Enforcing the Rule of Law in the EU: Pre- And Post-2014 Framework in Three Case Studies: Hungary, Romania and Poland

The Rule of Law and democratic governance within the European Union (EU) is most often cited concerning accession criteria for prospective member states1. However, following the two periods of EU enlargement from the Maastricht Treaty to the Lisbon treaty’ and particularly, the ‘Rule of Law’ crises in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and, Poland post-accession; the absence of an intermediary mechanism to address systemic threats to democratic norms and the Rule of Law in member states took on a new urgency2. The principle of Article 2 and the instruments of Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) notwithstanding, the EU Commission communication of A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of law3 presents a snapshot of deepening EU law and policy on intervening within the domestic affairs and (anti-) democratic practices of member states. By examining the case studies of Romania, Hungary and, Poland; a coherent picture of evolving EU practices of harmonization of monitoring and reporting mechanisms, inter-institutional collaboration between the EU and the Council of Europe (CoE) and, deepening intervention in the domestic affairs of member states’ ‘third pillar’ competences becomes apparent. Notwithstanding these centrifugal forces, resistance to this deepening integration is equally prevalent, and seems more durable long-term, particularly in the emergent political cohesion of the Visegrad bloc.