Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Extraordinary meeting Joint meeting Extraordinary JURI-LIBE Joint voting session
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
LIBE, JURI European Parliament
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Chair. Before we proceed to the vote, I would like to inform you that the following non-LIBE members will participate in today's vote. Concerning EPP, Gheorghe Falcă will replace Ioan Rareș Bogdan, Monika Hohlmeier will replace Caterina Chinnici, Eva Maydell, Eva Maydell will replace Emil Radev, Helder Sousa Silva will replace Ana Miguel Pedro, Norbert Herhammer will replace Tomas Tobé, Isabelle Le Callennec will replace François-Xavier Bellamy. On S&D, Claire Fita will be replacing Murielle Laurent, Jean-Marc Germain will replace Chloé Ridel, and Nikos Papandreou will replace Matjaž Nemec. No replacement reported by PfE or ECR.
In Renew, Barry Cowen will replace Michael McNamara, and the group of the Greens, Ufuk Kahya will replace Jaume Asens Llodrà. No replacement replacement reported from the Left. And in the ESN group, Mrs. Mary Khan, who will be voting for JURI and as a member of the LIBE committee will be replaced by Marcin Sypniewski. And there is no replacement on the non-attached members. So, they have a point of order.
Birgit Sippel
Maybe I missed him, but I can't see Nikos who is replacing Matthias. So he is not sitting in our line. If he is in the room, maybe he can show up.
Javier Zarzalejos
That can be the mystery of the hidden member, but there is that is what has been reported from your group.
Javier Zarzalejos
We take good note of that. Any other remark or point of order? Well, if that is not the case and once we have verified the quorum, we move to the vote. We will vote electronically and the final vote will be taken by roll call. So we vote on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament of the Council establishing the justice program for the period 2028-2034.
We start the vote then with on compromise amendment 1. Vote is open. Now it's closed and it is adopted. Then we move to compromise amendment 2.
Vote is open. Now it's closed. And it is adopted. We then move to the final vote as a roll call vote. Vote is open.
It is closed. And it is adopted. And then we vote on the mandate for interinstitutional negotiations. As my colleague said in the chair, we require a majority of 51 members. Vote is open.
It is closed. And we have more than enough votes. So, congratulations to the rapporteurs. The vote is ended. There is no any other business.
And let me tell you that the next date of the next meeting is to be confirmed. The session is concluded. Thank you, Javier. You're welcome.
Well, dear colleagues, let's start the meeting of the LIBE Committee. The first item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda itself. If there is no objections to the draft already circulated, then the agenda is adopted. Interpretation will be provided in all languages except Latvian and Maltese. On nomination of rapporteurs, I'd like to inform the committee that Mr. Michał Wawrykiewicz has been nominated as the rapporteur for an own-initiative report on the Commission's Rule of Law Report, the annual report 2026.
Mrs. Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle has been nominated as the co-rapporteur for the joint CONT-LIBE report on the future revision of the EPPO regulation. And on nomination on opinions, Mr. Christian Wiegand has been nominated as the rapporteur for the LIBE opinion to ITRE-IMCO report on regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe's cloud and AI ecosystem. You will find in the meeting documents the outcome of the coordinators' meeting of 15th of October 2026 and the outcome of the coordinators' written procedure of the 1st of October. I wonder whether the committee endorse these coordinators' decisions and recommendations. And then on adoption of minutes, we have those corresponding the 1st of June and the 8th of June.
If there are no objections, then the minutes are approved. And now we move to item number five, and we have the pleasure to host today Commissioner Michael McGrath, the Commissioner responsible for democracy, justice, the rule of law and consumer protection, who will present to us the Commission's 2026 Rule of Law Report. After the postponement, the European Commission published the report on the 17th of July 2026, just before the summer holidays. The Commissioner presented it already during a public meeting of the DRFNG on the 15th of September in Strasbourg. This annual exercise is an important opportunity for us to take stock of developments of the rule of law across the Member States, but also to reflect on how the rule of law cycle is working in practice and importantly, on the follow-up to the recommendations identified in previous editions.
We are particularly interested this year in hearing the Commission's assessment of the main developments and challenges identified in the 2026 report, as well as in understanding how the Commission intends to address persistent shortcomings and ensure that the recommendations lead to concrete progress in the Member States. We would also welcome some reflections on the broader development of the rule of law cycle, including the Commission's cooperation with Parliament and other stakeholders and on how the report can continue to serve as an effective tool for preventing, addressing and resolving situations of rule of law backsliding, including in connection to the next MFF. As you know, the EP adopts a yearly own-initiative report on the Commission's Rule of Law Report. Last year, Mr. Arvanitis was the rapporteur, while this year it will be Mr. Wawrykiewicz, as I just announced, to take care of the report of the Commission's 2026 report. European Parliament has requested repeatedly, among other issues, that the systemic and structural shortcomings and the corresponding fundamental recommendations to address them be highlighted more clearly, to indicate explicitly the proposed solutions and timeframes, as well as to anticipate the publication of the Rule of Law Report so to allow for it to be published in a moment of the year when institutions are working fully, can examine it properly and react to it.
This request was included not only in the Arvanitis report, but also raised during the DRFNG meeting of the 15th of September, as well as in individual exchanges with MEPs. So we would be happy to hear from the Commissioner his views on this issue. I now invite the Commissioner to intervene for eight minutes for his presentation, after which I will give the word to the representatives of political groups. Commissioner McGrath, it's a pleasure to have you here. Welcome again.
The floor is yours.
Michael McGrath
Well, thank you very much, Chair, dear Javier, honorable members. Thank you for the invitation to present the 2026 Rule of Law Report to you all this evening. The rule of law is the foundation of the EU and serves as the bedrock of democracy and respect for fundamental rights across our Union. This is why upholding and safeguarding the rule of law is a priority for the European Commission. Adopted in July, this year's report takes stock of the rule of law situation in every Member State, the EU as a whole, and four enlargement countries.
As the president pointed out during her State of the Union address recently, thanks to our rule of law reports, any issues are now detected early and addressed through dialogue. I am grateful for the continuous support of the Parliament in this endeavor, and in particular your committee. You've contributed with important suggestions on how to make our collective work to protect and promote the rule of law more effective. The fact that the Parliament's report was adopted earlier this year allowed us to better take its content into account in our preparations and to work towards building a more integrated annual cycle. We are currently reflecting on a possible earlier date for the adoption of the next report, and I'm happy to discuss that further.
And I'm pleased to report that just last Friday, we started our outreach to member states, thus launching the concrete preparations of the next report earlier than we have done in the past. For this year's rule of law report, for the first time, Commission services organized in-person country visits to many member states. In addition, I myself visited many member states, including Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Portugal, Latvia, Malta, Greece, and Spain, and discussed the implementation of the recommendations of the last rule of law report with national parliaments, authorities, and a broad range of stakeholders. In preparing this year's report, we received and analyzed over 280 stakeholder contributions. Commission services held over 600 meetings across all member states and enlargement countries, and these meetings involved over 900 national authorities, ministries, courts, independent bodies, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders.
As regards the scope of the report, the single market dimension again features prominently. This underscores the importance of the rule of law for the EU's competitiveness and for maintaining a level playing field in the single market, fostering a stable and a reliable business environment. In line with the request of the European Parliament, this year the Commission has further consolidated the report's recommendations to member states, making them more targeted and operational. And the Commission fully agrees with the Parliament on the importance of ensuring a continuous dialogue with a variety of actors, including civil society. Based on this shared priority, I had the pleasure to co-host the inaugural Civil Dialogue Forum earlier in June alongside European Parliament Vice-Presidents Barley and Stefanuta to foster structured dialogue, cooperation, and to promote civic engagement.
Let me also underline in this context that the Commission adopted the EU's first-ever civil society strategy at the end of last year, reflecting the importance of civil society actors for the rule of law and democracy in the EU. Turning now to its main findings, this year's report confirms that developments in the EU point to a broadly positive trajectory with marked improvements and important reforms completed or underway. Nonetheless, the picture remains uneven across member states and policy areas, with challenges persisting in some cases. And the same can be said indeed about the four enlargement countries covered by the report: Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Let me turn to the main findings briefly of the report, looking at the four pillars.
And I'll begin with justice systems. The report shows that many member states have advanced on justice reforms over the last year. Reforms include measures to strengthen judicial independence, such as reinforcing the independence of councils for the judiciary, to provide additional safeguards for judges' appointments, and reforms also include strengthening the autonomy of prosecution services.
Nevertheless, reforms are progressing at a varying pace and in some member states serious concerns remain. Turning now to anti-corruption, regarding the anti-corruption framework, the report shows that almost all member states currently have national anti-corruption strategies in place. 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. A number of member states have also strengthened efforts to ensure a more effective investigation and prosecution of corruption offences with additional resources or with new legislation. However, there are still some obstacles and several member states need to increase the investigative capacity and their preventive frameworks, such as those governing lobbying, conflicts of interest and asset declarations.
Turning to media freedom and pluralism, as you know, on the 8th of August last year, the vast majority of provisions of the European Media Freedom Act or EMFA 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 with these new legally binding rules and where gaps were detected, the Commission launched the first wave of actions to enforce the EMFA last December and a second one in August of this year. The Commission continues to support member states in applying and enforcing the EMFA. The Rule of Law Report will continue to monitor significant developments also in these areas and report on their impact while further follow-up will be ensured as part of the Commission's support to member states and enforcement of the EMFA.
The report will also monitor progress relating to the safety of journalists and access to information as well as other aspects related to the enabling environment for media freedom and pluralism. 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. At the same time, in some member states shortcomings persist regarding the excessive use of emergency legislative procedures and the lack of stakeholder involvement. Finally, the report notes that many member states continue to ensure an enabling and a supportive framework for civil society and sustain efforts to further improve the environment in which they operate.
However, in a number of member states civil society actors continue to report challenges including limitations to funding and to peaceful assembly. So, dear Chair, honorable members, as in previous years, the Commission continues to be ready to discuss the findings of the report and its recommendations in all the member states, notably in national parliaments and of course here in the European Parliament. In the EU, dialogue will always come first, but we have to match dialogue with decisive actions and in critical situations, the Commission continues to be ready to use all the tools at its disposal including infringement procedures and budgetary action where we believe it is relevant to ensure that the rule of law is upheld across our union. So thank you, Chair, and I look forward now to the debate that will follow.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thanks, Commissioner, thank you for your presentation and now we start the round of political groups. There will be two minutes for your questions and remarks and then the Commissioner will have also two minutes to answer. We start with EPP, Mr. Michał Wawrykiewicz, floor is yours.
Michał Wawrykiewicz
Thank you, Chair, thank you, Commissioner, for joining us today despite the late hour and thank you for your presentation.
And as a European Parliament rapporteur for this year report on the Commission's report, I would like to raise three questions that are particularly relevant to our ongoing work. First, concerning the Commission's recommendations, because the Rule of Law report addresses challenges of varying degrees of seriousness, ranging them from relatively minor institutional shortcomings to systemic threats to judicial independence and democratic checks and balances. So, would you consider in the future introducing a clearer distinction between serious and systemic rule of law violations and other institutional deficiencies and giving greater priority to, of course, serious and systemic violations in country-specific recommendations? That's first. Second, concerning the implementation of judicial decisions and rulings, because persistent failure to implement judgments of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights remains a serious concern in several member states.
So my question is, would you as a Commission consider in the future introducing a dedicated section in each country's chapter assessing compliance with judgment of both European courts? And finally, regarding the European Parliament's role in the annual rule of law cycle, we welcome the Commission's proposal for a more integrated annual cycle, but we believe that Parliament should have a stronger role in this process. So the question is, would you support establishing a structured consultation with the Parliament, including its Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group, before the publication of the annual rule report, as well as a clearer mechanism for following up on Parliament's recommendation? Thank you very much, Commissioner, and I would very much appreciate your views on these three topics.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, honorable member, for those questions and congratulations on your appointment as the committee rapporteur for the next report. And can I thank you for raising those three important issues. On point number one, relating to a form of differentiating as such between what you termed serious issues and serious recommendations and those that might be of a systemic nature, and whether we should consider presenting them in a different way or perhaps making clear that there is a hierarchy in the form of the seriousness of the different issues that have led to the recommendations. It is very much a matter of the national context and we have to take account of the national systems that apply, the national legal framework. Of course, our focus under the four pillars is in relation to the European context and European standards and EU law.
But we can give consideration to any views that the Parliament continues to have or may wish to express again in relation to how the recommendations can be presented. If you believe that we can improve on the clarity of the presentation of the recommendations, I'm not sure that we need to go into ranking them, but you haven't suggested that either, but you have highlighted the importance of perhaps identifying those that are of a more serious or a more systemic nature.
And I would be happy to engage with the committee in relation to your thoughts on that. On the Court of Justice and the question of there being a dedicated section for each member state on perhaps the judgments of the court or indeed the Court of Human Rights that have not been followed up on, there are hard tools, as you know, within our legal framework for following up on non-compliance with judgments of the Court of Justice in particular. Whether there is a need to present that or package that in a coherent way within the the Rule of Law Report is a matter that we can we can consider. But I think the most important action we can take in that area is to ensure that there is enforcement action because judgments of the Court of Justice are not voluntary in nature, they are legally binding and they must be fully upheld and implemented by the member states. And in finally, in terms of the role of the European Parliament, I'm always happy to engage with this committee, indeed with the DRFMG, and as the chair said, I engaged with the DRFMG last month.
And if if you believe that there is a better way to structure the engagement at different points of the cycle, and I do want to move to a more integrated cycle, and that is in part why we are looking to try and bring the report forward. It has been a consistent call, as you have echoed there again, chair, of this committee, and I think that would help to to improve the overall rule of law process and our engagement. So happy to engage further on those points.
Cecilia Strada
Grazie, Presidente. And thank you very much, Commissioner McGrath, for your presentation. The annual Rule of Law Report has come a long way, the seventh since the first publication, the fifth to include recommendations for member states, and the second under your leadership. The added value of this exercise is clearly to identify emerging issues before they deteriorate and to document developments in rule of law and fundamental rights. So the actual implementation of the recommendation holds the greatest importance.
And according to the report, nearly one in two of the recommendations made in 2025 has since addressed, either fully or partially. Yet, on-the-ground assessment of national civil society organizations show the implementation gap remains persistent. 96% of the recommendation issued this year are repetitions from previous years, with 65% dating back to 2022. I think there's some work to be done from the member state side. As it appears a failure in follow-up, question is, would the Commission agree on clear timelines and benchmarks to accompany the recommendation?
My second concern is for media freedom and pluralism that are under threat in the world and in Europe. Example, the Slovenian Ministry of Culture has proposed amendments to the Media Act affecting funding of media institutions. In Italy, in violation of the European Media Freedom Act, the proposed reform of the Italian public broadcaster would not guarantee the independence, rather the contrary, would strengthen even more political control. So my question is, what concrete steps do you want to take on this issue? Thirdly, the space for civil society, right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association are rapidly shrinking.
And moreover, national human rights institution, where in place, are continuing to face structural barriers, including a lack of funding.
What action the Commission intend to take to ensure Member States do not impede on constitutionally guaranteed rights while helping human rights entities to deliver on their mandate? And lastly, the political environment is becoming very hostile to people on the move, migrant and refugees, Commissioner, also due to the Commission initiatives. Pushbacks are realities both in Poland and Greece. Even more worryingly, the upcoming emergency framework will likely allow temporary suspension of the right to asylum, which is enshrined, as we know, in the Charter and other international human rights conventions. Could you please commit that this will not be the case?
Thank you, Commissioner.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, honorable member. On the follow-up to the recommendations, as you have highlighted, in 2026, 47% of recommendations from the previous year's report have been fully or partially addressed, and a further 23% where at least limited progress has been made. Of course, we want those figures to be as high as possible, and there remains an implementation gap, as you call it, in respect of certain recommendations. And that's why it is necessary sometimes to restate those recommendations, even if they have featured in previous iterations of the report. That said, I think we should also acknowledge, as you have done, that we are seven years into the annual rule of law reports, five years into the recommendations.
Some of the easier recommendations to implement have already been implemented. Other recommendations take quite complex and deep structural reforms to fully implement, and the pace has varied, in truth. We are also subject to electoral cycles, of course, within Member States. There is the need for ongoing political and stakeholder consultation. So some reforms will, I think, by their very nature, take a number of years to fully implement.
But we need to keep the pressure up and make sure that there's a continued focus on implementing these recommendations. When it comes to the question of timelines and so on, I would point to the context that we have set out in relation to the national regional partnership plans, rather, under the proposed next MFF, where we are proposing that there would be a closer link between rule of law recommendations and indeed respect for the Charter on the one hand, with access to EU funding on the other. In relation to media, can I just provide you with an assurance of our full determination to enforce the European Media Freedom Act? As I outlined in my opening remarks, we are in the enforcement phase at this stage. I believe having a free, plural, and independent media sector is a crucial foundation of our democracy.
We do see it under pressure to varying degrees around the European Union and for different reasons, some of them commercial in nature too. And that's why a review of the AVMSD, for example, of the law in relation to copyright, the new context of AI, all of these are very important issues that we need to consider. And in relation to civil society and the work of human rights institutions, as Commissioner, I will robustly defend the need for their voice to be heard as part of this process every year. I think it's crucially important that, yes, of course, we engage with the government, members of parliament, the public authorities, but we do need to hear also from voices from outside of the core political system in the Member States. And the Agora EU program that we have proposed in the MFF will, I think, be crucially important, and hopefully we can preserve the ambition in the negotiations of the Commission's proposal for Agora EU.
András László
Mr. Commissioner, you often use the words "closely monitoring the situation," that the Commission is closely monitoring the situation.
Yet last time you surprised me because when I asked you about recent developments in Hungary you seemed to be completely out of touch with the context. So I didn't get any answers to my questions. And these questions are very severe about the anti-democratic measures implemented by the Tisa government in Hungary. So if I'm not mistaken you were TD in Ireland since 2007 to 2024 that's 17 years. Imagine if the same rules applied in Ireland as in Hungary your political career would have been terminated latest in 2019.
And you would have only learned about it in the last mandate where you took your office because the ban on half of the Hungarian opposition was enacted retroactively. Do you think this is democratic? Because if I think about your situation imagine if you would have ended your political career I mean others would have ended your political career in 2019 you would have not become minister twice if I believe. You would have not become commissioner you wouldn't be here. About 160 members of the European Parliament also wouldn't be here today.
And in Hungary as I said half of the opposition members of parliament can no longer run because of a brand new law applied retroactively. The leader of the largest opposition party is banned from running and is banned from becoming Prime Minister ever again. And unlike the far left and many people in this house I do not wish any kind of punishment from Brussels against my country. I don't want money suspended in fact I want the EU funds to be paid out to Hungary as soon as possible. But I do have one question.
With your silent support do you understand the precedent you are setting for every new election from now on not only in Hungary but elsewhere in Europe and we have elections coming up in France in Italy in Poland in Spain. If this were to happen in any other country would you also be silent? Thank you.
Thank you very much honorable member and thank you for doing so much homework on my political career before becoming a European Commissioner and I would point to the fact