Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar son an choiste, cuirim fáilte roimh Mr. Didier Reynders, an Coimisinéir Eorpach Dlí agus Comhionannais, go dtí an cruinniú inniu. Tá a chomhghleacaithe, Ms Geneviève Tuts agus Ms Barbara Nolan leis fosta. Tá Ms Nolan, ó oifig an Choimisiúin i mBaile Átha Cliath, ar ais linn arís. Tá fáilte roimpi. You are all welcome. I extend a warm welcome to the Commissioner to the joint committee. We look forward to having a discussion. We engage on deliberative basis. We appreciate this opportunity to engage with the Mr. Reynders and we welcome his team. Our discussion will focus on several areas ranging from data protection and rule of law to hate speech and the war in Ukraine.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege and some housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are aware of the constitutional requirements around participation in public meetings and being in the Leinster House complex. They know the drill there.

I invite the Commissioner to make his opening statement.

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.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive overview. It was very helpful. We will begin as I know he is under a time constraint. We will begin with Deputy Richmond, followed by Deputy Ó Murchú.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner for that detailed overview. He obviously has a very wide brief in his portfolio. It is good to have him here in person after our previous video engagement. I am purely going to cover one area of his remarks relating to sanctions against Russia. I would like to focus the first part of my contribution on the freeze and seize task force to which the Commissioner has referred, and that is of extreme interest. It has been referred to numerous times in both the Dáil and Seanad. The use and establishment of such a task force has been welcome, but I note the very clear political and, more importantly, legal obstacles that stand in the way. I was wondering if the Commissioner could give us, first, a realistic timeframe as to when we might be able to see something like this up and running. Second, would he aspire to have a scope that includes the Russian bank central reserves that have been frozen as well as the assets that have been seized by member states? I was quite interested in his remark. The country the Commissioner knows best is his home country of Belgium, which has done particularly well in terms of the amount of assets it has seized. I would like to think that Ireland has done extremely well, particularly given our size. However, there is quite a clear disparity. Eight member states have done a lot of work in this area, but 19 have not. I wonder if he could offer a comment on that and on what other member states might be able to do, because there is no point doing all this work at an EU level if other member states are simply not prepared to put it in place. This goes to the heart of the sanctions debate.

On a more practical question, would the Commissioner envisage, when this is up and running, that the funds seized would be pooled into an essential reserve to be allocated to Ukraine by the EU, as some form of Marshall Plan, or would it be the responsibility of the member state? I think efficiency would be best served by working together and having one central funding package, as we have seen. The second part of my question, with the Cathaoirleach's discretion, is again on the violations. I wonder where violations have been or will be identified, what sort of punishments would be in mind for the entities and individuals who breech those sanctions?

The final aspect of that is the role of third countries. It is quite clear that third countries are being used by the Russian state to circumvent very clear sanctions put in place not only by the EU, but also by the US, Japan, Australia and other like-minded countries. Many of these countries have very sophisticated and generous relationships with the European Union. They have trade deals. They have legally binding agreements in many areas, and it really galls me that EU efforts to truly sanction and cripple the Russian war machine is being undermined by people who benefit greatly from very beneficial EU deals. Sanctioning Russia and Belarus is great, but I think the EU needs to be a lot firmer with third countries which are undermining the effort of the EU to bring this war to an end. That is something, which goes to the whole point. We are on our eighth round of sanctions. Inevitably, we will be moving to our ninth or tenth round, but they are only worth so much unless they are put in place and enforced. The more we can get our sanctions enforced not just within EU member states where there are clear issues, but within those third countries with which the EU has relationships, the more opportunity this gives the sanctions to work, and to truly have the impact needed to bring this horrendous, bloody war to an end.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Lisa Chambers wants to come in with an attachment to this question.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies to Deputy Richmond, but I am due in the Seanad Chamber at 12 noon and it is unlikely I will get back before the meeting is finished. I will tag on to some of the Deputy Richmond's questions. I take on board the Commissioner's comments around the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO. It is really useful information for us to know that relationship is not running so smoothly. I will not cover the same ground as Deputy Richmond in terms of Ukraine, but I want to concur with his remarks around the disparity in the response of some member states to sanctions. The heavy lifting is not being done by everybody and that needs to be addressed more forcefully. The Commissioner's commentary has been quite kind on all fronts. He has been very measured. However, stronger language may be needed from the Commission to deal with that, because resentment will set in if everybody is not doing their fair share.

I want to touch on two areas. The first is in the area of defamation law and the challenges identified there. The Commissioner focused primarily on protection of journalists and I fully agree with his remarks in that regard. We are having particular difficulties in this country around the chilling effect that some defamation suits are having on political life and politicians. There have been accusations that some Members of the Oireachtas and people outside who may be linked to particular political parties could potentially be using defamation suits as a way to stifle debate in the Oireachtas. That charge has been laid. It is of concern to both Houses if that is potentially happening. Has the Commission looked at this in terms of defamation laws? I know the Commissioner has put a direct question or challenge to us to come up with ideas as to how to deal with this. We are trying to do that, but if he had any suggestions or ideas from the Commission that would also be helpful. This is the kind of thing we need to nip in the bud. If it beds in and becomes acceptable or somehow normalised then we will have big problems. There is already a chilling impact on the Oireachtas in terms of Members being more cautious and curtailing their own comments, for fear they might end up in that situation. A big challenge was identified by the Commissioner when he spoke about the Judiciary, and it is in some ways linked. It is about accessing the Judiciary and accessing the justice system, and the costs involved in accessing it. If you have money you are essentially better protected and have more access. That is something we have struggled with for many years. We have not really made much headway in that regard. I also think a particular challenge with defamation cases is not only the huge costs involved in taking and defending an action, but the damages and awards that come out of those cases. Those two issues go in tandem. I believe they go hand in hand. I also take on board comments about the number of judges not being sufficient in terms of the population. That is again useful information for us to have at the committee and to be able to take back in our work. I will leave it there. I thank the members for allowing me to come in early.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite the Commissioner to reply to those two interventions.

Mr. Didier Reynders:

I will turn first to the sanctions. I have said we have put in place a freeze and seize task force and so far we have had more than 15 meetings. We are trying to organise a very good process with the member states. Of course, we are working with European institutions, but also the different member states on this, which is very significant. We are trying to implement sanctions on freezing the assets of oligarchs and entities. That is how we are working. The way to freeze assets is through a treasury process, without any transfer of asset ownership. The word is very clear and it is just a freezing. However, ownership remains in the hands of the oligarchs or the different entities. In this regard, we first try to make progress through an exchange of best practice between the member states. Sometimes there are different departments involved and we have seen that through direct contact with member states and a better understanding of the internal process at the national level it was possible to increase the figures. I can tell the committee that after we made some remarks about the very low level of figures in Italy, within one or two weeks it was more than €1 billion, similar to other member states. This is because it was a question of reporting both internally and to the EU, so we have solved that. It was the same in Spain. It was around €40 million and we saw the possibility for that figure to move within weeks. I had the same description of Poland where it also seemed to be possible to move from a figure of €3 million at one moment, which is not so much. However, they could have first told me that they were so organised they had already frozen €2.7 billion in national sanctions. We need to continue working to be sure the information for the Commission is correct around what is at stake in the member states.

I want to give just one example. We saw that in Hungary, it was possible to freeze only €3,000. There is a problem. We have engaged in a discussion to see if there is any possible explanation, but also to make progress. The committee members are right that we need to be sure it is possible to enforce sanctions in all member states.

The second remark is about a step forward and the possible confiscation of assets. As I said, I am in charge of the rule of law in the European Union.

Private property is a fundamental right in the Charter of Human Rights. In Europe, it is very difficult to organise confiscation without a conviction. There are discussions in Canada and in the US about that but they have not gotten far because there are different contestations and it is before the supreme court. We will try to see if it is possible to go a step further, as I have explained, with the extension of the list of EU crimes if there are attempts to circumvent or to bypass the sanctions. If that is the case, it will be possible to go to justice - no longer to the treasury - to get a condemnation of the attempt to circumvent the sanctions. If there is a condemnation, it will be possible to organise confiscation or a transfer of ownership and the assets of the individuals and entities on the list will, of course, be given to the Ukrainian people because that is what we have asked of member states.

As for the reserves of the central bank, it is true that we do not have a precise figure but we estimate it to be approximately €300 billion or $300 billion because unfortunately the rate is the same at the moment. We have tried to immobilise and freeze those assets but due to the fact there are some immunities and privileges for central banks, I have put forward the idea of maintaining the immobilisation for a long period of time until the voluntary participation of Russia in the reconstruction of Ukraine. Discussions on reconstruction will be held during negotiations that will be held at the end of the war. We do not have the opportunity to discuss this matter during the war, and certainly not with Russia. There is a possible guarantee of funding coming from Russia and we will continue to work on that.

On reconstruction in general, it is important to start, as we have done some weeks ago in Berlin, a discussion to develop a possible framework for reconstruction because we will ask Russia to pay part of the bill. The international community will also help Ukraine. We are prepared to take part in funding the rebuilding of Ukraine.

On what was said about third countries, we have tried to take some initiative in the package of sanctions. It is a novelty in terms of whether it would be possible to put people trying to circumvent the sanctions on the sanctions list. We have to be concrete. For example, it will be possible to put a company in a third country trying to violate sanctions and organise the export of banned products through Russia on the list. This will have a real effect. That is a possible evolution we have put in the last package.

Of course, we will try to engage in political discussion and intervention. For example, I was in Tirana some weeks ago for a meeting with the ministers of justice of the western Balkans countries. We asked them to commit to and enforce the sanctions. At the end of the meeting, there was a small asterisk which said except Serbia. Of course, it is a concern when one partner country is trying to not take part in the enforcement of sanctions. There is a large amount of work and we are doing that with the G7 partners, to try to have an influence on third countries to take part in the process. We will continue to do that in the near future but we still have a lot to do as regards enforcement of sanctions. We need to explain the effect of sanctions better because they have a real effect in Russia. They take time but now the economic situation in Russia is one of high inflation, higher than in Europe, there devolution of GDP and there are difficulties for industry due to a lack of spare parts coming from the European Union and other countries which have put sanctions in place.

The defamation law, which was mentioned, has a chilling effect on all those possible procedures. We have tried to protect journalists on the one hand, so we have sent recommendations to the member states with a list of possible measures to protect journalists. We have also put forward a legislative initiative, the so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs, because it is logical to protect journalists from those kinds of procedures. While there is a defamation law, it is also possible to act against defamation. We have tried to follow discussions members have had in the Parliament because it seems to be very expensive to proceed, so the chilling effect is there before an action is taken due to the risk of a very expensive procedure. It is useful to think about a more balanced situation where each citizen is protected by defamation law but also journalists have the right to have protection in their daily work.

On access to justice and how to have a good justice function, I mentioned the low level of judges in Ireland in comparison to the EU average. There is concern about the situation in Ireland. We need to look at the legal aid system to see how it is possible to help vulnerable people to access to justice, which is of concern in Ireland but in other places also. We need to see if it is possible to make progress on this in budgetary discussions that Ireland has concerning the Judiciary not only for human resources but also for the legal aid system. I confirm that we will continue to closely follow the discussions about the defamation law very closely and try to receive more information about what Ireland is doing about it.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner. His report was incredibly comprehensive and I do not think there was anything he left out. Ireland has a large degree of involvement in financial services and we have had the issue in relation to the Russian money that had, for the want of a better word, "washed" through here. The Commissioner would be reasonably happy that a significant amount of work has been done in regard to freezing that which should be frozen, namely, the €1.8 billion. The figure is so large because there was a considerable amount to be frozen. I can imagine that there are huge difficulties around freeze and seize from a legal standpoint. From what the Commissioner said in his initial statement and in his response, am I right in thinking that this could provide some of the funding in relation to reconstruction or otherwise when we are in a better situation? That is something that we cannot necessarily see a route map to at this point in time.

We have all heard anecdotally about what Deputy Richmond spoke about, namely, third countries. On some level we are dealing with business that has been done for a thousand years whereby one cannot deal directly with someone so they deal with the person beside them. I am still not quite sure what exactly can be done or should be done to deal with that.

We all welcome the work being done to ensure due diligence is done as regards investigations, so we will have the information necessary for the International Criminal Court, ICC, and whoever else. It is difficult to foresee where we will have major Russian players in the dock but we are all hopeful that we will eventually get to a better place.

On the matter of the rule of law, there was a certain element in Europe.

I will now move on to the rule of law issues. There was a certain feeling in Europe that we had our own issues as regards rule of law, particularly in Hungary and Poland. It had probably put a kibosh on any talk of accession, whereas with the war in Ukraine we all see the necessity of solidarity throughout Europe. There are all these geopolitical necessities and the Union is seen by many as a bastion against the anti-democratic forces that are out there. The fact remains that we still have these particular issues. Poland is a country that wants to be in the EU and that they will make technical arguments. I also say that it is vital that the EU has given itself the power of leverage through financial implications. Poland still sees itself as very much EU focused and may have these technical arguments but I think they will look for a solution. I am wondering what the lie of the land is on that. The question with Hungary is different. The EU and the Commission discovered ways and means of getting business done. It is a case of those that want to deal, deal with each other and that is it. There will always be difficulties in putting deals together.

There are certain rule of law implications across the board. If we are talking about Poland and Hungary, we have to talk about ourselves. We have this issue and there has been some discussion on it. It is the perception and sometimes also the reality of interaction between politics and big industry, lobbying and such that the rule of law does not apply. I am looking for the Commissioner's view on where they see the action that is being taken here. There are some actions, and I can make an argument from the opposition that I would like more done and we need to go further, but I recognise that the trajectory is generally positive. I would be interested in his view on that.

I do not think that anyone has a particular difficulty in dealing with anything that relates to courts services if there is a need for streamlining. There is a necessity in respect of defamation laws. Sometimes we can all play politics in relation to this stuff. People have taken cases on the basis that they were wronged and lies were told about them and that is why others lost cases. That is just the lie of the land. In fairness, for most people and most politicians, generally it is not the first port of call. In a lot of cases political parties do not want any involvement. It is individuals who make decisions. The law has to be there. I have no problem with streamlining it but we have a real conversation about it.

Ireland is a tech hub and we all know the issues we have regarding fraud and cybercrime by state actors and others at this point in time. We have particular issues with the tech industry and jobs at the moment but we still have to deal with the issues relating to social media. Whatever rules and regulations there are for journalists, there are none for social media platforms as publishers. In the past we have all probably dealt with people posting videos that have gone viral, where the information has not necessarily been correct or useful. We have all seen commentary that can get out of control. We have even seen where regular sounding people engage in questions but they can just go down rabbit holes. At times there are those that will use those occasions and those circumstances. Unfortunately, some social media platforms are almost set up and weaponised from that point of view. While we have to deal with the issue of social media platforms as publishers, we have to get down to the level on the types of algorithms that are in operation within them. Trying to put legislation and rules on technology is incredibly difficult but it is necessary. It also fits in to some of what has been said about GDPR. As well as being about regular best practice in protecting people's information, it is also about those pieces of information that may relate to their gender, sexual orientation and so on that should not be abused. We have all seen the issue and we have seen state actors that have operated brutal online campaigns, for example, in the case of Burma with the Rohingya. Beyond that, we have seen a lot of bad stuff that has happened internally. It is difficult to get to the bottom of that and it probably crosses over as well in relation to hate speech. I know that it is the longest question that anyone has ever asked in the history of asking questions.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We still have not got to the question.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have in the sense that we all see where there is legislation domestically and there are the directives from Europe in this regard. We are not quite in the place we need to be. The fact that we have some of these technical and social media colossi here means that we have to have uncomfortable conversations. Sometimes it may be easier for the Union or the Commission to also have those conversations.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being rude but the Commissioner has to leave at 12:45 p.m. and I am thinking about other members. I will take Deputy Seán Haughey now as well. We will take both of these in directions because we do not have time to go over and back.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and I thank the Commissioner for his presence today. We appreciate him taking the time to come here to present the report. This current Commission is very open and accessible. The President of the European Commission is addressing both Houses of Parliament in Ireland next Thursday. That is a good sign of openness, transparency and a willingness to engage. I take on board everything that has been said regarding Ukraine and the need for frozen assets to be put to the benefit of Ukraine. I also appreciate the difficulties in doing so.

I am going to concentrate on two issues relating to the rule of law. Some issues have been raised in respect of the Irish chapter and libel laws, judicial appointments, free legal aid and so on. We have also been approached by different civic society groups about those issues. There is no room for complacency. However, Ireland is doing pretty well in the overall scheme of things compared to some other countries, if we look at what is happening in the United States in relation to proposals about voting or indeed what is happening in the United Kingdom. I know the UK is not in the European Union but it has proposals to set aside international law. These are trends that are happening globally. If we take Hungary for example, the rule of law is extremely important. It is the fundamental value of the Union. I would like to ask about Hungary in particular. There was a proposal to withhold 65% of Hungary's €7 billion recovery funds. What is the latest on that? Does the Commissioner consider that the European Commission has enough power to deal with rule of law issues or is it a problem that the European Council is not in a position to deal with many of these issues? I am interested in his take on this. The future of the EU is threatened if these lapses and backsliding go unchecked.

The second question relates to the Commission's proposal for a directive on due diligence. That has not been talked about yet. That is something that we would welcome. At what stage are the negotiations in respect of that?

We have been lobbied in Ireland to the effect that it does not go far enough. Criticisms so far are that the number of companies included should be widened; that 99% of businesses will be excluded and Ireland should not water down obligations for finance in negotiations on this issue in the European Union; that there should be full responsibility for activities overseas; and that the directive should cover full value chains of companies. I am reading from a submission received by the committee, which I can forward it to Mr. Reynders if he does not have it already. Further criticisms are that the directive should do more on climate; there is no enforcement of corporate plans for reducing carbon emissions; and it should enable justice for victims and so on. Mr. Reynders will get the picture. I am interested to know how the negotiations are going and whether he thinks the directive will go far enough.

I will ask another linked question that I appreciate might be difficult to answer. Has anyone mentioned the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the context of the proposed directive and how it might work for various international issues we are considering at this time?

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Commissioner may respond to both interventions.

Mr. Didier Reynders:

I will first make some comments on the rule of law. We are attentive to the rule of law in the EU due to the fact that if we want to be credible outside the European Union it is important to deliver inside. I understand the possible comparison, but if I remember well the UK is no longer a member and the United States is not yet a candidate to join the EU - perhaps in the future.

We need to be active to protect the values at the foundation of the European Union and that is what we try to. I emphasise that we also do that in our discussions with partners that want to become members. For the enlargement, I assure the committee that it is clear in our strategy that we start with the rule of law and we will conclude negotiations with the rule of law. It is sometimes difficult due to the emotional situation we sadly see in Ukraine and Moldova. It is difficult to manage a normal enlargement process and discussion at the same time as a war. We said we will publish a report about the situation in the autumn of next year. We will follow the normal process and perhaps provide some information before that during the spring. There will be no real change in the process to ensure it is possible to implement the rule of law.

I will give one example before I speak about member states. When we discuss the possible additional special tribunal for the crime of aggression with Ukraine, to be concrete, I have said from the beginning that Ukraine first needs to ratify the Rome Statute to participate in the International Criminal Court, ICC, before thinking about anything else. There is support to do that in Ukraine but it has not been done so far. The Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament. must do that.

To respond to the questions on member states, we have concerns and have made observations in all member states. We made some recommendations in the Rule of Law Report and we engage in dialogue to try to improve the situation. In some member states we have a systemic issue. That is something else and we must use other instruments. I will elaborate on Article 7, the infringement proceedings and so on, but the situations in Hungary and Poland are totally different and the Deputies are right to compare the situations in the different countries. What is the situation now? We must take decisions in the near future, but if we consider the possibility of using financial pressure, it can be done in two ways. The first is via the recovery and resilience plan. We have approved the Polish plan on recovery and resilience and there are some milestones in it dedicated to the independence of the judiciary. We will not pay anything before a full implementation of those milestones. We have a set of rulings from the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice and, to be honest, I am in negotiations with the Polish minister for European affairs because it is difficult to make progress with their minister for justice in the coalition. We will continue and when all requests for the independence of the judiciary are fully implemented, it will be possible to pay. In addition, we have had a decision of the Court of Justice on a fine on Poland because I asked the European Court of Justice to rule on interim measures on the disciplinary regime of the judges due to a lack of implementation by the Polish authorities. In response to our request, the court decided to condemn Poland with a fine of €1 million per day. That was one year ago. It happened in October last year so we have asked Poland to pay not less than €400 million. We organised an offsetting of the payment due by the Commission to Poland so we are at approximately €260 million. Not only have we not paid anything but we have offset the payment for full enforcement of the decision of the Court of Justice. It is clear we want to use financial instruments.

It is the same with Hungary. It has been impossible so far to approve a recovery and resilience plan. We are close to doing so as we have had negotiations with Hungary and they have put forward many proposals for reforms. In the same way as for Poland, if it is possible - perhaps next week - to approve the Hungarian plan; that will be the beginning of the process. We will not pay anything. We will follow the situation to see whether there is a real implementation of all the reforms. If the reforms are implemented, it might be possible to start the disbursement but nothing has been disbursed to date. On top of this, the committee will be aware that we have the so-called conditionality mechanism, the new regulation. Under this, we have proposed to the Council to suspend some funding to Hungary. There are two approaches, namely the plan - we will pay if reforms can be implemented - and on the other side, the possible suspension by the Council of some funding. It has been said clearly in recent days and we will have a final decision next week but we are quite sure we need to come with a negative assessment of the conditionality which means it will be up to the Council. We thank Ireland for its support as the Irish authorities have always supported the rule of law. It will be needed in the Council to reach a qualified majority to decide on the suspension of funds to put pressure on the situation.

I am sure it is logical because it is the only chance we have to move forward. Perhaps this will be my last comment on the rule of law. Deputy Ó Murchú mentioned lobbying by some industries, which is quite positive lobbying. We have received many remarks from companies from different countries that are afraid about the situation, at first some time ago about the non-independence of the judiciary in Poland but now more and more often about Hungary. How can a company invest in a country when it is not sure it will be treated fairly before the judiciary? We have asked for that to be changed, but in Hungarian legislation, it is possible for authorities to challenge all final decisions of tribunal courts before the highest court and to direct the court for the national interest to change the final decision. There is no legal certainty, but we have asked for that to be changed in our proposal. It will be an obligation. The committee can see what we are doing.

I am sure it will be a difficult debate at Council level perhaps in the coming weeks. On the situation in other dossiers, I will return briefly to what I said about Ukraine and reconstruction and compensation. If we have convictions due to attempts to circumvent the sanctions, it is possible that a part of the €17 million indicated will be confiscated. It is not so much, because reconstruction will cost hundreds of billions of euro but the reserve from the Russian central bank is a possible guarantee. It will be a negotiation some day, as happens at the end of all wars.

In many wars in the past, it was possible to engage in a discussion about the participation of the aggressor in reconstruction and compensation. It will be a long process for reparations. If there is the guarantee of the reserve of the central bank, there will be huge pressure. I do not want to make the comparison with Hungary and Poland. If you retain a lot of money, there comes to be real pressure.

On the ICC, it is true that we have a long way in front of us, but we have changed the regulation on Eurojust to give it a new competence to store all the evidence collected in Ukraine and to exchange with all the prosecutors in the ICC and the member states such as Ireland, because there are national investigations. It will be followed by a lot of time. I am sure there will be some trials in the coming months or years, or even in the next decade. We are now again starting investigations about Rwanda or the genocide or the former Yugoslavia. It is not so long ago. It was less than 30 years ago, in 1994 or 1995. It must be clear to all perpetrators that for the rest of their lives, there is a risk that they may go to justice. We will see. It is a long way.

On defamation, we need to find a way to a balanced approach. It is logical that there is a possible right to go to justice about defamation but we need also to have real protection of journalists and an independent press because that is an important pillar of the democratic system. On social media, we will try to work at EU level. We have to work with the code of conduct on hate speech, but now there is the Digital Services Act, DSA, with some capacity to impose fines - part of the turnover, which can be a huge amount of money - so it will be impressive. We need to engage with big tech because if they do not have enough people to implement all of those regulations, it becomes a problem, given that we also have the GDPR in front of us. I have discussed that a lot with the Data Protection Commission, DPC, and the Irish Government to be sure there are enough human, financial and technical resources in the DPC to deliver. If you want to attract big tech to the country, you need also to be able control big tech. We may help from the EU level.

The due diligence initiative is a process that we organised over two years before a decision was made by the Commission in February this year. Now, it is in the hands of the Parliament to come up with an opinion, perhaps in May next year. The Czech Presidency is trying to come up with a general approach in the Council before the end of the year, in December. The main element is that we want to be sure we are covering the most important companies. It is true that it is 1% of European companies, but in assets it is 50% of turnover in the EU. It is quite huge. We do not want to create a new burden for SMEs or other small companies. We want to start with large companies with more than 500 employees and a substantial turnover, not only from the EU, where we want a level playing field, but also from outside the EU in the Single Market.

The second main issue is organising a process for the entire value chain. Perhaps the committee has had discussions about forced labour or child labour or environmental issues in the world, but one needs to organise a due diligence process across the entire value chain if one wants to give an answer to that. We pay specific attention to the financial sector. We want to take the financial sector on board but just in the relationships with their clients, not to control the supply chain or value chain of their clients. That is not the call we have. There are some specific measures to do that.

On the occupied territories and those kinds of situations, it is not the situation in general in one country or one territory that is of concern. The problem is to see if there are violations of human rights or environmental issues in producing goods or services. That is the real issue. If there is forced labour or child labour or other kinds of issues in relation to international conventions, it will be a concern, but not the fact that there are difficulties with human rights in one country. If we were to say it is impossible to work with companies located in a country where we have human rights concerns, it would be very restrictive. We would stop working with many countries. It is not the goal; the goal is to improve the situation regarding human rights and environmental issues in those countries. That is the state of play. If it is possible to start the discussion with the Council or the Parliament in the middle of next year, we may have the opportunity to conclude doing the mandate of this Commission before the next European elections.

For the benefit of the committee, if it has a further debate with stakeholders, I must point out that if there is a decision before the elections of 2024, the entry into force and real application will perhaps be in 2028 or 2029. We have time to prepare our companies to do that. I am sure it is needed to be more resilient. As an example, I have been asked many times whether there is a need to be more resilient in order to protect the environment and fight against climate change, or in order to protect human rights. I always say that now that there is an energy crisis, the companies that took the opportunity to use renewables some years ago are more resilient than others. At that time, the remark was that it was costly and not evident, but those who took the opportunity to invest in renewables across their own suppliers of energy now have real resilience. The same point applies to the reputation of the company - if you have problems with child labour or forced labour in your work, when the consumers discover that it will have a negative effect on the reputation of the company. I am sure that one is more resilient if one takes care of this and if one organises due diligence. Many companies are doing that. What we are asking now is to report on this and be sure it is a reality.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take it all back - Deputy Ó Murchú asked questions which the Commissioner was able to decipher. We are getting good comprehensive answers. We are grateful for that. I call Deputy Troy, who will be followed by Senator Martin. I ask them to be brief.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner for his detailed presentation. The purpose of any sanction is to affect the perpetrators, not the victims. We recently carried out extensive engagement on the future of Europe. The EU was established as a union of equals. What is the Commissioner's view on the response of countries which are implementing sanctions? We heard that eight member states are being good - thankfully, Ireland is one - but 19 others are not. What is being done to ensure these member states step up to their obligations? Of the €1.8 billion that has been seized from an Irish perspective, are we able to quantify that as a percentage of the assets that are going through the Irish economy? While €1.8 billion may seem good, we need to see it in percentage terms to know just how good it is.

The Commissioner is correct when he says we need good-quality, honest and ethical journalism. It is a cornerstone and foundation of an open and free democracy. Social media is distorting that. The Commissioner mentioned the establishment of the DSA, which is going to go some way in dealing with that. Regarding the timelines for the implementation and establishment of the DSA, we are almost bolting the door when the horse is gone. Will the Commissioner update the committee about the timelines?

One area that has not been touched on today is the cost of legal fees. One should never waste a good crisis. We wasted the crisis that followed the collapse of our economy over the 2011-15 period. One of the key recommendations of the troika when they visited our shores was to reform our legal system; we have yet to reform it.

The costs of the legal system in this country are totally out of kilter with the rest of Europe and I would be very interested in, and it does not have to be today, if the Commissioner could make a detailed proposal on what we need to do to bring our cost systems in line. Maybe we still have not realised the full potential of the EU and while in the European Union there is free movement of goods and of people there is not really free movement of services. Services are not engaging across country boundaries and perhaps that is something that might help bring down the high cost of legal fees in Ireland.

Finally, in terms of the Judiciary, thankfully it is well-recognised internationally in Ireland that we have fair and non-political judges but I am struck by what the Commissioner said regarding the need to have a majority of judges on any board that appoints judges. There were major debates during previous Dáil terms when a former Minister for Transport was very entranced in ensuring that there would be a lay majority on judicial appointments boards because he felt it would bring greater openness and transparency to the appointments process. The Commissioner seems to say differently but perhaps I took him up wrong. I have been as concise as I can be.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. Our final contributor is Senator Martin. As an introduction Commissioner we are delighted that he is here because he is wearing two hats today. He sits on the Joint Committee on Justice as well as this committee.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I have a dual mandate. I thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive address. I welcome him and his delegation. A lot of ground has been covered but I have three questions on areas that have not been covered yet and I would be grateful if he could answer them.

First, in March, the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity and the EU Commission, quite correctly, supports that work. Ireland has provided an important contribution to this. That is an important road in seeking truth, justice and ultimately accountability. People can run but they cannot hide and we will catch up with the people who have inflicted such horror hopefully sooner rather than later. While that might not resolve the war, it is an important component that is going on on the side. Could that be communicated with greater prominence to member states? Can there be regular updates to remind people that it is very much not just in the background but in the foreground? It is such important work that there should be weekly updates in a prominent, coherent way not just to member states but to every right-thinking person in the world to know that work is happening and Ireland is playing its part.

The second issue is that the Commissioner outlined good progress in respect of sanctions and I welcome that Ireland is among the member states with the highest value of frozen assets, with more than €1.8 billion. However, because of the terror of this war we can never have enough sanctions. Is the Commissioner in a position to say today what the next steps are? I can criticise some of those sanctions but we need to know what is happening tomorrow and the next day and we need to double down and ratchet up on sanctions. I accept that they are biting but it is slow. What are the next plans the Commissioner will lead?

Finally, the Commissioner spoke about data protection. I believe that it is an unintended consequence and he may know that member states now have to follow EU law and destroy vital evidence that could be used in criminal cases of the most serious nature that could help convict dangerous people, after affording fairness and due process. That is being stifled by the necessity to destroy evidence after a short specified period. Member states feel they have to keep in line with EU law and I believe that is an unintended consequence. I am a fervent European but I do not support that law. Surely there is an alternative the Commissioner can lead? For instance, in Ireland can that vital evidence not be stored safe under lock and key and perhaps only opened through the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, under application? The evidence should be locked up but the key should not be thrown away and obstacles, which we have spotted in our country in recent times, without commenting on any particular case, should not be created. That evidence is vital and that is one poor example of where I am not an advocate of the EU as a family and EU law.

Mr. Didier Reynders:

First, I will speak again about sanctions because most of the committee members have spoken about them. We need to continue to think about new packages and there are discussions about a ninth package of sanctions but it will be more about listing new individuals and new entities on the lists and there are some other technical issues it will deal with. In the European Commission we try to ensure it will be possible to maintain the unity of member states when we are moving from one package to another. It is maybe not the priority for the coming days but we are working on it. The priority is the enforcement of sanctions because while it is nice to have additional packages all the time, attention needs to be paid to enforcement. As for what to do with member states who do not have a good record about sanctions? What I have tried to do in recent weeks, and maybe we need to do more, is I took the opportunity to have discussions one by one with the different member states, and, as I have said, it was a real success. I did this, first, to gain a better understanding of the sometimes complex situations between the different administrations at national level. We achieved very good figures from Italy and from Spain after those discussions because we had not received the correct information prior to that. We will continue to do this for Poland and for the rest, it will be pressure from their peers. It is important that we will go soon to the European Council with an explanation because at the moment there is hesitation and many actors saying it is better to bring informal pressure but if we do not have a clear evolution after some months, we will have to explain to all the member states what the situation is. It is not a blame game but there needs to be pressure on the way forward because it is abnormal that we have such a low level of assets frozen. It is logical that there are more assets frozen in some states such as Ireland, Luxembourg and in Belgium with Euroclear, as well in large countries like Germany and France, compared to some others but we need a clear explanation as to why there is such a difference. The percentage is difficult to know because it is at a national level but normally they try to be 100% of course because the goal is to reach all of the assets of the individuals and entities on the list. We try to work on it and there are many contestations at national level before the court and tribunals but also before the European Court of Justice about that. Again enforcement is the important element.

With regard to the DSA, and the situation we have now about hate speech, the ethics of journalists and social media, it is true that first there is a role for journalists themselves to organise their profession. You know that you are working with them because it is very important that they have some kind of ethical rules inside the profession. Now we have social media in confrontation with everybody saying that it is possible to become a journalist with one tweet or one page on Facebook. We decided to come up with new regulations on that. First, it was the code of conduct and we continue to work with the major platforms on that code.

The DSA was adopted last month in the European institutions and will enter into application in February 2024, so it is true we have some time, but we saw the life of the GDPR. It is the first time worldwide there is a regulation in such a way. We will engage with the member states and as always with the platforms and big tech to ensure it is possible to have correct enforcement. On that, I insist huge fines are possible. That will be a game-changer, if it is possible to do that, but this is the first time we are coming with rules. To give an example, I do not want to give my personal view on the fact it was possible to remove a US President from a social media platform, but what was very strange was to do that without any rules and just with the decision of the company. Now we have seen it is possible to go the other way due only to a change in ownership of the company. In Europe, we are sure it is better to have some rules and regulation to do that and to see what the criteria are for taking a decision and not just changing the way to decide on important elements due to a change in shareholders.

On the legal system, we are of course open to engaging in a discussion on what the necessary changes are but we already have some indications in the country-specific recommendations when we publish the European semester. More than that now, in terms of different topics in the Rule of Law Report, we have very concrete recommendations on some issues, although it may be possible to develop other kinds. It is true Ireland has a different sort of legal system than on the Continent. I am saying on the Continent because there is Malta in the south, but we are open to engaging in such a discussion on the main issues. There are a lot of recommendations and different documents coming from the Commission.

On the ICC and accountability, we try to inform through the member states and we have periodic information. It is difficult to give more details but we are open to publishing a lot of information because it is more for the ICC to do that.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to prejudice the matter but I just mean general information.

Mr. Didier Reynders:

Yes, general information. The concrete case, of course, is in the hands of the prosecutors and they need to decide if they want to do that but maybe we have to inform better about what we are doing all the time in the accountability process. We are engaged in a process with the prosecutors of the ICC and the Dutch Government on this and have put forward a kind of discussion about the way to inform better on what we are doing.

On data protection and e-evidence, it is a proposal of the Commission since 2018 because we are in the trilogue with the Parliament and Council and every month I receive information that we may have a solution for the next month, and that is again the case this month. There are discussions at the EU level to have a new trilogue and to solve the issue but the Senator is right it is a necessity for the prosecutors to have better access to e-evidence and in a short period of time and not to allow the destruction of that evidence before it can be used. The committee knows Ireland has a specific place in that because there is much e-evidence located in the big tech companies working in Ireland.

On the majority of judges in the Judicial Council, I have said it is a clear decision of the member states because we are all members of the Council of Europe and at a committee of the Council of Europe it was a clear European standard to say that if you put into place a judicial council or something like that, it is important to give the majority of seats in such a council to judges elected by their peers, so there are direct elections in the judiciary. Of course, you will continue with the other part of the council, appointed by the parliament or other political bodies, so there is a balanced situation but if you want to reinforce the independence of the judiciary and cut more and more the link with the executive branch and the legislative branch, it is important to think about the possibility of giving the majority in the council to judges elected by their peers and not ex officio. It is what we are asking of Poland. It is what we are asking Hungary to organise better. I was in Spain at the end of September and it is a huge debate there. It was possible to change the constitution in Luxembourg to do that and it was possible to put forward a reform in Italy to do the same, so slowly we are moving to a mechanism that gives a real responsibility to the judge in the process.

The Senator referred to all the appointments. It certainly applies to the highest level of the judiciary, when you put in place such a council. If you are doing that it is very important to stick to the rule and the rule is a majority of the members must be judges elected by their peers and we are putting that in different recommendations for different member states.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner and members. I know the Commissioner is under pressure time-wise. There is a submission here from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. We do not have time to get into it but I will get the clerk to the committee to pass it on to the Commissioner, if that is okay.

I thank the Commissioner and his team, including Ms Tuts, Ms Nolan and other colleagues. I congratulate Mr. Reynders on Belgium's opening game in the World Cup. It could be the start of things. I am conscious all his staff may not be supporting Belgium but we wish the Commissioner well in this role and we are really grateful-----

Mr. Didier Reynders:

I am not so proud of the game but after the situation of Argentina and Germany, it was better to win.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A win is a win. I thank everyone.