- und Weiterbildung von in Rechtsberufen Tätigen und für die Unterstützung, was die Finanzierung so wichtiger Projekte im MFR angeht.


  Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, it’s an honour to be here with you today to speak about our Parliament’s proposal for a Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. Let me first thank the rapporteur, Mr Šimečka, for his work dedicated to defending the fundamental values of the EU and such a comprehensive report.

President von der Leyen said it clearly in her State of the Union speech of a few days ago. Mutual trust is at the very heart of the Union and the way we do things together. Breaches of the rule of law cannot be tolerated, and we will continue to defend the rule of law and the integrity of our European institutions. European values are not for sale.

We share the objectives of the proposals of the Parliament to set a positive agenda for promoting, protecting and reinforcing Union values in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty. This also corresponds to the objectives of the Commission for a new push for European democracy, including the first annual rule of law report published on 30 September as part of the new Comprehensive European Rule of Law Mechanism, and the Commission is well aware of the request of the Parliament for a broader mechanism covering not only the rule of law but also democracy and fundamental rights. I would like to underline, then, that the scope of the rule of law mechanism is already comprehensive, as it is covering four areas: the national justice systems; the anti-corruption frameworks; media pluralism and media freedom; and other institutional issues related to checks and balances.

The wide scope covers issues which are particularly important for the European Parliament, such as the enabling framework for civil society. All these aspects contribute also to the promotion of democracy and respect of fundamental rights. In the next years, the Commission will consider consolidating its monitoring in these areas and could cover additional aspects.

The Commission also recognises the necessity to further promote democracy and respect for fundamental rights. We believe that it requires a diversity of tailor-made approaches and instruments. As regards fundamental rights, the Commission intends to present, still this year, the new strategy for the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Particular attention will be given to the application of the Charter in the Member States and impact on citizens daily lives. And also by the end of this year, the Commission will present another flagship initiative – the European Democracy Action Plan – which will focus on countering disinformation and adapting to evolving threats and manipulations, as well as supporting free and independent media. The European Democracy Action Plan will specifically contribute to upholding fundamental rights and strengthening democracies through three integrated themes. They are: elections’ integrity; the second is strengthening freedom of expression and democratic debate; and the third theme is tackling disinformation in a coherent manner considering the need to look together at all the means used to interfere in our democratic system.

The Action Plan will also have a particular focus on citizens’ participation and the role of civil society. Other initiatives and strategies will also further promote our basic foundations, for instance the forthcoming EU citizenship report and other strategies to build a Union of equality.

The Commission will continue to monitor the impact of measures adopted in the context of the COVID-19 crisis as regards compliance with EU law and ensuring free and fair elections and a fair democratic debate until restrictions are lifted.

As regards more specifically the concrete Parliament proposals for the rule-of-law monitoring and its follow-up, I will now give the floor to Commissioner Reynders.


  Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission.Grazie, Presidente. Honourable Members, I would like to reinforce, if it’s possible, what Vice—President Jourová just said: the Commission fully agrees with the European Parliament with regard to the importance of strengthening the EU’s capacity to monitor respect of our common values.

For this reason, the Commission presented last week – as was said by the rapporteur, Mr Šimečka, and thank you for your report – its first annual report on the rule of law, at the centre of a comprehensive European rule of law mechanism. The mechanism is broader than just the report. The mechanism is a yearly process with the aim to prevent problems from emerging or deepening, notably by having open debates and by changing best practices.

The aim of the rule of law report is to look at key developments as regards the rule of law across the whole European Union. It covers both positive developments and challenges, and provides a country—specific assessment of all the 27 Member States.

With regard to the methodology as proposed by the Parliament for the annual monitoring cycle, the Commission agrees on the importance of the consultation of stakeholders and on using a variety of sources, including via visits in the Member States. This has been the approach already for the first annual rule of law report. All the Member States provided written input and we also carried out a targeted stakeholder consultation where over 200 stakeholders provided written input. We also conducted more than 300 virtual country visits, meeting with Member State national authorities, with judicial and other independent authorities and with relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations. We made sure that this process was robust, transparent and inclusive. We have also kept the Parliament fully informed of all progress. This report represents the Commission’s assessment, but it relies also on assessments prepared by a variety of independent experts and bodies, including the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe.

Let me also say a few words on the follow—up to the report. Its aim is to kick-start an inclusive debate at European and national level. I know that is precisely one of the objectives of the draft report of the European Parliament discussed today. In this respect, we welcome in particular the proposal that the Parliament and the Council discuss the content of the annual report presented by the Commission. We should maximise this momentum to bring about change in the Union.

In this regard I know technical preparations in Parliament have started too. Your first meetings with national parliaments are in October, November. I can only welcome this as a very positive development. We are committed to work on strengthening the cooperation with the European Parliament and the Council through regular meetings and exchanges of views in order to build this process together in an inclusive and constructive way.

We have a common interest to swiftly set up the rule of law mechanism, and the publication of the rule of law report last week is an important first step towards this objective. Pursuing this under the existing institutional arrangements would ensure the effectiveness of our cooperation. We should develop our modus operandi step by step. Whether in the future such cooperation should be codified in an interinstitutional agreement will have to be assessed at a later stage on the basis of the experience gained through the application of the European rule of law mechanism. So we will continue a permanent debate year after year on the basis of the next report, and maybe we’ll try to organise better cooperation, year after year among the two institutions.




  Domènec Ruiz Devesa, en sustitución del ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales. – Señora presidenta, gracias a mi colega Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, que no puede estar hoy aquí y, así, intervengo yo en su lugar.

Realmente, señorías, nada caracteriza más a nuestra Unión que sus valores. Y, por tanto, con este primer informe de la Comisión Europea sobre el Estado de Derecho, podemos decir que inauguramos —modestamente, todo es mejorable— una nueva etapa; una etapa que ya no es solo la del Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, la de las normas fiscales y presupuestarias y la del Semestre Europeo, sino la era —esperemos— del semestre o del ciclo anual de los derechos.

Doy también la bienvenida al informe de iniciativa legislativa que ha elaborado el Parlamento y que propone precisamente aquello a lo que el comisario aludía en su parte final de la intervención: ese acuerdo interinstitucional que es fundamental para poder defender efectivamente los derechos y los valores de la Unión.

Una última reflexión: es muy importante que, cuando este mecanismo para el Estado de Derecho identifique incumplimientos graves del artículo 2, se pongan en marcha por parte de la Comisión los procedimientos de infracción ante el Tribunal de Justicia y, en su caso, también la condicionalidad presupuestaria y la activación del artículo 7 del Tratado.




  Vladimír Bilčík, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, former Czechoslovak President, Václav Havel, would have been 84 today. So let me begin my remarks by reminding all of us of Havel’s words, and I quote: ‘Keep the company of those who seek the truth, run from those who have found it.’

Havel saw the truth his whole life, often doubting his own thoughts. He believed in reflection, critical thinking and honest discussion – something that Communism forbade for decades and something that Havel saw as the essence of a free and democratic Europe. He believed in an open Europe and worked relentlessly and successfully for the return of central Europeans to our common European project.

So let’s think of people like Havel and the Europe of the past, divided and weak, as we discuss the current need for an effective mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights.

Europe must protect common democratic principles and the sense of European justice in order to maintain its purpose and have a meaningful future.

Today’s discussion is about fundamentals, which we must monitor, guard and protect diligently, but also fairly, with respect to all Member States. This mechanism is not about a single country or the naming and shaming of particular individuals. It is about the essential foundations of democracy and institutions that should work for the benefit of all Europeans.

I want to thank the rapporteur for steering our work on this report along these lines. We have a solid text and we should send a strong message from this House this week to the Council and the Commission about the necessity for joint ownership and joint protection of rule of law.

In Havel’s words, all European institutions should keep our company in search of a more just and more democratic European Union.



  Katarina Barley, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, 80% of Europeans think that the rule of law has great importance and that it should be enforced in the European Union. The European Parliament has being calling for such monitoring for a long time now. Already in 2016 we delivered a report on that matter and since then the situation in the Member States has not become any better.

Now we have the report of the Commission – thank you very much for it. We still believe that our report – thank you to Michal Šimečka and the other shadows – goes further, especially in scope but also concerning independent experts and an automatic reaction to the breaches. Still, we are happy that this report is here and we are also happy with the way it has been presented, using very clear language. It is good because now we can compare, and as for the argument of ‘well, here we do the same as this country and that country’, we can now see the bigger picture. And you have to look at all of it.

As for the key questions – ‘do you, as a government, want to be controlled?’ ‘Do you believe that criticism is something positive that brings you further in democracy?’ – I am deeply convinced that we can compromise on everything – on posts, on persons, on money, on budget, on everything – but we can never compromise on our core values. We have to be very clear on this. We have the values in the treaty. We have the European Court of Justice that rules on it and there we are not willing to compromise on anything.



  Sophia in ‘t Veld, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate and thank the rapporteur for doing an excellent job in getting a very large majority behind this very important report. I am quite proud to be a member of a House which has always been the champion of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. Four years ago, almost to the day, this House adopted the first proposal for an annual report covering all the Member States, because we see in Europe today – but we also see it across the Atlantic – that the democratic rule of law is actually quite vulnerable to attacks from the inside. We are protecting ourselves from attacks from the outside, but there are attacks from the inside, and that is why we need to strengthen the toolkit to uphold the values laid down in the Treaties.

I would like to thank both Commissioners for putting forward an excellent report last week, but we are going to take it one step further. I would like to conclude by reminding President von der Leyen of her promise that she would treat legislative proposals from this House as if this House has the proper legislative right of initiative. So please, Ms von der Leyen, a follow-up to the report.


  Nicolaus Fest, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Die Kommission will die Auszahlung von Geldmitteln an Rechtstaatlichkeit und Demokratie knüpfen. Das ist grundsätzlich eine gute Idee, wenn es denn um Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der EU gut bestellt wäre. Das ist aber leider nicht der Fall. Im Gegenteil erleben wir seit Jahren, dass die Forderung nach Rechtsstaatlichkeit ausschließlich instrumentell genutzt wird, nämlich dann, wenn es gerade passt.

Ein paar Beispiele: In Deutschland werden Richter des Verfassungsgerichts von der Politik eingesetzt. Das ist in Ordnung – in Polen ist es ein Skandal. Die brutalen Übergriffe von Polizeikräften auf Gelbwesten in Frankreich werden im Rechtsstaatsbericht nicht einmal erwähnt. Die Türkei ist seit Jahren eine islamistische Diktatur. Reaktion der EU: nichts. Man verhandelt weiter mit der Türkei über ihren Beitritt und zahlt ihr weiter Milliarden.

Beispiel Afrika: Kaum eines der dortigen Länder genügt unseren rechtsstaatlichen Anforderungen. Aber ausgerechnet mit Afrika will die EU nun eine neue Partnerschaft begründen, also reiche, korrupte Regime noch reicher machen.

Beispiel Palästina: Auch dort, wissen wir, ist eines der korruptesten Regime der Welt. Auch dort tut die EU nichts, sondern schweigt.

Wie so vieles in der EU ist auch der Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmechanismus eine Lüge. Es geht nicht um Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Es geht darum, andere Länder zu erpressen. Länder wie Polen, die sich gegen den Unsinn der Gender-Ideologie wenden, oder Länder wie Ungarn, die keine Migration von Verbrechern und Sozialschmarotzern wollen.

Der Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmechanismus ist also eine Lüge, und wer bei Sinnen ist, wird ihr nicht zustimmen.


  Sergey Lagodinsky, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Letzte Woche hat die Kommission einen Rechtsstaatlichkeitsbericht vorgestellt, vielen Dank! Seit Monaten dümpeln Artikel 7-Verfahren vor sich hin; es gibt European Semester, es gibt European Justice Scoreboard, im Rat ist ein peer review vorgesehen, und morgen stimmen wir über unseren Bericht über einen Rechtsstaatsmechanismus ab.

Warum? Ganz einfach – es ist Zeit für eine Konsolidierung. Es kann nicht sein, dass alle Institutionen in einem so wichtigen Feld unabgestimmt durcheinanderreden. Deswegen fordern wir in unserem Bericht abgestimmtes Monitoring von allen drei Institutionen.

Es ist Zeit für mehr Unabhängigkeit und Glaubwürdigkeit. Eine ehrliche Bestandsaufnahme ist nur vorstellbar, wenn Expertinnen und Experten aktiv einbezogen werden. Daher fordern wir, dass ein Gremium von Experten diesen Bericht begleitet. Es ist Zeit für mehr echten politischen Ehrgeiz. Ja, der Bericht der Kommission ist ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung und keine Lüge, Herr Fest. Aber Hand aufs Herz: Haben wir die Kommissarinnen und Kommissare letztes Jahr ins Rennen geschickt und in die Kommission geschickt, damit sie akademische Bestandsaufnahme betreiben und Think Tank- Listen abarbeiten?

Nein! Nur wenn ein Parlament tatsächlich einbezogen wird, nur dann wird aus diesem Bericht eine echte effektive Geschichte. Und es ist Zeit für den Blick aufs Ganze. Dieses Ganze schließt auch Grundrechte mit ein, Grundrechte und Antidiskriminierung, so wie es im Artikel 2 steht, und das fordern wir. Dafür wurden wir gewählt, das werden wir abarbeiten. Morgen abstimmen!


  Beata Kempa, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nie ma i nie będzie zgody na pozatraktatowe działanie, nie ma podstawy prawnej dla tego sprawozdania. Crème de la crème to powoływanie się w preambule na Radę Europy, w której zasiada Rosja, tę samą Radę, która dotąd nie potępiła Moskwy za atak na Aleksieja Nawalnego.

Nie miejmy złudzeń: to sprytna strategia, a za zasłoną walki o praworządność kryje się kolejny etap federalizacji Unii Europejskiej i spełnienie federalistycznych snów eurolewicy o zarządzaniu państwami członkowskimi z ostatniego piętra budynku Komisji Europejskiej. Urzędnicy z Brukseli chcą mieć wpływ na każdą reformę w krajach członkowskich, chcą pod płaszczykiem troski o demokrację wprowadzać aborcję, ideologię gender oraz specjalne prawa dla mniejszości seksualnych. Nie ma na to zgody chrześcijańskiej części Europy. Debatujemy nad sprawozdaniem, które jest kolejną odsłoną ataku na suwerenne państwa członkowskie. Według niego niewybierani i anonimowi urzędnicy będą oceniać niezależne kraje europejskie.

Pani Przewodnicząca i panie pośle Šimečko! Ja przeżyłam komunę, ale nie dałam się tak zmanipulować, jak Pan dzisiaj, mówiący nieprawdę o tym, co się dzieje w Polsce. Proszę podać sygnaturę akt sędziego, sprawy sędziego, i wtedy porozmawiamy. Takich spraw po prostu nie ma w polskich sądach.


  Nikolaj Villumsen, for GUE/NGL-Gruppen. – Fru. formand! Skal vi acceptere, at en række EU-lande krænker helt grundlæggende retsstatsprincipper og demokratiske rettigheder? Svaret er et rungende nej! Men ser vi på, hvad der er sket i Ungarn under Orban, ser vi på, hvad der er sket i Polen med den siddende højrenationale regering, ser vi på udviklingen i Bulgarien, så står det klart, at EU har svigtet forsvaret af menneskerettighederne og demokratiet. Hvis EU skal bryste sig af at være demokratiets og menneskerettighedernes vogter, så er flotte ord ikke nok. Så er der brug for handling.

Vi har brug for en uafhængig og løbende overvågning af overholdelsen af de demokratiske spilleregler og af, at menneskerettighederne bliver overholdt i de enkelte medlemslande. Vi har brug for en klokkeklar konsekvens over for regeringer, der vælger at krænke borgernes rettigheder. Derfor skal EU-kassen smækkes i over for Orban og alle andre, der krænker grundlæggende menneskerettigheder og demokratiet. Det handler ikke alene om at sikre ungarske og polske borgeres demokratiske rettigheder. Det handler om, at alle borgere i EU fortjener, at deres menneskerettigheder og deres retsstatsprincipper respekteres, og at dem, der krænker dem, mærker en konsekvens. Sådan er det ikke i dag, og det skal ændres.


  Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la procedura prevista dall'articolo 7 del trattato sull'Unione europea si è dimostrata inadeguata a prevenire, correggere e sanzionare gli attacchi e le minacce allo Stato di diritto, alla democrazia e al rispetto dei diritti fondamentali nell'Unione europea.

Di ciò ne è consapevole chi, con le violazioni dei valori comuni dell'Unione europea, che sono indicati nell'articolo 2 del trattato, contribuisce a minare i diritti dei cittadini e la fiducia reciproca tra gli Stati membri e a indebolire le basi giuridiche e politiche del progetto europeo.

Nella relazione sulla situazione dei diritti fondamentali nell'Unione europea per il 2013 e il 2014, di cui sono stata relatrice, così come in altre occasioni, ad esempio la relazione in 't Veld, questo Parlamento ha chiesto l'istituzione di un meccanismo di monitoraggio e una valutazione sistematica, paese per paese, con formulazione di raccomandazioni e misure preventive e correttive, al fine di garantire il rispetto complessivo dei valori su cui si fonda l'Unione europea.

Al fine di garantire un controllo democratico ed evitare ogni uso politico e strumentale di tale meccanismo, esso deve basarsi su criteri oggettivi e uniformarsi ai principi di trasparenza, di imparzialità e di uguaglianza tra gli Stati membri, soprattutto in caso di procedure sanzionatorie e di procedure legate a condizionalità di bilancio.

Parametri come la separazione dei poteri, l'indipendenza della magistratura, la libertà di espressione e il pluralismo dei media, i diritti umani e di partecipazione democratica attiva e passiva nell'ambito dei processi elettorali, nonché aspetti problematici come la lotta alla corruzione e a qualunque forma di discriminazione, devono rimanere dei capisaldi contro qualsiasi tendenza autoritaria, illiberale e antidemocratica che minacci il futuro dell'Europa e dei suoi cittadini.


  Esteban González Pons (PPE). – Señora presidenta, Europa es fruto de los valores que fueron quebrados antes, durante y después de la guerra, los valores en los cuales se fundó después la Unión Europea: dignidad, libertad, democracia, derechos humanos; en definitiva, Estado de Derecho y separación de poderes. Los valores son anteriores a la Unión Europea.

Para los demócratas pertenecer a la Unión Europea no es una obligación; cumplir con los principios del Estado de Derecho, sí. Por eso debe existir en la Unión Europea un mecanismo de control que sea neutral y que nos advierta del peligro cuando el Estado de Derecho pueda estar en riesgo en algún lugar, da igual que ese lugar sea Rumanía, Hungría, Malta, España, la República Alemana, Francia, cualquier lugar. Debe existir un instrumento que garantice que todos los Estados miembros son medidos por el mismo rasero.

El mecanismo que hoy se propone no sirve para juzgar gobiernos, no somos ni queremos ser tribunales de justicia. Pero sirve para acabar con esa práctica según la cual el Estado de Derecho está más o menos en riesgo según el color del partido político que tenga. Cuando se trata de gobiernos de la izquierda, nos parece a la derecha que está en riesgo el Estado de Derecho; cuando se trata de gobiernos de izquierdas, sucede al revés. Esto no va de derechas o de izquierdas, esto va de defender el Estado de Derecho, porque el Estado de Derecho es tan importante, demasiado importante como para jugar con él a la política.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la historia de la Unión es la historia de una integración regida por el Derecho y fundada en valores, pero la historia de este mecanismo para la democracia, el Estado de Derecho y los derechos fundamentales arranca en la Comisión de Libertades de este Parlamento Europeo. Érase una vez el «dilema de Copenhague», que es la distancia que media entre los criterios de Copenhague —los valores consagrados en el artículo 2— y nuestra capacidad para responder a quienes los ofenden agresivamente desde dentro: esos llamados «liberales». Por cierto, comisaria Jourová, toda la solidaridad ante los ataques injustos dirigidos contra usted para intimidarla.

Aquellos Estados señalados por el artículo 7 se quejan: todo está sesgado, todos practican double standard. Pues, precisamente, el mecanismo tiene la intención de examinar con carácter periódico, con carácter general y con parámetros objetivos a todos los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea.

El comisario Reynders lo presentó ante la Comisión de Libertades el pasado 30 de septiembre y lo celebramos: bienvenido. La metodología y las fuentes se pueden mejorar y perfeccionar. Ahora añado: esta historia no acabará bien hasta que no establezcamos por un reglamento la condicionalidad en el acceso a los fondos europeos y al presupuesto europeo estrictamente vinculada al cumplimiento del Estado de Derecho, la democracia y los derechos fundamentales. Si no, esta historia no tendrá final feliz.


  Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). –Señora presidenta, aquí estamos atravesando la tormenta y sabemos que, si no reforzamos la confianza democrática europea, no podremos afrontar ni cada reto social, ni cada reto económico.

Nunca hasta ahora hemos tenido sobre la mesa un mecanismo real de seguimiento de la calidad de las democracias de los Estados miembros, y lo primero que tenemos que recordarnos es de qué va esto del Estado de Derecho. Bueno, pues tiene como objetivo evitar la arbitrariedad del poder sobre los ciudadanos, tiene que ver con que los derechos y las obligaciones sean objetivos, y tiene que ver con la dignidad. De esto va la democracia, y de vez en cuando, cada cierto tiempo, tenemos que recordarlo, porque el virus del populismo, el virus del autoritarismo, de los caciques, está ahí, siempre latente.

Este es un momento en que tenemos que hacer este trabajo y la Comisión, aunque el Parlamento quiera más, tendrá un papel central, al menos de momento, en la aplicación de este mecanismo. Es muy importante —ya lo ha dicho el señor González Pons— que se convierta en un cuaderno de bitácora, que no esté politizado, que sea objetivo, porque, si no, no podremos alentar a unos a que mejoren sus estándares y a otros a que no pasen ciertas líneas rojas.

Y tenemos que hacer esto sin que haya puntos ciegos, sean entidades estatales o subestatales las que pongan en riesgo la democracia, porque los populistas prometen pan, pero es pan para hoy y hambre para mañana.


  Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Madame la Présidente, l’Union européenne exerce déjà une tutelle économique sur ses États membres, mais cela ne lui suffit plus, elle veut désormais exercer aussi sur eux une tutelle idéologique. Le rapport Šimečka est l’instrument de cette nouvelle offensive fédéraliste.

Personnellement, je m’y oppose fermement car je ne veux pas que mon pays soit traité comme un enfant. Je ne veux pas qu’il soit noté par de pseudo-experts qui se comporteront comme des commissaires politiques. Je ne veux pas qu’ils l’obligent à respecter toutes les lubies de l’Union, comme l’idéologie du genre, l’apologie des migrants, la toute-puissance des juges ou la détestation des racines religieuses et culturelles de notre identité nationale. Et je ne veux pas qu’ils lui imposent la chape de plomb du politiquement correct, sous prétexte de lutte contre les fake news ou la désinformation.

L’Europe dont je rêve est à l’opposé de votre modèle du Père Fouettard. Je veux une Europe libre, fière des multiples identités nationales qui la composent et dont l’ambition consisterait à promouvoir sa civilisation plutôt qu’à s’autoflageller. Je veux une Europe rayonnante qui organiserait la résistance de ses États membres face aux multiples dangers extérieurs et à la submersion migratoire, au lieu d’y apporter toujours la même réponse molle qu’on peut résumer en un mot: la soumission.


  Sylwia Spurek (Verts/ALE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W ubiegłym tygodniu w Polsce odbył się pogrzeb dziecka, dwunastoletniej dziewczynki, która popełniła samobójstwo zaszczuta na tle orientacji seksualnej. Od miesięcy polscy politycy atakują osoby LGBT+, naruszają ich godność, nawołują do nienawiści. Kandydatem na nowego ministra edukacji jest osoba propagująca homofobię. To wszystko dzieje się w Unii w 2020 roku.

Na poprzedniej sesji Parlamentu przewodnicząca Komisji Europejskiej pięknie mówiła o równości, godności i szacunku, ale to tylko słowa. Do polskiego rządu nadal szerokim strumieniem płyną unijne środki. A od dwunastu lat Komisja Europejska nie potrafi doprowadzić do przyjęcia równościowej dyrektywy horyzontalnej. Potrzebujemy oczywiście mechanizmu dotyczącego praworządności i to takiego, który obejmie pełen zakres wartości z artykułu 2, ale jeśli Komisja nie będzie nadal korzystała ze swoich kompetencji, to nadal to będą słowa, słowa, słowa.


  Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Atakujecie Polskę, zresztą w szczególnie bezczelny sposób, historycznie wypominając nam jakieś totalitaryzmy. Tymczasem ja chcę Państwu powiedzieć, dlaczego wy dzisiaj macie tę przewagę ekonomiczną, która wam pozwala na taką arogancję wobec Polski. Dlatego że, szanowni Państwo, historycznie właśnie – jak już mówicie –wtedy, kiedy Polska była atakowana przez Niemcy i przez Sowietów, to wasze państwa stały i patrzyły, jak Polska honorowo broni wartości, a potem za to, że Polska broniła tych wartości, oddaliście Polskę Sowietom i patrzyliście, jak przez dekady nie mogła się rozwijać. I dlatego macie dzisiaj tę przewagę ekonomiczną i bezczelnie... Ja powiem wam tak: oddajcie nam te lata, które Polska straciła, to wtedy nikt z was sobie nie pozwoli na tę arogancję.

Ja więcej wam powiem: wypominacie nam dzisiaj strefy wolne od LGBT. A wiecie, że Polska była jedynym państwem, gdzie homoseksualizm nie był penalizowany? Od Polaków to moglibyście się jeszcze wiele uczyć, szczególnie jeżeli chodzi o wartości, tolerancję. Dzisiaj Polska wam przeszkadza, bo dużo lepiej sobie radzi od was. Szczególnie popatrzcie na Hiszpanię, gdzie prawie co drugi młody człowiek nie ma pracy. Od Polski to moglibyście się uczyć dzisiaj, ale was to uwiera, dlatego Polskę atakujecie.


  Milan Uhrík (NI). – Pani predsedajúca, pán Šimečka, prepáčte ale toto sa už naozaj nedá počúvať.

Vyplácanie peňazí zo spoločného európskeho rozpočtu chcete podmieniť dodržiavaním nejakých liberálnych pravidiel EÚ. Čiže štáty, o ktorých nie nezávislé súdy, ale vy, bruselskí liberálni politici, rozhodnete, že neposlúchajú, budú musieť do EÚ už iba platiť, a nedostanú z nej nič.

Povedzte to rovno, že chcete trestať Poliakov, Maďarov, Slovákov aj všetkých ostatných, pretože nechcú prijímať imigrantov. Že nechcú presadzovať LGBT agendu, že nechcú slepo poslúchať zahraničné mimovládne organizácie a liberálnych novinárov, pretože o to tu v skutočnosti ide.

My takéto niečo nikdy nemôžeme podporiť, pretože na Slovensku, v strednej Európe, s tým už máme svoje skúsenosti a v minulosti sa to nazývalo totalita.

Ľudia tam vonku už nemajú čo dať do hrnca a vy tu blokujete schválenie európskeho rozpočtu a poskytnutie pomoci práve takýmito nezmyslenými požiadavkami na posilnenie vlastnej nadvlády.

To je niečo nehorázne, naozaj nehorázne.


  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhoras comissárias, Sr. Šimečka, queria, em primeiro lugar, cumprimentá-los, a ambos, pelos relatórios que foram capazes de fazer. Sinceramente, estou muito feliz por saber que, finalmente, estamos a dar passos para ter um mecanismo que se aplica a todos os Estados, um mecanismo de controlo do Estado de Direito. Mas há um ponto para o qual eu gostaria de chamar a atenção: estamos muito focados, e bem, na ideia de que não pode haver ajudas aos Estados que não cumpram as regras do Estado de direito. Mas há Estados europeus que não recebem ajudas, e para esses também tem de haver sanções, no caso de não cumprirem o Estado de Direito.

Porque os valores do Estado de Direito não são valores pecuniários, são valores fundamentais. Como disse aqui o meu colega Bilčík e o meu colega González Pons, são valores fundamentais da identidade da Europa, da identidade das democracias. E, por isso, nós temos de pensar num mecanismo que se aplique mesmo a todos os Estados, e não só àqueles que são Estados recetores líquidos de fundos da União Europeia, porque não pode haver um mecanismo de controlo dos valores democráticos e do Estado de Direito que só se aplique aos Estados mais pobres, àqueles que estão em convergência.

Tem de haver um mecanismo que possa valer para todos os Estados, do mais rico e maior ao mais pequeno e mais pobre.


  Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, it’s time for the EU to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk. The EU is built on the notion that we are stronger together and that fundamental rights and values must never be an issue up for compromise. I’m happy, therefore, that there is still an overwhelming majority here in this Parliament who stand up for those rights, even though there are a few extremists on that side who are trying to say otherwise.

However, I am worried about the current developments at the same time. We see attacks on independent media, on LGBTQI people, we see attacks on women, we see attacks on migrants. We also see a politicisation of the independent judiciary. I welcome, of course, the new rule of law report presented last week, but we need to go further.

This resolution suggests important, measurable goals, involvement of civil society and a broader scope to also include fundamental rights and democracy. We must make sure that the EU does not remain a toothless tiger, because this report is good – but we must make sure to provide it with teeth. One of the best ways of providing the tiger with teeth is through stronger conditionality linked to the budget. Our values are, for sure, not up for compromise.


  Anna Júlia Donáth (Renew). – Tisztelt Elnök asszony! Ma Európában egyes kormányok a jogállamot rombolják, embertelen és igazságtalan rendszert kiépítve. Örülök, hogy Európa végre elszánta magát, mert ez ellen most már tennünk kell valamit! Nekünk, az igazságos jogállam mellett elkötelezett képviselőknek három követelésünk van. Egy: Európának erélyesen fel kell lépnie a jogállamiság védelmében és az igazságtalan rendszereket kiépítő vezetőkkel szemben! Kettő: olyan eszközökre, olyan mechanizmusra van szükségünk, amelyet nem tud két, egymásnak falazó kormány egyenesen kijátszani. Három: minden esetben elvárjuk, hogy ne az érintett tagállamok népei bűnhődjenek kormányaik bűneiért!

Képviselőtársaim! A magyar emberek azt üzenik Önöknek, európai döntéshozóknak, hogy a magyar nép nem egyenlő Orbán Viktorral! Ne a miniszterelnököt tömjük ki európai forrásokkal, hanem adjuk azoknak, akiknek alapvetően szántuk: a tisztességes embereknek, vállalkozásoknak, civil szervezeteknek! Elég volt a tehetetlenségből! Európa jövője nem lehet más, mint egy erős, igazságos és cselekvő szövetség.


  Filip De Man (ID). – Voorzitter, collega’s, men wil bepaalde rechten van lidstaten koppelen aan respect voor democratie. Dat klinkt natuurlijk nobel, maar de geheime agenda is de volgende: wie niet plooit naar de progressieve, globalistische, multiculturele agenda van de niet-verkozen commissarissen en co zal gepakt worden. Polen, Hongarije en andere weerspannige landen moeten gestraft worden omdat ze niet in de pas lopen.

Alleen stelt zich een probleempje voor de EU-nomenklatoera. Zij beschikt niet over middelen om de lidstaten te straffen. Daarom wordt nu een wijziging van het Verdrag van de Unie voorgesteld waarmee een sanctiemechanisme wordt ingevoerd. Unanieme beslissingen zouden hierbij niet meer nodig zijn. De landen die nog de moed opbrengen om tegen de Commissie en co in te gaan, zouden door dit nieuwe dictaat gedwongen worden om hun verweer op te geven. Met andere woorden, wie zich verzet tegen de massa-immigratie, wie niet meegaat in de genderwaanzin, wie – volgens de Commissie – een pluralistische pers onmogelijk maakt, wie zogenaamd de onafhankelijkheid van de rechterlijke macht bedreigt, die zal de wraak – de financiële wraak van de Commissie en co – zelf voelen.

Dit is, collega’s, niet het Europa van de soevereine naties waar wij voor staan, waar de ID-Fractie voor staat. Dit is eerder een in wording zijnde EUSSR-soft-dictatuur.


  Assita Kanko (ECR). – Madam President, the deeper our challenges, the more our values matter. Times of crisis can erode freedom and fairness. As we all know, no country is immune to this. Protecting human rights, promoting free speech and free media, passing legislation that increases freedom and does not discriminate, and ensuring court systems that do not allow political interference or bias – this is the only true path to stability and prosperity. The rule of law is not the enemy of great government – the belief that our values are extinguishable is! The rule of law was not designed to protect governments and elites, but to protect people. For those that seek to stray from our shared values, I hope they reach the conclusion that by respecting democracy and the rule of law, there is much to be gained and far less to lose.


  Dorien Rookmaker (NI). – Voorzitter, is een EU-mechanisme, zoals hier wordt voorgesteld, de oplossing? Ik ben bang van niet.

Ten eerste heb je hiervoor een eenduidig objectieve maatstaf nodig waarlangs we de situatie in de verschillende lidstaten kunnen meten of vaststellen, en die is er nu niet. En of je die überhaupt kunt ontwikkelen is maar zeer de vraag. Het voorstel zal zeker leiden tot veel onderlinge strijd en misschien zelfs tot een hexit, een pexit of een spexit.

Ten tweede werkt een dergelijk mechanisme alleen goed als lidstaten de gebruikte methode omarmen en onderschrijven. En zo niet, dan levert het alleen maar meer administratieve troep op tegen hoge kosten, zonder dat er een doel wordt bereikt. Het is zonde van het geld en zeker nu.

Kortom, met respect voor alle goede bedoelingen en het vele werk om iets te fabriceren dat een positieve ontwikkeling van democratie en de rechtsstaat bevordert, vraag ik alle leden om dit verslag vooralsnog naar de prullenbak te verwijzen omdat het meer kwaad zou doen dan goed. Wij pleiten voor een decentrale aanpak. Helaas heb ik geen tijd om hier nader op in te gaan.

Ten slotte wijs ik erop dat de EU zelf niet erg democratisch is. Laten we daar eerst eens wat aan doen.


  Kris Peeters (PPE). – Voorzitter, geachte commissarissen, beste collega’s, Ursula von der Leyen kwam in haar State of the Union tot de kern van de zaak en ik citeer: “De rechtsstaat beschermt de mensen tegen de machtsstaat.” We kunnen het belang moeilijk onderschatten, want zonder onafhankelijke rechters en journalisten is er geen rechtvaardigheid mogelijk. Toch staan journalisten steeds meer onder druk en worden rechters steeds meer beïnvloed.

Onze reactie als Europees Parlement moet duidelijk zijn, want de artikel 7-procedures zitten muurvast en het begrotingsvoorstel om EU-fondsen afhankelijk te maken van het respect voor de rechtsstaat wordt elke week afgezwakt. Wij roepen daarom op tot een structurele en objectieve evaluatie van de rechtsstaat met voelbare gevolgen voor overtreders. Zolang we deze knoop niet ontwarren, zullen alle discussies over respect voor de rechtsstaat hol klinken.


  Klára Dobrev (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök asszony! Kiért küzdünk, kérdezik tőlem sokan, amikor jogállamiságot követelünk. A válaszom, hogy a jogállam az egyszerű embereket védi, amikor az állam visszaél a hatalmával, amikor a hatóságok, a bíróságok nem szolgáltatnak nekik igazságot. Amikor a jogállamért küzdünk, akkor az egyszerű emberekért küzdünk. Amikor a jogállamért küzdünk, akkor az adófizetőkért küzdünk, akiknek jogukban áll tudni, hogy az állam vezetői a közpénzeket saját magukra, családjuk gazdagodására, vagy az ország javára fordítják. A jogállam intézményei azt szolgálják, hogy egyetlenegy kormány se tudja eltüntetni az adófizetők pénzét. Amikor a jogállamiságért küzdünk, akkor az adófizetőkért küzdünk. Orbán Viktor azért ágál a jogállamiság ellen, mert ő az Európai Unió támogatását továbbra is családtagjai, oligarchái gazdagodására akarja felhasználni. Mi azonban azt szeretnénk, hogy ezek a milliárdok a magyar emberek, Magyarország érdekét szolgálják, ezért ragaszkodunk ahhoz, hogy az európai támogatások feltétele a jogállam legyen.


  Ιωάννης Λαγός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ακούω πολλά λόγια τα οποία για μένα είναι μόνο λόγια, γιατί έχω ζήσει στην πράξη αυτό που κάποιοι λέτε εδώ για φασισμό και ρατσισμό, το έχω βιώσει. Πριν από εφτά χρόνια μπήκα στη φυλακή παράνομα, με προσωπική παρέμβαση του τότε πρωθυπουργού της Ελλάδος, Αντώνη Σαμαρά. Το ηχητικό ντοκουμέντο υπάρχει, είχε ακουστεί μέσα στην ελληνική Βουλή. Ο πρωθυπουργός της χώρας μιλούσε σε ανώτατο δικαστικό, ονόματι Ντογιάκος, και του έλεγε ότι την επόμενη μέρα θα περάσουν τρεις εν ενεργεία βουλευτές να προφυλακιστούν. Το έγκλημά τους ήταν ότι μιλούσαν για Ελλάδα, μιλούσαν για χριστιανισμό, σε εποχές που όλοι μιλάμε για τη νέα τάξη πραγμάτων και την παράνομη λαθρομετανάστευση. Αυτό ήταν το τίμημα που πληρώσαμε σε κάποιους οι οποίοι είχαν βάλει τη χώρα μου στην μέγγενη των μνημονίων, είχαν ισοπεδώσει και είχαν ξεπουλήσει την Ελλάδα.

Αυτό το ηχητικό ντοκουμέντο υπήρξε και δεν τόλμησε κανείς μέσα στο Ελληνικό Κοινοβούλιο να αντιδράσει. Μάλιστα μετά από λίγους μήνες, ενώ το έθαψαν όλοι αυτοί οι πολιτικοί, ήρθε αίτημα από τις εισαγγελικές αρχές της πατρίδος μου, οι οποίες ζητούσαν να εξεταστεί η υπόθεση και να διωχθεί ο τότε πρωθυπουργός, πράγμα το οποίο δεν έγινε, καθώς αυτός καλυπτόταν από όλο το πολιτικό φάσμα.

Άκουσα προηγουμένως τον εκπρόσωπο του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος να μιλάει και να μας λέει ωραία λόγια για τη δημοκρατία, όταν στο δικό του κόμμα βρίσκεται αυτός ο πολιτικός αλήτης, ο τότε πρωθυπουργός, ο οποίος δεν διώχθηκε γιατί τον κάλυψαν οι μεγάλοι που τον καλύπτουν. Αυτή είναι η δημοκρατία που θέλει να εφαρμόσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ενάντια σε όσους αντιτίθενται και λένε τις αλήθειες. Εγώ σας ενημερώνω ότι, μετά από εφτά χρόνια διώξεων που έχω υποστεί και μετά από όλες τις συνέπειες, δεν πρόκειται να κάνω πίσω και θα συνεχίσω να μιλάω για την πατρίδα μου και για τον χριστιανισμό στην Ευρώπη.


  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, бих искал да поздравя г-н Шимечка за неговия доклад. Върховенството на закона е една от основополагащите ценности на Европейския съюз. Ето защо е важно да има съгласуваност между европейските институции по тези въпроси.

Отстояването на върховенството на закона, около което безусловно сме обединени всички в Европейския парламент, означава и недопускане на всякаква форма на двоен стандарт спрямо отделни държави членки. Искам да отбележа, че първият годишен доклад е правилна стъпка в тази посока. Новият недискриминационен механизъм, който беше представен от Европейската комисия, постави всички страни в Евросъюза на равна основа, като ги оценява по еднакви и обективни критерии и дава препоръки в подкрепа на усилията, които се полагат на национално ниво.

При обсъждането на последното заседание на комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи комисар Рейндерс заяви ангажимента да се работи за изграждането на истинска култура на върховенството на закона. Друга такава инициатива е и обвързването на разпределението на средствата от Европейския съюз с придържането към върховенството на закона от страна на държавите членки, което Европейската народна партия подкрепи още миналата година. Смятам, че това трябва задължително да залегне в инструментариума на Европейския съюз в защита на върховенството на закона и демократичните ценности.


  Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this fruitful discussion which shows the urgency of the topic.

I think that developments in the EU in the last decades show that we had undermined something, that we believe that the rule of law principle, democracy, fundamental rights, all these universal – not left and right – but universal European values will last forever, that they do not need any kind of effort or any kind of protection. We were mistaken.

That’s why now we are trying to enlarge our toolbox and enlarge our possibilities to address the problems we see in the Member States and to tackle the problems together with the Member States. It is the meaning and purpose of the rule of law report which we presented last week. We needed to have a new preventive tool which we will create in the report, we will develop it in an inclusive manner, using transparent methodology which will invite us for the dialogue with the Member States, and I believe in dialogue, even with the Member States where we seem not to have very welcoming reactions.

We also needed to come with a conditionality relating to EU money. We are going to distribute EUR 1.7 trillion in the next years for a very good reason: the European Union has to use the money for the best purpose to help European citizens to get out of this crisis and to develop new qualities and to open the chance for development in promising areas. But it cannot work to distribute such a big amount of money while we are in the atmosphere of decreasing trust. It cannot work. That’s why we want to achieve this conditionality to be introduced in our system.

The Commission will work also, as I said to you, on the strategy on the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Democracy Action Plan. You’re calling for covering the whole scope, which we see also in Mr Šimečka’s report, which I heard many times from Sophie in’t Veld and other Members of Parliament. The Commission is addressing all three, but uses three different, if I may say, vehicles or methods. In the European Democracy Action Plan, we want to come up with efficient measures on how to protect free and fair elections because whatever positives we do to protect democracy and the rule of law in the Member States, the first and the last word is for the citizens living in the Member States. That’s why I think we should do more to protect their right to cast their free vote and that’s why in the action plan, we will focus on protecting the system where there is a level playing field for campaigning and financing of the political parties and political campaigns. We would like to have guaranteed fairer judiciary oversight over the elections and, last but not least, access to objective information, so we will focus on the freedom of speech and pluralistic media, which will deliver objective information.

I think that we have to continue our work. It’s quite obvious also from today’s debate that there is a very demanding job for all three institutions, be it the Commission, Parliament, or the Council. We have to find a way to continue the work and not rely on the naivety from the past that our rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights are some kind of perpetual pillar which will last forever.



  Didier Reynders, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais remercier Mesdames et Messieurs les députés pour le soutien très large qui a été apporté à la défense des valeurs communes. C’est un élément important parce que ces valeurs communes permettent de développer un climat de confiance à l’intérieur de l’Union européenne et de la faire fonctionner dans tous ses aspects, comme la coopération entre les juridictions mais aussi le marché intérieur et bien d’autres éléments de relations entre les citoyens.

Je voudrais revenir sur quelques points concernant le rapport annuel sur l’état de droit, qui fait partie de ce mécanisme.

Je rappellerais tout d’abord que ce rapport de la Commission, gardienne des traités, présente sur un pied d’égalité les 27 États membres de l’Union. Ce rapport ne contient pas de recommandations au sens formel du terme, mais des évaluations claires, qui permettront à la Commission et à toute autre institution de continuer le monitoring dans les éditions à venir.

Ensuite, la Commission va continuer à utiliser tous les outils qui sont à sa disposition, le rapport, les procédures d’infraction, ou les procédures liées à l’article 7, qui sont en cours pour l’instant devant le Conseil afin d’apporter une réponse efficace et proportionnée à toute atteinte au respect de l’état de droit. La Commission est prête à participer à la mise en place des outils supplémentaires, dont un outil efficace de protection du budget européen, en lien avec le respect de l’état de droit.

Je voudrais également rappeler que la Commission s’est engagée, sur l’État de droit, en faveur d’un dialogue interinstitutionnel qu’un certain nombre de membres de cette assemblée ont appelé de leurs vœux. Et nous serons ravis de continuer à échanger avec vous et avec le Conseil non seulement au sujet du premier rapport mais aussi des mécanismes à mettre en place à l’avenir.

Je rappelle donc encore une fois que c’est bien un rapport de la Commission qui vous est présenté, mais rien n’interdira bien sûr au Parlement, d’associer des experts à ses propres travaux et débats.

Et puis, nous comptons également sur votre soutien, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés pour engager le dialogue avec les parlements nationaux. Ce sera une occasion importante de débattre non seulement ici au Conseil, la présidence allemande ayant déjà programmé les réunions de débat sur le rapport et sur un certain nombre d’États membres, mais également au Parlement européen et dans les parlements nationaux. Et je rappelle, comme je l’ai déjà dit en commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, que si vous souhaitez aborder aussi les rapports par État membre au sein du Parlement, la Commission est à votre disposition.

Et puis, certes le rapport porte sur les États membres, mais pour pouvoir parler d’état de droit et de respect des valeurs fondamentales avec des voisins, des candidats, des partenaires, y compris en Afrique ou ailleurs dans le monde, nous devons d’abord aussi penser à faire le travail à la maison. C’est à cela que servent toute une série de procédures que nous utilisons, c’est à cela que va servir le rapport annuel qui va permettre d’ouvrir un débat permanent sur l’état de droit au sein de l’Union européenne, c’est une condition importante pour être crédibles quand nous défendons des valeurs communes qui nous sont chères, y compris à l’extérieur de l’Union européenne.


  Michal Šimečka, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank everyone who took part in this debate and, specifically, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs who have worked on this file and made it a better text. They were all very constructive and helped produce a report which, I hope, will gain a broad majority in the vote tomorrow.

Let me also very briefly respond to some of the critical comments and, specifically, to Mr Fest, who is somehow suggesting that this is a disingenuous exercise because we don’t criticise Turkey or some African Republics. Obviously, I would love it if Turkey and countries in our neighbourhood subscribed to the same rule of law mechanism and conditionality that we have here, but that’s not possible. I think that, precisely to have credibility externally, we need to do this at home, to make sure that our Member States subscribe to the values and principles of the EU.

To Ms Kempa, who is suggesting that somehow I don’t like Poland or I am being manipulated, first of all, this is nothing against Poland. Being a Slovak, obviously I consider Poles to be my brotherly nation. The problem is with the current Polish Government, and it’s not just me saying that, it’s the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe and all sorts of other organisations. So there’s no conspiracy against Poland.

Finally, I would like to thank both Vice—President Jourová and Commissioner Reynders for their commitment to the rule of law report presented today, which indeed is a historic step forward that must be acknowledged. The issue that we have and the proposal that we are putting forward is to make it stronger and to make a clear link with enforcement and further action. It is obviously to enlarge the scope, but also to put it on solid legal grounds through an interinstitutional agreement, which the Parliament can propose, because there might be Commissioners after you who will not have the same kind of commitment. There might be a Presidency after which will not have the same kind of commitment. So we want to have something that is solid and which all three institutions can have joint ownership of.



  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote on the amendments will take place on Tuesday, 6 October 2020 and the final vote on Wednesday, 7 October 2020.

Written statements (Rule 171)


  Robert Hajšel (S&D), písomne. – Vláda práva je základom ozajstnej demokracie, najmä ak nechceme, aby práva slabších boli pošliapavané tými silnejšími. Aby to ale fungovalo, treba dodržiavanie princípov demokracie vrátane vlády práva a rešpektovania ľudských práv aj objektívne hodnotiť a v prípade vážnych porušení aj trestať. Preto vítam všetky iniciatívy, ktoré volajú po zriadení spravodlivého mechanizmu pravidelného hodnotenia tejto oblasti vo všetkých štátoch EÚ rovnako. Pred niekoľkými dňami zverejnila Európska komisia prvé hodnotenie stavu právneho štátu, pričom najhoršiu známku dala Poľsku a Maďarsku. Vláda v Budapešti ale vzápätí označila správu za nespravodlivú, založenú hlavne na informáciách tzv. Sorosovských organizácií. O to viac je dôležitejšie, aby prípadný nový mechanizmus monitorovania produkoval iba absolútne objektívne správy. Dnes sa ale hovorí o podmienení čerpania európskych peňazí členskými štátmi dodržiavaním právneho štátu. V krajnom prípade to znamená pozastavenie fondov pre vládu štátu, ktorá tieto princípy nedodržuje. Nie som proti tomu, ak nový monitorovací nástroj Európskej komisie bude obsahovať presne definovaný mechanizmus, ako sa peniaze vyčlenené danému štátu dostanú ich oprávneným prijímateľom bez toho, aby prechádzali cez vládne nástroje. Ľudia ani podniky štátov, ktorých vlády dostanú negatívne hodnotenie, sa totiž nemôžu stať rukojemníkmi svojich vlád a prísť o peniaze z rozpočtu EÚ, do ktorého cez svoje dane prispievajú.


  Julie Lechanteux (ID), par écrit. – La création d’un mécanisme de l’Union pour la démocratie, l’état de droit et les droits fondamentaux est la pièce maîtresse d’une législation punitive, qui vise à museler les gouvernements qui s’opposent à la dérive mondialiste, autoritaire et illibérale de l’Union européenne. Ce rapport fait suite au «Nouveau pacte sur la migration et l’asile» du 23 septembre et au «Rapport 2020 sur l’état de droit» présenté le 30 septembre: un triptyque destiné à sanctionner les défenseurs de la souveraineté nationale et tous ceux qui refusent l’ouverture indiscriminée des frontières aux flux migratoires illégaux.

Dans la ligne de mire de cette nouvelle législation punitive on trouve la Hongrie ainsi que son Premier ministre Viktor Orbán, qui a osé défendre les intérêts de son pays contre l’ingérence politique d’ONG mercenaires et fermer ses frontières à la déferlante migratoire. Dernier épisode en date, les affirmations de la Commissaire européenne chargée des valeurs et de la transparence, Věra Jourová, qui a qualifié la Hongrie de «démocratie malade», intolérable jugement de valeur de la part d’un haut responsable européen, censé travailler dans l’intérêt, et non pas contre, les 27 États membres.


  Maria Manuel Leitão Marques (S&D), por escrito. – Democracia, Estado de Direito, direitos fundamentais, respeito pelas minorias e sua proteção são valores fundamentais da UE. Assistimos à violação de alguns destes princípios por Estados-Membros. A capacidade das instituições europeias de agirem em casos em que estes valores parece não estarem a ser respeitados deve ser assegurada. Por isso, um mecanismo Estado de Direito é urgente; não mais um, mas numa perspetiva complementar com outros instrumentos.

O relatório Estado de Direito na UE, apresentado agora pela Comissão Europeia, é uma iniciativa que merece apoio. É bom que a corrupção e a liberdade de imprensa sejam elementos a escrutinar no âmbito deste relatório regular. Mas não é suficiente. A democracia, os direitos fundamentais, a liberdade de associação, ou a proteção de grupos mais vulneráveis têm de ser igualmente escrutinados.

Este mecanismo de monitorização, objetivo e baseado em dados concretos, deve assegurar o acompanhamento destes princípios em todos os Estados-Membros da UE. Esta estratégia deve basear-se numa cooperação interinstitucional, num processo transparente e regular, para que a promoção dos valores da UE se torne efetiva e tenha visibilidade na agenda europeia. Abordar a crise de valores na UE é também uma condição prévia para restabelecer confiança mútua entre os Estados-Membros.


  Beata Mazurek (ECR), na piśmie. – Czemu służyć ma ta debata? Kolejny raz Parlament Europejski atakuje Polskę, opierając się na fake newsach i mocno przeinaczonych informacjach podawanych przez polską opozycję, której celem nie jest dobro kraju, a walka z polskim rządem wybranym w demokratycznych wyborach. Czy w obecnych czasach nie ma poważnych problemów, nad którymi musimy się pochylić? Co z pandemią koronawirusa, w której widmo drugiej fali zagląda nam w oczy? Co z chwiejącą się gospodarką? Co ze zwiększającym się bezrobociem? O kryzysie migracyjnym już nie wspomnę, bo to kolejny temat, z którym Europa sobie nie radzi. Czy naprawdę nie mamy poważniejszych problemów na głowie?

A może ta debata to swego rodzaju ucieczka i temat zastępczy wobec problemów, na które nie możemy znaleźć rozwiązania? Na celownik wzięliście Polskę i Węgry. Zdajecie się nie zauważać, iż systemy sądownicze czy media w Polsce funkcjonują tak jak w krajach Europy Zachodniej. Nie ma i nie będzie naszej zgody na podejmowanie decyzji uderzających w Polskę przez urzędników, którzy – z nadania, nie z demokratycznego wyboru – będą decydować o sprawach, które są jedynie domeną państw członkowskich, posługując się przy tym „batem praworządności” używanym, jak już historia pokazała, wybiórczo. Nie ma na to naszej zgody.


  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene prevede deja mecanisme și proceduri de protejare a valorilor fundamentale ale Uniunii, precum procedurile de sancționare prevăzute în articolul 7 sau procedurile de constatare a neîndeplinirii obligațiilor. Pe parcurs, au fost adăugate Mecanismul de cooperare și verificare și includerea capitolului justiție în raportările pentru semestrul european. Cu toate acestea, dezbaterea privind eficiența instrumentelor de care dispune UE continuă.

Un pas foarte important a fost propunerea Comisiei din iulie 2019 de a verifica soliditatea statului de drept în toate statele membre, iar primul raport a fost realizat la 30 septembrie 2020. Însă acest demers singular trebuie instituționalizat și permanentizat.

În acest context, susțin propunerea Parlamentului de a stabili, împreună cu Consiliul European și Comisia Europeană, Mecanismul european privind democrația, statul de drept și drepturile fundamentale (DSF). În esență, propunem o monitorizare anuală a respectării valorilor fundamentale ale UE, în toate statele membre.

Monitorizarea va cuprinde 3 etape: pregătitoare - în care sunt adunate toate informațiile necesare, publicarea raportului anual, cu recomandări specifice pentru fiecare țară și dezbaterea conținutului raportului Comisiei de către Consiliul European și Parlamentul European. Concluziile raportului vor sta la baza deciziei de a declanșa sau nu procedura articolului 7 sau a procedurilor de constatare a neîndeplinirii obligațiilor.


  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – Is de Europese Unie bang voor de vrijheid? Daar begint het toch hard op te lijken. Als we spreken over het ondergraven van de democratie, de rechtstaat en de grondwaarden van de EU verwijzen we eufemistisch naar “illiberale democratieën” en “autocratieën”. We durven niet luidop zeggen dat er lidstaten zijn die géén democratie meer zijn en geregeerd worden door dictators. Human Rights Watch zei het onlangs wél: “Tien miljoen Europeanen leven onder een autoritair bestuur.” Tien miljoen. In de EU.

De instrumenten waarover we beschikken om de basiswaarden van artikel 2 VEU te beschermen, voldoen niet. We sleutelen nu aan oplossingen, maar opnieuw rijden de Commissie en de Raad met de rem op. In het voorgestelde mechanisme van de Raad om de meerjarenbegroting te koppelen aan de naleving van de democratie, de rechtstaat en de grondrechten, controleren we enkel of lidstaten de financiële belangen van de EU niet schaden. Daar is geen rechter, geen journalist en geen LGBTI-burger mee geholpen. En in het zopas gelanceerde monitoringssysteem voor de rechtstaat worden de democratie en de grondrechten niet gemonitord. Als de Raad blijft buigen voor één dictator, zullen er anderen volgen. Daarom opnieuw de vraag: is de Europese Unie bang voor de vrijheid?

Последно осъвременяване: 23 март 2021 г.Правна информация - Политика за поверителност