Rapporteur:

Ozlem YILDIRIM

Co-rapporteur:

Christian MOOS

Advisor	Viktor Zoltan KAZAI (Advisor for the rapporteur, Group II) Julian PLOTTKA (Advisor for the co-rapporteur, Group III)
Plenary Assembly decision	18.1.2024
Legal basis	Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	17.12.2024
Adopted at plenary session	22.1.2025
Plenary session No	593
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	215/4/12

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC emphasises the importance of upholding the values outlined in Article 2 TEU, such as the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. The EESC notes with increasing concern the continuous deterioration of human rights, the rise of authoritarianism and the widespread systemic infringements of the rule of law and democracy within the Member States.

1.2.

The EESC has long supported the development of EU tools, like the Annual Rule of Law Report, to monitor and improve the respect for the rule of law across all Member States. The EESC commends the Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Reports in general and acknowledges the progress made in this area, such as the introduction of country-specific recommendations to help Member States advance reform and the inclusion of additional chapters on enlargement candidate countries (1). However, the EESC also notes some persistent shortcomings of the annual rule of law cycle and the need for further improvements.

1.3.

The EESC observes, in particular, deficiencies in the Commission’s engagement with independent, non-state actors during the reporting process and notes the need for more inclusive, transparent and user-friendly approaches. It is recommended that the Commission ensures meaningful involvement of civil society in both the preparation and follow-up stages of the report at the national level to guarantee active stakeholder participation and accountability. The EESC is well-placed to assist the new Commission in this endeavour thanks to its potential to facilitate structured debate between EU institutions and representatives of workers’ and employers’ organisations and other interest groups.

1.4.

The EESC regrets that the Commission’s analyses have fallen short of identifying deliberate efforts to undermine the rule of law in some Member States due to a lack of understanding of the political actors’ motives and the context of the examined developments. To address this shortcoming, the EESC recommends that the Commission adopt a more nuanced analytical approach by involving independent experts, conducting on-site visits and using more direct language in its evaluation. The EESC is well positioned to provide an institutional framework for such in-depth analysis through its connection with civil society, as demonstrated by the work of its ad hoc group on Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law (FRRL).

1.5.

The EESC emphasises the vital role of CSOs and human rights defenders in upholding democracy and fundamental rights, and expresses its condemnation of all forms of attacks that threaten their peaceful and efficient operation. The EESC recommends expanding the Annual Rule of Law Report’s section on civil society organisations to provide a comprehensive assessment based on objective benchmarks and transparent dialogue with civil society actors. In addition, infringements on the rights of women, children, ethnic minorities, LGBTIQ+ should be considered indicators of more repressive measures and conflicts to come.

1.6.

The EESC considers that the country-specific recommendations made in the Annual Rule of Law Report often lack specificity and detail and, therefore, advises the Commission to develop more precise and measurable recommendations with clear benchmarks, indicators and deadlines. It calls for a more thorough follow-up assessment of the implementation of these recommendations with a transparent presentation, including which Member States failed to meet the benchmarks and deadlines.

1.7.

The EESC emphasises the importance of using all available EU tools in response to systematic breaches of the rule of law and urges the Commission to give the Annual Rule of Law Report a stronger role in triggering other rule of law mechanisms, particularly when the country-specific recommendations are not implemented.

1.8.

The EESC notes that the Commission’s approach to publicising the Annual Rule of Law Report is ineffective due to its technical language, the timing of its release and the insufficient number of events. Therefore, the EESC recommends that the Commission simplify the language of the reports to make them more accessible to the general public and journalists, involve civil society organisations and national human rights institutions more actively in organising events publicising the Rule of Law Report, and propose a comprehensive communication strategy to raise awareness of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

1.9.

The EESC has repeatedly called for a CSO forum or platform since 2016. We therefore note with interest the Commission President’s intention to create a platform, expressed in her mission letter to the Commissioner-designate for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law to ‘step up engagement with civil society on democracy, rule of law and related issues’ by setting up a ‘Civil Society Platform to support more systematic civil dialogue and work to strengthen protection of civil society, activists and human rights defenders in their work’.

1.10.

First and foremost, a qualitative dialogue goes beyond mere consultation. The EESC must take part in the governance and be a key part of any such platform, as the Treaty-based body tasked with consulting business associations, labour unions, and organised civil society, the Committee can be a perfect channel for the voice of organised civil society in these domains.

2.   General comments

2.1.    The Commission’s Annual Rule of Law Report

2.1.1.

The EESC underlines that the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, including the rule of law, democracy and the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, form the basis of the European Union. The EU can only comply with these values if all Member States meet their requirements.

2.1.2.

In 2016, when the EESC first proposed setting up a European control mechanism on the rule of law and fundamental rights, it was ‘alarmed by the deterioration in human rights, the populist and authoritarian drift that is spreading and by the risk this poses to the quality of democracy and the protection of fundamental rights’ (2). Following up on this opinion, in 2018 the group on Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law of the EESC began conducting country visits to relay the voice of national CSOs on matters related to the rule of law and fundamental rights in their country (3). Since then, the situation has either stagnated or worsened in most Member States, and it is clear by now that systemic infringements of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, including the deterioration of their institutional framework, have become a widespread phenomenon (4).

2.1.3.

In recent years, a number of tools have been developed to ensure the respect of the rule of law in all Member States. The EESC has been a staunch supporter of the development and improvement of such tools, known as the ‘rule of law toolbox’ (the Annual Rule of Law Report (5), the rule of law conditionality mechanism (6), etc.), and it has called for the EU to combine them in a strategic way to be able to halt degradations of and increase respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law everywhere in the EU.

2.1.4.

The EESC is pleased to note that the Annual Rule of Law Report has become a cornerstone of the EU’s rule of law toolbox and a benchmark for the work of the EU institutions, bodies and agencies on rule of law issues. The EESC commends the Commission for consistently delivering high quality reports on the state of the rule of law in all Member States and welcomes its continuous commitment to improving the reporting exercise. In order to do so, adequate financial resources should be allocated to the Commission responsible for it.

2.1.5.

The EESC notes that, despite significant progress, there is still room for further improvement in the rule of law reporting. Therefore, the EESC highlights some recurring shortcomings in the Annual Rule of Law Report.

2.2.    Inclusivity of the reporting process

2.2.1.

The EESC believes, in alignment with various civil society organisations (CSOs), that while the Commission has made efforts to engage with national stakeholders, including CSOs, during the reporting process, there are still deficiencies in its engagement with independent, non-state actors. These include issues regarding transparency, participation and the time available for providing contributions. Additionally, there are concerns about the proactive and clear communication of relevant consultation details, the lack of opportunity for CSOs to provide input on the Commission’s questionnaire and the need for greater involvement of CSOs in the reporting process carried out by Member States at the national level.

2.2.2.

The EESC emphasises, in agreement with the European Parliament’s resolution (7), the need for the Commission to ensure meaningful involvement of civil society in both the preparation and follow-up stages of the report at the national level. Furthermore, the EESC underscores the importance of a more inclusive, transparent and accessible approach to the process, in order to guarantee the active participation and accountability of stakeholders. The EESC also advocates for a more systematic presentation of contributions from civil society and professional organisations to complement the information provided by the governments of the Member States and candidate countries.

2.2.3.

In 2016, the EESC proposed the creation of an ‘annual forum for CSOs to discuss democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law’. Since then, Committee has repeatedly called for such a forum or platform in subsequent opinions. We therefore note with interest the Commission President’s intention, expressed in her mission letter to the Commissioner-designate for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law to ‘step up engagement with civil society on democracy, rule of law and related issues’ by setting up a ‘Civil Society Platform to support more systematic civil dialogue and work to strengthen protection of civil society, activists and human rights defenders in their work’.

2.2.4.

First and foremost, a qualitative dialogue goes beyond mere consultation. The EESC must take part in the governance and be a central part of any such platform, as the Treaty-based body tasked with consulting business associations, labour unions, and organised civil society. Based on the experience of its FRRL Group, but also other examples of participatory exercises it has organised, the Committee can be a perfect channel for the voice of organised civil society in these domains.

2.2.5.

The EESC is also well positioned to assist the new Commission in enhancing the involvement of civil society actors in the rule of law reporting cycle due to its role as an EU advisory body comprising representatives of workers’ and employers’ organisations and other interest groups. It can facilitate structured debates between EU institutions and citizens on the systemic challenges to fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law. Strengthening cooperation between the EESC and the Commission in the rule of law reporting cycle would further foster inclusive dialogue and help uphold the fundamental values of the EU.

2.3.    Methodology of evaluation

2.3.1.

The EESC has previously observed that the most severe challenges to the rule of law in some Member States are presented by powerful political actors who have deliberately turned against, notably, the independence of the judiciary and the other essential elements of constitutional democracy (8). Unfortunately, the Commission’s analyses and responses to the challenges facing the rule of law in the Member States have largely ignored the political actors’ motives and the circumstances of the examined developments.

2.3.2.

CSOs have also observed that the Commission’s reports lack contextual and intersectional analysis of rule of law trends and tend to be overly optimistic about reform efforts without substantial evidence of progress on the ground. The European Parliament similarly expressed its concern that the Commission’s diplomatic and imprecise language, as well as the equal number of conclusions and recommendations per Member State, conceal the real differences between Member States (9).

2.3.3.

The EESC thus recommends that the Commission consider adopting a more comprehensive and nuanced analytical approach, involving independent experts, and conducting more on-site visits to gain a deeper understanding of the circumstances of the rule of law challenges examined, and that it use more direct and precise language in its evaluation.

2.4.    Scope of the report

2.4.1.   Rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights

2.4.1.1.

The EESC reaffirms its position that the rule of law is interdependent and inseparable from guarantees protecting pluralist democracy and respect for fundamental rights (10) and expresses its deep concern about the continuous erosion of these fundamental values in several Member States (11).

2.4.1.2.

The EESC is pleased with the availability of various rule-of-law-related materials produced by the European Union. These materials include the Commission’s Annual Report on the Application of the Charter, the Fundamental Rights Agency’s Fundamental Rights Report, the EU Justice Scoreboard and the Eurobarometer surveys on perceived judicial independence and perception of corruption. The EESC also applauds the Commission for utilising a wide range of sources produced by the Council of Europe, independent research centres and monitoring organisations that cover numerous aspects of the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy. However, the EESC concurs with CSOs that the interconnectedness between the rule of law and other values outlined in Article 2 TEU are not sufficiently reflected in the Commission’s rule of law reports. The EESC urges the Commission to expand the scope of its review to encompass an analysis of systemic violations of fundamental rights (e.g. discrimination and unsatisfactory places of deprivation of liberty) and an evaluation of the institutional foundations for protecting these rights. The EESC encourages the Commission to ensure that the relationship between its Rule of Law Report and other EU materials on the rule of law is transparent and mutually reinforcing.

2.4.1.3.

The EESC emphasises that all human rights enshrined in the EU Charter are indivisible and interdependent, with socio-economic rights being equally essential as civil and political rights (12). Therefore, systemic violations of socio-economic rights should be treated as seriously as the infringement of other rights. In addition, infringements on the rights of women, children, ethnic minorities, LGBTIQ+ persons should be considered indicators of more repressive measures and conflicts to come.

2.4.2.   Expansion of the section on civic space

2.4.2.1.

The EESC reaffirms that CSOs and human rights defenders play an essential role in safeguarding the values of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the face of authoritarian tendencies (13). The EESC has observed that authoritarian governments threaten civil society organisations not only by shrinking and shifting the spaces available for their activities, but also through personal threats and persecution, financial restrictions, or inadequate protection against physical or verbal attacks, both online and offline (14).

2.4.2.2.

The EESC supports all efforts to increase the visibility of challenges faced by CSOs and human rights defenders. Transparency eases the conditions in which they operate and exerts political pressure on national governments to enhance the level of their protection (15). Therefore, the EESC reiterates its previous position that the Annual Rule of Law Report’s section on civil society organisations should be expanded and made more detailed (16).

2.4.2.3.

The EESC fully supports the claim of CSOs regarding the need for a dedicated chapter on civic space, providing a comprehensive assessment of all the enabling and obstructing factors affecting civic spaces across Europe based on a consistent methodology, a set of objective benchmarks and transparent dialogue with civil society actors. In addition, the EESC aligns itself with the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) in advocating for European regional actors to expand their monitoring and reporting efforts concerning challenges affecting civic space.

2.4.3.   Non-implementation of court decisions

2.4.3.1.

The EESC notes that national governments refusing to comply with decisions delivered by domestic courts of their own country, the CJEU and the ECHR is an increasingly negative trend in the Member States. The EESC welcomes the fact that the Rule of Law Report pays attention to this problem in the country chapters, but urges the Commission to remedy this grave infringement of the rule of law and to take further steps to force the Member States to comply with court decisions.

2.4.4.   Media freedom

2.4.4.1.

The EESC reiterates its concerns that the Commission’s approach to assessing media pluralism is too market-oriented and tends to undervalue political challenges to media freedom and plurality, which cannot be solved by improving the functioning of the market for media services (17). However, we find that market processes also potentially contribute to undermining the freedom and plurality of the media. The EESC therefore recommends reforming the evaluation of the freedom and plurality of media in the Rule of Law Report to better capture these risks.

2.4.4.2.

The EESC finds that increasing verbal and physical attacks on journalists, often taking the form of gender-based violence and hate speech, as well as the obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to access information are not sufficiently covered by the Commission report. Therefore, it proposes that these issues be assessed in more detail in the upcoming Commission reports.

2.4.4.3.

The EESC also calls for the inclusion of an assessment of the European Media Freedom Act and the implementation of the Anti-SLAPP Directive (18) because attempts to silence journalists by way of intimidation and surveillance are becoming increasingly common.

2.4.5.   National HRI

2.4.5.1.

The EESC urges the Commission to pay more attention to certain trends in the Member States that pose persisting challenges to national human rights institutions, such as the limited access to legislative and policy-making processes, the difficulties in cooperating with national authorities, the state authorities’ limited follow-up on NHRI recommendations, the lack of sufficient financial and human resources, and the limited access to information handled by state authorities.

2.4.6.   Socio-economic aspects of the rule of law

2.4.6.1.

The EESC has previously emphasised the importance of giving due consideration to the socio-economic aspects of the rule of law as the latter is notably essential in ensuring that competition rules and other economic regulations are respected and also in ensuring trust in the legal system as a whole (19). The EESC appreciates the Commission’s intention, as stated in the latest Annual Rule of Law Report, to incorporate key issues relating to the single market dimension in the future, including issues that impact companies operating across borders, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The EESC believes it is equally important to include an assessment of the influence of large corporations on the rule of law, democracy, and fundamental rights in the Annual Rule of Law Reports, along with the measures taken by the Member States to address and mitigate any adverse effects. It is also important to look at the impact on the domestic market of foreign companies that do not respect fundamental rights.

2.4.6.2.

The EESC calls on the Commission to place more emphasis on the consequences of the demise of the rule of law on all stakeholders, including trade unions and the business sector, who regularly face such significant challenges as the legal uncertainty stemming from the unpredictable implementation of laws, non-transparent and non-inclusive law-making, and the deterioration in the independence and integrity of public authorities (20). Having a strong and effective social dialogue is also a key factor in the implementation of human rights and the rule of law in practice.

2.5.    Efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of the report’s findings

2.5.1.   Accountability of Member States based on precise recommendations

2.5.1.1.

The EESC underlines that the Commission’s country-specific recommendations are often not sufficiently detailed and, thus, do not adequately address concerns identified in the relevant national context. This finding aligns with the European Parliament’s concerns (21) about the lack of specificity of recommendations, including clear timelines of their implementation and consequences of non-compliance. It is further corroborated by the recent study of the European Court of Auditors (22) that noted the lack of a clear link between the seriousness of the Commission’s concerns and the recommendations made, as well as the absence of concrete timelines and quantitative targets. The ENNHRI also urges the regional rule of law mechanisms, such as the Commission, to make their recommendations more concrete and actionable, including an envisaged timeline for implementation by state authorities.

2.5.1.2.

The EESC advises the European Commission to develop more precise and measurable recommendations. The EESC restates its previous stance on the significance of establishing clear benchmarks, indicators and deadlines to properly assess national authorities’ compliance with EU requirements (23).

2.5.1.3.

It is of crucial importance to ensure transparency over Member States are failing to live up to their rule of law obligations and to help organised civil society press these governments for reform.

2.5.2.   Establishment of a clear link between the Annual Rule of Law Report and other rule of law mechanisms

2.5.2.1.

The EESC reaffirms its position that the Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament should use all means of sanction at their disposal in the event of systematic breaches of the rule of law. When applying these procedures, the European institutions should also ensure that they are carried out quickly and dissuasively (24).

2.5.2.2.

The EESC firmly supports the stance, also expressed by CSOs and the European Parliament (25), that it is essential for the Commission to establish clear links between the Annual Rule of Law Report and other components of the rule of law toolbox, and that the Annual Rule of Law Report should play a crucial role in triggering other rule of law mechanisms, including infringement procedures, the various budgetary conditionality mechanisms and the Article 7 procedure, particularly when country-specific recommendations are not implemented.

2.5.2.3.

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s intention, stated in the most recent report and the mission letter of the Commissioner-designate for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law, to build a closer link between the recommendations of the Rule of Law Report and funding under the EU budget, and to support to the reinforced application of the Article 7 mechanism. However, it urges the Commission to act on its promise quickly to prevent the further deterioration of the rule of law in the Member States.

2.5.2.4.

If considered necessary to reach these ends, the EESC calls for a reform of the rule of law conditionality regulation to make it more encompassing by overcoming its limited application to rule of law breaches affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget and to link it more clearly to the other legal bases used to suspend EU funds.

2.6.    Communication and dissemination

2.6.1.

The EESC finds, with regard to the opinion expressed by CSOs, that the Commission’s overall approach to publicising the rule of law reports is not sufficiently effective in mobilising public opinion, for three main reasons. Firstly, the annual reports are written in technical and complicated language, making them inaccessible to the general public and journalists. Secondly, the current timing of the release of the reports decreases the likelihood of media coverage Thirdly, the Commission does not proactively organise enough events to publicise the Rule of Law Report and it fails to involve civil society organisations and national human rights institutions to a sufficient degree. To address these issues, the EESC suggests that the Commission should simplify the language of the reports to make them more accessible to the general public and journalists, consider releasing the reports at a time of the year when media coverage is more likely to be achieved, and proactively organise more events to publicise the Rule of Law Report, with the active involvement of civil society organisations and national human rights institutions. The EESC stands ready to facilitate the organisation of events and assist in the efforts to publicise the reports.

2.6.2.

The EESC has previously stressed the importance of communicating the values of the rule of law clearly (26) and called on the Commission to propose an ambitious strategy on communication, education and citizen awareness of fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy (27). The EESC further urges the Commission, in agreement with CSOs and the European Parliament (28), to guarantee the consistent and meaningful involvement of civil society in the entire reporting cycle. The EESC emphasises again that it occupies an ideal position to support the new Commission in improving the participation of civil society in the reporting cycle because its membership includes representatives from workers’ and employers’ organisations as well as other interest groups. Therefore it is capable of enabling organised discussions between EU institutions and citizens about the structural obstacles to fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.

---

(1)  Namely Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia, which will hopefully strengthen their reform efforts.

(2)   OJ C 34, 2.2.2017, p. 8.

(3)   https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/sections-other-bodies/other/ad-hoc-group-fundamental-rights-and-rule-law/frrl-group-country-visits-reports.

(4)  World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2021, p. 24; World, Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2022, p. 24; World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2023, p. 24.

(5)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39.

(6)   OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 27.

(7)  European Parliament resolution of 30 March 2023 on the 2022 Rule of Law Report – the rule of law situation in the European Union (2022/2898(RSP)), para. 15.

(8)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39, para. 3.7.

(9)  European Parliament resolution of 30 March 2023 on the 2022 Rule of Law Report – the rule of law situation in the European Union (2022/2898(RSP)), para. 26.; European Parliament resolution of 28 February 2024 report on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report (2023/2113(INI)), paras. 83-85.

(10)   OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 173, para, 3.3.; confirmed also in OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39.

(11)  See also European Parliament resolution of 28 February 2024 report on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report (2023/2113(INI)), 73.

(12)   OJ C 341, 24.8.2021, p. 50.

(13)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39

(14)   OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 53.

(15)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39, OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39OJ C 282, 20.8.2019

(16)   OJ C, C/2023/861, 8.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/861/oj, para. 2.5.3.

(17)   OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 111.

(18)   OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 143.

(19)   OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 27, para. 2.4.

(20)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Corruption in public procurement and its impact on the internal market (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/2095, 26.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2095/oj).

(21)  European Parliament resolution of 19 May 2022 on the Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report, paras. 8-9.; European Parliament resolution of 30 March 2023 on the 2022 Rule of Law Report – the rule of law situation in the European Union (2022/2898(RSP)), paras. 8–13.

(22)  European Court of Auditors, Review on The Commission’s rule of law reporting 2024, paras. 70-71.

(23)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39.

(24)   OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 27, para. 3.5.

(25)  European Parliament resolution of 30 March 2023 on the 2022 Rule of Law Report – the rule of law situation in the European Union (2022/2898(RSP)), para. 28.

(26)   OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 24.

(27)   OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 39.

(28)  European Parliament resolution of 30 March 2023 on the 2022 Rule of Law Report – the rule of law situation in the European Union (2022/2898(RSP)), para. 15.