Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00Dámy a páni, prajem vám príjemné popoludnie a vítam vás na tejto tlačovej konferencii,
00:06ktorú organizujeme pri príležitosti delegácie, ktorá navštívila Slovensko,
00:12Delegácie monitorovacej skupiny pre demokraciu, rád a základné práva,
00:16Výboru európskeho občianskej slobody, spravodlivosť a vnútorné veci.
00:21Chcel by som taktiež privítať predsedu Výboru pre občianskej slobody,
00:25pána Zarzalechosa, a taktiež predsedničku monitorovacej skupiny,
00:30pani poslankyňu Vilmes. A momentálne by som chcel dať slovo pánovi Zarzalechosovi.
00:35Mr. Zarzalechos, the floor is yours.
00:37Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for your presence here in this press conference,
00:42which marks the end of a mission to Slovak, mission of the monitoring group
00:50on democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights
00:55within the Liber Committee of the European Parliament.
01:00Let me start by saying that we have spent two days in Bratislava,
01:07a really beautiful city that we have been unable to enjoy, unfortunately,
01:16because of the busy schedule that we have had.
01:20we have made the most of, I would say, every minute of our stay here,
01:25and we have held over 15 meetings with different stat holders.
01:31So let me start by thanking the Office of the European Parliament in Bratislava
01:40for putting together this program,
01:44and, obviously, to thank all our interlocutors,
01:48starting with the Slovak government headed by Prime Minister Fico,
01:55whom we met yesterday,
01:57but also the Prosecutor's Office,
01:59the Council for Judiciary,
02:01where we met this morning two representatives of two of the committees of the Council,
02:13but also civil society organizations, media organizations,
02:18representatives of minorities,
02:21the Ombudsman, and the Supreme Court.
02:23they all have provided with very valuable information for the purpose of the mission.
02:32Well, democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights are, I mean, cornerstones of the European Union.
02:39in Article 2 of the treaty,
02:43and they are the co-competence of the LIBE committee in which the monitoring group was set up.
02:53The main issues that we have been discussing with Slovak authorities and other stakeholders
03:00relates to the fight against corruption.
03:04Let me remind you that, at the moment,
03:07we are in the final stages of the discussion of a new directive on anti-corruption measures
03:15that would include new definition and new sentencing brackets for offenses related to corruption,
03:24but also the fight against organized crime in general.
03:27Organized crime is on the rise in the European Union is a real challenge,
03:33as showed by the latest report on organized crime produced by Europol,
03:39and the internal security strategy that was presented by Commissioner Magnus Brunner
03:45into the parliament.
03:48But also, there were issues about the independence of the judiciary, media freedom,
03:55the status of the prosecution office, and, I mean, also the protection of pluralism
04:02and civil society organization.
04:07So as you know, the European Parliament raised concerns about some of the initiatives
04:15and legal reforms introduced by the current Slovak government.
04:23We are happy to see that there's been a willingness to engage with the Commission on the drafting
04:32of these legal initiatives, and that has rendered positive results.
04:40And that means at least three things.
04:42First, that our concerns were not unfounded.
04:46Second, that the dialogue and the engagement with the European Commission on the Islamic authorities
04:52has rendered positive fruits.
04:55And third, that this process of engagement needs to be continued with regard to existing challenges
05:04and issues that have to be tackled both at European and at national level.
05:16I think it's also important to remind that in July there will be published the annual report
05:27on rule of law produced by the Commission.
05:30And that is a very important instrument for the purpose of the Liberal Committee and the monitoring group.
05:42We have had a series of very frank, open, sincere, and respectful exchanges with all the stakeholders,
05:52and I would reiterate our appreciation of that.
05:56And now let me pass the floor to Mrs. Sophie Vilmes, the Chair of the Monitoring Group on Democracy, Rule of Law, and Fundamental Rights.
06:08Thank you, Mr. Sarselejos, Chair of LIBE Committee.
06:13Good afternoon, everybody.
06:15It's a pleasure to be here in front of you in Slovakia, as it has been said,
06:20but also in front of you to give us or give you an idea of the findings and the discussion that were held.
06:30First of all, maybe the base of this mission.
06:33This mission is under the group of DRFMG.
06:36What is DRFMG?
06:38DRFMG stands for Democracy, Rule of Law, and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group.
06:45When I insist on the fact that it is a monitoring group, it's because there is no way and no idea for us from the European Parliament to exercise any control from the DRFMG.
06:58We are here to monitor the situation, and we are mandated to do so, and to report back to the European Parliament, which we are going to do.
07:08So the story with this mission actually started in January.
07:13In January, we had already the opportunity to exchange with members of different ministries,
07:19Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior at DRFMG.
07:23They took the time to come to us, like a lot of other countries.
07:27We are not only in DRFMG studying Slovakia.
07:31We are doing that with other countries, and they took the time to come and answer the question of the Parliament, for which I say thank you.
07:38The second point that I would like to raise is that this is the first mission of this parliamentary legislation organized,
07:47and we have decided to do it in Slovakia, the same way that the Kant Committee decided to do their first mission in Slovakia,
07:55which gives you an indication of the concerns that are raised at the European Parliament level, concerns, for example, for Slovakia,
08:04which has led to a resolution in January 24.
08:11So, as it was said, we met a lot of different stakeholders, we met civil society, we met judges, we met representatives of the media,
08:21we met government representatives, but also members of the parliament, whether they sit in the majority or the opposition,
08:29which gave us a pretty broad idea of the situation here.
08:33The first point that I would like to make about the atmosphere of this mission, because atmosphere in a mission is very important.
08:43It is how we perceive what's going on on the field.
08:48First of all, I have to say, like it was underlined by Mr. Sarsaleros, is that all conversation that we had,
08:56all conversation that we had, whether they were with civil society, stakeholders, member of parliament,
09:02or representative of the government to the highest level, were very constructive, interesting, and respectful conversation.
09:11And it has to be underlined because, as a matter of experience, I can tell you that it's not always the case,
09:17which shows the willingness of working with the European Parliament on a certain issue.
09:24Unfortunately, I know that the Kant Committee last week, when they came, it was probably something a little bit different,
09:30but I can only assess and attest what we have lived here so far.
09:36So, as I said before, this is a monitoring group, so the aim is not punitive, we are not a court, we are not here to judge,
09:43but of course, we are guided by our compass, and our compass are the European treaty.
09:50In our European treaties, there is Article 2, which is very important, and with which we are guiding our thought process.
10:00All discussions were all in camera, why do I say that, is that if you have specific question of who said what when,
10:08we are not going to do it, we are not going to answer specific question of who said what when,
10:13because the way we function in the DFMG are in camera.
10:17And that allows what? That allows, in fact, to be able to have really thorough conversation,
10:24because the idea is to have a better understanding of the different point of views, even if sometimes we fully disagree.
10:32Another point that I would like to say, it's a general comment about the evolution of the politics in Europe in general,
10:40is that it's very important, I believe, for the member states to be free to set up an agenda,
10:45and the political agenda following their elections, and trying to achieve the reason why they have been elected.
10:54I think it's only fair enough.
10:56But I just want to point out that being part of the European family comes with rights, but also comes with duty.
11:05And when you are part of the European family, nobody has forced you to do so,
11:10but it means that you have committed yourself to respect the treaties.
11:15One, and in the treaties, there are the famous Article 2, which I would encourage you to read again.
11:24Last point on the general atmosphere is to tell you again that we, as Parliament,
11:31an elected member of the Parliament on the European level is that, of course, we stand with European citizens,
11:39and definitely with the Slovakian citizens.
11:43This is, I think, even not necessary to say.
11:48So now the findings.
11:50The first point that I would like to raise, it's about the general climate.
11:56We saw that, whether we're speaking about the judiciary, or we speak about the media, or even the civil society,
12:05is that the rhetoric which has been used from government representatives,
12:11not only towards people from the opposition, where you could imagine that it would be a rhetoric between politicians,
12:19but the rhetoric that is being used is not only very grave as far as I'm concerned,
12:26it has used elements of words which are not accepted even in the political arena,
12:32but it also is focused sometimes towards judiciary system, which is, for example, calling judges by name when there is a decision which is not accepted.
12:46which, of course, when you are allowing this in an environment, and towards judges, for example,
12:55you would create a climate which is not favorable, which is not favorable for balance of power,
13:02which is not favorable for independence of judges.
13:06We have seen or we have heard the same from the media world.
13:11The media world is also targets from time to time from this difficult rhetoric,
13:19and I would like to point out that those rhetorics could lead also to endangering journalists,
13:25because if you allow aggressive rhetoric against journalists, you open a door to other things.
13:33doesn't mean you're responsible for other things, but you open this door.
13:36And I believe, I've been prime minister myself or minister myself in a government,
13:41that we have a responsibility towards the media, since independent media is also one of the guarantees of the democratic value.
13:51Last but not least, it can also have a chilling effect on those media,
13:56who would not dare to really go towards their investigation or towards their criticism if necessary,
14:04because it's not always necessary to critics, that's another point,
14:08which is also counterproductive for democracy points.
14:12Same goes with civil society and individual liberties.
14:17I would like now to go through three different points, which are the findings that we have had,
14:25first of all around justice.
14:28Justice, first the point that we are mentioning is that there is no national anti-corruption strategy,
14:34which we are waiting for that.
14:36So of course you all understand that I'm going to mention the reform of the criminal court.
14:42abolition of the special prosecutor office, with the delusion actually of the work between eight entities.
14:50Everybody had the opportunity to explain the why.
14:54We are definitely concerned about it, and I will explain to you why.
14:58The second point is the restructuring of the national crime agency, from NACA to Uber,
15:05with, as a matter of consequences, a leave of expertise that we have found as well in the abolition of the special prosecutor office.
15:16Is it a leave of expertise because of, for example, in the NACA case, pension or other reason,
15:25The reality remains that the lack of expertise is now felt, really, and it does have a repercussion on the quality of the whole judicial process.
15:42Statute of limitation, which has been diminished for corruption.
15:47Of course, there are big concerns about the fact that it might have led to the drop of several cases,
15:56which is always contradictory to what should be done.
16:01Article 363, that you all know, Article 363, which gives for us too much power to the prosecutor general with zero safeguard.
16:14When I say zero safeguard is that the decision can be made without external safeguard,
16:20which is a point, which is a point that has been raised through the rule of law report,
16:26a point that we have addressed many occasions, ask if there was a will to install those safeguards.
16:32Government is on the idea that it's not necessary, which is not our point of view,
16:41since when you are using the Article 363, actually, as a matter of consequences, the whole process can be slowed down.
16:51Therefore, you absolutely need to have external safeguards.
16:55Last but not least, as far as the judiciary is concerned, is the use of fast-track procedure when the reform of the criminal code was done.
17:05You understand that when you use fast-track procedure, it can be used, actually, under the law and under certain circumstances.
17:12But in this case, even the constitutional law has expressed that the fast-track procedure was not appropriate in that circumstances.
17:21And it is very important. It's just not a technicality of the Parliament. Why is it important?
17:27Because you have to give the time to the Parliament to study the documents, to see what impacts those rules have,
17:36but you also have to give the time for appropriate debate, pro-arguments and against arguments.
17:44If you don't do that, you are actually bypassing a very big aspect of democracy.
17:51So, sometimes it happens. The question that we are raising is that the fact that fast-track procedures are concerned,
18:00they are used too often.
18:04about the media now. So, as you know, we have met representatives of the media.
18:13As you know also, there are broad concerns about the transformation of the former public broadcaster,
18:20RTVS into STVR, where there is concern and discussions about the member who were dismissed and then replaced,
18:30with, as consequences, a fear of reducing editorial pluralism.
18:37It's a trend that raises, I think, legitimate fears about the shrinking space of critical journalism,
18:45the weakening of public media ability to foster open debate and diverse point of view,
18:51both essential to a healthy democracy.
18:55I go back to the safety of journalists. I've talked about it at the beginning of my talk,
19:00about what we consider to be a negative climate and rhetoric against them.
19:10It has to say that the information that we have received is that, in fact, indeed,
19:16this transformed into the reality and the objective reality of more attacks against journalists,
19:23not only, of course, from the government, I'm not speaking about that now, I'm speaking about the safety in general,
19:30the increases of SLAP, also was reporting that some journalists have really difficulty to access information
19:39or real debate with the politics in place.
19:45This is, of course, the words of the journalists when we are addressing those questions to the government.
19:51They have another way of saying, but it is true that, for us, this is raising legitimate concern.
20:01Civil society now, you will not be surprised that there will be addressed the NGO law that has been passed very recently,
20:11where it is requesting for NGOs to give, publicize the name of the donors of a certain amount.
20:21We are concerned about the fact that it gives excessive administrative burden, particularly to small organizations.
20:31But above it, above it, we are questioning the whole issue of the right of privacy.
20:37And we are wondering if this aligns with the data protection standards that we have all to follow.
20:46So, as a direct consequences of this kind of law, you might also find out that donors are less keen to make their donation,
20:58because, of course, we all have the right to privacy, we all have the right to give without being known,
21:04just because maybe some people don't want people to know what their inclinations are as far as NGO.
21:12And it could really have a strong impact on their financing.
21:17Last but not least, what's going on for the moment, the new constitutional amendment, which is now in discussion.
21:27It is not clear for us if it's going to find a majority in the parliament.
21:33I heard that discussions are made.
21:35We are not here to speak about the political consequences of it, but more the consequences on the rule of law,
21:45specifically speaking about the constitutional amendment who affirms the supremacy of Slovak law over EU law in the matter of identity, etc.
21:58We have really big question mark about its compatibility with Article 2 of the EU treaty and the principle, of course, of the premise of the EU law, which is normally the rule.
22:13So, conclusion, I'm going to conclude with an answer to a question that I received when we arrived here.
22:22Somebody asked me, is Slovakia the next Hungary?
22:25To be very honest, I cannot answer that question very definitely.
22:30But what is sure is that there are a lot of signs that we are taking, that they are taking the same path, which is worrying.
22:39And this is why the difficult, the different discussion needs to be done, because I have to remind you something.
22:47is that all those law which has passed has also been discussed with European Commission.
22:52There also has been discussed with the European Commission, which shows that there is a willingness of this government to cooperate, which we like it.
23:02Upon returning on the mission, what's next, of course, because mission, they do not float around.
23:09What is next?
23:10We will, of course, organize a DRFMG meeting, where we are going to debrief those findings.
23:19I think that it would be interesting to propose an inter-committee meeting between Libé-Cant, which was here as well, and Jury.
23:29We are considering drafting a letter to the European Commission to highlight our concern.
23:36And we will see, at the DRFMG level, if we can come back in the near future, because there was a lot of information which were not yet available,
23:47since the very fact that a lot of those reforms are new.
23:51So we need to have a little bit of time to see how they are.
23:56And, of course, the last word, like always, is a word of thank you.
24:00Thank you to all the people that we've met, member of government, representative of different stakeholders, judges, media,
24:09all the team here who have organized everything, and definitely the team of the DRFMG, which is Mr. Yurik, Mr. Fern,
24:19Mr. Fern, and definitely also the president of the Libé committee, Mr. Zarsalejos.
24:26Thank you very much.
24:28Ďakujem veľmi pekne, dámy a páni priestor, pre vaše otázky.
24:35Ďakujem veľmi pekne.
24:47So, Jan Szilhan, Czech Television.
24:50I'd like to ask about if high representatives of government and officials you've been speaking about,
24:57if they gave you any specific guarantees in terms of the concerns you presented
25:02and have been speaking about
25:03during this press conference?
25:07As I told you before,
25:09I'm not going to enter
25:11in the specific conversation
25:12with each member of the government
25:14because that would be
25:15against the rules
25:15that we are applying to ourselves
25:17when we are doing in-camera meetings.
25:20But you can imagine that,
25:22as I said, for example,
25:24for the prosecutor,
25:27special power
25:28of the reorganization
25:31of the National Crime Agency,
25:37that we had different points of view there.
25:39So guarantee of changes,
25:42certainly not
25:43because those laws have been passed
25:45and I have not heard from the government
25:48the will of changing them
25:50because as far as they are concerned,
25:51they are perfectly okay.
25:53This is not the point of view
25:54that we are sharing with them,
25:57but as far as they are concerned,
26:00they didn't show us
26:01that they were willing
26:02to backtrack on any of them.
26:06Yes, let me add something about first.
26:09The mission and the delegation
26:13of the European Parliament
26:14has had no restriction
26:16in terms of the issues that we raised
26:20or the information
26:21or the information that we ask
26:22from the government
26:24and from other interlocutors.
26:27And certainly it's only for us
26:29to decide what are the message
26:31and what we can and we want to convey to you.
26:36As Madame Wilmes point out
26:39on explaining the issues
26:42that have been raised,
26:43this is an ongoing process.
26:45So the monitoring group
26:48will have to report to the LIBE committee
26:50as it does on a regular basis.
26:53We will have to define in the debate
26:55in the LIBE committee
26:57with all political groups represented
26:59the next steps to take.
27:02But certainly, as I said,
27:04this is an ongoing process
27:05because it's not only
27:07about the legislation in itself,
27:10but also the assessment of its impact
27:13and how the situation
27:16that we have been assessing
27:17here in Bratislava
27:18is evolving in the future.
27:22Madame Wilmes has already stressed
27:25or highlighted the points
27:27on which our conversation
27:30and our meetings with stakeholders
27:33have focused.
27:36But the important thing for us
27:38is to underline this nature
27:44of permanent process
27:46of engagement with Slovak authorities,
27:51with civil society organizations,
27:53with all stakeholders
27:54in the responsibility
27:56that we have
27:57as monitoring group
27:59and as committee
28:02in the European Parliament.
28:08Rene Števánka,
28:09hlavné správy.
28:10Dobrý deň.
28:13Dovolte mi položiť dve otázky.
28:16Sú zistenia...
28:24Sú zistenia monitorovatej...
28:37...
28:39...
28:43...
28:45...
28:47...
28:49...
28:50...
28:51...
29:19Média dokonca vypnuté.
29:22A moja otázka je,
29:24prečo nebol Európskej parlament
29:25aktívny, ta listovtie v tomto obzobí
29:28vo Či Slovensko.
29:34Thank you for your question.
29:37First of all,
29:38I don't think,
29:39I have to admit that I was
29:42not a member of parliament
29:44at that time.
29:46But for the information
29:47that I could gather,
29:49the parliament was
29:52active at that time.
29:53There was a rule of law report,
29:55I imagine,
29:55and there was a visit
29:57from the DRFMG group.
29:59What I find interesting
30:00in your question,
30:02and this is a functioning
30:04that I see often
30:06when we are,
30:08you know,
30:09questioning or asking questions
30:11about the development
30:13of the rule of law
30:14in certain countries,
30:15not especially here,
30:16but in general,
30:17is that it always,
30:19questions are answered
30:21by another question
30:21on another subject.
30:23So, okay,
30:25fair game,
30:25fair enough,
30:26but the reality
30:27is that we are focusing
30:28on the development
30:29right now.
30:30Doesn't mean that
30:31what happened before,
30:32even before that,
30:33even before 20,
30:36is not relevant.
30:37Of course,
30:37it's relevant
30:38because it's part
30:39of a process,
30:39but it is not
30:41the point
30:42on which we are
30:43focusing right now,
30:44if you may
30:45excuse my frankness.
30:48This is an argument
30:50that has been
30:51put to us
30:52in several locations.
30:53I would just
30:54say that,
30:56I mean,
30:57those who miss
30:58the European Parliament
31:00in the past,
31:01I hope that we'll be
31:02happy to have
31:03the European Parliament
31:04now.
31:05Okay,
31:18maybe I would like
31:19to ask
31:20the MEP,
31:21Mr. Frohn,
31:21because you took part
31:22in both delegations,
31:24the current
31:24as well as
31:25the one from
31:26the previous week,
31:27whether you could
31:27briefly compare
31:28these two delegations
31:29in terms of
31:31atmosphere,
31:31in terms of conclusion,
31:33in terms of talks,
31:34if it's possible.
31:35Yeah,
31:36but just let me
31:37make it clear
31:39that if you're
31:40asking a question
31:41to Mr. Frohn,
31:42right,
31:43so,
31:44but you're asking
31:46a member
31:47of the committee
31:49on the mission
31:50in this case,
31:51that the mission
31:52is represented
31:53by us institutionally,
31:54from the institutional
31:55point of view.
31:56I just wanted
31:56to make it clear
31:57that.
31:59I will still
31:59give you the mic
32:00since you give me
32:01your headphones.
32:04I think,
32:05that this is
32:05a good continuity.
32:08There were
32:08two missions here.
32:10There was
32:11a few interlocutors
32:14that overlapped.
32:15That gave me
32:16the opportunity
32:17some of the questions
32:19that I asked
32:20last week
32:21and maybe
32:21didn't get
32:22or not enough
32:23of an answer
32:24to ask them again.
32:25but I think
32:26in terms of
32:27the overall
32:28feeling,
32:30I mean,
32:30the country
32:31hasn't changed
32:32in that period.
32:34It seems
32:35that the government
32:36has changed
32:37a little bit
32:38how it dealt
32:38with the two missions.
32:39My perception
32:40just from
32:41the media
32:42was that
32:43there was
32:45more confrontation
32:46with the mission
32:47last week
32:48when the main
32:48focus was
32:49on EU funds
32:51and how
32:52they're spent
32:52here in the country.
32:54This time
32:55that was different
32:56although
32:57you know,
32:58it's not a
33:00complete
33:00substantial change
33:01I would say.
33:03Restor na poslednú
33:04otázku.
33:05Ak nie,
33:09tak vám
33:10ďakujeme veľmi pekne
33:11a pre...
33:12Thank you very much.