 Good afternoon everyone and you are very welcome to the latest event that is being held by the Institute of International and European Affairs on the rule of law. My name is Gavin Barrett and I'm a professor in University College Dublin in the Law School and I'm very pleased to welcome here today live from Brussels as it were and Commissioner Edidier Renderes who is as we all know the European Commissioner for Justice and he is going to be speaking to us today on a topic that could scarcely be more topical or important and that is the question, the topic of strengthening the rule of law within the European Union promotion, prevention and response and in his address to the IIEA today Commissioner Renderes will look at the variety of tools available to the European Commission to promote a rule of law culture to prevent rule of law problems from emerging or deteriorating and to respond whenever a significant problem has been identified. And he's going to be presenting these different tools which are part of the so-called rule of law tool books and give an overview of the Commission's work on the new comprehensive European rule of law mechanism which will include an annual rule of law report which will provide objective analysis of the situation in all member states. So we're looking very much forward to that. In fact, I can just say a short word about our speaker, Commissioner Renderes was appointed Commissioner for Justice by Commission President Ursula van der Leyen with responsibility for upholding the rule of law and judicial cooperation. Before this, he has an illustrious curriculum detail. He was the Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Minister of Finance and Minister of Institutional Reform. So a huge amount of experience and I suspect you need every bit of it to cope with this particular challenge. I understand that Commissioner Renderes will speak for approximately 20 minutes and then we'll have some time for questions after that. So if you would like to send in some questions this afternoon, if you can use the questions function at the bottom of your Zoom screen to send those on and then I'll put those questions to the Commissioner after that. So without any further ado, Commissioner, I'd like to invite you to address this Zoom meeting. No, thank you. Thank you for such an invitation, for your kind words of presentation. And ladies and gentlemen, of course, we have a long expertise about budgetary descriptions and the structural reforms, but not so much about the rule of law. So I will try to don't be too long in my introductory remarks, but it's a pleasure, of course, to join you to discuss the Commission works on such an issue, the rule of law in the European Union. The rule of law is a fundamental value of the European Union, as we can see in its constitutional text, since it's enshrined in article two of the treaty on the European Union. We have seen maybe at the beginning of the Commission the discussions about the European way of life and to my mind, the European way of life is the article two of the treaty. And that's very important to explain. And what makes a rule of law so important is that it guarantees the respect of all other values, including democracy and fundamental rights. And the vast majority of European citizens recognize its importance in the Euro barometer survey carried out last year. Citizens have been asked about their appreciation of the rule of law. And the survey covered a comprehensive series of 17 rule of law related to related principles from equality before the law or the prompt investigation of corruption cases to the independence of judges. It's a very important discussion now. And from all over the European Union, respondents perceived this principle as important or even as essential. At the same time, in the same Euro barometer survey, the majority of responding citizens said they were not very well informed about the fundamental values of the EU. Indeed, when it comes to the understanding amongst citizens of what the rule of law actually means, there are sometimes significant gaps. Therefore, while we can see that citizens fundamentally support respect for the rule of law and expect public authorities to be committed to it, efforts should increase in terms of awareness rising. Recent developments in Europe have put the rule of law at the top of the EU's agenda. So it does not come as a surprise that it has been on the agenda of your institute as well, especially as regard to poverty. There's developments raise important questions which the Commission has duty to address. In order to do so, the Commission already has what is offered to as a rule of law toolbox. Such tools include, for instance, the country-specific recommendations in the European semester. It was again the situation in last European semester recommendations document. We have put inside and we will publish that some recommendations in relation with the rule of law. It's not only with Hungary, but not only about the independence of judiciary in some different member states or the EU justice scoreboard. We will publish the scoreboard in the next months. In the next week, sorry, we have organized internal process in the Commission now and we are ready to publish that very soon. Where we compare national justice system in the EU as regards the independence, quality and efficiency. Because you know that it's very important to be confronted with an independent judge, but if it's possible also with a qualified one. So we are working on the three elements, independence, quality and efficiency. There is also the well-known possibility to launch infringement proceedings where EU law has been breached. In recent years, we have seen the European Court of Justice developing an important case law in this regard. Emphasizing the link between the rule of law and respect of EU law. But it is clear that we need to do more and think outside of the traditional toolbox. Last year, the Commission therefore known an important reflection process. We invited government NGOs and other stakeholders from all over Europe to contribute. The result was a communication by the Commission, the former Commission in July 19, focusing on three themes, promotion, prevention and response. First, on promotion, we need to address the knowledge deficit and build a common rule of law culture in the EU. Second, we have to prevent rule of law problems from emerging or deteriorating. And third response, we need to reflect on the rate to react more effectively to the significant problems once identified. From day one, President von der Leyen committed to carrying this work forward. Today I will focus on what that means concretely. As regard promotion, building a rule of law culture is about making EU citizens better aware of what the rule of law actually means for them. First, this requires to improve knowledge in the general public about the rule of law standards and requirements set by EU law. The Commission is committed to support stakeholders and civil society in doing this. Second, we need to keep the public debate alive on the rule of law. This is why discussions like the one we are having today are so important. I'm counting on think tanks like yours as well as civil society more broadly to keep this debate going. Third, the Commission is working with a series of partners, such as the Council of Europe, including the Venice Commission on the Record, the Rule of States Against Corruption, the EECD or the European Judicial Networks. The second major part of our work is about prevention. This is about detecting and remedying rule of law issues at an early stage. To do this, we need a better understanding of the situation of the rule of law in a whole European Union. This is what the new comprehensive European rule of law mechanism is all about. As Justice Commissioner, I have the honor to lead the Commission's work on this file. As part of this new mechanism, I'm coordinating the Commission's work on the first annual report on the rule of law, which will cover all EU member states with objective reports on an equal footing. There is one of the major initiatives of the new Commission. It includes monitoring significant developments, both positive and negative, in four areas. The justice systems, the anti-corruption framework, certain issues related to media pluralism and other institutional issues related to checks and balances. How relevant the report will also reflect recent developments with regards to emergency measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are currently making good progress and are on track to publish the report in September as planned. So far we have received written input from the EU member states and from over 200 stakeholders. My services are now conducting country visits, in fact, virtual country visits, my video with the member states. And we are doing that in each member state. On the 5th and the 6th of June, they conducted their virtual country visit to Ireland, our expert at a number of very informative meetings with the Irish authorities, the judiciary and different stakeholders. And I would like to warmly thank the Irish authorities for their constructive exchanges. On the basis of all this input, we are on track for the College of Commissioners to adopt the report in September. It will then serve as a basis for the incoming German presidency of the Council to kickstart a genuine political debate on the rule of law between the member states in the Council. The so-called peer review will start at the same moment. This political debate also needs to take place in the European Parliament and in the member states, not only in national parliament but also with civil society. I can assure you that I am fully committed to that. The aim is to start a regular annual cycle and provide the impetus for the European Union to address problems in a cooperative way. This will not only help us to learn from one another experiences and best practices, but also to identify problems earlier. Let us now turn to our third trend of work, the response. On top of establishing a better rule of law culture in the EU and in addition to preventing problems from emerging, actual breaches to the rule of law must be dealt with. Let me start with infringement proceedings, where the independence of the justice system of a member state has come under threat. The Commission can bring infringement proceedings against this state. The principle of effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy are indeed guaranteed by Article 19 of the Treaty on the European Union and by Article 47 of the AIM Charter of Fundamental Rights. For instance, to protect judicial independence in Poland, the Commission assays the Court of Justice a number of times and each time risks success. And it's very important to go to the Court with a robust, with a solid argumentation. But the EU has other possibilities to keep up the pressure to protect the rule of law. One way to do so is to procedure settled in Article 7 of the Treaty. This procedure can be a trigger where there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a member state of the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty. Values which include, of course, the rule of law. This procedure provides for the most serious political sanction the European Union can impose on a member state. The suspension of its voting rights in the Council. Until the 20th of December 17, Article 7 had never been triggered. Then the Commission launched such a procedure against Poland. Almost a year, one year later, it was triggered again this time by the European Parliament concerning Hungary. There are unprecedented steps in the history of the Union. I'm convinced that the Article 7 procedures should continue as long as the situation points to sales systemic threats to the rule of law in this member state. Even through this contribute to keeping political pressure on the member state's concern, Article 7 can only be one tool among orders. Notably, because its voting possibilities to adopt recommendations or sanctions in the Council are particularly demanding. The last reactive instrument of our toolbox is not yet operational. This is a new proposal for a mechanism to protect the EU budget in case of breaches of the rule of law in a member state. This legislative proposal of the Commission, made in 2018, is currently being examined by the European Parliament and the Council. Its rationale is simple. The objective is not to punish member states but to protect the EU budget against corruption and fraud. For this, a member state needs to have independent justice systems, effective investigation and prosecution services and properly functioning public authorities allocating EU funds. Where this is not the case, where we see generalized deficiencies as regards the rule of law in a member state, we have proposed to give the Union the possibility to suspend, reduce or restrict access to EU funding in a proportionate manner. However, individual beneficiaries of EU funds should not be affected. This is why the member state council would be obliged to honor payments to final recipients and beneficiaries. When proposing measures under this new mechanism, we would seek to target the types of funding that directly benefits from a member state's authorities. It is very important to focus on the authorities and not again on the beneficiaries and the recipients. If this proposal is adopted, it could make a very important contribution to protecting the rule of law in the EU. But I insist that I have said that about Article 7 we have some difficulties to go to recommendation due to the necessary majority, qualified majority or unanimity, so we need here to use the reverse qualified majority. It is very important, like we have organized in the budgetary discussions, to use the so-called reverse qualified majority to simplify the way to decide something about this new mechanism. So far I have spoken about the rule of law without focusing on the current COVID-19 pandemic. I just make a reference there. But today, with the COVID-19 crisis, we are confronted with particular difficulties. As part of their response to the crisis, many member states have introduced emergency measures. Of course, I want to insist on the fact that the Commission stands in fully solidarity with the member states. As President von der Leyen said, we need to ensure that Europe does everything it can to save every life it can. But whatever the response, it must fully respect our fundamental principles and values, a set out in the treaties including the rule of law. So we are looking very carefully at how emergency measures are being applied in practice. So we are looking at the concrete impact of these measures. Situations which require close attention are notably those where the powers granted to the executive are open-ended. Or where parliaments do not have the possibility to put an end to the state of emergency or to the measures adopted under the emergency regime. Second, we are also looking at the impact of emergency measures on fundamental rights. And notably where such limitations go beyond what is proportionate. Third, we are also looking at the impact of emergency measures on EU law. Now we are entering a new phase of the crisis. This means that exceptional powers granted to governments should gradually be removed. Or at least replaced by more targeted and less intrusive measures. That requires the commission to remain extremely vigilant to ensure that emergency measures, especially those which affect fundamental rights and the rule of law, are adequately faced out. And as we are putting a lot of money on the table, we have seen that to help Europe to recover from the crisis, our proposal for a mechanism to protect the EU budget against generalized deficiencies on the rule of law is more needed than ever. We need it to apply not only to the next multi-annual financial framework, but also to the new recovery fund that the commission has proposed. It's quite the same that with the new public prosecutor office at the European level. We need more, maybe the public prosecutor office now, than before, due to the fact that we will spend more money faster and maybe with more flexibility in the past. So we need a lot of control mechanisms. This one, the conditionality with the rule of law, is one of the possible mechanisms to control the situation in the member state. As a politician, you have mentioned that in your introduction and presentation, I have deals with many crisis situations, because as I mentioned, the finance minister was the global financial crisis caused in 2007, eight in the years later. Or as minister finds an area first with the terrorist attacks linked to Daesh, and today as justice commissioner with the COVID-19 crisis. Each time there are lessons to be learned. What this crisis has taught us is that we have to remain vigilant as we get the rule of law. Also when we are focused on urgent issues such as the protection of health or the economic recovery. I've said we support different actions taken by the member states, but we need to stay vigilant about the full respect for the rule of law in all the member states and many of us. Ladies and gentlemen, to conclude, I want to say that citizens need to be aware of what the rule of law means in practice. I've started with that. We need to build a real rule of law culture. And I'm hoping that after the publication of the first annual report on the rule of law in September, it will be possible, I said, not only to go to the council, not only to go to the European Parliament, but also to the national parliament and to the civil societies in the different member states. Because if we want to have a real effect in the different member states, we need to organize a real national, local debate about the rule of law. It's the only one way to install a real culture of the rule of law in the whole European Union. And I hope that it will be possible with your support, maybe like with many other things, and NGOs and members of the civil society. We have to be able to detect risks early on and to prevent challenges from happening. As I said, this is not only the aim of the new rule of law mechanism. Of course it's to install the culture of the rule of law, but also to detect the possible breaches to the rule of law in all the member states. And we must be ready to react to actual breaches. When it comes to protecting the rule of law, we must do it with our eyes, our ears and our minds wide open. With this concluding remarks, let me thank you for your attention. I'm saying that it's very important also in such a crisis time to think that we have built a European Union based on values. And of course it's very important to organize now the recovery and the resilience of our societies against possible crisis. But one of the most important resilience that we need to build or to conform is the resilience about the different breaches to the rule of law. Because it's very important to have all the different member states on board and to have all the citizens on board with a full respect for the same values. And I want to add a last sentence if we want to say something about the rule of law, human rights, democracy and all the kind of values, we need to do the job at home. And it's maybe the first goal of the new annual report on the rule of law. But I insist on the fact that it's an additional tool in our toolbox. We'll continue to work with all the other tools like the Article 7, the infringement proceedings and many other kinds of instruments that we have at our disposal. But it's very important to try to have now the same kind of process about the values than we have since many years about the budgetary situation and the structural reforms in the European Union. Thank you very much again for your attention. I muted myself during what you were talking so I need you to turn the microphone again. I just wanted to say thank you very much indeed for your very fascinating account of what's happening right now in relation to the rule of law at European level. Now we've already got quite a number of questions in but I'd encourage all of you attending if you have any questions to ask on the rule of law and to get them in and we'll try to get through as many of them as we possibly can. Our first question is from John Bruton who's the former T-Shocker Prime Minister of this country and he's the former Deputy Chair of the Constitutional Convention on the Constitutional Treaty. And what Mr Bruton mentions is that the EU enlarged quite rapidly without working out the details of what the rule of law should mean. What have we learned from that experience and how differently will we approach the future enlargement? And he wants to know if you would compare the rule of law in Northern Macedonia with that in Hungary. So that's the first question. No it's true that it's a lesson learned from the past experience that we have till now some discussions I've said about myself about the rule of law and democracy and fundamental rights in some member states. And you know that we have a transition mechanism about some new member states. We have said that we need to continue to organize a process with CVM about Bulgaria and Romania. And so the lesson learned is that we need to try to solve such a kind of issue before the accession. And so in the new decision of the Commission proposed to the Council of Parliament about the enlargement, we have said that we will start the negotiation with the rule of law and will conclude the negotiations with the rule of law. In my mind that means that we need to be sure that before to become to be a full member state there is a full respect for the rule of law in the candidate countries. Without that we will import again in the European Union some problems. If I may I will make a comparison maybe. We are saying also to the Western Balkans that we need to solve all the border issues. Because if you import a border issue in the European Union it's very difficult to solve. I don't want to point out one problem but you know that we have for the past since some years one unsolved issue between two members in the same region. And again we need to be very strict on this. I fully understand that it was the first occasion in the past but we have had a lot of enlargement but we have a huge enlargement 15 more than 15 years ago. And then we have continued to give some possibility to access to the European Union. But again in the new procedure we have said we need to start with the rule of law and to conclude with the rule of law. And the goal is to be sure that it's possible to fulfill all the criteria and certainly to have full respect for the rule of law before to come in. Of course after that we need to continue to monitor the situation because it's not because you have a full respect for the rule of law before the excision. That you will continue later, like for the budgetary situation. It's possible to say that one candidate is in order with the Maastricht Cargeria and then 10 years later or 20 years later you see that there are some problems. But it's true that it's a lesson learned from the last decennia to say that we need to be maybe more concerned about the full respect for the rule of law before the excision. The day before. Okay, thank you very much for that response, Commissioner. The next question comes from Professor John O'Hagan, who's a Meritus Professor of Economics at Trinity College Dublin. And he's asking the question of whether there is a danger that the rule of law in the European Union could be undermined if certain laws are not effectively enforced and in a timely manner. And I think what he's getting out here, although it doesn't elaborate very much in his question, is perhaps that the commission is a little bit slow. Perhaps in prosecution breaches in the area of the rule of law. So that might be an implicit criticism, if you like, in the question there. And the question as to whether that, for example, is not assisting in the process of... No, maybe... Well, also to such a question, maybe three remarks. The first one, it's very important, it's true, to enforce the rule of law because sometimes we have huge discussions about some new proposals. But without real attention to the real enforcement of the actual legislation. And to give an example we will have in the next days a discussion at the commission level about the GDPR. GDPR is a beautiful regulation. After two years, it was the second anniversary, we have a good evaluation of the GDPR. But what is the main issue is to be sure that the GDPR is well enforced in all the member states in the same way. And that's an example, but we have a lot of legislation where it's very important to show that we are working on the enforcement. Of course, it's very important to think about new evolutions for the near future. But if you don't have a correct application of the actual legislation, it's not a solution. And we have had during the crisis, your discussions on this, to give an example about tourism. We have a legislation given some rise to the consumers. Is it possible to protect the consumer rise also in the crisis time? And to say to the airlines companies or to the two operators, it's possible for the consumers to be reimbursed if there is a flight or travel to council. And of course we have received a question, yes, but we have many problems of liquidities in the airlines companies. But we have said to the member states, you need to apply the AU law. And if it's not the case, my second remark, of course we don't have to hesitate. We need to go to the court if it's needed, if we don't have a correct application. And also about the rule of law. I don't want to stay in the consumer area on the rule of law. We have started with the new commission in December. In the beginning of the year in February, I asked the commission to go back to the court to ask the interim measures about the disciplinary procedures in Poland against judges. And we have received a positive answer from the court in April. And then we have decided to launch a new infringement proceeding about the so-called muscle load. The last law in Poland about the judicial organization. And it's very important to do that, but I said it was a robust argumentation. So it's true that sometimes it takes some weeks or one or two months before to introduce the case. But it's very important to my mind to have a real robust argumentation. Because if we are going to the court, of course you are not sure that you will receive a positive answer from the court. But think about the fact that one day we will have a negative answer about the rule of law. And it will be used in one of the other member states. We say in order we are in full compliance with the rule of law and the commission is organizing a political action. So we need to be very robust. But we don't hesitate. But the third issue, and that's maybe the problem, there is a difference now between the public debate and the legal debate in time. Of course we don't have before the court the same timing than on Twitter. And that's a real issue because every day I receive demons to go to the court to do something to react. First we need to be competent. Is it possible for the commission to do something? Is it a real EU competence? You have seen at the beginning of the crisis we have received many requests about pearls. Is it possible to do more? But it's a national competence and we have tried to organize a coordination about the rule of law the same. In the last days and weeks, just to give an example, I don't want to mention from one part of the EU. But you have a declaration of one politician and you receive a request to react. Yes, it's possible to give a political reaction, but not to go to the court because one member of the government, of one member of the parliament have said something in one member state. So there's also a difference. I'm sure that we have act very fast about the internal reasons for the disciplinary procedure in Poland. But it was needed to do that in February and the court was very fast but it was beginning of April. It was possible for the court to send a very clear message to suspend all the procedure. Now I send a new letter to the National Justice in Poland to have some clarifications. And of course, during such a period of time, there are many public debates about that. But you know that there's a difference between the political debate in the parliament, the debates in the press, or as I said in the social media on Twitter, on other kind of social media, and our capacity to receive a positive reaction from the court. At the end is the more efficient way. Is the increase in procedures if we don't have the capacity to have an open dialogue with one member state. But that takes on that. Right, thank you very much indeed for that. We've a question in from Connor Ryan from the Department of Foreign Affairs as well. And it's in relation to Article 7, which of course has the provision both for persistent serious and persistent breaches. And also provision of course in Article 7.1 for the clear risk. Both of these procedures have problems with them. And the question that is being asked here, I suppose, is, you know, what rule can they play, if any, in the solution of all the problems at European level? Yes, but Article 7 is a very impressive portion of it. In fact, I said it's quite new to organise such a kind of process in 2017, because before it was not used. And it's difficult to manage due to the pressure. We need to have qualified majority or unanimity in the different places. And that's the real issue. Of course, it's possible to go back to the concierge and the Parliament to ask concierge, but it's a new treaty, so it's treaty change is not easy. And the reason why, in the conditionality about offending, we try to have another kind of mechanism. We try to organise a process with a reverse qualified majority like for the budgetary discussion. Because if we don't have the reverse qualified majority, it will be possible for some member states to organise a package at the Council level. And it's a reason why for the moment it's very important to continue the procedures against Poland and Hungary to push a political pressure, to have a political debate at the Council level. But it's very difficult to conclude. And that's a real problem that we have, because to conclude, you need to ask a vote. And again, if you have a vote with a blockage, with an impossibility to go to the qualified or the majority or the unanimity in the different phases of the posture, it's like a positive decision for the member states. You don't have the capacity to conclude about a real sanction. And it's a reason why I said that the new mechanism and the conditionality are just additional tools. Maybe one day it would be possible to change the procedure about Article 7, but we are not so far, but we need to have additional tools to repair, in fact, such a kind of problem that it was mentioned in the question. But it's due, first of all, to the portion. But it's very efficient. It's a real political pressure. It's a real open debate. But the most efficient way for the moment is still the infringement proceedings. And maybe, if we receive a positive reaction from the council, the conditionality about the budget. And that will be, you know, that a financial pressure on a member state is very efficient. Wonderful. Thank you very much indeed. That's a very useful response indeed, if I may say so. Great. We have a question from a country man of yours. And that is Pierre-Emanuele de Valle, who is the, I'm sure you know, the ambassador of Belgium to Ireland. And his question is, he says, thank you, commissioner, talking about prevention. You mentioned an annual review cycle. But how will the different sorts of review by the Commission, by the European Parliament or even peer review among council members interact? Who will be in charge of giving a global picture in this regard? It's possible. Thank you for the question, because I know very well the representative in Dublin. But, of course, it's possible to think about the perfect situation in some years, maybe on medium and long term. In my vision, it will be possible to organize an open debate, or no, if I may, not only the rule of law report, but maybe also a report on the charter of normal rights, maybe the democracy action plan and sort of discuss on democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law. But in such a way, there is a request from the Parliament to have a more comprehensive, more global approach. We will do that. That we will start with a very pragmatic rate with the report on the rule of law. Next year, we'll have a report on the charter. And, of course, we will come and sort this year with a democracy action plan. And I'm sure that my intention is to conclude for September with the presentation of the report on the rule of law. And then it's an annual report. So it will be an ongoing process. We will receive maybe many criticism about the report. It will be possible to have another score for the moment. I've said we have four issues in the annual report to start. We have to do something and the dependence of judiciary is very important, of course. Then it will be maybe possible to extend and to organize an integration. But in the first phase, it's very important to have a debate in the council and in the Parliament, so the peer review in the council and an open debate in the Parliament about our report and also a debate at the national level. Because I said it's very important to install a real culture on the rule of law in the member states and to go to the member states. Some member states will be easy to organize. In other words, it will be maybe more complicated. But we will try in both cases with the Parliament or with the civil society. And if you look through the situation now, I'm sure that for the German presidency, it will be possible to organize a general debate on the first report that we will publish in September. Then maybe to start, we had a discussion about that, to start a real peer review. So to analyze the situation of all the member states, maybe in two years' time, like we have for the moment the Universal Peer Review at the UN level. You know that, that takes more time because there are many members, of course. But you need to go to a general and to answer many questions about the situation on the human rights in your own country. And at the open level, it must be possible to do that at the council level. So on the basis of our report, to engage a real discussion and a peer review on all the different member states. In two years' time, it will be possible to take the 27th. And in the Parliament, to have a real open debate, like at the national level. But of course, I'm not against, after some years, to try to have an integration of all those mechanism and to have not only the rule of law report, but I've had the report on the Charter and maybe the Democracy Action Plan and at least at the Parliament level to organize one debate on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. But you need to start. And I'm all the time very impressed by the ambition of many participants to say we need to do more. But in some years, it was impossible to do something. And so now we have the communication I've said from the Commission. It's possible to start with the report and at such a base, it will be possible to build year after year for more robust mechanism and maybe with more issues on the table. But to start with independence of judiciary, fight against corruption, media pluralism and checks and balances. I'm sure it's a good start. Thank you very much indeed. Right. To move then from the question from the current serving ambassador to a former ambassador, this former Irish ambassador, Peter Gunning, who is a member of our EU 27 group here in the Institute of International and European Affairs. And what Peter says is thank you for a very clear description of the new annual rule of law report. So a nice diplomatic beginning there, but he comes with the sting in the tail afterwards then. And his question is, it could possibly be a very heavy and dense document. Is there not a risk in this of diluting the debate and the focus on the most glaring instances of deviation from EU values and the rule of law? So in other words, the danger, if you like, that this document, if you like, forms a kind of noise, if you like, that drowns out attention from the most serious problems in the likes of Hungary and Poland concerning the rule of law. But again, I said it's an additional tool, but we'd far or so to have another one, the conditionality and the funding of the different policies and so on, the funding of the different member states. In fact, where is the different policies? And if there's a more general breach to the rule of law, it's a more generalized deficiency of the rule of law. In one member state, it must be possible to suspend or to stop some funding. But to be very concrete, in the annual report, normally we will have some remarks in quite all the member states because of course you have some problems with the rule of law in all the member states, but sometimes I don't want to say details, but it's very specific issues and it's possible to engage in dialogue, to change that and to organize a remedy today. It's quite different if you have a so-called, I was misfinanced, a systemic risk and a more systematic breach to the rule of law. And if you look through the discussion that we have for the moment with Poland about independence of judiciary, we are more in a real debate about a very generalized deficiency in such a field of independence of judiciary. And there, of course, you need to have other tools. Other tools, that means a refrigeration process, again, that we have used since some years with success before the court and maybe it's impossible to take a decision in the article 7 procedure due to the voting procedures. We need to have a new conditionality for the funding of the different policies, but we are moving step by step, if I may. And again, I'm very impressed by many comments to say you need to do more. But it's the first time that we have a real instrument in all hands, except the infringement proceedings. And I want to say that in the report, we will try to exchange the best practices to show very positive because we have also very positive conditions in some member states about different issues. But if we have a real problem in one concrete situation, we will engage dialogue or we'll go to the court. If it's more generalized, we need to see the support from the council and the parliament to have another tool and maybe the conditionality about the financing, that will be the most efficient question. OK, thank you very much. And with one very brief question from another former Irish ambassador, I detect a slight note of skepticism in it, but I leave you to judge that. It's Bobby McDonough, who is the former Irish ambassador to the United Kingdom. And his question is a very simple one. On a scale of one to ten, how nervous is Orban likely to be about the commission's rule of law toolbox? Maybe not so much. I'm sure around five or something like that. No, because we have seen in the past that with a... I want to give an example. Since the beginning of this crisis, we had at the commission level that it's impossible to stay with the state of danger in Hungary, state of emergency, for a very long period of time without any end or without any capacity for the parliament to take it this week. And we have seen that the last days it was possible in Hungary to say we'll go to the parliament to put an end to this situation. So if you have a real dialogue and if you emphasize the real risk that you have seen in the beginning of the crisis with a new law about the state of danger, it's possible to receive a positive reserve. So I'm sure that also in Hungary there are some possibilities to organize some changes in the way to manage the situation. But it's not easy, of course, it's an open dialogue. So I'm sure that it's around five, it's between because we have seen that some pressures are efficient, of course. But if it's needed, we will also introduce some new infringement proceedings. We are analyzing for the moment not only the law of the state of danger, but we are analyzing all the measures taken in application of the law. And in the labor court, in the way to take over some companies in Hungary or to send some military people to different enterprises, there are some problems with the rule of law and we will decide if it's needed to go to the court. So it's quite a bad situation that we have since the beginning of the decision with Hungary. Great. Thank you very much indeed. That's a very clear answer there. And now I hope the attendance won't think I'm biased in favor of former ambassadors, but I have another question from a former ambassador this time from Marie Cross who is actually the chair of our EU 27 group. And she's asking a specific question about the latest draft of the MMF by the Commission and there's a proposal for a regulation on the protection of the EU budget against generalized deficiencies in the rule of law and she is asking if you could elaborate on what measures are envisaged in this particular regulation. To protect the EU budget, we have different elements. I'm going to be to insist I just mentioned that on one point is the open public prosecutor office, the PPO. It's a new tool. We have had the designation of the chief prosecutor, Mrs. Kovezi by the council and the parliament. And now I'm in charge to install the new prosecutor office at the EU level. For the first time, we'll have a prosecutor office to organize investigations and prosecutions against fraud and abuses in relation with the budget and I need to install at the end of the year to be able next year to start. And I'm saying that because it's very important. I said during my remarks, we will spend if we have the agreement of the council and the parliament, but normally we'll spend more money with the DMFF and the recovery and resident facility. The next generation EU will spend more money faster and with more flexibility. And everybody knows if you are doing that, they are more risk. So we need first to organize for the first time a real prosecutor office at the EU level. That's to control and maybe to to sanction some fraud. But we are sure so that if we want to have a correct use of the EU funding and of the new MFF and recovery plan, we need to be sure that it's possible to have a real independent justice system in all the member states to have some possibilities at the national level to organize some investigations and prosecutions. And that is the rule of law is the first issue that we will take in our report on board in our report the independence of the judiciary and the functioning quality of so of course and so on and efficiency of the judiciary. If you don't have that, but you need maybe to stop the funding. And we have two by three elements. The first one I've seen on it is the procedure. If we want to be efficient, we need to have a reverse qualified majority and not to have the same risk of blockage than in the article seven. The second element is that we need to have a proportional reaction. So it must be possible to suspend or to stop a part of more than that of the funding. So it's not just black or white. It must be possible to or to suspend for a certain period of time or to block and to stop the funding in a proportional manner. If you have some reaches to the rule of law due to the level of the bridge and the importance of which you need to take a decision. And the third element that I've mentioned is to protect the fact that we need to protect the final beneficiaries because it's first of all, it's not a sanction to the member state. It seems to be a fault because there's a breach of the rule of law, but it's first a protection of the new budget and certainly not a sanction against the beneficiaries to give an example in the agriculture policy. We don't want to sanction the farmers. We want to sanction the fact that there's a real breach to the rule of law in one member state. So we need to ask the so-called concern member state to continue to pay the final beneficiaries. If it's not the case, we need to find a way to organize maybe a direct. It's not easier. We are thinking about that. A direct financing because again, it's a mechanism to protect the new budget and not to sanction certainly not the member state, but more than that, because there is a breach of the rule of law, certainly not the final beneficiary. And then we need to find a way to have direct financing or to have an obligation for the member state to finance the final beneficiary. But it's a legislative proposal. It's on the table of the council and the parliament. And of course, of course, it will be taken on board in the MFA discussions and it will be the result of the MFA decision. I want to explain that in all the documents that we have approved on the 27th of May at the college level, we have put such a conditionality also in the new documents about the recovery and resilience facility and all the kind of new instruments, rescue, you and others in all the different new instruments. We have put the same conditionality and so if it's possible to receive a positive reaction from the council, we'll use that. I want just to say that is the first time that we will have a real debate on it at the council level and normally we need unanimity. So of course, it will be a tough discussion. But I'm not saying that I'm confident, but I'm more confident before the crimes because again, we'll spend more money faster, with more flexibility, so there are more requests in some member states at least to have a full respect for the role of law. It's very difficult to ask to the taxpayers in one member states to be in full solidarity with another member states where there are so many bridges to the role of law. So there's maybe a more important support for that, but we will see. And if it's not on board in the final conclusions of the council, maybe on the MFF, we'll continue to defend such a proposal. It's a legislative proposal, so it's possible for the commission to continue to work on it with the parliament and the council. Wonderful. Thank you very much for this very comprehensive reply to that question. Now, if I may, I'm going to roll two questions into one here because we've had a question from George Nichealichon, who's from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Mark McNulty, both of whom want to ask about the inclusion of civil society. How will that work in the area of justice in particular? And how will you ensure that you bring in voices from NGOs and other stakeholders which are often not heard at national and at the EU level? If I may, I've said we will publish the scoreboard, the justice scoreboard in July, maybe just before, just after the next justice council at the EU level. And that's a quantitative analysis. Then the role of law with board is more a quantitative one. And so we'll see, of course, some formations, facts and figures for the scoreboard from many stakeholders. But for the role of law, we've brought in something else. We have decided in the beginning to work, of course, not only with the member states, but with all the possible members of the civil society and with all the different classical partners about the fundamental rights and role of law and human rights and democracy. And so the reason why I was maybe very short, but I've said we have started process with the member states. So I've asked the member states to appoint a contact person and we have had many meetings to prepare the discussions with the different contact persons from the different member states. We have asked the member states to send to us some remarks and comments about the sort of question that we have sent and the basis of the different chapters that we want to analyze. And so I received many questions. We said yes, but if you are working just with the member states, it's a problem because you will receive, of course, positive figures from the member states. But since the beginning, we've said no. The consultation is not only with the member states. It's possible for everybody, for all the NGOs or think tanks or organizations to take part. And so the reason why I've said we have received, of course, remarks from the member states was a sort of remarks from more than 200 stakeholders all over Europe. Classical one, like the Council of Europe, of course, of the fundamental rights agency, but also for many, many national organizations and we'll continue. And I said we have organized just now a so-called virtual country visit to Ireland and we have had contacts with the Irish authorities, of course, but also with other stakeholders in the civil society and we'll continue to work with the civil society. And the next step will be when we will publish, because it will be a report from the Commission, not from the member states. It will be a report approved by the Commission in September and then we will go to the Council and the Parliament. After that, I said I want to go to the National Parliament and maybe if we have some difficulties, we'll organize different debates with the civil society and it's possible also in Ireland to do both, to go to the Parliament with the report and to organize that with civil society. And so year after year, we'll receive more and more remarks, not only about facts and figures, to be sure that we have the correct vision of the situation on the ground, maybe to make some proposals to have a better situation in one of another member states and then to install the so-called culture of the rule of law. And that's very important. If I may, I will give an example. Due to the murder of a journalist, you have seen that we have had very difficult discussions in Malta and there were some political consequences, a change in the government at the end of the year, at the beginning of this year. And we have discussed about the way to organize some reforms of the justice system in Malta. And I've had many discussions with the former justice, the minister of justice in December and the new ones in the beginning of this year. And I've seen, I'm not saying that it would be perfect, I don't want to say that, but I've seen that it was possible for the new government to propose some new reforms, to ask to the Venice Commission to give an advice, then to go back to the Commission to see if there are some positive answers to the Venice Commission. And so we are in a process due to what? Of course, maybe due to the pressure of some international institutions and so on, but due to a real internal debate in Malta with more and more actors in the civil society, asking for some changes due to such a difficult situation after the murder of a journalist. So I'm sure that if we want to have weird changes in some parts of Europe, we need to install a real culture on the wall of law. And like we have tried to install a culture about the budget and the structure of reforms since some decades. And that will be not the only one way, very important to push pressure coming from the Open Commission, from the parliament, from many other organizations. But at the end, the best way is to receive the support of the citizens of the civil society inside the member state. And the example of Malta is very clear. It was possible to discuss in some months about huge judicial reform due to the pressure coming, of course, from outside but certainly from inside the Malta society. That's very interesting. That's great. Well, thank you very much indeed. Now, I think we might have time just to pop in. We're coming close to the end at this stage now. So thank you very much for your patience and your willingness to answer so many questions. Maybe if I can pop in just two very rapid final questions. Has the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht recently has that made life more difficult in terms of expecting compliance in relation to decisions of the European Court of Justice in the rule of law area? And also we have a question in from Pepin Gerritz of the Dutch Helsinki Committee who's asking if perhaps tools regarding the internal market, if you like some kind of sanctions regarding internal market rights might be a way also of enforcing compliance with the rule of law. So I'm sorry, that's a rather packed two, two rather packed questions but there you go. You have all of three minutes to deal with them. Not the first question about counts would be concrete. First set from the beginning, the President of Ireland have said at a saw just after the decision, the ruling, we need to protect some principles at the EU level. Of course, the monetary policy, the exclusive competence of the EU and so there's no doubts about the role of the CB and the exclusive competence of the European Union about the monetary policy through the CB. The second element is the privacy of the EU law. Of course, the third one is the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice to give an interpretation of the EU. But as a person, but I've said that for other issues, we need to have a robust analyze and solid arguments before to do something or not. And the President of the Commission have asked to the legal service. I've asked so to my DG, the DGestis, the DGestis to make such an analysis. So we have the intention to receive a very concrete analyze with solid arguments to say if it's possible to do something. And the President will decide in the near future to go back to the college to take a decision. But we want to have the same treatment from one of the other members there. It's very important to be very clear on this. We want to see what are the facts, what are the possible effects of such a decision on the EU law. And we repeat the principles. We are analyzing norms of services at the detail of the, because it's a very complicated decision. It seems to be very simple, but it's a complicated one. We need to have a precise analysis. And then the President of the Commission will decide to go back to the college to take a decision to move or not about that. About the internal market, it's very important to explain maybe very briefly the link between the independence of judiciary to give an example in the situation that we have discussed in Poland or in Hungary sometime, and the internal market. Because there are of course some consequence in the justice field. That is very clear. For example, the European S1, we have seen some member state refused by a judge to surrender some man and woman to one other member state due to a possible breach of the rule of law. So there is an influence of course in the justice system. But it's also an influence on the internal market because if you don't have an independent justice system, there is an hesitation at least for many investors to come in like we have in the trade agreements. If you are not sure that it's possible to go to an independent and qualified judges. Judge, if you have a problem with your investment in another member state, of course we have a real hesitation and we have had some remarks from different companies in the last weeks and months about that. To be concrete in the discussions in Poland, there are some remarks for the moment about the fact that if it's possible to have some difficulties with the independence of the judiciary, there are some hesitations to invest and to continue to take part. In general, of course, the primacy of the AU law and the exclusive competence of the European Court of Justice are two key elements of the internal market because if you are not able to protect those principles, you don't have an AU law and you become to have a conflict between a national law and the open one and that is impossible. There is a real primacy and with all the primacy, of course, there is a real blockage in the internal market. It's not just, if I may, about the rule of law in one country. It's a real problem for the functioning of the internal market and it's become to be more and more clear but again, thanks for maybe such a discussion today but you ask, what is possible to do with the civil society? It's maybe one of the issues. Or it's possible to explain more to the citizens, to the campaigns. How important it is to have a full respect for the rule of law because it seems to be very theoretical, independence of the justice system, yes and then, but if you explain that in some concrete cases, you need to go to justice and if you don't have in front of you an independent and qualified judge, you have a real problem and if you see that there is a link between the judge and the executive body in the country, in the member state, of course, we have more and more problems because you are not on an equal footing in the discussions and justice and that is more and more important to explain to the citizens what are the risks with a non-independent justice system and we need also to explain that more and more to the companies but I said we have received questions from different companies saying that there are many hesitations to continue to invest if you don't be sure but it's possible to have an independent response for the justice system. Thank you very much indeed. I think we ended there with some very big questions there and very big issues and stressing the importance of this whole division of practicality of it. I think that's entirely appropriate and so I'd like to thank you for your enormous willingness to engage here today with us. It's been very much appreciated. We have had other events and we'll have other events relating to the rule of law but I can honestly say that I can't recall one from which I've learned so much personally myself so it's been really wonderful and I would like to thank you for your assistance and for your willingness to be here with us. Thank you again for your invitation and while we will have the report in September because I said we are on track to go to the college in September it will be a pleasure to explain that not only in the council or in the open parliament but really at the national level and if it's possible to work with some actors in the civil society to do that it will be a pleasure to come back. Well there are many people in the room who would be very very interested I think in that invitation and I'm sure we'd be delighted to see you back in the institute at any stage. Thank you very much and thank you also to all of you who have participated with us here today. Please keep an eye on the institute's website and for further events relating to justice and I'm not very sure but from us it's a good afternoon and thank you once again.