Cases of a serious and persistent breach of EU values

Cases of a serious and persistent breach of EU values

Rome [ENA] The European Parliament has recently adopted a series of reports, among which, one condemning the Polish de facto ban on abortions that “puts women’s health and lives at risk” and is “yet another example of the political takeover of the judiciary and the systemic collapse of the rule of law”; and another on media freedom in the EU, pointing to “attempts by governments of some member states to silence critical and

independent media and undermine media freedom and pluralism”. Under Article 2 TEU (Treaty on European Union), the EU is founded on the shared values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights. Article 7 TEU establishes two mechanisms (preventive and sanctioning mechanisms) to enforce European Union values in cases of systemic violations and to sanction Member States departing from them. The sanctions mechanism empowers the Council to suspend certain membership rights of a Member State, including voting rights in the Council in cases of a 'serious and persistent breach' of EU values (Article 7(2) TFEU - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)’.

Under Article 7 of the EU Treaty, the Council may decide, by a majority of four fifths of its members and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, that a country is at risk of breaching the EU’s founding values, including the rule of law. At a later stage, EU member states may decide, by unanimity and after receiving EP’s consent, that a serious and persistent breach of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights is taking place. These mechanisms require a high decision-making threshold in the Council and in the European Parliament (when Parliament is called to participate) and rely deeply on Member States’ willingness to take action.

The European Commission may determine that the rule of law is under threat, if one or more of the following are destabilized: proper functioning of the authorities of the member state implementing the EU budget; proper functioning of the authorities carrying out financial control; proper investigation of fraud - including tax fraud -, corruption or other breaches affecting the implementation of the EU budget; effective judicial review by independent courts; recovery of funds unduly paid; preventing and penalising tax evasion and tax competition; cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office and, if applicable, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Depending on the scope of the shortcomings and the budget management procedure, the Commission can decide on one or several measures, including: suspending commitments,interrupting payment deadlines, reducing pre-financing and suspending payments. Unless the decision states otherwise, the government would still have to implement the respective EU programme or fund and make payments to final beneficiaries, like researchers or civil society organisations. The Commission would have to assist the beneficiaries and strive to make sure they receive the due amounts.

The Commission would submit a proposal to Parliament and EU ministers to transfer an amount matching the value of the proposed measures to the budgetary reserve. The decision would take effect after four weeks, unless Parliament, acting by majority of votes cast, or Council, acting by qualified majority (so no single member state can block a decision), amend or reject it. Once the EU Commission establishes that the deficits have been lifted, the locked amount would be unfrozen using the same procedure. The text of the EU Parliament strongly condemned all forms of violence against women and urged member states that have not yet ratified the Istanbul Convention to do so “without delay”.

It supported the 2017 demonstrations against the regression of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as the extensive media coverage of sexual harassment cases. Further, another condemnation has been against the actions taken in some EU countries to weaken the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and denounce the EU institutions’ “ineffectiveness in putting an end to the serious and persistent breaches” of the European Union’s values. The rule of law must be regularly and impartially assessed based on objective criteria in all the member states, the Parliament stressed.

Last but not least, the EP denounced the increasing restrictions to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the EU, and highlights that whistleblowing is crucial for investigative journalism and press freedom and warned that hate speech is being trivialised . The Parliament also underlined the need to fight the rise of antisemitism and islamophobia, as well as the persistent sexual discrimination and stigmatisation in the EU.