Serious Rule of Law Risks Emerge Within EU Institutions Claims Report

In its latest analysis, the Nézőpont Institute stated that there is a risk of serious violations of the rule of law in the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The report on the state of the rule of law in EU institutions highlights practices by EU institutions that violate the rule of law, coinciding with the publication of the EU’s rule of law report on Hungary.

The analysis emphasizes that there is no single definition of the concept of “rule of law.” Instead of a precise definition, the Venice Commission attempts to identify the fundamental pillars of the rule of law, which are legality, legal certainty, the prevention of abuse of power/authority, equality before the law and non-discrimination, and access to justice.

They pointed out that, although the rule of law has been the subject of considerable attention in recent years, less has been said about the need for the EU’s institutions and functioning to be based on the rule of law.

The rule of law shortcomings identified were grouped into four areas: cases of corruption without consequences undermine trust in EU institutions; there is a persistent risk of abuse in the accumulation of incompatible positions; the outsourcing of EU funds to NGOs is not transparent; systemic double standards seriously undermine legal certainty.

It was found that these risks are linked to identifiable contractual practices in the functioning of EU institutions, arbitrary and creeping encroachment on powers, and widespread corruption within institutions, which in several cases is facilitated by the opaque functioning of institutions, insufficient internal rules and a lack of accountability.

With regard to the functioning of the European Parliament, they pointed to the problem that the procedure for suspending the immunity of MEPs suspected of criminal offenses under ordinary law can be protracted, as there is no time limit for the procedure. Further problems identified include the fact that lobby organizations involved in corruption scandals can continue to influence the work of the EP, Transparency International exercises excessive influence over the organization, European political parties can be dissolved on the grounds that they do not respect the values of the Union, and that during the procedure to do so, the opinion of a member of the scientific council of a foundation linked to the Party of European Socialists must be sought at a mandatory level, and that the third largest political party (Patriots for Europe) is isolated, thereby preventing EU citizens from expressing their will.

With regard to the European Commission, it was noted that the European regulation on freedom of the media, which would standardize press regulation at EU level, constitutes a creeping extension of powers, and that the corruption cases involving Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her commissioners have had no consequences. The European Commission finances interest groups in a non-transparent manner, which act as pressure groups within the EU institutions and in the Member States. There is a systemic risk of conflicts of interest in that the Commission can decide on the funding of external experts who assess EU funds, and four outgoing commissioners were too quickly granted permission to take up positions in lobby organizations with which they had links as commissioners.

Nézőpont Institute stated that the Commission also applies the procedure under Article 7 inconsistently, citing as an example the fact that Poland was condemned for lack of judicial independence, but the Romanian Constitutional Court, which annulled the presidential election, was not.

They consider it incompatible that a Dutch judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union served in the European Commission for 30 years, and they assessed as a risk of corruption the fact that the Danish vice-president of the court took up a position at a law firm involved in court proceedings within 24 days of the expiry of his term of office.

In their opinion, the impartiality of the court is jeopardized by the fact that its German vice-president, Thomas von Danwitz, is a member of the Board of Trustees of a political organization that criticizes member states for ideological reasons, and they believe that Dean Spielmann, the Court’s former president, overstepped his authority when he criticized the independence and impartiality of the Polish Constitutional Court in his motion.

The Nézőpont Institute’s report was produced in consultation with 25 experts, professors and researchers in three member states and covers the period from the 2024 European Parliament elections to May 22, 2025.

Von der Leyen’s Pfizergate: Shameless Denial and Zero Accountability