Mr. Didier Reynders:

I thank Senator McDowell for starting a dialogue on the realities in the different member states. It is also good to hear proposals coming from the member states and not only from the Commission. On the issue of defamation law, I thank the Senator for his explanation of the reforms of the past and welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about it. To be very concrete, the report indicates that frequent defamation legal cases, the high cost of defence and the high damages awarded by the Irish courts are seen as an inducement to self-censorship and a constraint on media freedom. This works to the detriment of the fight against corruption. As I said earlier, I have taken note of the fact that the Government has pledged to reform the defamation laws in order to ensure a balance between freedom of expression, the right to the protection of reputation, which is so very important, and the right of access to justice. In our report, we point out that we have seen many attacks against journalists in many member states but it is important to point out that in some member states, we have seen murders of journalists. Of course, in all member states there is violence against journalists but sometimes they are attacked or harassed through social media. I thank the Senator for providing the opportunity to discuss the possibility of further reform of the defamation laws. We have received correspondence from journalist associations and individual journalists on the current situation.

In terms of upholding the rule of law in the entire EU, we must take due account of the different legal traditions of member states. I mentioned the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO, and I know that there are different approaches but we have some common law countries on board and others may follow. We know that this is a delicate issue and it is important to ensure a sufficient degree of independence in the Judiciary. If one looks to the appointment of judges, the most important element is to try to be in line with the different proposals of the Council of Europe. Certainly, there have been many recommendations from the Venice commission on this in terms of how it is possible to organise the Commission's involvement in the process of presenting candidates to the authorities. That is really the most important element. As I said on the reforms, we have seen good progress in limiting the number of candidates so we do not have such large discretion for the authorities.

I fully understand the difficulties with organising the process. We want to be sure it is possible to take into account the recommendations coming from the Council of Europe. I note there are some discussions on the revised judicial appointments Bill. Let me stress it is important that the reform takes into account the Council of Europe recommendations. It is always possible to contact the Commission on this. Within the Council of Europe various countries have various systems and legal cultures.

With regard to money laundering, of course it is a reality that we need to be very active on having controls for civil servants at a certain level and politicians. We have tried to develop this in the European Parliament. It has become a tradition to have real scrutiny of the Commissioners. I know what the Senator is speaking about. Of course, it is very important that we reflect on the scrutiny of family members. It is true that the entire family do not become politicians or senior civil servants but it is very important to have some scrutiny of the assets and situation of a person appointed to a specific function. I have taken note of the Senator's remarks.

We try to make progress on various elements and I know this is a fact in Ireland. Through legislation on lobbyists, it is possible to have real verification on contacts between lobbyists and politicians or civil servants. With regard to how it is possible to verify the declaration of assets, again I take into account the Senator's remarks about the possibility of elements of such verification being too intrusive if we go too far. I must say we have had the same discussions on stabilising the process in the European institutions as perhaps there are at national level. We will continue to exchange views on this.

There are two elements with regard to the European Court of Justice. The first is reform to have the same kind of approach as there is in Strasbourg. Perhaps changing some rules will be part of the conference on the future of Europe. It is also possible simply to discuss it with the members of the Court of Justice and certainly to have a discussion or exchange with the President. If we need to change some rules of course it will be part of the discussion on the future of the institution.

With regard to the accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, we have started negotiations on this. It is very important. It is a commitment in the Lisbon treaty, as the Senator has said. It is also a commitment of the Commission. The President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has said that we want to organise the accession. Of course, it is very important to organise a smooth process between the two courts. Committee members know the previous discussions were on some requirements put in place by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In recent years, in other roles, I have had contact with the presidents of the two courts. I confirm to the committee that we want to make progress on this. We are seeing whether it is possible to give concrete answers on the various elements put forward by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

We will continue to discuss this because it is important that the European Union takes part in the Council of Europe as a real member. Committee members know we work a lot with the Council of Europe. I have said that in the preparation of our report we worked with the Venice Commission, GRECO and the entire Council of Europe. We want to take part in the process. Perhaps if we are members of the Council of Europe and have accession to the European Convention on Human Rights it will be easier to apply the same rules in the two courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Again, if it would require modifying the treaties it will be a task for the conference on the future of Europe. I thank Senator McDowell for the exchange.