MEP Petri Sarvamaa on the rule of law conditionality: “We gave nothing to Kaczyński and Orbán”

Share

Journalist at OKO.press.

More

'The declaration of the European Council was purely a face-saving document for domestic use in Poland and Hungary. There are 11 points on the rule of law issue. Not a single one of these points changed the rule of law legislation,' says Petri Sarvamaa, Finnish MEP of the European People’s Party (EPP)



‘If there’s a lawsuit in any Member State regarding EU funds e.g. spending without competition or in a corrupt way, the Commission will look into how the police is handling it, how the investigation is proceeding and who the prosecutor and the judges are. If they are unable to react properly to the misuse of funds – because they are not independent – we will have a case for suspending the funds,’ says Petri Sarvamaa, Finnish MEP of the European People’s Party (EPP) and chief negotiator for the rule of law conditionality regulation on behalf of the European Parliament.

 

Poland and Hungary withdrew their preliminary veto to the long-term EU budget and the Recovery Fund on Thursday, 10 December 2020, at the EU summit in Brussels. Mateusz Morawiecki and Viktor Orbán eventually accepted the regulation linking payments from the EU budget with the rule of law on the condition that ‘interpretative declarations’ of the European Council are added to it.

 

Most PiS politicians are praising the prime minister for his successful negotiations. But Solidarna Polska – PiS’ coalition partner and Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro’s party – is arguing that the declarations are meaningless, and that the EU wants to strip Poland of its sovereignty.

 

In fact, despite the declarations of the European Council, the rule of law conditionality regulation will enter into force on 1 January 2021, unchanged. The draft was formally passed in the EU Council on 14 December and accepted by the European Parliament.

 

 

Maria Pankowska, OKO.press: When the European Council agreed to the compromise declaration for Poland and Hungary last week you wrote on Twitter: ‘This is an important win for the #RuleOfLaw and the EU’. But most commentators seem pessimistic. Many of them say that Poland and Hungary won at the summit.

 

Petri Sarvamaa, MEP: The critics are asking how we can be so happy when the result is not going far enough, when everything was given to Morawiecki, Orbán and Kaczyński. I don’t understand them.

 

It was really no victory for PiS and Fidesz. It was everything but a victory for them. I know for a fact that, until Wednesday, Morawiecki, with Kaczyński behind his back, was still saying to Merkel that ‘no, we need to open the rule of law regulation’, ‘we need to change that’. They have given up.

 

But the European Council made some official promises in the declaration.

 

Everybody’s asking what it is that the European Council has decided on. They haven’t decided on anything.

 

The declaration for Kaczyński and Orbán was purely a face-saving document for domestic use in Poland and Hungary. There are 11 points on the rule of law issue. Not a single one of these points changed the legislation which we had negotiated between the Parliament and the Council. We gave nothing to Kaczyński and Orbán.

 

As the Parliament, we made sure all the necessary points are in the regulation.

 

We put the preventive scope into the text, so the ‘risk’ of the negative impact on financial management is there. We included a list of possible breaches of the rule of law, with the threats to the independence of the judiciary being part of this. We insisted on the protection of the final beneficiaries, so there is no need for the citizens to suffer unnecessarily if their government is breaching the rule of law. We also managed to shorten the timeline for the whole procedure from 13 months to 5–9 months.

 

This is the result. When, on Wednesday [9 December] afternoon, we got the text of the declaration, we realized that only one point was relevant. We already had all the other points in the regulation.

 

One point can give Orbán enough time to get safely reelected. Because Poland and Hungary will institute proceedings before the European Court of Justice with regard to the regulation and the whole procedure will be delayed.

 

This is in the Treaty, Article 263! Every Member State has the right to institute proceedings before the ECJ against any regulation. Nothing is new here.

 

It will not last two years. I have this from people who know, who make the decisions in Luxembourg and Brussels. I know for a fact that the Court of Justice will give priority to a challenge raised by Poland and Hungary. Look what happened with Article 50 of the Treaty when the Brits started to mess around 4 years ago. It took a month to get the verdict on what the article means from Luxembourg.

 

Mark my words. You will see the same thing happening with this regulation. They will not waste any time, they will push every case aside and come up with the ruling very quickly. The two governments have already declared that they will file an action. They will be able to file it on 2 January. The Court will be ready. They are already reading the regulation word for word.

 

And it is absolutely airtight. The legal basis is Article 322 of the Treaties regarding the protection of the EU budget. There’s no question about it: a Polish and Hungarian action will fall. And in the meantime – in January, February, March and April – the Commission will prepare the guidelines for implementation. When Luxembourg presses the ‘send’ button with the verdict, the Commission will be ready.

 

So you’re saying we will be waiting for no more than a couple of months.

 

And now comes the best part. It doesn’t matter at all whether it’s in April, May, June or July. When Luxembourg is ready with the verdict and when the Commission finishes the implementation guide, they will start to work. They will look back at the actions of the governments of the Member States from 1 January 2021. Orbán and Kaczyński cannot hide. It will apply to the MFF 2021–2027 and to the Recovery Facility. All this money will be scrutinized.

 

How exactly will the mechanism work?

 

If there’s a lawsuit in any Member State regarding EU funds e.g. spending without competition or in a corrupt way, the Commission will look into how the police is handling it, how the investigation is going, who the prosecutor and the judges are. If they are unable to react properly to the misuse of funds – because they are not independent – we will have a case for suspending the funds.

 

If European funds are being used in public procurement, such public procurement had better be open and transparent. There was a classic case with Orbán and his friend’s company. Now, for the first time ever, we will have the tools, the mechanism to react to such misconduct. There is no doubt that the Commission will use this tool if it considers it appropriate.

 

The regulation ensures that you can simply click on a website to inform the EU that such and such a company is receiving public contracts in your town without competition. Of course you will have to present some evidence.

 

But Poland, unlike Hungary, does not have that many issues with the misuse of EU funds. Does that mean the mechanism will be relatively safe for PiS?

 

While creating the mechanism, we had to follow the rule of law ourselves. We couldn’t invent things that would be difficult to defend before the ECJ. It would be exactly what Orbán and Kaczyński are accusing us of doing, right? We had to have a sound legal basis for everything we legislated. The rationale for this mechanism was the protection of the Union’s budget.

 

It will be painstakingly difficult to stop these undemocratic reforms. I’m not saying it will be easy. But, for the first time, there will be a chance of turning the tide. At least to stop the governments from misusing EU funds through corrupt judiciary. This is the main achievement.

 

Some MEPs have complained that the mechanism has become useless. Because Parliament agreed that the funds can only be suspended once the Council has approved this through a qualified majority vote. You decided to abandon the reversed qualified majority, which would make it harder to reject the Commission’s proposal.

 

You have to remember that the whole of the EP, the Liberals and Greens included, signed the current version of the regulation. They can be as frustrated as they please now. I’m proud to say that, when you look at the text, it has all the necessary elements to protect EU money against breaches of the rule of law.

 

Our strategy was not to get stuck on the reversed qualified majority. The German presidency would have never agreed to a deal if we had. I don’t think there’s a single Member State in the Council that would have approved this because it would have meant taking a big part of their decision-making powers away. And on such an important issue! It would have meant automatic decisions coming from the Commission. It comes to the heart of the institutional division of powers in the EU. I fight for Parliament but I can totally understand the Council here.

 

If we insisted on the reversed qualified majority, we would have been stuck and we would have squandered a historical opportunity to secure a deal for a rule of law mechanism. The German presidency would have circumvented it and we would not have had a regulation. You know how happy Orbán, Morawiecki and Kaczyński would have been?

 

Well, Orbán’s party, Fidesz, is still part of the European People’s Party – your political group in the European Parliament. 

 

We need to get rid of Fidesz, I have been saying this for years. And now, we will finally be able to do it. Just wait a couple more months, perhaps even less than that, and you’ll see. It’s inevitable. You must have heard the remarks of the Hungarian MEP Tamás Deutsch. This was the last straw.

 

Just a couple of months ago, nobody believed that the EP would be united on the rule of law topic. But ultimately, only the extreme left and the far right were with Orbán and Kaczyński.

 

Because they are nationalist, populist and chauvinist anti-Europeans.

 

It’s hard to say if these countries are a step away from losing their democracy altogether. It’s a line that cannot be drawn clearly. To some extent, democracy is already over.



Author


Journalist at OKO.press.


More

Published

December 29, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtPolandConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary Chamberjudgesrule of lawdisciplinary proceedingsZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the Judiciaryjudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeMinister of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsAdam BodnarIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemneo-judgesmuzzle lawCJEUJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsWaldemar ŻurekCourt of Justice of the European UnionNational Council for JudiciaryPrzemysław RadzikdemocracyPiotr Schabjudiciarypresidential electionselectionscriminal lawKamil Zaradkiewiczelections 2023disciplinary commissionermedia freedomJulia PrzyłębskaK 3/21First President of the Supreme Courtelections 2020harassmentSupreme Administrative Courtpreliminary rulingsDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaprosecutionHungaryMichał LasotaprosecutorsBeata MorawiecRecovery FundPresidentProsecutor GeneralPaweł JuszczyszynNational ProsecutorŁukasz PiebiakConstitutionEuropean Arrest WarrantPrime Ministerfreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiCOVID-19Marek SafjanVenice CommissionSejmimmunityCriminal ChamberRegional Court in KrakówIustitiaMaciej FerekMałgorzata GersdorfreformMinistry of JusticeNCJExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberOSCEcourtsWojciech Hermelińskidisciplinary liability for judgesEU budgetcorruptionStanisław PiotrowiczNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsCouncil of EuropeAnna DalkowskaLGBTJustice FundPresident of the Republic of PolandWłodzimierz Wróbelconditionality mechanismTHEMISKrystian MarkiewiczAleksander StepkowskiStanisław BiernatPiSreformsLaw and Justicecommission on Russian influenceLabour and Social Security ChamberJarosław Dudziczconditionalityfreedom of assemblyPresident of PolandChamber of Professional LiabilityOrdo Iurismedia independenceDidier ReyndersReczkowicz and Others v. PolandSLAPPStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationBroda and Bojara v PolandXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsSupreme Court PresidentMarcin Romanowskielectoral codeAndrzej StępkaArticle 7Piotr PrusinowskiSenateSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeTVPmediaLech GarlickiLex Super OmniapoliceabortionNext Generation EUUrsula von der LeyenEAWJustice Defence Committee – KOSAmsterdam District CourtdefamationKrzysztof ParchimowiczFreedom HouseMichał WawrykiewiczEwa ŁętowskaArticle 6 ECHRMay 10 2020 elections2017Piotr GąciarekPegasussuspensionP 7/20acting first president of the Supreme CourtNational Electoral CommissionK 7/21PM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej ZollJarosław WyrembakLex DudaProfessional Liability ChamberCivil Chamberparliamentcivil societyNational Reconstruction PlanConstitutional Tribunal PresidentAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraKrakówBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaJanusz NiemcewiczAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczAdam Synakiewiczstate of emergencyWojciech ŁączkowskiEdyta BarańskaMirosław GranatKazimierz DziałochaJoanna Misztal-Koneckajudcial independenceMaciej MiteraDariusz KornelukViktor OrbanOLAFrestoration of the rule of lawvetoMariusz KamińskisurveillanceK 6/21Józef IwulskiAstradsson v IcelandCentral Anti-Corruption BureauPATFoxSLAPPsTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaaccountabilityUkraineKrystyna PawłowiczRafał PuchalskitransparencyDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.pressright to fair trialDariusz DrajewiczPaweł FilipekMaciej Taborowskismear campaigninsulting religious feelingsNational Prosecutor’s OfficeMariusz MuszyńskiBelaruselectoral processcourt presidentsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekmilestonesWojciech MaczugaMichał LaskowskiMarian BanaśJakub IwaniecSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy Stępieńelections fairnessAndrzej RzeplińskiSzymon Szynkowski vel SękFerdynand RymarzInternational Criminal CourtMarek PietruszyńskiMirosław WyrzykowskiBohdan ZdziennickiXero Flor v. Polandpublic mediaSupreme Audit OfficelexTuskcourt changeselections integrityMarek ZubikKonrad Wytrykowskiabuse of state resourcesGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesEuropean ParliamentZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczMarcin Warchoł11 January March in WarsawEuropean Association of JudgesZiobroFree CourtsdecommunizationEwa WrzosekEU law primacyhuman rightsPiebiak gaterecommendationreportLaw on the NCJlex NGORussiaCCBEpublic opinion pollHuman Rights CommissionerJarosław GowinPiotr PszczółkowskiLGBT ideology free zonesC-791/19coronaviruscriminal coderetirement ageNetherlandsAdam Tomczyńskidemocratic backslidingintimidation of dissentersThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeBogdan ŚwięczkowskitransferBelgiumJoanna Scheuring-WielgusNations in TransitCouncil of the EUElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikKatarzyna ChmuraSebastian MazurekJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiLIBE Committeedefamatory statementsMałgorzata FroncRafał LisakKarolina MiklaszewskaNGOKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczIrena BochniakoppositionEuropean Court of Huelectoral commissionsAct on the Supreme CourtdiscriminationJakub KwiecińskiWorld Justice Project awardTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceDariusz DończykGrzegorz FurmankiewiczAntykastaStanisław ZdunAdam Gendźwiłł2018Wojciech SadurskiFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRMarek Jaskulskirepairing the rule of lawadvocate generalpress release#RecoveryFilesmedia pluralismMichał DworczykDworczyk leaksE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronRights and Values ProgrammeTomasz SzmydtŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoMonika FrąckowiakEmilia SzmydtSwieczkowskiKasta/AntykastaBohdan BieniekStanisław ZabłockiJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczFrans TimmermansMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaC-619/18Arkadiusz CichockiCT PresidentMarcin Matczakequal treatmentNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotafundamental rightsState Tribunalinsultcivil lawRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP DirectiveHater ScandalpopulismNational Council for the Judiciarycivil partnerships billKRSJudicial Reformsmigration strategyPenal CodeLGBTQ+NIKProfetosame-sex unionsKatarzyna Kotulacivil partnershipsHelsinki Foundation for Human RightsPiotr HofmańskiC‑718/21preliminary referenceEU lawethicsChamber of Professional ResponsibilityThe Codification Committee of Civil LawInvestigationPoznańKrzysztof Rączkaextraordinary commissionZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a Archivetransitional justiceUS State DepartmentAssessment ActCrimes of espionageJoanna KnobelAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiRThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentEuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna Wydrzyńskaenvironmentinvestmentstrategic investmentRafał WojciechowskiAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDobrochna Bach-Goleckaelection fairnessNational Broadcasting Councilgag lawsuitslex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationlustrationWhite PaperEUDonald Tusk governmentjudgePrzemysław CzarnekJózsef SzájerRafał TrzaskowskiKlubrádióSobczyńska and Others v PolandŻurek v PolandGazeta WyborczaGrzęda v PolandPollitykaJelenmedia lawIndex.huJacek CzaputowiczElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMABrussels IRome IILGBT free zonesFirst President of the Suprme CourtBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekequalityMarek PiertuszyńskiChamber of Extraordinary VerificationArticle 2Forum shoppinghate speechEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian Kaletahate crimesC-156/21C-157/21Education Ministerthe Regional Court in Warsawproteststhe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońGermanyCelmermutual trustabortion rulingLMUnited NationsLeszek MazurAmsterdamIrena Majcherinterim measuresIrelandautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUC-487/19Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanZbigniew BoniekENAArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service Actpublic broadcasterForum Współpracy SędziówSimpson judgmentAK judgmentlegislative practiceforeign agents lawrepressive actMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitLSOtrans-Atlantic valuesDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandAmnesty InternationalThe First President of the Supreme CourtErnest BejdaJacek Sasinright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychAct of 20 December 2019Michał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersFrackowiakPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikKochenovPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioPechlegislationlex WośKaczyńskiPutinismCourt of Appeal in KrakówMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryECJMarek AstFreedom in the WorldEvgeni TanchevRome StatuteIsraelEuropean Public Prosecutor's OfficeEU valuesPolish National FoundationLux Veritatisinfringment actionMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykPKWENCJoligarchic systemclientelismIpsosOlimpia Barańska-MałuszeHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr Burasauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258Leon Kieresresolution of 23 January 2020Telex.huEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtAlina CzubieniakMaciej RutkiewiczharrassmentMirosław WróblewskiprimacyborderGerard BirgfellerTVNjournalistslexTVNpostal vote billPolish mediapostal voteEwa MaciejewskaRzeszówKoen Lenaerts