The vast majority of EU European affairs ministers, on Monday 16 September in Brussels, supported the Commission's proposal to establish an annual monitoring of respect for the rule of law, which will be accompanied by a Rule of Law Report covering all EU Member States. But they were careful to warn against the risk of duplication between the different instruments existing in the EU.
While the Commission presented a new Communication on how to strengthen the rule of law throughout the EU (see EUROPE 12298/2) last July, the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU had prepared an open debate on Monday morning on three issues. How can the EU Council use the annual Rule of Law Review Cycle proposed by the Commission in July? Should the traditional annual debate on the rule of law already held in the EU Council become a general discussion on trends in the Member States or should it continue with thematic discussions? And what place should be given to the more intergovernmental peer review mechanism suggested by Belgium and Germany?
For Luxembourg, this annual cycle should provide an opportunity for a broad overview of the functioning of the rule of law, said its representative. This cycle could provide an opportunity for discussion in the EU Council and feed into the peer review process. However, "unnecessary duplication must be avoided".
For France and its Minister, Amélie de Montchalin, it is necessary to "push the logic of this annual cycle all the way to the end", by transforming this moment "into a real meeting of the rule of law" and a "real review of the situation on the basis of the Commission's report". Synergies will then have to be found between this annual cycle and the peer review mechanism led by the Member States.
It will also be necessary to be able to rely on "legitimate" sources of information such as the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe or the GRECO, the Group of States against Corruption.
This is also the view of the Netherlands, whose representative, Minister Stef Block, argued that it was "essential" to rely on the expertise of the Venice Commission and to use "independent expertise" that could extend to the monitoring of corruption or democracy. The Dutch minister also believes that the annual thematic debates on the rule of law, organised since 2014, should become an opportunity for a general exchange on the basis of the Commission's report.
Not surprisingly, the countries currently subject to an ‘Article 7’ procedure - Poland and Hungary - but also Romania, Malta, Spain and Slovenia have expressed some reservations about these various tools, which they want to be as impartial as possible.
Poland welcomes the establishment of a "general mechanism for all Member States" in order to "avoid double standards" and can "support this mechanism, if it is impartial, objective and respects the competences provided for in the Treaty".
But the minister expressed doubts about the scope of this annual cycle and its report. "Is it just the rule of law or also corruption, the electoral process, freedom of the media?", the minister asked, concerned about the extension of the scope of this new mechanism.
For the Hungarian Minister, Judit Varga, there is confusion between the different instruments (the annual cycle and the peer review mechanism) and care must also be taken to respect the "different political and constitutional traditions of the Member States". "The rule of law does not have the same meaning in the different Member States", the minister argued, adding that only experts from the Member States should make assessments on the rule of law. As for the annual cycle proposed by the Commission, it would be tantamount to creating "institutional mistrust" instead of "mutual trust between Member States". (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)