What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Change 23

Changed:As Rapporteur of the own-initiative report on the Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report, I have sought to respond to the political priority expressed by the majority of the political groups in the LIBE Committee, as well as to the Commission’s request to issue our annual report earlier than in previous years. The accelerated timeline of the draft report has made it challenging to balance a thorough analysis with the constraints of a compressed drafting process.

Change 24

Changed:In light of these limitations,constraints, I have chosen to concentrate on the overarching calls made in each chapter and to highlight key areas where the Commission’s reporting could be further strengthened.

Change 25

Changed:I have deliberately refrained from naming specific Member States. This represents a significant concession on my part, as the Left Group has consistently advocated for explicitly identifying countries in reports and motions of the European Parliament when breaches of the rule of law, democracy, or fundamental rights occur. We firmly believe that providing concrete examples is essential for accountability and for demonstrating that all Member States are held to the same standards, without prejudice or regard to their position within the Union. However, the increasing influence of national politics in today’s Parliament makes it extremely difficult to reach an objective and non-partisan agreement among political groups if specific Member States were mentioned. Therefore,named. inIn order to ensure that the report remains as consensual, inclusive,consensual and broadly backedsupported as possible, I have decided to refrainnot fromto citingname specific Member States onin thisthe occasion.draft report.

My main priority has been to uphold long-standing commitments of the European Parliament, including reaffirming the intrinsic link between the rule of law and fundamental rights, and ensuring the involvement of a network of independent experts in the Commission’s reporting process. Such an approach is essential to depoliticise the assessment, prevent critical issues from being overlooked, and ensure that emerging trends are clearly and consistently articulated.

Change 26

Changed:Other priorities include the protection of journalists and civil society organisations; addressing fundamental rights violations facilitated or linked to the use -or exploitation thereof- of EU funds in some Member States; and ensuring the thorough, impartial and timely investigation of corruption cases, with particular priority given to those involving high-level officials, as a means to safeguard the rule of law and public trust in democratic institutions. Finally, EU institutions themselves must fully respect their obligations regarding the rule of law. Assessing their adherence to the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU — including the Union’s internal coherence in upholding these values across its policies and external actions — is indispensable to maintaining the EU’s credibility and legitimacy.

In this context, it is equally essential to reinforce the role of economic and social rights within the Union’s rule-of-law framework. A credible assessment of the state of the rule of law cannot overlook the profound impact that housing insecurity, unequal access to essential services and deepening social inequalities have on people’s ability to exercise their fundamental rights. When individuals cannot afford adequate housing, live in precarious conditions or face systemic barriers to social protection, their equal treatment before the law becomes theoretical rather than real. A holistic, people-centred approach to the rule of law must therefore address the structural socio-economic conditions that weaken democratic participation and undermine trust in public institutions.

Change 27

Changed:I am also very concerned about the normalisation of racist narratives in public discourse, including by political actors and public authorities. Such rhetoric undermines equality before the law, fuels discrimination and hostility against racialised communities, and creates conditions in which individuals are unable to exercise their fundamental rights without fear or intimidation. Tackling racism and discriminatory narratives must,must therefore,therefore form an integral part of the Union’s rule-of-law agenda.

Ultimately, the goal of all EU institutions must be to provide an assessment of the situation of the rule of law across the EU that is objective, credible and shielded from party-political influences. I am deeply concerned about the growing risk of rule of law backsliding in several Member States, particularly in the context of the rise of far-right narratives and the increasing securitisation of public policy. At such a moment, it is essential that our evaluations remain firmly grounded in evidence, law and fundamental rights, rather than shaped by political convenience. Only by ensuring that our work is independent, rigorous and non-politicised can we maintain the credibility and legitimacy of the Union’s rule-of-law framework.

I intend to table amendments introducing recitals analysing general trends in the Member States. These recitals are designed to complement the operative part of the report by identifying patterns, emerging risks and systemic challenges, thereby reinforcing the analytical basis for our recommendations.

Change 28

Changed:Through this approach, the draft report aims to combine timely political engagement with concrete proposals to enhance the effectiveness, transparency and impact of the Commission’s reporting, thereby contributing to a more robust and coherent rule-of-law framework within the European Union.