Mr. Didier Reynders:

I thank the Chairman. I thank him for the recall of all the technicalities. It is interesting for me to listen to the rule of law in a Parliament with such a set of rules. First, I thank the members for their invitation to present today the Commission's first annual Rule of Law Report, which was published on 30 September last year.

Let me first express my gratitude to the committee and the Irish authorities for their strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and supporting the Commission in this field. It is important. Respect for the rule of law is key in the Union, yet we have seen in recent years that it cannot always be taken for granted. I thank the committee, therefore, for its support.

It is with this concern in mind that the Commission published its first annual Rule of Law Report in September last year. This report provides a synthesis of significant rule of law developments, both positive and negative, in the EU since the beginning of 2019, as well as country-specific assessments for all 27 member states, including, of course, Ireland. We are working on the second edition of the report, which we will adopt in July this year. It has come to be a cycle. Year after year, we will go further with a new report to try to see what possible improvements can be to the rule of law if that is the reality in the Union. I hope to be back in Dublin soon, perhaps in person, to present this second report to the Parliament. When we come out of the pandemic, it will be a pleasure to come back to Dublin in my capacity as Commissioner for Justice and discuss this physically in the Parliament, not only with the Chairman but perhaps with all the members.

For Ireland, like for all the 27 member states, the Commission examined four areas, which are key for the rule of law: the independence, quality and efficiency of the justice systems; the anti-corruption framework; media pluralism and media freedom; and other institutional checks and balances.

As regards the first pillar of the report relating to the justice system, let me start by welcoming the establishment of an independent judicial council at the end of 2019. On a general note, the perceived independence of courts and judges has been consistently high over the past number of years in Ireland. The report has also noted the ongoing discussions as regards the reform of the judicial appointment system. A decrease in the number of candidates to be submitted to the Government for consideration, as well as the application of the procedure to all judicial appointments, could limit political discretion.

Concerns had been raised as regards the previous Bill relating to the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission. The report underlined the importance for this reform to take into account the Council of Europe recommendations about, certainly, the composition of the commission. Again, however, the evolution is in a good way if there is a restriction to the number of candidates submitted to the Government for consideration.

We are aware that the new Government is working on a new Bill and we are following this closely. On 23 February, the Commission’s services discussed this issue with the Irish authorities. We will, perhaps, say more about the reforms in the second edition of our report and we will continue to see if it is possible to have a correct implementation of the enormous reform by the Government

A new body in charge of disciplinary proceedings against judges has also been established, that is, the judicial conduct committee. This could improve the accountability of judges. Parliament remains in charge of deciding the removal of judges from office, which could, however, raise concerns about the politicisation of the process. We want to see a decline in the politicisation of the process.

As regards the work on the personal injuries guidelines, the report notes that in the implementation of such guidelines, due regard should be given to the respect of, again, judicial independence, not only from undue influences outside the Judiciary, but also from within.

A review group on civil justice has also looked at access to justice and the cost of litigation. This could be useful to address the concerns raised as regards the civil legal aid system. Continuing the work to tackle remaining barriers to enter the legal services market is also important.

We also note that work is still ongoing on establishing a compensation scheme to award damages in the event of protracted court proceedings, as required by a European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, judgment. The committee will be aware that we take into account standards for our report, not only the treaties and case law from the European Court of Justice, ECJ, in Luxembourg, but also the case law coming from the ECHR in Strasbourg. Of course, we also try to take into account some decisions from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

On the second pillar of the report, the anti-corruption framework, we note that Ireland has carried out several reforms aimed at strengthening the fight against corruption, in particular through the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018. This Act included several offences relating to corruption, which is a positive development. However, it also contains a dual criminality provision, which may limit the scope for prosecuting foreign bribery. There is a legal and institutional framework in place on asset declarations and interests, as well as codes of conduct and tax clearance obligations, which is under review. The report noted that the Government committed to reform and consolidate the ethics in public office legislation. We also underlined that Ireland’s defamation laws raise concerns regarding the ability of the press to expose corruption. We have received some remarks from the press in Ireland about such a situation. Finally, we noted that a comprehensive review of Ireland’s anti-corruption framework is being carried out and that a review of defamation legislation is ongoing. It will be an important task for the Parliament to see how to have an evolution about that, regarding the criticism coming from some members of the press about its ability to expose corruption in full compliance with Ireland's defamation laws.

Turning to our third pillar, media pluralism, there are constitutional guarantees and solid regulatory structures in Ireland in this regard. These operate within a political culture that avoids intervention in editorial content of media outlets and prevents conflicts of interests in media ownership. The media regulator took steps to update and publish information on media ownership on an annual basis, which is to be welcomed because transparency about media ownership is an important element in all member states. We need a real vision of media ownership and it is important to have such a publication year after year from the media regulator. Freedom of expression and the right to access official information are well established principles. However, the frequent use and high costs of defamation cases raise concerns.

Concerning institutional checks and balances, which is the last pillar of the report, Ireland has an established practice of consultation on draft legislation by the Government and Parliament, as well as impact assessments. The scrutiny over Private Members' Bills that pass a certain stage of the legislative process is similarly developed. The independent Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is well equipped to carry out its functions. We do not have any remarks on the providing of resources to such a commission.

The space for civil society organisations is generally considered open. Yet, concerns have been raised by some of them as regards constraints on civil society actions in relation to the current interpretation of the Electoral Act, which imposes restrictions on funding possibilities for civil society organisations.

As the committee may know, the General Affairs Council held very constructive political debates on the rule of law report on two occasions last year under the German Presidency, including the first country-specific discussion on five member states, following the alphabetical protocol order. These discussions will continue in the General Affairs Council in April, where the situation in Ireland will be discussed, together with France, Germany, Greece and Spain. We will continue in the second part of the year with the Slovenian Presidency and again, we will have a general debate on the second rule of law report, which we will publish in July, and on five other member states. We will continue semester after semester with a discussion not only in general but country by country. I have already presented the report before the European Parliament. It was discussed in the plenary session and in the LIBE committee and I am now bringing the debate before national parliaments. The Irish Parliament is the 16th I am visiting to exchange on the report. This month, I will continue with visits planned to Malta, Luxembourg and Lithuania. Of course, most of those discussions are by video conference but I will try to go physically to Luxembourg if possible because it is not so far. I will be very pleased to come back to Ireland for the presentation of the second report, maybe with a physical presence in Dublin.

Before concluding, I will say a few words about the directive on the protection of the EU financial interest, or PIF directive, and the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO. I understand that the legislative procedure for the transposition of the PIF directive is progressing well and should be finalised very soon. Members might have more information about the process of this transposition. I kindly encourage the Government to complete this procedure as soon as possible. The deadline for transposition was July 2019 and all the other member states have now transposed this directive. As the committee knows, the PIF directive defines the crimes affecting the Union budget, for which the EPPO is competent. I know that Ireland does not participate in the EPPO. However, all member states have an obligation to effectively protect the Union budget and the PIF directive plays a key role in this regard. In addition, I invite Ireland to smoothly co-operate with the EPPO, in line with the principle of sincere co-operation. Member states participating in the EPPO will soon notify it as a competent authority for the purpose of judicial co-operation within the EU. This will open the way for the EPPO to issue decisions based on the principle of mutual recognition, which will also apply also vis-à-visIreland. I count on the Irish authorities to conclude a working arrangement with the EPPO soon. It will be very important to have good participation of all participating member states, but the non-participating member states that are not in the EPPO also have to play an important role with such a working arrangement. In the future, it may be Ireland's choice to join the EPPO. That is already the case for some common law member states, such as Malta or Cyprus, and we may have an evolution next year with the draft Bill presented to the Swedish Parliament. I do not know but for the moment the most important element is the working arrangement.

It is now important to bring forward the reform impetus and further improve respect for the rule of law in Ireland, like everywhere in the Union. What we want to promote is a stronger European rule of law culture. This is why a debate like the one we are having today is so important. Such debates are key steps towards the creation of a new rule of law culture, where national parliaments play an important role. I therefore hope that the debate will also continue at regional or local level, including within civil society. On its side, the Commission will continue to play its role as guardian of the treaties, and will use all the tools at its disposal to react to threats to the rule of law, whenever necessary. The rule of law report is not the only one tool we have at our disposal. It is also possible to work under the Article 7 procedure or to go to the Court of Justice with infringement proceedings. From the beginning of this year it may be possible to have a real link between the funding of some policies and the rule of law with a conditionality mechanism. I thank the committee again for its invitation and its attention. I am looking forward to hearing members' remarks and questions. I have tried not to mention any individual in order to be in full compliance with the technicalities mentioned at the beginning of the meeting.