scholarly journals Promoting the Rule of Law in the EU Enlargement Policy: A Twofold Challenge

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leposava Ognjanoska
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 37-58
Author(s):  
Marina Matić Bošković ◽  
Jelena Kostić

The rule of law is incorporated in the EU Founding Treaties and case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU and was included as a key requirement already in 1993 Copenhagen accession criteria. The EU enlargement is not only territorial increase, but also transposition of EU acquis to third countries. Since 1993, the monitoring mechanism of the rule of law reform in the EU accession countries was enhanced, including two specific negotiation chapters, Chapter 23 – judiciary and fundamental rights and Chapter 24 – justice, freedom and security. Over the last two decades, the EU was struggling to develop an adequate mechanism in this area, from mechanism for coordination and verification, to action plans for Chapter 23, to more specific tools like perception and experience surveys of the judiciary and functional reviews. Due to the challenges to measure progress and track record in the rule of law, in February 2020 the European Commission presented the new approach to EU Enlargement that aims to push reforms forward. The intention is to make the accession negotiations more credible, predictable and dynamic and criteria for assessing reforms in the accession countries will be based on the clearer criteria and more concise EU requirements. The article examines how EU enlargement policies influenced the rule of law reforms in Western Balkan countries over the years and what could be expected from the new approach. The research hypothesis is based on the correlation between Enlargement strategy towards the Western Balkans and its impact on rule of law in countries of the mentioned region. The methodological approach applied in the assessment is based on analysis of Enlargement strategy and other EU and national documents, as well as results of the work of judicial institutions in order to provide insight into the bottlenecks of the state rule of law in Western Balkan countries and enable identification of recommendations for improvement. The authors concluded that the new methodology would improve the measurability of the achieved results in the rule of law area, however, the approach might slow down the accession process of Serbia and Montenegro as a frontrunners in the process.


2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (165) ◽  
pp. 33-53
Author(s):  
Miroslav Prokopijevic

In this paper I will try to show that the EU enlargement from 2004 is not a good economic move for eight newcomers from Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs). It is unlikely that newcomers will get larger FDI, speed up their economic growth and catch up with richer EU countries, although this was broadly advertised both academically and by the EU "propaganda for happiness." The EU subsidies, intended to offset accession costs, turn out to be useless if not damaging for acceding economies, because they change the structure of incentives. So, instead of being rewarded for accession accession countries are going to be punished twice. Firstly, by lower FDI and a persisting GDP gap. Secondly, by getting subsidies which worsen the situation. CEECs would be better off staying outside the EU and continuing to improve economic freedom and the rule of law. But even after they have acceded, there is still some space for reasonable objectives of the CEECs due to unintended consequences of the socialist enlargement design.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-100
Author(s):  
Andraž Teršek

Abstract The central objective of the post-socialist European countries which are also Member States of the EU and Council of Europe, as proclaimed and enshrined in their constitutions before their official independence, is the establishment of a democracy based on the rule of law and effective legal protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms. In this article the author explains what, in his opinion, is the main problem and why these goals are still not sufficiently achieved: the ruthless simplification of the understanding of the social function and functioning of constitutional courts, which is narrow, rigid and holistically focused primarily or exclusively on the question of whether the judges of these courts are “left or right” in purely daily-political sense, and consequently, whether constitutional court decisions are taken (described, understood) as either “left or right” in purely and shallow daily-party-political sense/manner. With nothing else between and no other foundation. The author describes such rhetoric, this kind of superficial labeling/marking, such an approach towards constitutional law-making as a matter of unbearable and unthinking simplicity, and introduces the term A Populist Monster. The reasons that have led to the problem of this kind of populism and its devastating effects on the quality and development of constitutional democracy and the rule of law are analyzed clearly and critically.


Author(s):  
Aida TORRES PÉREZ

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.


Author(s):  
T. Romanova ◽  
E. Pavlova

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-491
Author(s):  
Paul Hare

AbstractKornai's earlier works embodied the idea that state institutions formed a system with a strong tendency to reproduce itself, and hence to resist minor reforms. Thus, at the end of socialism, huge changes were needed in politics, economics, and the law to build a new system oriented towards the market-type economy, which would again be stable, self-reinforcing and self-sustaining. Transition promoted the development of new states in Eastern Europe that conformed to the Copenhagen criteria for the EU accession. Were we too hasty in thinking that we had succeeded? The new systems are not returning to the previous one, and only in a few areas have the basic norms of a market-type economy been set aside in Hungary or Poland. But concerns arise at the interface between politics, law and economics – to do with the rule of law, the nature and role of the state, and the interactions between parliament, the executive and the judiciary. Unavoidably, there is also an interesting international dimension here, represented by the shift from the Warsaw Pact and CMEA to NATO and the EU. This paper explores these issues in the light of some of Kornai's recent analysis of developments in Hungary, while also drawing on his very insightful earlier works.


Author(s):  
Maria Fanou

In its recent Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) examined the compatibility of an external judicial body, the Investment Court System (ICS) under the EU–Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), with EU law. At a time when judicial independence has arisen as one of the main challenges for the rule of law in the EU, this article discusses the Court’s findings in relation to the compatibility of the ICS with the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.


Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document