What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Transparency and access to information

Change 14

Changed:23.39. Regrets the continuous difficulties that many citizens, journalists and parliamentarians in many Member States face in obtaining information and access to documents; underlines thatthat, too oftenoften, public authorities are deliberately frustratingfrustrate access to information and documents, such as by disproportionately delaying decisions or giving only artificial access by only making information only partially available; notes that the Commission has found that several Member States have taken initiatives to better regulate access to information, such as in Czechia, Lithuania and Slovakia, and certain others are working towards improvements in this area, such as Germany, Spain, Croatia, Luxembourg and Hungary; notes, however, that some Member States still do not fully address concerns, such as Malta, Austria and Finland; reiterates its call on the Maltese Government to withdraw its appeals against a series of freedom of information requests filed by The Shift News;

Change 15

Added:40. Calls on the EU institutions to show exemplary behaviour when it comes to access to information and documents; notes in this regard the recent European Ombudsman’s Special Report concerning the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents, following her strategic inquiry into this matter in which she found maladministration because the Commission showed systemic and significant delays in dealing with confirmatory applications; calls on the Commission to address this recurrent problem once and for all;

Added:41. Encourages the Member States to regulate lobbying, such as by introducing national mandatory transparency registers for all politicians, members and officials of governments, authorities and agencies; encourages politicians, government officials and officials of authorities and agencies to make public a list of all their meetings;

Added:Economic dimension of the rule of law

Added:42. Calls for the strengthening of the principle of the rule of law in the internal market; underlines that reliable and stable rule-of-law structures are key pillars for investment and trade, which are essential for competitiveness and therefore for the capacity of the welfare system and the labour market in the European Union; regrets Member States’ measures in this area that violate Union law, such as certain protectionist measures;

Added:43. Demands that monitoring of the economic dimension of the rule of law should be intensified; calls on the Commission to give the economic dimension greater consideration and specific attention in the rule of law report under a broadened scope of the report;

Added:44. Recalls its condemnation of the reported systemic discriminatory, non-transparent and unfair practices against companies in certain sectors in Hungary and the use of EU funds to enrich political allies of the government, contrary to EU competition and public procurement rules; is deeply concerned by the growing concentration of businesses in the hands of oligarchs with ties to the current government who have publicly signalled their intention to buy into key sectors, as well as by the targeting of the competitors of those businesses;

Added:45. Recalls that, within the scope of application of the Treaties, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality is prohibited in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that freedom of establishment, service provision and movement of capital are fundamental to the single market; underlines that the rules regarding equality of treatment forbid overt and covert discrimination by reason of nationality or, in the case of a company, its seat; underlines that the proper implementation of competition and public procurement rules is also in the interest of Hungarian companies;

Added:46. Calls on the Member States to demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law to the international community and to implement all adopted EU restrictive measures accurately and consistently, and to prevent their circumvention; calls on the Commission to closely monitor this;

Civil society space

Change 16

Changed:24.47. Acknowledges the crucial role civil society and a healthy civic space play in upholding and protecting the rule of law, and reiterates its call for a separate chapter to be dedicated to the condition of civil society in Member States; notes that the Commission finds that Malta, Ireland, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Germany have announced or initiated efforts to improve the framework for civil society, and finds that civil society faces particular challenges in Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy and France, and continued authoritarian and serious systemic restrictions in Hungary and Poland; calls on all Member States to accept civil society organisations (CSOs) as important stakeholders in democratic life and to create an enabling environment for civil society;

Change 17

Changed:25.48. 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;

Change 18

Removed:The protection of minorities

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

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

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Change 19

Removed:27. 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 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;

Added: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;

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

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

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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);

Added: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);

Added: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;

67. Reaffirms that women’s rights are human rights and that nothing can justify a regression in women’s rights and autonomy; condemns in particular the attack on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls taking place in several Member States; believes that the right to safe and legal abortion should be anchored in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Change 20

Removed:29. Calls on the Commission to include a specific new pillar on the protection of minorities in the next report, mapping all forms of xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, anti-gypsyism, and LGBTIQ-phobia across all Member States;

Added: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;

Removed:30. Expresses its disappointment at the Commission’s slowness to address non-compliance with fundamental rights laws and case law by Member States; rejects the Commission’s interpretation that the refusal of national authorities to comply with Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rulings in fundamental rights cases are to be considered ‘individual cases’ and not to be addressed by infringement procedures; 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 on ‘private enforcement’;

Added: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;

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

Added: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;

Removed:31. 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 are taken into account; underlines that even if some Member States are exemplary in protecting and promoting democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, in an interdependent, open European Union, the erosion of those values in other Member States compromises and undermines the EU institutions and the situation in the EU as a whole;

Added: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;

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

Added:72. 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;

Added:73. 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;

Added:74. 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

Change 21

Changed:32.75. 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 a lawlessan zone,area where some Member States feel more equal than others and citizens’ EU rights and freedoms are not evenly protected;

76. 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;

Change 22

Changed:34.77. 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 policypolicy, –outlined whichin hasits no2022 basiscommunication inon theenforcing TreatiesEU –law, not to use infringement actions for ‘individual’ cases,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;

Change 23

Changed:35.78. Notes the persistent problem of the incomplete implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)ECtHR judgments, noting the recent decisions of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers[1];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 ECHRECtHR 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;

Change 24

Changed:The ruleRule of lawLaw report as a tool

Change 25

Changed:36. Recognises79. thatWelcomes the rule of law report has becomeas a benchmarkcrucial forcornerstone of the EU institutions’rule workof onlaw toolbox and commends the Commission for delivering a diligently researched and well-written report; recalls that the annual rule of law issuesreport was introduced in response to a Parliament resolution adopted on the EUbasis andof ina specificlegislative Memberown-initiative States;report in 2016;

Change 26

Changed:37.80. AcknowledgesRecognises that the Commission's rule of law report has become more comprehensive since its inceptiona inbenchmark 2020;for regrets,the however,EU thatinstitutions’ thework 2023on editionrule of thelaw reportissues wasin notthe significantlyEU expandedand byin addingspecific aMember comprehensiveStates; newacknowledges pillar;the reiteratesCommission’s itscontinuous positioncommitment thatthroughout the reportyears shouldto coverenhancing the full scoperelevance of the values ofreport, Articlesuch 2as TEU,by asits theseinclusion cannotof becountry-specific seenrecommendations in isolation;the callsprevious onedition theand Commissionan toassessment expandof thetheir scopefulfilment ofin the report nextcurrent year;report;

Change 27

Removed:38. 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 artificially equal number of conclusions and recommendations per Member State conceals the very real differences between Member States; 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; notes the sometimes stark differences between the summaries of country chapters and the in-depth content of the chapters themselves, suggesting an editorial intervention;

Added:81. 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;

Removed:39. 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;

Added:82. 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;