Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – DRFMG 2026 Rule of Law Report – Commissioner McGrath
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Versatz
Versatz des Transkripts
Exportieren
Aufzeichnung
Versionen dieses Videos
- Aufzeichnung Endgültige Version · 15. September 2026Angezeigt
- Live aufgezeichnet Live übertragen am 15. September 2026
Die Transkripte können sich von Version zu Version leicht unterscheiden.
LIBE European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenMichael McGrath
Reforms include measures to strengthen judicial independence, such as reinforcing the independence of councils for the judiciary, adopting additional safeguards for judges' appointments, as well as preparing reforms to strengthen the autonomy of prosecution services. Nevertheless, reforms are progressing at a varying pace, and in some member states, serious concerns remain. The quality and efficiency of justice remain important areas of focus in many member states, not only for their benefits to citizens, but also for a stable and a reliable business environment. Turning to the anti-corruption framework, the report shows that almost all member states currently have national anti-corruption strategies in place. In fact, some adopted their first anti-corruption strategy this year.
Overall, the legal frameworks are well-developed, with efforts underway or planned to address any specific gaps. One important effort in this regard is the transposition of the anti-corruption directive, adopted in April this year, which provides member states with a further opportunity to strengthen their legal frameworks against corruption. Several member states have also strengthened efforts to ensure a more effective investigation and prosecution of corruption offenses. For instance, they allocated additional human resources or they adopted new legislative tools. But in some member states, there are still obstacles to the effective investigations and prosecution of corruption, in particular in relation to high-level cases.
In order to achieve a robust track record of final judgments in corruption cases, several member states need to increase investigative capacity. And further action is also needed in others to strengthen the preventive frameworks, such as those governing lobbying, conflicts of interest, and asset declarations. Turning now to media freedom and pluralism, as you know, since the 8th of August last year, the vast majority of provisions of the European Media Freedom Act became applicable. Many of these provisions overlap with the media freedom-related topics in the Rule of Law Report. The past year has therefore seen intense activity between the Commission and the member states' authorities to ensure alignment of national legislation and practices with regards to free and plural media.
Where gaps were detected, the Commission launched a first wave of actions to enforce the EMFA in December of last year, and we have followed this up with another wave of actions in August of this year. As the EMFA is now almost fully applicable, the Commission will ensure follow-up to the issues covered as part of our support to member states in applying and enforcing the EMFA. The Rule of Law Report will, however, continue to monitor significant developments in these areas and also continue to report on their impact. And of course, it will also continue to monitor progress relating to the safety of journalists and access to information. The trial into the assassination of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and the fallout from its verdict has been a stark reminder and a painful reminder of how essential the work of journalists is for protecting and promoting the rule of law.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the Commission's message that full justice must be ensured in this case and in all similar cases.
Finally, let me address the pillar on institutional issues related to checks and balances. The report notes that reforms to improve legal certainty and legislative quality have been taken forward. However, in some Member States, shortcomings persist regarding the excessive use of emergency legislative procedures and the lack of stakeholder involvement. The country chapters also monitor the implementation of leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. And across the EU, around 44% of the Court's leading judgments concerning Member States over the last 10 years remain to be implemented today.
Finally, the report notes that Member States continue to ensure an enabling and supportive framework for civil society and sustain efforts to further improve the environment that they operate within. But in a number of Member States, civil society actors continue to report challenges, including limitations to funding and peaceful assembly. To conclude, honorable members, as in previous years, the Commission continues to be ready to discuss the findings of the report and recommendations in all the Member States, notably in the national parliaments. We also encourage stakeholders to discuss the findings of the report at a national level. And in the EU, dialogue always comes first.
We have to sometimes match dialogue with decisive actions where it is warranted. In critical situations, the Commission continues to be ready to use the tools at its disposal, including infringement proceedings and budgetary action where relevant, to ensure that the rule of law is upheld across our Union. Look forward to our discussion this afternoon. Thank you once again, Chair and members, for the opportunity to present before you. I look forward to your questions.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you very much, Commissioner McGrath. So, I believe that there is a lot of people who wants to take the floor. So I will propose you the following, this is how we're going to take it. I will first give the floor to the rapporteur of the last rule of law report. I think that it would be graceful.
And then I will give the floor to the members of the DRFMG by orders of the size of the group, one per group. And then after three or four questions, we stop, we let Mr. McGrath answer, and then we continue, which is going to allow us for a little bit of things in the group. So, Mr. Arvanitis, you have the floor. I will ask you also to refrain, get, keep your question to one minute and a half, so we really have a debate. Thank you.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Καλώς ήρθατε, κύριε Επίτροπε. Επαναλαμβάνω. Καλώς ήρθατε, κύριε Επίτροπε. Βεβαίως, κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα περιοριστώ στο χρόνο που μου δίνετε. Η έκθεση για το κράτος δικαίου που ψηφίσαμε και έγινε μια πάρα πολύ καλή συνεργασία με τις πολιτικές δυνάμεις εδώ, με όλα τα κόμματα του δημοκρατικού τόξου, ελπίζω να τη λάβατε υπόψη σας.
Και θα ήθελα στην απάντησή σας να μας πείτε σε ποια σημεία της έκθεσης του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου τα λάβατε υπόψη σας. Το δεύτερο που θέλω να σημειώσω είναι ότι εμείς διαπιστώσαμε ότι τα κράτη μέλη πάνε πάρα πάρα πολύ αργά σε ό,τι αφορά ζητήματα που αφορούν στο κράτος δικαίου, δηλαδή από θέματα που αφορούν στη διαχωρισμό και στις αρμοδιότητες μεταξύ κυβέρνησης και δικαιοσύνης, διαπιστώσαμε θέματα που αφορούν στα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, θέματα σοβαρά που αφορούν στην ελευθερία του τύπου. Και αν σας πω για την Ελλάδα παραδείγματος χάρη, γιατί ήρθατε και στη χώρα μου, στην Ελλάδα, και δώσατε απ' ό,τι μάθαμε απ' τον τύπο τα εύσημα για την πορεία του κράτους δικαίου από την κυβέρνηση του κυρίου Μητσοτάκη.
Θέλω να σας πω, λοιπόν, ότι στην Ελλάδα κανένα από τα πολιτικά πρόσωπα που εμπλέκονται σε κορυφαία σκάνδαλα, όπως είναι το θέμα των υποκλοπών, το θέμα της 717 σύμβασης για το έγκλημα των Τεμπών ή του ΟΠΕΚΕΠΕ, που είναι ευρωπαϊκό χρήμα, κανένα πολιτικό πρόσωπο δεν θα οδηγηθεί στη δικαιοσύνη, καθώς οι πολιτικές πλειοψηφίες των κοινοβουλίων αθωώνουν τα πολιτικά πρόσωπα. Αυτά, καθώς και θέματα που αφορούν σε επιθέσεις κατά δημοσιογράφων ή επιθέσεις κατά ευρωπαϊκών θεσμών, όπως ήταν η Ευρωπαϊκή Εισαγγελία, εμπεριέχονται στην έκθεσή σας; Τι θέλω να πω; Εμείς θέλουμε την Κομισιόν όχι να τιμωρεί τα κράτη μέλη, αλλά να κάνει συστάσεις για να βελτιωθεί η δημοκρατία στα κράτη μέλη. Αυτή είναι η άποψή μου.
Thank you, Mr. Vavrikevich.
Michał Wawrykiewicz
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for this presentation. I have a first question about your observation: which country is in the avant-garde of the improvement of the rule of law last year, which one is in a backsliding, the leader? And also, have you observed any interesting legal events or legal phenomena within last last year that is important from your point of view when it comes to the assessment of the rule of law level in the countries? And finally, I want to ask about two countries which were quite recently in the avant-garde of the violation of the rule of law: Hungary and Poland.
What is your assessment when you look at these countries last year, having in mind completely different circumstances in Hungary, where there is a two-third constitutional majority, and in Poland, where there is a clash between the government and the president who blocks all of the reforms? What is your assessment in that respect? Thank you.
Chloé Ridel
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Thank you, Commissioner, I will be speaking French, if I can. D'abord pour vous remercier de de la présentation, remercier vos équipes pour ce travail conséquent sur le septième rapport sur l'état de droit, c'est un document qui nous est très précieux pour suivre l'évolution de l'état de droit dans chaque État membre. Première question porte sur la situation en Slovaquie. Dans votre rapport, vous constatez des reculs particulièrement marqués de l'état de droit en Slovaquie.
Vous critiquez notamment le démantèlement de certaines autorités de lutte contre la corruption par le gouvernement de Monsieur Fico, ainsi que l'assouplissement du droit pénal en matière de de corruption. Alors pourquoi vous ne recommandez pas ou vous n'engagez pas le mécanisme de conditionnalité pour suspendre les fonds européens quand vous constatez dans votre rapport des affaires comme celle de Dobitkar ou Haciendas qui montrent qu'il existe un détournement d'argent public européen en Slovaquie de nature systémique? Donc qu'est-ce qui vous empêche de lancer ce mécanisme de conditionnalité, comme d'ailleurs le Parlement européen l'a demandé dans le cadre de la décharge budgétaire en avril ou encore dans une résolution sur la Slovaquie qui date du 20 mai dernier? Et je terminerai rapidement sur la situation en France et ce que votre rapport souligne quant à la restriction croissante de la liberté d'association en France, notamment à l'issue de la loi séparatisme de 2021 qui a institué un contrat d'engagement républicain pour les associations qui permet au gouvernement, au ministre de l'Intérieur, à ses préfets de suspendre les activités d'une association et les fonds publics qui lui sont versés. Il est annoncé un nouveau projet de loi sur, je cite, l'entrisme, qui fait craindre de nouvelles restrictions en matière de liberté d'association.
Qu'est-ce que, quel regard vous portez sur ces projets de loi ? Merci.
Thank you very much. I suggest, if you are ready, Commissioner McGrath, that you would take this question first and then we continue the tour. Thank you.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, honorable members, for those questions. And I want to reassure you about my openness and the openness of my services to continue the engagement with your group and to continue to discuss ways in which we can further improve the rule of law process. This year, of course, we are working on the basis or in an environment where there are negotiations in terms of the next multiannual financial framework. As you know, last year the European Commission adopted its proposals for the next MFF, and building on the commitment that President von der Leyen made, we did make a proposal last year to bring about a closer link between rule of law and access to EU funding. And in that respect, as you know, we are proposing the horizontal application of respect for rule of law and indeed the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
And alongside that, as part of the national and regional partnership plans, that there would be a link between certain reforms and investments. Now, I'm conscious that this proposal is, of course, under negotiation. I want to see that closer link being retained in the final MFF architecture that is ultimately agreed by Council and by Parliament, because I think it can play a very important role in bringing about positive reforms to the rule of law environment across the European Union. But we take very seriously the recommendations from the Parliament in relation to the rule of law process. We have endeavored in the course of 2026, in the preparation of the report for the current year, to make the recommendations more focused where possible, to consolidate certain recommendations as well, and also to ensure that we have follow-up, because for me the real value of the rule of law report is ensuring that the recommendations are implemented in practice across the different pillars so that we can bring about practical improvements in the rule of law environment in the member states of the European Union.
A number of specific questions were put in relation to different countries. In the case of Poland and the action plan that is in place there, as we noted in the report this year, some further steps have been taken to advance the implementation of the action plan on the rule of law. The report notes in particular that attempts are being made to strengthen the role of the judges in the election of the judges members of the National Council for the Judiciary under existing rules. A revised draft of the law on addressing the situation of judges appointed at the request of the National Council for the Judiciary in the post-2017 composition is under discussion, I understand, in Parliament. Judges continue to be protected from unjustified disciplinary proceedings, and the European Commission will continue to monitor the progress in the context of the annual rule of law report.
So we've set out in the country chapter there, as we did in every other member state, our assessment of the state of play.
Of course, we continue to monitor very closely the situation in Hungary as regards the various reforms that have been pledged. There has been considerable engagement across different services of the Commission in the context of the recovery and resilience plan, and given the statutory deadlines that are built into the recovery and resilience plan process, that has been a considerable area of focus in recent months, in the early months of the lifetime of the government and in the context of Hungary's reform efforts to restore the rule of law. But happy to go into more detail on any of the specific issues that colleagues may wish to raise in that context. And in relation to Slovakia, I would just highlight the fact that we have a range of tools at our disposal. The rule of law report is an important instrument, but it is only one instrument.
We also have the possibility of infringement proceedings, which as you know, we have shown a willingness to use. It's an important lever that we have. We have been, for example, in relation to the infringement procedure on primacy following the amendments to the Slovak constitution, we've been engaging in an intensive dialogue with the Slovak authorities on this matter. The Commission has notably expressed concerns in relation to how the proposed changes to Article 7 of the constitution comply with EU law. I could continue going into much more detail, Chair, but I'm conscious that your timing is limited.
In relation to draft laws in member states, we don't comment on the content of draft laws. We engage where necessary with the member states concerned and convey our views, but it is on the adoption of completed or final laws that the Commission will finalize its assessment of those said laws and will make public comments where appropriate. We don't provide a ranking of member states, as you know, in the rule of law report itself. It's not establishing a qualitative or a quantitative classification or ranking between the member states because I think it's important that we would continue to assess each country chapter on its own merits based on objective assessments of the specific national context and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. And recommendations, of course, are tailored to the particular circumstances and the specific context and are formulated in a manner that is proportionate to the challenges identified.
So in the same way that we don't rank recommendations, which you may like to see, but at the moment we don't do that, we equally don't provide a ranking of member states. But again, we can point to other instruments like the EU Justice Scoreboard where you have a more quantitative assessment of different aspects of the justice system where you have actual metrics provided for each member state as part of the EU Justice Scoreboard publication.
Thank you, Commissioner. We will continue the tour and I will give the floor to Mrs. Sifrova.
Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for being with us. I have a question on maybe your personal opinion on the impact of the rule of law report this year because as was mentioned, for instance, by my colleague in Slovakia, it did not really create much fuss. Maybe it is also due to the timing that it's in the middle of the summer, the summer break. So maybe my first question would be how are you thinking of the timing? Is it possible to do it differently?
I know we ask this a lot, but it had to be asked.
You can always ask.
Maybe between Christmas and New Year.
Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová
Maybe on the 30th of December. So then we can party and forget about it. Okay, so, so what are you thinking in this line? Maybe also my question would be how to strengthen it overall? You talk about the Rule of Law Report and the links to the MFF.
You want to retain those links, as you said. Maybe if you could be more precise in how much you think there has to be involved in the final MFF, how much would you actually fight for it to remain in the closer links? And are there any ways you are thinking in the Commission of how to strengthen the Rule of Law Report? Maybe if we could be of any better help as the DRFMG in cooperating and actually making it more impactful? Because according to Liberties organization, 93% of the recommendations are repeated from last year, so there doesn't seem to be much movement.
Thank you very much.
Daniel Freund
Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Commissioner, for presenting this and for doing the work on the report. I can follow up on what my liberal colleague just said. It seems to me that a vast majority of recommendations is basically not implemented by Member States. And even those where we see some progress, it's often quite partial, and then there is stagnation over years. And I actually, I mean, you have this vast toolbox, you have said all the possible options that you have, but quite honestly, if Member States over now seven years...
I mean, look at those recommendations that were already in the first Rule of Law Report, the very first iteration of this, and they still are there seven years later. You know, I mean, when exactly is it the moment that you take more ambitious measures? Do we have to wait for 10 years? Is it 15? I mean, give us an estimate of when you're going to act.
And I have to say, I mean, the reply that you gave on Slovakia. It's not just the European Parliament that has now said twice that we need a conditionality procedure in Slovakia. It's also the European Public Prosecutor that has asked you for this. I think it's about time to act because clearly sending report after report or asking questions or yet another letter does not seem to alter the behavior of the government on the ground. Quite the opposite, we see that the attacks and the dismantling of independent judicial institutions and so on keeps moving forward.
So why can we not have financial consequences? Last thing on Hungary, where we see good progress, but on some elements not so much. On the... I mean, there seems to be movement now on the child protection law, but full abidance by the ECJ ruling on Article 2 violation is still not happening. There is still elements in the constitution, there is still elements in other legal texts that mean that the pride ban, for example, and recognizing the LGBTQI community as human beings is still not fully done.
And then also on the asylum legislation, where we also have an ECJ ruling, and my understanding is that the new government hasn't said that they want to comply. They actually want to get the fines reimbursed. If we could hear you on that, that would be good.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you. Since we have done the tour and that we have... We will... Before I give you the floor, I will... Normally it's just the member of the DRFMG who can take the floor.
I have a problem, if I may say it like this, is that we have Mr. Laszlo, who is shadow of the next Rule of Law Report. It's not part of our, how would you say, way of work, but I think it's fair that you would take the floor because you are shadow on the next Rule of Law Report. So I will give you the floor. It's an exception. We will also address this next time because I believe that this Rule of Law Report should be treated in plenary.
Don't forget, don't worry, everybody will have the opportunity to speak. Should be treated in plenary, which would allow everybody to speak.
So I will give you the floor. It's an exception. We will also address this next time because I believe that this Rule of Law Report should be treated in plenary. Don't forget, don't worry, everybody will have the opportunity to speak. Should be treated in plenary, which would allow everybody to speak.
So Mr. Laszlo, I give you the floor for one minute and a half, like everybody else, and we will continue the tour and then Mr. McGrath, you will be able to answer the question.
András László
Thank you, Chair. I'll try to be brief. To be honest, I'm very surprised by this Rule of Law Report. Imagine you are Prime Minister, you lose the election, and immediately afterwards the new government majority in parliament bans you from becoming Prime Minister ever again. They even ban you from becoming a member of parliament ever again with retroactive laws.
Imagine that you have the potential to go to the President for this violation of democratic norms, and the President can go to the Constitutional Court. But the President is threatened of being removed illegally. This happens. The Constitutional Court judges, four of them are threatened with early retirement and also retrospective conflict of interest rules and being removed. This also happened.
And you come and you say, well, maybe we're going to ask in Brussels what they think about this. You write written questions, oral questions in plenary, in committees, and none of the commissioners ever answer or even give a meaningful reaction on the substance. And then you say, okay, well, there's going to be a Rule of Law Report. At least something's going to be there. And all of this is entirely missing from a Rule of Law Report.
Imagine that. What would you think? How serious is such a Rule of Law Report? Thank you very much.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, honorable members. On the question of the timing of the Rule of Law Report, in the case of 2026, we slipped by a couple of days from the target date because the Commission meeting itself had to be rescheduled for other reasons. But I think you're looking for more fundamental overhaul of the timing, and I'm happy to work with you on that, in particular on the possibility of it being a few weeks earlier when the system is fully operating and perhaps not in a wind-down mode with the summer recess coming. So if that is possible, and I will work with my team to explore that and to engage with you more fully to see if we can have it a little bit earlier. On the question of a plenary debate, I'm more than happy at any time to appear before the plenary and present the annual Rule of Law Report and to have a debate on its content, but it's a matter for the Parliament to set its agenda in that regard.
On the question of the links with the MFF, we have published our proposal. It is the subject of ongoing negotiations. I will be making the case, and the Commission is making the case, for the retention of what we have proposed because we think it will lead to positive improvements in the Rule of Law environment across Member States. I think the model that has been provided for in the Recovery and Resilience Plans has worked well overall, and I think it has resulted in many important reforms that in some instances were long awaited and long advocated are now happening because of that link.
And I think having greater clarity on the horizontal application of the need for respect for rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be important and having that link between reforms and investments in the national and regional partnership plans. And that is something we will continue to support the the Council and of course the Parliament in your consideration of what we have proposed. In relation to Slovakia and the ongoing engagement we have there and indeed the European Parliament resolution that has been referred to, we have been as a Commission engaging in an intensive dialogue with the Slovak authorities to resolve the issues identified. This year's Rule of Law Report duly reflects many of the issues that have been raised by this Parliament. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation.
We stand ready to use all of the tools at our disposal to protect the rule of law and the financial interests of the Union provided all the relevant legal criteria under the EU law are met. And as you know different services are very much involved in that deliberation including DG BUDG when it comes to the invocation of the conditionality regulation. For example, the Commission launched an infringement proceeding for breaching EU rules as you know on the protection of whistleblowers. As a result, the National Council of the Slovak Republic withdrew the contested amendment before it could enter into force and the Commission closed the infringement case on the the 8th of July in the current year. So I think it is an example of when the Commission acts it can lead to positive change.
And I can assure you I stand ready to act and the Commission stand ready to act and on a cross-service basis these issues are being reflected upon on an ongoing basis. In relation to the issues that have been raised concerning Hungary, first of all the question of term limits is a matter for the Member State. If I as Commissioner and the European Commission was to get involved in decisions made at a national level concerning term limits in politics then we would be involved in a number of Member States. We do not get involved because we respect the allocation of competences between the Commission and indeed between the Member States in that respect. In relation to the Hungarian constitutional amendments, as colleagues will know they came right before the publication of the annual Rule of Law Report.
We do mention them in the report albeit in an objective an objective manner.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you. We will continue the tour. I will give the floor to Mr. Pedulla.
Gaetano Pedulla'
Grazie Presidente. Parlerò per favore in italiano. Grazie Commissario per questo confronto. Nel mio paese, l'Italia, la situazione dello stato di diritto sta rapidamente degradando. Quattro ore fa, quattro ore fa è stata approvata una riforma che impedisce a delle formazioni politiche di presentarsi alle prossime elezioni se non raccogliendo un numero spropositato di firme.
Di fatto si impedisce l'esercizio della possibilità di presentarsi alle elezioni. Ogni governo poi, e questo compreso, sta cambiando la legge elettorale. Ma la situazione è degradante dovunque. L'informazione: in questa commissione è intervenuto un giornalista, il giornalista più importante in Italia, giornalista d'inchiesta, denunciando il suo disagio. Questo giornalista ha avuto una bomba sotto casa sua ed è stato cacciato dal servizio pubblico televisivo.
Servizio pubblico televisivo che è in palese violazione dell'EMFA.
Sulla giustizia, il governo ha provato a limitare l'autonomia dei magistrati, c'è voluto un faticoso referendum per impedirlo. I diritti negati sono ovunque, i cittadini non riescono, sei milioni di cittadini italiani non riescono a curarsi per le liste d'attesa, le carceri esplodono e l'abuso d'ufficio e la corruzione, l'abuso d'ufficio è stato tolto dall'ordinamento. Le ONG vengono ostacolate nel lavoro di recupero dei migranti naufraghi in mare. Persino a questa commissione, a questa commissione viene impedito di svolgere una missione conoscitiva della situazione in Italia. Dunque la domanda è questa, commissario, lei ci ha detto tutto quello che intende fare nella prossima relazione, ma intanto che facciamo?
Ne parliamo l'anno prossimo? Non ritenete il caso di muovere qualcosa, di dare un segnale perché questa situazione non passi così inosservata in continuazione? Grazie.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you, I will now give the floor to Mr. Zan, and there will be time probably for a second round for the people who wants to react to the answer.
Alessandro Zan
Grazie presidente, I will speak Italian please. Grazie presidente, ringrazio il commissario innanzitutto per il prezioso lavoro e anche perché devo riscontrare che è un commissario che sta sul campo, nel senso che, what, there is a problem? No, che visita personalmente i paesi, e dunque si premura insomma di verificare. Questo lo dico non per compiacere il commissario, ma per dimostrare che si può fare un lavoro in sintonia tra Commissione e Parlamento, anche se ovviamente la situazione delle democrazie anche oggi che venivano considerate consolidate mostrano segnali molto preoccupanti e nessuna democrazia europea può più essere considerata immune. Ad esempio l'European Democracy Shield rappresenta un passo importante, ma una comunicazione non è ancora uno strumento di protezione efficace.
Allora io mi chiedo se la Commissione intenda ad esempio trasformare questa iniziativa in un meccanismo operativo e quali risorse possono essere mobilitate per questo. E poi se considera il commissario la possibilità di subordinare i fondi previsti per AgoraEU, che sono diversi miliardi, a condizioni abilitanti orizzontali volte al rispetto dei valori dell'Unione e dello Stato di diritto e dei valori sanciti dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali. Grazie.
Thank you, is there a request for comeback before I give the floor to Mr. McGrath? I will give you the floor now, Mr. McGrath, and if there are requests for a second turn we will still have the time.
Michael McGrath
Yes, thank you very much colleagues for those questions. In relation to Italy, the country chapter that we published in the Rule of Law Report sets out the Commission's assessment of the rule of law environment in the same way we have for the other member states. The Commission is closely following the developments about the use of spyware in Italy. This is reflected in the report this year, which refers to the ongoing criminal investigations aimed at identifying those responsible for hacking the journalists with spyware. And while investigations are of course a matter for national authorities, the Commission's position is very clear: any attempts to illegally access data of citizens, including journalists and political opponents, is unacceptable.
If you wish to speak with me offline or drop me a note, I'll gladly respond and give you the Commission's position, but I don't want to be inaccurate in responding when I'm not fully up to date in relation to developments over the course of today. In relation to the Democracy Shield, I spoke in plenary this morning on the what was then the draft report of the special committee of the Parliament under the chairpersonship of Nathalie Loiseau and the rapporteurship of Tomáš Zdechovský. I understand that that report has now been endorsed at your plenary vote earlier on today. And so we will now reflect very carefully on the recommendations in your report which have been adopted by the Parliament democratically. The focus in the early months of the Democracy Shield has been the establishment of the new Centre for Democratic Resilience.
It is up and running since February of this year. I would encourage members of this House to engage with the Centre directly to fully understand the nature of the work that they do, which is to act as a strategic hub, to be a point of coordination, to connect the dots between all of the good work that's being done at EU level by EU institutions, agencies and bodies, but also at national level by the member state authorities and indeed by many stakeholder organisations as well. We have about thirty different actions under the Democracy Shield that we expect to have completed by the end of this year. They are important in that they are practical, they are operational, they are recommendations that will make a real difference, including further strengthening the work of the European Cooperation Network on Elections, for example, bringing forward a recommendation on safety in politics, bringing forward guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in the context of elections, bringing forward a blueprint in relation to FIMI. We are providing a lot of training to member state authorities to make sure that there is a common approach and a common understanding of the nature of the threat that we face.
In relation to the MFF and Agora EU, again, I know that the negotiations are continuing. We stand behind the very ambitious proposal that we made in the context of the MFF in terms of Agora EU, because we believe that civil society plays a vital role in our democracy, but also we recognise the importance of the media element. Having an independent and pluralistic media sector is crucially important, and of course culture across the European Union. So we have, as you know, combined a number of programmes in our Agora EU proposal, and we hopefully can reach agreement in the course of the inter-institutional negotiations on an ambitious Agora EU programme. And I thank the members of this House for their strong support for Agora EU, and we will do all that we can to advocate for Agora EU in the context of the ongoing negotiations.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you. Are there requests for comebacks? I see Mr Arvanitis. Somebody else? Mr Arvanitis, I give you the floor.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Κύριε επίτροπε σας ευχαριστώ. Θα επανέλθω λίγο γιατί εμμέσως με καλύψατε και θα είμαι ειλικρινής. Ένα από τα μεγάλα θέματα που είδαμε στην ένωσή μας είναι όπως είπε ο συνάδελφός μου από την Ιταλία το θέμα των παρακολουθήσεων. Το θέμα στην Ελλάδα είναι κορυφαίο, είναι το θέμα του Predator και γνωρίζετε πάρα πολύ καλά ότι η υπόθεση έκλεισε κοινοβουλευτικά, όχι νομικά. Επιμένω γι' αυτό όπως και για τα άλλα ζητήματα όπως παραδείγματος χάρη είχαμε επιθέσεις κυβερνητικών στελεχών κατά της Ευρωπαϊκής Εισαγγελίας όταν έχουμε σε εξέλιξη πράγματα.
Τι με φοβίζει κύριε επίτροπε και σας μιλάω ανθρώπινα και όχι πολιτικά. Όταν ο πρωθυπουργός της Ελλάδας κάθεται δίπλα σας και λέει παίρνουμε τα εύσημα από τον κύριο McGrath και από την άλλη θεωρεί ότι ο Κώστας Αρβανίτης είναι εχθρός της πατρίδος, ξέρετε μας στοχοποιούν ενώ εμείς θέλουμε να κάνουμε τη δουλειά μας. Εμείς κάνουμε τη δουλειά μας και απέναντι στη Μάλτα και απέναντι στην Ουγγαρία και στην Ιταλία με πρόθεση να βελτιωθεί η κατάσταση, όχι να τιμωρηθεί το κράτος μέλος, το επαναλαμβάνω αυτό. Δεν μας βοηθάει αυτή η ιστορία να πηγαίνετε στα κράτη μέλη και να δίνετε εσείς τα εύσημα για το αν προχωράει ή δεν προχωράει το κράτος δικαίου. Αυτή ήταν η παρατήρησή μου και η ερώτησή μου.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you. I will also give the floor to Mr. Laszlo and I will take the opportunity also to make a point. Mr. Laszlo.
András László
Thank you Commissioner for your answer. It's somewhat surprising though that some elements, I understand the fact that it was the end of the cycle what happened in Hungary since after the elections, but your experts somehow managed to include in the report things that happened after the things I mentioned happened. There was no, I guess it's some anachronistic problem there. Several people also mentioned media here. I didn't go into it first, but let's imagine a situation where you become Prime Minister, you appoint a new advisory board to overhaul the public media system, the TV, radio, etc.
It's your people who you trust. After careful selection they choose someone for editor-in-chief. It is reported in the media in the afternoon on Monday. He comments under the Facebook post announcing the news that I don't think so. And then next morning the same editor-in-chief who was just signed his contract Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning he's called in to the termination of his contract.
Is this how you envisage independent public media reform? The Prime Minister in Facebook posts messaging about who can or cannot be editor-in-chief in public media? Yeah, thank you very much. And thank you.
Michał Wawrykiewicz
Thank you Chair. I think that we gathered here in this room to discuss the Rule of Law Report for the last year which was presented recently by Mr. Commissioner, not to discuss the internal situation in Hungary. But having the opportunity to talk right now I will shortly comment that you as a representative of the regime that was installed in Hungary for the last sixteen years now complaining for the mechanism of the democracy in Hungary here in this room which is ridiculous in my opinion, but this is my comment only. I think that we are here to discuss the Rule of Law Report and as Commissioner mentioned these matters are not covered by this report. Thank you.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you very much. If you, if you allow me Commissioner McGrath, before because we are nearly coming to an end and before I give you the floor to close our discussions. There are some members, you know that we, this Parliament has put forward the cycle of, of Rule of Law and that we know that the Commission comes along with that proposal and we are very grateful although it is true that there've been question about for example the dates of the publication of the Rule of Law Report.
You answered on this and we are very thankful to that. We also mentioned, you also mentioned yourself more structured dialogue with the DRFMG which is also absolutely welcome. And but there was also the question about the content. You spoke about hierarchy. Yes, it could be something about hierarchization but I just want to give you a small example for why sometimes we are a bit lost in the reading of the rule of law report.
We have received I think about that because Mr. Arvanitis spoke about EPPO and we have talked with with EPPO and in the report it's written that the cooperation with EPPO is broadly effective. But when you hear and when you're talking with different actors you realize that it might be a little bit of a different I would say analyze behind it. And yet in a footnote the Commission also acknowledged that the EPPO itself reports operational delays, under-resourcing, government immunities affecting its ability to effectively investigate and prosecute high-level of corruption. And this is where we just want to point out that it it is a bit obvious that one might find a little bit lost when reading the rule of law report. And because we do believe that this this work is done very seriously and and thoroughly that we would wish a little bit more clarity on that.
This is just to enlighten a little bit more and detailed a little bit more some expression which has been raised by by the colleague. Before I give you the floor to answer the last question I really want to thank you again for your participation and your willingness to work with the DRFMG and already the commitments that you have made today. We are very grateful for that. Commissioner McGrath.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much Chair and and thank you colleagues again for those additional questions. I think it's important that I would put on record my full support and the Commission's full support for the work of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in every member state of the European Union. It is vitally important that the work of the EPPO is supported. It is difficult work, sometimes complex and challenging work, but it is work that is grounded in EU law and it must be supported in every way. As you know it is also relevant for the upcoming review of the anti-fraud architecture which we are doing with our colleagues also in in other services across the Commission and that involves looking at and evaluating the work of the EPPO and considering what changes may need to be made in the context of the the legislative environment.
On the question of surveillance and Greece has been raised again specifically. As colleagues will know the country chapter for Greece in this year's report reports on the ongoing judicial scrutiny of certain aspects of the use of spyware in proceedings before the criminal courts, the Council of State and the European Court of Human Rights.
And the Commission's position on this is very clear: any attempts to illegally access data of citizens is unacceptable. The follow-up and investigations into the alleged illegal use of spyware are a matter for national authorities and not for the Commission, in line with the allocation of competences, and we expect national authorities to thoroughly examine and follow up on any such allegations that may be made. In relation to the media reforms in Hungary, I think the most important consideration here is the fact that we now have updated EU law in the form of the European Media Freedom Act. So we analyze any new measures in line with the principles of media freedom and media pluralism, ensuring alignment with the European Media Freedom Act. And as I said in my opening remarks, we have already initiated actions as a Commission to ensure the full implementation of and compliance with the European Media Freedom Act, and we stand ready to take further steps should that be required.
And Chair, in relation to the Rule of Law Report itself and the role of your group, can I thank you for your ongoing work? Can I acknowledge the very good cooperation, and what I would suggest is that we would engage in some meaningful dialogue, perhaps at technical level with your team, to see how the specific recommendations that you have made can be better reflected in the output of our work in the annual Rule of Law Report for 2027, because from my point of view, the Rule of Law Report has to continue to evolve. I would like to see more enlargement countries included in the Rule of Law Report going forward. That's a decision yet to be made, but I think that it stands to reason that as countries get closer to EU membership, we should consider broadening the candidate countries that are included, but also alignment with your work and with the cycle that you are involved in here every year on rule of law, I think makes good sense too. So I'm happy to work with you and to put those items into a format for discussion so that hopefully we can better reflect a number of the specific recommendations in the report for 2027, work on which, of course, is essentially already underway.
Thank you very much, that will finish our discussion right on time. Thank you. Have a good afternoon.