CEPS欧洲政策研究中心-Rule-of-law-infringement-procedures-_8211-CEPS_25页_846kb

Summary of "Rule of law infringement procedures: A proposal to extend the EU's rule of law toolbox"

Core Content

This paper, authored by Petra Bárd and Anna Śledzińska-Simon, proposes the introduction of 'rule of law infringement procedures' as part of an expanded 'EU rule of law toolbox'. These procedures would include a fast-track and freezing component to more effectively address systemic rule of law violations in EU Member States.

The authors argue that current EU mechanisms for dealing with rule of law issues, such as infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU and Article 7 TEU, are underutilized and ineffective in combating rule of law backsliding. They highlight that such backsliding is a systemic threat to the EU legal order and is often not acknowledged by the violating governments as a breach of EU law, but rather as part of their national constitutional identity.

Main Viewpoints

• Rule of law backsliding is a unique challenge to the EU legal order, as it involves systemic erosion of democratic values and legal safeguards.
• Infringement procedures are more effective than political actions or preliminary rulings in addressing such systemic issues.
• Judicial independence is a crucial element of the rule of law and should be assessed objectively and systematically, not left to individual national courts.
• Interim measures by the CJEU should be used to halt ongoing violations that may lead to grave and irreversible harm.
• A periodic rule of law review mechanism should be established to supervise Member States and provide legitimacy to the European Commission and CJEU.

Key Information

1. The EU's Rule of Law Toolkit

• The EU currently has two main tools: Article 7 TEU (political) and Article 258 TFEU (legal).
• These are distinct procedures with different purposes and standards.
• Article 7 TEU addresses serious and persistent breaches of EU values, potentially leading to membership rights suspension.
• Article 258 TFEU is a legal route to ensure compliance with EU law and may result in financial penalties.

2. Rule of Law Infringement Procedures

• The proposed rule of law infringement procedures aim to enhance legal enforcement against systemic rule of law violations.
• They should be expedited and automatically prioritised by the CJEU.
• The European Commission should explicitly name rule of law issues and not delay legal actions when a Member State is openly violating the rule of law.
• Interim measures should be introduced to immediately halt harmful practices.
• A regular review mechanism is needed to assess the rule of law situation in Member States, using contextual analysis, objective standards, and equal treatment.

3. Examples and Context

• Box 1: Judicial independence in Poland
  Poland's legislative changes have undermined judicial independence, including the politicisation of judicial appointments and discipline systems.
• Box 2: The Celmer controversy
  The CJEU failed to adequately address judicial capture in Poland, focusing only on fair trial rights instead of the broader rule of law implications.
• Box 3: The Hungarian judicial retirement case
  The Hungarian government's change to the judicial retirement age was initially framed as an age discrimination issue, but it had systemic effects on judicial independence.

Conclusion

The authors conclude that the EU must act more decisively to address rule of law violations. The proposed rule of law infringement procedures offer a more effective and systematic approach, complementing existing legal tools and ensuring equal treatment and objective assessment of Member States. They stress the need for legal clarity, contextual analysis, and swift action to prevent further damage to the rule of law in the EU.