Debate: Report on the Commission’s  Rule of Law report
Date: WEDNESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2024
Speaker: Sophia in 't Veld
Country: Poland
Language: EN

First of all, I would like to start by welcoming the annual report – the edition that we are discussing today. I think the next one is already in the making. And having been one of the driving forces behind it – the author actually of the legislative initiative proposal at the time for the annual report – I am very pleased to see that it is year on year developing into a very useful instrument, not least in connection with the Conditionality Regulation. However, if everything were fine, then we would have a very short debate. So I would like to express a couple of recommendations and concerns, nevertheless. First, on horizontal remarks, on the method – and we’ve had this exchange many times before so you are aware of the position of the European Parliament – we consider that further changes are needed. We need this report to become even more independent from the Member States. If we read the report of the European Commission, it is still fairly mild in describing situations which in reality are actually extremely worrying. I mean, if you read the report of the Commission, you think, okay, there are some concerns in the European Union, but it’s all under control. Whereas if you look at the overall picture, I’m a lot more worried than that. And I think if you use the sources outside your national interlocutors, the government interlocutors, then the picture is somewhat more grim. We have also repeatedly called for this report to be part of an interinstitutional agreement. And I find it very disappointing that the proposal of the European Parliament and the Commission to have cooperation with the Council on this topic – even in the shape of a pilot project – is being rejected by the Member States. I mean, that tells you something about the spirit in which they see this annual rule of law cycle. And finally, we also feel that the report would gain in strength and credibility if it’s drawn up by a panel of independent experts. Just this week, the European Court of Auditors has issued a report on the rule of law toolkit. It also includes some remarks on this report. And I think some of the remarks underline what I’ve just said. Secondly, in implementing or upholding the rule of law, neutrality vis-à-vis the Member States is key. And that was actually the reason behind this whole report – that all Member States will be measured by the same yardstick. And here I see a risk. I think that, contrary to what some people in Hungary might claim, any decision of the European Commission to intervene is not politically motivated. However, I sometimes detect some political motivation behind the decision not to intervene because there are some countries that would definitely justify an intervention. Finally, I think there are a couple of horizontal issues that we’ve addressed: independence of the judiciary, safety and freedom of journalists, the fight against corruption, the creation of equality bodies and such issues. But I would like to conclude with one issue that is particularly topical today. Today we are remembering the train crash at Tempe in Greece one year ago, which is very closely connected to corruption: a rail safety system that was not put in place because of reasons of fraud and corruption, which had been detected by the European Public Prosecutor, but not by the national authorities and not by the Commission. So you can see how corruption and fraud can literally cost lives. And therefore I think we should step up the fight against corruption even more.