Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

AddedN. whereas journalists in several Member States continue to face smear campaigns, abusive lawsuits, intimidation and threats, leading to fear and self-censorship and weakening the public’s right to information; whereas some journalists are forced to live under police protection;

AddedO. whereas its Committee of Inquiry on Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware (PEGA) found that such tools were unlawfully deployed in several Member States against journalists, civil society, lawyers, opposition figures and public officials; whereas it documented serious violations of privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, warning that such practices pose a systemic threat to democracy and fundamental rights in the EU; whereas the use of spyware surveillance technologies, such as Predator, Pegasus and Paragon Graphite, against journalists in the EU remains a matter of serious concern;

AddedP. whereas certain fundamental rights violations may have been linked to the use of some EU funds, notably in the areas of reception conditions for asylum seekers, the institutionalisation of persons with disabilities and of children, and certain urban regeneration housing and education projects; whereas certain EU funds may have been channelled into companies linked to intrusive surveillance technologies; whereas the management and oversight of EU funds should be strengthened in order to prevent such violations and ensure full compliance with the safeguards provided under EU law;

AddedQ. whereas concerns have been raised regarding EU restrictive measures introduced under Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 and Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, in particular as regards their potential impact on the rights of individuals, including journalists, and the need to ensure that such measures are applied in accordance with the proportionality requirement under EU law, respect for due process, judicial oversight and adequate legal safeguards, in line with international human rights standards;

AddedR. whereas corruption remains a major concern for EU citizens, as shown by the 2025 Eurobarometer survey on corruption; whereas in particular, 69 % of those surveyed consider corruption to be widespread in their country and 51 % believe it is widespread within political parties; whereas the survey respondents overwhelmingly reject corrupt practices, with 71 % of them considering that it is never acceptable to do favours in exchange for advantages from public authorities, 74 % rejecting the giving of gifts and 80 % rejecting the giving of money to obtain such advantages; whereas 5 % of the people surveyed report having experienced or witnessed corruption in the past 12 months but only one in five reported it, and less than half of the respondents know where to report a case of corruption;

AddedS. whereas the Council of Europe’s GRECO underlines in its 25th General Activity Report that fundamental reforms remain essential to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, prosecution and law enforcement, and to restore trust in public institutions, political leadership, the judiciary and law enforcement, which requires sustained anti-corruption efforts, stronger supervision and independent oversight, a robust and balanced framework for managing interactions between persons’ with top executive functions and lobbyists and third parties influencing public decision-making, as well as the application of revolving door standards, and an unwavering commitment to transparency, accountability, justice and integrity; whereas further action is needed to ensure that access to information laws are comprehensive, effectively enforced and proactively implemented;

AddedT. whereas electoral integrity, equal suffrage and genuine political competition are essential components of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and must be systematically addressed in the rule-of-law monitoring of Member States, as well as of candidate and potential candidate countries;

AddedU. whereas the 34th General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) of the Council of Europe expresses serious concern about the significant increase in prison overcrowding, particularly in some Member States, which completely undermines the functioning of prisons and potentially exposes individuals to inhuman and degrading treatment, as it causes poorer living conditions, increased tension and violence, and a reduction in purposeful activities and preparation for prisoners’ return to the community;

AddedV. whereas according to data from FRA and the Council of Europe, inadequate healthcare, limited access to mental health support, and a growing number of suicides remain a serious concern in prisons in several Member States; whereas suicides and acts of self-harm underscore persistent and serious problems in detention systems; whereas particular attention is needed in juvenile facilities, where a lack of sufficient psychological care, education and reintegration measures exposes minors to further trauma and exclusion;

AddedW. whereas failures to implement or partial implementation of and persistent delays in executing judgments of the CJEU and of the ECtHR are not isolated cases but reflect persistent problems in several Member States and recurring issues in others;

AddedX. whereas the European Implementation Network and Democracy Reporting International highlight the fact that, across both the CJEU and the ECtHR, the implementation gaps relate largely to the same areas, namely judicial independence and access to justice, asylum and migration, detention conditions, equality and data/surveillance; whereas at the same time, there have been positive cross-cutting developments in certain Member States, demonstrating that compliance and improvement are possible where there is a clear political will and a genuine commitment to abide by the rulings of the international courts to uphold the rule of law;

AddedY. whereas disinformation, algorithmic manipulation and insufficient transparency of online platforms undermine democratic debate, and enforcement under the Digital Services Act seeks to address these risks;

AddedZ. whereas the limited attention given to recommendations under ‘Other institutional issues related to checks and balances’ raises further concerns, as this thematic area is very broad and covers a wide range of issues;

AddedAA. whereas although the methodology of the Commission’s annual rule of law report has improved over time, it still does not always use clear and operational benchmarks for assessing Member States under each pillar, which makes it harder to compare conditions across Member States and to ensure uniform standards, and can lead to weakening the reliability of the rule of law report as an early-warning and preventive mechanism;

AddedAB. whereas according to the 2025 rule of law analysis by Liberties EU, since 2022, about one third of all Member States have shown little or no progress in implementing the Commission’s recommendations; whereas nine countries consistently have five to eight recommendations that remain unimplemented; whereas 61 % of the recommendations assessed in 2025 have shown little or no progress since 2022; whereas 93 % of all the Commission’s 2025 recommendations are repetitions from previous years (with 71 % dating back to 2022) and only nine new recommendations were introduced in 2025; whereas in 2025, only 6 % of recommendations could be considered fully implemented;

AddedAC. whereas the DRFMG within Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has the mandate to monitor breaches of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and the fight against corruption within the EU; whereas for more than seven years, the DRFMG has assessed the state of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights across the EU through dedicated sessions on Member States and horizontal topics, and ad hoc delegations; whereas monitoring is a technical exercise that strengthens integrity systems and enhances institutional resilience and should remain independent from political influence; whereas although embedded within the parliamentary framework, the DRFMG has a long-standing commitment to refrain from party-political considerations and to base its assessments on established standards and evidence-based judgment, and has produced valuable input into the EU’s work on the rule of law;

AddedAD. whereas the Commission’s 2026 work programme notes the need for an integrated annual rule-of-law cycle with a common pace, clear milestones and the active contribution of all the EU institutions; whereas respect for the rule of law remains imperative to safeguard all EU funds;

AddedAE. whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for a stronger link between respect for the rule of law and access to EU funds, including by strengthening the connection between the recommendations contained in its annual rule of law resolution and financial support from the EU budget; whereas the Commission has, on several occasions, committed itself to reinforcing such links, including in the State of the Union address delivered by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on 10 September 2025;

AddedAF. whereas the use of rule-of-law instruments must remain impartial and based exclusively on verifiable fact-finding and legal reasoning, free from instrumentalisation or political bargaining;

AddedAG. whereas in her opinion of 5 June 2025 in Case C-769/22, Advocate General Ćapeta concluded that Article 2 TEU can serve as a separate legal basis for infringement proceedings in cases where the negation of a value is the root cause of other breaches of EU law, and she proposed that the CJEU declare that, by adopting Law LXXIX of 2021, Hungary has infringed the Electronic Commerce Directive, the Services Directive, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the General Data Protection Regulation, Article 56 TFEU, Articles 1, 7, 8(2), 11 and 21 of the Charter and Article 2 TEU;

AddedAH. whereas the Commission’s annual rule of law report should continue to assess Member States and candidate countries; whereas compliance of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies with the rule of law should continue to be ensured through the EU judicial system and the oversight of the European Ombudsman; whereas the Commission’s rule of law report should also transparently assess the compliance of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies with rule-of-law standards, thereby allowing shortcomings within the EU institutions to be addressed more effectively and enhancing the EU’s credibility by subjecting its own institutions to scrutiny;

AddedAI. whereas Member States must ensure that their national human rights institutions (NHRIs) are established and accredited and that they operate in full compliance with the UN Paris Principles; whereas the independence, pluralism, financial security, appropriate resourcing, effective mandate and statutory authority of the NHRIs are indispensable for their mission to effectively promote and protect fundamental rights and monitor rule-of-law standards and the functioning of democratic checks and balances; whereas Member States should be called on to safeguard NHRIs from political interference;

Justice systems

Change 7

Removed1. Calls on the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure independent judicial systems and access to free legal aid, thereby guaranteeing equal access to justice for all, and reiterates the need for concrete actions to improve access, specifically for marginalised and vulnerable groups;

Added1. Reaffirms that the rule of law is founded on the binding nature of law on all public authorities and on the effective right of every individual to have access to an independent and impartial tribunal, and that these two dimensions are inseparable and mutually reinforcing;

Removed2. Calls on the Member States to implement pending judgments of the CJEU and the ECtHR promptly, and suggests the establishment of a monitoring unit to monitor the implementation of CJEU and ECtHR rulings relating to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in EU countries, and to fully integrate the monitoring unit’s findings into the annual rule of law report;

Added2. Underlines that fair and accessible justice is a basic rule of law principle that requires an independent judiciary; reiterates that equal access to justice for all citizens is essential;

Removed3. Underlines the clear link between rule-of-law backsliding and serious violations of fundamental and minority rights, including the excessive use of force by law enforcement, lack of due process for detainees, political or institutional incitement to hatred, disproportionate surveillance powers, and restrictive measures targeting civil society organisations; firmly believes that the Commission should assess the extent to which Member States address these issues in order to ensure an accessible, effective and impartial justice system;

Added3. Stresses the importance of independent judicial systems and access to free legal aid in ensuring equal access to justice; reiterates that adequate resources, including infrastructure and personnel, are crucial to improving justice systems;

Removed4. Calls on the Commission to address prison conditions as a rule-of-law concern, in the light of widespread overcrowding, inadequate living conditions and rising suicide rates, which undermine detainees’ fundamental rights across Member States’ penitentiary systems;

Added4. Calls on the Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries to take the necessary measures to ensure structurally independent, efficient and impartial judicial systems, as well as access to free legal aid, in accordance with their obligations under EU law and national law, thereby guaranteeing equal access to justice for all, which is essential for citizens to exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, and hold decision-makers accountable; reiterates the need for concrete actions to improve access, particularly for marginalised and vulnerable groups

Added5. Stresses that ensuring judicial independence and effective access to justice requires – as a minimum – automated and random case allocation systems, with narrowly defined and reviewable grounds for derogation; transparent, law-based and depoliticised appointment and promotion procedures, ensuring that judicial councils or equivalent bodies have a substantial majority of judicial members elected by their peers, in line with Venice Commission standards, and that the executive cannot exercise discretionary control over appointments, including to court presidencies and supreme courts; stable and objective rules on and adequate judicial remuneration; sufficient resources, including funding, infrastructure, and qualified staff;

Added6. Recalls that robust national legal systems are indispensable in Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries, given that the Commission relies on national judicial authorities to enforce EU law, and that they are fundamental to judicial cooperation across the EU and to fostering mutual trust;

Added7. Notes that the Commission has found that there are structural challenges with regard to improving the efficiency, accessibility and quality of the judiciary of some Member States and of candidate and potential candidate countries; stresses the need to improve the monitoring of these challenges, particularly in countries at an advanced stage of the accession process; strongly believes that training is a key factor in guaranteeing the independence of judges, as well as the quality and efficiency of the judicial system; calls on the Member States to invest in judicial training, digitalisation, legal aid, and access to justice for marginalised and vulnerable groups; encourages the Member States to ensure training opportunities for judges; strongly believes that training should be multidisciplinary; reiterates that adequate resources, including funding, infrastructure and qualified personnel, are crucial for the efficiency and accessibility of the justice system; stresses the utmost importance of the EU’s strong support in this field;

Added8. Invites the Member States to seize the opportunities offered by digitalisation to enable simplification, improved efficiency and accessibility, time savings and reduced data storage costs;

Added9. Underlines serious concerns regarding excessive political influence over judicial appointments, disciplinary panels, promotions and case allocation, including through newly created judicial structures that bypass existing safeguards and facilitate executive interference, especially in Hungary;

Added10. Recalls that the 2025 Rule of Law Report demonstrates that many of the deep-rooted deficiencies identified in previous years persist in Hungary, namely judicial independence continues to be questioned, the prosecution service still lacks robust safeguards against political influence, legislative processes remain opaque with limited public consultation, and efforts to defend media freedom, pluralism and civic space have not produced meaningful results;

Added11. Stresses the need for the impartiality of judges; recalls that the appointment and promotion of judges must be determined solely by their qualifications, as the judges are essential for safeguarding judicial independence; recalls that the criteria for nominations and appointments to high-level judicial positions must be fully transparent and without undue political or external interference; recalls that transparent and impartial procedures must also apply for the dismissal of judges; calls on the Commission to monitor and ensure that the principle of non-regression, as clarified by case-law of the CJEU, is fully respected by Member States, in particular with regard to the appointment of judges, so as to prevent any backsliding in the area of judicial independence;

Added12. Recalls the need to guarantee the autonomy of the prosecution service, thereby preventing any political interference in its work; calls on the Member States to further strengthen safeguards to ensure the impartiality of prosecutors, in light of the varying structures of national prosecution services; urges them to advance reforms in line with the recommendations of the 2025 Rule of Law Report, including enhanced protections for judicial independence and the autonomy of prosecutors in the context of parliamentary inquiries, as well as measures such as decoupling the term of office of the Prosecutor General from that of the Government; calls on the Commission to review the reforms implemented in this regard and to monitor their effectiveness; calls for disciplinary procedures for judges and prosecutors to be reformed to preclude their use by political authorities to exert control over the judiciary, and to ensure that they are handled by independent bodies;

Added13. Condemns the misuse of the judicial system for political purposes, including the persecution of political opponents and interference in corruption investigations; stresses that politically motivated prosecutions undermine public trust in constitutional principles and EU standards; highlights the importance of guaranteeing the autonomy and independence of the prosecution service, thereby preventing any political interference in its work, especially from the government; highlights the role of transparent appointment processes for prosecutors as a key factor in maintaining public confidence in criminal justice; highlights its concern about repeated attacks on judges and prosecutors who are conducting high-profile political investigations linked to cases of corruption and abuse of power perpetrated against political opponents;

Added14. Stresses the important role of the national councils of the judiciary in safeguarding judicial independence, as they serve as a buffer between the judiciary and other branches of power, including in matters such as appointments, career development, and justice system management;

Added15. Underlines that, where Councils for the Judiciary exist, their composition and functioning should be in line with the standards established by the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe, including that the Council is to be composed either of judges exclusively or, when mixed with non-judges, a substantial majority of members are to be judges elected by their peers, while non-judicial members may be appointed through transparent democratic procedures to ensure pluralism and legitimacy, and that the executive cannot exercise discretionary control over appointments, in order to ensure independence and prevent undue influence, which has been endorsed by the CJEU;

Added16. Welcomes the Commission’s assessment in its report of the reforms undertaken, and notes that some Member States have made progress and are taking legislative initiatives to strengthen the independence and effectiveness of Councils for the Judiciary where they exist;

Added17. Stresses that an effective and properly functioning justice system in the Member States requires independent bars and lawyers who can carry out their duties freely and without undue pressure or interference, given their crucial role in safeguarding the rule of law and defending fundamental rights and freedoms; further emphasises that full respect for the core principles of the legal profession, including lawyer-client confidentiality, is essential;

Added18. Deplores the fact that there are still concerns about the remuneration levels of judges and judicial staff in several Member States, making posts unattractive and therefore difficult to fill;

Added19. Expresses serious concern at the growing trend to structurally question the role and legitimacy of an independent judiciary thereby challenging the proper functioning of the justice system as such and underlines that judicial independence constitutes a prerequisite for the legitimacy of judicial authority, the enforceability of court decisions and public trust in justice; recalls that the principle of the balance of powers implies that no public authority may escape judicial review, and deplores narratives that seek to delegitimise it; recalls that criticism of judges is unacceptable when it seeks to obstruct or discredit the exercise of that constitutional function; distinguishes clearly between legitimate criticism of judicial decisions and attacks targeting the legitimacy of national and international courts as institutions; condemns any attempt, whether direct or indirect, to influence, intimidate or hinder judges in the exercise of their duties, including through disciplinary pressure or public attacks undermining their authority; reaffirms that international courts derive their legitimacy from the sovereign will of the states that established them and from the democratic procedures governing the election of their judges, and that their role is essential for the effective protection of fundamental rights;

Added20. Calls on the Commission to address political attacks on judges and judicial intimidation, to ensure independent judicial systems, including protection from political interference; stresses that the significant number of threats and attacks suffered by justice professionals and in particular lawyers poses a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law; calls on the Member States to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyers and to use all appropriate means to ensure the defence and freedom of expression of lawyers; calls on the Commission to put forward, without delay, a draft Council Decision enabling the EU to sign and conclude the Convention, and highlights the need for swift agreement on this decision;

Added21. Recalls that professional associations of judges and prosecutors, together with civil society actors, play an important role in fostering the rule of law on the ground, in defending judicial independence and in contributing to public debate;

Added22. Calls on the Member States to refrain from making excessive use of accelerated procedures or emergency decrees, as these negatively impact the stability and quality of lawmaking and democracy; calls on the Member States to set up transparent lawmaking processes following systematic consultation with various stakeholders;

Added23. Welcomes the national reforms undertaken in some Member States to strengthen judicial independence, and calls on Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries to continue taking the necessary measures to ensure independent judicial systems and access to free legal aid, thereby guaranteeing equal access to justice for all;

Added24. Welcomes the role of the European Network of Ombudsmen and underlines that cooperation should go beyond mere information exchange, notably through the systematic use of query procedures, allowing national ombudsman’s offices to seek authoritative answers at EU level when facing obstacles in the application of EU law, thereby strengthening their leverage vis-à-vis national authorities; regrets that ombudsman’s offices are not always consulted in a systematic manner in the preparation of the rule of law report, despite their key role in detecting shortcomings in the implementation of EU law; therefore calls for more structured and consistent involvement of national ombudsmen in EU-level processes, in order to better identify systemic issues affecting several Member States and to support the Commission in addressing shortcomings in the effective application of EU law;

Added25. Calls on the Member States to strengthen the independence of national oversight bodies;

Added26. Calls for the EU and its Member States to continue to strengthen their support for European and international justice institutions, starting with the reinforcement of internal judicial cooperation mechanisms based on mutual trust between the judicial systems of the various Member States and of candidate and potential candidate countries;

Added27. Welcomes the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive to close legal gaps, ensuring that victims can access justice and receive support, including avenues to review decisions in criminal proceedings concerning victims, provisions on support and protection of victims, access to compensation, as well as effective data collection, better allocation of resources for upholding the rights of the victims of crimes, and respect for the victims’ privacy and the protection of their personal data when reporting a crime, regardless of residence status, and that personal data is not shared with the offender;

Added28. Stresses that non-implementation of domestic and international judgments remains a systemic concern in some Member States, as highlighted by recent FRA findings and stakeholder submissions; notes with serious concern the growing backlog and slowing progress in the implementation of leading judgments of the ECtHR across the EU, as evidenced by the fact that, as of 1 January 2025, 650 leading ECtHR judgments remained pending full implementation in EU Member States, compared to 624 in January 2024 and 616 in the year before; notes further that 45.7 % of leading judgments delivered in respect of EU Member States over the past 10 years are still pending implementation, compared to 44 % at the end of 2023 and 40 % at the end of 2022; further notes that, by the end of 2024, the average implementation time for leading ECtHR judgments concerning EU Member States had reached 5 years and 4 months, compared to 5 years and 2 months in 2023 and 5 years and 1 month in 2022, thereby highlighting a structural and worsening compliance deficit; believes that the Commission should treat serious non-implementation as a priority topic in political dialogue with national governments and parliaments;

Added29. Highlights the pivotal role of the CJEU in upholding the rule of law across the EU; endorses further initiatives to enhance the resources and the capabilities of the CJEU to effectively address further challenges to the rule of law;

Added30. Calls on the Member States to implement pending judgments of the CJEU and the ECtHR promptly; suggests that the EU institutions establish a monitoring unit, building on and, where necessary, reinforcing relevant existing structures and resources of the Union institutions and agencies, to monitor the implementation of CJEU and ECtHR judgments relating to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in EU and candidate countries, and calls on the Commission to develop a public scoreboard or an equivalent tool to track such implementation, to fully integrate the relevant findings into the annual rule of law report, and to systematically issue tailored, country-specific recommendations, with a particular focus on Member States that persistently fail to implement CJEU and ECtHR judgements; calls on the Commission to analyse data on non-compliance with country-specific views of UN treaty bodies, drawing on data collected by EU agencies, in particular the Fundamental Rights Agency; reiterates that effective implementation of judgments is essential to ensuring protection of the fundamental rights enshrined in the TEU, TFEU, the Charter and the ECHR;

Added31. Urges the Commission to use enforcement tools more decisively in cases of persistent non-implementation, assessing whether they warrant proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, Article 260 TFEU, and, where relevant, budgetary conditionality;

Added32. Calls on the Member States to adopt measures to support implementation with clear timelines, responsibilities and parliamentary oversight, and to safeguard judicial independence and ensure that national courts are not hindered from consistently applying ECtHR and CJEU case law;

Added33. Recalls that the rule of law is undermined when democratically adopted laws face institutional obstruction or resistance from certain judicial or administrative sectors going beyond legitimate review or scrutiny, preventing their proper implementation; underlines that democratic states must ensure mechanisms for political and social reconciliation, prevent the excessive judicialisation of political conflicts, and reinforce democratic dialogue;