Poland’s Extended Disciplinary System

The judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on June 5, 2023 (C-204/21) has added a new chapter to the rule of law crisis in Poland. The outcome was largely expected given the well-established jurisdiction of the ECJ on matters of the rule of law. However, a close reading of the judgment demonstrates that it recognizes the more insidious ways in which Poland has undermined judicial independence. Specifically, I argue that the ECJ's ruling paves the way for a legal response to the suppression of judicial independence through public intimidation and stigmatization of judges.

Can the Hungarian Council Presidency be Postponed – Legally?

By now, it is commonly agreed that Hungary is no longer a democracy. I will offer in this blogpost some legal underpinnings to the argument that occupying the Council presidency must rotate only among those states that are in compliance with Article 2 TEU values including the rule of law, those that are fully fledged representative democracies in line with Article 10 TEU, that have been in line with Article 49 TEU at the time of accession and never regressed.

Fast-Tracking Law Enforcement at the Expense of Fundamental Rights

Five years in the making, the EU’s e-evidence Regulation was finally adopted by the European Parliament on June 13. The Regulation will allow law enforcement authorities to directly compel online service providers operating in the EU to preserve or produce e-evidence in the context of criminal proceedings. This is achieved through applying the principle of mutual recognition to cooperation with online service providers, thereby skipping judicial control in the Member State where the service provider is established. Whilst these innovations have been lauded for facilitating access to data in cross-border cases, this blogpost will detail how the Regulation’s emphasis on speed and efficiency comes at the expense of safeguarding suspects’ fundamental rights.

SLAPPs, Daphne’s Law, and the Future of Journalism

Media freedom has many dimensions. Whereas the EMFA deals directly with media oversight bodies and the likes, the proposed anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) directive weighs into a more niche but crucially important topic: the silencing of journalists through bogus litigation. Such bogus litigation - or SLAPPS - does not intend to „win” cases but to slowly but steadily dry out journalists financially, emotionally, and socially. Currently, the Council of the European Union and the European Union Parliament are working on their proposals of the directive. It is crucial that the Commission’s proposal will not be watered down.

EMFA and its Uphill Battle for Media Freedom and Democracy in the EU

The European Media Freedom Act, primarily designed to safeguard the EU media market, can also serve as an important tool in preserving the rule of law in member states such as Hungary and Poland, that have experienced an alarming assault on media freedom and pluralism in the past decade. This contribution critically evaluates the potential of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) for addressing the ongoing issues in media freedom in Poland and Hungary.

Bulgaria’s Mafia State and the Failure of the CVM

Recent events in Bulgaria have brought the true extent of its rule of law decay to the fore. The wars between the highest-ranking prosecutors in the country, public testimonies by participants in crime syndicates implicating senior magistrates and politicians, and the brutal murders of potential witnesses against organized crime demonstrate that the line between organized crime, the judiciary, and the political apparatus is increasingly difficult to draw. In this post, I argue that the current escalation of Bulgaria’s rule of law crisis lays bare the European Commission’s continued mismanagement of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM).

Enforcing Democracy

On the 8th of June, the Commission announced the opening of an infringement procedure against Poland in relation to the so-called ‘Lex Tusk’ or ‘anti-Tusk’ law. The principle of democracy is the first alleged violation specified by the Commission, based on Articles 2 and 10 TEU. Although proposed back in 2020 by observers of the Rule of Law crisis (see here and here), using this combination of articles to protect democracy is an unprecedented step by the institution. In a way, this follows the successful actions brought against Poland based on Articles 2 and 19 TEU (with ‘successful’ referring to the Court upholding the Commission’s complaints). It also recalls similarities with the Commission’s decision to invoke Article 2 TEU as a stand-alone provision in the infringement proceedings against Hungary’s ‘anti-LGBTQ’ law. The Commission is now testing out the legal waters to see if Article 10 TEU can be the trigger for ‘democracy’ in the same way Article 19 TEU is the trigger for ‘rule of law’.

Without Enforcement, the EMFA is Dead Letter

Besides important substantive provisions, the EMFA proposal contains various mechanisms concerning the role of national regulatory authorities, the newly established European Board for Media Services (Board) and the Commission. However, this blogpost argues that the proposed tools fail to effectively improve the already available enforcement mechanisms in EU law. We offer three recommendations to improve enforcement of media law and policy in the EU, while remaining within the boundaries of the competences as established by the EU Treaties.

Why the Words „But“ and „However“ Determine the EMFA’s Legal Basis

Enacting a regulation, which is directly applicable throughout the EU, with such a focus would undoubtedly entail a far-reaching interference with the cultural sovereignty of the Member States, documented inter alia in Art. 167(4) TFEU and the Amsterdam Protocol concerning public service broadcasting. This requires a careful concretisation of existing obstacles to the internal market, their actual overcoming by the proposed rules and a consideration of cultural interests and traditions of the Member States. In its current shape, the EMFA, irrespective of its noble goal, does not meet these requirements. Therefore, most of the EMFA’s substantive rules do not solidly rest on a legal basis, making the proposal partly incompatible with Union law.

Freedom Governed by Brussels

With its EMFA proposal, the Commission is pursuing objectives that are beyond doubt: the safeguarding of plural, independent media in the Union. But no matter how noble an objective may be, it is still not a legal basis. Furthermore, European media supervision shouldonly be linked to the Commission if its oversight Board can provide independent supervision. Finally, the regulatory approach as such has to be questioned: Shall media freedom be secured through media supervision?