The Hungarian institute published a study on how EU bureaucracy authorities are increasingly bending the explanation of the alleged regulation of law to marginalise conservative trends in European politics.
The Nézőpont Institute (Nézőpont Intézet) published the ‘Regional study 2014 – 2019. The regulation of law situation in the EU institutions (Report on the regulation of law 2014-2019). The regulation of law situation in the institutions of the EU). The paper focuses on compliance with the alleged regulation of law, as expressed in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), by the various institutions and bodies of the European Union, specified as the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Council of the European Union.
The study first points to the choice of the composition of the European Commission, which they believe is contrary to primary law. In accordance with the standard set out at the beginning of r. 17 (7) TEU, “the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall submit to the European Parliament a candidate for the function of president of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its members." Thus, under the Treaties, the candidate for president of the EC should be designated by the European Council. However, for a long time (since 2014) the selection of the president of the EC has been followed by a procedure, defined by the German procedure of the "major candidate" (Spitzenkandidat). Under this system, during the EP election campaign, political groups (European political parties) in this body nominate the main candidates for the position of president of the EC. The main candidate of the political group, which will win the most votes in the EP election, will so be a quasi-automatic candidate for the fresh president.
The study then notes the gradual expansion of the powers of the European Parliament, setting out, as an example of specified activity, the revision of its Rules of Procedure, which took place in 2024. Under this amendment, the EP gained competence in additional areas. An example is the changes made in Article 156(6) concerning the exchange of information, contacts and common facilities in the relations of the European Parliament with national parliaments. This provision adds the conviction by which the European Parliament's committees were granted powers to "control the implementation of Union law and policies". According to the authors of the report, the amendment described above extends the scope of EP supervision over national parliaments, thereby violating the Treaty rule of subsidiarity.
The authors are besides looking at the regulation of Law Framework established by the European Commission in 2014 as an introduction to the launch of the Article 7 TEU mechanism. (The intent of this provision of the Treaty is to guarantee that the values of the EU as set out in Article 2 TEU, including the regulation of law, are respected.) The study points out that the EC's actions in relation to the Framework for the regulation of law are contrary to the Treaties, in peculiar to the rule laid down in Article 5 TEU that the European Union acts only within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the associate States in the Treaties. The study cites, among another things, the position of the EU Council Legal Service, which, in its 2014 opinion, states that "the fresh EU framework for the regulation of law as set out in the Commission Communication does not comply with the rule of granting which governs the competences of the Union institutions. However, associate States may agree among themselves on a strategy for assessing the functioning of the regulation of law in the associate States and the possible consequences of specified an assessment. specified an evaluation strategy agreed by associate States may supply that certain tasks will be carried out by the Union institutions" (point 28).
In the following part of the report, the authors of the paper examine the principles of action of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Council of the European Union. In addition, the authors besides accuse the EU institutions of marginalising right-wing political groups with positions and functions in the European Parliament which do not reflect the results of democratic elections and the will of voters from EU associate States. This has been referred to as discrimination (p. 7-8).
– The study is an highly crucial paper due to the fact that it presents an innovative way of presenting the subject of "lawfulness" in the context of European law, focusing on compliance with the regulation of law by the most crucial institutions of the European Union: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Council of the European Union. This is crucial that so far the above issues have been presented and addressed almost exclusively in the context of allegations directed at circumstantial EU associate States concerning alleged "infringements of the regulation of law"” – noted Patrick Ignaszczak of the Ordo Iuris global Law Center.
Source: Ordo Iuris Institute
The European Union on the brink of bankruptcy? Giant debt and increasing errors endanger the future of the budget!
