Who monitors compliance with fundamental values in EU Member States?

In 2014, the European Commission created a framework for the rule of law and the European Parliament has repeatedly proposed to extend this procedure to an Annual Monitoring Cycle on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. The insistence with which this proposal is formulated is intriguing because a similar procedure already existed in the Council of Europe for almost 30 years, under the responsibility of the Parliamentary Assembly. What are the political interests and practical considerations that underly what at first glance looks like a competition between the two European organizations?

A(nother) lost opportunity?

The October meeting of the European Council (EUCO) was its first occasion to react to the declaration by the Polish “Constitutional Tribunal” that several provisions of the Treaty on European Union are incompatible with Poland’s Constitution and consequently inapplicable to the country. The express denunciation of fundamental provisions of EU primary law by one of its members (with the support of another), while insisting on his country remaining part of the Union, is a situation the EUCO could hardly overlook. And yet, not a word about the unfolding constitutional crisis was included in the EUCO Conclusions. Various elements may explain the restraint. However, the complete muteness from the EU crisis-manager-in-chief is more questionable and may carry a disquieting message.

No Surrender to Poland

Last week, a district court in Norway took a bold step and refused surrender to Poland due to the “significant greater danger and probability” that a Polish court would not be a lawful judge. In the European battle over the independence of Polish courts, surrender of wanted persons according to the European Arrest Warrant has been a minor but important front. The Vestfold district court's ruling should be welcomed and also invites the Norwegian Supreme Court and the CJEU to change their jurisprudence on surrender to Poland.

Grinding the Orange Axe

On October 18th, 2021, the Venice Commission adopted its opinion on the Dutch childcare benefit scandal and highlighted, albeit reluctantly, several shortcomings regarding the Netherlands’ adherence to the rule of law: A lack of parliamentary scrutiny, a disrupted flow of information in bureaucratic bodies and the need for constitutional review. Despite the opinion’s inherent potential to provide a thorough substantive addition to the rule of law conversation, it fails at doing so due to its evasiveness and its hesitance to address complicated Dutch customs, such as the current caretaker cabinet.

Warum das Zwangsgeld gegen Polen die Glaubwürdigkeit der EU stärken wird

Am 27. Oktober 2021 verhängte der EuGH ein Strafgeld in Höhe von 1 Million Euro pro Tag gegen Polen, weil sich der Staat bisher konsequent geweigert hatte, die einstweiligen Anordnungen im Rahmen des jüngsten Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens zu befolgen. Dass die EU zu diesem drastischen Mittel greift, verleiht ihr im zähen Ringen um wirksame Maßnahmen gegen Polen Glaubwürdigkeit und könnte langfristig eine Abkehr von politisch ausgehandelten Sanktionen einläuten.

Pandemics without Borders?

Any future international treaty or instrument on pandemic preparedness and response should refrain from further perpetuating an understanding of international borders that is primarily based on considerations of territoriality – rather, it should ensure that borders are no longer a constitutive element determining the international community’s effort of fighting the spread of dangerous diseases.

Constitutional Review in Sight?

On 18 October, the Venice Commission published its first ever opinion on the Netherlands dealing with the Childcare Allowance Scandal. It includes a list of rather detailed recommendations for the legislator, the executive and the judicial branch, also pointing at the prohibition of constitutional review which is one of the hallmarks of the Dutch Constitution. While its conclusions are not groundbreaking, the opinion of the Venice Commission must be welcomed for highlighting the crucial connection between individual justice, proportionality and fundamental rights.

Rationalizing Supremacy

For many years, supremacy has been rationalized by the European Court of Justice and in the literature mainly with arguments relying on the effectiveness of EU law and on its necessity for resolving conflicts between Union law and the laws of the Member States. In light of the most recent supremacy-related decisions by constitutional courts in Poland and Germany, these rationalizations seem to have lost their persuasive power. Instead of relying on effectiveness or the equality of Member States, supremacy should be seen as being mainly grounded in the individual-centred non-discrimination standard anchored in Article 18 TFEU.