{"title":"Coronavirus Test of the European Union’s Policy on the Rule of Law","authors":"Ákos Bence Gát","doi":"10.53116/pgaflr.2021.1.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of the rule of law has been on the European Union’s (EU) agenda since the beginning of the 2010s. The legal history of the EU shows that the EU’s approach to the topic of the rule of law underwent significant changes. Initially, the Member States called for guarantees of fundamental rights in EU institutions. This trend began to change in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the possibility of European rule of law control over Member States and the predecessor of the current Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) were introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, the idea that the EU institutions can constantly monitor the Member States in the name of the rule of law has only emerged and started dominating the European political agenda since the early 2010s. Over the last decade, the EU institutions have continuously expanded their toolkit for monitoring Member States in this regard.Following calls from some Member States and the European Parliament, in 2014 the Commission set up the new EU framework to strengthen the rule of law. In the same year, the European Council introduced an annual rule of law dialogue. In 2016, the European Parliament proposed the establishment of an annual rule of law report that monitors all Member States. At first, the European Commission was reluctant to accept this idea, but finally it introduced an annual rule of law report in 2020. However, the EU’s policy on the rule of law suffers from fundamental shortcomings, which were especially visible during the first wave of the coronavirus crisis in the spring of 2020. In the pandemic situation, it has become even more apparent that the EU’s policy on the rule of law raises a significant issue of EU institutions exceeding their competences and stands on a questionable legal basis.Criticisms formulated against Hungary during the pandemic have revealed that the EU institutions do not provide sufficient guarantees for an objective examination of the situation of the rule of law in the Member States. The situation brought about by the coronavirus has also raised a number of questions regarding the lawful functioning of EU institutions, which shows the need for a rule of law mechanism capable of verifying that the EU institutions themselves also properly respect the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":183882,"journal":{"name":"Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53116/pgaflr.2021.1.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The issue of the rule of law has been on the European Union’s (EU) agenda since the beginning of the 2010s. The legal history of the EU shows that the EU’s approach to the topic of the rule of law underwent significant changes. Initially, the Member States called for guarantees of fundamental rights in EU institutions. This trend began to change in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the possibility of European rule of law control over Member States and the predecessor of the current Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) were introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, the idea that the EU institutions can constantly monitor the Member States in the name of the rule of law has only emerged and started dominating the European political agenda since the early 2010s. Over the last decade, the EU institutions have continuously expanded their toolkit for monitoring Member States in this regard.Following calls from some Member States and the European Parliament, in 2014 the Commission set up the new EU framework to strengthen the rule of law. In the same year, the European Council introduced an annual rule of law dialogue. In 2016, the European Parliament proposed the establishment of an annual rule of law report that monitors all Member States. At first, the European Commission was reluctant to accept this idea, but finally it introduced an annual rule of law report in 2020. However, the EU’s policy on the rule of law suffers from fundamental shortcomings, which were especially visible during the first wave of the coronavirus crisis in the spring of 2020. In the pandemic situation, it has become even more apparent that the EU’s policy on the rule of law raises a significant issue of EU institutions exceeding their competences and stands on a questionable legal basis.Criticisms formulated against Hungary during the pandemic have revealed that the EU institutions do not provide sufficient guarantees for an objective examination of the situation of the rule of law in the Member States. The situation brought about by the coronavirus has also raised a number of questions regarding the lawful functioning of EU institutions, which shows the need for a rule of law mechanism capable of verifying that the EU institutions themselves also properly respect the rule of law.
自2010年代初以来,法治问题一直在欧盟(EU)的议程上。欧盟的法制史表明,欧盟对法治主题的态度发生了重大变化。最初,成员国呼吁保障欧盟机构的基本权利。这一趋势在20世纪90年代末和21世纪初开始发生变化,当时《阿姆斯特丹条约》(Treaty of Amsterdam)引入了欧洲对成员国实施法治控制的可能性,以及现行《欧盟条约》(TEU)第7条的前身。然而,欧盟机构可以以法治的名义不断监督成员国的想法直到2010年代初才出现,并开始主导欧洲的政治议程。在过去十年中,欧盟各机构在这方面不断扩大其监测成员国的工具。在一些成员国和欧洲议会的呼吁下,欧盟委员会于2014年建立了新的欧盟框架,以加强法治。同年,欧洲理事会推出了一年一度的法治对话。2016年,欧洲议会提议建立一份监督所有成员国的年度法治报告。起初,欧盟委员会不愿接受这一想法,但最终在2020年推出了一份年度法治报告。然而,欧盟的法治政策存在根本性缺陷,这在2020年春季的第一波冠状病毒危机中表现得尤为明显。在疫情形势下,更加明显的是,欧盟的法治政策引发了欧盟机构越权的重大问题,其法律基础存在问题。大流行期间对匈牙利提出的批评表明,欧盟机构没有为客观审查成员国的法治状况提供足够的保障。新冠肺炎疫情也对欧盟机构的合法运作提出了一些问题,这表明需要建立一个法治机制,能够核查欧盟机构本身是否也适当尊重法治。