Changes from plenary report to adopted text

48. Calls on the Commission to further invest, through dedicated funding, in building capacity for CSOs to monitor and report on the rule of law situation in the Member States, such as through the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme, and to ensure adequate protection to CSOs engaging in this process; is concerned that the biased distribution of funding in certain countries impacts CSOs working on promoting the rights of vulnerable groups or working, more generally, for causes that governments do not support; encourages a thorough assessment of these issues in all countries covered by the report and stresses the need for country recommendations to address these issues; urges the Commission to consider direct management of EU funds, in order to ensure that eligible beneficiaries, such as CSOs, businesses and local authorities, receive the EU funding intended for them;

49. Welcomes the Commission proposal for a Directive on European cross-border associations (COM(2023)0516) and commits to prioritising its adoption; urges the Commission, further, to establish a strategy providing for minimum standards for the protection of CSOs in all Member States in order to promote a regulatory and political environment free from threats and attacks, and to provide them with sustainable and non-discriminatory access to resources while supporting and encouraging their engagement in civil dialogue and participation in policy-making;

50. Is deeply concerned about plans announced by the Slovak Government to adopt legislation that would undermine the civic space, including by restricting the work of NGOs and stigmatising organisations in receipt of foreign funding;

51. Deplores the fact that the situation of human rights defenders in the EU has continued to increasingly deteriorate in recent years; urges the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that human rights defenders are able to work free from hindrance and insecurity;

The legitimate use of force by police under the rule of law, as well as the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly

52. Emphasises that law enforcement plays an essential role in preserving the rule of law, creating a safe environment for people and allowing them to enjoy fundamental rights; regrets that, according to the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report, in many Member States, including Belgium, Cyprus, Portugal and Slovakia, law enforcement lacks sufficient resources to effectively perform tasks such as the fight against corruption; calls on the Member States to ensure adequate funding, training and human resources for the police and other law enforcement agencies;

53. Stresses that the prerogative of use of force has to be treated with extreme caution and emphasises that Member States must ensure that the police use force only when strictly necessary and only to the extent required to obtain a legitimate objective; recalls the need for the police to fulfil their tasks in compliance with the principle of impartiality and non-discrimination; calls on the Member States to thoroughly investigate any cases of excessive use of force or discriminatory treatment by law enforcement and to ensure systemic guarantees against such abuses;

54. Calls on the Member States to take into account the Council of Europe’s Code of Police Ethics in this regard; considers that police officers should be trained in employing alternative practices for maintaining public order that do not endanger the lives of demonstrators or detainees; calls on the Member States to introduce EU-wide guidelines for a transparent, independent and consistent selection, testing and trialling process for the weapons used by law enforcement agents, based on UN standards, recommendations and guiding principles; notes that this assessment should determine compliance with international human rights law and standards prior to selection and deployment; calls on the Member States to collect data on all instances of use of force in order to enable evidence to be gathered about its use, misuse, unexpected consequences, injuries and deaths and their causes; is concerned by the use of excessive force by law enforcement authorities across the EU; stresses that the French police are more heavily armed than most other police forces elsewhere in the EU; is concerned about the fact that law enforcement authorities in France also carry out arbitrary detentions of demonstrators, which constitutes a violation of the right to liberty, as most detainees are released within a few hours without any charges;

55. Is deeply concerned about the fact that many instances of disproportionate use of force against demonstrators continue to be reported across the EU, including the beating of demonstrators; notes that law enforcement authorities in some Member States are increasingly using ‘less lethal weapons’ to control or disperse crowds of demonstrators, which has also led to a considerable number of people being seriously wounded in recent years, which therefore requires clear guidelines on their use;

56. Believes that in several places across the EU, the freedoms of expression and assembly are being exercised under worrying conditions; stresses that restrictions to the right to peaceful assembly cannot in principle be based on the substance of the message which the participants of a protest wish to convey, since the right to peaceful assembly is closely connected with the right to freedom of expression, except for assemblies aimed at inciting violence; insist that laws and practices concerning assemblies should always abide by international human rights standards on freedom of assembly and policing of demonstrations, including the provision of thorough human rights training for police officers; calls on the Member States not to adopt laws or practices that preventively restrict the right to peaceful assembly or that would criminalise protesters in advance without judicial oversight;

57. Expresses deep concern about the many cases of excessive use of force by police services against minority groups, such as against Roma people, across various Member States; calls on the Member States’ authorities to fully and independently investigate all such instances; is deeply concerned by the fact that three young Roma have been killed in three years in Greece and by the lack of thorough investigation thereof;

Equality, non-discrimination and pluralism

58. Notes that democratic and rule of law backsliding and the undermining of minority rights often go hand in hand, once more underlining the need for a comprehensive approach to monitoring democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in the future reports; regrets the lack of progress on protecting minorities across the EU; condemns hate speech, including by government or political officials, against minority groups;

59. Stresses the necessity to fight against all types of discrimination, hate speech and crimes specifically targeting minority groups and members of national, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities; calls on the Commission to include a specific new pillar on this in the next report, mapping all forms of xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, anti-gypsyism, LGBTIQ-phobia, hate speech and discrimination across all Member States;

60. Is alarmed by the recent surge in antisemitism, including acts of violence, intimidation and symbols of hate displayed in public spaces;

61. Is also alarmed by the level of islamophobia in the EU, including smear campaigns and disinformation;

62. Expresses its disappointment at the Commission’s slowness to address non-compliance with fundamental rights laws and case law by Member States; urges the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to meet its responsibility for the enforcement of EU human rights law, and not to rely only on citizens going to court themselves to ensure the application of EU law; recommends that the Commission, in particular, take action regarding failures to implement CJEU judgments under Article 260(2) TFEU and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation in cases of non-compliance;

63. Calls on the EU Member States to make the protection of LGBTIQ+ rights a real and cross-cutting priority across all policy fields; calls on the Commission to use all means available to ensure that LGBTIQ+ rights are respected throughout the EU, including the use of infringement procedures against Member States; calls on the Member States to take into account the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee on Anti-Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion’s 12 recommendations to combat hate crimes against LGBTIQ+ people, as well as the recommendations of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance; notes the recent Romanian draft law, aiming to comply with the CJEU’s 2018 Coman ruling, as well as the criticism that the draft law implements that ruling only very narrowly and that it does not guarantee equal rights for same-sex couples; calls on all other Member States without legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in place, such as Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, to ensure that this right is stipulated in law;

64. Deeply regrets that legal gender recognition through a change of civil status is still not possible in several Member States; regrets the lack of effort and will on the part of the Bulgarian Government to come up with a credible plan of action to implement the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in Y.T. v Bulgaria on 9 July 2020; recalls, further, Bulgaria’s continuing failure to implement the CJEU judgment in the ‘Baby Sara’ case (C-490/20);

65. Calls for including the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics in the EU’s anti-discrimination legal framework, based on a broad interpretation of the grounds of sexual orientation and sex and the principle of equality between women and men set forth in the Treaties; notes that this will ensure legal certainty and the comprehensiveness of the protection of all citizens of our Union, and that this interpretation has already been agreed by the co-legislators in the proposal for a directive establishing standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation (COM(2022)0688);

66. Calls for a European ban on ‘conversion practices’; calls for a ban on genital mutilation that also harms intersex people (intersex genital mutilation – IGM); calls for a ban on forced abortions and forced sterilisations, which constitute a form of gender-based violence and particularly harm people with disabilities; underlines the importance of respecting self-determination and autonomy and of promoting LGBTIQ+ people’s physical and mental health; underlines that its position on the proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence (COM(2022)0105) includes adding FGM, IGM and forced sterilisation to the list of so-called eurocrimes;

68. Stresses that gender-based violence, both online and offline, is a particularly serious crime and a widespread violation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the Union which needs to be addressed with greater efficiency and determination on a common basis; stresses that gender-based violence is the result of societal and systemic structural gender inequalities that have a cross-border dimension; points, in particular, to the growing anti-gender, anti-LGBTIQ+ and anti-feminist movements, which are well-organised and have a cross-border nature; considers, in addition, that the cross-border dimension of gender-based cyber violence and the great individual, economic and societal impact of gender-based violence across all Member States reaffirm the need to combat gender-based violence in its multiple dimensions on a common Union basis;

69. Stresses that the failure to combat violence against women and girls and other forms of gender-based violence on a common basis also results from the lack of minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions; notes that this includes a common definition of gender-based violence, minimum rules concerning key issues of prevention, underreporting, victim protection, support and reparation, and the prosecution of perpetrators; underlines that the approaches and levels of commitment of Member States to prevent and combat gender-based violence vary significantly and that, therefore, a common-basis approach would also contribute to law enforcement in cross-border operations;

70. Believes that, although national electoral laws do not fall under Union competence, all elected bodies in the European Union should be representative of the diverse voices within the electorate; expresses its deep concern about certain electoral systems across the Union that quash pluralism, such as by putting into place a high electoral threshold in order to be elected; encourages national electoral reforms in cases where large parts of the population remain unrepresented;

71. Strongly deplores the numerous deaths of refugees and migrants at sea who are often victims of human trafficking and who have to face inhumane and degrading treatment without any consideration for their safety or fundamental rights; reminds the Member States of their obligation under the international law of the sea to assist persons in distress and calls for the establishment of a comprehensive EU search and rescue mission implemented by the Member States’ competent authorities and Frontex; notes the work of Frontex and its Fundamental Rights Officer, as well as of the EU Asylum Agency; stresses the need for an effective EU asylum system that respects human rights; notes the progress made on the New Pact on Asylum and Migration, making it possible to adopt the pact before the end of this legislative term;

Cross-cutting findings on the state of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across the EU

73. Expresses its deep concern, in light of the above, that democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across the EU are being eroded; highlights that whereas the state of affairs presented by the Commission’s rule of law report reveals many worrying developments, the situation looks even more concerning when taking other independent reports and sources into account; underlines that the erosion of these values in Member States compromises and undermines the EU institutions and the situation in the EU as a whole, even if some Member States are exemplary in protecting and promoting these values;

74. Underlines that this state of affairs is not merely an abstract conclusion but impacts the daily lives of EU citizens and businesses, as they experience, for example, an inefficient or non-independent judiciary and rampant corruption and cannot access independent and quality journalism; highlights that this undermines trust in our democratic system based on the rule of law; believes that restoring respect for EU values across the Member States is vital for avoiding the disintegration of our societies and Union; calls on the Commission, the Council and the European Council to fully acknowledge that democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are not only national matters, but are matters of direct concern for the European Union and its institutions;

75. Calls on the Member States to fully comply with the values on which the Union is founded, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; calls, in this regard, on the Member States to respect legality and legal certainty, to prevent abuses of power and to ensure equality before the law and non-discrimination, access to justice, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the protection of human rights, as these are key principles for the proper functioning of the mechanisms of checks and balances of every healthy democracy; calls on the Commission to independently analyse whether these principles are being complied with in all Member States;

Enforcement of EU law

76. Notes that the proper enforcement of all EU law is the very precondition for a union based on the rule of law; condemns the sometimes open and unashamed non-compliance of several Member States with EU law in various fields, such as the right to effective judicial protection, anti-corruption laws, asylum, the implementation of sanctions, and human rights law; underlines that this risks making the EU an area where some Member States feel more equal than others and citizens’ EU rights and freedoms are not evenly protected;

77. Reminds the Commission that it is first and foremost the guardian of the Treaties; underlines that issuing a report is not enough to reinforce our union based on the rule of law but that the report should lead to concrete enforcement action, especially where the recommendations are not fully complied with;

78. Strongly regrets the fact that the Commission is not taking stronger action to enforce EU law; calls therefore on the Commission to step up the number of new infringement procedures and to push forward existing infringement procedures with more audacity and urgency; calls on the Commission to systemically resort to expedited procedures and applications for interim measures before the CJEU; calls on the Commission not to use ‘dialogue’ with Member States or the ‘pilot’ procedure as an open-ended means to avoid launching actual infringement procedures; calls on the Commission to revise its policy, outlined in its 2022 communication on enforcing EU law, not to use infringement actions for ‘individual’ redress, as this policy has led to serious deprivation of rights for citizens across the EU, especially where their own governments are refusing to comply with EU law or CJEU judgments, also as most of these cases are not merely individual but address strategic and fundamental issues;

79. Notes the persistent problem of the incomplete implementation of ECtHR judgments, noting the decisions of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers; welcomes the inclusion of the systemic indicators on the implementation of ECtHR leading judgments in the rule of law report since its 2022 edition; calls on the Commission, however, to set up a scoreboard dedicated to monitoring the implementation of each and every CJEU and ECtHR judgment relating to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and to fully integrate it into the annual rule of law report; calls on the Member States to implement pending judgments without delay, and calls on the Commission to assess the consequences for the compliance with EU law and to take infringement action where needed;

The Rule of Law report as a tool

80. Welcomes the rule of law report as a crucial cornerstone of the EU rule of law toolbox and commends the Commission for delivering a diligently researched and well-written report; recalls that the annual rule of law report was introduced in response to a Parliament resolution adopted on the basis of a legislative own-initiative report in 2016;

81. Recognises that the rule of law report has become a benchmark for the EU institutions’ work on rule of law issues in the EU and in specific Member States; acknowledges the Commission’s continuous commitment throughout the years to enhancing the relevance of the report, such as by its inclusion of country-specific recommendations in the previous edition and an assessment of their fulfilment in the current report;

82. Acknowledges that the Commission’s rule of law report has become more comprehensive since its inception in 2020; deplores, however, the fact that essential elements from the 2016 Parliament resolution have not yet been implemented and that the Commission has not fully addressed the recommendations made by Parliament in its previous resolutions; calls on the Commission to take steps to address this; regrets, in particular, that the 2023 edition of the report was not significantly expanded by adding a comprehensive new pillar; calls for the inclusion in the annual report of important missing elements of the Venice Commission’s 2016 Rule of Law Checklist, such as prevention of the abuse of powers, equality before the law and non-discrimination; reiterates its position that the report should cover the full scope of the values of Article 2 TEU, as these cannot be seen in isolation; calls on the Commission to expand the scope of the report next year;

83. Is concerned that the Commission, in its effort to be factual and even-handed, sometimes ends up being too diplomatic and imprecise when identifying rule of law problems in Member States; regrets that the use of euphemistic language and the artificial equal number of conclusions and recommendations per Member State conceals the very real differences between Member States; reiterates the recommendation to differentiate between systemic and individual breaches, to avoid the risk of trivialising the most serious breaches of the rule of law; calls on the Commission to make clear that when the Article 2 TEU values are systematically, deliberately and gravely violated over a period of time, Member States could fail to meet all criteria that define a democracy; believes that the assessment of the fulfilment of the recommendations should be more precise and qualitative, not relying only on legislative changes but also on real and independent evidence of their implementation in practice; reiterates the need to set out a timeline, targets and concrete actions for the implementation of the recommendations and to detail the possible consequences in the event of non-compliance; notes the sometimes stark differences between the summaries of country chapters and the in-depth content of the chapters themselves, suggesting an editorial intervention;

84. Reaffirms that many of these challenges could be overcome by involving an independent panel of experts in the drafting of the report, as they would be less bound by diplomatic considerations; calls on the Commission to reconsider its position on this point and to explore all possibilities to involve independent experts in subsequent editions of the rule of law report; repeats its call on the Commission to invite the FRA to provide methodological advice and conduct comparative research in order to add detail in key areas of the annual report, given the intrinsic links between fundamental rights and the rule of law;

85. Acknowledges the Commission’s effort to conduct a wide range of consultations and collect various inputs in each Member State, including from national authorities and CSOs; calls on the Commission to expand this further and, as much as possible, to conduct on-site rather than virtual visits in Member States, as these could paint a fuller and more contextual picture of the local situation; recalls, in particular, the importance of consulting legal professionals, such as through bar associations and judges’ associations;

86. Recognises the role of notaries in numerous Member States, which functionally exercise court tasks; believes that notaries’ contribution to rule of law standards should be addressed in relevant country chapters of subsequent editions of the rule of law report;

87. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to expand the geographical scope of future rule of law reports to include candidate countries, in line with previous Parliament calls for it to do so;

88. Believes that continuously and ambitiously expanding the scope, candour and enforcement consequences of the report is the best way to ensure its continued relevance and impact;

89. Urges the Commission to invest more in awareness-raising about the Union’s values and applicable tools, including the annual report, especially in countries where there are serious concerns;

90. Affirms that the annual rule of law report is not an end in itself, as monitoring the situation is not enough but should rather lead to specific enforcement action on the identified shortcomings; calls, therefore, on the Commission to ensure that this rule of law report is indeed part and parcel of an entire process within the ambit of the rule of law mechanism as a whole, and to ensure full use of the complete rule of law toolkit at its disposal, including Article 7 TEU in cases where the rule of law report keeps finding continuous breaches year after year in certain Member States;

Interinstitutional cooperation and procedures on rule of law

91. Takes note of the Council’s evaluation of its rule of law dialogue and the Council’s stated position that it will consider further possible interinstitutional cooperation in that context; calls on the Council to make its rule of law dialogue more inclusive, by inviting other institutions and stakeholders to its sessions, in particular Council of Europe bodies such as the Venice Commission, the Human Rights Commissioner, as well as representatives of the European Parliament;

92. Regrets that the Commission and the Council have so far rejected Parliament’s offer to enter into an interinstitutional agreement on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; reaffirms its willingness to resume talks on this agreement;

93. Calls on the other institutions, in the meantime, to at least explore further cooperation in the context of the proposed interinstitutional pilot on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, which would help build trust between the institutions in a practical way, in particular by sharing monitoring, dialogue and meeting practices;

94. Asks its Bureau, in the light of the reluctance of the Commission and the Council, to organise a public procurement procedure in order to create a temporary panel of independent experts under the auspices of Parliament, in line with the commitment undertaken in its previous resolutions, in order to advise Parliament on compliance with the values under Article 2 TEU in various Member States and to show by example how such a panel could work in practice;

95. Condemns the total lack of progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;