Nézőpont Institute: The rule of law must apply to Brussels too

Budapest Times

2 days ago

In a comprehensive new analysis, the Nézőpont Institute has raised serious concerns over the state of rule of law within the European Union's own institutions. Contrary to the prevailing narrative that focuses scrutiny exclusively on member states, the report argues that systemic legal irregularities and accountability gaps exist at the very core of the EU — specifically within the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The Institute's second annual 'Report on the State of the Rule of Law in EU Institutions' arrived just as the EU released another round of assessments targeting member countries, including Hungary. However, the Nézőpont study redirects attention toward the institutional framework of the EU itself. As highlighted in the report, the concept of 'rule of law' lacks a universally agreed-upon definition, and even the Venice Commission prefers to list its foundational principles — such as legality, legal certainty, equality before the law, and access to justice — rather than define it outright.
Nézőpont identifies four main areas where the EU falls short: unchecked corruption, persistent conflicts of interest, opaque funding practices regarding NGOs, and the entrenched double standards applied by various EU bodies. These problems, the report argues, are not just isolated flaws but are rooted in institutional practices that violate the EU's own treaties. The persistence of these issues reflects deeper problems, including discretionary power expansion, weak internal controls, and the near-total absence of external accountability.
In the European Parliament, the suspension of immunity for members accused of criminal acts can take months due to the lack of procedural deadlines. Lobbyists implicated in past scandals continue to exert influence, and decision-making processes allow foundations linked to specific political parties to shape critical rulings. Additionally, the Patriots for Europe party, which emerged as the third-largest political force in the EU elections, has been systematically sidelined — raising concerns over political pluralism and citizen representation.
The European Commission is likewise criticized for pushing legislation—like the media freedom regulation — that extends its powers under the guise of technical harmonization. Corruption allegations tied to top officials, including President Ursula von der Leyen, have gone unanswered. Funding mechanisms for NGOs remain non-transparent, while expert advisors — who often receive EU funding — are empowered to influence decisions that may benefit their own organizations.
The Court of Justice does not escape criticism either. One judge's rapid transition to a law firm involved in EU litigation and another's past career in the Commission are cited as examples of systemic conflict of interest. The impartiality of some key legal figures is also questioned, particularly when their extra-judicial affiliations reveal clear political leanings.