EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 715 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report





Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Ireland Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report





The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}



Abstract The Irish justice system, characterised by a high level of perceived independence, is undergoing important developments. A new draft law aims at reforming the system for judicial appointments and promotions, alleviating certain previous concerns. However, the reform would continue to leave broad discretion to the Government, given there is no ranking of the candidates and the Government is not bound by this list, although its decisions must be published. It is important that this reform guarantees judicial independence, taking into account European standards. A disciplinary regime is being established to improve judges’ accountability and the Judicial Conduct Committee is preparing draft guidelines on conduct and ethics and a complaints’ procedure. In accordance with the Constitution, the final decision on dismissal of judges, which is only envisaged in cases of misbehaviour or incapacity, remains a prerogative of the Parliament, which could raise concerns as regards the politicisation of the procedure. The recently established Judicial Council has continued its work on a number of guidelines. Reflections are ongoing on limiting legal costs and improving legal aid schemes, which could improve access to justice. Measures are being taken to address challenges in relation to digitalisation, the low number of judges per inhabitant and the length of proceedings. Ireland is extensively reviewing its anti-corruption and anti-fraud structures as well as its strategies to prevent, investigate and adjudicate economic crimes and corruption. The Government has committed itself to introduce new anti-corruption and anti-fraud structures, new legislation to provide for preliminary trial hearings, and to amend the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018. Key challenges in Ireland’s capacity to deter and punish corruption remain due to limited resources and institutional fragmentation. Prevention of corruption and promotion of integrity measures are in place, but challenges remain as regards enforcement, in particular on asset disclosure, lobbying and revolving doors. Concerns have been raised that the Standards in Public Office Commission, as the supervisory authority managing the disclosure of interests and tax clearance regimes of the public office holders, may not be adequately resourced. A capacity review is planned to examine the issue. The broadcast media regulator (Broadcasting Authority of Ireland) is expected to undergo a major reorganisation in the framework of the new draft law on online safety and media regulation, aiming at transposing the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The new draft law is planned to be adopted by the end of 2021. The recent developments aimed at increasing transparency in the sector include making available the database on media ownership, expected to be regularly updated. Amendments to the Defamation Act, foreseen for adoption in the coming months, are expected to have a positive impact on the operation of journalists. The Government has set up an advisory Future of Media Commission to launch a dialogue on new policy measures and possible long-term actions to support the sector. As regards checks and balances, the ordinary legislative procedure continued to be used to legislate to address the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns were raised regarding the limited parliamentary oversight over ministerial measures. While Ireland has a well-developed legislative procedure, there has recently been substantial recourse to possibilities to shorten discussions in Parliament. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission continues to carry out its work effectively and was re-accredited in June 2021. Ireland has a vibrant and diverse civil society but funding restrictions on NGOs continue to raise some concerns. There are plans to tackle these concerns in the context of the ongoing electoral reform. I.Justice System Ireland is a common law jurisdiction, whose judiciary is divided into a civil and a criminal branch. The court system comprises a court of final appeal (the Supreme Court), a Court of Appeal, and courts of first instance which include a High Court with full jurisdiction in all criminal and civil matters and courts of limited jurisdiction: the Circuit Court and the District Court organised on a geographical basis. The Special Criminal Courts are non-jury courts and deal with paramilitary, subversive and organised crime cases. Moreover, a number of specialised tribunals operate in different areas, including workplace relations. A Judicial Council was established in 2019. Judicial appointments are made by the President of Ireland, acting on the advice of the Government. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is tasked with the selection of suitable candidates for appointment. The prosecution service is not part of the judicial branch. The Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Government. The legal profession has two types of lawyers – solicitors, represented by the Law Society, and barristers, largely represented by the Bar of Ireland. The Legal Services Regulatory Authority, an independent body established in 2016, is Ireland’s national statutory regulator for both branches of the legal profession. Independence The perceived independence of courts and judges among the general public and among companies remains high. The level of independence of courts and judges is perceived as ‘fairly’ or ‘very good’ by 73% of the general population and by 77% of companies. This high level of perceived judicial independence has been stable since 2016. The recently established Judicial Council has continued its work to issue a number of guidelines, including through carrying out research and drafting. A modern programme of education and training for judges has commenced, aided by the appointment of a serving judge as Director of Judicial Studies. The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (‘GRECO’) welcomed the establishment of the Judicial Council in line with its previous recommendations. The Judicial Council is carrying out research to guide its drafting of Sentencing Guidelines. The Personal Injuries Guidelines, which set general guidelines for the amounts to be awarded or assessed in personal injury claims, were adopted by the Council in March 2021 and came into effect in April 2021, once the legislation entered into force. In the implementation of such guidelines due regard should be given to the respect of judicial independence. A new draft law on the appointment and promotion of judges is under preparation. After the lapsing of the 2017 draft law on judicial appointments at the end of the previous parliamentary term, the new Government presented a new General Scheme in December 2020. The draft law is expected to be tabled in Parliament in the third quarter of 2021. The composition of the envisaged Judicial Appointments Commission has been changed. The new General Scheme provides for the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission composed of nine members to replace the current Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB). The Commission will include the Chief Justice (as chair), two judges nominated by the Judicial Council (one having been a practising solicitor and one having been a practising barrister), one court president (being the president of the court in respect of which the Commission is to recommend persons for appointment) and four lay members (three of which are to be selected in open competition by the Public Appointments Service, and one of which will be nominated by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission). The Attorney General will sit in the Commission in an ex-officio non-voting capacity. The composition of the envisaged Commission does not provide, for a clear majority of judges chosen by their peers, although it takes into account certain concerns raised as regards the previous plans for a lay majority and a lay chair. The membership, even if in non-voting capacity, of the Attorney General, who is also the Government’s chief legal advisor and sits at cabinet meetings, might raise concerns as regards the independence of the Commission from the Government, as reported by the Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Law Society. The General Scheme also provides for a Senior Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to recommend persons for appointment as Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal and President of the High Court. This Committee will be composed of the Chief Justice, one lay member and the Attorney General. Therefore, the Attorney General would have a significant role in the appointments of the most senior positions within the judiciary, which could also raise concerns of independence. It is important that the final reform guarantees judicial independence, in line with EU law and taking into account European standards and is carried out in full consultation with relevant stakeholders and the Venice Commission. In particular, according to Council of Europe recommendations, such an independent appointment body should be composed in substantial part from the judiciary and it should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice. The envisaged procedure for judicial appointments and promotions raises concerns. In the current system, for first-time judicial appointments, the JAAB recommends to the Minister for Justice at least seven candidates for each vacancy. Shortlisted candidates are not ranked in order of preference, and the Government is not bound to select from the list. Promotions of judges are made by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Government and are not subject to the procedure conducted by the JAAB. Concerns were raised as regards the wide discretion left to the executive power in the current system. The General Scheme provides that all judicial appointments and promotions must be subject to the envisaged new procedure, which is capable of strengthening judicial independence. The General Scheme provides that the Commission would present five unranked candidates to the Government, thereby better limiting the discretion of the Government compared to the current system of a list of seven candidates. However, the 2017 draft law provided for an even greater limitation, proposing a list of only three ranked candidates. The number of candidates to be submitted and the lack of ranking foreseen by the new General Scheme provides the Government with a broad discretion as regards judicial appointments, which has raised criticism. This discretion is further amplified by the possibility for the Government to select an applicant who is not in the list prepared by the Commission, without the need to give reasons. The Government considers that this discretion is required by the constitutional provisions stating that judges are appointed by the President. Nonetheless, it is important that this reform takes into account Council of Europe recommendations relating to the need for the executive power to follow in practice the recommendations by independent authorities. Work is ongoing on establishing a disciplinary regime for judges, while Parliament remains in charge of removing judges. The Judicial Conduct Committee of the Judicial Council, which was established in 2020 to consider complaints in relation to judicial misconduct, is drafting the Judicial Conduct Guidelines, the procedures for informal resolution of complaints and on admissibility and operation of the complaints regime. The complaint procedure should be ready to be commenced by summer 2022. Despite the progress in this regard, the current lack of formal disciplinary procedures for judges was raised as concern, including by civil society. Therefore, the forthcoming guidelines and procedures could lead to improve the accountability of judges; it is important that they preserve judicial independence in line with EU law and taking into account Council of Europe recommendations. Parliament remains in charge of deciding on the removal from office of judges and retains its margin of discretion in that regard, which could raise concerns about the politicisation of the process, even if this process has never been engaged. Quality The number of judges remains low and the resources available for the training of judges appear limited. The number of judges per inhabitant remains the lowest in the EU, which could also affect the efficiency of the Irish justice system. While the Government has committed to review the numbers and types of judges needed to ensure the efficient administration of justice over the next five years, more immediate measures might address concerns also raised by stakeholders. The budget per capita for the justice system has consistently increased in the last years and is among the highest in the EU, while the budget as a percentage of GDP has stagnated and remained below EU average. As regards judicial training, in 2020, a part-time Director of Judicial Studies (who is a serving judge) was appointed. It has not been possible to expand the training programme, although progress has recently been made in securing the administrative support necessary to facilitate developing that programme. A survey of judicial training needs was carried out in 2021. The reflection on the costs of litigation and the legal aid system continues and could lead to the improvement of access to justice. The Review of the Administration of Civil Justice was published in October 2020 and makes recommendations with a view to improving access to civil justice, promoting early resolution of disputes, reducing the cost of litigation, creating a more responsive and proportionate system and ensuring better outcomes for court users. The Review recommended the drawing up of non-binding guidelines on legal costs. The Government has launched an evaluation of this proposal, including whether legal costs should be fixed in a binding manner. Recommendations on this matter are expected by the end of 2021. The Government has also committed to start a review of the civil legal aid scheme this year. These initiatives could help addressing concerns relating to access to justice and, in particular, the civil legal aid system. As regards criminal legal aid, the Government plans to transfer the operation of the scheme to the Legal Aid Board. While the criminal legal aid scheme is generally considered as well-functioning, the Bar of Ireland has raised concerns about the low level of remuneration provided for barristers under the scheme. Strengthening the legal aid systems and limiting legal costs would appear important to improve access to justice. Moreover, the promotion of and incentives for using alternative dispute resolution methods could be further improved. The Legal Services Regulatory Authority is taking further measures to tackle remaining barriers in the legal services market. The Authority plans to introduce before the end of 2021 the framework for Legal Partnerships (which can include barrister-barrister partnerships and barrister-solicitor partnerships). The Authority also intends to revisit the introduction on multi-disciplinary practices (involving legal practitioners and other professions – e.g. architects, accountants) following on from the introduction of Legal Partnerships. In 2020, the Authority published a report which considered whether the professions of solicitor and barrister should be unified. The report concluded that there was no evidential basis for recommending unification of the professions but undertook to revisit the issue once other reforms under the Act had bedded down. The Authority also published a report on legal practitioner education and training, recommending reforms to define the competence and standards required to practice as a solicitor or barrister. It also recommends the establishment of a statutory framework to accredit existing providers of legal practitioner education and training, as well as allowing new providers to be accredited to provide professional training for solicitors and barristers. The Authority is now working with the Department of Justice on the implementation of these recommendations. The Authority is also undertaking a research project on potential barriers that may exist to commencing a career as a barrister or solicitor, to be issued before the end of 2021. In 2020, the Authority took over the regulation of advertising by legal practitioners, with the introduction of new regulations. It would be important for the Authority to assess whether and how the measures taken have contributed to limit legal costs and enhancing access to justice. Work continues in order to remedy existing gaps in the digitalisation of the justice system. The Courts Service has issued a long-term strategy, which aims to better support access to justice. The modernisation programme’s priorities include eFiling, a case management system, and putting in place the infrastructure to facilitate eCourts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Virtual Courtroom programme has allowed for more than 2 200 virtual court sessions since March 2020. Remote courts continue to operate across all jurisdictions, extensively, in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and they are planned to continue operating in the future. Despite the measures of 2020 allowing for the increased use of remote hearings in civil matters and in criminal appeals, Ireland scores below EU average as regards procedural rules allowing digital technology in courts in civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases. Ireland also scores below average as regards the use of digital technology by courts and prosecution service, electronic communication tools in courts, digital solutions to conduct and follow court proceedings in criminal cases and online access to published judgments by the general public. Further digitalisation of the Irish justice system is therefore necessary to remedy existing gaps, and also to allow for the gathering of data on the length of proceedings according to Council of Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) methodology.

The Government has announced a review covering the functioning of the Special Criminal Courts. The United Nations and civil society have long called for considering the abolition of the Special Criminal Court, which was established in 1972 to deal with terrorism and organised crime cases, or to strengthen the procedure of the Court to ensure respect of the right to fair trial. In February 2021, the Government appointed a group to review the Offences Against the State Acts. The review group’s remit covers the functioning of the Special Criminal Court. Efficiency Challenges relating to the length of proceedings have aggravated. The average length of proceedings in the High Court in 2019 was 785 days, an increase of around 35 days from 2018. In particular, the length of commercial proceedings continued to increase, by around 220 days from 2018 to 2019. By contrast, length of proceedings at circuit and district courts decreased in 2019 compared to 2018, following an increase the previous year. Length of proceedings at the Court of Appeal increased by around 110 days between 2019 (1220 days) and 2018 (1101 days). Between 2018 and 2019, the length of criminal proceedings increased by around 120 days at circuit court and by around 100 days at the central criminal court. The Review of the Administration of Civil Justice made recommendations to reduce delay in and the time of proceedings. A Criminal Procedure draft law providing for pre-trial hearings, which could provide for a faster and more efficient court process for certain offences, was signed into law on 24 May 2021. The Government plans to propose a compensation scheme for cases of excessive length of court proceedings before the end of 2021. This is required by a European Court of Human Rights judgment, whose execution is still under enhanced supervision by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. II.Anti-Corruption Framework In Ireland, the investigation of corruption is the responsibility of An Garda Síochána, the national police and security service. The Anti-Corruption Unit within the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau is exclusively responsible for the investigation of foreign bribery and responsible for the investigation of cases of domestic bribery and corruption of national importance. The Anti-Corruption Unit acts as a centre of excellence for the investigation, prevention and disruption of bribery and corruption. The Police carries out criminal investigations in the fight against corruption. A new unit focused on investigating corruption within the police force began operations in November 2020. A new Investigation Management System (IMS) has recently been developed and is currently being trialed by the national police and security service. The Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) is responsible for enforcing the Electoral Acts, the Ethics Acts and the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Ireland scores 72/100 and ranks 7th in the European Union and 20th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years. Following a comprehensive review, the government is planning revisions of the criminal legislative framework to strengthen the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. The 2018 criminal justice law provides a single consolidated legislation. The law in relation to bribery and corruption has been updated and consolidated by the 2018 law and it is now a criminal offence to fail to report bribery and corruption offences to the police. Corruption offences also have an extraterritorial effect under the Act for foreign corruption if it is proven that part of the relevant conduct outside the State, would be an offence if occurred in Ireland. As reported last year, an in-depth assessment on the effectiveness of the authorities in the fight against economic crime and corruption was carried out. The so-called “Hamilton review” was published in December 2020. Following this assessment, the Ministry of Justice has identified priorities that can be implemented in the shorter term, such as the enactment of the draft law on criminal procedure, included in the current legislative programme for enactment. Further priorities include strengthening the law in the area of public sector ethics and amending legislation to address situations of possible breaches of former members of the Parliament (Houses of the Oireachtas) who may have contravened their obligations under the Ethics Acts. They also include amending the criminal justice legislation to allow for standalone search warrants that will allow the police to demand passwords to electronic devices owned or controlled by persons subject to arrest warrants. Ireland is currently reviewing its national anti-corruption structure. One of the main recommendations of the Hamilton review is the establishment, on a permanent basis, of a cross-sectoral advisory council to coordinate and lead a holistic approach to economic crimes and corruption. To address the lack of a national strategy for combating economic crime and corruption and the multiple authorities with anti-corruption competences, the Hamilton review also recommended the development of a multi-annual strategy and an accompanying action plan. The competences and responsibilities for anti-corruption policies as well as for detecting, investigating and prosecuting corruption are shared between different specialised law enforcement bodies. The Garda National Economic Crime Bureau (GNECB) and its specialised Anti-Corruption Unit in particular are responsible for the investigation of all corruption offences, including foreign bribery. While the police has been recently allocated substantial resources, there has not been a commensurate increase in resources for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), although increased resourcing of other parts of the system (police, courts, judges) has an impact on the workload of the ODPP, as increased police numbers, detections and investigations create more prosecution files for the ODPP.Within the police, a new anti-corruption unit to deal with internal corruption investigations also became operational. ODPP focuses exclusively on prosecuting offences submitted by the investigatory authorities and has no prevention function. ODPP has a Special Financial Crime Unit, which the Anti-Corruption Unit liaises directly with in relation to relevant corruption cases. The Police is a member of Transparency International Ireland’s “Integrity at Work” initiative and seek to promote a supportive working environment for reporting concerns of wrongdoing. The Anti-Corruption Unit, GNECB operates a free-phone bribery and corruption confidential reporting line. Limited resources remain a challenge for the Anti-Corruption Unit within the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau (GNECB). The GNECB currently has 74 investigators (12 of whom are on temporary transfer), 18 Civilian Staff and three Forensic Accountants. The Anti-Corruption Unit within the GNECB is currently comprised only of three persons, one detective sergeant and two detective investigators. A competition to select detectives for allocation to the GNECB has recently been completed and the Anti-Corruption Unit will receive one additional staff member. The Anti-Corruption Unit uses resources within GNECB when conducting major operations and has a close working relationship with other national units. The Hamilton review noted the lack of resources of the Anti-Corruption Unit, and recommended to ensure that additional resources are given to the GNECB, as well as to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The recommendation specific to the latter included additional prosecutors along with a seconded specialist in digital forensics and a seconded forensic accountant. According to the GNECB data, the unit currently has nine ongoing corruption investigations, out of which three investigations concern foreign bribery of foreign public officials. The analysis of electronic evidence in corruption cases poses some challenges. An Investigation Management System (IMS) has recently been developed and is currently being trialed. This system will standardise all investigations and will record all actions replacing paper based systems currently in use. According to the authorities, the collection of electronic evidence, including mobile phone data, computer data, cloud data and data from social networks is a further challenge. The Anti-Corruption Unit does not currently have access to a tool that enables the effective and efficient examination of this data. This results in the examination of electronic data taking up a significant amount of investigative resources and resulting in significant delays to investigations. Prevention of corruption and promotion of integrity measures are in place, however challenges remain as regards the enforcement of rules. The general rules and procedures concerning asset disclosure are set out in the Ethics Acts. Interests to be disclosed and evidence on compliance must be submitted to the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) by all members of both Houses of the Parliament, the Attorney General and appointees to senior office in public bodies. SIPO continues to oversee the implementation of legislation, but challenges have been reported as the interests to be disclosed do not include liabilities (mortgages, loans, etc.) and the public disclosures only concern members of the Parliament. SIPO has no remit to investigate actions of either office holder or civil servant when actions are taken after leaving office. Some shortcomings remain with regard to the capacity to enforce the rules on lobbying and revolving doors. The Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 created a requirement for a register of lobbyists. The Second Statutory Review of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 was published in February 2020. The Register, which is a web-based system, is overseen by SIPO. There are currently over 2 100 organisations and individuals who have registered on the Register. SIPO has certain enforcement powers under law, including the ability to carry out investigations where it believes a person may have committed a contravention. Furthermore, it has the power to bring and prosecute specific offences, including where a person who is lobbying has not registered. The Regulation also provides for a one year post-employment “cooling off” period, during which particular public officials cannot undertake specific lobbying activities. Apart from the Regulation, there are references to post-employment restrictions in the Code of Conduct for office holders and the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour. Working within limited resources (which it shares with the Office of the Ombudsman), SIPO is not able to pro-actively pursue compliance with codes of conduct. As regards revolving doors, post-employment restrictions are included in the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, the Code of Conduct for office holders and the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour. However SIPO lacks the necessary powers to monitor irregularities. Harmonised conflict of interest rules are still pending. A review of the ethics legislation is currently being undertaken by Government, after the Public Sector Standards draft law 2015, which would have enhanced the existing framework for identifying, disclosing and managing conflicts of interest and minimising corruption risks, lapsed with the dissolution of the last parliament. Prevention of corruption and promotion of integrity measures have been identified among the priorities in the 2020 Programme for Government. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has noted in this respect that the establishment of a uniform and consolidated legal framework for ethical conduct of members of parliament and improvements of the asset declaration regime have been impacted by the lapsing of the 2015 draft law. As regards the measures to address and mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, public procurement appears to be a high-risk area for bribery and corruption. Currently, four of the Anti-corruption Unit’s ongoing investigations relate to procurement, and assistance has been provided in three other cases. The GNECB also ran a ‘Fraud Awareness Week’ where there was regular media exposure on fraud prevention. COVID-19 procurement fraud featured as a topic during this campaign. III.Media Pluralism and Media Freedom In Ireland, freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution, which requires the State to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press. A major legislative overhaul of the media law is expected to be finalised in 2021 in the context of the transposition of the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

The legal framework for the independent media regulator is being revised. The new regulatory framework, to be established by the upcoming draft law on online safety and media regulation, envisages the dissolution of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) and the assignment of all its functions to the new Media Commission. The Media Commission will also be granted with new compliance and sanction powers, including the power to seek the imposition of administrative financial sanctions, in view of overseeing the new framework for online services. The Media Commission will include a maximum of six commissioners, appointed following an open competition, conducted by the Public Appointments Service. There are currently nine members of BAI, five of whom are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. The new Commission will be governed by an executive chairperson with a managerial role. The General Scheme of the draft law proposes to uphold the funding of the regulatory activities of the new Media Commission through the introduction of industry levies, similarly to the current funding scheme of BAI. The General Scheme confirms that the Commission is to be independent in the performance of its functions. The new legal framework is expected to be adopted by the end of 2021. Similarly as in 2020, the 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) assessed the risks to the independence and effectiveness of the Irish media regulator to be at low level, highlighting that the existing legal safeguards effectively narrow the scope for potential external interference. Ireland has a well-established system of self-regulatory bodies in the news media sector. The framework is based on the activities of the Press Council of Ireland (PCI) and the Office of the Press Ombudsman (PO), and covers newspapers (print and online), magazines and online-only news publications that are members of the Press Council. According to the 2020 annual report, last year 346 complaints were submitted to the PCI and 25 were analysed by the PO. This constitutes a raise in comparison to 252 complaints submitted in 2019 . In 2021, the PO has already examined ten cases. Various measures have been put in place to ensure the provision of open and pluralistic broadcasting services in Ireland. A searchable database covering the ownership information regarding Irish-owned media businesses was launched on 11 November 2020. It will be subjected to regular updates every six months. Under the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014, the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is competent to assess the effects of ownership transactions (mergers) in the media sector on the media plurality in Ireland. In addition, every three years, BAI is required to undertake a review of ownership of media businesses in Ireland, focusing, in particular, on changes in ownership and their implications for media plurality. The first two reviews were conducted in 2015 and in 2018. In preparation for the upcoming review, planned for 2021, BAI organised a public consultation for stakeholders, which ran until 30 April 2021. These transparency measures are important, taking into account the high level of concentration in the Irish media sector, especially at local level. The 2021 MPM refers to a lack of data to be able to assess news media concentration. The Government took some measures to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.As reported by Reporters without Borders, many regional titles found themselves on the brink of financial collapse in 2020. A number of print freesheets also suspended their operations as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only an increase in state advertising, related to addressing Covid-19 measures, prevented some radio stations from ceasing their operation. Also, the State’s Pandemic Unemployment Payment scheme was open to all employees, including journalists, which helped to alleviate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journalists. Freelancers could also benefit from certain financial support as self-employed workers. The Government is reflecting on the future of the media sector. The Irish government decided to launch a discussion on possible long-term actions to support the media sector, establishing an independent Future of Media Commission in October 2020. The Commission’s reflections have focused in particular on the challenges faced by all media actors with regards to changing revenue streams, audience behavior and new technical models of media consumption. The Commission organised between 12 December 2020 and 8 January 2021 a public consultation which resulted in over 800 written submissions from stakeholder groups and the general public. The Commission is currently engaging in a series of thematic dialogues in view of producing a report and recommendations by summer 2021. Discussions on amending the journalists’ protection framework are ongoing. Following the announcement of the plans to revise the 2009 Defamation Act, the Irish Government is finalising a statutory review. A new Scheme of Defamation could be presented by the end of 2021. As highlighted by stakeholders, the current regime enables to impose a disproportionately high amount of damages for defamation, which can have a negative impact on journalistic freedom. The last consultation on the review of the Irish defamation law took place in late 2016 and did not result in any legislative changes. In 2020, the Council of Europe platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists registered one alert concerning Ireland. It was the first alert concerning Ireland since 2015. The alert concerned a legal action brought by a political activist who was mentioned in the press report of the Dublin Inquirer. The legal action related to alleged negligence in the journalistic conduct by the newspaper. No alerts have been registered in 2021. Regarding the digital safety of journalists, the 2021 MPM reiterates legislative risks stemming from the Data Retention Act, in particular its lack of specific safeguards for the protection of journalistic sources. While the Irish government announced in 2020 its intention to revise the Communications Act, it is not among current priority files. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Ireland has a bicameral parliamentary system: Parliament (Houses of the Oireachtas) comprises a Lower House (Dáil Éireann), and an Upper House (Seanad Éireann). Government Ministers and members of Parliament have the right of legislative initiative. Constitutional review is carried out by the High Court with a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) is Ireland’s national human rights and equality institution. The ordinary legislative procedure is used to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, but certain issues have been raised regarding Parliament’s oversight of emergency measures. Ireland’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, that has continued to rely on the ordinary legislative procedure, has largely been implemented through Statutory Instruments signed by the Minister for Health, delegated by primary legislation. The relevant powers in these laws were, according to sunset clauses, foreseen to remain in force until 9 November 2020 unless extended. A motion tabled in October 2020 extended the powers until 9 June 2021, which several members of Parliament objected to, suggesting shorter extensions. The short time allocated to debate on this motion raised criticism. A report of the IHREC recommended shorter extensions and specifying in the legislation the maximum length of any extension, while raising other concerns. These concerns were echoed by civil society organisations. Because of the general election held in January and the delay in appointing a government, no ordinary committee meetings were held between January and October 2020, while a Special Committee on COVID-19 Response sat between 6 May 2020 and 30 September 2020. In June 2021, the sunset clauses contained in four pieces of primary legislation, brought in to address COVID-19, were further extended. As a result, measures will continue in operation until the 9 November 2021, and can be extended further for a single period of three months by a resolution of both Houses. The legislative process has been characterised, since the beginning of the pandemic, by shortened discussions in Parliament. The procedural tools to shorten parliamentary discussion and ensure swift consideration by Parliament were used frequently, mainly in relation to COVID-19-related legislation. This included waiving the requirement for scrutiny of the draft text of a Bill before it is published (‘pre-legislative scrutiny’) , the use of so-called ‘guillotine motions’ to shorten the time allocated to debate, and early signature motions to ensure rapid consideration by the President of a Bill passed by Parliament. In 2020, guillotine motions were prepared in 30 out of the 32 Bills that were passed and 19 guillotine motions were used in order to shorten the debate on 17 different pieces of draft legislation. In 2020, early signature motions were agreed on 18 occasions, allowing for the President’s consideration of the Bill to take place within five days. During the establishment phase of new Committees, from September 2020, following the elections to both Houses, it was agreed to waive the requirement for pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to 17 of the Bills that were enacted. In 2020, Committee stage was undertaken by a Committee of the whole Lower House for 26 of Acts. Concerns were raised by civil society organisations as regards the short time allocated for consultations. The accreditation of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will be reviewed in 2021. It was accredited with A status in November 2015 by the UN Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). In February 2021 the IHREC published a report on Ireland’s emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report concluded that the principal measures introduced so far to control the pandemic (mainly restrictions on movement and home gatherings, obligations to wear face coverings) were justified by the State’s obligation on to protect public health. The report also sets a number of conclusions, such as recommending that the Irish Government should at all times maintain a clear distinction between measures that are legally obligatory and public health advice, or that all measures adopted as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic should be subject to sunset clauses. Ireland has a vibrant and diverse civil society, although funding restrictions continue to raise some concerns. In addition to the EUR 45 million COVID-19 Stability Fund established by the Government in 2020 to provide cash injection for community and voluntary organisations, charities and social enterprises delivering critical front-line services, an additional EUR 10 million has been made available for 2021. Civil society organisations continued to raise concerns about the impact of the prohibitions under the Electoral Act for donations to be given for ‘political purposes’ above a certain amount as well as by non-citizens resident outside Ireland. The Standards in Public Office Commission, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Act, has also called for a comprehensive review of the Electoral Act. A General Scheme of an Electoral Reform was recently published and aims to establish an independent, statutory Electoral Commission. The Government’s intention is that the Electoral Commission will carry out a comprehensive review of the Electoral Act 1997, including addressing concerns raised by civil society organisations. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Bar of Ireland (2021), Submission to the Department of Justice on the General Scheme of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2020 ( https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Secure/Submission-to-DOJ-with-Appendix.pdf ). Broadcasting Authority Ireland (2019), Submission to the Department of Communications, Climate Action & Environment Public Consultation on the Regulation of Harmful Content on Online Platforms and the Implementation of the Revised Audiovisual Media Service Directive ( https://www.bai.ie/en/bai-publishes-submission-on-regulation-of-harmful-online-content-implementation-of-new-audiovisual-media-services-directive/ ). Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others v Sąd Najwyższy, CP v Sąd Najwyższy and DO v Sąd Najwyższy, Joined Cases C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:982. Council of the Bar of Ireland (2021), Contribution from the Council of the Bar of Ireland for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Council of the Bar of Ireland (2021), Submission to the Department of Justice on the General Scheme of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2020 ( https://www.lawlibrary.ie/News/reports-and-submissions.aspx ). Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities ( https://www.coe.int/en/web/cdcj/judicial-independence-and-impartiality ).

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System Part I: The Independence of Judges adopted by the Venice Commission at its 82nd Plenary Session, (CDL-AD(2010)004-e). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), Malta, Opinion on proposed legislative changes (CDL-AD(2020)006). Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, C-896/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:311. Department of Justice (2020a), Draft General Scheme of Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2020 ( http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/General_Scheme_of_the_Judicial_Appointments_Commission_Bill_2020 ). Department of Justice (2020b), Review Group Report on the Administration of Civil Justice – Report. Chairperson: The Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Kelly, Former President of the High Court ( http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Review_of_the_Administration_of_Civil_Justice_-_Review_Group_Report ). Department Justice (2020c), Review Group Report on structures and strategies to prevent, investigate and penalise economic crime and corruption ( https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/be30e-review-group-report-on-structures-and-strategies-to-prevent-investigate-and-penalise-economic-crime-and-corruption/ ). Department of Justice (2021a), Justice plan 2021 ( http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Department_of_Justice_Action_Plan_2021.pdf/Files/Department_of_Justice_Action_Plan_2021.pdf ). Department of Justice (2021b), Hamilton Review Group Implementation Plan ( https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/d03ff-hamilton-review-group-implementation-plan/ ). Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2020), Second Statutory Review of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 ( https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/7ef279-second-statutory-review-of-the-regulation-of-lobbying-act-2015/ ). Department of the Taoiseach (2020) Department of the Taoiseach (2021). Programme for Government: Our Shared Future ( https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/7e05d-programme-for-government-our-shared-future/ ). Directive (EU) 2010/13/ on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. European Commission (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: Businesses' attitudes towards corruption in the EU. European Commission (2020), Rule of Law report. Country Chapter for Ireland. European Commission (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: Corruption. European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 22 December 2009, Parlov-Tkalčić v Croatia, application no. 24810/06. GRECO (2020), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Ireland Corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.( https://rm.coe.int/fourth-evaluation-round-corruption-prevention-in-respect-of-members-of/1680a06655 ). Irish Council for Civil Liberties (2020), Untenable in a democracy: ICCL renews call for abolition of Special Criminal Court ( Untenable in a democracy: ICCL renews call for abolition of Special Criminal Court - Irish Council for Civil Liberties ). Irish Council for Civil Liberties (2021), Contribution from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Irish Council for Civil Liberties (2021), ICCL calls for end to mandatory quarantine if rights issues not addressed, 19 April 2021 (https://www.iccl.ie/news/iccl-calls-for-end-to-mandatory-quarantine-if-rights-issues-not-addressed/).

Irish Court Service (2020), Supporting Access to Justice in a modern, digital Ireland. Long-term strategic vision – 2030 ( https://iwla.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Long-Term-Strategic-Vision.pdf ). Irish Government (2021), Input from Ireland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (2021), Submission to the Minister for Justice on the General Scheme of the Judicial Appointments Commission ( https://www.ihrec.ie/documents/submission-to-the-minister-for-justice-on-the-general-scheme-of-the-judicial-appointments-commission-bill-2020/ ). Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (2021), Ireland’s Emergency Powers During the Covid-19 Pandemic ( https://www.ihrec.ie/documents/irelands-emergency-powers-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ ). Judicial Council (2021), Personal Injuries Guidelines (( https://judicialcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/documents/Personal%20Injuries%20Guidelines.pdf ). Law Society of Ireland (2021), Submission to the joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice on the General Scheme of Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2020 ( https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/submissions/2021-judicial-appointments-commission-bill.pdf ). Legal Services Regulatory Authority (2020), Greater than the Sum of Its Parts? Consideration of Unification of the Solicitors’ Profession and Barristers’ Profession ( https://www.lsra.ie/lsra-publishes-reports-on-legal-practitioners-education-and-training-and-unification/ ). Legal Services Regulatory Authority (2020), Setting Standards: Legal Practitioner Education and Training ( https://www.lsra.ie/lsra-publishes-reports-on-legal-practitioners-education-and-training-and-unification/ ). Legal Services Regulatory Authority (2020), LSRA takes over the regulation of advertising by legal practitioners ( LSRA takes over regulation of advertising by legal practitioners – Legal Services Regulatory Authority ). Press Council of Ireland (2020), Annual Report 2019 of The Press Council of Ireland and Office of the Press Ombudsman ( http://www.presscouncil.ie/about-us/recent-decisions-and-news/annual-report-2019-of-the-press-council-of-ireland-and-office-of-the-press-ombudsman- ). Press Council of Ireland (2021), Submission by Press Council of Ireland and Press Ombudsman to the Future of Media Commission ( https://www.presscouncil.ie/office-of-the-press-ombudsman-164/publications-and-press-releases/press-releases-1048/submission-by-press-council-of-ireland-and-press-ombudsman-to-the-future-of-media-commission ). Reporters without Borders – Ireland ( https://rsf.org/en/ireland ). Standards in Public Office Commission (2020), Annual Report 2019 ( https://www.sipo.ie/reports-and-publications/annual-reports/ ). Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. UN Human Rights Committee (2014), Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Ireland ( http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsieXFSudRZs%2FX1ZaMqUUOS9yIqPEMRvxx26PpQFtwrk%2BhtvbJ1frkLE%2BCPVCm6lW%2BYjfrz7jxiC9GMVvGkvu2UIuUfSqikQb9KMVoAoKkgSG) . United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (2020), Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders ( DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile (ohchr.org) . Annex II: Country visit to Ireland The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2021 with: ·Bar of Ireland ·Broadcasting Authority of Ireland

·Court Service ·Department of Justice ·Garda Economic Crime Bureau ·Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) ·Hamilton Commission ·Houses of the Oireachtas Service (Parliament Service) ·Irish Council for Civil Liberties ·Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission ·Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME) ·Law Society of Ireland ·Legal Services Regulatory Authority ·National Union of Journalists ·Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) ·Office of the Director of Public Prosecution ·Press Council ·Representatives of the Judiciary ·Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) ·Transparency International * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:

·Amnesty International ·Center for Reproductive Rights ·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce ·European Center for Not-for-Profit Law ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Front Line Defenders ·Human Rights House Foundation ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA-Europe ·International Commission of Jurists ·International Federation for Human Rights ·International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN)