European Commission opens debate to strengthen the rule of law in the EU, mentions Polish case

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

The European Commission has launched a reflection process on the rule of law in the EU and setting out possible avenues for future action. It outlined three pillars which could contribute to further the effective enforcement of the rule of law in the Union: better promotion, early prevention and tailored reposnse



** Below is the press relase issued by the European Commission on 3 April 2019. **

 

The Communication presented today takes stock of the available tools to monitor, assess, and protect the rule of law in the Union. It also looks back at the experience of the past years so that we can start a wider European debate on how the rule of law could be further strengthened. The past experience, in particular, points to the need for better promotion of the rule of law, early prevention of risks or breaches to the rule of law, and effective response when such issues occur in the Union.

 

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans said: “The Union’s capacity to uphold the rule of law is essential, now more than ever. First because it is an issue of fundamental values, a matter of ‘who we are’. Second, because the functioning of the EU as a whole depends on the rule of law in all member states. Now is the time to reflect together with all institutions, Member States, different authorities and stakeholders on how to defend and bolster the rule of law in the Union.”

 

In the last years, the rule of law in Europe has come under increased pressure. Common and concrete concerns were raised in debates within the Union, at international level and by civil society. It has become clear that more needs to be done to ensure that the rule of law is defended, strengthened and upheld throughout the Union. Building on the ongoing debates and past experience today’s Communication aims to start this process by setting out possible avenues for reflection on future action.

 

Possible avenues for the future

It is a common responsibility of EU institutions and all Member States to defend, strengthen, and uphold the rule of law in the Union. The Commission has already used a wide range of tools to carefully monitor, assess and respond to rule of law concerns in Member States, including the Rule of law Framework, Article 7(1) TEU procedure, infringement procedures, as well as the European Semester, the EU Justice Scoreboard or the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). Building on the experience gathered so far through all the instruments, the Commission outlines today three pillars which could contribute to further the effective enforcement of the rule of law in the Union:

 

·    Better Promotion: rule of law standards and jurisprudence are not always sufficiently known at national level. To address this, increased efforts should be geared towards better promoting knowledge of the rule of law standards and case law at national level. This could be achieved, for instance, through communication activities for the public, common EU approaches that help promote a stronger rule of law culture across institutions and professions, continued engagement with the Council of Europe, and participation of civil society at the regional and local levels.

 

·    Early prevention: While the prime responsibility to ensure respect for the rule of law at national level lies with the Member States, the EU can offer important support to build resilience of key systems and institutions. Regular cooperation and dialogue could contribute to a deeper understanding of the rule of law situation and developments in Member States and could contribute to the early resolution of any rule of law issues.

 

·    Tailored response: A diversity of rule of law challenges requires a diversity of effective responses. The Commission will continue to ensure the correct application of the EU law via infringement procedures. Different approaches may also be appropriate in specific policy areas such as the Commission’s proposal on the protection of EU’s financial interest. In addition, some refinement to the existing Rule of Law Framework could be explored, including early information to and support from the European Parliament and the Council, as well as clear timelines for the duration of dialogues.

 

Next Steps

The Commission now invites the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, and the Member States as well as relevant stakeholders, including judicial networks and civil society, to reflect on the issues presented in today’s Communication and contribute with concrete ideas on how the rule of law toolbox could be enhanced in the future.

 

Building on this reflection process and the ongoing debate, the Commission will return to this issue with its own conclusions and proposals in June 2019.

 

Background

The rule of law is one of the common values upon which the European Union is founded and embraced by all Member States. It is enshrined as such in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. It is also essential for the functioning of the EU as a whole, for example with regard to the Internal Market, cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, and ensuring that national judges who are also ‘EU judges’ can fulfil their role in ensuring the application of EU law and can properly interact with the Court of Justice of the EU in the context of preliminary ruling procedures. The European Commission, together with other institutions and the Member States, is responsible under the Treaties, for guaranteeing the rule of law as a fundamental value of our Union and making sure that EU law, values and principles are respected.

 

The Commission has a wide range of tools to carefully monitor, assess, and respond to the rule of law issues in Member States, among others infringement procedures, the European Semester, the EU Justice Scoreboard or the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). On 11 March 2014, the European Commission adopted a new Framework for addressing systemic threats to the Rule of Law in any of the EU’s Member States. The Framework establishes a tool allowing the Commission to enter into a staged dialogue with the Member State concerned to prevent the escalation of systemic threats to the rule of law. The most emblematic, yet exceptional, tool for defending the Rule of Law is the procedure of Article 7 TEU, which allows the EU to act in case of a serious breach of rule of law in a Member State. The Article 7 TEU procedure was triggered in two cases so far: in December 2017 in case of Poland (by the Commission) and in September 2018 in the case of Hungary (by the European Parliament).

 

On 3 April the Commission has also launched an infringement procedure by sending a Letter of Formal Notice to Poland regarding the new disciplinary regime for judges (full press release here).



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

April 15, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy