Bulgaria notoriously ranks at the bottom of all judicial independence and corruption indexes in the EU, even lagging far behind Member States such as Hungary and Poland. Under the guise of implementing EU recommendations and the case-law of the European of Human Rights, a reform proposal by Bulgaria’s Ministry of Justice is about to threaten Bulgaria’s judicial independence even further.
10 days after the “Ibiza Video” scandal a vote of no confidence in the Austrian Parliament removed the Austrian government from office. While international media focused – in light of the exceptional circumstances – primarily on the “Ibiza Video” scandal, the constitutional dynamics were mostly neglected. It is therefore necessary to explain the events of the last days as well as to analyse the constitutional dynamics of the situation in Austria.
On Boris Johnson, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and other active or passive issues of constitutional truthfulness.
This piece offers a brief overview of such anticipated implications of the judgement, firstly, from the perspective of the European Union and its rule of law, and, on the other hand, from the perspective of Poland.
Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, the much anticipated judgment handed down by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights yesterday, is no ordinary judgment. It is the first time the Court has ruled in an ‘infringement procedure’ – the most serious form of political pressure that members of the Council of Europe can exert on one of their own short of expulsion from the club.
With the dust barely settled from the European elections, the horse-trading for the most important EU-level positions has begun. Much of the analysis has focused on one aspect of the election result: the fragmented European Parliament it leaves in its wake. This will be a ‘coalition’ Parliament, with the support of several pro-European groupings necessary for the EU’s legislative agenda to progress. In this sense, the result gave ammunition to those eager to dump the 2014 Spitzenkandidaten system. Another aspect of the election result, however, seems just as important.
Commission v. Poland gives the Court not only the opportunity to put ASJP into practice but also to clarify the doctrinal framework for finally addressing the developments in “backsliding” Member States under EU law. This contribution will shed some light on these two uncertainties, suggest ways of how the Court could resolve them and explore the potential repercussions for the EU legal order.
The outcome of C-619/18 Commission v Poland will affect the current rule of law discourse on three grounds: First, it might exert pressure on the Council to finally act in respect of the Art. 7(1) TEU procedure against Poland. Secondly, the prospect of pecuniary sanctions in light of an Art. 260 TFEU procedure would create an incentive for Poland to (partially) redress the situation. And lastly, the effective functioning of the preliminary ruling procedure could be endangered.
In this post, we will first summarise the situation in Romania before examining Frans Timmermans’ reaction to the latest evidence of rule of law backsliding there. This post concludes with a possible solution considering the diagnosis offered below: an infringement action based on Article 325 TFEU.
While the judgment in C-619/18 Commission v. Poland is unlikely to deliver a surprise as to the assessment of the Polish ‘reforms’, interesting issues are emerging in relation to the effects of the judgment for the Polish authorities. This piece starts from a brief discussion why the case seems lost for Poland, proceeding then to analysis whether and how the judgment should be implemented.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters