kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Europaudvalget 2023-24
KOM (2024) 0800 Bilag 1
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 24.7.2024

COM(2024) 800 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2024 Rule of Law Report

The rule of law situation in the European Union

{SWD(2024) 801 final} - {SWD(2024) 802 final} - {SWD(2024) 803 final} -

{SWD(2024) 804 final} - {SWD(2024) 805 final} - {SWD(2024) 806 final} -

{SWD(2024) 807 final} - {SWD(2024) 808 final} - {SWD(2024) 809 final} -

{SWD(2024) 810 final} - {SWD(2024) 811 final} - {SWD(2024) 812 final} -

{SWD(2024) 813 final} - {SWD(2024) 814 final} - {SWD(2024) 815 final} -

{SWD(2024) 816 final} - {SWD(2024) 817 final} - {SWD(2024) 818 final} -

{SWD(2024) 819 final} - {SWD(2024) 820 final} - {SWD(2024) 821 final} -

{SWD(2024) 822 final} - {SWD(2024) 823 final} - {SWD(2024) 824 final} -

{SWD(2024) 825 final} - {SWD(2024) 826 final} - {SWD(2024) 827 final} -

{SWD(2024) 828 final} - {SWD(2024) 829 final} - {SWD(2024) 830 final} -

{SWD(2024) 831 final}

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

1. INTRODUCTION

The rule of law is an essential safeguard for the well-functioning of our democracies, the

protection of individual rights, and hence for the vitality and prosperity of our societies and

economies. The rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights are the foundation for the

European Union’s work to foster peace, prosperity, competitiveness, social cohesion and

stability across the continent and around the world. These values, which are common to the

Member States

, often come under pressure, with the resilience of democratic societies and

institutions constantly put to the test. In the face of great change – whether the crises of

COVID-19 or the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, or the twin green and digital

transitions – the EU’s values are as central as ever to the confidence of citizens.

The EU has increasingly recognised that a proactive approach to promote and defend the rule

of law is at the heart of its success

. This is overall in line with EU citizens’ views and

expectations. In a recent Eurobarometer survey, 74% of respondents think that the EU plays

an important role in upholding the rule of law and 89% believe that it is important for all EU

Member States to respect the EU’s core values

Every year since 2020, the Rule of Law Report, by systematically and objectively examining

rule of law developments in all Member States, has shown that the rule of law matters to

citizens and businesses across the EU. Five years on, the preparedness of Member States, and

of the EU as a whole, to detect, prevent and address emerging challenges has greatly

improved. This benefits the resilience of our European democracies and mutual trust in the

EU, as well as the proper functioning of the EU’s single market, promoting a business

environment that fosters competitiveness and sustainable growth.

The EU is committed to promoting the rule of law as a cornerstone of human rights and

democracy globally and in its neighbourhood

. Beyond the clear economic and security

benefits of a larger Union a key goal of EU enlargement is to firmly anchor democracy, the

rule of law, respect of fundamental rights across our continent

. The inclusion of certain

enlargement countries

in the 2024 Rule of Law Report, alongside Member States, will

support these countries’ reform efforts to achieve irreversible progress on democracy and the

rule of law ahead of accession, and to guarantee that high standards will continue after

accession.

Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

Rule of law toolbox at EU level.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/rule_of_law_factsheet_1.pdf.

Special

Eurobarometer 553

on Rule of Law (2024).

See EU Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024 JOIN(2020) 5 final.

Commission Communication on pre-enlargement reforms and policy reviews, COM(2024) 146 final.

Albania, Montenegro, North-Macedonia and Serbia. The selection reflects the progress made in their

respective accession process or advancement as regards their level of preparedness on rule of law.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

2. UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW FOR THE BENEFIT OF CITIZENS AND

BUSINESSES

Over the past five years, the Commission has worked to build a rule of law architecture to

help counter the risk that falling short on the rule of law poses to individual Member States,

and to the EU as a whole

The goal of this work has been to

promote

a rule of law culture, to

prevent

rule of law

problems from emerging or deepening, and to

respond

effectively at EU level to serious and

persistent challenges. This called for a

diversification of the rule of law instruments

that

could be used at EU level, so that action can be calibrated to best effect

The rule of law architecture and improved knowledge that has emerged around the Rule of

Law Report, along with the reform momentum in Member States, has bolstered mutual trust

and shaped a better shared understanding of how to cultivate an environment in which the

rule of law can thrive.

In addition, since 2020, several new EU initiatives have raised common standards in areas

with direct relevance for the rule of law, drawing on the results of the monitoring in the

context of this report. These initiatives will boost

integrity

and step up the

fight against

corruption

, strengthen

transparency and accountability in decision-making processes

boost

capacity and the quality of public administrations

at all levels

, protect

media

freedom and media pluralism

both online and offline, strengthen

independent

authorities such as national equality bodies

, and

promote and protect an enabling civic

space

where citizens as well as an active and independent civil society benefit from the

right conditions and tools for meaningful participation and engagement.

The 2019 Communication from the Commission on Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union

set out how “if the rule of law is not properly protected in all Member States, the Union’s foundation stone

of solidarity, cohesion, and the trust necessary for mutual recognition of national decisions and the

functioning of the internal market as a whole, is damaged” (COM (2019) 164).

The European Court of Auditors called for a stronger overview of the different rule of law instruments (ECA

review on the rule of law reporting).

Agreement establishing an interinstitutional body for ethical standards for members of institutions and

advisory bodies.

A package on the fight against corruption (JOIN (2023) 12 final) included a proposal for a

new Directive on

combating corruption by criminal law

COM (2023) 234 and a proposal from the High Representative to

expand the CFSP sanctions toolbox to cover serious acts of corruption (HR(2023)108).

Proposal on Transparency of Interest Representation on behalf of Third Countries (COM(2023) 637).

The Communication on Enhancing the European Administrative Space (ComPAct) (COM(2023) 667) sets

out a framework for Member States to upskill public experts and leverage technology to tackle good

governance, justice efficiency and corruption challenges.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and

amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act) and Directive (EU) 2024/1069 on

protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court

proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’). Work continues on the 2021

Recommendation on the safety of journalists (C(2021)6650, 16 September 2021) and the proposals

protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly

unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’, C(2022)2428, 27

April 2022).

Directive (EU) 2024/1500 on standards for equality bodies and Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 on

standards for equality bodies.

Commission Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil

society organisations in public policy-making processes (C(2023) 8627).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

The Rule of Law Report at the centre of the EU rule of law architecture

In 2019, when setting up the new College of Commissioners, President von der Leyen placed

the rule of law at the top of the political agenda and set the

Rule of Law Report

as one of the

core political guidelines for the current mandate, a commitment she has vowed to strengthen

further in the next five years.

Designed as a yearly cycle, the report focuses on prevention by improving awareness of key

rule of law developments. In identifying the challenges, it seeks to help Member States to

find solutions that protect the rule of law, working with the Commission, other Member

States, and key stakeholders such as the Venice Commission

. The report has become a

central instrument in the EU rule of law toolbox, and a key reference point at EU and national

level. Its dedicated monitoring has brought about a stronger common understanding of

developments in each Member State, helping to identify risks, develop possible solutions, and

target support early on.

Every year, the report

takes stock of the rule of law situation in every Member State

and

the EU as a whole,

assessing in a structured and rigorous way significant national

developments, both positive and negative, in four key areas:

justice, anti-corruption, media

pluralism and freedom; and institutional checks and balances.

With its transparent and

objective methodology, based on recognised rule of law standards, the report ensures fair and

equal treatment of all Member States while also taking specific national contexts and legal

traditions into account.

Since 2022, the report includes

specific recommendations

to Member States to better

support their efforts in taking forward reforms and to identify where improvements or follow-

up action may be needed. In 2023, almost 65% of the first set of specific recommendations,

issued in 2022, had been followed up, reflecting a positive reform dynamic across the EU. In

2024, this trend continued with 68% of the 2023 recommendations followed up

This shows that important efforts are being made by Member States to address the

recommendations made in the report. At the same time, depending on their nature and subject

matter, some recommendations can take longer to be addressed than the annual cycle of these

reports. For example, this could be due to the need for extensive political and stakeholder

consultations, or the fact that electoral cycles can interrupt the progress of legislation. The

report and its recommendations also provide a focus for monitoring the situation on the

ground, as well as the results of reforms.

Dialogue and follow-up to the Rule of Law Report at national and EU level

The report and its recommendations are the keystone for continuous

dialogue

with and

among Member States. This has included intensified contacts between the Commission and

Member States, including national parliaments whose role as lawmakers and in holding the

executive accountable is central to upholding the rule of law. Regular meetings of the

COM (2020) 580 final.

There was found to be significant progress or full implementation on almost 20% of recommendations, and

some progress on 50% of the recommendations. No progress was noted on the remainder.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Network of Rule of Law contact points

serve as a forum for sharing experience on issues of

common interest highlighted by the rule of law reports

The report has evolved into a centrepiece for EU institutions’ work on the rule of law. The

Annual Rule of Law dialogue

in the Council

draws on the Commission’s rule of law

report as its basis, recognised as creating a space for constructive political exchanges among

Member States and for sharing best practice and lessons learned. In 2023, the Council

positively evaluated its dialogue and looked to increasing its frequency

. In addition, the

Justice Council continued to discuss topical rule of law questions during each six-month

Council Presidency

. Rule of law issues are also relevant to the work of other Council

formations, as shown in the May 2024 discussion on the promotion of a rule of law culture

through education in the Education Council.

The

European Parliament’s

depth of interest has been shown not only in annual debates on

the Rule of Law Reports, but also in country-specific debates and dedicated public hearings

on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights

. A new Democracy, Rule of Law and

Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group offered an additional focus.

The report also helped to stimulate the wider debate on the rule of law. Examples include the

second High-level conference of the Presidents of the highest constitutional jurisdictions of

the EU in November 2023

. In January 2024, the 13th Direct Dialogue between EU Capital

Cities and the Commission was dedicated to the rule of law, with participating mayors

discussing the local dimension of the four pillars of the report

. The European Court of

Auditors has contributed to the further reflection on the report, publishing a review of the

Commission’s rule of law reporting in February 2024

The report has also acted as a catalyst for a stronger involvement of

civil society and

stakeholders

in rule of law matters. Civil society organisations and human rights’ defenders

play an important role in both stimulating and protecting the values and rights enshrined in

the EU treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, helping to foster the rule of law on the

ground. Civil society organisations and professional associations representing groups such as

judges, prosecutors or journalists submit significant contributions to the report each year.

Civil society organisations have also made valuable recommendations on how to improve the

Network of national contact points on the rule of law (europa.eu).

Over the last year, exchanges on good

practices included on Ombudspersons and National Human Rights Institutions, case allocation systems and

technical support instruments for reforms in both the Member States and enlargement countries.

In this context, the General Affairs Council held a horizontal discussion on general rule of law developments

in September 2023, and country-specific discussions in October 2023 and January and May 2024.

Evaluation of the Council’s rule of law dialogue –

Presidency conclusions.

The evaluation formalised the

Rule of Law Report as the basis for the annual dialogue.

In March 2024, the Justice Council discussed the resilience of the justice system when dealing with criminal

organisations in a state governed by the rule of law. In October 2023, the discussion in the Justice Council

focused reinforcing the efficiency and quality of national justice system.

European Parliament resolution of 28 February 2024 report on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report

(2023/2113(INI)), P9_TA(2024)0108, as well as dedicated plenary debates on Malta (19 October 2023),

Slovakia (17 January 2024), Greece (7 February 2024), and Hungary (24 April 2024).

Participants included the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.

Following the Dialogue, the EU Capital Cities shared a position paper as a contribution to the 2024 Rule of

Law Report, including a call for more attention to be paid to the local dimension of the rule of law and for

additional EU funding to be made available for local educational initiatives in this area.

ECA 2024 review on the rule of law reporting.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

preparation process for the reports, leading to an extension of the stakeholder consultation

period and increased transparency

The Commission has continued to organise

national rule of law dialogues

together with the

Fundamental Rights Agency, bringing together different national stakeholders at national

level and seeking to include them more closely in the follow-up to the Rule of Law Reports.

They offer valuable opportunities for the Commission and national authorities to gather civil

society perspectives, convene diverse stakeholders, and explore collaborative approaches for

implementing the recommendations

Support for rule of law reforms

Effective justice systems, the fight against corruption, and good lawmaking all have direct

economic relevance, with a bearing on investment, growth and jobs, and therefore on the

well-functioning of the single market. The rule of law and good governance are cornerstones

for the proper functioning of the internal market, as well as for a healthy business

environment, for the sustainability of public finances, and for effective structural reforms. As

such, they are part of the

European Semester

and its country-specific recommendations.

Several Member States included specific rule of law measures and related milestones and

targets in their national

recovery and resilience plans (RRPs),

which aim to address

relevant country-specific recommendations. This has helped to galvanise important reforms

in justice systems, the fight against corruption and the overall transparency and inclusiveness

of the law-making process

. In particular, Member States have adopted measures to

strengthen judicial independence, such as by reforming the disciplinary regime for

magistrates, as well as improving the efficiency of judicial systems, for instance through

reforming the structure of courts. In line with commitments in their plans, some Member

States have also stepped up the fight against corruption, for example by strengthening the

institutions dedicated to combatting corruption. Member States have also been implementing

measures to improve the quality of the legislative process, for instance introducing a

mandatory use of public consultations and impact assessments. In certain cases, these RRP

commitments were deemed indispensable in protecting the EU’s financial interests, with their

satisfactory fulfilment conditioning access to any disbursement under the Recovery and

Resilience Facility.

Other

EU funding

has also helped to build the capacity of the judiciary, media and civil

society in upholding the rule of law, alongside technical support and expertise for targeted

reforms, notably through the Technical Support Instrument, focusing on improving the

efficiency and quality of public administration and justice and addressing anti-corruption and

media pluralism challenges

. This has also been supported in Member States through their

cooperation with

international expertise

through the Council of Europe and its different

bodies

, as well as through exchanges with practitioners from other Member States.

An increased capacity to respond to rule of law problems

Notably in advance of country visits

2024 Rule of Law Report - European Commission (europa.eu).

For further information see:

National rule of law dialogues - European Commission (europa.eu).

See the

Commission Report on the Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility: Moving forward

(COM(2023) 545).

Other programmes offering important support include the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme,

and Creative Europe.

Notably the Venice Commission and the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

As a complement to developing the rule of law toolbox on prevention and on creating rule of

law reform incentives, the EU has also increased its capacity to respond to rule of law

problems.

The Commission has continued to exercise its role as guardian of the EU treaties

. Where

necessary, it has launched

infringement procedures

to address specific breaches of the rule

of law. Judicial independence has been at the heart of an important body of case-law that the

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has developed in cases initiated by the

Commission’s infringement procedures and by requests for preliminary rulings from national

courts.

The

general regime of conditionality

for the protection of the Union budget came into force

in 2021 to protect the sound financial management of the EU budget and the EU financial

interest from breaches of the principle of the rule of law

. The Commission closely monitors

the situation in all Member States and takes action where needed. In 2022, the Commission

initiated a procedure to protect the EU budget from breaches of the principles of the rule of

law in Hungary

. On a proposal by the Commission, the Council decided on budgetary

protective measures in December 2022

. While the implementation of some remedial

measures put forward in response to the conditionality procedure is ongoing, important

shortcomings remain and no new measures were adopted by Hungary to remedy the

outstanding concerns. Therefore, on 13 December 2023, the Commission concluded that the

measures adopted by the Council a year earlier should remain in place. The Commission is

ready to continue engaging with Hungary to resolve the remaining concerns

Another instrument that has encouraged reforms supporting Member States in the application

of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights

is the

horizontal enabling condition

under the

Common Provisions Regulation (Charter HEC). Member States are required to put in place

effective mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Charter at all stages when implementing

EU programmes

This includes compliance with the Charter right to an effective remedy

and fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. This tool has demonstrated its

effectiveness in practice, as so far, there have been two cases where the Commission released

EU funding only after the Member States concerned had implemented the reforms considered

necessary to fulfil the horizontal enabling condition as regards judicial independence.

Finally, the

Article 7(1) TEU

procedure, which allows the Council to determine the

existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the EU’s values and to follow up on such risks,

The 2022 Communication ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’ underlined that the EU is a

community of law, based on common values shared by Member States, with applying and enforcing EU law

and respect for the rule of law at its core (COM(2022) 518).

In January 2024, the Commission reported on the operation of the regulation establishing the general regime

of conditionality and concluded that the measures adopted until that moment had proved effective in

protecting the EU financial interests (COM (2024) 17 final/2).

On 27 April 2022, the Commission launched for the first time the step of the procedure established under

Article 6(1) of the Conditionality Regulation.

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022.

Commission Decision C(2023)8999 final of 13 December 2023. Under the Conditionality Regulation,

Hungary may submit further remedial proposals and if the Commission considers that the issues have been

remedied partly or in full, it submits to the Council a proposal to adapt or lift the adopted measures.

The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) governs three cohesion policy funds, one maritime, fisheries and

aquaculture fund, and three home affairs funds all under shared management. The Charter HEC also requires

that Member States have a strong complaints mechanism in place.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

has continued in the Council. Article 7 TEU

is an exceptional tool that the EU can use to

address the most serious rule of law failings in a Member State. So far, the procedure has

been triggered twice: first by the Commission in respect of Poland in December 2017

, and

then by the European Parliament in respect of Hungary in September 2018

. Under both

procedures, the Council held several formal hearings and state of play sessions, without

however taking a decision to take either procedure to the next stage

. Following a series of

positive developments in Poland, the Commission concluded in May 2024 that the conditions

for maintaining the procedure no longer existed. The Polish authorities adopted an Action

Plan to address the issues of judicial independence covered in the Commission’s reasoned

proposal of December 2017, and which the Commission will use in its monitoring

Considering that there is no longer a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law by

Poland, the Commission withdrew its reasoned proposal so that the procedure against Poland

is now closed. Monitoring of the rule of law developments will continue as part of the Rule of

Law Report.

Additional safeguards exist also in other instruments. Under the

Recovery and Resilience

Facility,

the Commission closely monitors compliance with the milestones, and it can

suspend part of future payments if a milestone or target that has been previously positively

assessed would be reversed

. If the reversed measure is relevant for the protection of the

EU’s financial interest, all future payments would be blocked, and could be unblocked only

upon re-fulfilment. Under the Common Provisions Regulation,

horizontal and thematic

enabling conditions

must be fulfilled throughout the entire programming period. If, at any

point, a Member State is no longer fulfilling an enabling condition that had been previously

positively assessed, a new assessment could result in a blocking of EU payments.

Rule of law at the core of the enlargement process and engagement with external partners

Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine and its people, now

in its third year, is also a direct attack on EU values. The EU’s resolve to uphold the rule of

law and the international rules-based order has only increased in the face of Russia’s war of

aggression. Safeguarding and upholding our democratic institutions and values is a shared

responsibility of Member States and EU institutions. This is all the more important now that

the EU and its Member States are threatened by hostile foreign actors using disinformation

and cyber-attacks trying to undermine our democracies and that there is increasing evidence

of direct foreign interference in our democratic structures

. Countries in the neighbourhood

and the Western Balkans are also targets of attempts at interference by Russia, with

disinformation and anti-democratic and anti-EU rhetoric being a particular concern.

Article 7 TEU sets out the conditions under which the Council may determine that there is a clear risk of a

serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2; the European Council may determine

the existence of such a serious and persistent breach; and the Council may then determine the action to be

taken in terms of suspension of the rights of a Member State under the Treaties.

Proposal for a Council Decision (COM(2017) 835, 20.12.2017).

European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 (2017/2131(INL)).

Seven formal hearings have taken place so far as regards Hungary. As regards Poland, six hearings took

place before the withdrawal of the Commission’s proposal.

See also country chapter on Poland (SWD (2024) 821).

Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Recovery and Resiliency Facility: Moving

forward (COM(2023) 545).

Cases include lawmakers hacked ahead of elections, covert lobbying via proxies, fake research issued to

whitewash human rights records, and websites purporting to be independent media platforms while covertly

facilitating political interference campaigns. See Communication from the Commission on Defence of

Democracy, COM(2023)630.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Consolidating democratic structures, upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental

rights is at the heart of the EU’s engagement with enlargement countries.

Credible and

sustainable reforms

in these areas are crucial for progressing towards accession. They are

defined as the “fundamentals” of EU enlargement policy

. The revised enlargement

methodology approved by the Council in 2020

reinforced the centrality of the

fundamentals, as the first matters to be addressed in the accession negotiations and the last to

be closed, with progress on the fundamentals key for overall progress in the negotiations.

This means they are monitored throughout the overall accession process and determine the

momentum of countries on their path towards accession.

The Commission’s

annual Enlargement package

takes stock of each country’s overall

progress on their path towards accession. Based on the principle of own merits, only with

tangible and continuous progress on the rule of law can the Commission recommend moving

forward in the negotiations with each country. The rule of law is also an essential element of

the new

Western Balkans Reform and Growth Facility

and the

Ukraine Facility.

To fully

benefit from these two unprecedented support mechanisms, countries need to prepare and

implement an agreed reform agenda, including concrete steps on the fundamentals.

As of 2024, as announced by President von der Leyen in the 2023 State of the Union address,

the Commission decided to extend

participation in the Rule of Law Report

to complement

the work under accession process, which remains the exclusive setting for enlargement

negotiations

Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia

now participate in the

Rule of Law Report and the EU Network of Rule of Law contact points, reflecting the

progress made in their respective accession process or advancement as regards their level of

preparedness on rule of law. This approach will enable an extension to other enlargement

countries in the future. The inclusion of these countries alongside Member States will

strengthen EU support for rule of law reforms, support their accession process and help

maintain a sustainable pattern of high standards after accession.

To ensure that reforms are implemented in practice, capacity building is crucial. The EU

provides

financial support and technical assistance

to ensure that reforms are aligned with

European standards. It encourages best practices, including consulting important legislation

with the Venice Commission. Peer reviews, training of justice professionals, and promoting

institutional cooperation with public administrations in Member States (twinning) have been

key forms of EU support in enlargement countries.

The EU is taking a strong and consistent approach in its entire external action, at bilateral,

regional and international level, in order to promote the rule of law around the world.

Upholding the rule of law is at the core of the EU’s external engagement and one of the

foundations of all EU agreements with international partners. An independent evaluation of

the EU’s support to the rule of law and anti-corruption in partner countries (2010-2021)

concluded that the EU had succeeded in advancing the rule of law agenda, including in

Together with economic criteria and public administration reform.

Communication from the Commission on ‘Enhancing the accession process - A credible EU perspective for

the Western Balkans’, COM(2020) 57.

Synergies between the enlargement process and the Rule of Law Report will be ensured and there are no

recommendations issued for Enlargement countries in the Rule of Law Report. Recommendations will

continue to be issued in the annual Enlargement Package, as well as in the context of the other engagement

foreseen under the Stabilisation and Association Agreements. The Rule of Law Report will support the

implementation of those recommendations.

The

evaluation

was published in December 2022. This strategic evaluation provides an independent and

evidence-based assessment of the performance of the EU support to the rule of law in Partner Countries.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

restrictive contexts and in fragile and conflict-affected states. Building on this evaluation, a

Global Team Europe Initiative on Democracy has been launched to work more effectively

and strategically on rule of law support and anti-corruption

. The EU also has a clear

commitment to tackle corruption at the global level, supporting legal and policy reforms to

build anti-corruption institutions and oversight bodies, and to strengthen civil society,

whistleblowers, human rights defenders and independent media as watchdogs against

corruption. Rule of law related issues, including the right to a fair trial and to due process, the

fight against corruption, and the independence of the judiciary are regularly raised in human

rights dialogues with partner countries, and the EU targets support towards key actors

advancing the rule of law.

3. KEY ASPECTS OF THE RULE OF LAW SITUATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL

As in previous years, this 2024 Rule of Law Report sets out significant common themes and

trends, specific challenges, and positive developments under the four pillars of justice

systems, anti-corruption frameworks, media freedom and pluralism, and other institutional

issues related to checks and balances. The examples given draw from the assessments to be

found in the 31 country chapters, which are an integral part of this report and provide the

detailed context for each Member State and participating enlargement country

. The report

also includes specific recommendations to Member States

and assesses progress in

implementing the specific recommendations issued last year

Methodology of the Rule of Law Report and its recommendations

The assessment in the country chapters for each Member State and enlargement country

covered has been prepared in line with an established methodology used for previous

editions of the report

. The country chapters rely on a qualitative assessment

autonomously carried out by the Commission, focusing on a synthesis of significant

developments since July 2023. In each country chapter, the analysis focuses in particular

on topics where there have been significant developments, or where significant challenges

have been identified in the previous report and persist during this reporting period. The

analysis contains a qualitative assessment of the progress made by Member States towards

implementing the 2023 recommendations

. The objective of the 2024 recommendations

The Team Europe Democracy (TED) is a global thematic Team Europe Initiative (TEI) involving 14 Member

States launched to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. Accountability and rule of law are key

priority themes.

The country chapters are available

here.

The recommendations are referenced in footnotes throughout this report, listed in the Annex by order of the

pillars in the country chapters and included in the individual country chapters.

The assessments included in the country chapters do not prejudge any future assessment under the Recovery

and Resilience Facility (Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of 12 February 2021), under the Common Provisions

Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of 24 June 2021) or under the general regime of conditionality for

the protection of the Union budget (Regulation 2020/2092 of 22 December 2020).

The methodology is available

here.

Depending on the progress made on the various subparts of each recommendation, and whether the

recommendations were carried through from the 2022 report, the Commission concluded in each case using

the following categories: no (further) progress, some (further) progress, significant progress, and full

implementation. Depending on the stage of progress and the results achieved, recommendations from the

2023 Report are carried into this year’s report, with adaptations as necessary.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

continues to be to support Member States in their efforts to take forward reforms

. There

are no recommendations for enlargement countries in this report; such recommendations

are issued in the context of the annual Enlargement Package.

The report is the result of close collaboration with national authorities and relies on a

variety of national, international and other sources

, as well as the Commission’s own data

gathering

. Member States and enlargement countries were invited to contribute, provide

written input

and participate in dedicated country visits

. A targeted stakeholder

consultation also provided valuable cross-cutting and country-specific contributions

. The

Council of Europe also provided an overview of its recent opinions and reports

. Prior to

the adoption of this report, national authorities have been given the opportunity to provide

factual updates to their country chapter. In addition, the Commission - at political and at

technical level - discusses the report, once published, with national authorities and

governments, as well as with national Parliaments.

3.1

Justice systems

Well-functioning, efficient and fully independent justice systems are crucial for the

application and enforcement of EU and national law and upholding the rule of law. Judicial

independence is integral to the task of judicial decision-making and stems from the principle

of effective judicial protection

. Independent judges and courts

guarantee the fairness of

judicial proceedings and the protection of

individual rights and are crucial for ensuring that

justice works to the benefit of citizens and of businesses. They are also essential for judicial

cooperation across the EU, which is a key objective in the area of freedom security and

justice

. Access to independent courts and judicial review are fundamental to the rule of

law

The principles on the basis of which the recommendations were prepared are the same as last year (see

COM(2022) 500, p.3-4). The recommendations are without prejudice to any action proceedings the

Commission may initiate under other legal instruments.

The sources used to prepare this report include written input received from Member States, contributions

received during the targeted stakeholder consultation, information produced by international organisations,

and the input provided during country visits. These sources inform the Commission’s assessment, but the

Commission’s conclusions remain its own responsibility.

In particular, the EU Justice Scoreboard provides comparative and reliable data on the efficiency, quality and

independence of justice systems in the EU Member States. Its aim is to assist the EU and Member States

improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems. The Scoreboard also includes indicators for the

judiciary’s independence relating to the effectiveness of investment protection. The Scoreboard is gradually

extending to present new data: in 2024, it included data on salaries of judicial and prosecutorial expert staff,

on the length of proceedings in bribery cases and asset declaration systems, and the appointment and

dismissal procedures for prosecutors. The Scoreboard is also an important source for European Semester

country reports.

Member States’ input can be found

here.

Information on the country visits can be found in the country chapters. During these country visits, held

online, the Commission spoke to Member States’ national authorities, including judicial and independent

authorities, law enforcement, and other stakeholders, such as journalists’ associations and civil society.

Stakeholder input can be found

here.

The Council of Europe input can be found

here.

See Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

On 18 June 2024, the EU announced its decision to adhere to the 2023 OECD Recommendation on Access

to Justice and people-centred justice systems. The Commission joined the 22 Member States that are

members of the OECD in drafting the Recommendation and continues to work to take it forward.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Member States must fully respect the requirements set by EU law and the case-law of the

Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and should also take European standards into account in

the design of their justice systems. European judicial networks and associations

also help

promote and uphold the rule of law, as they work on further developing European standards

and make important contributions to the preparation of the Rule of Law Report.

Perceptions of judicial independence

As set out in the 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard, Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 2024

show that the perception of independence among the general public and among companies,

when compared to 2023, improved or remained stable in most Member States, including

among countries which experienced systemic challenges

. Well-functioning and fully

independent justice systems can have a positive impact on investment and are key for

investment protection, and therefore contribute to growth and competitiveness. In

Denmark,

Finland, Austria, Sweden, Luxembourg

and

Ireland,

the level of perceived independence

continues to be particularly high among the general public or companies (above 75%), while

it remains very low in

Croatia, Poland

and

Bulgaria

(below 30%). As regards enlargement

countries, Eurobarometer results show relatively low levels of perceived independence.

Councils for the Judiciary and procedures for the appointment and dismissal of judges as key

safeguards for judicial independence

Procedures for the appointment and dismissal of judges and the powers and composition of

Councils for the Judiciary are important in safeguarding judicial independence, based on the

principles established by the CJEU.

Where established, Councils for the Judiciary are an important contributor to judicial

independence

and can act as a buffer between the judiciary and the other branches of power

in matters such as the appointment and career of judges or magistrates, as well as in the

management of the justice system

. European standards have been developed by the Council

of Europe on how the Councils for the Judiciary should be designed to best safeguard their

independence, including as regards their composition

. To function effectively, Councils for

the Judiciary need adequate resources and administrative independence.

Several Member States advanced legislative efforts to strengthen the independence and

effectiveness of Councils for the Judiciary, in some cases following the 2023

recommendations. In

Luxembourg,

the National Council for Justice was appointed and is

becoming fully operational. In

Bulgaria,

a constitutional reform changed the composition of

the Supreme Judicial Council to align it with the European standards. In

Hungary,

following

Such as the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme

Judicial Courts of the European Union, the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative

Jurisdictions of the European Union, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe and Council of

Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ).

Figures 51 and 53, 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard.

The CJEU has recognised that where a Council for the Judiciary participates in an appointment process

involving political bodies, it can contribute to making that process more objective, by circumscribing the

discretion of political bodies, provided that it is sufficiently independent from the executive and legislative

powers and from the body to which it is submitting an opinion. See for example judgment of 2 March 2021,

AB and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court – Actions).

Key European standards have been developed by the Council of Europe on how the Councils for the

Judiciary should be established to best safeguard their independence, including on their composition, see in

particular Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Council of Europe.

See in particular Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Council of Europe.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

legislative reform in 2023, the National Judicial Council’s new competences allow to

effectively counterbalance the powers of the President of the National Office for the

Judiciary, tasked with the central administration of courts. In other Member States, initiatives

are ongoing. In

Poland,

the Sejm adopted a law to address the concerns related to the

independence of the National Council for the Judiciary (NCJ). In the

Netherlands,

the

procedure for appointing members of the Council for the Judiciary and court management

boards is currently being reviewed. In

Estonia,

discussions are ongoing to reform the Council

for the Administration of Courts and transfer more powers from the executive to the

judiciary. In

Spain,

following a structured dialogue with the European Commission as

facilitator, an agreement was reached to renew the Council for the Judiciary and to initiate,

immediately after the renewal, a process in view of adapting the appointment of its judges-

members, taking into account European standards. On the other hand, concerns regarding the

Council for the Judiciary remain in

Slovakia,

where no progress has been made to introduce

safeguards for the dismissal of the members of the Judicial Council and three nominees were

dismissed before the end of their term.

As regards enlargement countries, following constitutional amendments in 2022 to strengthen

judicial independence in

Serbia,

the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial

Council were established in their new composition. In

Montenegro,

the legal framework

guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of the judicial system has been revised. In

Albania,

accountability has been strengthened thanks to vetting of all judges and prosecutors

but shortcomings remain on the appointments of non-magistrate members of the High

Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council. In

North Macedonia

concerns remain

regarding the functioning and independence of the Judicial Council.

The method used for the appointment and dismissal of judges is important for judicial

independence and the public perception of it. To guarantee judicial independence, rules

governing judicial appointments need to prevent doubts as to the imperviousness of judges to

external factors, and as to their neutrality as judges

In several Member States, efforts to improve judicial appointment procedures are ongoing,

including as a follow up to the 2023 recommendations. In

Greece,

legislative steps were

taken to involve the judiciary in the appointments to the highest positions in the judiciary. In

Ireland,

the new Judicial Appointments Commission Act introduced a number of

improvements to reduce political influence in the appointment and promotion of judges. In

Finland,

a working group follows up on the report on the assessment and future development

trends of the court system, including the appointment process for judges. In

Austria,

recent

reforms of the appointment systems for the Supreme Court President and candidate judges

are being implemented. In

Poland,

some of the negative effects of the contested justice

reforms of 2017 regarding the functioning of the ordinary judiciary are being reversed. The

Government has set out its intention to involve the judiciary in all decisions related to

appointments to key positions within the ordinary judiciary and to organise transparent

appointment procedures based on open competitions: an approach already being implemented

for court presidents and vice-presidents. In

Germany,

discussions are ongoing about a

possible reform to enhance the resilience of the Constitutional Court. In

Malta,

steps have

been announced to involve the judiciary in the procedure for appointment of the Chief

Justice, as the Government has endorsed a constitutional reform stipulating consultations with

See judgments including those of 15 July 2021, C-791/19

Commission v Poland;

of 20 April 2021, C-896/19

Repubblika and Il-Prim Ministru;

and of 2 March 2021, C-824/18

AB and Others (Appointment of judges to

the Supreme Court).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

the incumbent Chief Justice prior to the appointment of a new Chief Justice. Some steps were

taken to ensure that the reform of judicial appointments in

Slovenia

contains adequate

safeguards for judicial independence, as the previously envisaged probationary period

without prescribed guarantees was abandoned. The 2022 constitutional reform to strengthen

judicial independence in

Serbia

is being followed up, including through the application of the

new appeal procedure to the Constitutional Court concerning judicial appointments.

Challenges remain in some Member States on appointments to high-level judicial positions

and for court president positions. In

Latvia,

a vacancy at the Supreme Court was filled, but no

steps were taken to introduce adequate safeguards against undue political influence

applicable to future appointments. Similarly, in

Austria,

no steps have been taken to ensure

judicial involvement in the appointments of administrative court (vice-) presidents. In

Lithuania,

there are calls to reinforce some more safeguards on the transparency of judicial

appointments. In

Sweden,

while initial steps have been taken in relation to the independence

of lay judges, no progress was made to ensure that their nomination system safeguards their

independence.

Montenegro,

significant delays in judicial appointments have had serious impacts on the

judicial system, though only the Supreme Court President now remains to be appointed. In

Serbia,

a considerable number of vacancies for judges and prosecutors remains to be filled. In

North Macedonia,

appointment decisions for public prosecutors and judges have been

criticised by civil society as lacking explanation and clear criteria.

Different aspects of independence of judges and courts are being addressed in a number of

Member States. In

Italy,

the Department of Tax Justice has been established in order to

increase the independence of the newly established tax courts from the Ministry of Economy

and Finance. In the

Netherlands,

strengthened security measures are being explored to

enhance the resilience of the justice system against organised crime. In

Malta,

work has

started to address persistent concerns regarding the independence of specialised tribunals.

The allocation of cases in courts also requires safeguards for judicial independence and

impartiality to prevent any undue interference, which can be ensured in different ways, such

as the random allocation of cases via a computer algorithm or a pre-defined order.

Portugal

has strengthened transparency in the allocation of cases, as a new electronic system is being

effectively implemented. In

Hungary,

the transparency of the case allocation at the Supreme

Court has improved, while concerns remain regarding the transparency of case allocation in

lower courts.

In a few Member States, concerns exist about undue pressure on the judiciary from

politicians or the executive level, and there is also evidence of pressure originating from third

countries. The risk that public statements from governments and politicians may affect public

trust in judicial independence has raised concerns in

Slovakia, Italy

and

Spain.

There are

particular concerns about intimidation of judges in

Lithuania,

originating from Russian

courts. As regards enlargement countries, concerns about attempted interference and pressure

on the judicial system by public officials or politicians remains high in

Albania, Serbia,

and

North Macedonia.

Autonomy and independence of the prosecution service as important topics of reform

The organisation of national prosecution services varies across the EU and there is no

uniform model for all Member States. However, institutional safeguards should guarantee the

autonomy of the prosecution service, ensuring that public prosecutors can fulfil their

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

professional duties without interference

. This is essential for national and EU criminal law,

as well as for the protection of the financial interests of the EU.

Reforms to strengthen institutional safeguards for the prosecution service, some of them in

response to 2023 recommendations, have continued. In

Poland,

additional steps have been

taken to ensure the independence of the prosecution service from the Government and to

separate the office of the Minister of Justice from that of the Prosecutor General. In

Czechia,

a reform of the prosecution service included safeguards for the dismissal of the Prosecutor

General and other chief prosecutors. In

Denmark,

the Government submitted a proposal to

Parliament to strengthen the public perceptions of independence of the Director of Public

Prosecutions by limiting the maximum mandate for the position.

Malta,

the transfer of prosecutions from the Police to the Office of the Attorney General is

progressing

. In

Cyprus,

the Government is in the process of drafting legislation aiming to

separate the advisory and prosecutorial role of the Law Office, which is a positive step

towards strengthening the independence of the Prosecution Service; plans have also been

announced to introduce the possibility of review of the decisions of the Attorney General not

to prosecute or to discontinue proceedings. In

Spain,

a reform of the statute of the Prosecutor

General is foreseen, which will exclude persons having been in political office in recent years

from the office of Prosecutor General and prevent that the Prosecutor General acts in cases

that affect her or him personally. In

Serbia,

the laws on the Public Prosecution Office and the

High Prosecutorial Council allow prosecutors to file complaints against mandatory

instructions, thus aiming to strengthen prosecutorial autonomy.

The power of the executive to give instructions to prosecutors in individual cases has

continued being a subject of particular attention. In the

Netherlands

the debate continues on

the removal of the executive’s power to give instructions to prosecutors in individual cases.

Germany,

a proposal has been made to introduce further safeguards for the use of the

power of both Federal and Länder-level Ministers of Justice to issue instructions to

prosecutors in individual cases.

However, a number of challenges remain to be addressed, including those covered in 2023

recommendations. The planned reform of the prosecution service in

Austria

has not

advanced, with no political agreement to take forward the proposal by the expert group made

in 2022. In

Slovakia,

the power of the Prosecutor General to annul decisions of lower-ranking

prosecutors remains a concern. In 2024, despite strong concerns raised including by the

European Commission, the Slovak Government dissolved the Special Prosecutor’s Office,

raising concerns both about the immediate impact on cases and the long-term structural

impact, putting at risk the efficiency and autonomy of the prosecutions.

Ensuring accountability and safeguarding independence in disciplinary procedures for

judges and prosecutors

The CJEU has made clear that disciplinary procedures must not be used as a manner of

political control on the judiciary

. Safeguards include clear rules that define the conduct that

qualifies as a disciplinary offence, and the penalties to apply. Disciplinary proceedings need

See Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions and Reports concerning prosecutors (CDL-PI(2022)023).

This is also part of Malta’s RRP, milestone 6.3.

The Court has recalled this principle in cases referring to the disciplinary chamber of the Polish Supreme

Court (Judgment of 5 June 2023, C-204/21,

Commission v Poland)

and the Romanian Judicial Inspection

(Judgments of 11 May 2023, case 817/21

Inspecţia Judiciară,

and of 18 May 2021, C-83/19 etc

Asociaţia

'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Others v Inspecţia Judiciară and Others).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

to be carried out through an independent body, following procedures which fully safeguard

the rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular the rights of defence. Rules

must also ensure that disciplinary bodies’ decisions can be challenged in Court

The trend observed in past Rule of Law reports continued, with steps towards increased

safeguards for judicial independence and autonomy of prosecutors in disciplinary

proceedings in several Member States. In

Slovenia,

draft amendments to the Judicial Council

Act envisaging the overhaul the disciplinary framework for judges have been presented

Czechia,

a reform of the disciplinary proceedings is discussed in Parliament.

France

adopted

a new law reforming the status of magistrates, including the disciplinary regime. In

Malta,

discussion on the renewal of the disciplinary regime for prosecutors is expected in the second

half of 2024. In

Poland,

the disciplinary regime applicable to judges was reformed, in line

with the commitments under Poland’s Recovery and Resilience Plan.

The effective protection of judicial independence also requires a culture of integrity and

impartiality. Several Member States are implementing policies and practices to promote

integrity within the judiciary. Examples include steps in

Croatia

and

Sweden.

Belgium,

the

Government has decided not to table a proposal to introduce regular security checks by the

National Security Agency on all judges. In

North Macedonia,

Codes of ethics are in place for

both prosecutors and judges.

Efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of justice

The efficiency of justice systems is a necessary condition for the protection of rights, legal

certainty and public confidence in the rule of law. An efficient justice system manages its

caseload and delivers decisions without undue delay. Excessively long proceedings and

backlogs undermine the trust of citizens and businesses in national justice systems.

In several Member States, new measures are in place to improve efficiency.

Spain

has

adopted new measures to enhance the efficiency of the justice system. A trend in

France

decrease the length of court proceedings will be further supported by new legislation

promoting the amicable settlement of disputes. In

Czechia,

efficiency has continued to

improve, in particular regarding the length of administrative cases, while

Serbia

has seen a

positive trend as regards reducing the length of civil, commercial and criminal cases.

Despite some steps, some Member States still face long-standing challenges as regards the

efficiency of justice systems. Concerns remain in

Malta, Croatia

and

Greece,

though they all

took new measures in an attempt to reduce the length of proceedings. A similar pattern in

Portugal

is compounded by concerns that general criminal procedure legislation is not

tailored to efficiently deal with complex criminal proceedings In

Italy,

the length of judicial

proceedings is continuing its positive trend but remains a serious challenge. Regarding

enlargement countries, the length of proceedings for different kinds of cases remains a

challenge in

Albania

and

North Macedonia.

An effective justice system needs adequate resources, including the necessary investments in

infrastructure, and well qualified, trained and adequately paid staff. A number of Member

States have recognised this through additional resources to strengthen the resilience of justice

systems, including through their national Recovery and Resilience Plans. In

Denmark,

France, Sweden

and

Finland,

resources for the justice system have been increased. In

Croatia,

significant progress was achieved to step up remuneration and legislation to set objective

remuneration criteria is expected. In

Romania,

the High Court of Cassation and Justice took

Judgment of 25 July 2018,

LM,

C-216/18 PPU, para. 67.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

measures to address salary inequalities in the judiciary.

Latvia

saw substantial increases in

remuneration for judges and court employees, though turnover problems remain for judicial

assistants.

In other Member States, levels of remuneration continue to pose challenges, often leading to

shortages and vacancies which are difficult to fill. In

Slovenia,

some steps were made to

increase the level of remuneration of judges and state prosecutors, largely unchanged since

2012, for which the Government proposed a partial increase and the Constitutional Court

prescribed how its judgment should be implemented. In

Germany,

while some steps have

been taken to supplement the overall resources for the judiciary, the level of remuneration of

judges remains a challenge. In

Czechia,

the method for determining judges’ salaries was

modified to reduce salary increases, and salaries of court and prosecution assistant staff

remain an issue. In the

Netherlands,

specific recommendations to address staff shortages and

workload concerns among the judiciary are being discussed. In

Lithuania,

a reform of judicial

salaries is positively assessed by judges, while concerns remain as to the remuneration of

court staff and prosecutors.

Cyprus, Portugal

and

Romania

experience difficulties to recruit in

different areas of the judicial system. In

Hungary,

the level of remuneration of judges and

court staff has further deteriorated due to high inflation. The enlargement countries face

similar resources constraints.

Serbia

is implementing a Strategy on Human Resources in the

Judiciary 2022-2026, but the low attractiveness of judicial careers poses a challenge. The

same challenge has not been addressed by the amendments to the laws on salaries of judges

and prosecutors in

North Macedonia.

As regards staff levels, in

Spain,

new posts for judges have been established, while in

Italy

significant improvements were made in recruitment of magistrates and administrative staff. In

Belgium

providing adequate resources for the justice system has further progressed, as a tool

measuring workload confirms structural resource deficiencies. In

Albania,

overall shortages

of resources of the justice system risk negatively affecting the quality of justice.

Investing in the digitalisation can strengthen justice systems and make them more accessible,

resilient and ready to face current and future challenges. New digitalisation initiatives have

been put place in

Spain, Croatia, Italy, Ireland, France,

the

Netherlands, Malta

and

Romania.

Bulgaria,

a new draft law envisages changes to the Judicial System Act related to the

digitalisation of justice.

North Macedonia, Serbia

and

Albania

are taking steps in the

digitalisation of case management, although shortcomings remain.

Access to justice and the role of lawyers in the justice system

Lawyers and bar associations play a key role in guaranteeing access to justice, ensuring the

protection of fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial. In several Member States,

steps are being taken to ensure reliable legal aid schemes and access to a lawyer. In

Luxembourg,

a reform to make legal aid more accessible was adopted. In

Czechia

and in

Spain,

provisions on legal aid have been amended to broaden access. In

Ireland,

there was

some progress on reducing the litigation costs and a general review of the Civil Legal Aid

scheme is underway. In

Lithuania,

the reform of the legal aid system is progressing, and the

conditions for the participation of legal aid providers have been improved. In

Slovakia,

amendments to increase the access to free legal aid are under preparation. In

Denmark,

review of the legal aid system has been ongoing. In

Finland,

a National Legal Services

Authority, which was established to provide more consistent and high-quality legal aid, will

be operational in 2025. Beyond the EU,

Albania

has a comprehensive legal framework in

place for legal aid and its number of beneficiaries has increased.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Some Member States still see challenges. In

Bulgaria,

the Constitutional Court declared that

the law on mandatory judicial mediation, which was set to enter fully into force in July 2024,

was unconstitutional. In

Hungary,

concerns remain as regards the effectiveness of the legal

aid scheme in both civil and criminal cases. Certain challenges have also been identified in

Austria

linked to high court fees and access to legal advice in administrative cases, with some

steps taken to address the latter.

An effective justice system requires that lawyers be free to pursue their activities of advising

and representing their clients. In

Czechia,

an amendment enhancing the protection of attorney

confidentiality is in Parliament. On the other hand, challenges to the legal professional

privilege have been expressed from the legal profession in

Belgium

and respect for their

legally recognised rights and privileges in

Romania.

Lithuania,

lawyers continue to raise

concerns regarding the respect for professional secrecy.

3.2

Anti-corruption framework

Corruption damages the delivery of public services and, it corrodes citizens’ and businesses’

trust in public institutions, creating a sense of unfairness and injustice consequently damaging

the rule of law. A comprehensive approach to fighting corruption relies on a combination of

preventive and punitive measures. This requires a robust legal and institutional framework,

effective investigations, and prosecutions and a clear political will to enforce the anti-

corruption framework. It also needs comprehensive and effective measures to minimise the

space for corruption and foster integrity.

Corruption perceptions across the EU

The results of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)

show that more than half of the 20

countries ranking best internationally are EU Member States

. However, differences remain

across Member States, also in terms of the trends in recent years

. Enlargement countries

score below the average

The 2024 Eurobarometer surveys on corruption

shows that corruption remains a serious

concern for citizens and businesses in the EU. About 7 in 10 Europeans (68%) believe that

corruption is widespread in their country and over 4 in 10 Europeans (41%) consider that the

level of corruption has increased in their country. 57% of citizens think that their

government’s efforts to combat corruption are not effective. In addition, most European

companies (65%) consider that the problem of corruption is widespread in their country and

half (51%) think that it is unlikely that corrupt people or businesses in their country would be

caught, or reported to the police or prosecutors.

National anti-corruption strategies and their implementation

Transparency International (2024)

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022

11 Member States are in the top 20, two more than the previous year. Three Member States (Denmark,

Finland and Sweden) score 80/100 or above on the index, with others (the Netherlands, Germany,

Luxembourg, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Austria and France) score above 70/100. The EU average is (to be

calculated)/100.

Scores below 50 can be seen in Romania (46), Bulgaria (45), and Hungary (42).

Scores below 50 can be seen in Montenegro (45), North Macedonia (40), Albania (36), and Serbia (36)

Special

Eurobarometer 548

on Corruption (2024) & Flash

Eurobarometer 543

on Businesses’ attitudes

towards corruption in the EU (2024). The previous data sets are the Special Eurobarometer 534 (2023) and

the Flash Eurobarometer 524 (2023).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

The importance of maintaining effective anti-corruption policies is recognised in international

law

. National anti-corruption strategies can ensure that countries follow a comprehensive,

coherent and integrated approach, allowing action against corruption to be mainstreamed in

all relevant policy sectors. Almost all Member States currently have national anti-corruption

strategies in place, although with varying comprehensiveness. Since July 2023,

Hungary,

Greece, Italy, Sweden

and

Austria

have updated their national strategies and/or action plans

and

Portugal

adopted an anti-corruption agenda.

France, Finland

and

Bulgaria

have started

the process of revising their existing strategy, and preparatory revision processes are

advancing in

Slovenia,

while still pending in

Germany.

Estonia,

the implementation of the

anti-corruption action plan continues in an efficient and timely manner. In

Malta,

the

monitoring of the implementation of the national anti-fraud and corruption strategy

encountered some delays.

As regards enlargement countries,

Montenegro

has adopted and

Serbia

is currently finalising

their respective anti-corruption strategies. In

North Macedonia,

the slow implementation of

the measures committed to in its anti-corruption strategy points to a lack of political

commitment, while in

Albania,

implementation of the current strategy is on track but with

limited attention to high-risk sectors.

Strengthening the capacity of institutions and the legal framework to combat corruption

A robust legal and administrative anti-corruption framework

and strong and independent

institutions to enforce the rules are necessary to effectively combat corruption. In general, all

Member States and enlargement countries included in this report have strong legal

frameworks in place, although some specific gaps remain. In line with the 2023

recommendations, several Member States have taken forward criminal law reforms to

strengthen the fight against corruption.

Austria

extended bribery offences to cover candidates

for public office, and included additional sanctions for corruption offences, including the

prohibition to hold public office.

Greece

reinforced provisions on criminal liability for

bribery and

Croatia

strengthened the legislation on bribery of public officials, extending the

scope of liability of legal persons, and raising sanction levels for legal persons.

Germany

adopted a law strengthening provisions on trading in influence involving members of

Parliament. In other Member States some gaps remain, notably as regards foreign bribery. In

Sweden,

the legal definitions of foreign bribery, which remain limited, are being analysed by

a committee of inquiry, and revision of the foreign bribery offence is still pending in

Finland.

In some Member States, however, certain criminal law reforms risk undermining the fight

against corruption. In

Slovakia,

a recent criminal law reform raises a number of serious

concerns and has recently been subject to further amendment. Lowering the sanctions for

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) requires State Parties, in accordance with the

fundamental principles of their legal systems, to develop and implement or maintain effective, coordinated

anti-corruption policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law,

proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability. All

Member States and the EU are parties to the Convention. See also The Kuala Lumpur

Statement on Anti-

Corruption Strategies.

Currently 20 Member States have dedicated anti-corruption strategies or programmes; almost all others have

anti-corruption components in other national strategies and action plans.

International standards are primarily the UNCAC; the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on

Corruption and its Civil Law Convention on Corruption; and the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery

of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. At EU level, on 3 May 2023, the

Commission proposed a Directive on combating corruption, COM (2023) 234 final which aims to update

and strengthen the EU criminal justice framework.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

corruption and corruption-related crimes, shortening time limitation periods applying to

corruption crimes, and abolishing the Special Prosecution Office all risk to weaken the fight

against corruption. In

Italy,

a new law repealing the offence of abuse of office and limiting

the scope of the offence of trading in influence could have implications for the detection and

investigation of fraud and corruption. As regards the enlargement countries, in

North

Macedonia,

recent criminal code amendments weakened the legal framework, negatively

affecting the prosecution of corruption, especially in high-level corruption- cases.

Important developments took place to improve the anti-corruption institutional landscape in

some Member States. In

Bulgaria,

the Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Illegal

Assets Forfeiture was divided into two separate bodies (the Anti-Corruption Commission and

the Commission for Illegal Assets Forfeiture) in view of advancing anti-corruption

institutional framework, as envisaged in Bulgaria’s Recovery and Resilience Plan.

Poland

planning to dismantle its Central Anti-Corruption Bureau and transfer its resources and

competences to the Police’s Central Bureau of Investigation, with a view to addressing

previous concerns about interference.

The capacity of law enforcement services, prosecution authorities, and the judiciary more

generally, to enforce anti-corruption criminal law provisions is essential to effectively combat

corruption. Specialisation, expertise and adequate staffing all need to keep up with the

growing complexity of corruption crimes. In

Cyprus, Malta

and

Portugal,

steps have been

taken to increase resources of investigative authorities while

Luxembourg

is planning to do

so. On the other hand, concerns about both the overall level of resources, and the degree of

specialisation, have been voiced in respect of

Slovakia

and

Ireland.

Similar shortfalls for

specialised anti-corruption prosecution services have been highlighted in

Montenegro

and

Serbia.

Cooperation between law enforcement authorities and other agencies, such as financial

intelligence units and tax, audit, competition and other administrative authorities, as well as

access to information and the interconnection of databases and registries is key for fighting

corruption. Cooperation is being strengthened in

Spain,

with a dedicated agreement between

the prosecution anti-fraud agencies. In

Italy,

cooperation between the various national police

and prosecution services, the tax authorities and the national anti-corruption authority is

effective, and important investments in IT tools and interoperability benefit law enforcement

authorities. In

Ireland,

a forum of senior representatives meets regularly to facilitate inter-

agency coordination and information sharing among police and prosecution services, and

other national services active in preventing and fighting corruption. In other Member States,

challenges have been noted. The Audit Office in

Cyprus

reports that some public authorities

under audit (including the police in some cases) do not provide relevant information. In

Hungary,

the new Integrity Authority faces some obstacles in practice, particularly where it

needs to rely on cooperation with other public bodies.

The cooperation between national authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(EPPO) is reported to be overall good in the participating Member States.

Poland

and

Sweden

joined the EPPO in 2024

. Preparations for the EPPO to become operational in both

countries will be concluded before the end of 2024. Beyond the EU,

Albania, Montenegro

and

North Macedonia

have concluded working arrangements with the EPPO, while working

arrangements with the EPPO are yet to be concluded with

Serbia.

Poland joined on 29 February and Sweden on 17 July.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Removing obstacles to criminal investigations and prosecution and improving the track

record for high-level corruption

According to the Special Eurobarometer on citizens’ attitudes towards corruption, around two

thirds of Europeans (65%) think that high-level corruption cases are not pursued

sufficiently

. Effective investigation and prosecution of corruption cases can be obstructed

by shortcomings in law, such as excessively cumbersome or unclear procedures to lift

immunities or short time limitation periods. These obstacles can be particularly harmful for

complex corruption cases where time is often needed to build a case. In

Romania,

a delayed

legislative response on issues regarding the statute of limitations continued to result in the

closing of many corruption cases and the annulment of convictions. In

Italy,

the proposed

changes to the statute of limitations could reduce the time available to conduct judicial

proceedings for criminal offences, including in corruption cases. In

Slovenia,

recent

amendments to the Criminal Procedural Code limit the possibilities to use certain

investigative measures and could possibly make effective investigation and prosecution of

corruption more difficult.

The 2023 Rule of Law report noted that some Member States needed reforms to reduce the

length of criminal proceedings to improve the track record of final judgments, in particular

for high-level corruption cases. In

Croatia,

steps were taken to make the investigation and

prosecution of corruption offences more efficient, while a revision of the Criminal Procedure

Code and the Law on the specialised anti-corruption prosecution office remain outstanding.

Czechia,

high-level corruption cases also remain a point of attention due to delays in some

proceedings. In

Spain,

a reform of the Criminal Procedure Code, which could also increase

efficiency in handling high-level corruption cases, is still pending.

Some Member States continue to consolidate their track record of investigating, prosecuting

and sanctioning corruption, including in high-level cases

Austria, Latvia,

and

Romania,

saw continued effective investigation of high-level corruption. New impetus was given to

investigating high-level corruption cases in

Poland,

with several large-scale corruption cases

now open. Significant results continue to be achieved in prosecuting and adjudicating high-

level corruption offences in

France. Greece

made efforts to improve its track record, also by

addressing challenges identified in collecting corruption statistics, including on high-level

corruption. In

Slovenia,

first instance court judgments in corruption cases increased

considerably and the number of convictions almost doubled, while investigations into

possible high-level political influence in police decision-making are ongoing.

In other Member States, a robust track record in the investigation and prosecution of high-

level corruption cases, with dissuasive sanctions and final judgments, remains to be

established. This is the case, for example, in

Bulgaria

and

Malta.

Slovakia,

a robust track

record against high-level corruption is hampered by a continued lack of coordination among

corruption investigators and prosecutors as well as the Prosecutor General’s recourse to

powers to annul corruption investigations and prosecutions. In

Hungary,

some high-level

corruption cases have reached the indictment stage, but convictions remain rare in such cases

and the lack of a robust track record of investigations and prosecutions of corruption

allegations concerning high-level officials and their immediate circle remains a serious

concern.

Special

Eurobarometer 548

on Citizens’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2024).

As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law report, the lack of uniform, up to date and consolidated statistics across all

Member States makes it difficult to track the comparative success of the investigation and prosecution of

corruption offences. The assessment is based on the data provided by Member States.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Montenegro,

the track record of investigations and prosecutions in cases of high-level

corruption is stable, but the lack of trials and final decisions contributes to a perception of

impunity. In

North Macedonia

resource constraints and a lack of cooperation between

national authorities hamper the effective prosecution of corruption and hinder the

establishment of a robust track-record of high-level corruption cases. In

Albania,

the number

of persons investigated, prosecuted, and convicted for corruption has been increasing, but a

recent amnesty law raises concerns. In

Serbia,

the number of final convictions in high-level

corruption cases increased in the past year, but further improvements are needed to establish

a solid track record on investigations, indictments and final convictions.

Fighting corruption as an enabler of organised crime

Corruption facilitates criminal activity and targets both the private and public sectors.

Addressing corruption risks related to infiltration and undue influence by organised crime

into the public service, law enforcement and the judiciary is an increasing priority for the

authorities in several Member States. In the

Netherlands,

preventing infiltration of organised

crime groups in the civil service and police through corruption is a strategic priority. A

programme is ongoing since 2020 on combating subversive organised crime, with risk

assessments initiated in several sectors (including ports and local authorities) and measures to

address vulnerabilities.

Sweden

is targeting work on the risk areas and enablers of organised

crime infiltration.

Belgium

is taking a variety of measures to address corruption linked to

drugs trafficking and organised crime groups, which is recognised as an important

phenomenon.

Fostering integrity in the public sector and preventing conflicts of interests

Transparent and accountable governance and integrity frameworks are the best protection

against corruption. This is why effective anti-corruption approaches often build on measures

to enhance transparency, ethics and integrity, as well as regulating areas such as conflict of

interest, lobbying and ‘revolving doors’

Conflicts of interest arise when a public official has a private or professional interest that

could interfere with the impartial and objective performance of their duties

. Some Member

States have taken further steps to regulate conflicts of interests, also following the 2023

recommendations. In

Czechia,

legislation was adopted to broaden the conflict of interest

system, including a total ban on media ownership for elected officials, though online media

remains outside the scope of this legislation. In

Slovenia,

legislation on supervision of

conflict of interest and incompatibility of office is being reviewed. Challenges remain in

other Member States. In

Italy,

comprehensive legislation on conflict of interest for political

office holders is still pending. In

Spain,

no further steps have been taken to improve rules on

conflicts of interest for civil servants, despite ongoing work since 2021. Regarding

enlargement countries, in

Albania

rules on conflict of interest for public officials are

incomplete and not aligned with European standards and

North Macedonia

would need to

strengthen the system for violations of the rules on conflicts of interest.

Senior government officials and Members of Parliament are often subject to specific integrity

rules and many Member States have codes of conduct in place. It is important that the

practical implementation of these rules is subject to regular verification and evaluation. In

Belgium,

the ministerial Code of Conduct for federal public office holders was extended to

JOIN (2023) 12 final, p. 4.

See Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec (2000)10 on codes of conduct for public officials.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

cover all members of ministerial private offices. In

Estonia,

digital tools are being developed

and deployed to ensure a better implementation of the existing rules on integrity. In

Greece,

work on developing codes of conduct for members of Parliament and members of

Government continued.

Portugal,

a new Code of Conduct applicable to the Government and high-level officials

was also adopted, which explicitly refers to the possibility of dismissal in case of violation of

the Code and foresees the creation of a corruption risk prevention plan. In other Member

States, gaps remain. In

Bulgaria,

a working group was established to draft a code of conduct

for top executive functions, given the serious gaps identified. In

Finland,

there is still no

dedicated Code of Conduct for Ministers. In

Montenegro,

while numerous institutions have

specific codes of conduct, the Government’s Code is ineffective, with the adoption of a law

with disciplinary penalties pending.

Ensuring transparent lobbying and regulating ‘revolving doors’

To be a legitimate act of political participation, lobbying needs to be accompanied by strong

requirements for transparency and integrity to support accountability and inclusiveness in

decision-making and restrict undue and covert influence

. Poorly regulated lobbying can also

open doors for foreign interference.

Some Member States have revised their lobbying transparency rules, also in line with 2023

recommendations. Stricter rules for

Germany’s

lobbying register came into force, with

extended transparency requirements and some steps were taken to introduce a legislative

footprint. In

Croatia,

a new law introduced an electronic lobby register, restrictions on

lobbying activities and a set of rules on the verification, enforcement and penalties. In

Finland,

new legal provisions require the registration of lobbying activities with a new

transparency register. In

Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania

and

Latvia,

new lobbying provisions

entered into force or are being implemented, while discussions on new legislation continued

Belgium, Czechia

and

Portugal. Czechia

and

Portugal.

Further improvements are necessary in other Member States. In

France,

while guidelines on a

lobbyists’ register have entered into force and further drafts are before Parliament, concerns

remain on the disclosure of lobbying meetings by top-ranking officials.

Luxembourg

has

revised the code of conduct for parliamentarians to increase transparency, but the register still

provides limited details. Dedicated regulation on lobbying is still missing in

Slovakia

and

Italy,

and existing legislation could be improved in

Austria, Poland, Hungary

and the

Netherlands.

Romania,

rules on lobbying for members of Parliament are still missing,

while there have been some developments on the enforcement of lobbying rules for Members

of Government.

The regulation and enforcement on ‘revolving doors’ between public and private functions to

address potential conflicts of interest continues to be an area of attention. There are now

stricter post-employment rules for high-level officials and higher transparency standards in

place in

Germany.

Portugal,

new legislation on revolving doors introduced harsher

sanctions. In

Sweden,

the post-employment rules for top executive functions in the

government were evaluated, with suggested improvements. Discussions on introducing or

revising existing rules on revolving doors are progressing in

Finland

and the

Netherlands,

and

OECD (2021) Lobbying in the 21

century. OECD (2010), Recommendation of the Council on Principles

for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying; Council of Europe standards on lobbying transparency,

Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)2, OECD (2024)

Recommendation on transparency and integrity in

lobbying and influence.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

guidelines are being developed in

Italy.

In other Member States, progress has been slower. In

Hungary,

post-employment restrictions and cooling-off periods are fragmented and limited in

scope, but there are plans to legislate in this area in 2025. In

Denmark,

no steps have been

taken to introduce rules on revolving doors for ministers. In

Estonia,

specific guidelines on

revolving doors together with possible instructions on how to mitigate the risks currently

being developed by the Public Ethical Council are expected in 2024.

North Macedonia,

while the legal framework and lobbying registers are in place, there are

no registered lobbyists yet. In

Montenegro,

new legislation on lobbying was recently adopted.

Asset and interest disclosure

Asset and interest declarations by public officials support public sector transparency and

accountability and are important tools to promote integrity and prevent corruption. Most

Member States have rules to ensure that such disclosures apply to those with political and

executive power. However, there are wide variations in the scope, transparency and

accessibility of disclosed information, as well as in the effectiveness of verification and

enforcement.

Positive developments are noted in some Member States, also addressing issues covered in

the 2023 recommendations. In

Greece,

implementation of the new law on asset declarations

is on track with a significant percentage of verifications completed, also thanks to an upgrade

of the dedicated electronic platform. In

Cyprus,

the judiciary introduced its own regulatory

framework on asset disclosure, and all judges now file their asset declarations with the

Constitutional Court. In

Portugal,

the reform to entrust monitoring and verification of asset

declarations of political and senior public officials to the Transparency Entity established in

2019 entered into force.

In other Member States, challenges remain. In

Belgium,

the system for asset declarations

does not ensure adequate verification and transparency, with checks only in the context of

criminal investigations. In

Denmark,

no progress has been made on asset declarations

submitted by those with top executive functions, and there is a lack of verification and

monitoring. In

Luxembourg,

there is still no formal verification system to check the accuracy

of asset declarations.

Hungary

has yet to take further steps to improve the asset declaration

system, including as regards oversight. In

Ireland,

the digitalisation of asset declarations has

not progressed. In the enlargement countries, while in

Albania

and

Serbia

asset declaration

rules cover a relatively broad range of officials, there are shortcomings in effective

verification and enforcement.

Whistleblower protection

The protection of whistleblowers plays an essential role in the detection and prevention of

corruption. The transposition of the EU Directive on whistleblower protection

has resulted

in revised or new legislation in many Member States, as noted in last year’s report. Since July

2023, progress on laws on the protection of whistleblowers has been made in several Member

States

However, there are still major obstacles to reporting corruption cases in practice with just

43% of Europeans knowing where to report a case of corruption and 28% of Europeans

Directive 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019).

A recent

report

on the implementation and application of the whistleblower Directive assesses the measures

notified by Member States declaring complete transposition by 17 December 2023 (COM(2024) 269 final).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

believing that cases of corruption are not reported because reporting would be pointless as

those responsible would not be punished

. To overcome reluctance, many Member States are

putting in place tools to provide guidance and raise awareness. For example, in the

Netherlands,

a campaign promotes awareness and encourages whistleblowers to use the new

reporting channels.

Italy

and

Cyprus

have developed new guidelines and information tools to

support whistleblowers. In

France,

a consortium of NGOs was created to advise potential

whistleblowers. In

Malta,

work is ongoing to develop a database and tools to process

whistleblowing reports.

Enlargement countries are working on aligning their laws with the EU acquis. In

Montenegro,

legal provisions on the protection of whistleblowers have been amended with

the aim to align with the EU acquis, and the government in

North Macedonia

is working on

updating the law on the protection of whistleblowers to the same end.

Addressing areas at high risk of corruption

No sector or area of activity is safe from corruption risks, but common high-risk areas

deserve particular attention – usually those involving management of significant public funds,

such as public procurement, or access to a critical service. Sectors such as healthcare, energy,

urban planning and regional and local government have been identified as vulnerable. Other

high-risk areas for corruption include focal points for organised crime, such as ports. Other

areas of risk relate to political party financing and investor citizenship

and residence

schemes

Risk assessment exercises are important tools for informing anti-corruption policy.

Czechia

developed a corruption risk assessment and risk measurement methodology to inform future

action. The

Netherlands

have launched a national risk assessment to identify the biggest

corruption threats at national, provincial and local level, with targeted awareness-raising

campaigns for high-risk sectors. In

Latvia,

authorities are planning to develop its

methodology for risk assessment. In

Estonia,

an electronic tool was developed to assess the

risks of corruption in the private sector.

Several Member States have adopted or are considering reforms to increase transparency and

oversight for political party financing, also with a view to support democratic accountability

and prevent undue foreign influence

. In the

Netherlands,

new draft legislation aims to

increase transparency and prohibit political parties when they pose a clear and real danger of

undermining or abolishing the democratic rule of law.

Germany

has adopted new political

party financing rules, regulating party sponsoring and hidden party campaign finance by

other persons. In

Denmark,

a new law on public financing of political parties has entered into

force, and a proposal for increased transparency for private financing of political parties is

still pending. In

Slovenia,

new rules should lead to more frequent audits of the largest

Special

Eurobarometer 548

on Citizens’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2024).

The Commission has taken steps against investor citizenship schemes in the EU, since the grant of EU

citizenship in return for pre-determined payments or investments, without any genuine link to the Member

State concerned, undermines the essence of EU citizenship and is in breach of EU law. This has included

referring one Member State to the Court of Justice.

Joint Communication on the fight against corruption on the fight against corruption, JOIN(2023)12, 3 May

2023.

In December 2023, the Commission presented a Recommendation on inclusive and resilient electoral

processes in the Union (C(2023) 8626). One of the points encouraged Member States to identify and address

possible gaps in their legislation relating to donations and other funding from third countries to national

political parties.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

political parties and of a larger proportion of state funding. In

Czechia,

a reform strengthened

the office supervising political parties financing.

Challenges continue to exist in other Member States. In

Belgium,

a long-awaited reform of

political party financing was stalled due to a lack of agreement between political parties. In

Cyprus,

the audits on funding of political candidates and parties pointed at flaws which have

not yet been followed up in legislation. In

Italy,

the practice of channelling donations through

political foundations and associations remains unchanged and there is no single register for

party and campaign information, with several draft laws still under discussion in Parliament.

Member States are taking different measures to mitigate corruption risks in other high-risk

areas. In

France,

following concerns raised on large public contracts, a draft law on the use of

consulting companies for public policies was presented in Parliament and the Government

established an agency to advise the public and tabled a law on the use of consulting

companies for public policies. In

Italy,

the digitalisation of the entire lifecycle of all

procurement or concession contracts will ensure more transparency of public contracts. In

Lithuania,

inspections targeted high-risk areas such as public procurement, supervision of

construction and territorial planning. Corruption prevention authorities in

Slovenia

concluded

a review of procurement procedures in the health care sector, making specific

recommendations to remedy weaknesses.

Such sectors also present intensified risks in enlargement countries. In

Albania

an overly

complex legal framework has also been identified as an obstacle to progress, and there are

several exemptions from the law on public procurement in

Serbia

which are not in line with

EU acquis and are widely used to circumvent the application of the existing procurement

rules.

3.3 Media pluralism and media freedom

A free and pluralistic media environment is essential for the rule of law, with free and

independent media playing an important role as watchdogs of democracy and holding power

to account. Pressure or control over the media from politicians or the state undermines media

freedom, as well as people’s freedom to seek, receive and impart information. Conflicts of

interest and a highly concentrated market dominated by only a few players can also

undermine media pluralism, in particular in the absence of strong safeguards for editorial

independence.

The EU has put in place rules and standards in several key areas covered by the rule of law

reports, starting with the safety and protection of journalists and measures to address the

phenomenon of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP). The European

Media Freedom Act (EMFA) introduces, among others, specific provisions on media

ownership transparency, the transparent and fair allocation of state advertising, and the

independent functioning of public service media and availability of financial resources for the

fulfilment of their public service remit

. Given the relevance of those provisions in fostering

media freedom and media pluralism, it is important that Member States start putting them

into practice as soon as possible, including by addressing the relevant rule of law reports’

recommendations, especially in cases where concerns on the matters covered by the EMFA

signalled in the rule of law reports have persisted for several years or where deterioration of

the situation has been reported.

The relevant provisions shall apply from 8 August 2025.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

The Media Pluralism Monitor assesses the risks to media freedom and pluralism in all

Member States and the majority of accession countries, focusing on four areas – fundamental

protection of media freedom, market plurality, political independence, and the social

inclusiveness of media. This year’s Monitor’s results (MPM 2024) show no major change

across these areas, though there has been some variance in specific indicators. The indicator

relating to the journalistic profession, standards and protection of journalists registers the

same medium risk score as the previous year with a higher risk score registered in terms of

journalists’ digital safety. Journalists’ working conditions and the lack of independence of

public service media governance in several countries remain issues of concern. This year’s

overall ranking divides countries into five risk bands with seven Member States registering in

the ‘high medium risk’ band while two Member States and three enlargement countries

covered by this report register in the ‘high risk’ band.

Strengthening the independent functioning of media regulators

National media regulators play an essential role in upholding media pluralism when they are

functionally and effectively independent and exercise their powers in an impartial and

transparent way, with sufficient resources. All Member States have legislation in place setting

out the competences and independence safeguards of media regulators. Both the Audiovisual

Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) include

a set of requirements for media regulators: independence from government, impartiality,

transparency, accountability, adequate resources, appointment and dismissal procedures and

effective appeal mechanisms

Since the 2023 Rule of Law report, the tasks and competences of several national media

regulators have been expanded and extended, not least due to the adoption of the EU Digital

Services Act

. Positive developments are noted in

Spain,

with a strengthening of the

supervisory function of the audiovisual media regulatory authority. In

Sweden,

the national

regulatory authority was restructured, merging a range of tasks with the aim to provide more

effective services. As regards enlargement countries,

Montenegro

has put a legal framework

equipping the media regulator with comprehensive sanctioning instruments, including the

power to impose fines in case of violations of the law.

Continued concerns about the independence or impartiality of regulators exist in several

Member States, including insufficient safeguards against undue political influence over the

nomination process or in the functioning of regulators, as is the case in

Hungary, Slovenia,

Croatia, Bulgaria

and

Poland.

Greece,

additional measures were taken to strengthen

resources, however their adequacy for the authority to carry out its tasks remains to be fully

addressed. Enlargement countries also face challenges in ensuring the independence of media

regulators. In

Serbia,

the media regulator fails to fully exercise its mandate to safeguard

media pluralism and professional standards and there are serious concerns about its

independence, while in

Albania

questions arise due to the political affiliation and perceived

conflicts of interest of the regulator.

Increasing the transparency of media ownership

Transparency of media ownership is directly linked to media freedom and pluralism as it

allows users to make better informed judgements, as media owners can directly or indirectly

control or influence the editorial decisions and the news content provided. European

Directive 2018/1808 of 14 November 2018 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of 11 April 2024

Regulation 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

standards

define key measures, and there are specific requirements in EU law

. Since the

last report, there have been positive developments in

Ireland, Greece

and

Spain,

establishing

or extending online ownership registries. In

North Macedonia,

print and broadcast media

must disclose ownership information to the audiovisual media regulatory body, while self-

regulation governs the ownership registry for digital national media. In

Montenegro,

the new

Law on Audiovisual Media Services obliges providers of audiovisual services to provide

ownership information to the media regulator.

Previously highlighted challenges regarding transparency of media ownership persist in

Bulgaria, Czechia, France,

the

Netherlands

and

Cyprus.

Portugal,

a high-profile case

triggered discussions regarding the legislative framework. In

Albania,

the transparency of

ownership of media is limited, and in

Serbia,

measures aimed at increasing transparency of

media ownership are not yet fully implemented, and political and economic influence on the

media remains a source of concern. political and economic influence on the media remains a

source of concern.

Safeguarding media from political pressure and undue influence

Media independence can be undermined by political pressure and undue influence. This calls

in particular for strong safeguards against the politicisation of public service media and

transparent rules on fair allocation of state advertising. The European Media Freedom Act

(EMFA) includes provisions to ensure the independent functioning of public service media

and availability of financial resources for the fulfilment of their public service remit. It also

requires that Member States respect the effective editorial freedom and independence of

media service providers in the exercise of their professional activities and should not interfere

in or try to influence the editorial policies and decisions of media service providers.

State advertising includes all use of the budget, by public authorities or entities at all levels,

for the purposes of advertising and campaigns. If this is not allocated transparently and fairly,

it can be used as a means of political influence and to favour certain media outlets. In this

regard the EMFA sets out requirements in relation to allocation criteria and procedures as

well as annual publication of information by public authorities or entities on the amounts

spent with which Member States will need to comply with once the relevant provisions start

applying. In some Member States – namely

Austria, Bulgaria

and

Slovenia

– some positive

steps have been taken, also following the recommendations addressed in the 2023 and 2022

reports, though challenges remain. No steps have been taken to increase the transparency and

fairness in the allocation of state advertising in

Hungary, Croatia, Malta

and

Spain. Albania

lacks a transparent distribution system for state advertising. In

Montenegro,

information on

all public sector payments made to media outlets, including institutional advertising, is

limited. In

North Macedonia,

certain elements of a new law covering state-funded

advertising have raised concerns among stakeholders.

While the funding granted to public service media is the responsibility of each Member

State

, European standards and guiding principles exist on independence, the regulatory and

Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on media pluralism and

transparency of media ownership

EU legislation contains relevant provisions: Directive 2010/13/EU, as amended by Directive 2018/1808

(AVMSD); General (non-sectoral) obligations of transparency of beneficial ownership in the Anti-Money

Laundering Directives (Directives 2018/843 and 2015/849). The EMFA obliges all media service providers

to disclose their direct, indirect and beneficial owners.

As long as EU trade and competition rules are respected. See Protocol to the Treaties (No 29) on the system

of public broadcasting in the Member States.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

policy framework, funding, appointments, accountability, management, transparency, and

openness

100

. Provisions to ensure the independent functioning of public service media,

notably by requiring safeguards for adequate, sustainable and predictable financial resources

and fostering transparency in the appointments and dismissals of management will need to be

complied with once EMFA enters into application.

Reforms aimed at strengthening the independence of national public service broadcasters

have been agreed or are under way in several Member States. Legislation or other positive

steps have been applied in

Germany, Sweden

and

Czechia

while reform discussions are

ongoing or in preparation in

Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Bulgaria,

the

Netherlands

and

Poland.

Previously voiced concerns with regard to the independent

governance and editorial independence of public service media have not yet been addressed

Romania, Malta,

and

Hungary.

Slovakia,

a law was adopted in July 2024 which

dissolves the current public broadcaster and establishes a new one, leading to concerns on the

future independence of the broadcaster. In

Italy,

though there are rules in place aimed at

ensuring that public service media provide independent and pluralistic information, there are

persisting challenges related to the effectiveness of its governance and funding system.

As regards enlargement countries, while the legal frameworks regulating the governance of

public service media are in place in

Albania

and

North Macedonia,

they have not shielded

public service media in practice against politicisation. Funding is unstable in

North

Macedonia.

Serbia,

while a revision is planned for the end of 2024 to ensure stable

funding, issues of editorial autonomy and pluralism of public service media need to be

addressed. A recent legal reform of public service media in

Montenegro

is expected to bring

positive developments both in terms of governance as well as funding.

Access to information

The right to access information held by public authorities is one of the main transparency and

accountability tools for civil society and citizens and it is fundamental for journalists to do

their work. Several Member States, such as

Estonia, Luxembourg, Austria, Bulgaria

and

Finland

have made further tangible progress in this respect. In

Austria,

for example, a

Freedom of Information Act was adopted and enshrined in the Constitution, which for the

first time provides a right to information from public authorities and state-owned enterprises.

However, limited progress has been seen in several other Member States where problems

were previously identified, such as

Spain, Poland, Germany, Greece, Romania

and

Malta.

Italy

the rules regulating the disclosure of judicial information in criminal proceedings raise

concerns, while in

Croatia

although journalists are exempt from the offence of disclosure of

such information, there is still strong criticism from stakeholders, and efforts continue to be

made to address it.

The right to access information is legally guaranteed in all the enlargement countries included

in this report, but journalists’ ability to exercise this right is often significantly limited in

practice. In

Serbia

and

Montenegro,

journalists face frequent refusals by public bodies to

release information.

Improving the safety and protection of journalists and addressing legal threats and abusive

court proceedings against public participation

100

Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 on public service media governance.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Journalists continue to face physical and legal threats, with online smear campaigns and

censorship both also compromising their safety. Several measures recommended in the 2021

Commission Recommendation on the safety of journalists

101

are in need of improvement in

several Member States, as highlighted by an independent study published in May 2024

102

They include effective and impartial investigation and prosecution of crimes, dedicated

training, addressing online threats and attacks and ensuring the safety of female journalists,

journalists belonging to minority groups and those reporting on equality issues. Regarding

positive developments, several Member States (and enlargement countries)

103

have adopted

dedicated Action Plans, and taken steps to set up dedicated support structures promoting the

safety of journalists.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are a particular form of harassment

used against journalists and human rights defenders engaged with matters of public interest.

Defamation is one of the most common grounds on which SLAPPs are brought against

journalists. Such harassment usually aims at silencing journalists and creating a chilling

effect on media freedom and freedom of expression. New EU law provisions are in place

since May 2024 to curb SLAPPs

104

and Member States have been encouraged to take

additional action

105

. Moreover, the EMFA has put in place requirements for the effective

protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications and safeguards against the

deployment of intrusive surveillance software.

Following positive developments acknowledged in the 2023 report in some Member States,

others have also followed up on the recommendations issued in the 2023 and 2022 reports. In

Croatia,

awareness raising efforts continue on SLAPPs targeting journalists, though progress

is limited. In

Lithuania,

the Government adopted an action plan on the safety and protection

of journalists

and

continues to strengthen their protection against abusive lawsuits. In

Luxembourg,

the Government has committed to reinforce the safety of journalists and a new

draft law is expected to introduce safeguards for the protection of journalists in

Slovenia.

However, reform processes have stalled in

Cyprus

and

Malta.

Slovakia,

despite some

progress with regard to mechanisms aimed at improving the safety of journalists, there are

increasing concerns in relation to reported worsening of their working environment. In both

Montenegro

and

North Macedonia,

legislative amendments provide for harsher penalties in

case of violent acts or intimidation against journalists.

Specifically on the threat of SLAPPs and responding to 2023 and 2022 recommendations,

Greece

and

Ireland

have progressed with legislative work to introduce specific procedural

safeguards and/or revising their defamation laws, while reform of the defamation regime is

stalled in

Italy

and also in

Slovakia. North Macedonia

introduced legislative amendments

101

102

103

104

105

2021 Recommendation on the safety of journalists (C(2021) 6650, 16 September 2021)

European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Study

on putting in practice by Member States of the recommendation on the protection, safety and empowerment

of journalists – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024.

While the Recommendation is addressed to EU Member States, it also encourages candidate countries to

follow its provisions.

Directive 2024/1069 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded

claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’).

The 2022 Commission Recommendation (C(2022) 2428, 27 April 2022) includes measures related covering

defamation, training, awareness raising, support mechanisms, data collection, reporting and monitoring. The

Commission is in contact with Member States to prepare a report on their follow-up to the Recommendation.

The Council of Europe also adopted a

Recommendation on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against

public participation (SLAPPs)

in April 2024.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

which restrict the margin to initiate SLAPP cases against media organisations and journalists

and decrease the fines applied in cases of defamation.

3.4 Other institutional issues linked to checks and balances

A well-functioning system of institutional checks and balances is central to the rule of law

and provides a system of mutual control, whereby the power exercised by one state authority

is subject to the scrutiny of others, even if how this is organised varies according to different

national legal and constitutional traditions. An open legislative process and attention to the

quality of lawmaking has a long-term effect on the ability to ensure the rule of law. The

stability and quality of the law-making process are also key indicators for confidence in

investment protection. Civil society organisations and independent authorities, such as

National Human Rights Institutions, equality bodies and Ombudspersons, are an

indispensable element in such checks and balances in a healthy democracy, so their freedom

to operate is directly relevant to rule of law.

The inclusiveness, quality and transparency of the law-making process

Efforts to improve the quality, inclusiveness and transparency of the legislative process have

continued, including on issues covered in the 2023 recommendations. In

Czechia,

the use of

accelerated legislative procedures decreased and a new public digital platform for accessing

legislation free of charge was launched. Similarly, in

Ireland,

the use of motions to shorten

the debate time for legislative proposals decreased considerably. In

France,

several tools have

been put in place to increase the participation of citizens in the law-making process. In

Portugal,

new measures were taken to improve the transparency of law-making, while the

regulation of impact assessment is still pending.

Some Member States have initiated efforts to improve the quality of the legislative process

that are still at an early stage. In

Croatia,

a new Law on Better Regulation introduced a

comprehensive overhaul of impact assessments and evaluations, and additional standards for

public consultations. In

Cyprus,

a new e-consultation platform is a step towards facilitating

stakeholder input in the legislative process, while further measures are needed for meaningful

public consultation. In

Luxembourg,

the legislative process is more inclusive, in particular as

regards Government-initiated legislation, while shortcomings remain concerning draft laws

tabled by members of Parliament. In

Poland,

the Government has started to involve civil

society more effectively in consultations on legislation, though this approach needs to be

consolidated. In

North Macedonia,

a national electronic consultation system allowing

stakeholders to participate in public consultations is in place, but not all draft laws are

published on the platform.

In a number of Member States, challenges persist in areas such as the excessive use of

accelerated procedures or the overall quality of law-making, as well as in consultation of

stakeholders. In

Spain,

the “Organic Law on Amnesty for the Institutional, Political and

Social Normalisation of Catalonia” sparked controversy and was subject to a Venice

Commission Opinion, which addressed a number of issues related to the rule of law. It was

taken forward under an urgent procedure, allowing only for a limited consultation of the

public. In

Bulgaria

challenges continue regarding the quality of the legislative process. In

Hungary,

the quality of law-making and the frequent changes in legislation remain a

significant cause for concern. Legal uncertainty adds to concerns about arbitrary decisions

from the government and public authorities seen as obstacles for the operation of businesses

in the single market. In

France, Estonia

and

Italy,

concerns have been raised about the

considerable use of accelerated legislative procedures or emergency decrees. In

Slovakia,

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

major reforms have taken place without effective stakeholder involvement, frequently using

fast-track legislative procedures. In

Finland,

stakeholders have reported a change in the

practice of public consultations, reducing the opportunity to comment. In

Malta,

a formal

framework regarding public engagement in the drafting of legislation is still lacking. In

Romania,

efforts are still needed to ensure effective public consultations as shortcomings

persist.

Albania

and

North Macedonia,

deep political polarisation has a negative impact on the

legislative process, which in the latter case has caused delays in its work and led to the

excessive and sometimes inappropriate use of accelerated legislative procedures. In

Montenegro,

despite an establised framework for an inclusive legislative process, challenges

remain concerning inadquate public consultation. In

Serbia,

Parliament’s ability to provide

checks and balances is constrained by issues of effectiveness, autonomy and transparency,

and the process of public consultation needs further strengthening.

Constitutional reforms and debates impacting on institutional checks and balances

In several Member States, constitutional reform processes have been undertaken or are

subject of important public debates. In

Bulgaria,

the constitutional reform changed the

procedure for appointment of the interim government by limiting the powers of the President.

Sweden,

the Government is examining the follow up to an all-party committee report on a

possible amendment of the constitution to deal with serious peacetime crises. In the

Netherlands,

further steps have been taken by all state powers to strengthen the legal

protection of citizens and a State Commission on the Rule of Law issued recommendations.

Italy,

the Government has submitted to Parliament a draft constitutional reform, with the

objective of ensuring greater stability of government.

Significant developments on Supreme and Constitutional Courts in the checks and balances

Constitutional courts play a key role in the effective application of EU law and in ensuring

the integrity of the EU legal order and are key elements of checks and balances. While the

establishment, composition and functioning of constitutional jurisdictions are within the

competence of Member States, when exercising that competence, Member States are required

to comply with EU law and EU values

106

In some Member States, the scope of constitutional review is expanding. In

Bulgaria,

the

constitutional reform made constitutional checks more accessible by allowing all courts to

submit requests on constitutionality. In

Lithuania,

the Judicial Council is preparing a proposal

to amend the constitution in order to be granted the right of constitutional appeal regarding

legislation affecting the judiciary. Concerns persist regarding other aspects of the work of

Constitutional Courts in some Member States. In

Hungary,

the Constitutional Court still

reviews the merits of final rulings of ordinary courts, although as previously reported public

authorities can no longer challenge final judicial decisions before the Constitutional Court. In

Slovenia,

following concerns raised for years by the Constitutional Court regarding its

considerable workload, which prevents the Court from dedicating more attention to the

constitutionally most far-reaching cases, discussions have continued on constitutional

amendments to reduce the Constitutional Court’s caseload by transferring certain types of

cases to administrative courts.

106

CJEU, judgment of 22 February 2022, RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court), C-430/21.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

As regards the enlargement countries, in

Albania

the Constitutional Court is effective in

upholding institutional checks and balances, though Parliament has failed to comply with

some of its rulings. In

Serbia,

several vacancies at the Constitutional Court need to be filled.

Ombudspersons, National Human Rights Institutions, equality bodies and other independent

authorities

National human rights institutions (NHRIs)

107

, Ombudspersons

108

, equality bodies and other

independent authorities have an important role in national checks and balances. In some

Member States, the status of these bodies has been further strengthened or reforms are under

way. In

Bulgaria

and

Cyprus,

the Ombudspersons have been given new tasks, and in

Lithuania

and

Poland

there was an increase of financial resources for Ombudspersons’

Offices. In

Sweden,

the National Human Rights Institution has secured funding for its

activities and continues working towards an A-status accreditation. In

Estonia, Luxembourg,

and

Finland

reforms are being discussed to strengthen the autonomy of independent

institutions.

However, in other Member States, NHRIs and Ombudsperson institutions continue to face

challenges. In

Hungary,

concerns remain regarding the independence and effective

functioning of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. In

Croatia,

some further steps were

made on the follow-up to the People’s Ombudsperson’s recommendations, but challenges on

access to information remain. The

Netherlands

Institute for Human Rights continues to face

governance issues. In

Slovenia,

the Human Rights Ombudsperson has raised concerns

regarding proposed amendments to the act on its functioning.

Montenegro,

the Ombudsperson’s Office has improved its capacity to handle complaints

and improve decision quality, but the absence of systematic follow-up to its

recommendations undermines the efficiency of its work. In

Serbia,

there is no systematic

follow-up on the recommendations of the independent bodies.

Procedures for the appointment of heads of independent authorities have emerged as offering

particular challenges. Delays in appointments have continued in

Bulgaria

and

Austria

while

Slovakia

legislative amendments have widened the power of the Government to appoint

and dismiss heads of certain independent bodies. In

Greece,

while measures were taken to

improve the salary regime, independent authorities face challenges that could undermine their

status and ability to carry out their tasks effectively. In contrast, in

Poland,

the

recommendation regarding the Supreme Audit Office has been fully implemented by

ensuring the appointment of its College members and an adequate follow-up to its findings.

As regards the four Member States who do not yet have established an NHRI in line with the

UN Paris Principles, in

Czechia,

an amendment to entrust the Ombudsperson with the

function of an NHRI, and there has been some progress on obtaining accreditation for the

Ombudsman and the NHRI in

Romania.

However,

Italy

and

Malta

have made no progress

towards establishing an NHRI.

107

108

The UN Paris Principles, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 (Resolution A/RES/48/134), set

out the main criteria that NHRIs are required to meet. NHRIs are periodically accredited before the

Subcommittee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.

See the Venice Commission Principles for Ombudspersons.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Implementation of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights and national courts

Since 2022, the country chapters include figures on the implementation of leading judgments

of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), an important indicator for the functioning

of the rule of law in a country. Results vary between Member States. Across the EU, around

44% of leading judgments of the ECtHR relating to the Member States from the last ten years

are yet to be implemented, a slight increase on last year

109

Belgium

non-compliance with European Court of Human Rights and domestic court

judgments, including a final judgment of a court of last instance, raises serious concerns.

Romania

remains under enhanced supervision from the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe for a long-standing structural problem of non-implementation or delayed

implementation of final domestic court decisions delivered against the State. In

Croatia,

new Law on Administrative Disputes includes measures to encourage the swift

implementation of administrative courts’ judgments.

Civil society organisations as essential actors for the rule of law

Civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights’ defenders are key actors in the system

of checks and balances. They act as watchdogs against breaches of the rule of law and

actively contribute to promoting and protecting EU values and fundamental rights. This was

recognised in a Commission Recommendation on civic engagement in December 2023

110

calling on Member States to create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for CSOs

and human rights’ defenders, to enhance their opportunities for effective participation in

policy-making. In parallel, the Commission’ proposal on European cross-border associations

aims to remove regulatory and administrative barriers for non-profit associations in the single

market

111

In the majority of Member States, an enabling and supportive framework for civil society

exists, and the civil society space continues to be considered as ‘open’

112

. Initiatives to further

improve their operating space have continued, such as through a reform of the tax framework

Austria.

Sweden,

further steps were taken in the ongoing reforms of the legal framework

for the funding and operation of civil society. In

Ireland,

some further progress was made to

tackle legal obstacles to accessing funding, with an Electoral Commission review of the

current legislation. In

Croatia,

there has been a gradual shift towards multiannual funding for

civil society organisations, though a broader plan still remains outstanding. In

Poland,

creating the office of the Minister for the Civil Society is seen as a first step to new initiatives

to improve the legal framework for CSOs.

However, continuing the trend noted in previous Reports, CSOs and human rights defenders

have increasingly faced challenges, with new legal restrictions, lack of funding or physical

and verbal attacks. No concrete steps have been taken yet to address the uncertainty regarding

the tax-exempt status of non-profit organisations in

Germany.

Greece,

the ongoing

implementation of the interoperability of the existing registries for CSOs is a positive

109

110

111

112

Last year it was 40%. Contribution from the Contribution from the European Implementation Network for

the 2024 Rule of Law Report.

Recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society

organisation in public policy-making processes (C(2023) 8627, 12 December 2024).

COM/2023/516 final of 5 September 2023.

According to the rating given by CIVICUS (non-governmental organisation). Ratings use a five-category

scale: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed and closed. Compared to 2023, one Member State has been

downgraded from ‘open’ to ‘narrowed’.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

development, while the registration framework still needs to be evaluated and concerns

remain about the space for civil society. In

Cyprus,

plans for regular dialogue between the

authorities and civil society are encouraging, but questions remain over the administrative

requirements imposed on CSOs. In

Italy,

challenges remain as regards the civic space, also in

light of reported verbal attacks on CSOs involved in humanitarian activities. In

Spain,

reform of the Citizen Security Law was announced in Parliament to address concerns about

its impact on the civic space is still pending.

North Macedonia,

CSOs operate in an overall enabling environment, but challenges

remain to ensure their sustainable engagement in policymaking. In

Serbia,

CSOs lack an

enabling environment for establishment, operations and financing, and smear campaigns are

conducted against several of them.

In certain Member States, civil society is faced with serious challenges or systemic undue

restrictions to their operations. In

Hungary,

there has been no progress in removing existing

obstacles for CSOs, with smear campaigns and the vilification of independent CSOs remain a

current practice. There are also concerns related to the State’s role in financing civil society.

Slovakia,

the environment for CSOs has deteriorated, particularly those with the role of

overseeing state activities, and in the area of human rights.

National checks and balances in the use of intrusive surveillance software (“spyware”)

Even where the use of spyware is linked to national security, and in instances where it falls

outside the scope of EU law, national checks and balances need to ensure that safeguards are

in place. Fundamental rights such as the protection of personal data, the freedom to receive

and impart information, the freedom of expression, as well as the right to an effective remedy

and a fair trial, need to be respected. EU data protection legislation offers a comprehensive

mechanism of oversight and safeguards and is applicable in situations where spyware is used

for law enforcement purposes. The Venice Commission is working on developing principles

and good practices applicable to targeted surveillance by means of spyware.

The 2024 Report follows up on developments concerning the alleged illegal use of spyware

(such as ‘Pegasus’ or equivalent intrusive surveillance software) referred to in previous

reports, in particular as regards the functioning of national checks and balances in response to

such allegations. In

Poland,

the Sejm established a parliamentary investigative committee to

assess the use of ‘Pegasus’ software by members of the Government, secret services, the

police, and other state bodies between 2015 and 2023. The new Prosecutor-General also

decided to formally notify persons targeted by Pegasus software and appointed a special team

to carry out investigations on the legality of its use. In other Member States, the situation

remains unchanged. In

Greece,

judicial investigations into the use of spyware are ongoing.

On the other hand, in

Hungary,

concerns persist due to the absence of effective judicial or

other oversight as regards the use of secret surveillance measures outside criminal

proceedings.

Safeguards in addressing foreign influence

Interference by foreign governments seeking to manipulate public opinion and distort the

democratic debate poses a threat to the EU’s democracies

113

. Efforts to preserve the public

interest and shed light on foreign influence on EU democracies must be proportionate and

fully respect fundamental rights and democratic values. Drawing on both the Court of

113

Communication on Defence of Democracy (C(2023)630).

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Justice

114

and the Venice Commission

115

, in December 2023 the Commission proposed to

regulate the transparency of interest representation from third countries in the EU, focusing

on transparency and democratic accountability, introducing targeted rules accompanied by

strong safeguards.

In some Member States, measures proposed or adopted and citing the need to address foreign

influence have raised serious concerns, notably because they stigmatise the organisations

concerned. Under a new law to protect national sovereignty,

Hungary

established a new

office with broadly defined competences tasked with reporting on any person or organisation

suspected of serving foreign interests and/or receiving foreign funding, which has launched

investigations

116

. This is currently subject to infringement proceedings launched by the

Commission. In

Slovakia,

draft amendments tabled in Parliament would introduce a

mandatory labelling of organisations receiving funding from abroad beyond a certain

threshold as ‘organisations with foreign support’.

Initiatives to foster a rule of law culture

Promoting a strong rule of law culture is essential for the long-term resilience of democratic

societies. A variety of actors actively contribute to this, for example by organising debates or

educational initiatives.

Czechia,

public authorities have launched initiatives to foster the rule of law culture, with

several events organised in both chambers of Parliament and high-level events organised by

the Government and the Public Defender of Rights. In

Spain,

several initiatives aimed at

fostering a rule of law culture have been taken. In

Slovakia,

the Slovak National Centre for

Human Rights, mandated as National Human Rights Institution and equality body,

contributes with projects to strengthen the rule of law culture.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

The five successive years of Commission reporting on the rule of law have illustrated how

respect for the rule of law can never be taken for granted. Changing circumstances, whether

political change or societal and technological developments, can bring new challenges to the

rule of law. The nature and degree of challenges vary from one Member State to another, as

reflected in the recommendations addressed in the Rule of Law Report.

At the same time, the reports have also shown how dialogue can help to make progress. Over

the past five years, the EU has significantly enhanced its capacity to address rule of law

challenges and support reforms. Member States can increasingly draw upon a common

understanding of how policies, institutions and laws can best be shaped to protect the rule of

law. While rule of law-related problems still exist and will continue to emerge, the EU is now

better equipped to approach these in an objective and sound way, and to bring different

114

115

116

Judgment of 18 June 2020,

Commission v Hungary (Transparency of associations),

C-78/18,

EU:C:2020:476.

Venice Commission Report on Funding of Associations CDL-AD(2019)002. See also Venice Commission

Urgent Opinion on on the Law of Georgia on Transparency of Foreign Influence (CDL PI(2024)013) and

Opinion on Act LXXXVII of 2023 on the Protection of National Sovereignty (CDL(2024)001).

In June 2024, the Sovereignty Protection Office launched investigations into the activities and funding of

an anti-corruption CSO and an investigative media outlet.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

instruments to bear in finding solutions. Member States remain free to design solutions in line

with their specific national context, but such solutions should draw on a consolidating body

of rule of law standards and requirements.

The Political Guidelines for the Commission 2024-2029 cement the rule of law at the heart of

a successful EU. This is also underlined in the European Council Strategic Agenda adopted in

June 2024. This consensus shows the importance of continuing to deepen the EU’s work on

the rule of law, building common understanding, broadening the impact of the EU’s work,

and deepening the toolbox at our disposal to promote the rule of law.

The Rule of Law Report will continue to spearhead this work. This will include a broadening

of reporting to embrace key issues such as the Single Market dimension, looking at issues

affecting companies, especially SMEs, operating across borders. It will also include building

a closer link between the Rule of Law Report and its recommendations and funding under the

EU budget: this will be an important consideration as we seek to ensure that the next

Multiannual Financial Framework offers the maximum to European citizens. EU funding can

be further focused on helping national efforts to fight corruption and to protect the EU

financial interest, investing in upholding the rule of law. Further enlargement countries will

be included in the Rule of Law report as and when they are ready. Enforcement will be of

particular importance: tracking implementation of the Report’s recommendations will be

developed as a way to consolidate progress.

The core principles underlying the Rule of Law Report – equal treatment between Member

States, the rigorous application of EU standards, and a process embedded in dialogue and

mutual understanding – have stood the test of time. The Commission looks forward to

working with Member States, the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that the rule

of law can continue to provide the foundation stone for Europe’s democracies.

kom (2024) 0800 - Bilag 1: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

ANNEX with recommendations

All the 2024 recommendations will be listed, in the protocol order of the Member States. For

each Member State the recommendations will be presented in the order in which the topics

appear in the respective country chapter and with a chapeau sentence where relevant (in an

identical way as in the country chapter).