Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation
European Union regulation | |
Title | Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget |
---|---|
Made by | European Parliament and Council of the European Union |
Made under | Art. 106 TEAEC and art. 322 TFEU |
Journal reference | LI 433/1, pp. 1–10 |
History | |
Date made | 16 December 2020 |
Came into force | 11 January 2021 |
Preparative texts | |
Commission proposal | COM/2018/324 |
Current legislation |
The Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation is a regulation of the European Union and Euratom, which allows the European Commission to adopt measures, including the suspension of payment of funds from the EU budget, to member states which violate the principles of rule of law enshrined in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.[1]
Legislative background
Democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland has been a major concern for the European Union since the 2010s. In December 2017, the European Commission initiated article 7 suspension proceedings against Poland, and in September 2018, the European Parliament did the same against Hungary. The proceedings have since stalled, however, as a suspension of a member state under article 7 requires unanimity, excluding the member state concerned, and Hungary and Poland are widely expected to veto each other's suspension.[1]
As a solution to this problem, the European Commission proposed in May 2018 to link disbursements from the European Union's budget to adherence to rule of law standards by means of a regulation.[2] The European Parliament adopted a position on the Commission's proposal in April 2019, but the Council was generally wary of confronting its members from Poland and Hungary.[1]
This changed during the adoption of the 2021–2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery package in the summer of 2020. At the July 2020 European Council summit, the heads of state and government of the EU member states agreed that these funds should be tied to a conditionality regime regarding the rule of law. Germany, holding the presidency of the Council, suggested a compromise on the rule of law conditionality regulation proposed by the Commission and European Parliament in September 2020. After trilogue meetings between the Council, the European Parliament, and the Commission, a legislative draft of the regulation was published on 5 November 2020.[1]
Although the regulation could be adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, Hungary and Poland threatened to veto the Own Resources Decision, which defines how the MFF and NGEU are financed. At the European Council summit of 10 and 11 December 2020, the impasse was resolved by adopting a series of declarations on how the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation should be adopted, implemented and interpreted. This paved the way for the adoption of the regulation by the Council on 14 December 2020 and by the European Parliament on 16 December 2020.[1]
Provisions
The regulation provides for the Commission to propose measures against a member state that violates the principles of the rule of law. These measures include the suspension of payments or commitments, and a prohibition on entering into new legal commitments.[1]
In the context of the regulation, the rule of law is understood to refer to the values enshrined in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and include "the principles of legality implying a transparent, accountable, democratic and pluralistic law-making process; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness of the executive powers; effective judicial protection, including access to justice, by independent and impartial courts, also as regards fundamental rights; separation of powers; and non-discrimination and equality before the law".[3]
Article 4 of the regulation specifies that measures may only be taken if the violations of the rule of law "affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the Union budget or the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a sufficiently direct way".[3]
Implementation
The declaratory statements adopted at the European Council summit of 10 and 11 December 2020 address how the European Council views the regulation should be implemented. The legal value of these declaratory statements is disputed.[1]
According to the European Council's declaratory statements, the Commission should not only develop guidelines for the application of the regulation, but also await the outcome of legal challenges to the regulation before implementing it. Furthermore, the Commission should only apply the regulation when there are no more efficient means to protect the Union's budget.[1]
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 25 March 2021 in which it stressed "that the application of the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation cannot be subject to the adoption of guidelines", urging "the Commission to avoid any further delay in its application" and "to keep Parliament regularly informed about all ongoing investigations into breaches of the principles of the rule of law which could affect, or seriously risk affecting, the sound financial management of the Union budget in a sufficiently direct way". The European Parliament threatened to take legal action against the Commission if it would not provide such information to the European Parliament by 1 June 2021.[4][5]
On 10 June 2021, after the deadline had passed without the Commission providing the European Parliament with the necessary information, the European Parliament adopted another resolution, calling on the Commission to fulfil its obligations under the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation within two weeks, and notifying the Commission that it would start preparations for legal action against the Commission for failure to act (article 265 TFEU).[4][6] The European Commission rejected the ultimatum on 23 August 2021 with a five-page letter.[7]
Legal challenges
On 11 March 2021, Hungary and Poland separately launched legal proceedings with the European Court of Justice against the European Parliament and the Council for adopting the regulation, asking the court to annul the regulation as, according to Hungary and Poland, the regulation does not have an appropriate legal basis and that it serves to circumvent the punitive mechanism built in the Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.[8][9][10] The advocate general advised the Court to dismiss those challenges on 2 December 2021.[11][12] The ECJ ultimately dismissed both countries' complaints and ruled the regulation fully compatible with the Treaty and not exceeding the competences of the European Union; however, the court said that any suspension of funds must not only relate to the EU law violations but also have a tangible effect on jeopardising the correct implementation of the EU budget in the member state.[13][14]
Notes
- ^ a b c d e f g h Kirst 2021.
- ^ "EUR-Lex - 52018PC0324 - EN - EUR-Lex".
- ^ a b "EUR-Lex - 32020R2092 - EN - EUR-Lex".
- ^ a b "Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight".
- ^ "Texts adopted - Application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092: The Rule of Law conditionality mechanism - Thursday, 25 March 2021".
- ^ "MOTION FOR a RESOLUTION on the rule of law situation in the European Union and the application of the Conditionality Regulation 2020/2092".
- ^ "EU commission rejects MEPs' rule-of-law ultimatum".
- ^ "Poland and Hungary challenge rule-of-law tool at EU court".
- ^ "EUR-Lex - 62021CN0156 - EN - EUR-Lex".
- ^ "EUR-Lex - 62021CN0157 - EN - EUR-Lex".
- ^ Court of Justice of the European Union (2 December 2021). "Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-156/21 and Case C-157/21" (PDF). Press release. Retrieved 2 December 2021.
- ^ Bayer, Lili (2021-12-02). "EU power to cut funds over rule-of-law concerns is legal, top EU court adviser says". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-12-02.
- ^ Fleming, Sam (2022-02-16). "EU court ruling opens way for Brussels to act against Hungary and Poland". Financial Times. Retrieved 2022-02-16.
- ^ "Poland, Hungary lose legal challenge against EU rule-of-law tool". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-02-16.
References
- Kirst, Niels (2021). "Rule of Law Conditionality: The Long-awaited Step Towards a Solution of the Rule of Law Crisis in the European Union?". European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration. 6 (1): 101–110. doi:10.15166/2499-8249/454.
- v
- t
- e
- Acquis: Regulation
- Directive
- Framework Directive
- Decision
- Recommendation
- Digital Services Act
and terms
- Acquis communautaire
- Direct applicability
- Direct effect
- European labour law
- European Enforcement Order
- Gold-plating
- Four freedoms
- Home state regulation
- Indirect effect
- Incidental effect
- Minimum harmonisation
- Maximum harmonisation
- Preliminary ruling
- Precautionary principle
- Principle of legal certainty
- Recasting
- Principle of conferral
- Proportionality
- Staatenverbund
- State liability
- Subsidiarity
- Supremacy
- Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000
- Customs Regulation 1383/2003
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
- EU-Eco-regulation
- Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94
- Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1170/2011
- Customs Regulation 3295/94
- Regulation on roaming charges
- Brussels Regime
- CLP Regulation
- Regulation on Community designs
- Societas Europaea
- European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances
- Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006
- REACH
- Rome II Regulation
- Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation
- Good Clinical Practice Directive
- Data Protection Directive
- ATEX directive
- Battery Directive
- Best available technology
- Biocidal Products Directive
- Birds Directive
- Capital Requirements Directives
- Clinical Trials Directive
- Computer Programs Directive
- Conditional Access Directive
- Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC)
- Copyright Term Directive (2006/116/EC)
- Cosmetics Directive
- Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)
- Dangerous Preparations Directive
- Data Retention Directive
- Database Directive
- Database right
- Directive 2000/43/EC on Anti-discrimination
- Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
- Information Society Directive (first Copyright directive)
- Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications
- Directive on the Promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport
- Directive on the re-use of public sector information
- Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources
- End of Life Vehicles Directive
- CHP Directive
- Directive on the energy performance of buildings
- Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
- Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely
- Environmental liability directive
- European SEA Directive 2001/42/EC
- European units of measurement directives
- Habitats Directive
- Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
- Internal Market in Electricity Directive
- Landfill Directive
- Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions
- Directive on the legal protection of designs
- Markets in Financial Instruments Directive
- Measuring Instruments Directive
- Medical Devices Directive
- Posted Workers Directive
- Pressure Equipment Directive
- Rental Directive
- Resale Rights Directive
- Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive
- Satellite and Cable Directive
- Directive on services in the internal market
- Temporary and Agency Work Directive
- Trade Marks Directive
- European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products
- Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
- Universal Service Directive
- Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
- Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
- Waste Incineration Directive
- Waste framework directive
- Water Framework Directive
- Working Time Directive
- ECJ Rulings (Caselex): Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College
- Apostolides v Orams
- Bosman
- Cassis de Dijon
- Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
- Chen
- Ciarán Tobin
- Coleman v Attridge Law
- Costa v ENEL
- Factortame
- Francovich
- Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd
- Kolpak
- Microsoft Corp. v. Commission
- Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA
- Metock
- Nordsee
- Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA
- Peter Paul and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
- Procureur du Roi v Dassonville
- Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt
- Tanja Kreil
- Van Duyn v Home Office
- Van Gend en Loos
- European Union portal
- Law portal