kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
mr president honourable members at the beginning of this summer we witnessed a combination of actions by the romanian authorities which called into question the rule of law democratic checks and balances and the independence of the judiciary.
the political developments in romania over the summer were of particular relevance to this monitoring exercise.
this is an important step because it provides an opportunity for the normalisation of political life.
the president of this venice commission stated on seven august and i quote it is a general principle of the rule of law that pressure on any court whether constitutional or ordinary in order to influence its decisions is inadmissible' and he also appealed
not all concerns and recommendations by the commission regarding the rule of law and judicial independence have been addressed.
president barroso will receive prime minister ponta and i will receive the new romanian minister of justice.
in this letter the commission called upon the romanian government to cooperate fully with the constitutional court and to act swiftly and decisively on allegations of intimidation against judges.
in this report we will critically assess whether the rule of law and the stability of institutions have been restored in romania and whether confidence lost over the summer has been regained by the necessary cooperation among all political actors.
the romanian authorities addressed some of our concerns and in particular restored the constitutional norms notably in the run up to the referendum to impeach president bsescu on twenty nine july.
the commission will therefore continue to closely monitor the situation in romania and maintain close contact with the romanian authorities.
following the referendum there was again evidence of pressure on judges and of prosecutors' attempts to influence the circulation of the referendum turnout. president barroso again set out the commission's concern in a letter to prime minister ponta on ten
that is why the commission calls on all political forces in this house and outside this house to act with responsibility and restraint in order to contribute to a stabilisation of the political situation in romania.
however the situation in romania remains fragile and requires our attention and support.
the romanian people deserve a political discourse based on policy arguments not on personal attacks.
were you aware that the procedures were entirely supervised by the constitutional court which in fact even underlined a couple of situations were it considered the president was in breach of the constitution?
we are very strict on the copenhagen criteria notably on the rule of law in the accession process of a new member state but once this member state has joined the european union we appear not to have any instrument to see whether the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary
are we sure that we will not see such a situation again in a couple of weeks in another eu country?
it was the same rationale that the commission followed earlier this year when we brought hungary to the court of justice for violations of the independence of the hungarian data protection legislation and other infringement procedures.
so my experts are at this moment developing for the european semester a justice scoreboard that will allow a detailed assessment of the justice systems of all member states their strengths and their weaknesses and i am going to start a discussion with parliament and with the justice ministers in the coming
we need a strong reliable rule of law in all twenty seven member states of the union and i count on this parliament to strongly support the european commission in this endeavour.
but what do we have in between?
respect for the rule of law has nothing to do with the political party in power.
when there is an attack on the rule of law or a breach of eu legislation irrespective of the political colour of the government the commission will remain firm in expressing concerns and taking actions and this does not apply only now
we as a european union need to stand firm on our values and on the rule of law and that is why i think that we need to put in place an objective mechanism to assess the judicial systems in all of our twenty seven member states
she only reacts to the rule of law which is in danger.
secondly we can see very well by these very concrete examples that we have experienced this year that we lack effective mechanisms in the eu to enforce respect for the rule of law more generally and more systematically.
because our infringement procedures are too technical and too slow to react to high risk situations concerning the rule of law and because the article seven procedure is a nuclear option that should only be used by the commission parliament and the council when there is really no other solution.
for president barroso and for myself this has been very important throughout these processes. lady justice is blind. she does not recognise party political colours.
today everybody mentions the situation in hungary and romania.
so what about the big picture? what about the rule of law in general and what about the independence of the judiciary?
i would therefore like to work with the european parliament and with the justice ministers of all member states on a new intermediate and more focused mechanism.
of course such legal issues may seem small in the overall context.
yes the commission has to play its role as guardian of the treaties and it has to go after breaches in eu law by means of infringement proceedings.
i propose to add to the economic and social benchmark in the european semester a new mechanism for measuring comparing and benchmarking the strength efficiency and reliability of the justice systems in all member states.
still command respect.
at that time a right wing government coalition had introduced emergency legislation to deprive a court ruling of its effect and to remove the president of the national telecoms regulator from office.
now let us be honest and some of the parliamentarians have said it very clearly we face a copenhagen dilemma.
i respect your wish to bring the debate to a close i respect the fact that you have to follow a timescale but under the rules you could have allowed both ms macovei and me to come in.
i want to pay tribute to the employee ownership association which champions this business model so effectively.
as always it is to create the environment where businesses can thrive and grow by addressing skills shortages and by removing barriers but above all by reducing administrative burdens on business especially micros and making it easier for businesses to compete in the global market place.
mr president last year was the most successful year ever for employee ownership in the united kingdom a year which saw more people at work in the uk than ever before and a year which saw eighty three of new jobs being quality full time and permanent.
in my own region we have employee owned companies ranging from a veterinary practice in rural herefordshire to a world leading manufacturer of machinery protection systems in kidderminster from the largest independent chartered insurance brokers based in birmingham to a family owned food distributor in willenhall that has been trading for nearly one hundred years.
sadly in many other european countries ownership has actually declined.
the thing they have in common as employee owned businesses is higher productivity greater innovation and better profitability.
employee owned businesses have played a leading role in delivering the uk's economic recovery.
employee owners also think and act for the long term sometimes in marked contrast to the short termism that can prevail.
e. no substitution of wages no discrimination and no conflict with participation in decision making?
involved.
how does the commission intend to promote employee financial participation in the light of parliament's resolution?
how can the commission ensure that workers are not being used that all employees obtain equal access and that they never have to face the risk of financial ruin should the company concerned run into insolvency?
sixth and last question what measures should be taken to protect employees' savings invested in a company in the event of a crisis or of the company becoming insolvent so as to avoid the double risk of employees losing their job income and savings at the same time?
fifth question does the commission intend to develop models of strategic ownership as regards employees' shares in eso schemes so as to serve the long term interests of companies and their employees?
a comprehensive involvement of employees and their representatives requires proper information concerning the underlying risks of joining a participation scheme and also raises questions related to taxation and labour law.
what lessons have been learned from the recent pilot project?
and to provide information on and raise awareness of the issue as many european employees and employers in particular smes currently lack access to information on the legal and fiscal frameworks for efp schemes. a recent commission study recommends a five point plan to promote employee share ownership. however the implementation of such policies entails significant challenges and there are risks for the employees
my third question how does the commission intend to promote best practice for employee ownership schemes? fourth question how does the commission plan to ensure employee participation and the inclusion of workers' representatives in the planning and implementation of such schemes?
i am convinced that we will find a sound compromise.
a number of recent commission proposals have aimed to address the weaknesses in corporate governance identified during the financial and economic crisis.
it may also be an internal market issue as the divergence in national legal and fiscal rules for such schemes could create barriers to cross border plans.
recent research suggests that companies with employee shareholders tend to create more jobs pay more taxes and relocate less than those without.
the pilot project launched in september two thousand and thirteen which consisted of a comprehensive study and the conference held in january two thousand and fourteen helped the commission in analysing the existing obstacles.
employees belonging to trade unions should not be discriminated against.
the commission intends to make the comprehensive information gathered in the study widely available to all interested parties. given the diversity in national approaches to employee financial participation across the eu and the resulting cross border problems the commission encourages the exchange of best practices be it between member states but also between companies and employees.
negotiations on such schemes should not replace the normal negotiations on wage setting and working conditions.
this is one of the most commonly seen drawbacks of employee financial participation.
the commission takes note of parliament's resolution in particular as regards consultation of workers or their representatives on such schemes before their introduction.
let me also stress one important aspect financial participation should not be a substitute for the main income.
social partners taking part in negotiations at company level according to national practices and traditions should be involved.
instead it should play a complimentary role and be paid in addition to a fixed wage. such schemes should in principle be open to all employees and treat them without any discrimination unless some differentiation is justified given the employees' different needs or interests.
the potential risks of financial participation also need to be addressed.
employees participating in such schemes are exposed to the risk of losing both their job and their savings in the event of serious problems in their company.
the one thousand nine hundred and ninety two council recommendation also underlined the need to take into account national collective bargaining legislation or practices when choosing between the schemes available.
when reflecting on the way forward the commission will also take duly into account parliament's resolution from january two thousand and fourteen as well as contributions from stakeholders. we will also be guided by the principles set out in the one thousand nine hundred and ninety two council recommendation on employee financial participation.
the commission committed in its two thousand and twelve action plan on company law and corporate governance to investigating potential obstacles to transnational employee share ownership schemes and to taking appropriate action to promote employee share ownership throughout europe.
this being said currently less than one third of companies in the eu offer financial participation to their employees.
mr president i would like to thank ms ulvskog and parliament for initiating this debate. i see employee financial participation as part of a broader narrative of sustainable entrepreneurship in europe which i want us to support and to encourage. it is a complex issue with wider implications.
employees owning shares could also increase the proportion of long term oriented shareholders and provide a solution to some business succession problems.
when done right such schemes can actually foster ownership and participation of employees in their companies a concept which as a labour mep i am very supportive of.
i am glad to see that through this file the uk government is finally making an attempt to promote responsible capitalism an issue on which my party has been leading the political debate.
however my first concern will always be protecting the workers.
i believe it is important that we do not run ahead of ourselves and that strong safeguards are put in place that deal with possible risks linked to these schemes.
my question to the commissioner is what actions will be taken to inform and educate trade unions or other relevant organisations about these schemes in order to empower them and to advise employees of the possible risks?
our current discussion on the promotion of employee financial participation has some potential to help deal with both issues.
as a worker and an employer you are much more likely to recognise the rights and duties of all partners and employee ownership schemes have some potential to create more and better jobs.
however for me one matter is paramount and that is the potential that employee financial participation has to ensure a better share out of the wealth that is being created by employment.
the gap between workers and those with wealth continues to grow and employee financial participation can help bridge that gap.
today we asked a number of questions of the commission and while we were told about an action plan and about risks etc.
listening to all the colleagues it is clear that employee financial participation varies significantly from one member state to another with a glowing report from the uk.
i agree with ms mcintyre in that we need the commission to create first of all an environment that is conducive to the take up of these schemes and secondly the flourishing of these companies.
you as commissioner have an opportunity to make a real difference here after years and years of talking.
i look forward to hearing your proposals.
the two extremes between the soft power of political persuasion and the nuclear option of article seven of the treaty. we need something in between. the commission hopes it can count on the support of parliament for creating a new mechanism enabling the european union to take effective action.
the agenda. justice and home affairs cover sensitive policy areas that were traditionally seen as solely a matter of national competence. the eu decision making process is still adapting to the new legislative and institutional framework established by the lisbon treaty. we have made a lot of legislative proposals but i would like to stress once again the importance of the effective enforcement of the
in all member states. some call it name and shame'; i prefer to call
it name and praise'. it is an evolving tool and will gradually expand the indicators
state. we are also working on the insolvency package which updates the current rules on cross border insolvencies. we want viable business to get a second chance also with a view to saving jobs. the data protection reform package which is on the table will reduce administrative burdens for
procedure. we have also made considerable headway on strengthening procedural rights. the adoption and publication of the directive on the right to interpretation and translation as well as the directive on the right to information increases the support for persons in criminal proceedings across
judgments for one member state will automatically be recognised in another member
are still important tasks to achieve. we are for instance working intensely on a proposal for a european public prosecutors office which would be responsible for combating crimes affecting the financial interests of the union and other issues such as anti corruption policies or security in cyber space remain high on
for more effective operation with stronger guarantees on fundamental rights and we have proposed a new mandate for europol bringing it into the post lisbon treaty era. we have adopted an internal security strategy and are regularly reporting on its implementation. we have concluded agreements on terrorist finance tracking with the united states and on pnr with the united states and australia. we have new directives in place against child sexual exploitation and trafficking in human beings. we have brought eu law into line with the un firearms protocol. we have put forward legislation on explosive precursors and a new eu policy and reporting mechanism against corruption. in line with our global approach on migration and mobility we have launched wide ranging discussions with many of our neighbouring countries and have made good progress on visa facilitation liberalisation and readmission. we have put forward proposals on third country students and researchers as
has even gone beyond the stockholm programme which by its nature provides strategic guidelines. but that should not be seen as a rigid corset. for example in march two thousand and thirteen the commission presented the eu justice scoreboard which seeks to assist member states in the development of more effective justice. it provides objective reliable and comparable data on the efficiency quality and independence of the justice systems
and the areas covered. in the field of home affairs we can be proud of what we are close to achieving on asylum. at the next plenary parliament is likely to vote on a common area of protection from oppression violence torture and fear of persecution with common rules and common outcomes where member states cooperate in a display of european solidarity. the visa information system and the second generation schengen information system have gone live and are now tools enabling the correct functioning
let me highlight some of the achievements. in the field of justice we have had major advances in the area of civil justice taking steps to stimulate the single market. we call this the so called justice for growth' which in simple terms means taking concrete action which helps to put europe back on the right track. for
i would urge the commission and parliament to focus on where we can contribute most and where we can add clarity and protection rather than complication.
good examples of that work include the work on cybercrime and in relation to unaccompanied minors which is becoming a considerable problem throughout europe.
a fully harmonised criminal system and a european prosecutor is simply not the right solution.
we can achieve the best future outcome through good cooperation and communication between institutions.
the much needed review however is absent.
it is difficult to reflect on our work under stockholm so far over three years without any review or evaluation.
there have been successes and failings and my opinion has not changed i still believe that we should seek to do less but to do it better.
more compulsion solidarity and harmonisation is not always better while with better trust cooperation and efficiency and with the commission ensuring strong implementation and consistency we will create a system which respects member states' legal differences while ensuring effective outcomes.
we should be ambitious but realistic in what we can achieve.
in this light i would ask the commission now to assess the stockholm programme's successes and also its failings so that we can move forward together constructively but not.
this overview consisted of an assessment of progress in all areas covered by the stockholm programme asylum and migration civil and criminal justice internal security civil protection and external relations in the jha field.
as far as internal security measures are concerned a number of important directives were adopted.
a joint eu resettlement programme was agreed and regional protection programmes further developed and a directive on a single permit for third country nationals to reside and work in member states was adopted.
the usefulness of a programme such as the stockholm programme was also underlined by a number of delegations as a guideline for defining legislative and operational priorities.
in general the council takes the view that a particular focus should now be given to implementing legislation which has already been adopted and to ensuring that measures already agreed are made fully operational.
i cannot provide an exhaustive list of the substantial number of measures which have been agreed since two thousand and ten but i would like to highlight a few in particular.
a standing committee in the council ensures effective operational cooperation on internal security and other measures such as the solidarity clause which will doubtless help to further strengthen cooperation in future.
the instruments established under the lisbon treaty have already proved to be useful.
the council debate served as a response to the european council's request when it adopted the stockholm programme for a mid term review.
the establishment of the european external action service continues to contribute to ensuring good coordination where there is an external dimension to jha policies.
as far as the institutional arrangements are concerned the council considers that the application of the ordinary legislative procedure functions well strengthening the commitment of both our institutions to cooperate in ensuring that the area of freedom security and justice is completed and made fully operational.
it was noted in particular and i quote that the debate in the council showed in general satisfaction with the progress made to date as well as confirmation of the need to take forward work on those elements of the stockholm programme which remain outstanding in order to continue to secure for our citizens an area of freedom security and justice.
these include measures to ensure better protection against large scale cyber attacks strengthened measures for preventing on line child sexual abuse in order to facilitate the prosecution of perpetrators and improve the protection of child victims and a directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings.
' the council debate also enabled ministers to reiterate their commitment to maintaining the right balance between security concerns and the protection of individual rights.
in terms of specific operational measures the visa information system was launched the it agency became operational and sis ii went live last april. in the area of justice the directive establishing minimum standards on the rights support and protection of victims of crime was adopted and a regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters was agreed.
in the area of asylum and immigration a comprehensive set of measures relating to the common european asylum system is being finalised and the european asylum support office has become operational.
that of course should never lead us into complacency.
nevertheless i hope that it will become clear that we have made and continue to make significant progress in this whole area.