The EP approves the message of war: the Commission caught fire in application of the regulation of the rule of law

What’s in the war message?

After a series of reassuring messages to the European Parliament on Wednesday morning, Ursula von der Leyen adopted the rule of law regulation in the afternoon and the EU budget for 2021-2027 in the evening. He then reaffirmed his position in a resolution on Thursday morning, which he approved by 496 votes to 134 and 65 abstentions. It contains a series of very powerful warnings.

Although the resolution is not legally binding, it is very important material, because later it could be a reference for the action that the EU Treaty provides for the EP, and there are quite a few. Some of these are specifically mentioned in the resolution, such as:

• Recalls that the Commission is accountable to Parliament and that the President of the Commission has also been elected by Parliament (a disguised warning against the possibility of launching a vote of no confidence);
• Remember that if the Commission makes commitments or payments to the EU budget (for example, for the 2014-2020 cycle, since the Regulation applies to them from 1 January 2021), which the EP considers that it should not been carried out under the Regulation, it may later make it impossible for the Commission, even by refusing to accept the final EU accounts (this was already reinforced by the EP in 1999 against the Santer Commission, resulting in the resignation of all the Commission).
• Let you be ready: the TFEU. Sue the President of the Commission under Article 265 of the Treaty because he has given a written guarantee of compliance with a Council directive (the Conclusion of the Council of the EU Summit last week) that is not legally binding, nor the Chairman of the Commission should be even for the purposes of the Regulation, somewhat limits the Commission.

How to “get out” of the encryption situation?

Therefore, Cifra is the case, because the president of the Commission would have to comply at the same time with the legally binding regulation on the rule of law, which obliges him to apply all his letters as of next January (“all commitments and payments “) and the Council’s conclusion. on the other hand, it also reduces the focus of the regulation by clarifying it, and postpones its actual application until the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled on the regulation.

The President of the Commission himself navigated towards an apparently insoluble contradiction

under the influence of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in order to facilitate political negotiation at last week’s EU summit, she promised verbally and in writing to comply with the Council’s conclusion, which is not legally binding and restricts the application of the regulation; therefore, the EP has questioned him in practice and in law.

There seems to be a very narrow path to resolve the contradiction, throughout which the President of the Commission can get out of this situation and the Council’s own conclusion refers to it. And this is nothing more than what Bruxinfo has written that the Commission is actually going to apply the rule of law regulation from January 2021: it will start to collect information from Member States and enter into correspondence and dialogue with them to finalize its rules as soon as fall 2021 is clear. be able to start the procedures it deems necessary as soon as possible, which could lead to sanctions with EU funds. Therefore, the President of the Commission will be able to defend his back to Parliament and the Council at the same time, saying that “ we are doing a good job correctly ” and we have started to apply each letter of the regulation, but it will take time and our preparations. they are underway.

What can this mean in practice?

This also means that, for example, the Commission is expected to work with Hungary and Poland will enter into intensive negotiations next year the content of the rule of law and the points that the Commission considers problematic to achieve a change in practice and the institutional framework in the Member States, since if it persists, the sanctions phase will begin immediately after the court ruling.

At the same time, the situation of the committee chairman caught between the two fires leaves questions about the issue of What will happen to Hungary when it disburses the € 11 billion still unpaid from the 2014-2020 EU cycle? The legally binding regulation applies to all commitments and cash flows from 1 January 2021, but the Council’s conclusion (which is not legally binding but in practice guides the Commission on how to proceed) has eliminated this problem , citing that the rule of law mechanism was born only in preparation for the new cycle of the EU.

In this case, the Commission’s “exit strategy” is likely to be something like Until the end of the phase of clarification of correspondence with Hungary and until the court ruling, no substantive payments will be made for the 2014-2020 cycle, although nothing will be formally suspended. Then the situation of the trial and the debates of that time will decide the rest. The Commission can also apply this apparent time delay strategy because you only have to pay within 60 days if you receive a package of invoices from Hungary (excluding the annual advance). However, at the moment, a substantial package of accounts is not expected from Hungary, as the Hungarian government sent so many development accounts to the Commission for the 2014-2020 cycle in Brussels at the end of this year, precisely in view of the cash flow risks stemming from disputes (and in order to reduce the budget deficit). (Surpassing the target of € 2.7 billion for the full year, it has already withdrawn around € 3.4 billion from Brussels in 2020), so presumably there won’t be another big package of bills for next summer-fall.

On the other hand, if the Commission were to delay payments in the old EU cycle for some time, from a public finance point of view, the amount owed of around € 11 billion (presumably less than € 1 billion ) would not be enough for the Hungarian government. The method of payment for the Commission in the following period seems increasingly uncertain. As mentioned, on the one hand, it depends on the content of the court ruling, and on the other hand, the state of the negotiations with the Commission at that time will determine the possibilities and payment terms in the coming years in this area.

Cover Image Source: Dursun Aydemir / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images