Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Added34. Underlines the clear link between rule-of-law backsliding and serious violations of fundamental rights, including the lack of due process for detainees, misuse of pre-trial detention, incitement to hatred in political or institutional discourse, and restrictive measures targeting civil society organisations; firmly believes that the Commission should assess how Member States address these violations of rule-of-law principles and fundamental rights, and increase its efforts to ensure an accessible, effective and impartial justice system; notes with alarm the use of extraordinary legal procedures and executive decrees to reshape the judicial landscape beyond the scope of normal parliamentary scrutiny, mirroring patterns previously identified as incompatible with the separation of powers;

Added35. Calls on the Commission to address prison conditions as a rule-of-law concern, in the light of widespread overcrowding, inadequate living conditions and rising suicide rates, which undermine detainees’ fundamental rights across Member States’ penitentiary systems; calls on the Member States to take measures to ensure that detention conditions in prisons, including juvenile facilities, are in line with fundamental rights standards, by addressing overcrowding, ensuring access to healthcare and psychological support, and strengthening suicide prevention measures; welcomes the initiatives undertaken by some Member States to address overcrowding, and stresses the need for further structural measures, including coherent strategies to reduce prison populations and prioritise non-custodial measures and other alternatives to imprisonment;

Anti-corruption framework

Change 8

Changed5.36. Reiterates that corruption is a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law and the fair treatment forof all citizens;citizens, that it hampers economic development, erodes public trust in institutions, and creates vulnerabilities which may be exploited by external actors at both national and EU levels;

Change 9

Removed6. Calls on the Member States, candidate countries and potential candidate countries, as well as EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, to strengthen preventive measures against corruption, including transparent management of EU funds, codes of conduct for public officials, mandatory asset declarations, conflict-of-interest rules, early warning systems and limitations on revolving-door practices;

Added37. Regrets that public confidence in the fight against corruption remains low, as two-thirds of Europeans believe that high-level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently, more than half consider government action ineffective and nearly half doubt the impartial application of anti-corruption measures; highlights significant gaps in reporting mechanisms and public awareness; considers this a clear call for the EU to intensify its work to prevent and combat corruption;

Removed7. Calls on the Member States to guarantee the independence, impartiality and adequate resourcing of disciplinary boards, prosecution services, anti-corruption agencies and the judiciary;

Added38. Is deeply concerned by corruption cases that have emerged within European institutions and stresses that the rule of law requires that persons holding public office cannot act arbitrarily or abuse their power for personal gain; calls on EU institutions to fully apply the principles of good governance, including transparency, accountability, and integrity;

Removed8. Stresses that the rule of law requires public officials to act transparently and in the public interest, without abuse of power or arbitrary decision-making; calls on the Member States to promote a culture of integrity through regular anti-corruption training for public officials, law enforcement and judiciary, and by actively engaging civil society in monitoring government actions;

Added39. Stresses that the EU’s full membership in GRECO, beyond its current observer status, is necessary to address the existing asymmetry whereby all EU Member States are evaluated by GRECO while EU institutions themselves are not, thereby limiting coherence across the EU’s integrity framework; emphasises that the Commission cannot reasonably be expected to self-assess in matters of integrity and anti-corruption, and that recourse to a recognised, independent external monitoring is essential to ensure credibility, transparency and public trust; stresses the importance of sending a clear political signal that EU institutions are themselves subject to the same level of scrutiny and standards as national authorities; recalls that EU membership of GRECO would strengthen the alignment of rules, ensure methodological consistency, improve transparency, accountability and efficiency in the management of EU funds, the legislative process and the work of the EU institutions, while enhancing cooperation with Member States, candidate countries and neighbouring countries in the fight against corruption;

Removed9. Urges the Member States to ensure prompt, thorough and impartial investigations of corruption cases, with particular priority given to cases involving high-level officials, in order to safeguard the rule of law, uphold public trust and ensure accountability at all levels of government;

Added40. Calls on the Commission to swiftly conclude the negotiations on the EU’s full membership of GRECO; notes that EU accession may follow two legal routes, either by a direct request to accede to the GRECO Agreement or, more straightforwardly, through accession to one or both Council of Europe anti-corruption conventions (ETS No 173 and/or 174), which would automatically entail GRECO membership; therefore calls on the Commission to pursue without delay the most efficient legal pathway to full GRECO membership and to ensure that the annual rule of law report also covers EU institutions;

Removed10. Calls on the Member States to protect whistleblowers and journalists reporting on corruption or mismanagement of EU funds, by ensuring confidential reporting channels, effective remedies against retaliation, and the protection of investigative journalism and freedom of expression;

Added41. Urges the Member States to fully implement all Council of Europe GRECO recommendations;

Added42. Calls on the Member States to publish, adopt, update, monitor, implement and revise their national strategy on preventing and combating corruption, establishing objectives, priorities, and corresponding measures and the means to meet these objectives, in order to ensure that action against corruption is mainstreamed in all relevant policy sectors;

Added43. Acknowledges the key role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in safeguarding the rule of law and in combating corruption in the EU, as well as in effectively protecting the Union’s financial interests from criminal activity; encourages the Commission to closely monitor participating Member States’ level of cooperation with the EPPO in subsequent reports, and to make full use of its tools where cooperation is deficient; supports the reinforcement of the EPPO’s monitoring, coordination and operational powers with a view to strengthening its capacity to investigate and prosecute corruption in the Member States; calls on the Commission to accelerate the revision of the EPPO Regulation in order to enhance operational cooperation and data-analysis support between the EPPO and Europol; urges all Member States that have not yet done so to join the EPPO in order to enhance the effectiveness of the fight against corruption, particularly in relation to the protection of EU funds;

Added44. Calls on the Member States, candidate countries and potential candidate countries, as well as EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, to establish or strengthen preventive measures against corruption, such as specialised and independent anti-corruption institutions, transparent management of EU funds, strengthened or proper enforcement of transparency requirements in decision-making, such as registers of lobbyists and reporting obligations on political funding, ensuring a high level of transparency in the relevant EU policy areas, codes of conduct for public officials, mandatory asset declarations and verification thereof, early warning systems, and clear rules on conflict-of-interest and revolving-door practices;

Added45. Calls on all the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to strengthen their anti-corruption measures with regard to the disclosure and management of conflicts of interest, open access to information, and rules regulating the interaction of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies with the private sector;

Added46. Calls on EU agencies, offices, and institutions, such as Europol, Eurojust, the European Court of Auditors, the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to improve their cooperation, in particular through a review and strengthening of the EU anti-fraud architecture, including ensuring that OLAF has adequate resources, so as to ensure more effective detection, prevention and prosecution of violations of the rule of law where these have direct or indirect repercussions on the financial interests of the Union;

Added47. Calls for the reinforcement of preventive measures against revolving-door practices in judicial systems, in particular in candidate and potential candidate countries, to prevent judges and prosecutors from taking up governmental and political positions that could lead to conflicts of interest and harm the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system;

Added48. Expresses deep concern about the situation in some Member States where specialised anti-corruption bodies have been dismantled, absorbed into less independent structures, or had their competences reallocated in ways that reduce their independence or allow prosecutorial or police powers to be used for political purposes; notes that these developments have led to sharp declines in investigations and prosecutions of corruption cases, including high-level cases, and undermine the effectiveness of national anti-corruption frameworks, as evidenced by recent expert analyses; points out that the prosecution service is a key element in the capacity of a Member State to fight crime and corruption; regrets any governmental or political interference in criminal investigations, including corruption and related offences;

Added49. Calls on the Member States to guarantee the independence, impartiality, specialisation and adequate resourcing of disciplinary boards, prosecution services, anti-corruption agencies and the judiciary, in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and GRECO;

Added50. Welcomes the new Directive on combating corruption, which updates and strengthens the EU's legal framework in line with the UNCAC; welcomes in particular the harmonisation at EU level of the definition of core corruption offences, including bribery in the public and private sectors, misappropriation, trading in influence, obstruction of justice, illicit enrichment, concealment and serious abuses of public function; recalls that the offence of abuse of office and other similar offences fall within the scope of the Directive, form an integral part of the regulatory framework on anti-corruption and transparency, and are at odds with international conventions on tackling corruption; welcomes the strengthening of criminal sanctions for both natural and legal persons, including custodial sentences of at least three to five years, disqualification from public office and exclusion from access to public funds, as well as turnover-based fines for companies; notes the reinforced rules on jurisdiction, enabling Member States to prosecute certain offences committed abroad; welcomes the enhanced preventive framework, including the obligation to have specialised anti-corruption bodies or organisational units in place, carrying out regular risk assessments and ensuring protection for whistleblowers and cooperating persons; stresses that the Directive on combating corruption emphasises that while fully respecting all relevant rules in national constitutions, constitutional principles and laws, unduly shielding individuals, in particular holders of public office, from accountability for corruption offences might undermine public trust in a way incompatible with the objectives of this Directive; further stresses that Member States should have a system in place for the recording, production and provision of anonymised statistical data on the number of pardons related to convictions regarding Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive; urges all Member States to swiftly and fully implement the Combating Corruption Directive;

Added51. Stresses that the rule of law requires public officials, in both the EU institutions and the Member States, to act transparently and in the public interest, without abuse of power or arbitrary decision-making; calls on the Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries to promote a culture of integrity through regular anti-corruption training for public officials, law enforcement and judiciary, and by actively engaging civil society;

Added52. Underlines that freedom of information and access to information of public interest is a fundamental right and an essential component of transparency, democratic accountability and the fight against corruption; notes that the Commission’s rule of law report systematically covers this area, including unjustified restrictions, delays or obstacles to accessing public information; calls on Member States to guarantee timely, effective and non-discriminatory access to information held by public authorities, and to refrain from legislative or administrative measures limiting transparency or hindering public scrutiny, where they are incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Added53. Expresses concern that recent criminal law reforms reducing sanctions and limitation periods for anti-corruption offences resulted in the discontinuation of hundreds of corruption-related cases, including those involving serious offences, weakening deterrence, fostering a climate of impunity and eroding trust in public institutions;

Added54. Notes that in Hungary the concentration of executive influence over prosecutors, combined with legislative reforms enabling the closure of corruption cases or the weakening of penalties, mirrors patterns of systemic backsliding previously identified by Parliament in the context of Article 7 TEU proceedings;

Added55. Urges the Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries to ensure prompt, thorough and impartial investigations of corruption cases, with particular priority given to cases involving high-level officials, in order to safeguard the rule of law, uphold public trust and ensure accountability at all levels of government; calls, furthermore on the Member States to follow up on such cases within a reasonable time frame so as not to foster a sense of impunity among citizens;

Added56. Calls on the Member States to align their legal provisions on the criminal liability of high-level officials, as defined in the Directive on combating corruption, and to reduce legal and procedural barriers that hinder judicial authorities from swiftly examining relevant cases;

Added57. Calls on the Commission to systematically report on, and differentiate between, the track record of investigations, indictments and final convictions in high-level corruption cases in each Member State; further calls on the Commission to identify situations of persistent impunity as structural vulnerabilities with significant implications for the protection of the EU budget, and to include these findings in the anti-corruption chapter of the rule of law report;

Added58. Recognises the crucial role that whistleblowers play in exposing corruption and promoting transparency across both the public and private sectors; stresses the need to ensure they are effectively protected against retaliation and harassment; calls for the further strengthening of independent and autonomous whistleblower protection authorities and for their integration into broader national anti-corruption frameworks; urges the Member States and candidate countries to protect and further strengthen protection for whistleblowers and journalists reporting on corruption or mismanagement of EU funds, by ensuring confidential reporting channels, effective remedies against retaliation, and the protection of investigative journalism and freedom of expression; calls for the introduction of specific aggravating circumstances in criminal law for offences committed against journalists when such acts are motivated by or connected to their professional activities;

The protection of journalists, and media pluralism and freedom

Change 10

Changed11. Strongly59. believesStates that the assassination of investigative journalists constitutes a direct attack on the rule of law, as it not only undermines the capacity of citizens and institutions to hold those in power accountable, but also represents one of the most extreme forms of censorship, posing a direct threat to freedom of expression and the functioning of democratic institutions; stresses that threats, harassment and campaigns against journalists, including those that are politically motivated, create a chilling effect on investigative reporting and must trigger prompt, thorough, independent and effective investigations;

Change 11

Removed12. Strongly condemns the surveillance of journalists, in particular by means of spyware; remains dismayed at the Commission’s refusal to implement all the recommendations of Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware, and considers it a failure to act;

Added60. Strongly condemns the surveillance of journalists, in particular by means of spyware, including the Paragon Graphite case, as well as the targeting of journalists and civil-society actors in several Member States, which constitutes a breach of freedom of expression and media freedom, and undermines the principles of democracy; highlights the importance of protecting journalists and the confidentiality of their communications from any form of unlawful or arbitrary surveillance; welcomes efforts aimed at strengthening safeguards against such practices; stresses the need to strengthen existing safeguards, including judicial review, necessity and proportionality assessments and effective redress mechanisms, as well as the enforcement of EU law;

Removed13. Remains deeply concerned that media ownership, whether in public or private hands, remains highly concentrated in many Member States, posing a risk to diversity of information and viewpoints; calls on the Member States to adopt legislative frameworks to prevent horizontal concentration, ensure transparency of ownership and management, and guarantee independent oversight and compliance mechanisms to safeguard editorial and journalistic independence and the media’s role as a public watchdog;

Added61. Remains concerned about the limited follow-up given by the Commission to the recommendations of Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware, considers that their full and timely implementation would significantly strengthen the EU’s capacity to prevent abuses and uphold fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to report regularly to Parliament, in particular to its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), on the state of implementation of those recommendations; calls on the Commission to address the use of spyware against journalists in its future rule of law report, as it has a direct impact on media freedom, media pluralism and the safety of journalists; recognises that, following concerns raised at EU level, certain Member States have introduced reforms intended to improve oversight, transparency and accountability in the use of surveillance technologies;

Removed14. Calls on the Member States and candidate countries to ensure the protection of journalists and other media professionals in the EU in line with Commission recommendations 2021/1534 and 2022/758;

Added62. Notes with concern the use of increasingly intrusive surveillance technologies, including AI-based tools, notably where their deployment may disproportionately interfere with fundamental rights, such as privacy, freedom of assembly or media freedom; stresses that surveillance technologies based on AI, including biometric systems such as facial recognition, pose a high risk to the respect of fundamental rights, and that, where used, they must be subject to prior judicial authorisation and transparent oversight; calls on the Commission to assess whether national practices involving biometric surveillance or large-scale data collection pose systemic risks to the rule of law;

Removed15. Calls on the Member States to fully implement the Anti-SLAPP Directive;

Added63. Expresses deep concern at the increasingly well-documented allegations of unlawful surveillance and espionage targeting EU institutions; stresses that such practices, if confirmed, would constitute a grave threat to the rule of law, the separation of powers, democratic oversight and the integrity of the EU’s decision-making processes:

Removed16. Calls on the Commission to assess whether EU sanctions to combat disinformation comply with the proportionality requirement under EU law and with Article 11 of the Charter; strongly believes that the right to be heard must be guaranteed before such measures are applied by the Council, especially where the rights of EU citizens, in particular journalists, risk being undermined;

Added64. Recalls that the deployment of spyware, given its highly intrusive nature, constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights, undermines mutual trust among Member States and may distort the functioning of the single market and EU policies; calls for full transparency, effective and independent scrutiny over such practices, and concrete corrective measures, including at EU level, to ensure accountability; reiterates that surveillance must be carried out in accordance with the law, serve a legitimate aim and be strictly necessary and proportionate, and subject to robust safeguards; underlines that any misuse of surveillance tools that is duly established following due process must have tangible consequences under the EU’s legal and budgetary instruments;

Added65. Remains deeply concerned that media ownership, whether in public or private hands, remains highly concentrated in many Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries posing a risk to diversity of information and viewpoints; expresses concern at increasing political interference in the governance, management and staffing of public service media, undermining their independence; stresses the democratic importance of independent and well-funded public service media; calls on the Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries to adopt legislative frameworks to prevent horizontal concentration, ensure transparency of ownership and management, including through public ownership registries, guarantee transparent allocation of public funds, and establish independent oversight and compliance mechanisms to safeguard editorial and journalistic independence and the media’s role as a public watchdog;

Added66. Condemns any undue political interference in the management of public media and notes with concern structural reforms in certain Member States that increase political influence over appointment and dismissal procedures, as well as the use of state-controlled advertising, politically influenced regulatory bodies and media consolidation into pro-government conglomerates, which together erode media pluralism and restrict access to independent information; calls on the Member States to ensure transparent, open, effective and non-discriminatory appointment procedures for governing bodies, based on objective and proportionate criteria laid down in advance, in accordance with Article 5 of the European Media Freedom Act and urges the Commission to closely monitor national reforms that may undermine media pluralism and the independence of public service media; stresses that independent and trustworthy media, including public service media free from political control, are indispensable for democratic accountability, as they enable citizens to scrutinise those in power and to detect corruption and abuse of office;

Added67. Recalls that online platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and X are major sources of news, particularly for younger audiences; expresses concern that recommender systems may amplify polarising content and create information 'echo chambers', posing serious risks to democratic debate and media pluralism; calls on the Commission to ensure effective enforcement of the Digital Services Act, in particular regarding platforms’ obligations to mitigate systemic risks to media pluralism and civic discourse;

Added68. Welcomes initiatives to promote free, independent and pluralistic media, such as the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA); regrets, however, that in most Member States the EMFA remains far from being effectively implemented; calls on the Member States to immediately fulfil their obligations to ensure its swift and full implementation, including transparency in the allocation of state advertising online and offline, and the safeguarding of media pluralism and editorial independence; calls on the Commission to provide support to Member States in transposing the EMFA into national law, monitor its implementation, and consider infringement proceedings where obligations are not met; calls on the Commission to actively assist Member States in the application of the EMFA, including through the adoption of interpretative guidelines where necessary, and to closely monitor its effective enforcement, in particular in Member States where independent sources have raised media freedom concerns; stresses that, given the direct applicability of the Regulation, journalists and stakeholders are already entitled to invoke it before national and EU courts;

Added69. Calls on the Member States and candidate countries to ensure the protection of journalists and other media professionals in the EU in line with Commission recommendations 2021/1534 and 2022/758 ; underlines that the protection of journalists must encompass not only effective physical safety measures, but also safeguards against online threats, harassment and digital attacks, as well as access to information without undue barriers;

Added70. Condemns hate speech, both online and offline, including in the mainstream media, on social media and in public spaces, as it constitutes a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law; calls for stronger enforcement of media regulations to safeguard a diverse and inclusive media landscape; underlines that public figures must lead by example in ensuring respectful debate; recalls that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and should not be unjustifiably restricted; stresses that freedom of expression must not be used to justify hate speech or hate crimes; calls on the Member States to repeal or amend legislation that is not in line with European and international standards regarding freedom of expression and public debate;

Added71. Recalls that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies and an essential element of the rule of law; notes with concern the increase in administrative and criminal measures targeting academics, journalists and human rights defenders;

Added72. Calls on the Member States to fully and timely implement the Anti-SLAPP Directive; and Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758; urges the Member States to go beyond minimum transposition and adopt comprehensive domestic anti-SLAPP measures to protect journalists and other targets from intimidation, defamation or restrictions on the exercise of their profession;

Added73. Recommends that, when transposing the directive, the Member States extend its application to also include national cases, given that the majority of SLAPPs occur at the national level; encourages the adoption of early dismissal mechanisms, effective cost-shifting rules, dissuasive sanctions against abusive litigants, and robust support measures for affected journalists and other targets;

Added74. Calls on the Commission to urgently consider proposals or complementary instruments to address SLAPPs not covered under the current EU framework, and to explore amendments expanding the directive’s scope beyond cross-border cases, ensuring a high and uniform level of protection across the EU;

Added75. Invites the Commission to assess whether EU sanctions to combat disinformation comply with the proportionality requirement under EU law and with Article 11 of the Charter, while fully acknowledging the legitimate objective of adopting policies to address disinformation and information manipulation; considers that the right to be heard and adequate legal safeguards must be guaranteed before such measures are applied by the Council, especially where the rights of EU citizens, in particular journalists, risk being undermined;

Added76. Encourages the Member States to ensure that minorities can effectively participate in and access media and to ensure that audiovisual media services do not contain incitement to violence or hatred against minorities;

Added77. Calls on the Member States to establish frameworks that guarantee people’s freedom to seek, receive and impart information, and to ensure that national coordinators under the Digital Services Act (DSA) can fully perform their role in facilitating information exchange and cooperation at EU level; underlines the importance of timely and effective implementation of the DSA to ensure a safe, transparent, and accountable online environment; calls on the Member States to ensure that the transposition of Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence fully respects freedom of expression and information as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and does not introduce restrictions on reporting on matters of public interest;

Added78. Recalls the importance of monitoring large online platforms and enforcing the DSA, including investigations into algorithmic manipulation, amplification of hate speech, political propaganda, or lack of oversight; stresses the importance of transparency in platform algorithms, of independent audits and of fact-checking mechanisms to combat disinformation, and underlines that these measures should be complemented by guaranteed access to information and the promotion of media literacy among all citizens;

Added79. Stresses that large-scale disinformation and information manipulation, increasingly amplified by advanced AI systems, pose serious risks to the rule of law and democratic processes; calls on the Commission and Member States to fully enforce the DSA and AI Act to ensure transparency, accountability and effective mitigation of AI-driven systemic risks to the rule of law, particularly in electoral contexts;

Civil society space

Change 12

Changed17.80. Emphasises the crucial role played by a strong and unhindered civil society, including grassroots and community organisations, trade unions, activist groups, human rights defenders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)(NGOs), as well as by independent authorities and ombudspersons, in promoting and upholding democracy, equality, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and in ensuring accountability for both state and private actions;actors through their watchdog role; recalls that, in this context, the Commission acknowledges that obstacles persist in some Member States to creating an environment conducive to the work of civil society actors, as well as the need for additional measures for them, such as dedicated training, awareness-raising and protection mechanisms; urges the Commission to step up efforts to strengthen the protection of all these actors and to guarantee the conditions necessary for the effective pursuit of their activities; recalls the need for a safe, supportive and enabling environment for them; encourages civic engagement and participation in democratic processes;