Ms Vra Jourov?:

Mr. Claridge has the biggest legal brain in the Commission, so I always ask him these questions. The court ruling is here, including the parameters for setting the rules and conditions for civil society, which will be proportionate and necessary. There are some benchmarks in the ruling. One way is to bring legal obstacles. There is a reflection already in the ECJ ruling in that regard. The second is financial pressure or decreasing budgets. That is happening in several member states and we have real concerns about it. It is also reflected in the Irish rule of law report that we see some negative changes in that way. The third way is hostile and hateful rhetoric of the leaders of the countries against activists, human rights defenders and journalists. I would not underestimate that because it is one of the factors also contributing to the shrinking of the space for civil society. Once the people, the citizens, believe that the NGOs are public enemies, for the parliament it is easy. It does not lose anything when the budgets go down. There is a clear correlation. That is why we are also working on harmonising the rules against hate speech online. I think that is one of the factors which influence civil society.

As for the timeframe and the fine-tuning of the rule of law report with the parliamentary work, we have a very stable schedule so we now have time to digest the report.

That is what I am here to discuss. From January on, we will start to collect the data and, between February and April or May, we will be able to reflect the legislative changes happening in the member state. As I said to the Minister earlier, we will reflect as much as we can the positive things which come, especially as a reaction to our recommendations. The timeframe is stable and we will publish the report again in July. The methodology is stable, transparent and predictable, and we do not want to change it too much - perhaps just some details.

What has been criticised heavily by many governments is that we are listening too much to the NGOs, although I am simplifying the point. After the first rule of law report, we got many questions as to what are the channels of information from which we are collecting. However, we are very transparent about these channels and it is publicly known who is contributing to the rule of law report. What was the third question?