Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 10k
9 December 2020
Question for written answer  E-006720/2020
to the Council
Rule 138
Julie Lechanteux (ID)
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: European Magnitsky Act

On 7 December, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 ‘concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses(1)’ – the famous European Union global human rights sanctions regime.

This apparently insignificant legal instrument conceals in truth a political desire by the EU institutions to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. They have, by this means, assumed a role that is not theirs: to judge unilaterally without recourse to any form of adversarial procedure and to penalise individuals or bodies suspected, to a greater or lesser degree, of breaching human rights.

The universality of human rights thus serves as the pretext for the establishment of a legal framework conferring global competence on the EU institutions. This principle derives from the Global Magnitsky Act adopted in 2016 by the United States, and then by Canada, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Does the Council not consider that this new instrument, under which sanctions can also be imposed, may restrict Member States’ room to manoeuvre on foreign policy and hence their sovereignty?

Original language of question: FR
Last updated: 21 December 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy