—

having regard to Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

having regard to Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights,

—

having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),

—

having regard to the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No 34 on Article 19 of the ICCPR (Freedoms of opinion and expression),

—

having regard to Resolution 2141 (2017) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 24 January 2017 on attacks against journalists and media freedom in Europe,

—

having regard to the declaration of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers of 30 April 2014 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors,

—

having regard to the commitments of the OSCE in the fields of freedom of the media, freedom of expression and the free flow of information,

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 October 2017 on legitimate measures to protect whistle-blowers acting in the public interest when disclosing the confidential information of companies and public bodies (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2017 on the rule of law in Malta (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 on the fight against corruption and follow-up of the CRIM resolution (4),

—

having regard to the open letter of 6 March 2018 addressed by 17 media freedom organisations to the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker,

—

having regard to the statements by the Council and the Commission of 14 March 2018 on the protection of investigative journalists in Europe: the case of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová,

—

having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas respect for the rule of law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the values and principles enshrined in the EU Treaties and international human rights instruments are obligations incumbent on the Union and its Member States and must be respected;

B.

whereas Article 6(3) TEU confirms that fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR and as arising from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, constitute general principles of Union law;

C.

whereas the EU operates on the basis of the presumption of mutual trust that Member States act in conformity with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as enshrined in the ECHR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ICCPR;

D.

whereas free, independent and unhindered media constitute one of the cornerstones of a democratic society; whereas Member States have the duty to ensure that press freedom and journalists are protected on their territory;

E.

whereas the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion are indispensable conditions for the full realisation of the principles of transparency and accountability;

F.

whereas the EU and its Member States are committed to respect freedom and pluralism of the media, as well as the right to information and to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10 of the ECHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR; whereas the public watchdog functions of the media are crucial for upholding these rights and for the protection of all other fundamental rights;

G.

whereas the Union has the possibility to act in order to protect the common values on which it was founded; whereas the rule of law and fundamental rights should be applied with equal strength to all Member States;

H.

whereas the Slovak investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his partner Martina Kušnírová were found murdered in their home in Veľká Mača on 25 February 2018;

I.

whereas the right to independent and transparent access to justice is a core component of the rule of law; whereas the perpetrators of these murders, but also those of earlier cases, have yet to be brought to justice and a culture of impunity must be condemned;

J.

whereas this is the fifth case of a journalist being murdered in an EU Member State in the past ten years (5), and the second murder of an investigative journalist working on the Panama Papers in the EU following the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta in October 2017; whereas attacks on investigative journalism are crimes against the rule of law and democracy;

K.

whereas Ján Kuciak specialised in investigating large-scale tax evasion scandals, tax fraud, corruption and money laundering, and explored in his last article, published posthumously, the potential extortion of EU agricultural subsidies by the Italian mafia group ‘Ndrangheta, which may have also involved government officials close to high-level politicians;

L.

whereas the murder led to the biggest peaceful protests and street demonstrations since the Velvet Revolution of 1989, calling for justice, accountability, the rule of law, respect for media freedom and action to fight corruption; whereas the protesters and the Slovak public have shown serious distrust in the state institutions and officials, including the police; whereas trust in the state institutions has to be restored;

M.

whereas, according to the Council of Europe, abuses and crimes committed against journalists have a deeply chilling effect on freedom of expression and amplify the phenomenon of self-censorship;

N.

whereas the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project reported that personal information of Ján Kuciak might have been leaked following several freedom of information requests filed by him with Slovak state authorities; whereas he submitted a criminal complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office after being threatened by a Slovak businessman, and subsequently stated that 44 days after the submission the case was not assigned to a police officer and was closed with no witness hearing held;

O.

whereas the protection of journalists and journalistic sources, including whistle-blowers, varies between Member States and in most does not include providing effective protection against retaliation, defamation charges, threats, intimidating lawsuits or other negative consequences; whereas the inadequate protection offered by some Member States to journalists, as well as the growing hostility displayed towards them by some public figures, are substantially undermining their basic freedoms;

P.

whereas the Media Pluralism Monitor’s 2016 Country Report on Slovakia identified high levels of risk regarding political independence, primarily because local media are being funded, and are often indirectly owned, by municipalities and are exposed to potential political pressure; whereas the report also mentions existing safeguards for the protection of journalistic sources such as judicial review and legal definitions;

Q.

whereas according to the World Press Freedom Index 2017 by Reporters Without Borders, defamation is punishable in Slovakia by up to eight years’ imprisonment, the harshest penalty for this offence in the EU; whereas, however, Slovakia ranks 17th in this index;

R.

whereas the Secretary-General of Reporters Without Borders, visiting Bratislava on 2 March 2018, deplored the ‘appalling climate for journalists’ that has been sustained and even created in certain Member States by numerous European politicians, including government leaders;

S.

whereas several attacks on journalists in Slovakia have been reported since 2007 and two journalist are still missing;

T.

whereas according to the World Economic Forum (2017), Slovakia ranks 117th in terms of corruption out of 137 countries surveyed; whereas prosecutions for corruption-related offences have fallen considerably; whereas the 2018 European Semester’s country report on Slovakia states that no progress has been achieved in stepping up the fight against corruption;

U.

whereas Parliament organised a fact-finding mission to Slovakia from 7 to 9 March 2018, consisting of Members from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Budgetary Control;

V.

whereas serious concerns of NGO representatives were articulated in the mission report of Parliament’s delegation, primarily on possible conflicts of interest, such as those between the General Prosecutor’s Office and the organs which should control its activity and between the Minister of the Interior and the chief of police; whereas, in addition, the selection of top prosecutors was described as highly politicised and the lack of an independent body competent to review complaints against the police was criticised; whereas the adequacy of protection of media freedom and the transparency of media ownership were queried;

W.

whereas, when the Slovak Supreme Audit Office conducted an exercise covering all EU fund managing and intermediate authorities, only the Slovak Agriculture Paying Agency (APA) was found problematic; whereas the Audit Office passed its findings to the Slovak General Prosecutor and National Criminal Agency;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.