Christophe Hillion

Overseeing the Rule of Law in the EU: Legal Mandate and Means

Controversial changes in the laws of Poland and Hungary have deepened concerns about disregard for the rule of law in the European Union. This analysis discusses what the EU is legally entrusted to do to address the issue. It recalls that Member States have endowed the Union with a legal mandate to ensure respect for the rule of law. It also suggests that the EU has various means at its disposal to fulfil such mandate, which in many ways remain to be used. * Christophe Hillion is Senior Researcher at SIEPS, Professor of European Law at the Universities of Leiden & Gothenburg, and visiting research Professor at NUPI / Centre for European Law, University of Oslo. ** Thanks to Anne Myrjord for all her support. The final version of this paper will be published in C Closa and D Kochenov (eds) Reinforcing Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2016). 1 See the letter of the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, of 6 March in the 2013, to the President of the European Commission. The letter can be found here: [http://www.rijksoverheid. nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/brieven/2013/03/13/brief-aaneuropese-commissie-over-opzettenrechtsstatelijkheidsmechanisme/brief-aan-europese-commissieover-opzetten-rechtsstatelijkheidsmechanisme.pdf ] 2 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, A new EU framework to strengthen the Rule of Law, COM(2014)158 final. 3 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-16-71_en.htm 4 Conclusions of the Council of the European Union and the Member States meeting within the Council on Ensuring Respect for the Rule of Law, General Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 16 Dec. 2014. Different proposals have also been made within the European Parliament: see Tavares report on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (2012/2130(INI)), 24.06.2013); and the ‘EU democratic governance pact’ proposed by the ALDE group (http://www.alde.eu/event-seminar/events-details/article/an-eudemocratic-governance-pact-44603/). 5 General Affairs Council, Ensuring the respect for the rule of law Dialogue and exchange of views, 17 November 2015, doc. 13744/15.

Adaptation for autonomy? Candidates for EU membership and the CFSP

ABSTRACT This paper looks at the specific situation of those European states currently candidates for accession to the European Union. These countries are expected to align their domestic laws and policies with the EU “acquis” to fulfil the admission criteria. Foreign policy is no exception. Indeed, the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy has become an increasingly significant part of the accession conditionality since the countries from south-east Europe embarked on the membership course. Arguably, the obligation to adapt to EU norms in the area of CFSP is stronger for candidates than for existing members of the EU. As a result, candidates might eventually enjoy more foreign policy autonomy once inside the EU than they did before accession. There is a risk that this discrepancy between the requirements of pre-accession adaptation and the relative post-accession autonomy may have a negative impact on integration in the field of foreign policy.

The EU Fundamental Rights Landscape after Opinion 2/13

On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in its Opinion 2/13 that the EU cannot accede to the ECHR under the terms of the negotiated Draft Accession Agreement. The Opinion and the stalemate it seems to have caused, raise important questions concerning the overall landscape of fundamental rights protection in Europe. Can the Court’s objections against the Draft Accession Agreement be overcome? Can the Agreement be re-negotiated to meet these objections? What are the legal issues such negotiations will have to solve? Is non-accession an option? What could the European system of human rights protection look like without accession? And what are the foreseeable consequences of accession or no accession for national courts? This joint working paper results from a workshop held at Maastricht University on 26 June 2015, which brought together academics and practitioners, members of negotiating teams and judges from the ECtHR, the CJEU and national courts, to discuss the consequences of Opinion 2/13 for broader issues of fundamental rights protection in Europe, and will examine future perspectives for accession of the EU to the ECHR.

COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW

Aims The Common Market Law Review is designed to function as a medium for the understanding and analysis of European Union Law, and for the dissemination of legal thinking on all matters of European Union Law. It thus aims to meet the needs of both the academic and the practitioner. For practical reasons, English is used as the language of communication. Editorial policy The editors will consider for publication manuscripts by contributors from any country. Articles will be subjected to a review procedure. The author should ensure that the significance of the contribution will be apparent also to readers outside the specific expertise. Special terms and abbreviations should be clearly defined in the text or notes. Accepted manuscripts will be edited, if necessary, to improve the general effectiveness of communication. If editing should be extensive, with a consequent danger of altering the meaning, the manuscript will be returned to the author for approval before type is set. Submission of manuscripts