How Hungary and Poland closed the European Union

All the advantages gained by Hungary and Poland in the settlement reached Brussels under the rule of law. Analysis of Museo for Atlantico newspapers

European Parliament approved Draft a new regulation Said on the ‘rule of law’, which has been opposed by Poland and Hungary. The European Council approved an agreement, as Explanatory statement, Which is worth noting.

Let’s ignore some passages of circumstances: a reference to respecting “national identity” ()4 yours); The application of the regulations shall be “purposeful, equitable, fair”; “Any formal opening of the process will precede an intensive dialogue”; However, the Commission will be urged to take note of any such measures; If the accused member state goes to the European Council, the latter will “attempt to create normalcy”. By now, it will be a draw.

But then Poland and Hungary had some advantages, as they unanimously accepted George Soros, Vladimiro Zagrebalski And, in general, the Italian press. We count to seven:

(1) The explanatory declaration clearly supports Poles and the Hungarian main legal objection: “The European Council … remembers that the procedure for Article 7 TEU Article 2 TEU to deal with the violation of the values ​​of the followers of the Union” Installs. ” “. And that may be enough.

(2) The declaration repeatedly emphasizes: “The purpose of regulation … is to protect the Union Budget, including the new generation of the European Union, its sound financial management and the financial interests of the Union,” in particular “, Measures “The ratio of the effect of violations of the sound budget management of the Union Budget or the rule of law on the financial interests of the Union”, the causal link between these violations and the negative consequences on the Union’s financial interests must be sufficient to be direct and duly established. Violation of the rule is not enough to activate the system. ”This means preventing regulation by preserving” the value of the rule of law “()2 tu), No one knows what it is, it has to be linked to ‘Principles of Good Financial Management’ ()317 Tfue I 325 tuff). The Vladimiro Zagrebalski treaties should be re-read, which speak of “a critical principle”.

(3) Only “if other procedures established by central law … do not allow the Union Budget to be more effectively protected … measures will be considered under the mechanism”. In practice, the declaration downgrades the regulation and makes it redundant. This is logical, as the ‘principle of sound financial management’ is protected by the countless instruments already available to the Commission.

(4) While it is true that “the Union Budget, including Next generation UI, Should be safe from any form of fraud, corruption and conflict of interest “, the same” regulation does not concern generalized deficiencies. This is logical, as the treaties already know remedies for violations of the ‘Principles of Sound Financial Management’: hindrance / suspension / correction of individual award or award procedures, not of an inseparable set of award procedures or as a regulation Implantation will be required in the Member State.

(5) Poland and Hungary agree to invite “the European Parliament and the Council to take the necessary measures to adopt the entire package of related instruments, including immediately regulating the multi-pronged financial framework and its own resource decisions”, but To appeal to the European Court without prejudice to the right of member states. That is, consent to the package does not constitute consent to regulations (which may be opposed in court). This allowed Morwiki and Orban to immediately announce that they would appeal.

(4) The Commission announced its intention: “to ensure compliance with these principles contained in the Declaration”, including a methodology for evaluating its purpose, the direction in which it will implement the regulation. – Declaration and elaboration of instructions ”.

(7) The Commission goes a long way: “If an appeal is filed against the regulation, the guidelines will be finalized after the Court’s decision to include the relevant elements relating to that decision” meanwhile, ” Until these guidelines are finalized, the Commission will not propose measures consistent with the regulation ”.

* * *

Warsaw and Budapest want to go in front of the court because, as we said above Atlantico newspapers (who I who), They are aware that the content of the regulation is contrary to the treaties and presents such manifest violation, as suggesting that it may also be dismissed by the Court sympathetically notorious for any central initiative. The agreement, meanwhile, allows both countries time to assert their arguments without suffering negative consequences.

Unlike Paris, where Macron claims to have achieved “a firm agreement on the mechanisms to be implemented, in compliance with the rule of law”, with him The subordinate contact that repeats: “We have confirmed the principle of rule of law”. Victorious world: The agreement “lays the foundation for a more federal and united community building … defending the values ​​of the European Union”. And those who point to Polish and Hungarian appeals respond that the rebels have only managed to “show their public opinion that they have gained something” and “buy time”. In fact, in Elysee he would be persuaded to obtain court approval and fairly quickly.

This French security is very poor. This is not the case with respect to time, given that the court is not usually forced to take two years, but it can act with an immediate process and, in fact, the commission must be “months rather than years”. I have to wait for the decision. , Others speak of “three months” (based on the preceding appeal of the Scottish court regarding Brexit). No, French security opposes the result and suggests that Paris has some additional papers.

* * *

There are four possible points of attachment for the explanatory statement:

[1] The European Council would have overtaken its powers, as it “does not practice legislative functions” (15 tu) And “acts within the limits of the powers conferred on it by treaties” (13 times). Indeed, care is taken to clarify the declaration that it is the Commission that “seeks to formulate and adopt guidelines on how the regulation will be implemented”; The European Council only agrees that the Commission’s proposals “constitute an adequate and permanent response to the concerns expressed”; Not only that, these elements will likely be binding, but not definitive, as the guidelines will “develop in close consultation with Member States”, at the separate headquarters of the European Union Council, where the Commission intends to “enter the minutes”. A second statement. Of course, everyone knows that this is not true: the agreement was made by the German Chancellor, as Soros, von der Leyen, LaGarde, and Gentiloni write. world, Imprint, Fabbrini (who with his left hand accuses the European Council of doing legislative work that he does not have, his right hand has incited his beloved chancellor to that outrageous agreement) and even Polish Minister Morewići Too. But, formally, the announcement appears armored.

[2] The European Council allegedly violated the independence of the Commission, which “carries out its responsibilities in complete independence … the members of the Commission do not seek or accept instructions from any government, institution, body or body” (17 Mars). In fact, the formula that appeals the declaration is not preceded by ‘the Council gives impetus to the Commission’, as it may (15 tu). Those who have alleged this (Verhofstadt, Soros, Alamno and Shamon) are based on the assumption that the European Council has determined the commitment contained in the Declaration to the Commission … while the contrary is formally true.

[3] The European Council and / or the Commission may have violated the EU legislative power with the Council of the European Union alone responsible for approving the regulation (322 tofu). In fact, the Act declared by the Commission is not a regulation, but a guideline: that is, the non-binding legal act of the Union (249 Tfue), Or an atypical (i.e. not envisaged by treaty) but non-binding act. More precisely, the Guidelines represent a political declaration by the Commission intended to declare the line of conduct that is within the scope of the discretion that the law or treaty allows. The Uniform Regulation mentions “findings and recommendations of the institutions of the Union” (Art. 5-2 and 5a Regulation).

[4] The Commission cannot change an essential element of regulation (290 tuff). In fact, the declaration maintains the date of entry into force of the unchanged regulation: formally it will apply to funds beginning on January 1, 2021 and, in fact, the Commission will work on the draft guidelines, but “measures consistent with the regulation Shall not propose “” until after the judgment of Justice. The declaration may not have the intent to have a doubtful effect to appeal to the courts of Poland and Hungary, as “the appeal brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union has no doubtful effect”, unless the court grants it (278 Tfue). Consequently, it must be concluded that the Commission is changing an essential element of regulation. For nothing, this is the most contested element of the declaration: Alemano defines it as an “unprecedented legal organ”; Kees Sterk (former judge of the EU CSM Association) alleged the Dutch judge, “When a rule has legal effect, it should be enforced; it is not politics to apply it for some time or under certain conditions.” There cannot be a question of “; Sophie in ‘t Weld (Dutch Liberal MEP) says,” There is no justification for delaying the full and complete implementation of EU law; This is a very dangerous example. “

* * *

In short, proponents of the ‘rule of law’ would point their cards before the court, not on the main controversy concerning the regulation initiated by Poles and the Hungarians, but on a secondary dispute concerning the explanatory declaration of the regulation. War on the cake, Warsaw and Budapest would not ask for immediate action on the main dispute, but supporters of the ‘rule of law’ on the secondary dispute would do so: thus a convenient time for Poland and Hungary to suspend EU funds Get the window. Regardless of the outcome of the main dispute.

(Excerpt from an article published in Atlético Cotidiano)