Articles for tag: Europäische StaatsanwaltschaftKonditionalitätKorruptionRechtsstaatlichkeit

Clash of Prosecutors

In Kroatien spielt sich ein bislang beispielloser Konflikt zwischen der kroatischen Staatsanwaltschaft und der erst 2021 eingeführten Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft (EUStA) ab, nachdem unter anderem der Gesundheitsminister, Vili Beroš, wegen eines Korruptionsskandals festgenommen wurde. Der Konflikt gipfelte in einem Schreiben an die Kommission, in dem die EUStA systematische Rechtsstaatsdefizite anprangert und sie zum Einschreiten auffordert. Insgesamt wird deutlich, dass sich die EU in Kroatien derzeit, insbesondere durch die Arbeit der EUStA, neue Legitimität erarbeitet, weil sie aktiv gegen Korruption vorgeht.

Umkämpfte Meilensteine

Am 28. August 2024 haben vier Richterverbände bekanntgegeben, dass sie Berufung gegen den Medel-Beschluss des Gerichts der Europäischen Union eingelegt haben. Das Verfahren verdient bereits deshalb Aufmerksamkeit, weil es wieder einmal das ewige Thema des Individualrechtsschutzes vor den Gerichten der Europäischen Union betrifft. Darüber hinaus – und von noch größerer Relevanz – wirft die Rechtssache wichtige, unbeantwortete materielle Fragen der Rechtsstaatskonditionalität auf. Insbesondere steht die Wirksamkeit des Instituts erneut auf dem Prüfstand – verhandelt erstmals im Kontext von NextGenerationEU.

Kein EU-Geld für Thüringen?

In Deutschland wird die Regierungsbeteiligung einer rechtsextremen Partei zumindest auf Landesebene ein immer realistischeres Szenario. In so einem Fall könnte die EU mit fast allen ihren Instrumenten auch gegen die autoritäre Regierung eines Bundeslandes vorgehen – selbst wenn sich die Bundesregierung weiter an EU-Recht hielte. Das Zurückhalten von EU-Fördergeldern wäre das effektivste Mittel der EU, um die Rechtstaatlichkeit auf regionaler Ebene zu schützen.

The Price of Equality

Israel’s long-standing debate over ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students conscription has reached a critical juncture in June 2024. The Israeli Supreme Court not only declared the absence of a legal basis for a broad and overall exemption for Yeshiva students but also introduced a remedy that I claim might be controversial: the suspension of state funding for Yeshivas whose students are subject to conscription but refuse to comply with it. This marks a significant shift in the Court’s approach to enforcing equality in military service and the rule of law.

Same, Same but Different?

The Commission’s decision to release a significant amount of EU money is a testament to some serious pitfalls in the mechanism, which governs the unblocking of frozen EU funds. To recall, Hungary’s endowments are blocked via two different channels, based on two different conditionality criteria, which have some overlapping points. Both prescribe reforms to preserve the independence of the judiciary, which according to the Commission’s justification has been successfully accomplished by Hungary.  The Commission has, however, never published a detailed plan that would attach a specific amount to be released to every sufficiently satisfied conditionality criterion. In this blog post, I showcase that the overlap between the two conditionality mechanisms and the absence of a robust ex-ante blueprint for releasing frozen funds make the unblocking process highly obscure. This lack of transparency both decreases the efficiency and robustness of conditionality, and increases the tendency for inter-institutional conflicts.

Are Hungary’s EU Funds Being Cut (or Not)?

The news about whether Hungary will receive EU funds (or not) these days is confusing. One day, we hear that the European Commission is proposing to lower the boom on Hungary by cutting a large chunk of its Cohesion Funds under the general EU budget. The next day, we hear that the Commission is nearing an agreement to approve Hungary’s Recovery Plan in order to greenlight the release of funds. Is the Commission using or surrendering its financial leverage to require that the Hungarian government honor the rule of law? Will the Hungarian government negotiate its way out of funding cuts by really loosening its autocratic grip on power, or would any reform be illusory?

With or Without Hungary

By December 2022, the Council must vote on the Commission's proposal to withdraw EU budgetary funds from Hungary under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation. Without a legal basis for its exclusion, Hungary will cast its vote on that proposal. Obviously, the participation of a Member State in a vote that decides on the consequences of its own rule of law violations seems paradoxical. There should be a general Treaty rule that prevents a Member State from voting in the Council when their own alleged misconduct is at stake.

Hungary, Poland and the “Community of Fate”

In February 2022, the ECJ delivered a ruling in cases brought by Hungary and Poland against the European Parliament and Council. Not only did the ruling uphold the regime of conditionality for the protection of the EU budget; it also entered into the domain of European constitutional identity. Instead of undermining the European commitment to the rule of law, Poland and Hungary may have inadvertently consolidated the place of rule of law in the heart of EU identity.

Will the Commission Throw the Rule of Law Away in Hungary? 

The Hungarian government is publicly saying that it is nearing a deal with the European Commission to unlock the Recovery Funds that have been withheld because the Commission has not yet approved Hungary’s plan for spending those funds.    Apparently, Hungary has agreed to four conditions that will allow the €7bn worth of grants and about €8bn in low-interest loans to be approved.  But if those are any indication of the price that the European Commission will extract for comprehensive violation of the rule of law, the European Commission is making a colossal mistake.