The horrific treatment inflicted on human beings during the Second World War shocked our governments so much that they created human rights as basic standards of protection.

But some governments are trying to undermine the protection that has allowed new generations of Europeans to enjoy peace, prosperity and freedom. The rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights have come under threat increasingly, first in Hungary, then Spain and now in Poland. Even though EU governments have promised to respect these values, the Union has limited powers to protect them.

The European Commission has created a rule of law ‘framework’ that allows it to investigate and make recommendations to a government that has serious problems. But the Commission is not using its powers consistently. Even though several countries are committing serious rights violations, the procedure has only been used once.

Health checks

To make sure that all EU countries are treated in the same way and to prevent rights violations becoming widespread, the European Parliament is calling for the Union to check all EU countries regularly. In the summer of 2016, the European Parliament is expected to adopt a resolution asking the European Commission to create a mechanism that reviews the health of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in each EU country every few years.

Unfortunately, the Commission – which is the EU institution with the power to propose new laws – has told the European Parliament several times that it does not support this idea. Partners of the European Liberties Platform have made a number of recommendations setting out how the European Parliament could promote and protect the EU’s fundamental values using its own powers, without the need for the Commission to propose legislation.

The European Parliament should:

• Use the powers available to it under Protocol 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and its own Rules of Procedure to create an interparliamentary rights dialogue as a mechanism to safeguard the EU’s fundamental values.
• Under the dialogue, the EP’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) should meet with its counterpart committees from the 28 national parliaments individually over a two-year cycle. Discussion should be based on a synthesis of findings and recommendations made by existing monitoring mechanisms (UN, Council of Europe, EU Fundamental Rights Agency), as well as relevant supplementary information from civil society.
• During the dialogue, the LIBE Committee should address recommendations to its national counterpart committees. LIBE’s counterpart committee in each Member State should undertake to place a proportion of recommendations on the agenda of its national parliament for discussion and report back to the LIBE Committee on progress made at its next dialogue, two years later.
• During the dialogue, national parliaments should also be able to make recommendations to the LIBE Committee on how to improve the EU’s own rights record.
• When the LIBE Committee identifies challenges commonly shared by the Member States, it should address these through: a) own initiative reports; b) directing EU funding and technical assistance to addressing these issues; c) prioritising the development of fundamental rights indicators on these themes.

Read the full paper, ‘How the European Parliament can protect the EU’s fundamental values: An interparliamentary rights dialogue’, here.

Change the dialogue

The Council of the EU – which is where national ministers meet to decide EU law and policy – has also taken some modest measures to protect fundamental rights in the EU by establishing an annual ‘dialogue’ between EU governments on the rule of law. But in their current form, these annual talks are unlikely to help protect fundamental rights. For example, under the present arrangement governments are not even asked to make any improvements.

Partners of the European Liberties Platform have made a number of recommendations to the EU on how to make the rule of law dialogue more effective.

National governments meeting in the Council should:

• Increase the amount of time available for the dialogue and/or consider making more of available time by splitting Member States into smaller working groups. Member States should be allocated to a working group randomly.
• Choose a thematic focus for each dialogue. Use the dialogue to identify challenges faced by Member States within the thematic focus by reference to the findings of existing monitoring mechanisms (UN, Council of Europe, EU Fundamental Rights Agency), as well as pertinent supplementary information from civil society, and examine how the national rule of law infrastructure (judiciary, National Human Rights Institutions, media, civil society) is contributing to upholding the rule of law in this area.
• Include the national rule of law infrastructure and regional and international human rights bodies in a seminar to prepare for the dialogue.
• Ensure a genuine exchange of views during the dialogue by stimulating Member States to ask questions, offer good practice solutions and make recommendations to be taken on by their peers.
• Facilitate implementation of recommendations by establishing/identifying a rule of law fund to support the rule of law infrastructure, offer technical assistance to Member States, and require Member States to report back on implementation of recommendations.

Read the full paper, ‘The Rule of Law Dialogue: 5 Ideas for Future EU Presidencies’, here.

If you would like European governments to stick to their promises to uphold the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, write to members of your national parliament and government ministers asking them to support these recommendations.