Mr. Didier Reynders:

I thank the Chair. It is a pleasure to be here today for an exchange on several areas that fall under my responsibility as European Commissioner for Justice. This morning it was raining but now it is sunny. It is a good start to speak about my areas of responsibility. We had an exchange in the past on the first annual Rule of Law Report by the Commission but that was by video due to the pandemic. I am glad to have the opportunity to be physically present in the Parliament in Dublin.

I will begin with a few words about our actions regarding the war in Ukraine. I know it is a priority for this Parliament. Since the first day of the unprecedented aggression towards Ukraine by Russia, the European Union has stood united. It is important to maintain the unity of the European Union during the entire process. We are mobilised, notably with the sanctions we have imposed since February on Russian and Belarusian oligarchs and companies. These sanctions are meant to limit Russia's ability to proceed with the war. At this stage, we have targeted more than 1,200 individuals and more than 100 entities in the EU sanction list. I have been charged with chairing the freeze and seize task force agencies task force at EU level, so we try to organise good co-ordination with member states. I will say some words about that later, but to give some figures, the value of Russian assets frozen so far in the EU amounts to more than €17.7 billion. Ireland is among the member states with the highest value of frozen assets, with more than €1.8 billion of assets frozen. More than 90% of the €17 billion is in seven or eight member states. We try to engage with others to do more to go in the same direction.

I welcome Ireland's efforts in enforcing EU sanctions and the commitment of Irish authorities to reporting to the Commission as required by European Union law. At the beginning of March, the Commission set up the freeze and seize task force, putting together Commission services and national administrations with the aim of ensuring the efficient implementation of EU restrictive measures and to strengthen co-ordination between member states. I lead the work of this task force, which meets regularly, covering a wide range of topics such as the fight against the violation of sanctions and role played by third countries in circumventing sanctions, as well as potential options to use frozen assets for the benefit of Ukraine.

On this last point, the possibility of using frozen assets for the benefit of Ukraine, the task force is exploring all possible options. It is not an easy task as it raises legal and political questions, including respect for the rule of law in the EU acquison fundamental rights such as the right to property and legal certainty of proportionality. We will try to continue to work on the possibility of using frozen assets for Ukraine. We will have to discuss it, as always, with international partners like in the G7 meetings that will take place again next week in Berlin between the ministers of justice from the G7 countries.

The Commission has also been working to end impunity for those violating European Union restrictive measures. The first step has been a proposal for a Council decision identifying the violation of EU sanctions as an area of serious crime to be added to the list of EU crimes under the EU treaty. Once this Council decision is adopted, the Commission will put forward, as a second step, a proposal for a directive on the topic, harmonising the criminal law definitions and penalties for violations of the sanctions.

This should be possible very soon. I am sure by the beginning of December we will come with our proposal because now we have a final agreement from all the member states. An internal legal process was needed in the Bundestag in Germany. There were some remarks in Poland but I have received firm confirmation from Poland that it is possible to agree on the extension of the list of EuroCrime. We have the consent of the European Parliament. We have the agreement of all of the member states, so it will be possible to move forward with the proposal of the directive at the beginning of December.

I would like to thank Ireland for opting in to this proposal. I also welcome Ireland's consistent call for the immediate end of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as well as for accountability for the crimes committed. This is not only in the context of the presence of Ireland on the UN Security Council but also before the International Court of Justice. Showing accountability for the crimes committed in Ukraine is a key priority for the European Commission as well. In March, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity possibly committed in Ukraine. The Commission firmly supports this work. Ireland has also provided an important contribution by supporting the ICC with €3 million.

I also welcome the fact that Ireland is among the 14 member states that have opened investigations into possible international crimes committed in Ukraine. The EU agencies, Eurojust and Europol, play a crucial and complementary role in the co-ordination and support of these investigations. Eurojust supports the joint investigation team comprising members from Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine, to co-ordinate the investigations into war crimes. For the first time also, the ICC has joined this joint investigation team. I have said many times it is possible for all the member states having started national investigations to join the team. That is a discussion that may perhaps take place at the level of the prosecutor's office with Eurojust.

In June, the amended Eurojust regulation which strengthens the capacity of Eurojust to store and analyse evidence related to possible war crimes in support of national investigations entered into force. I again thank Ireland for opting in to this measure and for the strong support to this proposal in the Council. Eurojust is now in the process of implementing its evidence database on core international crimes which will be operational by the end of this year. I am also in regular contact with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Andriy Kostin, to understand the most urgent needs of his office. The Commission's services continuously assess how to best meet these needs, such as those relating to IT solutions, equipment and training. We co-ordinate with the member states which provide the needed support. Sometimes it is possible to do that with experts who we are sending to Ukraine, such as forensic experts. There are different requests from the prosecutor general to work with experts coming from the member states.

The Russian aggression against Ukraine reminded us how crucial it is to safeguard respect for our fundamental values and, in particular, the rule of law. This is another area which I know is of fundamental importance for the Irish Parliament. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to briefly present the 2022 rule of law report. Coming directly to the Irish chapter, the report acknowledged that reforms of the Irish justice system have continued. In particular, we note that a new draft law on judicial appointments and promotions which proposes to establish a judicial appointments commission has been tabled in Parliament. The draft law limits the level of discretion of the Government in the appointment procedure. The fact that the proposed commission does not consist of a clear majority of judges chosen by their peers raises concerns. It is essential that the final reform guarantees judicial independence, in line with EU law, and taking into account European standards.

It is important to note that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that such a judicial body should be composed of a majority of judges elected by their peers. It is an important point that the Commission raises in all the member states where relevant. The report also notes that additional judicial posts have been filled in the High Court while the overall number of judges per inhabitant remains low. If compared with the justice scoreboard, which we have published, and the average in the member states, the number of judges here is very low.

In addition, high litigation costs and shortcomings within the legal aid system continue to raise concerns. The Commission has recommended that Ireland continues the ongoing work to address these challenges. The report also reflects on the positive aspects such as the guidelines issued by the Judicial Council on conduct and ethics and the progress made on the digitalisation of the justice system.

Regarding the second chapter of our report on the anti-corruption framework, the Commission has recommended that Ireland strengthen the existing ethics framework, including on codes of conduct, assets declarations, revolving doors and lobbying, in particular, as regards the monitoring and enforcement capacity of the Standards in Public Office Commission. The report also noted the good practices. The co-operation of authorities in charge of the prosecution investigation of corruption is working well as resources in the prosecution of corruption have been reinforced and as the number of cases detected and investigated continues to increase.

On media freedom and privilege, the third chapter of the report notes that preparatory work is ongoing on the establishment of a new media regulatory authority. In addition, the general scheme of the defamation Bill to update aspects of the defamation law is expected to be published by the end of this year. The Commission has recommended that Ireland continues these efforts to improve the professional environment for journalists, taking into account the open standards of the protection of journalists. I would be very pleased to hear from the committee about how it is possible to find the right balance between defamation - it must be possible, of course, to use defamation - and the protection of SLAPPs. We have taken an initiative at the EU level on SLAPPs. We will see in the different member states how it is possible to have a balanced approach to this.

Finally, when it comes to other institutional issues related to checks and balances, the report reflects that new working methods have been adopted to improve the management of business in the Parliament. In addition, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has been re-accredited with A status and has received further funding, which is to be welcomed. While we recognise that Ireland has a vibrant and diverse civil society, the reform on the Electoral Act has not addressed concerns regarding legal obstacles for the funding of civil society organisations. The Commission has recommended that Ireland takes measures to address these obstacles. Many people from civil society organisations told me that it is a real issue in terms of funding and trying to take part in different processes.

Another priority for the Commission is the effective functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO. The EPPO started its operation in June 2021 and is functioning in an impressive way. Since then, the EPPO has analysed more than 4,000 reports of crime and opened more than 900 investigations for an overall estimated damage to the Union budget close to €5.4 billion. The Commission respects the choice of the member states that have decided not to join the EPPO, such as Ireland. However, I would like to encourage the Irish authorities to consider joining the EPPO in the future.

It is important not only for Ireland to take part but perhaps to send a good signal to other member states. We also asked Poland and Hungary, to give two examples, to participate in the EPPO. If other member states join the EPPO, it will be easier to convince others to do so. It is quite useful for the protection of the EU budget. This EU-level prosecution office enhances the protection of the European budget from which all EU member states benefit. In any case, the Commission expects the Irish authorities to co-operate with the EPPO in accordance with existing European Union instruments of judicial co-operation. I understand this is not the case and it is regrettable that, so far, co-operation between the EPPO and the Irish authorities has not run smoothly. I am aware some changes must be made to the Irish legal framework to ensure co-operation between Ireland and the EPPO. The Commission values Ireland's commitment to proceed with such changes. I count on members to ensure the necessary legislative process will be completed as quickly as possible. The Commission stands ready to support the Irish authorities to ensure the smoothest co-operation possible with the EPPO and the chief prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in order to send a clear message on this necessary co-operation with Ireland to the Commission and the European Parliament. I hope we will make progress on that in the near future.

I will turn to another important instrument of European criminal law, namely, the European arrest warrant. We are working hard to make this instrument function as well as possible. A better transposition of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant by the member states is essential. As the committee will likely be aware, the Commission has launched infringement proceedings since the evaluation of national transpositions indicated there is still room for improvement. We understand that in Ireland a Bill on the issue completed its passage through the Lower House of the Parliament in June 2022 and the authorities are now working on a number of amendments to the Bill before it completes the parliamentary procedure in the Upper House. I urge Ireland to prioritise this process in order to ensure that the concerns set out in the infringement proceedings will be addressed as soon as possible.

I will say a few words about the fight against hate speech and hate crime. Racist and xenophobic hate crimes and hate speech are already prohibited under EU law by the framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia of 2008. Last year the Commission proposed a Council decision to extend the list of EU-crimes under the treaty to all forms of hate speech and hate crime. We welcome the notification by Ireland of its intention to opt in to such a Council decision. This extension of the list of EU-crimes has to be agreed by unanimity in the Council and unfortunately three member states, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are still blocking the adoption process. If the Council adopts this extension, the Commission will be able to present secondary legislation harmonising the definition of criminal offences and their penalties. In this context, we welcome the forthcoming Irish Bill on incitement to violence or hatred and the intention to align it with the EU framework decision. To respond to the challenges of hate speech online, the Commission has initiated a voluntary code of conduct with the major social media platforms. The results of the latest evaluation I will present today show a slowing in trends as regards both the time taken for notifications to be reviewed and hate speech to be removed.

I will now address a field which I know to be of great importance in Ireland, namely, data protection. Since the general data protection regulation, GDPR, came into force, co-operation in cross-border cases between data protection authorities, DPAs, has become daily practice. DPAs are working closely and providing mutual assistance in many cases. Strong and swift enforcement is crucial to ensuring a consistent interpretation of the GDPR throughout Europe. Ireland plays a pivotal role as lead supervisory authority for the enforcement of EU data protection rules as regards big-tech multinationals as many of them have established their European headquarters in Ireland. Several decisions have been taken concerning big-tech multinationals in 2021 and 2022 resulting in fines of approximately €1.5 billion. We have consistently called on the DPAs to step up their enforcement efforts. We welcome that several enforcement actions by the Irish data protection authority against big-tech multinationals are being finalised. We encourage the Data Protection Commission, DPC, to continue to make progress to dispel the negative narrative about the enforcement model of the GDPR which gives the wrong impression that the GDPR is not properly enforced. In this context, we welcome the additional resources allocated to the DPC, notably the increase in staff and funding. I will have some contact with big-tech companies during my visit to Dublin because, given the decisions taken in recent weeks to fire employees in different big-tech companies, we are concerned about their ability to continue to implement well the GDPR and the new regulations we have put in place, such as the Digital Services Act or other regulations at EU level. I will be happy to hear committee members' comments if they have already had some discussions with them on this subject in recent weeks.

The final topic I will briefly address relates to responsible business conduct. The Commission adopted a proposal for a corporate sustainability due diligence directive in February to support EU companies in the transition toward more sustainable business models. The proposal sets out a harmonised, ambitious and balanced EU approach. Companies would have to address their adverse impact on human rights and the environment identified in their operations, subsidiaries and value chains. The due diligence duty would rely on a series of well-established international conventions in the fields of social rights and environmental protection which have been largely ratified at a global level. It would apply to large EU companies and non-EU companies which generate a significant turnover on the EU market. The proposed code ensures companies responsible for 50% of the turnover in the EU market are covered. These rules would be enforced through a combination of administrative sanctions and civil liability. They are expected to bring multiple benefits to all EU companies such as greater customer trust and employee commitment and better access to finance. The same is true for developing countries, most prominently, better protection of human rights and the environment.

I thank committee members for their attention and look forward to their comments and observations and the sharing of information about processes in the Irish Parliament relating to the laws I mentioned in my introduction. We try to follow the process closely to monitor how the recommendations we have put in the Rule of Law Report this year for the first time are implemented. Next year we will assess the implementation of the recommendations in the fourth edition of the Rule of Law Report. I thank the committee again and look forward to our exchange on these important topics.