COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strengthening the rule of law within the Union A blueprint for action
Date: 2019-07-17
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU Member State, access to EU information, access to the courts, action programme, administrative transparency, democracy, fundamental rights, independence of the judiciary, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.7.2019  COM(2019) 343 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strengthening the rule of law within the Union              A blueprint for action  
 
 
I. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Union  is  based  on  a  set  of  shared  values,  including  fundamental  rights, 
democracy,  and  the  rule  of  law.1  These  are  the  bedrock  of  our  societies  and  common 
identity. No democracy can thrive without independent courts guaranteeing the protection of 
fundamental  rights  and  civil  liberties,  nor  without  an  active  civil  society  and  free  media 
ensuring pluralism. The rule of law is a well-established principle, well-defined in its core 
meaning.  This  core  meaning,  in  spite  of  the  different  national  identities  and  legal  systems 
and traditions that the Union is bound to respect, is the same in all Member States.2  

Under the rule of law, all public powers always act within the constraints set out by law, in 
accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of 
independent  and  impartial  courts.  The  rule  of  law  has  a  direct  impact  on  the  life  of  every 
citizen: it is a precondition for ensuring equal treatment before the law and the defence of 
individual  rights,  for  preventing  abuse  of  power  by  public  authorities  and  for  decision-
makers  to  be  held  accountable.  Respect  for  the  rule  of  law  is  also  essential  for  citizens  to 
trust public institutions. Without such trust, democratic societies cannot function. The rule of 
law covers how accountably laws are set, how fairly they are applied, and how effectively 
they  work.  As  recognised  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  and  the  European  Court  of 
Human Rights, it also covers institutional issues such as independent and impartial courts,3 
and  the  separation  of  powers  .4  Recent  rulings  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  have 
continued to underline that the rule of law is central to the EU legal order.5 

The European project relies on permanent respect of the rule of law in all Member States. It 
is  a  prerequisite  for  the  effective  application  of  EU  law  and  for  mutual  trust  between 
Member  States.  It  is  also  central  to  making  the  European  Union  work  well  as  an  area  of 
freedom,  security  and  justice  and  an  internal  market,  where  laws  apply  effectively  and 
uniformly and budgets are spent in accordance with the applicable rules. Threats to the rule 
of law therefore challenge the legal, political and economic basis of how the EU works. This 
is  why  promoting  and  upholding  the  rule  of  law  is  a  central  imperative  of  the  European 
Commission’s work as guardian of the Treaties. Deficiencies as regards respect for the rule 
of  law  in  one  Member  State  impact  other  Member  States  and  the  EU  as  a  whole,  and  the 
Union has a shared stake in resolving rule of law issues wherever they appear.  

While, in principle, all Member States are considered to respect the rule of law at all times, 
recent challenges to the rule of law in some Member States have shown that this cannot be 
taken for granted. Such challenges have triggered concern about the ability of the Union to 
address such situations. Many recent cases with resonance at EU level have centred on the 
independence  of 
judicial  process.  Other  examples  have  concerned  weakened 
constitutional courts, an increasing use of executive ordinances, or repeated attacks from one 

the 

1   Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. 
2   The rule of law is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union as one of the founding values 

of the Union, common to the Member States.  

3   Article  19  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  establishes  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  ensure 
effective  judicial  protection.  As  set  out  by  the  Court  of  Justice,  the  very  existence  of  effective  judicial 
protection ‘is of the essence of the rule of law’, Case C-72/15 Rosneft. 

4   Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘A new 
EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law’ of 11.3.2014, COM (2014) 158 final, and recent case law 
of the European Court of Justice, Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal 
de  Contas;  case  C‑ 216/18  PPU,  LM,  case  C-619/18,  Commission  v.  Poland  (order  of  17  December 
2018).  
Judgment of 24 June 2019 in Case C-619/18 Commission v. Poland. 

5  

1 

 
 
                                                           
branch of the state on another. More widely, high-level  corruption and abuse of office are 
linked  with  situations  where  political  power  is  seeking  to  override  the  rule  of  law,  while 
attempts  to  diminish  pluralism  and  weaken  essential  watchdogs  such  as  civil  society  and 
independent media are warning signs for threats to the rule of law.6 

In its Communication of 3 April 2019,7 the European Commission presented an overview of 
the current toolbox to address challenges to the rule of law within the Union and opened a 
debate  on  how  to  strengthen  it.  EU  institutions  and  bodies,  Member  States,  international 
organisations,  judicial  networks,  civil  society  and  academia  have  taken  part  in  this  debate 
and provided valuable contributions.  The importance of the rule of law and the need for a 
stronger  EU  rule  of  law  toolbox  clearly  emerged  from  this  debate.  This  echoes  a  growing 
concern for rule of law issues in the EU institutions.  

In Sibiu in May 2019, European leaders unanimously committed to ‘continue to protect our 
way of life, democracy and the rule of law’.8 The European Council has confirmed the Sibiu 
commitment  in  its  Strategic  Agenda  adopted  on  21  June  2019.9  This  calls  for  rule  of  law 
matters to  have a higher priority in the European Council and the Council. Respect  of the 
rule  of  law  has  figured  prominently  in  the  debates  in  the  European  Parliament  2014-2019 
term,10 as well as in the programmes of Council presidencies.11 It has also been an important 
theme of the 2019 European elections campaign. European political parties have started to 
consider whether parties which challenge the rule of law and common EU values should be 
excluded from the parties.  

While this debate will need to continue,12 this Communication sets out concrete actions for 
the  short  and  medium  term.  Some  actions  can  be  set  in  motion  immediately.  Others  will 
have  to  be  developed  further  as  a  key  work  strand  for  the  incoming  Commission,  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  Strengthening  the  rule  of  law  in  the  Union  is,  and 
must remain, a key objective for all. 

II.  

THE RULE OF LAW: A SHARED VALUE FOR EUROPEANS 

Since  the  April  Communication,  the  debate  on  the  rule  of  law  has  intensified.  The 
Commission  has  benefited  from  a  wide  variety  of  contributions  and  reflections.  The 
Commission  received  60  written  contributions13  from  national,  EU  and  international 
institutional  actors,  as  well  as  from  civil  society  and  academia.  The  Commission  also 

6      More  generally,  and  in  addition  to  political  developments,  technological  or  societal  developments  may 
also  create  new  challenges  to  the  rule  of  law  in  the  years  to  come,  for  example  in  relation  to  artificial 
intelligence and its use in sensitive areas, such as justice systems.  

7   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council 
Further  strengthening  the  rule  of  law  within  the  Union  –  State  of  play  and  possible  next  steps 
(COM(2019)163 final). 
Ibid. 

8  
9   https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/06/20/a-new-strategic-agenda-2019-2024/ 
10   In  October  2016,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  calling  for  a  Union-wide  monitoring 

mechanism regarding democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights. 

11   See for example the programme for the trio Council Presidency for the period 1 January 2019  - 30 June 

2020:  http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14518-2018-INIT/en/pdf 

12   For  example,  the  Council  has  planned  a  review  of  its  own  rule  of  law  dialogue  under  the  Finnish 

Presidency in autumn 2019.  

13   A  summary  of  the  contributions  is  available  here:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-

fundamental-rights/effective-justice/rule-law/initiative-strengthen-rule-law-eu_en#stakeholder-
contributions  

2 

 
 
                                                           
participated in conferences and debates at European level and in the capitals. Contributions 
emphasised the importance of the rule of law and the imperative of respecting it across the 
EU.  They  also  confirmed  the  relevance  and  complementarity  of  the  three  pillars  of 
promotion, prevention and response, set out in the April Communication. Some considered 
the  development  of  the  toolbox  as  a  priority,  whilst  others  considered  that  better 
enforcement  of  existing  tools  would  already  make  a  difference.  A  small  number  of 
contributions  questioned  the  EU  dimension  of  the  matter.  This  reflects  the  reality  that  the 
significance  of  the  rule  of  law  in  the  working  of  the  EU,  to  its  citizens  and  to  business, 
cannot be taken for granted and should be further promoted and explained. It also underlines 
the  importance  of  showing  that  EU  action  is  objective,  proportionate  and  non-
discriminatory,  and  that  a  formal  EU  response  should  only  come  into  play  when  national 
checks and balances are not working. 

In addition, in April 2019 the Commission undertook a Eurobarometer survey in all Member 
States. The results show overwhelming support for the rule of law, with limited differences 
between  Member  States.14  The  importance  of  the  key  principles  of  the  rule  of  law  were 
recognised by over 80% of citizens in all Member States.15 Other key conclusions were the 
strong  support  for  the  importance  of  media  and  civil  society  in  keeping  those  in  power 
accountable, with over 85% of Europeans considering important that media, journalists and 
civil society can operate freely and make criticisms without risk of intimidation. 

The Eurobarometer also underlined that Europeans consider it important that the rule of law 
applies throughout the EU, with 89% supporting the need for the rule of law to be respected 
in all other EU Member States.  

Europeans also called for respect for the rule of law to be improved, with again a consistent 
figure  of  over  80%  support  for  some  improvements  in  the  key  rule  of  law  principles.  The 
need  for  improvement  was  particularly  strong  in  terms  of  effective  judicial  protection, 
legality and avoiding arbitrary decisions – as well as for media freedom and civil society.  

The  consultation  following  the  April  Communication  also  reflected  the  importance  of  the 
rule of law for citizens in the willingness of many civil society organisations and academia 
to engage further in the promotion and prevention of the rule of law and to act as whistle-
blowers  when  problems  emerge.  Some  examples  of  actions  which  appeared  particularly 
interesting are the organisation of EU-wide citizen dialogues, the development of rule of law 
‘literacy’ with accessible and user-friendly sources, and open platforms to share information 
and alerts.  

III.   A  SHARED  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  ALL  MEMBER  STATES  AND  EU 

INSTITUTIONS  

The responsibility to ensure the respect of the rule of law as a common value lies primarily 
on  each  Member  State.  To  ensure  a  proper  functioning  of  their  state  is  an  internal 
constitutional responsibility, but also a responsibility with regard to the Union  and to other 
Member States. The principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) emphasises the duty 

14   Special Eurobarometer 489 – rule of law: 

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/special/
surveyky/2235 

15   Legality,  legal  certainty,  equality  before  the  law,  separation  of  powers,  prohibition  of  arbitrariness, 

penalties for corruption, and effective judicial protection by independent courts. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
of  the  Member  States  to  facilitate  the  achievement  of  the  Union’s  tasks  and  refrain  from 
measures which could  jeopardise the Union’s  objectives.  It  also underlines the duty of the 
Union and the Member States to assist each other, which means there is a responsibility on 
all  EU  institutions  to  provide  proportionate  assistance  to  Member  States  in  ensuring  the 
respect of the rule of law. 

The April Communication noted that the rule of law is also one of the principles guiding the 
EU’s external action and has become progressively more central to the EU accession process 
and  to  neighbourhood  policy.  The  European  Council's  Strategic  Agenda  confirms  that 
upholding the EU’s values should be at the heart of EU external relations. The Commission 
is already actively supporting rule of law reforms in third countries.  

Another  core  obligation  of  Member  States  is  to  guarantee  to  citizens  the  exercise  of  their 
rights,  notably  through  access  to  justice  and  fair  trial.  Article  19  TEU  entrusts  the 
responsibility for ensuring the full application of EU law in all Member States and judicial 
protection of the rights of individuals under that law to national courts and tribunals and to 
the Court of Justice. Indeed, the role of national courts and tribunals in the application of EU 
law is crucial as they are responsible in the first place for the application of EU Law and for 
initiating  the  preliminary  ruling  procedure  provided  for  in  Article  267  TFEU,  in  order  to 
secure the consistency and uniformity in the interpretation of EU law. In this regard, and as 
confirmed  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice’s  recent  case  law,  the  guarantee  for  judicial 
independence is a legal obligation at the core of the rule of law. 

Effective  judicial  protection  by  independent  courts  is  required  by  Art  19(1)  TEU  as  a 
concrete  expression  of  the  value  of  the  rule  of  law.  That  provision  lies  at  the  heart  of  a 
number  of  preliminary  references  from  national  courts  and  of  infringement  procedures 
launched  by  the  Commission  before  the  Court.  Already  in  2006,  the  Court  ruled  that  the 
notion of ‘judicial independence’ is an autonomous concept of EU law and that this implies 
that  judges  must  be  protected  against  any  external  intervention  that  could  jeopardise  their 
independent  judgment.16  This  was  followed  in  2018  and  2019  by  a  number  of  important 
judgements.  The  Court  held  that  Member  States  are  required  by  Union  law  to  ensure  that 
their courts meet the requirements of effective judicial protection, a concrete expression of 
the  rule  of  law,  and  that  the  independence  of  national  courts  is  essential  to  ensure  such 
judicial protection.17  

In  other  judgements,  the  Court  has  defined  in  further  detail  the  requirements  of  the 
guarantees  of  independence  and  impartiality,  noting  their  pivotal  importance  for  both  the 
proper  working  of  the  judicial  cooperation  system  embodied  by  the  preliminary  ruling 
mechanism  under  Article  267  TFEU  and  for  secondary  law  instruments  based  on  the 
principle  of  mutual  trust.18  The  Court  also  issued  interim  measures  to  suspend  national 
reforms that would affect judicial independence.19 More recently, the Court has established 
that  although  the  organisation  of  justice  in  the  Member  States  falls  within  national 
competence,  Member  States  must  comply  with  EU  law  obligations  when  exercising  that 
competence,  and  therefore  this  may  be  subject  to  review  by  the  Court  of  Justice20.  Other 

16   Case C-506/04, Wilson. 
17   Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses; Case C-49/18, Escribano Vindel. 
18 

In  terms  of  the  composition  of  a  judicial  body  and  the  appointment,  length  of  service  and  grounds  for 
abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members as well as of the disciplinary regime governing judges, 
Case C-216/18 PPU, LM and Case C-8/19 PPU, RH. 

19   Case C-619/18 R, Commission v. Poland, order of 17 December 2018. 
20   Case C-619/18, Commission v. Poland. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
cases  brought  by  national  courts  and  the  Commission  are  pending  before  the  Court,  and 
could lead to further important developments in the case law. 

There is also an evolving jurisprudence of the Court highlighting how systematic problems 
related to the rule of law may have a specific impact in the area of Union finances.21 

IV.   ACTIONS TO STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW 

The April Communication set out the existing toolbox to encourage and enforce the rule of 
law  in  the  EU.  Assessing  the  experience  so  far,  the  Commission  identified  avenues  to 
reinforce  this  toolbox  resting  on  three  pillars:  promoting  a  rule  of  law  culture,  preventing 
rule  of  law  problems  from  emerging  or  deepening,  and  how  best  to  mount  an  effective 
common response when a significant problem has been identified.  

It  is  important  to  recall  here  the  core  principles  underlying  EU  action  on  the  rule  of  law. 
First, there is a legitimate interest from both the EU and other Member States in the proper 
functioning of the rule of law at national level. Second, the primary responsibility to ensure 
the  rule  of  law  rests  with  each  Member  State,  and  the  first  recourse  should  always  be  to 
national redress mechanisms. Third, the EU’s role in this area must be objective and treat all 
Member  States  alike,  and  all  its  institutions  need  to  contribute  in  accordance  with  their 
respective institutional role. Finally, the objective must not  be to  impose a sanction but  to 
find a solution that protects the rule of law, with cooperation and mutual support at the core 
– without ruling out an effective, proportionate and dissuasive response as a last resort. 

Promotion: Building knowledge and a common rule of law culture 

The best guarantee for the respect of our common values is the existence of a robust political 
and legal culture supporting the rule of law in every Member State. However, it cannot be 
assumed that this is always the case. Political developments in several Member States have 
led  to  cases  where  principles  such  as  the  separation  of  powers,  loyal  cooperation  amongst 
institutions,  and  respect  for  the  opposition  or  judicial  independence  seem  to  have  been 
undermined  –  sometimes  as  the  result  of  deliberate  policy  choices.  A  lack  of  information 
and limited general public knowledge about challenges to the rule of law provide a breeding 
ground  for  such  developments.  The  Eurobarometer  survey  has  revealed  that  over  half  of 
Europeans do not feel sufficiently informed about the EU’s fundamental values.  

These gaps need to be filled with proactive actions to promote the rule of law within the EU, 
both  at  professional  level  and  in  the  general  public  at  large.  Such  actions  would  seek  to 
embed  the  rule  of  law  in  national  and  European  political  discourse,  both  through 
disseminating knowledge about, EU law requirements and standards and the importance of 
the rule of law for citizens and business, and by empowering stakeholders with an interest in 
promoting  rule  of  law  themes.  For  citizens  and  businesses  to  appreciate  the  role  and 
importance of justice systems, these need to be modern and accessible. Of key importance is 
also  the  mutual  trust  in  each  other’s  judicial  systems,  which  is  a  pre-condition  for  a  truly 
functioning Single Market. 

21   This includes preliminary rulings on the need for effective investigation of tax fraud or fraud with Union 
funds  (see  cases  C-617/10,  Åkerberg  Fransson;  C-105/14,  Taricco;  C-42/17  M.A.S.;  and  C-612/15 
Kolev). 

5 

 
 
                                                           
The  Council’s  intention  to  discuss  its  own  approach  on  the  rule  of  law  under  the  Finnish 
Presidency in autumn 2019 could bring useful improvements to the promotion of the rule of 
law amongst Member States.22  

Civil society, media, academia and Member States’ education systems can all play a part 
by  ensuring  a  place  for  the  rule  of  law  in  public  debate  and  educational  curricula.  A  key 
challenge in this regard is to foster a rule of law culture in the general public, as recognised 
in  the  Council  Recommendation  on  promoting  common  values.23  The  Commission  has 
received contributions from civil society organisations showing a willingness to deepen this 
work.24  The  Commission  will  follow  up  on  the  idea  of  a  yearly  event  on  rule  of  law  for 
dialogue with, and between, civil society organisations and policy-makers at EU level. The 
Commission  will  also  continue  to  pay  a  special  attention  to  attempts  to  pressurise  civil 
society and independent media and further support their work. Under the new Multi-Annual 
Financial Framework, even though these programmes are not specific to the rule of law, the 
Commission  has  proposed  a  stronger,  more  coherent  funding  framework  for  such  work 
under the future Rights and Values programme25 and the Creative Europe programme.26 The 
Commission  calls  on  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  swiftly  adopt  these 
programmes so that they can start on time. Furthermore, EU-funded research on the rule of 
law should continue to be encouraged, and the results of ongoing projects duly disseminated. 

Transparency  and  access  to  information  are  crucial  tools  for  civil  society  and  media  in 
the national checks and balances. Laws on transparency and access to information need to be 
effectively applied in all Member States and at EU level.27 In order to make the rule of law 
more  visible,  the  Commission  intends  to  develop  a  dedicated  communication  strategy  on 
rule of law, including to make related information accessible in all official languages and to 
clearly  explain  its  significance  for  the  Union  as  a  whole  and  for  individual  citizens  and 
businesses. 

European networks already play an important role in promoting and exchanging ideas and 
best  practices.28  Within  the  judiciary,  networks  such  as  the  European  Network  of  the 
Presidents  of  Supreme  Courts  of  the  EU,  the  Association  of  the  Councils  of  State  and 
Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU, the European Network of Councils for the 
Judiciary,  and  the  European  Training  Network  for  Judges  should  be  supported  to  further 
promote the rule of law. Commission support to all these networks should prioritise projects 
promoting  the  rule  of  law,  with  a  particular  focus  on  Member  States  facing  rule  of  law 
challenges.29  Further  cooperation between institutions in  charge of constitutional  oversight 

22   See introduction and next section on prevention. 
23   Council Recommendation of  22 May 2018, on promoting  common values, inclusive education, and the 

European dimension of teaching, 2018/C 195/0, O.J. 7.6.2018. 

24   See above – Section II. 
25   The Commission proposed €641 million for the implementation of the Rights and Values programme for 

2021-2027.  

26   The  Commission proposed €1.85 billion for the  implementation of the Creative Europe Programme  for 
2021-2027,  including  up  to  €160  million  for  the  cross  sectoral  strands.  Its  four  priorities  include  the 
promotion of activities ‘enhancing a free, diverse and pluralistic media environment, quality journalism 
and media literacy’. One of the objectives is to provide stable funding to projects on media freedom and 
media pluralism. 

27   These include Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and sectoral access to information under EU law. General 

national obligations also stem from the European Convention of Human Rights.  

28   These also include judicial networks advisory bodies to the Council of Europe such as the Consultative 
Council of European Judges (CCJE) and the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE). 
29   Under the Justice Programme, the Commission gives operating grants to certain European networks in the 
justice area, which have framework partnership agreements with the Commission. Other networks receive 
funding from a variety of EU programmes and projects.  

6 

 
 
                                                           
should  also  be  encouraged  and  supported,  including  as  regards  the  activities  of  the 
Conference  of  European  Constitutional  Courts.  The  European  Network  of  Ombudsmen 
could  also  further  its  exchange  of  experience  and  best  practices  in  promoting  good 
administration and contribute to the collection and dissemination of relevant data.  

More generally, national judiciaries have also an important role to play in promoting rule of 
law  standards.  The  participation  of  national  judicial  councils,  judges  and  prosecutors  in 
national  debates  on  judicial  reforms  is  in  itself  an  important  part  of  national  checks  and 
balances.  

National  parliaments  also  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  the  rule  of  law  in  Member  States, 
both as lawmakers and in holding the executive accountable. The European Parliament, the 
Conference  of  Parliamentary  Committees  for  Union  Affairs  of  Parliaments  of  the  EU  and 
the  Conference  of  Speakers  of  the  EU  Parliaments  could  prioritise  inter-parliamentary 
dialogue  on  rule  of  law  issues,  for  example  through  an  annual  event.  This  could  also  be 
made a theme in national parliamentary debates on EU issues. The Commission stands ready 
to  contribute  to  stimulating  such  dialogue.  Bilateral  parliamentary  exchanges  and  support, 
for  example  on  best  practices  from  the  angle  of  better  regulation  (such  as  evidence-based 
law-making  or  the  transparency  of  procedures)  or  cross-party  parliamentary  groups  on  the 
rule of law, would also bring benefits. 

The  April  Communication  highlighted  the  contribution  that  could  come  from  stepping  up 
cooperation with the work of the Council of Europe. The Memorandum of Understanding 
between  the  Council  of  Europe  and  the  European  Union  from  2007  gives  the  Council  of 
Europe a specific role as the ‘benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in 
Europe’  and  the  EU  committed  to  take  its  work  into  account.  In  full  respect  of  the 
institutional  and  political  responsibilities  of  both  institutions,  the  Commission  intends  to 
build  on  this  cooperation  and  increase  EU  participation  in  the  Council  of  Europe  bodies, 
making  cooperation  at  service  level  stronger  and  more  systematic.  The  EU  is  already  an 
active participant in the Council of Europe at many levels, including with the Commission 
as observer in the Venice Commission.30 An important additional step is for the EU to have 
observer  status  in  the  Council  of  Europe  group  of  states  against  corruption  (GRECO).  In 
agreement  with  the  Council,  the  Commission  has  taken  the  necessary  steps  to  request 
observer status,31 which was granted in July 2019.32 The EU provides significant funding for 
the Council of Europe’s activities.33  

The European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights34 will be a 
strong political signal of the Union’s commitment to the rule of law and of its support for the 
Convention and its, notably judicial, enforcement system. The Commission has stepped up 
work towards restarting the accession negotiations.35  

30   The  European  Commission  for  Democracy  through  Law,  or  Venice  Commission,  is  an  advisory  body 

under the Council of Europe composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law. 

31   Council Decision (EU) 2019/1086 of 18 June 2019, OJ L 171, 26.6.2019, p. 115–116.  
32   https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/eu-becomes-observer-to-anti-corruption-body-greco 
33   Funding from a variety of EU programmes amounted to €27.5 million in commitments in 2018.  
34   Which is provided for in Article 6(2) TEU.  
35   In its Opinion A-2/13 of 18 December 2014 the Court of Justice ruled that a first draft Agreement was, on 
certain points, some of which are legally and politically complex, not compatible with the Treaties. These 
objections will require the Union to negotiate amendments to the draft Accession Agreement in  order to 
allow the Union to conclude the Agreement and accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. 
After  a  reflection  period,  the  Commission  has  consulted  with  the  Council  Working  Group  on  possible 

7 

 
 
                                                           
The Commission will also make cooperation with other international institutions working 
on rule of law issues deeper with stronger and more systematic cooperation at service level. 
This  includes  the  Organisation  for  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe  (OSCE),  which 
works  on  the  rule  of  law  as  part  of  its  work  on  democratisation,  and  the  Organisation  for 
Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  where  cooperation  could  explore  the 
socio-economic benefits of the rule of law.  

The  work  of  the  United  Nations  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  Independence  of  Judges  and 
Lawyers  and  the  United  Nations  Office  for  Organised  Crimes  and  Drugs,  ensuring  the 
secretariat  of  the  Convention  against  Corruption,  as  well  as  the  World  Bank,  has  also 
contributed  to  the  debate  in  the  international  community  on  the  rule  of  law  and  its 
implications. 

International  organisations  such  as  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and 
Development are working on the issue from the angle of economic development and of the 
importance of the rule of law to the overall business and investment climate. The European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  has  likewise  underlined  the  need  to  give  more 
consideration to economic aspects of the rule of law. The European Semester for economic 
policy  coordination  has  taken  account  of  the  relevance  of  the  rule  of  law  to  the  business 
environment  in  its  work  to  promote  growth-enhancing  structural  reforms  in  areas  such  as 
effective  justice  systems  and  the  fight  against  corruption  –  a  link  also  recognised  by  the 
European Central Bank and European social partners, stressing the importance of the rule of 
law as a guarantee for European citizens, employers and workers.  

The  Commission  intends  to  build  on  the  willingness  of  all  these  actors  to  engage  in 
promoting the rule of law. 36 

The Commission will: 

  Make  full  use  of  funding  possibilities  for  civil  society  and  academia  supporting  the 
strengthening of a rule of law culture, in particular among the general public and follow 
up  on  the  idea  of  an  annual  rule  of  law  event  open  to  national  stakeholders  and  civil 
society organisations. 

  Strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe, including the Venice Commission 
and GRECO, and explore further support to it in relation to EU priorities on the rule of 
law. 

  Reinforce  cooperation  with  other  international  organisations  such  as  the  Organisation 
for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation 
and Development.  

  Build on the cooperation with European judicial and other networks to promote rule of 
law  standards,  including  any  support  that  may  be  requested  in  relation  to  cooperation 
between constitutional courts. 

  Develop  a  dedicated  public  communication  strategy  on  the  rule  of  law,  including  by 
upgrading the dedicated rule of law website to become a reference point for all relevant 
information. 

The Commission calls on: 

solutions for the issues raised in the Opinion of the Court. These consultations have progressed well, and 
the Commission hopes that the conditions for a resumption of the negotiations will be met soon. 

36   See for example the European Social Partners' statement on the rule of law of 8 May 2019. 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                   
  The  European  Parliament  and  national  parliaments  to  develop  specific  inter-
parliamentary  cooperation  on  rule  of  law  issues,  to  which  the  Commission  could 
contribute. 

  The  Council  and  the  Member  States  to  consider  ways  of  promoting  rule  of  law 
standards, including in the context of ongoing or upcoming Rule of Law discussions. 
  Member States to strengthen promotion of the rule of law at national, regional and local 

level, including through education and civil society.  

  Civil  society  organisations  and  social  partners  to  continue  their  monitoring  and  their 
contribution to the discussion on the impact and concrete consequences of rule of law 
deficiencies in their respective area of responsibility. 

Prevention: Cooperation and support to strengthen the rule of law at national level 

The primary responsibility to ensure respect for the rule of law at national level lies with the 
Member  States.  The  national  judiciary,  together  with  other  national  checks  and  balances 
such as constitutional  courts  and ombudspersons, are the first  key lines of defence against 
attacks to the rule of law from any branch of the state. Nonetheless, the EU has a legitimate 
role to play in supporting national authorities and ensuring that negative developments are 
addressed  at  an  early  stage.  The  role  of  the  EU  institutions  should  be  to  facilitate 
cooperation  and  dialogue  in  order  to  prevent  problems  from  reaching  the  point  where  a 
formal response is required under the Rule of Law Framework, by infringement procedures 
or by actions under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.  

For the EU to play fully its role in this respect, EU institutions need to develop a stronger 
awareness  and  understanding  of  developments  in  the  individual  Member  States,  through 
dedicated  monitoring,  to  be  able  to  identify  risks  to  the  rule  of  law,  develop  possible 
solutions,  and  target  support  early  on.  Such  monitoring  should  cover  rule  of  law-related 
developments  and  reforms  in  Member  States  and  help  to  control  the  sustainability  and 
irreversibility  of  reforms  which  have  been  adopted  as  a  result  of  EU  intervention,  such  as 
infringement proceedings or the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.  

To  strengthen  the  EU’s  capacity,  the  Commission  therefore  intends  to  deepen  its 
monitoring  of  rule  of  law  related  developments  in  the  Member  States.  In  cooperation 
with  Member  States  and  the  other  EU  institutions  as  necessary,  it  will  take  the  form  of  a 
Rule of Law Review Cycle, which will have the following characteristics: 

(i) 

Scope 

The review cycle would cover all the different components of the rule of law, including for 
example  systemic  problems  with  the  process  for  enacting  laws,  lack  of  effective  judicial 
protection  by  independent  and  impartial  courts,  or  non-respect  for  the  separation  of 
powers.37 The review would also examine the capacity of Member States to fight corruption 
and, where there is a connection with the application of EU law, look at issues in relation to 
media  pluralism  and  elections.  There  is  also  a  link  to  monitoring  of  the  effective 
enforcement of EU law, notably the capacity of all actors playing a role in the enforcement 
of EU law to perform their duties: courts, prosecution services, law enforcement authorities, 

37   For example, actions and public statements attacking individual judges or the judiciary as a whole would 

fall under this category. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
independent  authorities,  public  administrations  with  a  supervisory  role,  ombudsmen  and 
human rights institutions and defenders.38  

While the monitoring would cover all Member States, it would need to be more intense in 
Member States where risks of regression, or particular weaknesses, have been identified.39 

(ii) 

Sources of information 

The  review  cycle  would  rely  on  a  coherent  use  of  existing  sources  of  information.  This 
would bring an increased focus on a range of areas with relevance for the rule of law. There 
is a need for all actors – institutional as well as from civil society – to share information and 
have  their  position  heard.  Many  sources  of  information  exist,  including  the  bodies  of  the 
Council  of  Europe,  the  Organisation  for  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe  and  the 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as EU bodies such as the 
Fundamental Rights Agency.40 This Agency, whose remit covers rule of law-relevant rights 
such  as  that  to  effective  judicial  remedy,  has  developed  the  EU  Fundamental  Rights 
Information System (EFRIS) to facilitate access to relevant existing information and reports 
concerning the situation in the Member States. This variety of sources of information could 
be  better  used,  brought  together  and  complemented  more  effectively  than  it  is  the  case 
today.  The  specific  forms  such  an  enhanced  monitoring  could  take  will  have  to  be 
developed, including in cooperation with national authorities and the other EU institutions, 
and should involve a process of continuous information gathering and dialogue with national 
authorities and stakeholders.  

(iii) 

Involvement of Member States and stakeholders 

In addition to relying on relevant sources, the Commission will invite all Member States to 
engage  further  in  a  mutual  exchange  of  information  and  a  dialogue  on  rule  of  law 
related  topics  such  as  judicial  reform,  the  fight  against  corruption,  and  the  law-making 
process, or on measures supporting civil society and independent media as actors of the rule 
of  law.  A  number  of  these  issues  are  already  discussed  as  part  of  the  European  Semester, 
when  they  are  linked  to  key  enabling  factors  for  growth.  This  dialogue  will  be 
complemented by a more targeted rule of law approach, encompassing additional rule of law 
aspects.  The  regularity  and  intensity  of  the  cooperation  would  have  to  be  stepped  up  in 
Member States where rule of law challenges are more apparent, again with the objective of 
finding cooperative solutions to problems before they escalate.  

On this basis, a network of national contact points in Member States should be set up for 
dialogue  on  rule  of  law  issues.  This  network  would  build  on,  and  could  integrate,  already 
existing contacts in the rule of law relevant areas such as networks of national contact points 
in  the  justice  and  anti-corruption  area.41  It  would  serve  as  a  forum  for  discussion  of 

38   The  effective  enforcement  capacity  of  Member  States  administrations  and  authorities  depends  on  key 
components, in particular: (i) enforcement and remedies powers, (ii) capacity/resource requirements, (iii) 
independence requirements, where  necessary, (iv) enforcement procedures and (v) cooperation amongst 
authorities of different Member States. 

39   The  Rule of  Law  Checklist from the Venice  Commission is particularly relevant in identifying specific 

risks and weaknesses. 

40   In  this  respect,  the  full  legitimacy  and  relevance  of  data  provided  by  international  public  law 
organizations such as the Council of Europe and its bodies has been inter alia recognised by the Court of 
Justice. 

41   It would be for the Member States to designate the contact points, which could for example be located in 
the public administration or judiciary. Similar structures already exist to support Commission gathering of 

10 

 
 
                                                           
horizontal issues, including as appropriate on possible developments of the EU rule of law 
toolbox instruments, and for sharing information and best practices. Contact persons will be 
focal  points  for  bilateral  dialogue  with  each  Member  State  and  would  help  to  prepare  and 
collect  relevant  information  for  the  Rule  of  Law  Report  (see  below).  The  network  of 
national  contact  points  could  constitute  a  forum  for  early  warning  on  rule  of  law  related-
reforms and for discussion amongst Member States.  

Relevant bodies of the Council of Europe, as well as the OSCE and the OECD, and judicial 
networks could also be invited to share their expertise and present their views, including the 
European networks of the Presidents  of Supreme Courts of the EU, the Association  of the 
Councils  of  State  and  Supreme  Administrative  Jurisdictions  of  the  EU  and  the  European 
Network of Councils for the Judiciary.  

This  process  of  dialogue  is  particularly  relevant  for  detecting  potential  rule  of  law  issues 
early, as an established and regular setting helps to improve understanding and minimise the 
risk  of  confrontation.  The  dialogue  can  also  provide  an  opportunity  for  Member  States  to 
discuss rule of law-sensitive reforms in the preparation phase, including in light of the case 
law of the European Court of Justice. The standards developed by the Court can serve as a 
compass  to  flag  where  reforms  would  have  to  be  addressed  with  caution  (for  example 
reforms that can have a negative  – and maybe unintended – effect on the independence of 
magistrates  or  regulatory  authorities).  The  dialogue  will  help  to  identify  the  possible  need 
for requesting external support or expertise concerning specific national developments.  

(iv) 

Annual Rule of Law Report  

In order to ensure the necessary transparency and awareness, and to keep the rule of law on 
the political  agenda of the EU, the Commission intends to  publish an annual  Rule of  Law 
Report summarising the situation in the Member States. Based on the variety of the sources 
described above, it would provide a synthesis of significant developments in the Member 
States and at  EU level, including the case law of the European Court of Justice, and other 
relevant  information,  such  as  relevant  parts  of  the  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  and  of  the 
European Semester country reports. It would be an opportunity to report on the state of play 
in  formal  rule  of  law  processes,  as  well  as  on  the  work  of  the  EU  institutions  in  the 
promotion  of  rule  of  law  standards  and  the  development  of  a  rule  of  law  culture.  It  could 
highlight best practices and identify recurrent problems. The review would be ring-fenced to 
matters of direct relevance to the rule of law in the EU.  

The  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  which  provides  comparative  data  on  independence,  quality 
and  efficiency  of  national  justice  systems  could  itself  be  further  developed  and  improved, 
including  to  better  cover  relevant  rule  of  law  related  areas,  such  as  in  criminal  and 
administrative justice.  

The Rule of Law Report could furthermore serve to inform the dialogue with – and within – 
the European Parliament and the Council.  

(v) 

Inter-institutional dialogues on the rule of law 

The  review  cycle  could  help  to  maintain  a  dynamic  debate  and  to  continue  improving  the 
tools to strengthen the rule of law. It could constitute an important contribution to the work 

information  for  the  EU  justice  scoreboard  and  for  dialogue  with  Member  States  on  anti-corruption 
policies. 

11 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                   
of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  ideally  in  the  context  of  a  regular  and 
coherent calendar of inter-institutional cooperation.  

The European Parliament and the Council could draw on the Commission’s Annual Rule of 
Law Report in their own discussions and debates. As regards the Council, the review could 
for  example  inform  Council  discussions  dedicated  to  the  rule  of  law  or  be  followed  up  in 
Council conclusions.  In  this context,  the Commission welcomes the upcoming discussions 
on the Council’s approach to rule of law expected to take place under the Finnish Presidency 
in  the  second  half  of  2019  which,  together  with  the  ongoing  discussions  on  a  peer  review 
mechanism, could work on relevant synergies. The Annual Rule of Law Report could also 
form  the  basis  of  debates  in  the  European  Parliament  and  in  Council.  The  work  of  the 
institutions will be most effective if it is a joined-up process, which could also be followed 
up  with  different  work  by  the  different  institutions.  Other  EU  institutions,  such  as  the 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, could also contribute.  

The  Commission  looks  forward  to  deepening  work  with  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council and the Member States in the coming months and does not exclude any possibility 
provided in by the Treaties to increase the mutual knowledge of national systems. However, 
the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, also needs to maintain its autonomy in terms of 
both the content and timing of its own assessments. A recurring idea that came in the context 
of the rule of law debate has been to have a panel of independent experts set up outside the 
Commission or EU institutions, with the goal of providing expert and objective assessments 
on  rule  of  law  challenges,  while  other  proposals  relate  to  the  creation  of  a  dedicated  new 
agency. However, such approaches raise a number of problems in terms  of legitimacy, the 
balance  of  inputs  and  the  accountability  for  the  results.  Whilst  the  Commission  already 
draws on all legitimate sources of information and expertise and cross-checks the different 
sources  of  information  –  and  will  continue  to  do  so  –,  external  expertise  cannot  take  the 
place of an assessment made by the Commission itself, particularly when the Commission’s 
conclusions could be the basis for acts that come with legal and financial consequences and 
which could be challenged at the Court of Justice. Nor can the European Parliament or the 
Council delegate decision-making to outside bodies. The authority and accountability of the 
institutions,  as  set  in  the  institutional  balance  established  by  the  Treaties,  need  to  be 
maintained. 

Finally,  the  Commission  also  calls  on  the  European  political  parties  to  ensure  that  their 
national  members  pay  due  regard  to  the  respect  of  the  rule  of  law  and  follow  up  on  the 
emphasis on the rule of law in their pan-European programmes. Regulation No 1141/2014 
on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations42 
requires that they observe, in particular in their programme and in their activities, the values 
on  which  the  Union  is  founded,  as  expressed  in  Article  2  TEU.43  In  cases  where  the 
Commission has reasons to believe that respect for these values might be in doubt, it could 
ask the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations to verify 
compliance  with  the  conditions  set  out  in  the  Regulation.44  A  decision  to  de-register  a 
political party or foundation could be taken, if the Authority determines that there has been a 
manifest and serious breach of those conditions. 

42   Regulation  No  2019/493  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  March  2019  amending 
Regulation  No  1141/2014  as  regards  a  verification  procedure  related  to  infringements  of  rules  on  the 
protection of personal data in the context of elections to the European Parliament. 

43   Article 3(c) establishing the conditions for registration of political parties. 
44   See Article 10(3) establishing the mechanism for verification of compliance with registration conditions 

and requirements. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
The Commission will: 

  Establish a Rule of Law Review Cycle to monitor the situation of the rule of law in the 
Member States. To support this process, the Commission will prepare an annual Rule 
of  Law  Report,  further  develop  the  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  and  strengthen  the 
dialogue with other EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders.  

  Set  up  a  dedicated  dialogue  with  all  Member  States  on  rule  of  law  relevant  topics 

including through a network of contact persons.  

The Commission calls on:  

  Member States to designate their national contact points for the dialogue and exchange 

of information on rule of law related issues. 

  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  organise  a  dedicated  follow-up  on  the 
Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Report and work together with the Commission on 
an  integrated  approach  to  bring  together  in  a  coherent  manner  the  work  of  the 
institutions on early detection and tackling of rule of law issues. 

  European political parties to ensure that their national members effectively respect the 

rule of law. 

Response: Enforcement at EU level when national mechanisms falter 

The development of the promotion and the prevention approach should make the EU much 
more robust and help guard against serious and persistent challenges to the rule of law in the 
future.  The  aim  is  that  the  need  for  response  at  EU  level  would  be  significantly  reduced. 
Nevertheless,  when  national  rule  of  law  safeguards  do  not  seem  capable  of  addressing 
threats  to  the  rule  of  law  in  a  Member  State,  it  is  a  common  responsibility  of  the  EU 
institutions  and  the  Member  States  to  take  action  to  remedy  the  situation.  This  has  been 
confirmed by the European Court of Justice. 

In recent judgments in the context of infringement proceedings and preliminary rulings, the 
Court of Justice has further clarified the requirements stemming from EU law regarding the 
rule  of  law  and,  in  particular,  judicial  independence.45  The  Court  has  re-affirmed  the 
importance  of  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  the  respect  of  the  rule  of  law  for  the 
effective functioning of the EU: it ordered the suspension of national laws which, according 
to  the  Commission’s  assessment,  affect  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  established 
that  the  organisation  of  justice  by  Member  States  is  subject  to  compliance  with  EU  law 
obligations. These decisions have added an important dimension to the rule of law processes 
under way at EU level, and play an important part in resolving these issues. There is also an 
evolving jurisprudence of the Court highlighting how systematic problems related to the rule 
of law may have a specific impact in the area of Union finances.46 

The Commission will further build on this case law: it is determined to bring to the Court of 
Justice rule of law problems affecting the application of EU law, when these problems could 
not be solved through the national checks and balances. Building on its existing approach to 

45   See  section  III  above.  To  be  noted  that,  in  its  opinion  in  Case  C-619/18  Commission  v.  Poland,  the 
Advocate  General  stated  that  judicial  proceedings  can  run  in  parallel  with  the  2014  Rule  of  Law 
Framework or Article 7 TEU proceedings even if addressing the same matters. 

46   This  includes  preliminary  rulings,  including  regarding  article  325  TFEU,  on  the  need  for  effective 
investigation  of  tax  fraud  or  fraud  with  Union  funds  (see  e.g.  cases  C-617/10,  Åkerberg  Fransson;  C-
105/14, Taricco; C-42/17 M.A.S.; and C-612/15 Kolev). 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
enforcement47  and  on  the  developing  case  law  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice,  the 
Commission will pursue a strategic approach to infringement proceedings related to the rule 
of  law,  requesting  expedited  proceedings  and  interim  measures  whenever  necessary.  The 
Commission will also actively promote the standards developed in the Court of Justice case 
law, including by compiling the relevant findings of the Court.  

As highlighted in the April Communication and in the contributions that followed, time is of 
the essence when addressing a potential rule of law crisis. Many rule of law challenges are 
time-sensitive and the longer they take to resolve, the greater risk of entrenchment and the 
more  difficult  for  both  the  Member  State  and  the  EU  to  reverse  the  negative  impact.  It  is 
thus important that the EU institutions act swiftly and have a more coherent and concerted 
approach and that, in particular, the formal processes of the Rule of Law Framework48 and 
under Article 7 TEU come with clearer procedures and timelines.  

On Article 7 TEU, the institutions should work together to intensify the collective nature of 
decision-making between them. The Commission welcomes the intention of the Council to 
agree  on  new  procedures  in  respect  of  Article  7  hearings.  This  is  an  important  step  in  the 
direction of more efficient proceedings. It would be particularly beneficial for the Council to 
reflect on whether the discussions in the General Affairs Council could be improved through 
their preparation at  technical  level  in  a Council working  group.  It  could  also  be helpful to 
improve  the  decision-making  process  in  terms  of  the  institutional  steps,  with  clear 
procedural  rules.  To  ensure  the  institutional  balance,  the  European  Parliament  should  be 
given  the  possibility  to  present  its  case  in  procedures  it  has  initiated.  External  ad-hoc 
participation of Council of Europe bodies or other external expertise could also be looked at. 

The  Commission  will  also  reflect  on  how  to  further  involve  other  institutions  at  an  early 
stage of the process on the 2014 Rule of Law Framework, whilst respecting the need for 
confidential dialogue with the Member State concerned at the start of the procedure.49 The 
main objective should always be to find solutions as early as possible. However, when this 
does not succeed, ensuring that the European Parliament and the Council are fully updated 
and can express informed views before a critical stage is reached can help find a settlement. 
This  will  be  coherent  with  a  more  collective  approach  to  the  rule  of  law  among  the 
institutions.  

A  critical  issue  is  the  continued  objective  assessment  of  the  situation,  based  on  solid 
expertise  and  relevant  information.  The  process  must  continue  to  be  based  on  public  and 
recognised rule of law standards. The assessment and dialogue should draw on all available 
sources  of  relevant  expertise,  with  the  Commission  retaining  its  autonomy  and 
independence of assessment, in line with its role as guardian of the Treaties.50 The expertise 
of Council of Europe bodies or other independent bodies may be called upon by a Member 
State facing a rule of law procedure, not only as a means of resolving the issue, but also to 

47   This is in line  with the  more strategic approach to the Commission's enforcement actions set out in the 
Communication from the Commission of 2016 ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, OJ C 
18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20. 

48   Which has been recently acknowledged by the Court of Justice in its case-law as an instrument forming 
full part of the EU’s legal order and producing legal effects Order of the Court of 17 December 2018 in 
Case C-619/18 R.  

49   The first stages of the dialogue under the rule of law framework are not public.  
50   Notably the Council of Europe bodies issue a range of technical evaluations based on the case law of the 
European Court of Human Rights and the standards it has developed. However, there is no limitation on 
the expertise the Commission may draw on in its assessment.  

14 

 
 
                                                           
demonstrate  good  faith  and  facilitate  constructive  dialogue.51  The  opinion  of  such  bodies 
may also be requested in the absence of clearly defined parameters on a specific question. 

Central  to  an  effective  EU  approach  on  the  rule  of  law  and  to  the  spirit  of  sincere 
cooperation is to ensure a swift de-escalation or exit perspective from the formal rule of 
law process, as soon as the Member State concerned has taken the steps required to restore 
respect  for  the  rule  of  law.  The  EU  and  the  other  Member  States  need  to  have  sufficient 
reassurances  that  the  rule  of  law  has  been  restored  in  a  sustainable  way.  To  this  end,  the 
announcement of the intention to  close a procedure could  be linked with support from  the 
Commission  to  the  Member  State  concerned,  to  ensure  that  commitments  are  effectively 
implemented  and  sustained,  including  through  a  specific  follow-up  monitoring.  The  same 
follow-up  monitoring  could  also  be  used  after  the  end  of  specific  processes  such  as  the 
Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.52  

Alongside the formal rule of law related procedures, there may also be a need for action in 
specific areas of EU activity potentially affected by rule of law deficiencies in the Member 
States. Recent judgements of the Court of Justice have for example highlighted the impact of 
generalised  deficiencies  relating  to  judicial  independence  on  the  mutual  trust  on  which 
instruments in the area of freedom, security and justice are based.53  

This  protective  approach  for  the  functioning  of  the  EU  is  also  the  basis  of  the  Regulation 
proposed by the Commission in 2018 to ensure the protection of the EU budget in case of 
generalised  deficiencies  as  regards  the  rule  of  law  in  Member  States.54  Such  an  approach 
could be needed in EU policies other than the protection of EU financial interests in order to 
avoid  or  remedy  specific  risks  to  the  implementation  of  EU  law  or  policies.  The 
Commission  will  explore  the  need  for  further  measures  to  address  the  possible  impact  of 
persistent rule of law problems on other EU policies. 

The  protection  of  EU  financial 
interests  could  already  benefit  from  operational 
improvements.  Building  on  actions  planned  in  the  new  Commission  Anti-Fraud  Strategy 
(CAFS),55  the  Commission  will  consider  options  to  establish  a  data  analysis  function  that 
pools data from different sources concerning the systems in place in the Member States for 
the  protection  of  the  EU  financial  interests.  This  could  allow  for  the  identification  of 
problems in managing risks related to the EU financial interests and potentially be used to 
issue warnings when problematic patterns start to emerge, such as slow and limited follow-
up to  European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reports  and, in the future, cooperation with  the 
European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO),  or  insufficient  control  structures  at  the 
national level. The idea would be to intervene at a very early stage and establish whether the 
problem  is  limited  or  reflects  a  pattern.  This  system  could  support  the  mechanism  of  the 
Commission  proposal  concerning  general  deficiencies  of  the  rule  of  law  system,  or  other 
procedures linked to the protection of the EU financial interests. 

51   The question of whether the Commission should also directly call on the Council of Europe and its bodies 

to assess specific issues in Member States could also need further reflection.  

52   The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism was set up as a transitional measure for the monitoring of 
judicial reform and the fight against corruption in Bulgaria and Romania at the time of their accession to 
the  Union  in  2007.  Once  this  special  mechanism  ends,  monitoring  should  continue  under  horizontal 
instruments.  

53   Case C-216/18 PPU LM.  
54   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's 
budget  in  case  of  generalised  deficiencies  as  regards  the  rule  of  law  in  the  Member  States; 
COM/2018/324 final. 
55   COM (2019) 196 final. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
The Commission will: 

  Make full use of its powers as guardian of the Treaties to ensure the respect of EU law 

requirements relating to the rule of law.  

  Pursue  a  strategic  approach  to  infringement  proceedings,  building  on  the  developing 
case law of the European Court of Justice and promote the standards developed in the 
Court of Justice case law, including by compiling the relevant findings of the Court.  
  Consider how to  involve other EU institutions more regularly when implementing the 

2014 Rule of Law Framework. 

  Support Member States in de-escalation or exit perspective from the formal rule of law 

process, including with a follow-up monitoring.  

  Explore by the end of 2020 whether the impact of persistent rule of law problems on the 
implementation  of  EU  policies  requires  new  mechanisms  in  addition  to  the  proposed 
Regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget.  

  Explore  the  possibility,  building  on  the  Commission  Anti-Fraud  Strategy,  of  a  data 
analysis function to help identify problems in managing risks related to the protection of 
EU's  financial  interests.  The  possibility  to  issue  warnings  if  necessary,  when 
problematic patterns start to emerge, will also be explored. 

The Commission calls on: 

  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  reflect  on  intensifying  a  collective 

approach between the institutions on Article 7 TEU procedures. 

  The  Council  to  take  forward  its  welcomed  intention  to  provide  the  Article  7  process 

with clearer and more stable procedural rules.  

  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  adopt  rapidly  the  Regulation  on  the 
protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule 
of law in the Member States.  

V. 

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS  

Upholding the rule of law is  a shared responsibility of all EU institutions as well as of all 
Member States. All parties must assume that responsibility and play their part. In addition to 
the  actions  to  be  taken  under  this  Communication,  the  Commission  is  committed  to 
continuing the debate and taking additional action as appropriate within its own remit. The 
common objective must be to develop a coordinated and coherent strategic approach for the 
Union involving all relevant actors. Key elements of such a strategic approach include the 
promotion  of  a  shared  rule  of  law  culture  across  the  EU,  an  effective  capacity  to  address 
problems early on through preventive measures, and a commitment for effective joint action 
wherever needed to contain problems when preventive measures fall short.  

This Communication sets out a number of commitments and paths for reflection as part of 
the  Commission’s  proposed  blueprint  for  action.  There  will  be  a  need  for  a  continued 
follow-up  in  cooperation  with  the  other  EU  institutions,  Member  States  and  stakeholders 
over the coming months. The debate has revealed a wide range of positive ideas that deserve 
further  assessment  and  which  feed  into  concrete  steps  in  the  future,  in  addition  to  those 
taken  under  this  Communication.  The  Commission  invites  all  stakeholders  to  join  this 
debate  and  looks  forward  to  the  dialogue  with  the  newly  elected  Parliament  and  with  the 
Council on a coordinated approach.  

16 

 
 
In  the  meantime,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  play  its  full  part  as  guardian  of  the 
Treaties, taking appropriate and proportionate measures to uphold EU law, and will invest in 
strengthening the capacity  of the EU in  this regard. The  result should be  to  strengthen the 
rule of law in the EU and to fully reflect the crucial importance of the rule of law for all EU 
citizens and for the EU as a whole.  

17