Von der Leyen angers rule-of-law MEPs over lack of action

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has dismissed a call for action by the  European Parliament under a new rule-of-law conditionality mechanism, which links EU funds to respect for legal norms.

In a five-page letter to European Parliament president David Sassoli, Von der Leyen argued that MEPs had not been clear enough on what cases it wanted the EU executive to act.

The conditionality mechanism was adopted last December and entered into full force in January.

However, EU leaders, under the threat of a veto on the EU’s long-term budget by Hungary and Poland, attached political conditions to its application, such as a requirement for the Commission to set up guidelines on the use of the mechanism, and to wait for a European Court of Justice ruling on it.

MEPs say this political haggling delays the application of an already-adopted legislation that can rein in governments like Poland and in Hungary, whose measures have breached EU law.

In July, the European Parliament’s Budget and Budgetary Control Committees admonished the Commission for failing to apply the rule of law conditionality to member states seen flouting the rule of law at home.

Under the new EU rules, EU budget payments can be withheld from member states where it is established that rule of law breaches have compromised the proper management of the EU funds. As such, the new conditionality regime makes any disbursements of EU funds to member states conditional on the state of their respective rule of law.

But Von der Leyen argued in her letter there were “no constraints” and “no suspension” of the application of the regulation.

She said the commission was working on a detailed analysis required for launching the procedure and had taken the necessary action under the regulation. Previously, the commission had hinted it might launch cases in the autumn.

“The Parliament’s request to act is not sufficiently clear and precise to enable that institutions to ascertain in specific terms the content of the decisions that it is asked to adopt.

“The commission, therefore, finds itself unable to define its position as regards the European Parliament’s request… to open the procedure under the regulation ‘in the most obvious cases’,” she wrote, adding that the Parliament should explain “in concrete terms” which those cases where and why they fell under the mechanism.

Dutch liberal MEP Sophie in ‘t Veld called the statement “legalistic rubbish” and a blunt provocation. “The lawyers of the EU Commission may be high-fiving, but they miss the point: it is not an insult to Parliament. It is an insult to the European citizens.”

“Shameful non-reply,” tweeted John Morijn, a law and politics professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, who is also a co-author of a 56-page long study detailing possible legal cases under the regulation with regards to Hungary.