The EU’s Trifecta Mechanisms: Analysis of EU’s Response to the Challenges to the Rule of Law and Corruption

Authors

  • Stoyan Panov University College Freiburg Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj189987.2019-5.83-117

Keywords:

European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Article 7 TEU, Deficiencies in Rule of Law, Anti-corruption, Judicial Review, EU funds

Abstract

The following paper examines the envisaged framework and effectiveness of the triangulation of mechanisms currently planned at the EU level: the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), proceedings under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) against Poland and Hungary, and the mechanism to protect EU’s budget in deficiencies withregards to the rule of law in Member States. This research focuses on the overall structure and powers of the EPPO with special attention on its role in investigating and prosecuting offences affecting to the EU’s financial interests. This includes active and passive corruption among others with particular emphasis on the expected interaction between the EPPO and the national authorities. However, not all EU Member States have joined the EPPO framework. Here the role of the EU institutions is analyzed in light of the recent developments in Article 7 TEU proceedings. A third possible mechanism to react to the growth of executive powers in some states and the corresponding imbalances is the EU Commission’s proposal for a mechanism on the protection of the EU’s budget in case of generalized  deficiencies as regards the rule of law. This may include corruption or other breaches to the implementation of the Union budget.

Author Biography

Stoyan Panov, University College Freiburg Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg

Stoyan Panov is a lecturer of International Law and Jurisprudence at University College Freiburg, University of Freiburg. He has received his education at University of
Birmingham, Leiden University, Georgetown University, and DePauw University. Stoyan Panov has research interests in the areas of EU Law, International Human Rights Law,
International Criminal Law, Public International Law, the Rule of Law, Anti-Corruption Law, and International Security.

References

  1. Albors-Llorens, Albertina. “Remedies against the EU Institutions after Lisbon: An Era of Opportunity?” Cambridge Law Journal 71, no. 3 (2012): 507-536.
  2. Bayer, Lili. “European Parliament Backs Plan to Link EU Funds to Rule of Law.” Politico. Accessed January 17, 2019. https://www.politico.eu/article/budget-hungary-poland-rule-of-law-european-parliament-backs-plan-to-link-eu-funds/.
  3. Benvinisti, Eyal. The Law of Global Governance. The Hague Academy of International Law, 2014.
  4. Bianchi, Andrea. International Law Theories. Oxford University Press, 2016.
  5. Can v. Austria, European Commission of Human Rights (July 12,1984) no. 9300/81.
  6. Case C-46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029.
  7. C-46/87 and 227/88 Hoechts (ECJ judgment of September 21, 1989).
  8. Case C-50/00P, Union de Pequenos Agricultores (UPA) v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677.
  9. Case C-68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 1-2965.
  10. Case C-188/92 TWD [1994] ECR I-833.
  11. Case C-224/01 Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239.
  12. Case C-352/98P Bergadem [2000] ECR I-5291.
  13. Case C-583/11 P Inuit ECLI:EU:C:2013:625.
  14. Case T-193/04 Hans-Martin Tillack v. Commission [2006] ECR II-3995.
  15. Corigliano v. Italy, App. no. 8304/78 (ECtHR Judgment of December 10, 1982).
  16. Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, OJ L283 (October 12, 2017).
  17. Delmas-Marty, Mirelles, and J. R. Spencer, eds. European Criminal Procedures. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
  18. Deweer v. Belgium [1980] 2 EHRR 239.
  19. Dvorski v. Croatia, App. No. 25703 (ECtHR Judgment of October 20, 2015).
  20. Erkelens, Leendert, Arjen Meij, and Marta Pawlik, eds. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? (Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press & Springer-Verlag, 2015).
  21. EU Directive 2017/1371, L198/29 (July 5, 2017).
  22. European Commission, “Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union – Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based.” COM(2003) 606 final.
  23. European Commission. “Cohesion Funds.” Accessed June 6, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/what/glossary/c/cohesion-fund.
  24. European Commission. “EU Budget.” Accessed June 6, 2019. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-budget/expenditure_en.
  25. European Commission. “EU Budget 2017- Financial Report.” Accessed June 6, 2019. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2018/financial-report_en.pdf.
  26. European Commission. “New Cohesion Policy.” Accessed June 6, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/2021_2027/.
  27. European Commission. “Overview of European Structural and Investment Funds.” Accessed June 6, 2019. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/overview.
  28. European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of the Union’s Budget in Case of Generalised Deficiencies as regards the Rule of Law in the Member States.” (May 2, 2018) COM (2018) 324 final.
  29. European Parliament, “Establishing of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights.” Accessed June 6, 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-area-of-justice-and-fundamental-rights/file-eu-mechanism-on-democracy-the-rule-of-law-and-fundamental-rights.
  30. European Parliament, “Resolution of 14 November 2018 On the Need for A Comprehensive EU Mechanism for the Protection of Democracy, The Rule Of Law And Fundamental Rights.” 2018/2886(RSP) (November 14, 2018).
  31. European Parliament, “Report on a Proposal Calling on the Council to Determine, Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Existence of a Clear Risk of a Serious Breach by Hungary of the Values on Which the Union is Founded.” (2017/2131 (NL)) Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (July 4, 2018).
  32. Foti v. Italy [1982] 5 EHRR 313.
  33. Giuffrida, Fabio. “The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: King without Kingdom?”
  34. Imbrioscia v. Switzerland (ECtHR Judgment of November 24, 1993).
  35. Kingsbury, Benedict, Nico Krisch, Richard Stewart and Jonathan Weiner, “Global Governance as Administration- National and Transnational Approaches to Global Administrative Law.” Law and Contemporary Problems 68, (Summer 2005): 1-13.
  36. Klabbers, Jan, Anne Peters, and Geir Ulfstein, eds., TheConstitutionalization of International Law. (Oxford: OUP, 2009).
  37. Kochenov, Dmitry. “Busting the Myths Nuclear: A Commentary on Article 7 TEU.” EUI Working Papers Law 2017/10 (2017): 1-13.
  38. Kochenov, Dmitry, and Laurent Pech. Better Late than Never? On the European Commission's Rule of Law Framework and its First Activation.” Journal of Common Market Studies 24 (July 2016): 1062-1074.
  39. Ligeti, Katalin, and Michele Simonato, “The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: Towards a TrulyProsecution Service?” The New Journal of European Criminal Law 4, no. 1-2 (2013).
  40. Micallef v. Malta, App. no. 17056/06, (GC ECtHR Judgment of October 15, 2009).
  41. Mitsilegas, Valsamis, and Fabio Giuffrida, “Raising the Bar? Thoughts on the Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.” CEPS Policy Insight No. 2017-39 (November 30, 2017): 1-21.
  42. Novokmet, Ante. “The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judicial Review of Criminal Prosecution.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 8, no. 3 (2017): 374-402.
  43. Panov, Stoyan. “Judicial Anti-Corruption Reforms in Bulgaria and the Rule of the EU in Bulgaria’s Judiciary Regulation.” Südosteuropa 61, no. 2 (2013): 193-218.
  44. Panov, Stoyan. “The Obligation Aut Dedere Aut Judicare(‘Extradite or Prosecute’) in International Law.” PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2016.
  45. Pech, Laurent. ‘“A Union Founded on the Rule of Law’: Meaning and Reality of the Rule of Law as a Constitutional Principle of EU Law” EU Constitutional Law Review 6, (2010).
  46. Peers, Steven, and Mario Costa. “Court of Justice of the European Union Judicial Review of EU Acts after the Treaty of Lisbon” European Constitutional Law Review 8, no. 2 (2012): 82-104.
  47. Pelissier and Sassi v. France, [2000] 30 EHRR 715.
  48. Peters, Anne. “Compensatory Constitutionalism: The Function and Potential of Fundamental International Norms and Structures.” Leiden Journal of International Law 19, (January, 2006): 579-610.
  49. Rosas, Allan, and Lorna Armati. EU Constitutional Law: An Introduction. Hart 2012.
  50. Sadurski, Wojciech. “Adding a Bite to a Bark? A Story of Article 7, the EU Enlargement and Jörg Haider,”Columbia Journal of European Law 16 (2010).
  51. Schermers, Henry, and Niels Blokker. International Institutional Law. (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011).
  52. Tsagouris, Nicolas, ed. Transnational Constitutionalism: International and European Perspectives. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
  53. Vera Fernández-Huidobro v. Spain, App. no. 74181/01 (ECtHR Judgment of January 6, 2010).
  54. Von Bogdany, Armin, and Michael Ioannidis. “Systemic Deficiency in the Rule of Law: What It Is, What Has Been Done, What Can Be Done.” Common Market Law Review 51, no. 1 (2014): 59-96.
  55. Weiler, Joseph, and Marlene Wind, eds. European Constitutionalism beyond the State. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
  56. Weyembergh, Anne, and Chloe Brière, “Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).” European Parliament, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2016): 1-57.

Downloads

Published

2020-02-02

How to Cite

Panov, S. (2020). The EU’s Trifecta Mechanisms: Analysis of EU’s Response to the Challenges to the Rule of Law and Corruption. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (5), 83–117. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj189987.2019-5.83-117

Issue

No. 5 (2019): Legal and Political Challenges of Anticorruption Activities

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Stoyan Panov

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.