Annexes to COM(2019)343 - Strengthening the rule of law within the Union A blueprint for action - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2019)343 - Strengthening the rule of law within the Union A blueprint for action. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2019)343  |
| date | July 17, 2019 |
The European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights 34 will be a strong political signal of the Union’s commitment to the rule of law and of its support for the Convention and its, notably judicial, enforcement system. The Commission has stepped up work towards restarting the accession negotiations. 35
The Commission will also make cooperation with other international institutions working on rule of law issues deeper with stronger and more systematic cooperation at service level. This includes the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which works on the rule of law as part of its work on democratisation, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), where cooperation could explore the socio-economic benefits of the rule of law.
The work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the United Nations Office for Organised Crimes and Drugs, ensuring the secretariat of the Convention against Corruption, as well as the World Bank, has also contributed to the debate in the international community on the rule of law and its implications.
International organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development are working on the issue from the angle of economic development and of the importance of the rule of law to the overall business and investment climate. The European Economic and Social Committee has likewise underlined the need to give more consideration to economic aspects of the rule of law. The European Semester for economic policy coordination has taken account of the relevance of the rule of law to the business environment in its work to promote growth-enhancing structural reforms in areas such as effective justice systems and the fight against corruption – a link also recognised by the European Central Bank and European social partners, stressing the importance of the rule of law as a guarantee for European citizens, employers and workers.
The Commission intends to build on the willingness of all these actors to engage in promoting the rule of law. 36
The Commission will:
·Make full use of funding possibilities for civil society and academia supporting the strengthening of a rule of law culture, in particular among the general public and follow up on the idea of an annual rule of law event open to national stakeholders and civil society organisations.
·Strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe, including the Venice Commission and GRECO, and explore further support to it in relation to EU priorities on the rule of law.
·Reinforce cooperation with other international organisations such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
·Build on the cooperation with European judicial and other networks to promote rule of law standards, including any support that may be requested in relation to cooperation between constitutional courts.
·Develop a dedicated public communication strategy on the rule of law, including by upgrading the dedicated rule of law website to become a reference point for all relevant information.
The Commission calls on:
·The European Parliament and national parliaments to develop specific inter-parliamentary cooperation on rule of law issues, to which the Commission could contribute.
·The Council and the Member States to consider ways of promoting rule of law standards, including in the context of ongoing or upcoming Rule of Law discussions.
·Member States to strengthen promotion of the rule of law at national, regional and local level, including through education and civil society.
·Civil society organisations and social partners to continue their monitoring and their contribution to the discussion on the impact and concrete consequences of rule of law deficiencies in their respective area of responsibility.
Prevention: Cooperation and support to strengthen the rule of law at national level
The primary responsibility to ensure respect for the rule of law at national level lies with the Member States. The national judiciary, together with other national checks and balances such as constitutional courts and ombudspersons, are the first key lines of defence against attacks to the rule of law from any branch of the state. Nonetheless, the EU has a legitimate role to play in supporting national authorities and ensuring that negative developments are addressed at an early stage. The role of the EU institutions should be to facilitate cooperation and dialogue in order to prevent problems from reaching the point where a formal response is required under the Rule of Law Framework, by infringement procedures or by actions under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.
For the EU to play fully its role in this respect, EU institutions need to develop a stronger awareness and understanding of developments in the individual Member States, through dedicated monitoring, to be able to identify risks to the rule of law, develop possible solutions, and target support early on. Such monitoring should cover rule of law-related developments and reforms in Member States and help to control the sustainability and irreversibility of reforms which have been adopted as a result of EU intervention, such as infringement proceedings or the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.
To strengthen the EU’s capacity, the Commission therefore intends to deepen its monitoring of rule of law related developments in the Member States. In cooperation with Member States and the other EU institutions as necessary, it will take the form of a Rule of Law Review Cycle, which will have the following characteristics:
(I)Scope
The review cycle would cover all the different components of the rule of law, including for example systemic problems with the process for enacting laws, lack of effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts, or non-respect for the separation of powers. 37 The review would also examine the capacity of Member States to fight corruption and, where there is a connection with the application of EU law, look at issues in relation to media pluralism and elections. There is also a link to monitoring of the effective enforcement of EU law, notably the capacity of all actors playing a role in the enforcement of EU law to perform their duties: courts, prosecution services, law enforcement authorities, independent authorities, public administrations with a supervisory role, ombudsmen and human rights institutions and defenders. 38
While the monitoring would cover all Member States, it would need to be more intense in Member States where risks of regression, or particular weaknesses, have been identified. 39
(II)Sources of information
The review cycle would rely on a coherent use of existing sources of information. This would bring an increased focus on a range of areas with relevance for the rule of law. There is a need for all actors – institutional as well as from civil society – to share information and have their position heard. Many sources of information exist, including the bodies of the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as EU bodies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency. 40 This Agency, whose remit covers rule of law-relevant rights such as that to effective judicial remedy, has developed the EU Fundamental Rights Information System (EFRIS) to facilitate access to relevant existing information and reports concerning the situation in the Member States. This variety of sources of information could be better used, brought together and complemented more effectively than it is the case today. The specific forms such an enhanced monitoring could take will have to be developed, including in cooperation with national authorities and the other EU institutions, and should involve a process of continuous information gathering and dialogue with national authorities and stakeholders.
(III)Involvement of Member States and stakeholders
In addition to relying on relevant sources, the Commission will invite all Member States to engage further in a mutual exchange of information and a dialogue on rule of law related topics such as judicial reform, the fight against corruption, and the law-making process, or on measures supporting civil society and independent media as actors of the rule of law. A number of these issues are already discussed as part of the European Semester, when they are linked to key enabling factors for growth. This dialogue will be complemented by a more targeted rule of law approach, encompassing additional rule of law aspects. The regularity and intensity of the cooperation would have to be stepped up in Member States where rule of law challenges are more apparent, again with the objective of finding cooperative solutions to problems before they escalate.
On this basis, a network of national contact points in Member States should be set up for dialogue on rule of law issues. This network would build on, and could integrate, already existing contacts in the rule of law relevant areas such as networks of national contact points in the justice and anti-corruption area. 41 It would serve as a forum for discussion of horizontal issues, including as appropriate on possible developments of the EU rule of law toolbox instruments, and for sharing information and best practices. Contact persons will be focal points for bilateral dialogue with each Member State and would help to prepare and collect relevant information for the Rule of Law Report (see below). The network of national contact points could constitute a forum for early warning on rule of law related-reforms and for discussion amongst Member States.
Relevant bodies of the Council of Europe, as well as the OSCE and the OECD, and judicial networks could also be invited to share their expertise and present their views, including the European networks of the Presidents of Supreme Courts of the EU, the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU and the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary.
This process of dialogue is particularly relevant for detecting potential rule of law issues early, as an established and regular setting helps to improve understanding and minimise the risk of confrontation. The dialogue can also provide an opportunity for Member States to discuss rule of law-sensitive reforms in the preparation phase, including in light of the case law of the European Court of Justice. The standards developed by the Court can serve as a compass to flag where reforms would have to be addressed with caution (for example reforms that can have a negative – and maybe unintended – effect on the independence of magistrates or regulatory authorities). The dialogue will help to identify the possible need for requesting external support or expertise concerning specific national developments.
(IV)Annual Rule of Law Report
In order to ensure the necessary transparency and awareness, and to keep the rule of law on the political agenda of the EU, the Commission intends to publish an annual Rule of Law Report summarising the situation in the Member States. Based on the variety of the sources described above, it would provide a synthesis of significant developments in the Member States and at EU level, including the case law of the European Court of Justice, and other relevant information, such as relevant parts of the EU Justice Scoreboard and of the European Semester country reports. It would be an opportunity to report on the state of play in formal rule of law processes, as well as on the work of the EU institutions in the promotion of rule of law standards and the development of a rule of law culture. It could highlight best practices and identify recurrent problems. The review would be ring-fenced to matters of direct relevance to the rule of law in the EU.
The EU Justice Scoreboard, which provides comparative data on independence, quality and efficiency of national justice systems could itself be further developed and improved, including to better cover relevant rule of law related areas, such as in criminal and administrative justice.
The Rule of Law Report could furthermore serve to inform the dialogue with – and within – the European Parliament and the Council.
(V)Inter-institutional dialogues on the rule of law
The review cycle could help to maintain a dynamic debate and to continue improving the tools to strengthen the rule of law. It could constitute an important contribution to the work of the European Parliament and the Council, ideally in the context of a regular and coherent calendar of inter-institutional cooperation.
The European Parliament and the Council could draw on the Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Report in their own discussions and debates. As regards the Council, the review could for example inform Council discussions dedicated to the rule of law or be followed up in Council conclusions. In this context, the Commission welcomes the upcoming discussions on the Council’s approach to rule of law expected to take place under the Finnish Presidency in the second half of 2019 which, together with the ongoing discussions on a peer review mechanism, could work on relevant synergies. The Annual Rule of Law Report could also form the basis of debates in the European Parliament and in Council. The work of the institutions will be most effective if it is a joined-up process, which could also be followed up with different work by the different institutions. Other EU institutions, such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, could also contribute.
The Commission looks forward to deepening work with the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States in the coming months and does not exclude any possibility provided in by the Treaties to increase the mutual knowledge of national systems. However, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, also needs to maintain its autonomy in terms of both the content and timing of its own assessments. A recurring idea that came in the context of the rule of law debate has been to have a panel of independent experts set up outside the Commission or EU institutions, with the goal of providing expert and objective assessments on rule of law challenges, while other proposals relate to the creation of a dedicated new agency. However, such approaches raise a number of problems in terms of legitimacy, the balance of inputs and the accountability for the results. Whilst the Commission already draws on all legitimate sources of information and expertise and cross-checks the different sources of information – and will continue to do so –, external expertise cannot take the place of an assessment made by the Commission itself, particularly when the Commission’s conclusions could be the basis for acts that come with legal and financial consequences and which could be challenged at the Court of Justice. Nor can the European Parliament or the Council delegate decision-making to outside bodies. The authority and accountability of the institutions, as set in the institutional balance established by the Treaties, need to be maintained.
Finally, the Commission also calls on the European political parties to ensure that their national members pay due regard to the respect of the rule of law and follow up on the emphasis on the rule of law in their pan-European programmes. Regulation No 1141/2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations 42 requires that they observe, in particular in their programme and in their activities, the values on which the Union is founded, as expressed in Article 2 TEU. 43 In cases where the Commission has reasons to believe that respect for these values might be in doubt, it could ask the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations to verify compliance with the conditions set out in the Regulation. 44 A decision to de-register a political party or foundation could be taken, if the Authority determines that there has been a manifest and serious breach of those conditions.
The Commission will:
·Establish a Rule of Law Review Cycle to monitor the situation of the rule of law in the Member States. To support this process, the Commission will prepare an annual Rule of Law Report, further develop the EU Justice Scoreboard, and strengthen the dialogue with other EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders.
·Set up a dedicated dialogue with all Member States on rule of law relevant topics including through a network of contact persons.
The Commission calls on:
·Member States to designate their national contact points for the dialogue and exchange of information on rule of law related issues.
·The European Parliament and the Council to organise a dedicated follow-up on the Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Report and work together with the Commission on an integrated approach to bring together in a coherent manner the work of the institutions on early detection and tackling of rule of law issues.
·European political parties to ensure that their national members effectively respect the rule of law.
Response: Enforcement at EU level when national mechanisms falter
The development of the promotion and the prevention approach should make the EU much more robust and help guard against serious and persistent challenges to the rule of law in the future. The aim is that the need for response at EU level would be significantly reduced. Nevertheless, when national rule of law safeguards do not seem capable of addressing threats to the rule of law in a Member State, it is a common responsibility of the EU institutions and the Member States to take action to remedy the situation. This has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice.
In recent judgments in the context of infringement proceedings and preliminary rulings, the Court of Justice has further clarified the requirements stemming from EU law regarding the rule of law and, in particular, judicial independence. 45 The Court has re-affirmed the importance of the independence of the judiciary and the respect of the rule of law for the effective functioning of the EU: it ordered the suspension of national laws which, according to the Commission’s assessment, affect the independence of the judiciary and established that the organisation of justice by Member States is subject to compliance with EU law obligations. These decisions have added an important dimension to the rule of law processes under way at EU level, and play an important part in resolving these issues. There is also an evolving jurisprudence of the Court highlighting how systematic problems related to the rule of law may have a specific impact in the area of Union finances. 46
The Commission will further build on this case law: it is determined to bring to the Court of Justice rule of law problems affecting the application of EU law, when these problems could not be solved through the national checks and balances. Building on its existing approach to enforcement 47 and on the developing case law of the European Court of Justice, the Commission will pursue a strategic approach to infringement proceedings related to the rule of law, requesting expedited proceedings and interim measures whenever necessary. The Commission will also actively promote the standards developed in the Court of Justice case law, including by compiling the relevant findings of the Court.
As highlighted in the April Communication and in the contributions that followed, time is of the essence when addressing a potential rule of law crisis. Many rule of law challenges are time-sensitive and the longer they take to resolve, the greater risk of entrenchment and the more difficult for both the Member State and the EU to reverse the negative impact. It is thus important that the EU institutions act swiftly and have a more coherent and concerted approach and that, in particular, the formal processes of the Rule of Law Framework 48 and under Article 7 TEU come with clearer procedures and timelines.
On Article 7 TEU, the institutions should work together to intensify the collective nature of decision-making between them. The Commission welcomes the intention of the Council to agree on new procedures in respect of Article 7 hearings. This is an important step in the direction of more efficient proceedings. It would be particularly beneficial for the Council to reflect on whether the discussions in the General Affairs Council could be improved through their preparation at technical level in a Council working group. It could also be helpful to improve the decision-making process in terms of the institutional steps, with clear procedural rules. To ensure the institutional balance, the European Parliament should be given the possibility to present its case in procedures it has initiated. External ad-hoc participation of Council of Europe bodies or other external expertise could also be looked at.
The Commission will also reflect on how to further involve other institutions at an early stage of the process on the 2014 Rule of Law Framework, whilst respecting the need for confidential dialogue with the Member State concerned at the start of the procedure. 49 The main objective should always be to find solutions as early as possible. However, when this does not succeed, ensuring that the European Parliament and the Council are fully updated and can express informed views before a critical stage is reached can help find a settlement. This will be coherent with a more collective approach to the rule of law among the institutions.
A critical issue is the continued objective assessment of the situation, based on solid expertise and relevant information. The process must continue to be based on public and recognised rule of law standards. The assessment and dialogue should draw on all available sources of relevant expertise, with the Commission retaining its autonomy and independence of assessment, in line with its role as guardian of the Treaties. 50 The expertise of Council of Europe bodies or other independent bodies may be called upon by a Member State facing a rule of law procedure, not only as a means of resolving the issue, but also to demonstrate good faith and facilitate constructive dialogue. 51 The opinion of such bodies may also be requested in the absence of clearly defined parameters on a specific question.
Central to an effective EU approach on the rule of law and to the spirit of sincere cooperation is to ensure a swift de-escalation or exit perspective from the formal rule of law process, as soon as the Member State concerned has taken the steps required to restore respect for the rule of law. The EU and the other Member States need to have sufficient reassurances that the rule of law has been restored in a sustainable way. To this end, the announcement of the intention to close a procedure could be linked with support from the Commission to the Member State concerned, to ensure that commitments are effectively implemented and sustained, including through a specific follow-up monitoring. The same follow-up monitoring could also be used after the end of specific processes such as the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. 52
Alongside the formal rule of law related procedures, there may also be a need for action in specific areas of EU activity potentially affected by rule of law deficiencies in the Member States. Recent judgements of the Court of Justice have for example highlighted the impact of generalised deficiencies relating to judicial independence on the mutual trust on which instruments in the area of freedom, security and justice are based. 53
This protective approach for the functioning of the EU is also the basis of the Regulation proposed by the Commission in 2018 to ensure the protection of the EU budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in Member States. 54 Such an approach could be needed in EU policies other than the protection of EU financial interests in order to avoid or remedy specific risks to the implementation of EU law or policies. The Commission will explore the need for further measures to address the possible impact of persistent rule of law problems on other EU policies.
The protection of EU financial interests could already benefit from operational improvements. Building on actions planned in the new Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS), 55 the Commission will consider options to establish a data analysis function that pools data from different sources concerning the systems in place in the Member States for the protection of the EU financial interests. This could allow for the identification of problems in managing risks related to the EU financial interests and potentially be used to issue warnings when problematic patterns start to emerge, such as slow and limited follow-up to European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reports and, in the future, cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), or insufficient control structures at the national level. The idea would be to intervene at a very early stage and establish whether the problem is limited or reflects a pattern. This system could support the mechanism of the Commission proposal concerning general deficiencies of the rule of law system, or other procedures linked to the protection of the EU financial interests.
The Commission will:
·Make full use of its powers as guardian of the Treaties to ensure the respect of EU law requirements relating to the rule of law.
·Pursue a strategic approach to infringement proceedings, building on the developing case law of the European Court of Justice and promote the standards developed in the Court of Justice case law, including by compiling the relevant findings of the Court.
·Consider how to involve other EU institutions more regularly when implementing the 2014 Rule of Law Framework.
·Support Member States in de-escalation or exit perspective from the formal rule of law process, including with a follow-up monitoring.
·Explore by the end of 2020 whether the impact of persistent rule of law problems on the implementation of EU policies requires new mechanisms in addition to the proposed Regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget.
·Explore the possibility, building on the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, of a data analysis function to help identify problems in managing risks related to the protection of EU's financial interests. The possibility to issue warnings if necessary, when problematic patterns start to emerge, will also be explored.
The Commission calls on:
·The European Parliament and the Council to reflect on intensifying a collective approach between the institutions on Article 7 TEU procedures.
·The Council to take forward its welcomed intention to provide the Article 7 process with clearer and more stable procedural rules.
·The European Parliament and the Council to adopt rapidly the Regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States.
V. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
Upholding the rule of law is a shared responsibility of all EU institutions as well as of all Member States. All parties must assume that responsibility and play their part. In addition to the actions to be taken under this Communication, the Commission is committed to continuing the debate and taking additional action as appropriate within its own remit. The common objective must be to develop a coordinated and coherent strategic approach for the Union involving all relevant actors. Key elements of such a strategic approach include the promotion of a shared rule of law culture across the EU, an effective capacity to address problems early on through preventive measures, and a commitment for effective joint action wherever needed to contain problems when preventive measures fall short.
This Communication sets out a number of commitments and paths for reflection as part of the Commission’s proposed blueprint for action. There will be a need for a continued follow-up in cooperation with the other EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders over the coming months. The debate has revealed a wide range of positive ideas that deserve further assessment and which feed into concrete steps in the future, in addition to those taken under this Communication. The Commission invites all stakeholders to join this debate and looks forward to the dialogue with the newly elected Parliament and with the Council on a coordinated approach.
In the meantime, the Commission will continue to play its full part as guardian of the Treaties, taking appropriate and proportionate measures to uphold EU law, and will invest in strengthening the capacity of the EU in this regard. The result should be to strengthen the rule of law in the EU and to fully reflect the crucial importance of the rule of law for all EU citizens and for the EU as a whole.
(1)
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
(2)
The rule of law is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union as one of the founding values of the Union, common to the Member States.
(3)
Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union establishes an obligation for Member States to ensure effective judicial protection. As set out by the Court of Justice, the very existence of effective judicial protection ‘is of the essence of the rule of law’, Case C-72/15 Rosneft.
(4)
Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law’ of 11.3.2014, COM (2014) 158 final, and recent case law of the European Court of Justice, Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas; case C‑216/18 PPU, LM, case C-619/18, Commission v. Poland (order of 17 December 2018).
(5)
Judgment of 24 June 2019 in Case C-619/18 Commission v. Poland.
(6)
More generally, and in addition to political developments, technological or societal developments may also create new challenges to the rule of law in the years to come, for example in relation to artificial intelligence and its use in sensitive areas, such as justice systems.
(7)
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council Further strengthening the rule of law within the Union – State of play and possible next steps (COM(2019)163 final).
(8)
Ibid.
(9)
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/06/20/a-new-strategic-agenda-2019-2024/
(10)
In October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a Union-wide monitoring mechanism regarding democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights.
(11)
See for example the programme for the trio Council Presidency for the period 1 January 2019 - 30 June 2020: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14518-2018-INIT/en/pdf
(12)
For example, the Council has planned a review of its own rule of law dialogue under the Finnish Presidency in autumn 2019.
(13)
A summary of the contributions is available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice/rule-law/initiative-strengthen-rule-law-eu_en#stakeholder-contributions
(14)
Special Eurobarometer 489 – rule of law: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/special/surveyky/2235
(15)
Legality, legal certainty, equality before the law, separation of powers, prohibition of arbitrariness, penalties for corruption, and effective judicial protection by independent courts.
(16)
Case C-506/04, Wilson.
(17)
Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses; Case C-49/18, Escribano Vindel.
(18)
In terms of the composition of a judicial body and the appointment, length of service and grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members as well as of the disciplinary regime governing judges, Case C-216/18 PPU, LM and Case C-8/19 PPU, RH.
(19)
Case C-619/18 R, Commission v. Poland, order of 17 December 2018.
(20)
Case C-619/18, Commission v. Poland.
(21)
This includes preliminary rulings on the need for effective investigation of tax fraud or fraud with Union funds (see cases C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson; C-105/14, Taricco; C-42/17 M.A.S.; and C-612/15 Kolev).
(22)
See introduction and next section on prevention.
(23)
Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018, on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension of teaching, 2018/C 195/0, O.J. 7.6.2018.
(24)
See above – Section II.
(25)
The Commission proposed €641 million for the implementation of the Rights and Values programme for 2021-2027.
(26)
The Commission proposed €1.85 billion for the implementation of the Creative Europe Programme for 2021-2027, including up to €160 million for the cross sectoral strands. Its four priorities include the promotion of activities ‘enhancing a free, diverse and pluralistic media environment, quality journalism and media literacy’. One of the objectives is to provide stable funding to projects on media freedom and media pluralism.
(27)
These include Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and sectoral access to information under EU law. General national obligations also stem from the European Convention of Human Rights.
(28)
These also include judicial networks advisory bodies to the Council of Europe such as the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) and the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE).
(29)
Under the Justice Programme, the Commission gives operating grants to certain European networks in the justice area, which have framework partnership agreements with the Commission. Other networks receive funding from a variety of EU programmes and projects.
(30)
The European Commission for Democracy through Law, or Venice Commission, is an advisory body under the Council of Europe composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law.
(31)
Council Decision (EU) 2019/1086 of 18 June 2019, OJ L 171, 26.6.2019, p. 115–116.
(32)
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/eu-becomes-observer-to-anti-corruption-body-greco
(33)
Funding from a variety of EU programmes amounted to €27.5 million in commitments in 2018.
(34)
Which is provided for in Article 6(2) TEU.
(35)
In its Opinion A-2/13 of 18 December 2014 the Court of Justice ruled that a first draft Agreement was, on certain points, some of which are legally and politically complex, not compatible with the Treaties. These objections will require the Union to negotiate amendments to the draft Accession Agreement in order to allow the Union to conclude the Agreement and accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. After a reflection period, the Commission has consulted with the Council Working Group on possible solutions for the issues raised in the Opinion of the Court. These consultations have progressed well, and the Commission hopes that the conditions for a resumption of the negotiations will be met soon.
(36)
See for example the European Social Partners' statement on the rule of law of 8 May 2019.
(37)
For example, actions and public statements attacking individual judges or the judiciary as a whole would fall under this category.
(38)
The effective enforcement capacity of Member States administrations and authorities depends on key components, in particular: (i) enforcement and remedies powers, (ii) capacity/resource requirements, (iii) independence requirements, where necessary, (iv) enforcement procedures and (v) cooperation amongst authorities of different Member States.
(39)
The Rule of Law Checklist from the Venice Commission is particularly relevant in identifying specific risks and weaknesses.
(40)
In this respect, the full legitimacy and relevance of data provided by international public law organizations such as the Council of Europe and its bodies has been inter alia recognised by the Court of Justice.
(41)
It would be for the Member States to designate the contact points, which could for example be located in the public administration or judiciary. Similar structures already exist to support Commission gathering of information for the EU justice scoreboard and for dialogue with Member States on anti-corruption policies.
(42)
Regulation No 2019/493 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2019 amending Regulation No 1141/2014 as regards a verification procedure related to infringements of rules on the protection of personal data in the context of elections to the European Parliament.
(43)
Article 3(c) establishing the conditions for registration of political parties.
(44)
See Article 10(3) establishing the mechanism for verification of compliance with registration conditions and requirements.
(45)
See section III above. To be noted that, in its opinion in Case C-619/18 Commission v. Poland, the Advocate General stated that judicial proceedings can run in parallel with the 2014 Rule of Law Framework or Article 7 TEU proceedings even if addressing the same matters.
(46)
This includes preliminary rulings, including regarding article 325 TFEU, on the need for effective investigation of tax fraud or fraud with Union funds (see e.g. cases C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson; C-105/14, Taricco; C-42/17 M.A.S.; and C-612/15 Kolev).
(47)
This is in line with the more strategic approach to the Commission's enforcement actions set out in the Communication from the Commission of 2016 ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20.
(48)
Which has been recently acknowledged by the Court of Justice in its case-law as an instrument forming full part of the EU’s legal order and producing legal effects Order of the Court of 17 December 2018 in Case C-619/18 R.
(49)
The first stages of the dialogue under the rule of law framework are not public.
(50)
Notably the Council of Europe bodies issue a range of technical evaluations based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the standards it has developed. However, there is no limitation on the expertise the Commission may draw on in its assessment.
(51)
The question of whether the Commission should also directly call on the Council of Europe and its bodies to assess specific issues in Member States could also need further reflection.
(52)
The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism was set up as a transitional measure for the monitoring of judicial reform and the fight against corruption in Bulgaria and Romania at the time of their accession to the Union in 2007. Once this special mechanism ends, monitoring should continue under horizontal instruments.
(53)
Case C-216/18 PPU LM.
(54)
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States; COM/2018/324 final.
(55)
COM (2019) 196 final.