Compromising the Rule of Law while Compromising on the Rule of Law
Some EU leaders may assert that EU money will now be brought under the rule of law given that the Conditionality Regulation is now guaranteed to pass. But they are wrong.
Articles for author: Kim Lane Scheppele
Before It’s Too Late
Dear President von der Leyen, in your recent State of the Union address, you rightly emphasized that “breaches of the rule of law cannot be tolerated.” We are sorry to say we are seeing ample evidence to the contrary.
The Schrödinger’s Advocate General
We know Brexit means Brexit but should it also mean violating EU Primary Law? Eleanor Sharpston QC, one of the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice, launched an unprecedented legal action "against the EU and her own judicial colleagues after attempts were made to sack her": The national governments of 27 EU Member States decided to terminate her appointment early. Why? Because Brexit ought to mean Brexit or so it seems.
When Will the EU Commission Act?
When can we expect the European Commission to launch an infringement action against the “muzzle law”? When will the European Commission act to sanction Polish authorities’ refusal to comply with the Court of Justice’s A. K. preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019? When will the European Commission apply for financial sanctions following Polish authorities’ public refusal to immediately and fully comply with the Court of Justice’s interim relief order of 8 April 2020 in respect of the so-called “disciplinary chamber”? When will the European Commission launch an infringement action in respect of the unlawful actions of the so-called “Constitutional Tribunal”?
Protecting Polish Judges from the Ruling Party’s “Star Chamber”
For the third time, the ECJ has intervened in the subjugation of the judiciary in member states. Its injunction against Poland's "disciplinary chamber" is an important step. But unless Ursula von der Leyen's Commission starts facing up reality, winning legal battles will not prevent losing another member state, after Hungary, to autocracy.
Open Letter to the President of the European Commission regarding Poland’s “Muzzle Law”
The current procrastination is akin to dereliction of duty: Waiting to bring infringement actions and to fail to simultaneously seek interim measures when the rule of law in a Member State is so obviously and blatantly deteriorating on an industrial scale only means that the Commission faces a far more serious and intractable problem to deal with later.
1460 Days Later: Rule of Law in Poland R.I.P. (Part II)
Writing a year ago, we warned that the situation in Poland “has deteriorated further to the point of threatening the functioning of the whole EU legal order and therefore, the future of the EU’s internal market itself.” This is no longer a mere threat but a clear and present danger. Stalling for time would be irresponsible. On current trajectory, it is only a matter of time before Poland’s rule of law default eventually triggers a knock-on process of legal disintegration.
1460 Days Later: Rule of Law in Poland R.I.P. (Part I)
On 13 January 2016, exactly four years ago today, the Commission activated its rule of law framework for the very first time with respect to Poland. This (two-part) post will highlight the main developments, primarily from the point of view of EU law, which took place in 2019.
Open Letter to the President of the European Commission
Ever since the European Commission initiated a third infringement procedure in respect to the recurrent attacks on the rule of law by Polish authorities last April, the situation has continued to seriously deteriorate. It is now upon the Commission to promptly submit to the European Court of Justice an application for interim measures in the infringement case C-791/19 Commission v Poland now pending before the Court of Justice.
The European Parliament Sidelined
When the Council adopted the first set of procedural rules governing Article 7(1) TEU hearings in July 2019, it unilaterally decided to make the Commission the proxy for the Parliament. This post will show how the Council’s differential treatment of the Commission and the Parliament as activating bodies under Article 7(1) is not compatible with EU primary law and goes against in particular the principle of institutional balance.
