Eurosceptics often argue that the European Union is just a loose association of 27 countries that benefit from the fundamental principle of free movement of goods, people and capital. This is indeed an important cornerstone.
However, despite the many political challenges, the EU treaties make it clear that respect for the rule of law is a non-negotiable condition for membership.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) last week found that the new rule-of-law conditionality mechanism, which seeks to protect the EU budget from violations by member states, is legally solid and compatible with the union’s treaties.
Poland and Hungary had challenged the legislation in the EU court, demanding the rule be annulled because it was not consistent with the treaty and breached principles of legal certainty. Now, however, all member states will have to abide more assiduously by the bloc’s core values, which include respect for human rights, equality, democracy and justice – or risk having their EU funds frozen.
Respect for fundamental principles is not an option but a non-negotiable condition of membership
Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament, insisted: “The rule of law is the basis on which our treaties are built. It is fundamental that all member states adhere to the treaties they all signed up to when joining the European Union. Values matter and citizens have a right to know how common funds are used.”
As expected, Poland and Hungary have lambasted the ECJ’s decision. Zbigniew Ziobro, Poland’s justice minister, called the ruling “a historic moment of change in the EU from an area of freedom into an area in which it will be possible to apply illegal force to take away those freedoms from member states and to limit their sovereignty”.
Of course, many other politicians from both ends of the political spectrum, including some from Hungary and Poland, welcomed the ruling. Katalin Cseh, a Hungarian MEP from the liberal Renew Europe group, expressed hope that the commission will “waste no second more and apply the mechanism”.
The ECJ ruling puts on notice other countries that have disputes with the commission over respect for the founding principles of the EU. Malta, for instance, is likely to be sued in the ECJ over its golden passports scheme.
The argument that Brussels’ concern with Malta’s passport scheme infringes our sovereignty is tenuous. The government needs to review its decision to defend the scheme so as to avoid the humiliation of an adverse judgment in the ECJ.
Malta has a mountain to climb to regain the trust of other member states that its commitment to constantly respect the rule of law is based on conviction and not convenience. We need to learn from the wisdom of decisions taken by, for instance, the UK, which has decided to scrap its “golden visas” regime within weeks to tackle the “dirty money” flooding into the country from Russia.
The administrative wheels of Brussels take a long time to turn. In April, elections in Hungary will likely mean that the commission will not immediately begin procedures against the country that could lead to the imposition of penalties. Still, the determination of the European Parliament and the European Commission to ensure that the rule of law prevails at all times will ensure that member states remember that respect for fundamental principles is not an option but a non-negotiable condition of membership.
There will be some who agree with Judit Varga, Hungary’s justice minister, who argues that “The ECJ has become a political actor”. For most Europeans, however, EU institutions like the ECJ are invaluable watchdogs to protect citizens against abuse of power by politicians.
This landmark ruling is a most welcome consolidation of the EU’s core values.