A8: Regarding the Protection of the Rule of Law

Resolution submitted by: JEF Political Commission 1 – Institutions and
Governance

Adopted by the Federal Committee in London on 23 March 2019. Re-adopted and
amended by the European Congress in Liège on 21 November 2021. Re-adopted and
amended by the European Federal Committee in Tartu, Estonia on 14 April 2024.
Re-adopted and amended by the European Federal Committee in Belgrade, Serbia on
19 April 2026.

● Defining rule of law as a principle of governance where all entities are held
accountable to laws that ensure the separation of powers, prevent systematic
violations through universal legal consequences, and uphold the core values of
democracy, human dignity, and fundamental rights;

● Strongly emphasising the rule of law as one of the core principles which the
European Union is built upon, as outlined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

● Alarmed by the increase in violations of the rule of law especially in the
area of fundamental civil rights and political freedoms in EU Member States
which has been seen leading to cases of growing authoritarianism such as in
Hungary;

● Concerned about how governments and political parties instil and exploit
citizens’ fears and uncertainties in order to justify measures which undermine
the basic principles of democracy and limit civil liberties;

● Observing a gap between the Copenhagen Criteria and the Rule of Law Framework,
that fails to prevent a decline in those same standards once a country is
admitted as a member state1;

● Stressing that when judicial questions are not addressed by an independent
court, they become vulnerable to political pressure and the dynamics of
consensus; ● Considering that the EU’s legal framework still remains ill-
equipped to deal with the violation of the rule of law in Member States; in
particular, the Rule of Law procedure, outlined in Art. 7 of the TEU, whereby
the EU is practically unable to sanction gross violations of EU fundamental
values in the Member States, requiring a unanimous vote in the Council for
sanctions to be activated;

● Recognising that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is responsible for
matters concerning state and European law to ensure uniform application across
the Union, whereas the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) serves as a court
of last appeal for citizens whose fundamental human rights have been violated;

● Further recognising that the ECJ acts as the final arbiter for the
interpretation and uniform application of EU law, thereby driving European
integration and reinforcing the supranational character of the Union;

● Alarmed by the insufficient application of the conditionality regime that has
been put in place since 2021, between European funds paid out to certain Member
States and the state of the rule of law in these respective Member States;

● Further alarmed by the possibility of blackmail due to the unanimity principle
when Member States breaking the rule of law condition their support on ending an
Art. 7 procedure or unfreezing funds, such as Hungary blocking the EU’s Ukraine
aid packages;

● Noting with concern that permanent or long-term damage to a Member State’s
democratic framework may occur even during short periods of rule of law breaches
and regretting that the EU process of assessing rule of law violations takes too
much time;

● Reaffirming how a Federal Europe should exist only on the basis of the rule of
law and solid democratic structures.

1) The Copenhagen Criteria are the requirements for joining the EU. The Rule of
Law Framework is the mechanism intended to maintain these standards after
membership, but it lacks the effective enforcement power seen in the pre-
accession phase

JEF Europe therefore,

1. Calls on the governments of the Member States for Treaty changes to the
procedure set out in Article 7 TEU with the goal of empowering the Council, the
European Parliament, and the Commission to bring actions concerning a Member
State's violations directly before the

Court of Justice, thereby shifting the decisive role from a strictly political
process to an impartial judicial body;

2. Further calls on the governments of the Member States to eliminate the
unanimity requirement within the Article 7 procedures and to instead establish a
requirement for a qualified majority in the Council and a majority of members in
the European Parliament2;

3. Calls upon the European commission to limit the dialogue procedure of the
Rule of Law Framework with national governments who violate the rule of law to a
strict timeframe;

4. Calls on all the European political parties and families and their
representatives to take responsibility for the respective national parties being
committed to European values and the rule of law;

5. Demands that Member States implement the decisions of the European Court of
Human Rights as swiftly as possible;

6. Demands that all Member States formally acknowledge the primacy of EU law,
while ensuring that ECJ judgments are directly applicable and binding.

2) Points 1 and 2 are inspired by the EP resolution of 22 November 2023.
Amendment 11 proposes that the Council, acting by qualified majority, the
Parliament, or the Commission may submit an application to the Court of Justice
regarding serious and persistent breaches of Article 2 values Source: European
Parliament resolution of 22 November 2023 (2022/2051(INL))