scholarly journals Strengthening the founding values of the EU: The potential role of the Fundamental Rights Agency

European View ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Margaritis
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

The rule of law is one of the founding values of the EU, as indicated in Article 2 TEU. This provision recognises that the rule of law is a core value, inherent to liberal democracy, and one which characterised the Union and its member states long before the formal establishment of the EU by the Maastricht Treaty. However, several member states, most notably Poland and Hungary, seem to have placed this value in jeopardy, leading EU institutions to disagree on how to combat this problem and its political consequences. The aim of this article is to propose a solution that involves a rather neglected, yet certainly competent actor, the Fundamental Rights Agency. The outcome would be twofold: on the one hand, the rule of law would be vitally strengthened; on the other, the role of the Agency would be fortified in line with its scope.

A Hard Law Approach to States Systemic Violations of Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 363-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Poiares Maduro ◽  
Benedita Menezes Queiroz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
National Level ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Eu

The rule of law is under threat in the European Union. Systemic violations of fundamental rights are affecting the rule of law, democracy, and judicial independence in some Member States and consequently the EU legal order. The level of interdependence between the Member States and the EU legal order is such that systemic violations of those principles in the Member States end up impacting on EU compliance with the same principles. Article 7 TEU did not prove, however, to be the most effective tool to face these problems due to its political nature. The EU’s intervention in the form of infringement actions to safeguard the rule of law at the national level may be a suitable action to address some these serious violations of fundamental rights. Despite of the earlier hesitation to take a bolder action in this regard, the EU Commission, after the Court of Justice’s recent decisions in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portuguese and LM, brought infringement proceedings against Poland challenging this country reforms that put into question the independence of its judiciary. The Court established its power of judicial review over the rule of law in the Member States in C-619/18 Commission v Poland. Ultimately, this decision highlighted the role of EU law in safeguarding the rule of law in its Member States, but more importantly in safeguarding the rule of law in the EU legal order as a whole.

scholarly journals Rights and Powers in the European Union: Towards a Charter that is Fully Applicable to the Member States?

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Aida TORRES PÉREZ
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This contribution will tackle a central question for the architecture of fundamental rights protection in the EU: can we envision a Charter that fully applies to the Member States, even beyond the limits of its scope of application? To improve our understanding of the boundaries of the Charter and the potential for further expansion, I will examine the legal avenues through which the CJEU has extended the scope of application of EU fundamental rights in fields of state powers. While the latent pull of citizenship towards a more expansive application of the Charter has not been fully realized, the principle of effective judicial protection (Article 19(1) TEU) has recently shown potential for protection under EU law beyond the boundaries of the Charter. As will be argued, effective judicial protection may well become a doorway for full application of the Charter to the Member States. While such an outcome might currently seem politically unsound, I contend that a progressive case-by-case expansion of the applicability of the Charter to the Member States would be welcome from the standpoint of a robust notion of the rule of law in the EU.

Domestic Infringements of the Rule of Law as a European Union Problem

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 552-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Safjan
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Communist System ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
New Type ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

In some countries of central Europe the rule of law is directly threatened by a new type of legislation based on the zeal of the political majority to establish a completely different political system than the one that was built after the collapse of the communist system. From that perspective, there is little place for the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary is threatened. This contribution discusses the multilevel dimension of the rule of law principle in the EU, issues in the context of the disrespect for the rule of law as a case of systemic deficiencies, followed by a brief discussion of the Copenhagen accession criteria. The article concludes that the rule of law principle as recognised under EU law is by no means of a merely symbolic nature, and that domestic legislation abolishing key safeguards of the rule of law can be scrutinized not only under the EU Charter of fundamental rights, where applicable, but also under the TEU. Without the solidarity of all Europeans, however, the preservation of our basic values and the future of the EU are in serious danger.

scholarly journals Pozycja i rola Komisji Europejskiej w procedurze ochrony budżetu UE w przypadku uogólnionych braków w zakresie praworządności w państwach członkowskich

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-156
Author(s):  
Karol Piwoński
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this article is to analyse the position and role of the European Commission in the procedure provided in the regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union’s budget. For this purpose the scheme of this procedure was analysed, by interpreting the relevant regulations using the dogmatic method and considering opinions of the EU institutions and views of the scholars. A comparative method has also been applied. The new position of the Commission in the procedure for protection of the EU budget has been compared with the position it plays in the existing instruments. The analysis made from the point of view of the position of individual institutions in the new procedure, although it does not allow predicting how they will be implemented. The conducted analysis demonstrates that the European Commission – an institution of Community character – has gained wide competences, and in applying them it has been given a wide range of discretion. On the one hand, the introduced regulations exemplify a new paradigm in creating mechanisms for protection of the rule of law. On the other hand, they raise doubts as to their compliance with EU law. However, they undoubtedly constitute a decisive step towards increasing the effectiveness of the EU's instruments for the rule of law protection.

scholarly journals Coronavirus Test of the European Union’s Policy on the Rule of Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-33
Author(s):  
Ákos Bence Gát
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

The issue of the rule of law has been on the European Union’s (EU) agenda since the beginning of the 2010s. The legal history of the EU shows that the EU’s approach to the topic of the rule of law underwent significant changes. Initially, the Member States called for guarantees of fundamental rights in EU institutions. This trend began to change in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the possibility of European rule of law control over Member States and the predecessor of the current Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) were introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, the idea that the EU institutions can constantly monitor the Member States in the name of the rule of law has only emerged and started dominating the European political agenda since the early 2010s. Over the last decade, the EU institutions have continuously expanded their toolkit for monitoring Member States in this regard.Following calls from some Member States and the European Parliament, in 2014 the Commission set up the new EU framework to strengthen the rule of law. In the same year, the European Council introduced an annual rule of law dialogue. In 2016, the European Parliament proposed the establishment of an annual rule of law report that monitors all Member States. At first, the European Commission was reluctant to accept this idea, but finally it introduced an annual rule of law report in 2020. However, the EU’s policy on the rule of law suffers from fundamental shortcomings, which were especially visible during the first wave of the coronavirus crisis in the spring of 2020. In the pandemic situation, it has become even more apparent that the EU’s policy on the rule of law raises a significant issue of EU institutions exceeding their competences and stands on a questionable legal basis.Criticisms formulated against Hungary during the pandemic have revealed that the EU institutions do not provide sufficient guarantees for an objective examination of the situation of the rule of law in the Member States. The situation brought about by the coronavirus has also raised a number of questions regarding the lawful functioning of EU institutions, which shows the need for a rule of law mechanism capable of verifying that the EU institutions themselves also properly respect the rule of law.

scholarly journals Drawing Red Lines with No (Significant) Bites: Why an Individual Test Is Not Appropriate in the LM Case

2021 ◽  
pp. 443-454
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Individual Test ◽  
Individual Assessment ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis contribution argues that an obligation for an executing court to conduct an individual assessment in case of systemic deficiencies of the judiciary in other Member States is not an adequate tool for ensuring the respect for the rule of law. Infringements of the independence of the judiciary require other legal mechanisms of protection than fundamental rights. Moreover, individual test is often not feasible in the European judicial area as some other acts providing for recognition of judgments in the EU do not contain the mechanisms of refusal of recognition or execution. A breach of the obligation to ensure independence of the courts should logically result in suspending the participation of a given Member State in the EU policy area at stake.

scholarly journals Suspension of EU Funds Paid to Member States Breaching the Rule of Law: Is the Commission’s Proposal Legal?

2021 ◽  
pp. 269-303
Author(s):  
Justyna Łacny
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Values ◽  
Financial Framework ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
The One ◽  
Current Rule ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe existing scale of violations of the rule of law by some Member States, including capturing judicial independence by their governments, is a relatively new phenomenon for the EU; the one for which the EU based on the EU common values (Article 2 TEU) originally was not prepared to effectively deal with. The EU reacts to current rule of law crisis by using different legal methods and instruments: it inter alia applies existing procedures (Article 7 TEU procedure and with more success general infringement procedure under Articles 258-260 TFEU) and struggles to develop new ones. This contribution is focused on the new EU legislative initiative of connecting in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021–2027 transfers of EU funds to Member States with their observance of the rule of law. Or to put it differently, this legislative initiatives would authorize the EU institutions to suspend regular transfers of EU funds to Member States that systematically breach the rule of law.

Russia and EU Countries: Partnership for Modernization

2013 ◽  
pp. 54-61
Author(s):  
T. Romanova ◽  
E. Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Normative Power ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The World ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Eu

The article examines how the normative power, which the EU puts forward as an ideological basis of its actions in the world, manifests itself in the national partnerships for modernization between Russia and EU member states. The authors demonstrate the influence of the EU’s normativity on its approach to modernization as well as the difference in the positions of its member countries. It is concluded that there is no unity in the EU’s approach to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the new classification of EU member states, which is based on their readiness to act in accordance with the Union’s concept of normative power, is offered.

Judicial independence as a precondition for mutual trust? The CJEU in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses the relationship between judicial independence and intra-European Union (EU) cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition. It focuses on the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. In our view, a lack of judicial independence needs to be addressed primarily as a rule of law problem. This implies that executing judicial authorities should freeze judicial cooperation in the event should doubts arise as to respect for the rule of law in the issuing Member State. Such a measure should stay in place until the matter is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU or a permanent mechanism for monitoring and addressing Member State compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. The Court, however, constructed the case as a possible violation of the right to a fair trial, the essence of which includes the requirement that tribunals are independent and impartial. This latter aspect could be seen as a positive step forward in the sense that the judicial test developed in the Aranyosi case now includes rule of law considerations with regard to judicial independence. However, the practical hurdles imposed by the Court on the defence in terms of proving such violations and on judicial authorities to accept them in individual cases might amount to two steps back in upholding the rule of law within the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document