Debate: Annual Rule of law report
Date: TUESDAY, 11 JULY 2023
Speaker: Didier Reynders
Language: FR

Le rapport fait régulièrement l’objet de débats, tant au Parlement européen qu’au sein des parlements nationaux, ainsi qu’au Conseil. Le rapport a également suscité des discussions internes au sein des États membres, en particulier sur les mesures qui peuvent être prises pour renforcer l’état de droit. Le rapport permet aussi d’améliorer la connaissance mutuelle des systèmes nationaux respectifs. Il sert désormais de référence aux États membres lorsqu’ils engagent des réformes, notamment sur la base des recommandations émises pour la première fois dans le rapport de 2022. The fourth edition of the Rule of Law Report was adopted last week, on 5 July. We managed to gradually advance the date of adoption each year since the second report, whilst also extending each year the consultation period for the Member States and other stakeholders. This allows us to have two days’ discussion in the last plenary before the summer break. The 2023 report presents the Commission’s assessment based on a well-established methodology and a diversity of sources. We have held more than 500 meetings with national authorities and stakeholders as part of our country visits – for a large part, virtual country visits by video. In this year’s edition, we have followed up on the issues covered in the previous reports. The scope continues to follow a four-pillar structure covering the independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems, anti-corruption frameworks, media freedom and pluralism, and other institutional checks and balances. As you know, the most important novelty of the 2022 report were the country-specific recommendations addressed to each Member State. This is something that Parliament had called for. These recommendations cover positive practices and reforms which should be further pursued, as well as problems which should be addressed. This year’s report now assesses the follow-up given to the recommendations of 2022. This, of course, is another innovation and a very important step in the evolution of our rule-of-law policy. Here we can see that the report has become a true driver of positive reforms. Important efforts are ongoing in many Member States to follow up on the recommendations of the previous year. This is, however, happening at various speeds and levels of completeness, with some important concerns remaining in certain Member States. Overall, within this framework of one year, around two thirds of the recommendations issued in 2022 have already been followed up fully – 25% of the recommendations – or partially – 40% of the recommendations. For each recommendation, the Commission has carried out a qualitative assessment, concluding that there was there was either no progress, some progress, significant progress or that the recommendation has been fully implemented. The 2023 recommendations are to build on last year’s recommendations where there was no or partial implementation or address new challenges identified since last year. Let me now present some findings of the 2023 Rule of Law Report. With regard to justice reforms, we see that many Member States have further advanced with important reforms related to the independence and effectiveness of judicial councils, the autonomy of prosecution services, improving judicial appointment procedures, and investing in their justice systems. At the same time, structural concerns persist in a few Member States as regards judicial independence. The topic of anti-corruption has continued to rise in public awareness across the Union over the past year. Member States must take this seriously and implement effective anti-corruption policies, and we see that, since the 2022 report, several Member States have updated or started processes to revise their anti-corruption strategies. Other Member States have taken steps to strengthen integrity frameworks. And an effective fight against corruption is also necessary, including through the allocation of sufficient resources to anti-corruption investigations. With regard to media pluralism and freedom, certain Member States have adopted legislation increasing the transparency of media ownership and have strengthened provisions to enhance the independence of their media regulators. These are important steps to prevent political and state pressure or control over the media. We are aware that sometimes journalists are targeted just for doing their job. It is therefore positive to see that several Member States have adopted measures to improve the safety of journalists, in line with the recommendation of the 2022 report and also building on recent Commission initiatives, such as our Recommendation on the safety of journalists. Lastly, with regard to checks and balances, several Member States are working to improve the quality of the legislative process and to ensure appropriate involvement of stakeholders and civil society. However, challenges continue to be flagged in a number of Member States in relation to a lack of formal frameworks for consultations or their insufficient application in practice. In a majority of Member States, there is an enabling and supportive environment for civil society, with further efforts underway to improve their situation. But we are also aware that, as we have seen from our extensive outreach in the preparation for this report, civil society organisations often continue to face challenges such as funding issues and restrictions on their operating space. The Commission invites Member States to effectively take up the challenges identified in the report and it stands ready to assist them in their efforts to continue the implementation of recommendations. To conclude again, I will say that we have had a good success about implementation of many recommendations, so it’s possible to be engaged in a very fruitful dialogue with many Member States. Of course, if it is not sufficient, we are using all the tools at our disposal – infringement proceedings, but also different kinds of budgetary tools, like the discussions on the milestones in the Recovery and Resilience Plans or the Conditionality Regulation. And it is true that sometimes we have seen the implementation of some recommendations of our report due, in part, to the fact that we have put some milestones in the same way in the Recovery and Resilience Plan. We need to say that it’s efficient to organise such a dialogue but, again, if it’s not sufficient, we have other tools at our disposal. Thank you very much for your attention and, of course, we will be ready to engage the debate with you.