European Parliament 2019-2024

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

2021/2071(INI)

18.6.2021

AMENDMENTS 1 - 32

Draft opinion Terry Reintke (PE693.786v01-00)

The creation of guidelines for the application of the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (2021/2071(INI))

AM\1234564EN.docx PE693.941v01-00

EN United in diversityEN AM_Com_NonLegOpinion

PE693.941v01-00 2/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN Amendment 1 Klára Dobrev, Łukasz Kohut, Bettina Vollath, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Tanja Fajon, Petar Vitanov, Katarina Barley, Thijs Reuten, Sylvie Guillaume, Birgit Sippel

Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

-1. Regrets that the Commission committed1a not to propose any measures under the regulation until it develops guidelines, whose finalisation is subject to the delivery of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the action for annulment brought by Hungary and Poland; reminds that actions brought before the CJEU shall not have suspensory effect in accordance with the Treaties. ______1a European Council conclusions of 11 December 2020, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/4 7296/1011-12-20-euco-conclusions-en.pdf

Or. en

Amendment 2 Lukas Mandl

Draft opinion Paragraph 1

Draft opinion Amendment

1. Reiterates that the application of 1. Reiterates that the legal the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation effectiveness of the Rule of Law cannot be subject to the adoption of Conditionality Regulation, as of 1 January guidelines, and urges the Commission to 2021, cannot be subject to the adoption of avoid any further delay in its application; guidelines, and calls on the Commission to publish these guidelines as soon as possible in view of avoiding any further delay in its application in terms of concrete actions; urges the Commission to immediately start preliminary

AM\1234564EN.docx 3/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN investigations on any potential individual or systemic breach of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States that affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget, or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way.

Or. en

Amendment 3 Konstantinos Arvanitis

Draft opinion Paragraph 1

Draft opinion Amendment

1. Reiterates that the application of the 1. Regrets the European Council Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation conclusions of 10 and 11 December 2020 cannot be subject to the adoption of on the Rule of Law Conditionality guidelines, and urges the Commission to Regulation and considers that they avoid any further delay in its application; contravene Articles 15 and 17 of the TEU and Article 288 of the TFEU insofar as they introduce unnecessary legal uncertainty and reiterates that the application of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation cannot be subject to the adoption of guidelines; urges the Commission to avoid any further delay in its application;

Or. en

Amendment 4 Klára Dobrev, Łukasz Kohut, Bettina Vollath, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Tanja Fajon, Petar Vitanov, Katarina Barley, Thijs Reuten, Sylvie Guillaume, Birgit Sippel

Draft opinion Paragraph 1

Draft opinion Amendment

1. Reiterates that the application of 1. Recalls that the Rule of Law the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation Conditionality Regulation, as adopted by

PE693.941v01-00 4/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN cannot be subject to the adoption of the co-legislators, does not foresee the guidelines, and urges the Commission to development of any guidelines therefore avoid any further delay in its application; its application cannot be subject to their adoption; reminds that guidelines cannot alter, expand or narrow a regulation and that they must respect the intention of the co-legislators;

Or. en

Amendment 5 Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Draft opinion Paragraph 1

Draft opinion Amendment

1. Reiterates that the application of 1. Underlines that the application of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation cannot be subject to the adoption of should be subject to the adoption of guidelines, and urges the Commission to guidelines because of the complexity of avoid any further delay in its application; the subject matter; underlines that until such guidelines are finalised, the Commission should not propose measures under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 6 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller, Morten Petersen

Draft opinion Paragraph 1

Draft opinion Amendment

1. Reiterates that the application of the 1. Regrets the Commission’s Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation intention to develop guidelines for the cannot be subject to the adoption of application of the Regulation; Reiterates guidelines, and urges the Commission to that the application of the Rule of Law avoid any further delay in its application; Conditionality Regulation cannot be subject to the adoption of guidelines, and

AM\1234564EN.docx 5/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN urges the Commission to avoid any further delay in its application;

Or. en

Amendment 7 Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

1 a. Stresses that measures under the Regulation are necessary in particular in cases where other procedures set out in Union legislation would not allow the Union budget to be protected more efficiently; recalls that clear cases of breaches of the rule of law in several Member States are left unpunished and undermine the EU's financial interests;

Or. en

Amendment 8 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller, Morten Petersen

Draft opinion Paragraph 2

Draft opinion Amendment

2. Notes that the Commission has 2. Notes that after the Commission begun to draft guidelines on the decided to preprare the Guidelines the application of the Regulation; requests Parliament in its resolution of 25 March that, if the Commission deems such 2021 on the application of Regulation guidelines necessary, Parliament be (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092, the rule-of-law consulted prior to their adoption; conditionality mechanism requested the Commission to submit the guidelines by 1 June 2021 the latest; regrets that the Commission has handed over the draft guidelines on the application of the Regulation with 2 weeks delay; is of the

PE693.941v01-00 6/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN opinion that the draft guidelines in its current form do not contain any additional information, which could contribute to the proper application of the regulation; concludes therefore that the Commission’s guidelines are partof its delaying tactic of the application of the regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 9 Konstantinos Arvanitis

Draft opinion Paragraph 2

Draft opinion Amendment

2. Notes that the Commission has 2. Notes that the Commission has begun to draft guidelines on the application begun to draft guidelines on the application of the Regulation; requests that, if the of the Regulation and that the Parliament Commission deems such guidelines is being consulted prior to their adoption; necessary, Parliament be consulted prior to believes however that such guidelines do their adoption; not bring any added value at this stage and that they are mainly aimed at delaying the process of applying the Regulation; considers that under the pretext of avoiding a potential annulment of the measures adopted pursuant to the Regulation by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission is neither addressing democratic, fundamental rights and rule of law violations and backsliding in the Member States nor meeting the expectations in regard to the operationalisation of this instrument;

Or. en

Amendment 10 Lukas Mandl

Draft opinion Paragraph 2

AM\1234564EN.docx 7/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN Draft opinion Amendment

2. Notes that the Commission has 2. Notes that the Commission is about begun to draft guidelines on the to present its draft guidelines on the application of the Regulation; requests application of the Regulation; requests the that, if the Commission deems such Commission to consult the Parliament guidelines necessary, Parliament be prior to its final adoption; once the consulted prior to their adoption; guidelines are adopted, the Commission should report to the all competent parliamentary committees active in the field of rule of law on a quarterly basis regarding new and ongoing cases under investigation.

Or. en

Amendment 11 Klára Dobrev, Łukasz Kohut, Bettina Vollath, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Tanja Fajon, Petar Vitanov, Katarina Barley, Thijs Reuten, Sylvie Guillaume, Birgit Sippel

Draft opinion Paragraph 2

Draft opinion Amendment

2. Notes that the Commission has 2. Takes note of the draft guidelines begun to draft guidelines on the of the Commission on the application of application of the Regulation; requests the Regulation; is of the opinion that the that, if the Commission deems such guidelines simply repeat the provisions of guidelines necessary, Parliament be the regulation, have little or no added consulted prior to their adoption; value and merely delay the application of the regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 12 Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Draft opinion Paragraph 2

Draft opinion Amendment

2. Notes that the Commission has 2. Notes that the Commission has begun to draft guidelines on the application begun to draft guidelines on the application

PE693.941v01-00 8/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN of the Regulation; requests that, if the of the Regulation; requests that, if the Commission deems such guidelines Commission deems it necessary, necessary, Parliament be consulted prior to Parliament be consulted prior to their their adoption; adoption;

Or. en

Amendment 13 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller, Morten Petersen

Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

2 a. Deplores the time wasted by the Commission since the entry into force of the Regulation; urges the Commission to act without any further delay in the application of the Regulation and to investigate swiftly and thoroughly any potential breaches of the principles of the rule of law in the Member States that affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way; reiterates that the situation in some Member States already warrants immediate investigation under the Regulation;

Or. en

Amendment 14 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller, Morten Petersen

Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

AM\1234564EN.docx 9/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN 2 b. Is strongly of the opinion that the Parliament has to continue its necessary preparations for potential court proceedings under Article 265 of the TFEU against the Commission; is of the opinion that non-action or slow action by the Commission is a strong political signal not only to the European institutions and the Member States but also to the European citizens;

Or. en

Amendment 15 Klára Dobrev, Łukasz Kohut, Bettina Vollath, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Tanja Fajon, Petar Vitanov, Katarina Barley, Thijs Reuten, Sylvie Guillaume

Draft opinion Paragraph 3

Draft opinion Amendment

3. Recalls that any guidelines must 3. Reminds that in accordance with not undermine the adopted regulation or the regulation, the Commission shall take the intention of the co-legislators; asks into account relevant information when the Commission to avoid strict or assessing the possibly breaches of the rule exhaustive definitions of the concepts, as of law by a Member State from available this would be in contradiction with the sources and recognised institutions, Regulation; considers that interpretation including judgments of the Court of of abstract concepts is a dynamic process Justice of the European Union, reports of which cannot be predefined in one the Court of Auditors, the Commission’s document; believes that the guidelines annual Rule of Law Report and EU should fully respect the interpretation of Justice Scoreboard, reports of the relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Union and the Venice the EuropeanPublic Prosecutor’s Office Commission. (EPPO) as relevant, and conclusions and recommendations of relevant international organisations and networks, including Council of Europe bodies such as the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and the Venice Commission, in particular its rule- of-law checklist, and the European networks of supreme courts and councils for the judiciary;

Or. en

PE693.941v01-00 10/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN Amendment 16 Lukas Mandl

Draft opinion Paragraph 3

Draft opinion Amendment

3. Recalls that any guidelines must not 3. Recalls that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulation or the alter, expand or narrow the adopted intention of the co-legislators; asks the regulation, but should clarify how its Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive provisions should be applied in practice; definitions of the concepts, as this would underlines that the purpose of the be in contradiction with the Regulation; guidelines consists of outlining the considers that interpretation of abstract procedure, definitions and methodology of concepts is a dynamic process which the concrete application by the cannot be predefined in one document; Commission; asks the Commission to believes that the guidelines should fully avoid strict or exhaustive definitions of the respect the interpretation of relevant concepts, as this would be in contradiction concepts by the Court of Justice of the with the Regulation; considers that European Union and the Venice interpretation of abstract concepts is a Commission. dynamic process which cannot be predefined in one document; believes that the guidelines should fully respect the interpretation of relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Venice Commission.

Or. en

Amendment 17 Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion Paragraph 3

Draft opinion Amendment

3. Recalls that any guidelines must not 3. Recalls that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulation or the undermine the adopted regulation or the intention of the co-legislators; asks the intention of the co-legislators; stresses that Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive the legislators did not empower the definitions of the concepts, as this would Commission to adopt guidelines, be in contradiction with the Regulation; implementing or executive acts to clarify considers that interpretation of abstract the conditions of application of the concepts is a dynamic process which Regulation; asks the Commission to avoid

AM\1234564EN.docx 11/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN cannot be predefined in one document; strict or exhaustive definitions of the believes that the guidelines should fully concepts, as this would be in contradiction respect the interpretation of relevant with the Regulation; considers that concepts by the Court of Justice of the interpretation of abstract concepts is a European Union and the Venice dynamic process which cannot be Commission. predefined in one document; believes that the guidelines should fully respect the interpretation of relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Venice Commission.

Or. en

Amendment 18 Łukasz Kohut, Klára Dobrev

Draft opinion Paragraph 3

Draft opinion Amendment

3. Recalls that any guidelines must not 3. Recalls that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulation or the undermine the adopted regulation or the intention of the co-legislators; asks the intention of the co-legislators; asks the Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive definitions of the concepts, as this would definitions of the concepts, as this would be in contradiction with the Regulation; be in contradiction with the Regulation; considers that interpretation of abstract considers that interpretation of abstract concepts is a dynamic process which concepts is a dynamic process which cannot be predefined in one document; cannot be predefined in one document; believes that the guidelines should fully believes that the guidelines should fully respect the interpretation of relevant respect the interpretation of relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of the concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Venice European Union and the Venice Commission. Commission; points to the obligation of ensuring the availability of EU funding to final recipients, in line with the Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 19 Łukasz Kohut

Draft opinion Paragraph 3

PE693.941v01-00 12/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN Draft opinion Amendment

3. Recalls that any guidelines must not 3. Recalls that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulation or the undermine the adopted regulation or the intention of the co-legislators; asks the intention of the co-legislators; asks the Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive definitions of the concepts, as this would definitions of the concepts, as this would be in contradiction with the Regulation; be in contradiction with the Regulation; considers that interpretation of abstract considers that interpretation of abstract concepts is a dynamic process which concepts is a dynamic process which cannot be predefined in one document; cannot be predefined in one document; believes that the guidelines should fully believes that the guidelines should fully respect the interpretation of relevant respect the interpretation of relevant concepts by the Court of Justice of the concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Venice European Union and the Venice Commission. Commission; points to the obligation of ensuring the availability of EU funding to final recipients, in line with the Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 20 Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Draft opinion Paragraph 3

Draft opinion Amendment

3. Recalls that any guidelines must not 3. Recalls that any guidelines must not undermine the adopted regulation or the undermine the adopted regulation; believes intention of the co-legislators; asks the that the guidelines should fully respect the Commission to avoid strict or exhaustive interpretation of relevant concepts by the definitions of the concepts, as this would Court of Justice of the European Union and be in contradiction with the Regulation; the General Court and be finalised after considers that interpretation of abstract the judgment of the Court of Justice concepts is a dynamic process which issued in regard to the actions for cannot be predefined in one document; annulment introduced with regard to the believes that the guidelines should fully Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, so respect the interpretation of relevant as to incorporate any relevant elements concepts by the Court of Justice of the stemming from such judgment. European Union and the Venice Commission.

Or. en

AM\1234564EN.docx 13/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN Amendment 21 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 a. Considers that the Commission’s annual Rule of Law report constitutes an objective, impartial, fair, and qualitative assessment of breaches of the principles of rule of law; believes that where the conclusions of the annual reports highlight individual or systemic breaches of the rule of law which affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way, they should be directly linked to the triggering of the Conditionality Mechanism; calls on the Commission to clarify a methodology to create a clear and direct link, when relevant, between the annual reports and the Conditionality Mechanism;

Or. en

Amendment 22 Konstantinos Arvanitis

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 a. While acknowledging the complementarity of the Regulation with other instruments established by its Article 6(1), urges the Commission to make use of the Regulation since the other procedures set out in Union legislation do not allow for the effective

PE693.941v01-00 14/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN protection of the Union budget from the grave, permanent and systematic violations of the values listed in Article 2 of the TEU that are taking place in some Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 23 Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Jadwiga Wiśniewska

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 a. Underlines that the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation is to be applied in full respect of Article 4(2) TEU, notably the national identities of Member States inherent in their fundamental political and constitutional structures, of the principle of conferral, as well as of the principles of objectivity, non- discrimination and equal treatment of Member States.

Or. en

Amendment 24 Klára Dobrev, Łukasz Kohut, Bettina Vollath, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Tanja Fajon, Petar Vitanov, Katarina Barley, Thijs Reuten, Sylvie Guillaume, Birgit Sippel

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 a. Is of the view that the Commission already has reasonable grounds to consider the triggering of the procedure in accordance with Article 6(1) of the regulation; and urges the Commission to act promptly and to avoid any further delay in the application of the regulation;

AM\1234564EN.docx 15/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN Or. en

Amendment 25 Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 a. Calls on the Commission to clarify in the guidelines that breaches of the rule of law in a Member State which result from decisions or events that took place prior to 1 January 2021 still fall within the scope of the Regulation as long as their effect is still ongoing;

Or. en

Amendment 26 Lukas Mandl

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 a. Underlines the complementarity of the annual Rule of Law report to the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; calls on the Commission to use the findings of the annual report as an important source in its assessments for the purposes of the regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 27 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion

PE693.941v01-00 16/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN Paragraph 3 b (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 b. Highlights that civil society, including independent NGOs and citizens, is at the forefront to identify potential breaches of the rule of law at local and national level, and should therefore be involved in their reporting; calls on the Commission to establish, in the guidelines, an efficient, user-friendly, and easily accessible online one-stop shop for citizens and civil society to report both fraud and corruption cases related to EU Funds, as well as individual or systemic breaches in their Member State, guaranteeing anonymity and leading, where deemed relevant by its services, to further investigations by the OLAF, the EPPO or the Commission;

Or. en

Amendment 28 Klára Dobrev, Łukasz Kohut, Bettina Vollath, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Tanja Fajon, Petar Vitanov, Katarina Barley, Thijs Reuten, Sylvie Guillaume

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 b. asks the Commission to include in its annual Rule of Law Report a dedicated section with an analysis of cases where breaches of the principles of the rule of law in a particular Member State could affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way;

Or. en

Amendment 29 Lukas Mandl

AM\1234564EN.docx 17/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 b. Recalls that the Commission should continue to make use of all instruments of the Rule of Law toolbox, including infringement procedures according to Article 258 TFEU and procedures according to Article 7 TEU.

Or. en

Amendment 30 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 c. Recalls that the Regulation provides a clear definition of the rule of law, which must be understood in relation to the other values of the Union, including fundamental rights and non- discrimination; is of the opinion that state-sponsored discrimination against minorities has a direct impact on the projects on which Member States decide or not to spend EU money, and therefore directly affects the protection of the financial interests of the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 31 Lukas Mandl

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new)

PE693.941v01-00 18/19 AM\1234564EN.docx EN Draft opinion Amendment

3 c. Highlights that the assessment of individual or systemic breaches with regard to the rule of law requires an impartial, fair and objective treatment of Member States; the guidelines thus establish to this end procedures for conducting non-partisan and evidence- based investigations.

Or. en

Amendment 32 Anna Júlia Donáth, Moritz Körner, Hilde Vautmans, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Jan- Christoph Oetjen, Olivier Chastel, Abir Al-Sahlani, Michal Šimečka, Malik Azmani, Ramona Strugariu, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller

Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new)

Draft opinion Amendment

3 d. Believes that transparency is essential to foster the confidence of Member States and citizens in the Conditionality Mechanism:points out that each step of the procedure of the Regulation should therefore be taken in a fully transparent way; Calls therefore on the Commission to set-up the transparency rules and principles that it will apply when triggering the Conditionality Mechanism;

Or. en

AM\1234564EN.docx 19/19 PE693.941v01-00 EN