In the city of Brussels on 19 November Nézőpont Institute presented its analysis that examined the EU Institutions' compliance with rule of law criteria. The study identified 18 areas where the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice and the Council of the European Union not only failed to meet rule of law standards, but also extended their competences beyond the competences conferred to them in the Treaties without authorisation or applied double standards. 

Recently the issue of the rule of law – one of the founding values of the European Union, with importance equal to the others – has been the subject of increased attention, especially in relation to Member States. So far less has been said about the fact that the rule of law must also be the basis for the institutional system and the functioning of the Union itself. 

Working with experts from more than 10 institutions from 5 Member States the Nézőpont Institute analysed the rule of law situation in the EU institutions, investigating whether the leading institutions of the EU comply with their own internal rules, and therefore rule of law principles. The final product of the research was presented on an international conference co-organised by the Foundation for a Civic Hungary. On the event MEPs from the Patriots for Europe (PfE), European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the European People's Party (EPP) also spoke up. 

Nézőpont Institute identified 18 areas where some of the institutions of the EU (the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice and the Council of the European Union) violated the principles of the rule of law. The report not only analysed the compliance with these principles but also outlined some recommendations. For these recommendations see the end of the press release. 

Opening remarks were made by Ádám Kavecsánszki, Chairman of the Foundation for a Civic Hunagry. Nézőpont's report was presented by Ágoston Sámuel Mráz, CEO of Nézőpont Institute and Lili Naómi Zemplényi, the Institute's analyst. Daniel Guéguen, Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, and Patriots for Europe MEP Pascale Piera also spoke at the event. The conference was concluded with a roundtable discussion with Milan Zver (EPP), Waldemar Buda (ECR) and Paolo Borchia (PfE) participating as panellists. 

Conclusion of Nézőpont's report:

European Parliament

• According to the Treaties, the European Parliament does not nominate the President of the Commission, but the EP is seeking to do this by promoting the so-called “Spitzenkandidat” system.
• TFEU Article 346(1) states that “...no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security”, yet several committees of the European Parliament have occupied themselves with national security issues, similar to the Defence of Democracy package.
• The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, entering into force in 2024, significantly increases the possibilities for committees of inquiry, empowering them to organise fact-finding missions, conduct hearings of officials, and seek the cooperation of both national authorities and the parliaments of relevant Member States.
• Although the Treaty formally provides national parliaments the opportunity to scrutinise proposed legislation from the point of view of subsidiarity, the fact that yellow and orange card procedures are rarely launched and their high failure rate demonstrates that in reality national parliaments with direct legitimacy have negligible influence over the EU legislation.
• During the COVID pandemic, the remote operation of the European Parliament ignored a number of rules of procedure, thus necessitating retroactive declaration of the legality of the EP’s operation.
• The long list of corruption scandals affecting the European Parliament demonstrates the shortcomings of the EP’s anti-corruption rules.

European Commission

• The Legal Service of the Council of the European Union has expressed concerns about the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework, saying that “a breach of the values of the Union, including the rule of law, may be invoked against a Member State only if it acts in an area for which the Union has competence based on specific competence-setting Treaty provisions”.
• The Commission’s discretionary powers in infringement procedures jeopardise legal certainty.
• By invoking the right of free movement, the Commission would seek to circumvent the competence of Member States in the area of family law.
• The failure of both the Conference on the Future of Europe series and the European Citizens’ Initiatives demonstrates that the Commission and the institutions of the European Union cannot be held to account.
• The Commission has breached the Treaties’ requirement for the equal treatment of Member States by treating the group of countries using the euro “more equally” and allocating resources to them from the Recovery and Resilience Facility more quickly than to countries using national currencies.
• The “Pfizergate” affair and other cases of suspected corruption involving the Commission highlight the existence of abuses of power within the Commission.

Court of Justice of the European Union

• Several Member States’ constitutional courts have challenged the supremacy of European law and the EU’s unilateral extension of its powers.
• The Court of Justice’s method for allocation of cases – it is the President who assigns judges to cases – is liable to bias.
• Despite Treaty provisions, several members of the Court cannot be considered to be independent, as their careers indicate their party affiliation, and hence political bias.
• The EU process for selecting the members of the Court is opaque.

Council of the European Union

• TEU Article 4(3) states that “Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.” Therefore, the Union’s institutions have a duty to support the Member States in the performance of their tasks. This provision has clearly been breached by the Union’s institutions and leaders, as demonstrated by their attitude towards Hungary’s rotating presidency of the Council of the EU.
• Certain issues require unanimity in the European Council – for example, joint foreign and security policy. In recent times, however, EU institutions have made increasing efforts to limit Member States’ opportunity to exercise their veto right.

In the light of the findings of the report, the Research Study into the Functioning of the Rule of Law in the European Union recommends that the European Union and its Member States should:

• establish a European Union court for the determination of competences in order to investigate instances in which the EU exceeds its powers, and sanction where appropriate;
• limit the discretionary powers of the European Commission, in particular as regards infringement procedures; prohibit the launch of infringement procedures which challenge the decisions of Member States’ constitutional courts;
• ensure a broader range of opportunities and a more appropriate institutional framework for the parliaments of the Member States to monitor the work of the European Parliament and scrutinise the creation of EU legislation;
• strengthen the equality of Member States before the Treaties, together with the principle of unanimity on issues for which the Treaties require it
• limit the level of financial sanctions that can be imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union;
• and prohibit the EU institutions from making proposals to amend the Treaties - this competence shall be reserved to the Member States.

The full report can be accessed through the following links in Hungarian and English.