While the world watched the US presidential elections in full suspense, a historic moment also took place in the European Union. Exactly seventy years after the European Convention on Human Rights was signed, the European Union reached an informal agreement on Thursday on respect for the rule of law and European funds.
‘A historic agreement’, German MEP Daniel Freund tells Knack. ‘Anyone who closes universities, dismisses critical judges or silences the media will feel that in their portfolio from next year.’ In recent months, Freund has sat at the negotiating table with the European Commission and the member states for the green group. ‘It could have been stricter for us, but we are satisfied with the end result’, it sounds.
…
“A historic agreement,” German MEP Daniel Freund tells Knack. ‘Anyone who closes universities, dismisses critical judges or silences the media will feel that in their portfolio from next year.’ In recent months, Freund has sat at the negotiating table for the green group with the European Commission and the member states. ‘It could have been more strict for us, but we are satisfied with the end result’, it sounds. What exactly is it about? For that we have to go back to December 2018, when the previous European Commission, under the auspices of President Jean-Claude Juncker, presented its proposal for the European seven-year budget between 2021 and 2027. It contained a link that would close the money supply to member states when the Commission establishes that they violate European treaties. Unless a qualified majority, at least 15 Member States representing 65% of European citizens, decides otherwise. That low threshold went wrong with Poland and Hungary – both countries are involved in European infringement proceedings. In fact, they brushed aside any link between the rule of law and European resources. The issue lingered on for a while until last summer’s European summit in Brussels. There, the Member States agreed the opposite of what the Commission proposed eighteen months earlier: only if a qualified majority of the Member States agrees with what the Commission proposes will financial sanctions follow. However, that did not end the stocking. Both the competent national line ministers and the European Parliament had to approve this compromise. But the hemisphere was not exactly satisfied with what the member states had proposed, especially when it turned out that they only wanted to introduce such financial sanctions when a member state misuses European funds. Respect for the rule of law was suddenly no longer a condition. But Poland and Hungary were also very dissatisfied with the course of events. The two demanded that all member states had to agree before the money could be turned on. A tried and tested trick: in other areas where unanimity applies, Poland and Hungary are backing each other to avoid European sanctions. After a long tug of war, the European Parliament and the member states reached an agreement on Thursday about both the cause and the approval procedures for the sanctions. What does the agreement say? Parliament and Member States have agreed that the Commission can initiate a sanction procedure if it identifies an infringement related to European funds. But its interpretation is flexible. An example: if critical judges in a Member State are replaced by lawyers who are favorable to those in power, then the Commission may consider that the judicial system is no longer able to check whether European funds are being misused for wrong purposes. When the Commission has completed the procedure after consultation with the Member State concerned, the competent line ministers in the Council of the European Union have one month to decide on the matter by qualified majority. In exceptional cases, this period can be extended by two months by – for example – raising the issue to the level of heads of state or government. That is a victory for the Hungarian prime minister and is already referred to in European circles as ‘the Orbán loophole’. Whether Orbán actually enforced an escape route remains to be seen. The European Council, the assembly of heads of state or government, does not play a significant legal role in a legislative and implementation procedure. But if Orbán manages to convince enough of his colleagues in the European Council, it is unlikely that the competent line ministers will respect the advice of their prime ministers or presidents. It is certain that the Hungarian prime minister can buy time with this. If financial sanctions do occur, they can shut off the money supply surgically or completely. In this way the European Union wants to prevent the local population from bearing the financial consequences for the punishment of their political leaders. Anyone affected can submit a compensation application to the Commission so that the money is transferred directly – and not via the government. There is no small chance that this will get a tail end. Because Poland and Hungary do not appreciate the new mechanism, they are threatening revenge in another important file: the corona repair fund of no less than 750 billion euros. To get this going, all national parliaments must approve the so-called own resources decision. Both Poland and Budapest have indicated that they will under no circumstances approve this decision if the Union establishes a link between the rule of law and European resources. It remains to be seen whether they will put their money where their mouth is. On Friday afternoon, Orbán made it somewhat conciliatory that “there is no time now for discussions on the rule of law.” The fact is that both Poland and Hungary will receive a relatively large chunk of money from the corona repair fund and will therefore also hit themselves. Now that Hungary and Poland are also more severely affected by the pandemic, both national parliaments face a considerable dilemma.
– .
