Laurent Pech

'A Union Founded on the Rule of Law': Meaning and Reality of the Rule of Law as a Constitutional Principle of EU Law

Rule of law – Constitutional principle – Meaning – Scope of Application – Justiciability – Audit of the European Unions Constitutional Framework – Lisbon Treaty

Monitoring and enforcement of the rule of law in the EU: rhetoric and reality

This article offers a comprehensive examination of the rationale underlying the rule of law framework adopted by the Commission in March 2014 before outlining its main features. It is argued that while the Commission’s ‘light-touch’ framework falls short of what is required to effectively address internal threats to EU values of a systemic nature, it remains preferable to the new mechanism adopted by the Council in December 2014 and which consists of holding an annual rule of law dialogue among all Member States within the Council. To make the Commission’s framework more workable and effective, which should in turn increase its ‘dissuasive potential’, a number of modest recommendations are also offered at a time where an increasing number of voices are asking the Commission to activate the first phase its new mechanism in relation to Hungary and more recently, Poland.

Better Late than Never? On the European Commission's Rule of Law Framework and its First Activation

This article first describes how the election of national governments intent on implementing ‘illiberal’ agendas has led the European Commission to adopt a new instrument known as the Rule of Law Framework. The mechanism’s potential effectiveness and the Commission’s reasoning to justify its activation against Poland, when it has failed to do so against Hungary, are subsequently analysed. It is argued that while the Commission should be commended for seeking to address increasing rule of law backsliding at the EU Member State level, it may also be criticised on five main grounds: its procrastination with respect to Hungary; its lack of consistency in the light of the reasoning used in the case of Poland; its misrepresentation of Article 7 TEU as a ‘nuclear option;’ its continuing failure to trigger Article 7(1) TEU against Hungary; and finally, its unwillingness to more forcefully apply the infringement procedure in a situation where a pattern of systemic breaches of EU values has clearly come to light, as has been the case in Hungary since 2011. More fundamentally, it is submitted that reliance on the Rule of Law Framework alone, if only because of its many shortcomings, will not remedy a situation where systemic violations of EU values form part of a governmental plan to set up an ‘illiberal’ regime.

Introduction: The Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU

Faced with what has been labeled ‘rule of law backsliding’ in some EU countries, EU institutions have sought to address the rise of ‘illiberal regimes’ via existing mechanisms as well as new instruments. This introductory contribution offers an overview of the problem and a brief summary of the papers to follow and which were first presented at a workshop co‐organized by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and Middlesex University London. This article is part of the September 2016 Symposium titled ‘The Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU’, which also includes Cracks in the Foundations: Understanding the Great Rule of Law Debate in the EU by Amichai Magen (DOI:), Better Late than Never? On the European Commissions Rule of Law Framework and its First Activation by Dimitry Kochenov and Laurent Pech (DOI:), Strengthening the Rule of Law in the EU: The Councils Inaction by Peter Oliver and Justine Stefanelli (DOI:), The European Parliaments Role: Towards New Copenhagen Criteria for Existing Member States? by Judith Sargentini and Aleksejs Dimitrovs (DOI:), Upholding Shared Values in the EU: What Role for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights? by Gabriel N. Toggenburg and Jonas Grimheden (DOI:)

Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: On the EU's Limited Contribution to the Shaping of an International Understanding of the Rule of Law

This contribution first aims to clarify the dominant understanding promoted by the EU in the context of its external action before discussing the extent to which the EU may be said to have contributed to the shaping of an international understanding of the rule of law. It is argued that notwithstanding the relatively superficial and, at times, fluctuating nature of the definitions one may encounter in EU external instruments and other EU publications, EU institutions tend to promote a broad, substantive and holistic understanding. As regards the shaping of an international understanding, it is submitted that the EU cannot claim much success in terms of norm-building for two main reasons: the EU has accepted the Council of Europe’s normative pre-eminence and is promoting an understanding that was initially shaped by other international organizations and which has now become highly consensual on the international plane. Rather than any decisive contribution to the shaping of a new international understanding, the EU may be said to have significantly contributed to the diffusion of a substantive and holistic conception of the rule of law and the progressive solidification of an international consensus regarding its core elements and inextricable links with the principles of democracy and respect for human rights.

National Report for Ireland: Preparing the EU for the Future? Necessary Revisions of Primary Law after the Non-Ratification of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe

This report answers general questions arising from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TECE); identifies provisions of the TECE which gave rise to legal or constitutional concerns in Ireland; and reflects on the attitude of Irish political actors regarding the negotiation and ratification of a new EU Treaty.