Mr. Emmanuel Crabit:

I thank the committee for inviting me to have an exchange of views on the Commission's communication on a new EU framework to strengthen the rule of law. I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity because Ireland was one of the first member states to underline the importance of promoting the rule of law within the EU. Indeed, one year ago, the Irish Presidency made an impressive push to put this issue on the European agenda. In the time available to me, I will talk about why the Commission has established the EU framework, its key characteristics and how it will function in practice.
Respect for the rule of law is one of the common values of the EU listed in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. This fundamental value is itself a prerequisite for the protection of all the other values listed in this article, including democracy and fundamental rights. Respect for the rule of law is indispensable for the very functioning of the EU legal order and for mutual trust between member states. The constitutions and judicial systems of EU member states are, in principle, well designed and equipped to protect citizens against any threat to the rule of law. In recent years, however, we have seen crisis situations in some member states which have demonstrated that respect for the rule of law cannot be taken for granted, even within the EU. During these crises, many turned to the Commission to seek its intervention.
The Commission intervened in those instances by exerting political pressure and, where possible, with infringement proceedings. These actions led to results but also showed that the existing instruments at EU level are not always adequate for a swift and effective reaction. The Commission can launch infringement proceedings against member states, but such proceedings can only be used where concerns relating to the rule of law constitute at the same time a breach of a provision of EU law. Experience has shown this is not always the case. There is also the famous Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for preventive and sanctioning mechanisms in cases where a member state does not respect fundamental values, such as the rule of law. However, the thresholds for using the mechanisms of Article 7 are high and, in practice, those mechanisms will only be used in extreme scenarios. It is therefore necessary for the EU to have a lighter intermediate framework which is capable of covering situations which cannot be addressed by infringement proceedings and which remain below the high thresholds of Article 7. This conclusion is shared by the Council and the European Parliament. In June 2013, thanks to the Irish Presidency, the EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted conclusions which underline that "respecting the rule of law is a prerequisite for the protection of fundamental rights" and called on the Commission to take the debate further. In addition, the European Parliament, in several resolutions, has called for new instruments to strengthen the rule of law in the EU.
The objective of the framework is to facilitate a political dialogue with the member state concerned to prevent an emerging systemic threat to the rule of law from further escalating and developing into a situation mentioned in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. The framework describes how the Commission intends to react to new rule-of-law crises and organise its approach in order to assess whether to use its power of initiating the mechanisms of Article 7. The nature of this process of dialogue is political rather than legal. The framework is designed to address a situation of systemic threats to the rule of law in a member state. It does not address individual breaches of fundamental rights. There is a systemic threat to the rule of law when the rule-of-law safeguards which exist at national level, such as constitutional review mechanisms, no longer function or come under threat. Another characteristic of the framework is that it is sufficiently flexible to allow for swift and concrete actions. Finally, by setting out in advance the approach the Commission will follow, the framework ensures respect for the principle of equal treatment of member states.
In terms of how it will function in practice, the framework establishes a three-stage process. The first stage consists of a Commission assessment. This is necessary to ensure a thorough and objective assessment of the situation at stake.

The Commission may always seek external expertise - for instance, from the Council of Europe's Venice Commission. Unless the matter is already resolved, the second stage is a Commission recommendation. This will clearly indicate the reasons for the Commission's concerns and recommend the member state solves the problems identified in a fixed time limit. The third stage is monitoring the follow-up to the recommendation. If no solution is found within the framework, Article 7 will always remain the last resort to resolve a crisis. The Commission will keep the European Parliament and the Council closely informed of the progress made at each stage of the process.

To conclude, I would like to underline that the framework is based on experience of crisis situations where the Commission was requested to intervene. To a large extent the framework sets out steps the Commission has taken in the past. The framework is operational and does not require additional measures before it can be used by the Commission. We do not know whether or when we may face the next crisis, but the commitment Ireland has shown in promoting the rule of law in the EU provides a strong message for all.