EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Europaudvalget 2024-25
EUU Alm.del Bilag 619
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 8.7.2025

COM(2025) 900 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2025 Rule of Law Report

The rule of law situation in the European Union

{SWD(2025) 901 final} - {SWD(2025) 902 final} - {SWD(2025) 903 final} -

{SWD(2025) 904 final} - {SWD(2025) 905 final} - {SWD(2025) 906 final} -

{SWD(2025) 907 final} - {SWD(2025) 908 final} - {SWD(2025) 909 final} -

{SWD(2025) 910 final} - {SWD(2025) 911 final} - {SWD(2025) 912 final} -

{SWD(2025) 913 final} - {SWD(2025) 914 final} - {SWD(2025) 915 final} -

{SWD(2025) 916 final} - {SWD(2025) 917 final} - {SWD(2025) 918 final} -

{SWD(2025) 919 final} - {SWD(2025) 920 final} - {SWD(2025) 921 final} -

{SWD(2025) 922 final} - {SWD(2025) 923 final} - {SWD(2025) 924 final} -

{SWD(2025) 925 final} - {SWD(2025) 926 final} - {SWD(2025) 927 final} -

{SWD(2025) 928 final} - {SWD(2025) 929 final} - {SWD(2025) 930 final} -

{SWD(2025) 931 final}

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

1. INTRODUCTION

Europe’s democracy, security and economy rely on the rule of law. It is the cornerstone for

translating EU values into tangible benefits for Europeans, fostering stability, equality, social

cohesion, and competitiveness. The rule of law is the foundation on which the EU stands firm

in a world where the international rules-based order, the respect for fundamental rights, and

democratic systems are increasingly under pressure. It is essential for the EU to reaffirm its

commitment to the rule of law and to take concrete steps to promote and defend it, on our

continent and across the globe. It is also necessary to place the EU on the sound footing it needs

with a view to future enlargement, in which trust in public institutions is ensured, businesses

can thrive, and citizens can exercise their rights.

Citizens and businesses expect the EU to play an important role in upholding the rule of law,

and in ensuring that they can enjoy fair and sound governance wherever they live. Within the

EU, the rule of law is necessary for delivering policies that promote competitiveness through

the Single Market and empower citizens to actively participate in both society and the

economy. The rule of law is an essential consideration for companies operating across borders.

Businesses, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, need a stable and predictable

economic environment. However, they are often held back by a lack of legal certainty and

concerns about equal treatment for their investment. As of this year’s Report, and as set out in

President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines

, the Commission is giving a particular

emphasis to the Single Market dimension, monitoring developments across Member States.

This sixth annual Rule of Law Report, and the first for this Commission’s mandate,

consolidates a successful process of partnership between the EU and Member States to further

the rule of law, centred on a continued emphasis on a preventive and dialogue-based approach.

It is a core part of an evolving rule of law toolbox. The analysis helps to shape national debates

and galvanise action. The specific recommendations to Member States allow for an effective

focus in the Commission’s dialogue with them. They also help national authorities to prioritise

the measures they take, with 57% of the recommendations issued in 2024 fully or partially

implemented

The Rule of Law Report also looks ahead to an evolving EU. This is a major theme in President

von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines. The new generation of EU spending instruments, to be

presented as part of the next multiannual financial framework, will ensure that compliance with

the principles of the rule of law remains a must for EU funds, so as to ensure the sound financial

management of the Union budget and protection of its financial interests. EU financial support

for investments and reforms to promote the rule of law can offer real added value. This can

feed into a broader effort to track the effective implementation of recommendations, by

intensifying contacts with Member States and stakeholders.

In the face of ongoing geopolitical instability, promoting and defending the rule of law both

within and beyond the Union has become more urgent than ever. Upholding the rule of law is

at the core of the EU’s actions on human rights and democracy in its neighbourhood and around

the world. This year, the same four enlargement countries as in 2024 are included in the Rule

of Law Report alongside the Member States. Another aspect of reflecting an evolving EU is to

further extend the inclusion of more enlargement countries in the Rule of Law Report as and

Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029.

There was significant progress or full implementation on 18% of recommendations, and some progress on

39% of the recommendations. Limited progress was found on 14% of recommendations. No progress was

noted on the remainder.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

when they are ready

. This will support their reform efforts aiming to firmly and irreversibly

anchor democracy and the rule of law in enlargement countries ahead of and after their

accession.

2. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 2025 REPORT

2.1

Rule of law as a foundation for the EU Single Market

The rule of law is an essential precondition for a stable and predictable economic environment,

giving the EU and its Member States a global competitive edge. The EU’s determination to

foster a stronger and more competitive Europe relies heavily on ensuring that the rule of law is

effectively protected. As also acknowledged under the European Semester, the rule of law plays

an important role in the functioning of the EU economy, ensuring that rights are defended,

corruption is punished, and contracts are enforced

The rule of law and good governance are essential to create a stable overall economic

environment, and the necessary conditions for economic operators to take full advantage of the

opportunities offered by the Single Market. A fair and clear legal framework that is effectively

applied and enforced provides certainty to businesses, confidence to investors, and reassurance

to consumers

. The rule of law ensures the proper functioning and resilience of the Single

Market and the effective, uniform and transparent application of EU law. It fosters mutual trust

among Member States and enables businesses to operate on an equal footing across borders.

This is why adding a Single Market dimension in the Rule of Law Report has been widely

welcomed by the European Parliament, Member States, civil society and business

stakeholders.

The new dimension will help address rule of law issues affecting companies,

especially SMEs, particularly when operating across borders.

There are various aspects under all four pillars of the Rule of Law Report that have a direct

impact on the proper functioning of the Single Market:

•

The

efficiency, quality and independence of justice systems

are crucial for a stable and

predictable business and investment environment, which also benefits consumers.

Anti-corruption measures,

both preventive and repressive, help to foster a level-playing

field for businesses, reduce the risk of infiltration of the economy by organised crime, and

ensure that key decisions are taken fairly, for example awarding of public procurement

contracts to the best offer on an objective basis, protecting the public budget.

media environment

governed by clear and transparent rules not only protects the

integrity of the democratic space but also supports the functioning of the EU Single Market

by ensuring a level playing field for media service providers.

Effective

checks and balances

are critical to ensure equal treatment under the law and for

the impartial application of the rules by state regulators and other authorities.

•

Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia were included in 2024. The selection reflects the progress

made in their respective accession process or advancement as regards their level of preparedness on rule of

law.

Communication “2025 European Semester - Spring Package”, COM (2025) 200 final

Communication “The Single Market: our European home market in an uncertain world. A Strategy for making

the Single Market simple, seamless and strong”, COM (2025) 500 final. Moreover, the SOLVIT network helps

citizens and businesses that move cross EU borders to informally solve problems caused by misapplications

of EU law by public authorities.

For example, in the Informal General Affairs Council of 3 September 2024.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

To further develop this dimension, the Commission has adapted its methodology to involve

Member States and business associations more closely on these issues, with a dedicated

outreach, consultation process and a questionnaire to provide written feedback

This process, carried out in complementarity with other work strands such as the European

Semester

and the Single Market Scoreboard, identified a number of new areas of reporting to

be included in the Rule of Law Report, as they are relevant for the rule of law and the Single

Market. These include the handling of commercial cases by the judiciary, the stability of the

regulatory environment, the effective functioning and independence of regulatory authorities,

and the judicial review of administrative decisions

. The report also factors in data on

perceptions by businesses, regarding the effectiveness of investment protection by law and the

courts and the independence of public procurement review bodies and of national competition

authorities

As the

EU prepares for future accessions,

a larger Single Market grounded in shared legal

standards and mutual trust will not only be more integrated, but also more competitive and

resilient, creating the rules-based environment that is essential to unlock its full potential and

to boost Europe’s long-term competitiveness. As enlargement partners advance towards

membership, companies both from the enlargement region and from Member States have an

interest in the effective delivery of a level playing field and reinforcing the rule of law to allow

them to fully and fairly participate in the Single Market. Hence, even though the enlargement

partners are not within the Single Market, these aspects are still covered in their respective

country chapters.

The key findings on the Single Market dimension across the four pillars of the Report are

presented in Section 4.5.

2.2

Supporting the rule of law through the EU budget

As set out in President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines, respect for the rule of law is a

must for EU funds. It is essential that EU spending has strong safeguards on the rule of law so

as to guarantee the protection of the EU’s financial interests

Recent years have seen new tools develop to make this connection more secure and to

strengthen the link between the rule of law and support from the EU budget. The Recovery and

Resilience Facility has demonstrated how the EU budget can promote reforms that strengthen

the rule of law in the Member States, such as reforming and strengthening the judicial systems

and increasing their efficiency through digitalisation, strengthening the institutions fighting

corruption, or improving the quality of the legislative process. The horizontal enabling

condition under the Common Provisions Regulation is another important tool to ensure

Member States respect the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights when implementing EU funds.

A top-up questionnaire to the regular questionnaire was prepared. In addition to the “baseline questions”,

reflecting the most relevant aspects of the Single Market dimension, some additional options were also

included for Member States and stakeholders to share, if relevant.

Where relevant, and where not covered by the RRPs and in complementarity with the Rule of Law Report, the

2025 Country Specific Recommendations in the European Semester call on Member States to increase the

effectiveness of judicial systems and strengthen anti-corruption.

These topics were raised by Member States and/or business associations in the consultation process.

Based on the 2025 Justice Scoreboard (https://commission.europa.eu/document/51b21eff-a4b0-4e73-b461-

06bd23b43d4e_en).

Communication “The road to the next multiannual financial framework”, COM (2025) 46 final

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Finally, the general regime of conditionality protects EU funds in case of breaches of the

principles of the rule of law in the Member States

In the next long-term budget, respect for the rule of law will have to be ensured throughout the

implementation of EU funds. In addition to the Conditionality Regulation, which will continue

to apply to the entire EU budget and building on lessons from experience with various

instruments, it will be important to embed strong safeguards into the design of future EU

instruments to ensure effective compliance and build a closer link between the

recommendations in the Rule of Law Report and financial support under the EU budget

. In

particular, the future national and regional partnership plans will be expected to effectively

contribute to supporting reforms, including by addressing country-specific challenges

identified in the Rule of Law Report.

The need to stimulate rule of law reforms in connection with the budget also has implications

for the follow-up to the recommendations in the reports. The EU budget can be used to help

Member States take forward and invest in their own national or regional reforms. Digitalisation

of judicial systems, anti-corruption structures, technical assistance in identifying and

implementing safeguards or effective regulation are examples of areas that can benefit from

EU funding, drawing on investment to help the reform process. Cross-border initiatives can

also help to ensure high standards across Member States.

As part of its efforts to ensure the most efficient protection of its financial interests, the EU has

also started preparatory work to review its anti-fraud architecture. This comprehensive review,

involving all the relevant actors within the EU anti-fraud architecture, will focus on deterrence

,and create more synergies and efficiencies among relevant actors, avoiding duplication at

every stage of the anti-fraud cycle. These stages include prevention, detection, investigation,

correction of fraud, and the recovery of the amounts concerned, including those for the EU

budget.

3. UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW – DEVELOPMENTS AT EU LEVEL

Since 2019, the EU has progressively deepened the rule of law architecture to address risks

related to the rule of law both in individual Member States, and for the EU as a whole. The

goal has been to promote a culture of rule of law, prevent emerging issues, and respond

effectively to persistent challenges. This has required a diverse range of rule of law tools at the

EU level to tailor actions for maximum impact.

3.1

Dialogue and follow-up to the Rule of Law Report

The

Rule of Law Report

provides an overview of where each EU Member State stands on the

rule of law and through the annual cycle, the Report acts as a focus for action throughout the

year. It helps Member States identify issues or reflect on their reforms and find solutions by

collaborating with the European Commission, other Member States, and international bodies

and actors, such as the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. Over the years, the report

has strengthened mutual trust and fostered a shared understanding of how to create an

environment where the rule of law can thrive.

Since 2022, the Report includes recommendations to Member States, supporting their reform

efforts. These have allowed an effective focus on key reforms at national level, with Member

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020

on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, p. 1–10 (hereafter ‘Conditionality

Regulation’).

Communication “The road to the next multiannual financial framework”, COM (2025) 46 final.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

States following up – to varying extents – on more than two-thirds of recommendations made

in 2022, 2023 and 2024. This sustained trend reflects a positive reform dynamic in the EU.

There are some recommendations that take longer to be addressed due to ongoing political or

stakeholder consultations, or electoral cycles which can sometimes interrupt the progress of

legislation. However, there are also instances where there may be unwillingness to follow-up

on the recommendations, or where there is backtracking.

The report and its recommendations are the keystone for continued dialogue with and among

Member States. This dialogue allows for sustained and focused problem-solving both after the

reports are published and in preparation of its next edition. For instance, regular meetings of

the

Network of Rule of Law contact points

serve as a forum for sharing experience on issues

of common interest highlighted by the Rule of Law Reports

Under its new mandate, the Commission has committed to improve monitoring and reporting,

and to strengthen checks and balances, notably by tracking the implementation of

recommendations. The Commission has therefore intensified its engagement throughout the

year with Member States, at both political and technical level, to support the implementation

of the recommendations.

The

Rule of Law dialogue

in the General Affairs Council

, which uses the Rule of Law Report

as its basis for discussion, is a well-established forum for political exchanges among Member

States. It is an opportunity for a constructive dialogue, discussing shortcomings and how best

to address them, as well as exchanging on best practices. In 2024, the dialogue in the General

Affairs Council was extended to the enlargement countries that were included in the 2024 Rule

of Law Report

. The Justice Council also continued to discuss topical rule of law questions

during each six-month Council Presidency

The

European Parliament

continued its practice of annual debates on the Rule of Law Report,

country-specific debates and public hearings on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental

rights

. The mandate of the Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring

Group (DRFMG), which was renewed in 2024, brings an additional focus to the European

Parliament’s monitoring

The consultative committees have also continued to debate the rule of law at EU level. The

European Economic and Social Committee

held its fifth Annual Conference on Fundamental

Over the last year, exchanges on good practices included topics such as initiatives for the promotion of a rule

of law culture, the single market dimension of the rule of law and measures to strengthen the resilience of

national justice systems (https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-

rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/annual-rule-law-cycle/network-national-contact-points-rule-law_en).

In this context, the General Affairs Council held a horizontal discussion on general rule of law developments

in September 2024, and country-specific discussions in November 2024 and January and May 2025.

Ministers from Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia attended an exchange of views on the

overall trend of the rule of law situation in their countries, held at the General Affairs Council on 24 September

2024.

In March 2025, the Justice Council discussed judicial independence and how the EU toolbox could promote

it most effectively. In October 2024, the Justice Council discussed how to foster access to justice in the context

of rule of law and competitiveness.

European Parliament resolution of 18 June 2025 report on the Commission’s 2024 Rule of Law report

(2024/2078(INI)), as well as dedicated plenary debates on the 2024 Rule of Law report (9 October 2024),

Malta (23 October 2024), Slovakia (12 February 2025), Hungary (2 April, 21 May and 18 June 2025) and

Spain (18 June 2025).

For further information see the website of the Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring

Group: (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/working-groups/drfmg).

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Rights and the Rule of Law and adopted two new opinions on the rule of law

. The

Committee

of the Regions

started a reflection on the local and regional perspective in the implementation

of the rule of law

The Commission organises

national rule of law dialogues

, in close collaboration with the

Fundamental Rights Agency, as an important part of a follow-up process. They bring together

different national stakeholders, with the objective to include them more closely in the follow-

up to the Rule of Law Report and to set up collaborative approaches for implementing the

recommendations.

The Report also serves as a stimulus for deeper

civil society and stakeholder engagement.

Civil society organisations and other stakeholders – in particular professional associations

representing judges, prosecutors and journalists – play an important role in fostering the rule

of law on the ground. These actors contribute valuable input to the report. The inclusion of the

Single Market dimension has also brought a renewed focus on business stakeholders. The

Council Presidency has recognised the key role played by civil society by organising a

conference on the role of civil society in the protection of the rule of law in April 2025 as part

of its presidency programme.

3.2

EU action to promote the rule of law

The EU has developed a variety of instruments and processes to promote the rule of law and

its consistent application across Member States. At the same time, the report has served as a

catalyst for new EU policies and legal instruments in areas such as media pluralism and the

fight against corruption, that strengthen the rule of law across the EU.

Promoting a strong rule of law culture

Raising awareness of the rule of law culture and promoting it among European citizens,

authorities, and stakeholders is a key objective. Several Member States have put in place

important initiatives to foster such a culture

. The Commission launched a communication

campaign, available in all official EU languages, which uses a series of animated videos to

explain, in simple and accessible terms, why the rule of law is essential in everyday life

Fostering rule of law culture was also the topic of a fruitful exchange of good practices among

Member States at one of the meetings of the national contact points on the rule of law

Rule of law and the reform process

The rule of law and good governance are fundamental for the proper functioning of the Single

Market, a healthy business environment, the sustainability of public finances, and the success

of structural reforms. These principles are integral to the

European Semester

and its country-

specific recommendations.

Evaluation of the European Commission's annual reports on the rule of law in the European Union’ adopted

on 22 January 2025, ‘The economic dimension of the Rule of Law’ adopted on 30 April 2025.

‘The local and regional perspective in the implementation of the Rule of Law in the European Union’, opinion

adopted on 1 April 2025.

For further information, see the website on the national rule of law dialogues

(https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-

law/rule-law/annual-rule-law-cycle/national-rule-law-dialogues_en).

For example, in Spain, the Democracy Action Plan includes a proposal to hold an annual parliamentary debate

to assess the Government’s compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights. In Ireland, initiatives have

been developed to ensure the promotion of a rule of law culture at higher education level.

This campaign has been made available on the EU learning corner and was distributed to over 140.000 schools

(https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-

law/rule-law/what-rule-law_en#want-to-learn-more-watch-our-series-of-six-animations).

Meeting of the national contact points on the rule of law, 22 October 2024.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

When addressing these recommendations, many Member States have continued to implement

reforms with specific measures related to the rule of law, in line with commitments in their

national

recovery and resilience plans (RRPs).

This has led to progress in strengthening

justice systems, such as through revising the disciplinary system for judges or improving

judicial efficiency by restructuring courts. Anti-corruption efforts have also been intensified

including strengthening institutions focused on combating corruption. Steps to improve the

legislative process also have an important impact on the rule of law, such as mandating public

consultations and impact assessments. In certain instances, these RRP commitments were

deemed essential for safeguarding the EU’s financial interests and meeting them is a

prerequisite for receiving any disbursement following a payment request.

Other

EU funding

sources support the strengthening of judicial, media, and civil society

capacities in upholding the rule of law and provide technical assistance for targeted reforms.

Under the current MFF, the Technical Support Instrument, as well as programmes such as the

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme, the Justice programme, the

European Social Fund Plus, and Creative Europe all offer important support to enhance public

administration and justice systems, as well as to tackle challenges related to media pluralism

and the fight against corruption.

Supporting the rule of law with new legal instruments and implementation across the EU

The Commission has also been working closely with Member States to ensure the development

and implementation of policies and legal instruments that strengthen the rule of law in the EU.

For example, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA)

has triggered readiness checks of

Member States’ legislation ahead of the application of most of its provisions in August 2025

The newly set up European Board for Media Services, an independent advisory body consisting

of representatives of national media regulators, will play a central role in monitoring,

coordinating and supporting media policies across EU Member States. The Board will support

EU Member States in several ways, such as providing expert guidance, best practice sharing,

capacity building or crisis response. The Board will also draw up opinions on regulatory

measures affecting the operation of media service providers in the internal market, such as

licensing decisions, and on assessments of media market concentrations with an internal market

dimension. It will also assist the Commission in drawing up guidelines.

The Commission has also worked with Member States to support the transposition and

implementation of the new anti-SLAPP Directive, which includes legislative safeguards to

counter abusive lawsuits against journalists and human rights defenders in cross-border

situations and of the broader anti-SLAPP recommendation

. In addition to EU-level rules, it

was recommended for Member States to act at national level to protect journalists and human

rights defenders. against abusive lawsuits

. Many Member States have taken concrete steps to

Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of 11 April 2024.

Most of the Act’s provisions will be directly applicable in the EU in August 2025. However, some specific

provisions have a different date of application: some are already applicable, and the provision on the

customisation right will enter into force in May 2027.

Directive 2024/1069 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded

claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’); and the linked

Commission Recommendation 2022/758 of 27 April 2022. Member States shall bring into force the laws,

regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 7 May 2026.

See SWD (2024)292 on the follow-up to the Commission Recommendation 2022/758 of 27 April 2022.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

do so, for instance by providing dedicated training, launching awareness campaigns, and

starting to develop support mechanisms

To strengthen the fight against corruption, the Commission is supporting the co-legislators in

moving closer to finding an agreement on its proposal to modernise the current EU legal

framework on combating corruption

. The EU network against corruption provides a broad

forum for regular collaboration and exchange of good practices to support Member States’

efforts to foster integrity and fight corruption

. The network’s discussions on issues like asset

declarations and addressing high-level corruption cases align with topics featured in the Rule

of Law Report.

Rule of law at the core of the enlargement process and external action

Protecting our democratic institutions and values is a collective responsibility, shared by both

the Member States and EU institutions. The EU’s commitment to defending the rule of law has

only become stronger in response to Russia’s continuing war of aggression against Ukraine, a

direct assault not only on Ukraine and its people, but also on the fundamental values of the EU

and the rules-based international order. At the same time, the respect of the rule of law and

good governance are essential to counter foreign interference and manipulation that seek to

undermine democracies in the EU and its immediate neighbourhood.

Consolidating democratic structures, upholding the rule of law, and protecting fundamental

rights are at the core of the enlargement process, as part of the fundamentals for EU accession.

The Commission’s annual Enlargement package assesses each country’s progress based on

merit. The revised enlargement methodology agreed in 2020 further reinforced the need for

tangible, sustained improvements in the rule of law before any negotiation chapter can be

closed. Enlargement partners can also count on support from the Council of Europe

to help

them implement rule of law standards, ensure alignment to the EU

acquis,

and provide strategic

guidance for reforms through monitoring.

Following the successful integration of Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia into

the Rule of Law Report as of 2024, the Political Guidelines confirm that as enlargement

partners make progress on the rule of law and in the formal accession process, they will be

progressively added to this exercise to comply with the commitment to maintain high rule of

law standards throughout their accession path and as future Member States.

The rule of law is also key to the Western Balkans Reform and Growth Facility, the Reform

and Growth Facility for Moldova, and the Ukraine Facility. To fully benefit from these support

mechanisms, countries must implement a reform agenda with concrete steps on the

fundamentals.

The EU is reinforcing its commitment to international legal standards through its accession

process to the European Convention on Human Rights and its ongoing review under the UN

Convention against Corruption.

Such mechanisms include Focal Points, which is an entry point towards which a SLAPP target can turn to find

support.

Proposal for a Directive on combating corruption, COM(2023)234 final, 3 May 2023

Two meetings took place in the reporting period, in October 2024 and June 2025. The Network brings together

representatives of EU Member States, practitioners, civil society, international organisations, and EU

institutions and agencies.

Venice Commission, European Court of Human Rights, CEPEJ, and GRECO.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

3.3 EU action to respond to breaches of rule of law

The EU has strengthened its capacity to effectively respond to breaches of the rule of law,

relying on a range of tools, including infringement procedures, the case law of the Court of

Justice of the EU, the Article 7 procedure, and the Conditionality Regulation.

Responding to rule of law challenges

The Commission has continued to exercise its role as guardian of the EU treaties by proceeding

with infringement procedures to address specific breaches of the rule of law. The Court of

Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also continued to deliver important judgments on

the rule of law clarifying further the requirements under EU law. This included rulings on

judicial salaries

, withdrawing cases from judges

, case allocation

, or the admissibility of

requests for preliminary rulings

The Political Guidelines stated clearly that enforcement through infringements and the

reinforced application of the Article 7 TEU mechanism must continue to be used effectively,

including in a future enlarged EU

. The Article 7(1) TEU procedure, which allows the Council

to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the EU’s values and to follow

up on such risks, continues in relation to Hungary

. The Council held a state of play point for

Hungary in November 2024 and a formal hearing in May 2025.

Protecting the EU budget from breaches of the principles of rule of law

Breaches of the principles of the rule of law can also seriously harm the financial interests of

the Union. Sound financial management can only be ensured if public authorities act in

accordance with the law, if breaches of the law are effectively pursued by investigative and

prosecution services, and if arbitrary or unlawful decisions of public authorities can be subject

to effective judicial review.

The general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget is triggered where

there is a sufficiently direct link between breaches of the principles of the rule of law and the

Union budget, and if other procedures set out in Union legislation would not allow the Union

budget to be protected more effectively. Protective measures adopted by the Council in

December 2022 in the procedure initiated by the Commission against Hungary under the

Conditionality Regulation are still in place

The identification of breaches of the principles of the rule of law and of a sufficiently direct

link with the EU budget requires a thorough assessment by the Commission. The Rule of Law

Judgment of 25 February 2025, Joined Cases C‑146/23 and C‑374/23, clarifying that under Article 19(1) TEU,

rules for determining the remuneration of judges must be objective, foreseeable, stable, transparent and

enshrined in law.

Judgment of 6 March 2025, Joined Cases C-647/21 and C-648/21, held that legislation enabling decisions to

withdraw cases from a judge is contrary to Article 19(1) TEU if they are not based on objective and precise

criteria set out in law or with safeguards against arbitrary decisions.

Judgment of 14 November 2024, Case C-197/23, held that EU law precludes national legislation which

prevents a court of appeal from reviewing the reassignment of a case to another judge at first instance.

Judgment of 7 November 2024, Case C-326/23. See 2024 Rule of Law Report, Poland p. 4.

Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029.

The procedure was initiated by the European Parliament in 2018. The procedure initiated in 2017 by the

Commission with regards to Poland was closed in 2024 based on the Commission assessment that there is no

longer a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law by Poland.

On 17 December 2024, the Commission concluded that the measures adopted by the Council in 2022 should

remain in place, as amendments on “public interest trusts” did not adequately address the concerns that the

Council had (see C(2024) 9140 final). On 13 December 2023, the Commission had already concluded that the

measures adopted by the Council should remain in place, as Hungary had not adopted any new measures to

remedy the outstanding concerns, C(2023) 8999 final.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Report is a key source of information for the application of the Conditionality Regulation and

several areas covered by the Report may be of direct relevance

. This notably includes the

justice system as well as the proper functioning of investigation and public prosecution services

and effective judicial review by independent courts. It may also concern anti-corruption as

regards the functioning of authorities in implementing the Union budget or carrying out

financial control, monitoring and audit; the prevention and sanctioning of fraud and corruption;

and effective and timely cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the

EPPO.

4. KEY ASPECTS OF THE RULE OF LAW SITUATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL

Methodology of the Rule of Law Report and its recommendations

The assessment in the country chapters for each Member State and enlargement country

covered has been prepared in line with an established methodology used for previous editions

of the report

. For the enlargement partners, the Commission’s annual Enlargement package

covers the state of preparedness and progress in aligning with the EU

acquis

and European

standards, including on all aspects of rule of law. The Rule of Law Report country chapters

of the selected enlargement partners may refer to the guidance issued to them in the

enlargement process and underline the complementarity between that process and the Rule

of Law Report.

The country chapters rely on a qualitative assessment carried out autonomously by the

Commission, focusing on a synthesis of significant developments since July 2024. In each

country chapter, the analysis focuses on topics where there have been significant

developments, or where significant challenges identified in previous reports persist. The

analysis contains a qualitative assessment of the progress made by Member States towards

implementing the 2024 recommendations

. The objective of the 2025 recommendations

continues to be to support Member States in their efforts to take forward reforms

. There are

no recommendations for enlargement countries in this report, as such recommendations are

issued in the context of the annual Enlargement package.

The report is the result of close collaboration with national authorities and relies on a variety

of national, international and other sources

, as well as the Commission’s own data

gathering

. Member States and enlargement countries were invited to contribute, provide

See Articles 3 and 4(2) of the Conditionality Regulation.

The methodology is available here:

https://commission.europa.eu/document/72742fd9-3ce0-4d23-9086-

58f885f84cdd_en

Depending on the progress made on the various subparts of each recommendation, and whether the

recommendations were carried through from the 2023 report, the Commission concluded in each case using

the following categories: no (further) progress, limited progress, some (further) progress, significant progress,

and full implementation.

The principles on the basis of which the recommendations were prepared are the same as previous years (see

COM(2022) 500, p.3-4). The recommendations are without prejudice to any action proceedings the

Commission may initiate under other legal instruments.

The sources used include written input received from Member States, contributions received during the

targeted stakeholder consultation, information produced by international organisations such as the Council of

Europe, the OECD and the UN, and the input provided during country visits. These sources inform the

Commission’s assessment, but the Commission’s conclusions remain its own responsibility.

In particular, the EU Justice Scoreboard provides comparative and reliable data on the efficiency, quality and

independence of justice systems in the EU Member States. Its aim is to assist the EU and Member States

improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

written input and participate in dedicated country visits

. A targeted stakeholder consultation

also provided valuable cross-cutting and country-specific contributions

. The Council of

Europe also provided an overview of its recent opinions and reports

. Prior to the adoption

of this report, national authorities have been given the opportunity to provide factual updates

to their country chapter. The adopted report serves as a basis for subsequent Commission

discussions with national governments and Parliaments.

4.1

Justice systems

Efficient, well-functioning, and fully independent justice systems are essential for applying and

enforcing both EU and national laws. Judicial independence is crucial to ensure that judicial

proceedings are fair and to provide effective judicial protection for individual rights to be

safeguarded

. Access to independent courts and the ability to seek judicial review are

fundamental to the rule of law.

When designing their justice systems, Member States must fully respect the requirements

established by EU law and the CJEU case law. There are also European standards developed

by the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission to be taken into account. European

judicial networks and associations make an important contribution to promoting and upholding

the rule of law and contribute to the development of European standards

. Lawyers and bar

associations also play a significant role in this respect.

Perceptions of judicial independence across the EU

Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 2025 show that the perception of judicial independence

among the general public had increased in 13 Member States, remained stable in three, and

decreased in 11. Similarly, businesses’ perception had increased in 15 Member States,

remained stable in two, and decreased in 10

. Well-functioning and fully independent justice

systems benefit citizens and businesses alike, and their positive impact on investment feeds

into growth and competitiveness. In Finland, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg

and Sweden, the level of perceived independence continues to be particularly high among the

general public or companies (above 75%), while it remains very low in Croatia, Bulgaria and

Poland (below 30%). As regards enlargement countries, Eurobarometer results show at best an

average level of perceived independence.

Councils for the Judiciary and procedures for the appointment and dismissal of judges as key

safeguards for judicial independence

The procedures for appointing and dismissing judges, along with the powers and structure of

the Councils for the Judiciary are central to preserving judicial independence. Where Councils

Member States’ input can be found here:

https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2025-rule-law-report-

input-member-states-and-enlargement-countries_en.

Information on the country visits can be found in the

country chapters. During these country visits, held online, the Commission spoke to Member States’ national

authorities, including judicial and independent authorities, law enforcement, and other stakeholders, such as

journalists’ associations and civil society.

Stakeholder input can be found here:

https://commission.europa.eu/document/522cf36e-c82d-413a-8d43-

fda1f37e3ae2_en.

The Council of Europe input can be found here:

https://commission.europa.eu/document/e2050d5c-8874-

4138-ac67-b018ff9f278e_en.

Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Such as the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme

Judicial Courts of the EU, the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions

of the EU, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, and Council of Europe European Commission

for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ).

2025 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figures 50 and 52.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

for the Judiciary exist, they serve as a buffer between the judiciary and other branches of power

in areas such as appointments and career development, and justice system management

. The

Council of Europe has developed European standards on how these Councils should be

designed to effectively protect their independence, including as regards composition

. For

Councils for the Judiciary to operate efficiently, they require sufficient resources and

administrative independence.

Several Member States advanced legislative efforts to strengthen the independence and

effectiveness of Councils for the Judiciary. In Ireland, the newly established Judicial

Appointments Commission has started its work. In Luxembourg, the National Council for

Justice, established in 2023, is now fully operational and functions effectively.

In other Member States, initiatives are ongoing. In Spain, a structured dialogue held in 2024

with the European Commission has led to the renewal of the Council for the Judiciary, and

steps have been taken towards adapting the appointment procedure of its judges-members. In

Italy, with the reform of the justice system now in place, the High Council for the Judiciary is

taking forward its tasks, while the reform on the separation of careers of judges and prosecutors,

entailing the establishment of two separate High Councils, has been approved by the Chamber

of Deputies and is now being discussed in the Senate. In Sweden, the Government presented

proposals to further strengthen judicial independence, in particular on judges’ appointments

and disciplinary procedures. In Poland, the law addressing the lack of independence of the

National Council for the Judiciary was adopted by Parliament but has not yet entered into force

due to its referral to the Constitutional Court and the Government is working on a revised

proposal. In Estonia, the reform of the Council for the Administration of Courts has been

launched and aims at transferring powers from the Ministry of Justice, making the Council a

permanent body, and amending its composition.

At the same time, the High Council for the Judiciary in Portugal has called for a reflection on

possible mechanisms to ensure its stability and safeguard its independence. In Bulgaria,

amendments to the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council to address long-standing

concerns, were annulled by the Constitutional Court as they were not adopted by the competent

body, meaning that the issue of the composition and functioning of the Supreme Judicial

Council is unresolved. Slovakia envisages an increase in the role being given to the Judicial

Council in areas such as disciplinary proceedings. While reflections are ongoing on introducing

safeguards to ensure sufficient guarantees of independence as regards the dismissal of the

members of Judicial Council, no formal steps have been taken.

As regards the enlargement countries, in Montenegro, the implementation of the previously

amended legal framework has brought some initial positive results, while the composition of

the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils remains to be further improved. Issues remain in

Albania around the management of appointments and career decisions for magistrates, as well

as the non-magistrate members of the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial

Council.

Procedures for appointing and dismissing judges are key for judicial independence and for

public perceptions. The CJEU has set out that judicial independence requires that the conditions

and rules governing judicial appointments must be sufficient to prevent reasonable doubts

The CJEU has recognised that where a Council for the Judiciary participates in an appointment process

involving political bodies, it can contribute to making that process more objective. See for example judgment

of 2 March 2021,

AB and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court – Actions).

See in particular Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Council of Europe.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

about whether judges are impervious to external factors

. In several Member States, efforts to

improve judicial appointment procedures are ongoing, including as a follow up to the 2024

recommendations. In Malta, discussions are ongoing in Parliament on a comprehensive

constitutional reform which would provide for the involvement of the judiciary in the procedure

for appointment of the Chief Justice. In Greece, the judiciary is being involved for the first time

in appointments to the highest positions in the court system. In Germany, a new reform to

strengthen the resilience of the Constitutional Court enshrines certain safeguards for its

functioning and independence in the Constitution. In Cyprus, the recently introduced judicial

review of the decisions of the Supreme Council of the Judicature reinforces transparency and

accountability. In Lithuania, steps were taken to improve the transparency of the appointments’

process.

In other Member States, reforms are progressing slowly. In Finland, only limited steps have

been taken to advance the reform of the appointment of lay judges. In Sweden, the debate on

strengthening safeguards to ensure independence in the nomination of lay judges is still

ongoing.

Challenges or shortcomings remain in some Member States on appointments to high-level

judicial positions and for court president positions, although their impact and gravity differ. In

Hungary, new rules have been introduced on the appointment and career of judges, but the

process did not always include the consultation of the National Judicial Council on some of the

relevant legislative amendments. In Latvia, the need for safeguards to protect the appointment

procedure for judges of the Supreme Court still needs to be addressed. In Austria, there have

been no steps taken to introduce systematic judicial involvement in the appointment of

administrative court presidents.

As regards the enlargement countries, in Montenegro, the new President of the Supreme Court

has been appointed by unanimity. Measures were taken in North Macedonia across the

judiciary to enhance transparency, while some concerns remain regarding appointment

decisions.

In a few Member States, concerns exist about undue pressure on the judiciary. In Hungary,

undue pressure on some judges continues within the judiciary, notably in relation to internal

debates on key issues related to judicial independence. In Bulgaria, the

ad hoc

committees that

were created to investigate cases of intimidation of magistrates and possible infiltration of the

judiciary have concluded their work

As regards the enlargement countries, in Serbia, political

pressure on the judiciary and prosecution services remained high, with little or no follow-up

by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, the Government or Parliament. In North

Macedonia, interference and pressure from other State branches raise serious concerns about

the respect for judicial independence.

Autonomy and independence of the prosecution service

Whereas the structure of national prosecution services differs from one Member State to

another, institutional safeguards are necessary to ensure the autonomy of the prosecution

service, so that it can act without interference

. This autonomy is crucial for enforcing both

national and European criminal laws.

See judgments including those of 15 July 2021, C-791/19

Commission v Poland;

of 20 April 2021, C-896/19

Repubblika and Il-Prim Ministru;

and of 2 March 2021, C-824/18

AB and Others (Appointment of judges to

the Supreme Court).

See Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions and Reports concerning prosecutors

(https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-PI(2022)023-e).

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Reforms to strengthen institutional safeguards for the prosecution service, some of them in

response to 2024 recommendations, have advanced. In Slovenia, safeguards for judicial

independence and autonomy of prosecutors as regards parliamentary inquiries have entered

into force. In Spain, a draft reform of the statute of the Prosecutor General including the

decoupling of the term of office of the Prosecutor General from that of the Government is being

consulted before approval by the Government and submission to Parliament. In Cyprus, the

reform of the Law Office providing for a clearer distinction between the advisory and the

prosecutorial functions of the Attorney General is advancing. In Poland, significant steps have

been made towards separating the office of the Minister of Justice from that of the Prosecutor

General, while a law to that end is yet to be adopted. In Romania, legislative steps are explored

to strengthen safeguards pertaining to the independence of high-level prosecutors.

In Austria, the setting up of an independent Federal Prosecution Office has not advanced so

far, though it is included in the Government programme and legal drafts are being prepared. In

Bulgaria, while the mechanism for the effective accountability and criminal liability of the

Prosecutor General and their deputies was declared compatible with the Constitution,

procedural issues remain to be addressed to ensure its full effectiveness. In Hungary, a

constitutional amendment removes the requirement that the Prosecutor General be selected

from among prosecutors. In Slovakia, power of the Prosecutor General to annul final decisions

of prosecutors, now combined with a new prosecutorial framework, remains a concern.

As regards the enlargement countries, in North Macedonia legislative drafting processes are

ongoing regarding the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of the public

prosecution service. In Serbia, there are concerns with regard to prosecutorial autonomy, and

the effectiveness and confidentiality of criminal investigations are hampered by shortcomings

in law and practice.

Ensuring accountability and safeguarding independence in disciplinary procedures

The CJEU has clearly stated that disciplinary procedures must not be used as a form of political

control over the judiciary

. Safeguards include clear rules that define what constitutes a

disciplinary offence, and the penalties to apply. Disciplinary proceedings should be conducted

by an independent body, respect the right of defence, and be open to challenge in court

The trend towards increased safeguards in disciplinary proceedings continued in several

Member States. In Czechia, a new disciplinary procedure for judges, prosecutors and bailiffs

entered into force, introducing a possibility of appeal. In Slovenia, amendments providing for

safeguards to the disciplinary framework for judges are in discussion before Parliament.

However, there are concerns in some Member States. In Greece, the decision to launch

disciplinary proceedings against judges on grounds resulting from the content of their decisions

has sparked debate within the magistracy. In Slovakia, while some steps were taken to clarify

certain procedural aspects, and the Government indicated openness for further legislative

action, there is still a need to make further progress on introducing sufficient safeguards

regarding criminal liability for judicial decisions.

The effective protection of judicial independence requires a culture of integrity and

impartiality. Several Member States are implementing policies and practices to promote

integrity within the judiciary. Examples include Lithuania, where the judiciary is receiving

The Court has recalled this principle in cases referring to the disciplinary chamber of the Polish Supreme Court

(Judgment of 5 June 2023, C-204/21,

Commission v Poland)

and the Romanian Judicial Inspection (Judgments

of 11 May 2023, case 817/21

Inspecţia Judiciară,

and of 18 May 2021, C-83/19 etc

Asociaţia 'Forumul

Judecătorilor din România' and Others v Inspecţia Judiciară and Others).

Judgment of 25 July 2018,

LM,

C-216/18 PPU, para. 67.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

training aimed at fostering an anti-corruption environment. In Croatia, efforts continue to

maintain and improve the integrity of judges and state attorneys.

As regards the enlargement countries, Albania continued the implementation of judicial

reforms, and the vetting process of all judges and prosecutors was finalised in first instance,

further strengthening accountability. In Montenegro, the promotion and enforcement of ethics

and professional standards among judges and prosecutors has improved.

Efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of justice

The efficiency of justice systems is a necessary condition for the protection of rights, legal

certainty and public confidence. Key measures are caseload management and the speed of

decisions. Excessively long proceedings create backlogs and undermine the trust of citizens in

national justice systems. Delays also have major implications for business decisions and

investment.

In several Member States, reforms are under way to enhance the efficiency of justice. In

Czechia, there have been further improvements in case resolution times. Estonia, Belgium and

Spain are all undertaking steps to improve efficiency. In Germany, a new procedure has been

introduced to deal more efficiently with ‘mass’ civil cases.

Some Member States, however, still face long-standing challenges as regards the efficiency of

their justice systems. In Greece, Italy, Malta and Croatia, despite important steps taken, the

length of judicial proceedings remains a serious issue. In Portugal, while the efficiency of

Administrative and Tax Courts improved in first instance, businesses have pointed to serious

challenges regarding the time to reach decisions, in particular in second instance courts. In

Serbia, the overall picture continues to be positive for civil, commercial, and criminal cases,

while serious challenges remain in the handling of administrative cases and constitutional

complaints.

An efficient justice system relies on adequate resources, including the necessary investments

in infrastructure and well qualified, trained and adequately paid staff. Predictability can be key

for the credibility of the judicial system, and to attract recruits

. Many Member States have

continued to invest in their justice systems, often despite major pressures on public spending.

Portugal has taken significant steps, to improve the human resources allocated to justice with

new recruitments and legislative changes. The Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and Denmark

have also taken steps to increase resources for the justice system. In Slovenia, salaries for

judges were increased and an automatic indexation mechanism was introduced into law. In

Croatia, objective criteria were introduced in law for updating remuneration of judges and state

attorneys. In Hungary, salaries in the justice system are being raised in three steps until 2027.

Levels of remuneration tend to impact the attractiveness of the judicial profession. Some steps

have been taken as regards the level of remuneration for judges and prosecutors in Germany,

while challenges related to recruitment to the judiciary persist. In Cyprus, challenges regarding

resources and infrastructure continue to affect the work of first instance judges. The shortage

of financial and human resources continues to have a negative effect on the quality of justice

in Albania. Limited financial resources in North Macedonia continue to affect the judiciary’s

financial autonomy.

Investing in digitalisation can strengthen the efficiency and accessibility of justice systems, as

well as improve their resilience. Digitalisation initiatives advanced in Denmark, Estonia,

CJEU judgment of 25 February 2025 in joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23 where the Court clarified that

under Article 19(1) TEU, detailed rules for determining the remuneration of judges must be objective,

foreseeable, stable, transparent and enshrined in law.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland. However, results can be mixed

in terms of implementation in practice. In Bulgaria, new digital tools for access to justice have

been introduced, while electronic tools for communication are still lacking. In Czechia,

videoconferencing is well established and was further supported by recent legislative changes,

and the rolling out of the ‘e-file’ system was further delayed. In Italy, while all other branches

of the justice system are fully digitalised, digital solutions in criminal courts are still limited

due to technical challenges that the Ministry of Justice is working on solving by the end of

2025. Albania is introducing new digitalisation initiatives and a modern integrated electronic

case management system in courts and prosecution offices, and a new prosecutorial case

management system is being implemented in Serbia. Efforts to further improve the digital tools

also continue in North Macedonia, but challenges remain, such as with outdated infrastructure.

Access to justice and the role of lawyers in the justice system

Lawyers, bar associations and other legal professions such as notaries, play a crucial role in

upholding the rule of law. The recent Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the

Profession of Lawyer is an important step towards ensuring that lawyers can carry out the

fundamental role they are assigned in a democratic society

The cost of litigation and access to legal aid are key to ensuring real access to justice. In Ireland,

further steps have been taken to reduce the costs of litigation, a general review of the civil

legal aid scheme has been completed and a reform of the criminal legal aid system is being

prepared. In Spain, the legal aid framework has been reinforced and a review of the legal aid

system is being relaunched in Denmark

In the Netherlands, an independent review

recommended increasing the legal aid lawyers’ fees. New rules on legal aid in Portugal aim to

address the low level of remuneration of legal aid providers, although the Bar Association has

called for additional changes.

A functional justice system means that lawyers have the freedom to carry out their roles in

advising and representing their clients. In Belgium, following the adoption of directives

prohibiting the recording of meetings between lawyer and clients, lawyers called for additional

procedural safeguards to protect legal professional privilege. In Lithuania, concerns regarding

the respect for lawyer-client confidentiality continue to be raised.

4.2

Anti-corruption framework

Corruption erodes trust in public institutions, damages the delivery of public services, and

creates a sense of unfairness and mistrust. It is often linked to other crimes, notably money

laundering, with illicit gains being concealed through laundering schemes. Fighting corruption

effectively relies on a comprehensive approach combining preventive and repressive measures

in a robust legal and institutional framework, with effective investigations and prosecutions.

Preventive measures and awareness raising campaigns are needed to foster integrity and

minimise the space for corruption.

Corruption perceptions across the EU

The results of the Corruption Perceptions Index

consistently show that 8 of the 20 countries

ranking best internationally are EU Member States

. However, differences remain across

Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, CM(2024)191-add1final.

Transparency International (2025) (https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024)

8 Member States are in the top 20, 3 less than in the previous year. Four Member States (Denmark, Finland,

Luxembourg, and Sweden) score 80/100 or above on the index, with others (the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia,

and Germany) scoring above 70/100.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Member States

. Enlargement partners score below the average in this ranking

. The 2025

Eurobarometer surveys on corruption shows that corruption remains a serious concern for

citizens and businesses in the EU. About 7 in 10 Europeans (69%) believe that corruption is

widespread in their country and over 4 in 10 Europeans (44%) consider that the level of

corruption has increased in their country. Only 32% of citizens think that their government’s

efforts to combat corruption are effective. Similarly, most European companies (63%) consider

that the problem of corruption is widespread in their country and only about half (52%)

consider it likely for corrupt people or businesses to be caught or reported to the police or

prosecutors.

National anti-corruption strategies and their implementation

The importance of maintaining effective anti-corruption policies is recognised in international

law

. National anti-corruption strategies can ensure that Member States follow a

comprehensive, coherent and integrated approach, allowing action against corruption to be

mainstreamed in all relevant policy sectors. Almost all Member States currently have national

anti-corruption strategies in place, although their scope can vary

In Romania, Estonia and Greece, updated strategic frameworks are being prepared, while the

implementation of the existing ones are on track. The Netherlands adopted a first national anti-

corruption policy and in France the new anti-corruption plan is expected to be adopted by

summer 2025. Slovenia adopted its new anti-corruption strategy, which takes a ‘whole-of-

society’ approach to mitigate corruption and increase transparency and integrity. Finland

adopted a new anti-corruption action plan. Ireland has experienced some delays in drafting a

new strategic framework.

As regards enlargement countries, Albania and Serbia have adopted multi-annual anti-

corruption strategies. In Montenegro, where the legal framework to fight corruption is broadly

in place, the implementation of the 2024-2028 strategy against corruption and its action plan is

ongoing, but challenges remain concerning monitoring. In North Macedonia, implementation

of the national anti-corruption strategy remains insufficient overall.

Strengthening the legal framework to combat corruption and the capacity of institutions

Effectively combating corruption requires maintaining a strong legal framework and strong

and independent institutions to enforce it. The legal frameworks in all Member States and the

enlargement countries covered by this Report are considered strong and action to address some

specific gaps are generally ongoing or envisaged. Once adopted, the EU Directive on

Combating Corruption will provide a further opportunity to Member States to strengthen their

frameworks

Scores below 50 can be seen in Greece (49), Slovakia (49), Croatia (47), Romania (46), Bulgaria (43), and

Hungary (41).

Scores below 50 can be seen in Montenegro (46), Albania (42), North Macedonia (40), and Serbia (35).

Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) are required, in accordance with the

fundamental principles of their legal systems, to develop and implement or maintain effective, coordinated

anti-corruption policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law,

proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability. All

Member States and the EU are parties. See also The Kuala Lumpur Statement on Anti-Corruption Strategies

Currently 21 Member States have dedicated anti-corruption strategies or programmes; almost all others have

anti-corruption components in other national strategies and action plans.

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating corruption, replacing

Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving

officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and amending

Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM/2023/234 final).

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Several Member States have taken forward criminal law reforms to strengthen the fight against

corruption. Sweden adopted new legislation to increase the limitation periods for the most

serious corruption crimes. Croatia is preparing draft legislation to support more efficient

investigations and prosecutions of corruption offences and strengthen the competences of its

specialised prosecution. In Germany, there is a renewed commitment to address financial

crime, including corruption, while plans on corporate sanctions for foreign bribery had

advanced well before the early dissolution of Parliament. Work on the revision of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is also ongoing in Spain with a view to reduce the length of investigations.

In other Member States, planned reforms have been temporarily put on hold, with a view to

aligning with the new EU rules on combating corruption which are currently in

interinstitutional negotiations. This is the case of Finland, which plans to take forward the

revisions of the foreign bribery offence and the criminalisation of trading in influence once the

new EU legal framework will be in place. In some cases, changes to criminal legislation have

undermined the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. In Slovakia, the 2024 criminal law

reform was adjusted to ensure the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the Slovak

government has engaged actively to this end. However, other aspects still raise specific

concerns, impacting several ongoing corruption investigations and prosecutions, including of

high-level officials. In North Macedonia, efforts to combat corruption, in particular in high-

level cases, continue to be hindered by the 2023 criminal code amendments.

Several Member States are taking steps to strengthen their anti-corruption institutions. In

Cyprus, proposals are being discussed to strengthen the functional and operational

independence of the Independent Authority against Corruption. In Belgium, new investigative

and prosecutorial structures are to be set up to help fight corruption. In Ireland, a new Office

of the Police Ombudsman (Fiosrú) replaced the former Garda Síochána Ombudsman

Commission.

To tackle increasingly complex corruption cases, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the

judiciary must be sufficiently specialised and well-resourced. In Portugal, additional human

resources were allocated to investigations. In Spain, to reflect the increasingly complex nature

of corruption cases, additional resources were provided to the prosecution through two

specialised prosecutorial chambers and extra positions in the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s

Office. In North Macedonia, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has reported strengthened capacity

for investigation, better interinstitutional collaboration and improved operational capacity at

several investigative centres. In other countries, challenges remain. In Ireland, insufficient

resources and specialisation remain a challenge for investigating and prosecuting corruption

cases. In Montenegro, the human resources devoted to the fight against corruption have slightly

increased but remain insufficient overall. In Serbia, insufficient human resources are limiting

the capacity of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime to process and investigate complex

organised crime and high-level corruption cases.

Close cooperation between law enforcement authorities and other agencies – such as financial

intelligence units and tax, audit, competition and other administrative authorities –, as well as

access to information databases and the interconnection of registries, is essential for an efficient

fight against corruption. In Ireland, cooperation among responsible authorities is smooth. In

Poland, amended rules for the coordination of the prosecution services entered into force. Some

challenges remain in other Member States. In Slovenia, the prosecution reported difficulties to

access information and to collect evidence, notably banking information. In Hungary, the

Integrity Authority continued to report obstacles to fulfilling its functions including a lack of

access to the information held by other bodies’ databases.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

The cooperation between national authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(EPPO) is reported to be overall good in the participating Member States. Furthermore, the

EPPO is now fully operational in Poland and Sweden to investigate and prosecute crimes

affecting the financial interests of the Union. In Ireland, the 2025 Programme for Government

contains a commitment to sign up to the EPPO.

Effective investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes and strengthening the track

record of high-level corruption cases

According to the Special Eurobarometer on citizens’ attitudes towards corruption, around two

thirds of Europeans (66%) believe that high-level corruption cases are not pursued sufficiently.

The effective investigation and prosecution of corruption can be hindered by legal

shortcomings, such as unclear or burdensome procedures to lift immunities or short time

limitation periods. These can be especially damaging in complex corruption cases.

The investigation and prosecution of corruption offences is carried out efficiently in a number

of Member States. In France, efforts to prosecute corruption increased, including as regards

high-level cases, with additional human resources allocated to investigation authorities, and

new legislative tools in place. The investigation and prosecution of corruption offences in the

Netherlands remains effective, without obstacles signalled by investigators and prosecutors. In

Sweden, the investigation and prosecution of corruption offences continues to achieve results,

although law enforcement is concerned by the possible underreporting of cases. In Latvia, the

investigation and prosecution of corruption offences is carried out efficiently, while some

concerns were raised as regards high-level corruption.

Croatian authorities are developing a track record of investigations, prosecutions and

convictions of corruption, including in high-level cases. In Poland, large-scale corruption cases

involving public officials and politicians are being investigated. In Greece, an interoperable

common case management system is in preparation as efforts continue to improve the track

record of prosecution and final judgments, including in high-level corruption cases. In

Slovenia, several open and major investigations from previous years were concluded by the

police, which transmitted to the state prosecution offices substantially more corruption cases

compared to the previous year.

In Portugal, there are challenges facing the timely investigation, prosecution and adjudication

of high-level corruption cases, posing the risk that these become time-barred. In Malta, new

investigations and prosecutions were opened, although the number of final judgements in

corruption cases remains low and proceedings are pending in a number of cases involving high-

level officials. In Romania, while the positive track record is maintained, including for high-

level corruption cases, rulings on the statute of limitations have led to the closure of many

corruption cases and annulled convictions. Bulgaria and Hungary are yet to demonstrate a solid

track record of investigations, prosecutions and final convictions in high-level corruption.

As regards enlargement countries, in Albania, the Special Anti-Corruption Structure made

tangible progress towards a solid track record in the fight against corruption, notably at high

level. In Montenegro, the track record of investigations and prosecutions in cases of high-level

corruption continues to improve, but the low number of final convictions and lack of effective

and deterrent penalties contributes to a perception of impunity. Despite recent efforts in North

Macedonia, delays in court proceedings and resource constraints continue to hinder the

establishment of a robust track record of high-level corruption cases. In Serbia, establishing a

robust track record of investigations, indictments and final convictions in high-level corruption

cases remains a challenge.

Fighting corruption as an enabler of organised crime

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Organised criminal groups use corruption to achieve their ends, which threatens both public

and private institutions. Addressing corruption risks related to undue influence and infiltration

by organised crime in the public sector remains a high priority for several Member States. In

France, a law to combat the use of corruption by criminal organisations has been reviewed by

the Constitutional Council. In the Netherlands, work continues to target bribery of government

officials by organised crime. Sweden adopted legislation to strengthen background checks of

municipal employees to prevent the possible infiltration of organised crime actors in the public

service.

Strengthening the corruption prevention and integrity framework

Transparent and accountable governance and integrity frameworks are the best protection

against corruption. This points to the role of enhanced transparency, ethics and integrity for

public authorities in the fight against corruption, as well as specific action on areas such as

conflicts of interest, lobbying and ‘revolving doors’.

Preventing conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest arise when a public official has a private or professional interest that could

interfere with the impartial and objective performance of their duties. In some Member States,

the integrity framework has been complemented with codes of conduct and measures to prevent

conflicts of interests, including by strengthening the authorities in charge. A Special Adviser

on Ethics was appointed in Cyprus and is expected to play a central role in promoting the

principles of good governance for high-level officials. In Slovakia, a draft Code of Conduct for

persons in high executive functions has been prepared and is expected to be presented by the

Government in July 2025. In Luxembourg, the Government is considering further amendments

to introduce codes of conduct for elected representatives and officials at municipal level. In

Albania, some steps have been taken towards a reform of conflict-of-interest legislation.

A draft Code of Conduct for Ministers, focused on conflicts of interest, is being prepared in

Austria. In Estonia, the authorities report on the good implementation of the rules on conflicts

of interest, with anti-corruption contact points appointed in each Ministry to support

compliance with relevant standards. Some Member States have introduced measures targeting

integrity in specific sectors, such as the judiciary or the police. This was the case in Bulgaria,

where further measures have been taken to strengthen integrity in the police and the judiciary,

including revised codes of ethics. Similarly, in Italy actions to improve the integrity of police

were launched, while the draft law to improve integrity measures for members of Parliament

is pending, and comprehensive rules on conflict of interest, after approval by the Chamber of

Deputies, remain to be adopted in the Senate.

In other Member States, shortcomings remain as rules on conflicts of interest are incomplete

or reforms have been stalled. In Czechia, the Constitutional Court declared legislation on

conflicts of interests unconstitutional for procedural reasons. In Malta, measures are in place

to address prevention and management of conflicts of interest in the public administration, but

their scope remains limited as Members of Parliament are not covered by these rules.

See Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec (2000)10 on codes of conduct for public officials.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Lobbying and revolving doors

For lobbying to be a legitimate form of participation in policy development, it must be subject

to strong transparency and integrity requirements. These are essential to ensure accountability,

inclusive decision-making, and to prevent undue or covert influence

Some Member States have revised their lobbying transparency rules, established or extended

transparency registries or are preparing new legislation. Czechia adopted legislation on

lobbying, introducing a new transparency register. In Estonia, all political parties in Parliament

agreed on a framework on lobbying Members of Parliament and the rules for lobbying for the

Government are being assessed. In Spain, a draft law was submitted to Parliament to regulate

lobbying, and work continues to operationalise a public register of lobbyists. In Ireland, the

scope of the lobbying register was extended beyond the central and local government to other

bodies. In Sweden, an all-party committee of inquiry recommended the introduction of

lobbying rules.

The lack of comprehensive lobbying rules in some Member States or shortcomings in the

enforcement of the existing framework are seen as an important point for improvement. In

Italy, although some discussion took place on draft legislation, comprehensive rules on

lobbying remain largely absent and there is no publicly accessible register of lobbyists, with

some limited voluntary measures at ministerial level. In the Netherlands, procedural

improvements to the existing system have been introduced, but a more substantial reform has

not yet taken place. While initial efforts were undertaken in Portugal to address lobbying, these

did not come to fruition before the end of the previous legislature. In France, disclosure

requirements continue to apply to lobbyists only and not to officials at top-executive level. In

Poland, Austria and Belgium, there were no further steps to strengthen lobbying rules. In

Croatia, while the implementation of the new law on lobbying is on track, the public is not

directly informed about meetings between lobbyists and officials. Further efforts are needed to

improve the lobbying framework in Greece, including by reviewing the definition of a lobbyist

and ensuring effective implementation.

Regulating and enforcing rules on ‘revolving doors’ between public and private roles remain a

key area of attention, with issues such as stricter post-employment restrictions and cooling-off

periods under discussion in several Member States. In Finland, an act on limiting revolving

doors for ministers was submitted to Parliament in September 2024. In Czechia, a possible

future revision of rules on revolving doors remains under consideration at technical level. In

the Netherlands, revised rules on revolving doors for ministers and state secretaries were

adopted by the House of Representatives. In other Member States, discussions have not

advanced. In Sweden, there has been so far no follow-up to the evaluation of the rules on

revolving doors. In Denmark, recent cases of revolving doors raised concerns as to the capacity

of ethical standards to be ensured in the absence of clear rules.

Asset and interest disclosure

Rules for public officials to declare assets and disclose interests are important for ensuring

transparency and accountability in the public sector. An effective disclosure and verification

system can facilitate the detection of conflicts of interests, incompatibilities and corruption.

While most Member States have such rules in place, their scope, transparency and accessibility,

and the mechanisms for verifying and enforcing the application of these rules vary.

In December 2023, the Commission proposed a new Directive on interest representation carried out on behalf

of third countries to establish high transparency and accountability standards in the internal market for interest

representation activities, including lobbying, when coming from third country governments and to facilitate

the provision of such activities across Member States (C/2023/8626).

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Positive developments are taking place in some Member States, also with a view of addressing

the report’s recommendations. Comprehensive new laws on asset declarations and interests in

Cyprus cover a broad range of high-level officials. The Netherlands is planning to review the

asset and interest declaration regime of ministers and state secretaries.

An important aspect concerns the verification of asset declarations, with reforms in some

Member States concentrated on strengthening this element. The effective monitoring and

verification of asset declarations in Portugal improved significantly. In Greece, the law on asset

declarations was revised to facilitate the process of submitting and verifying declarations.

In other Member States, challenges remain. Austria’s asset and interest disclosure rules do not

cover parliamentarians. In Sweden, the asset declaration obligations for ministers and state

secretaries do not include certain key information. In Belgium, the system of asset and interest

declarations has shortcomings in terms of verification and transparency. In Croatia, difficulties

to meet commitments to verify all asset declarations result from limited resources and pending

digitalisation. In Albania, declarations of assets and interests continued to be verified, yet

shortcomings in effective verification and transparency remain as declarations are not

published. In Serbia

the verification of asset declarations and conflicts of interest continue to

present weaknesses. A Constitutional Court ruling will require Romania to re-assess what was

seen as a strong asset declaration system.

Whistleblower protection and reporting of corruption

Whistleblower protection is essential for detecting and preventing corruption. The

transposition of the EU Directive on whistleblower protection has led many Member States to

adopt new or revised legislation. All Member States have by now transposed its main

provisions, although further improvements are needed as regards key areas such as the material

scope, the conditions for protection and the measures of protection against retaliation

Whistleblower protection brings added value when it comes to better enforcement of EU law

in certain areas, including environmental crime, but its benefits for protecting the public interest

are wider and also extend beyond the realm of EU law. This is why a large majority of Member

States have extended the scope of whistleblower protection to areas of national law.

In Denmark, both the authorities and civil society consider that the implementation of

whistleblowing rules is on the right track. In Lithuania, a new whistleblower protection

framework is being implemented. In Poland, a new law is now in force. Latvia plans to amend

the legislation on whistleblower protection following an evaluation. In Montenegro,

implementation of the improved legal framework on the protection of whistleblowers is

ongoing.

However, there are still obstacles to reporting corruption cases in practice. According to the

Special Eurobarometer on citizens’ attitudes towards corruption, 27% of Europeans think that

those reporting a case of corruption are not protected from retaliation and 27% of Europeans

believe that cases of corruption are not reported because reporting would not be followed up

and punished. To overcome reluctance, Member States are putting in place tools to provide

guidance and raise awareness. For example, Croatia has a broad information campaign under

way.

See Commission’s Report on the implementation and application of Directive (EU) 2019/1937, of 3rd July

2024.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Political party and political campaign financing

Transparency in political party financing helps prevent undue influence, as well as promote

democratic accountability

Several Member States have adopted or are considering reforms to increase transparency and

oversight in this area. In Slovenia, updated rules on reporting by political parties aim to ensure

greater transparency and clarity. In Latvia, amendments to the rules on political party financing

strengthen criminal liability rules for illegal financing. In Estonia, a reform of the political party

financing framework, clarifying financial obligations of political parties, has been approved by

the Government. Legislation to improve the transparency of political party financing has been

presented in Italy and is under discussion in Parliaments in Denmark and Romania

In Finland,

the Parliament adopted a legislative proposal in June 2025. In Montenegro, the legal framework

regulating political parties’ funding continues to be hampered by shortcomings in scope, clarity

and implementation.

Countering corruption in high-risk areas

Corruption can affect any area of public life, but high-risk sectors – typically those dealing

with substantial public resources or providing key services – deserve particular attention.

Sectors such as healthcare, energy, and urban planning, as well as local municipalities, have

been identified as vulnerable. Areas seeing a rapid increase in public expenditure or

abbreviated procedures, such as defence procurement, require particular attention. In the

framework of the EU network against corruption, the Commission and the Member States are

analysing these high-risk areas and sharing best practices on how to best address them

Member States are taking different measures to mitigate corruption risks in high-risk areas.

Lithuania and Finland have put in place monitoring with a focus on high-risk areas. Germany

has modernised its public procurement rules, carrying the potential to increase transparency

and ensure an equal level playing field for businesses. In Estonia, a number of high-risk areas

for corruption are being addressed. In the Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium, initiatives are

under way to tackle corruption linked to organised crime. In Malta, auditing institutions

indicated weaknesses in the use of public funds and changes to public procurement procedures.

Measures are being implemented in Montenegro to address corruption in high-risk areas, such

as ensuring the implementation of integrity plans in public institutions. In Serbia, exemptions

to the Law on public procurement continued to be widely used, thereby circumventing its

application, and oversight mechanisms are insufficient.

4.3

Media pluralism and media freedom

Media freedom and pluralism are central to the rule of law. Independent media hold those in

power to account while allowing the free flow of information and opinions. Political or state

pressure and control can weaken media freedom and hinder people’s ability to seek, receive

and share information. A lack of accountability for attacks on media freedom and journalists

often goes hand in hand with a deterioration in other rule of law standards.

Fostering media pluralism and media freedom has been at the heart of the EU efforts to

strengthen democracy and the rule of law. Measures put forward in previous years in several

key areas covered by the Rule of Law Reports, such as to strengthen the safety and protection

See also the Recommendation (EU) of 12 December 2023 on inclusive and resilient electoral processes in the

Union and enhancing the European nature and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament.

In November 2024, the European Commission published an external study that aims to identify common high-

risk areas of corruption across the EU, which it presented to the network (https://home-

affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-presents-new-study-areas-most-risk-corruption-2024-11-04_en).

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

of journalists, to address strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) and to address

structural challenges in the media landscape more generally under the European Media

Freedom Act (EMFA)

, are at different stages of implementation. Member States need to

ensure compliance with most provisions of EMFA by 8 August this year, and most of them are

considering or adopting legislation to align with EMFA requirements. A correct application of

EMFA will also help address a number of the recommendations made in this Rule of Law

Report, in particular those on public media independence, certain aspects of the protection of

journalists and the transparency and fairness in the allocation of state advertising.

Monitoring risks to media freedom and pluralism

The Media Pluralism Monitor

assesses the risks to media freedom and pluralism in all EU

Member States and some candidate countries, focusing on fundamental protection, market

plurality, political independence, and social inclusiveness. The 2025 findings reveal

deteriorating conditions for journalists in several countries, with increased physical violence

during protests, more online harassment and smear campaigns by politicians. There are

growing risks from highly concentrated media ownership and the dominance of a few digital

platforms. The report also confirms the severe economic strain on the media ecosystem across

Europe, which intensifies the potential for political influence.

Strengthening the independent functioning of media regulators

Functionally independent national media regulators, exercising powers impartially and

transparently, play an essential role in upholding media pluralism. All Member States have

legislation defining their regulators’ competences and independence safeguards. Both the

Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)

and EMFA establish requirements for these

regulators, including independence from government, impartiality, transparency,

accountability, adequate resources, processes for appointment and dismissal, and effective

appeal mechanisms.

Since the 2024 Rule of Law Report, the tasks and competences of several national media

regulators have been or are being expanded, not least to comply with the EU Digital Services

Act (DSA)

and EMFA. For example, in Portugal and Sweden the regulators’ financial

resources have increased, and in Estonia, Denmark and Greece the regulators have hired

additional staff. Both Spain and France are taking measures to strengthen the supervisory

function of the audiovisual media regulatory authorities. Legislation is planned to give

regulators new monitoring and oversight tasks in Estonia, Finland, Slovenia, Czechia, Ireland,

Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Sweden. As regards the enlargement countries,

the financial independence of the media regulators has been improved in North Macedonia.

Concerns about the independence or impartiality of regulators persist in several Member States.

This includes insufficient safeguards against undue political influence over the appointment

process or in the functioning of regulators, as seen in Hungary, Greece and Poland. In Albania,

the independence of the regulator remains and issue of concern due to the bi-partisan formula

for election of board members and their political affiliation. Serious concerns remain on the

EMFA includes specific provisions on the transparent and fair allocation of state advertising, transparency of

media ownership, independent functioning of public service media and the availability of financial resources

to fulfil the public service role. It also introduces measures to protect journalistic sources and confidential

communications.

Implemented by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom.

Directive 2018/1808 of 14 November 2018.

Regulation 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

independence of Serbia’s media regulator, with delays and shortcomings in the selection

procedure of its leadership undermining public trust in the process.

Increasing the transparency of media ownership

Transparency of media ownership allows users to make better informed judgments, given that

media owners can directly or indirectly control or influence editorial decisions and news

content. There have been positive developments in Croatia and Greece, with the establishment

or extension of online ownership registries or their effective monitoring. In France, a national

media ownership database is being prepared by the regulator. In Latvia, amendments to the

Press Law will make registration of mass media service providers and beneficial ownership

information mandatory.

In other countries the situation is mixed. In Montenegro, rules on transparency of media

ownership information have improved but only in relation to media providers. In Serbia,

measures to increase transparency in ownership structures and public funding of the media

sector have only been partially implemented.

Challenges regarding transparency of media ownership remain in Bulgaria, Czechia, the

Netherlands, Cyprus and Spain, although some improvements have been made in Bulgaria and

improvements are also expected in Spain pending the adoption of new legislation. In Albania,

the high concentration of media ownership continues to negatively impact media

independence.

Safeguarding media from political pressure and undue influence

Media independence can be undermined by political pressure and undue influence. Safeguards

against politicisation of the public service media and transparent rules on the allocation of state

advertising are important for preventing such pressure.

State advertising includes any use of the state budget, by public authorities or entities at all

levels, for advertising and campaigns. If allocated non-transparently or unfairly, these

resources can be tools for political influence. EMFA addresses this issue by setting out

requirements for allocation criteria and procedures and mandates that public authorities

disclose the amounts spent annually.

Draft legislation is in preparation to specifically address this issue in Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia

and Poland. While rules on transparency of state advertising continue to be properly

implemented, the fair allocation of state advertising continues to be a point of discussion in

Austria. No measures have been adopted or are planned to regulate the distribution of state

advertising to media outlets in Hungary. In Romania, the financing of private media by political

parties and state authorities has led to an increase of non-transparent political advertising.

Among enlargement countries, in Albania shortcomings in terms of fair allocation of state

advertising and other state resources remain. In North Macedonia, the reintroduction of state-

funded advertising has drawn criticism from media experts and civil society organisations.

Although each Member State is responsible for funding public service media

, EMFA aims to

ensure their independent functioning. It does so by requiring safeguards for adequate,

sustainable and predictable financial resources, and promoting transparency in the

appointments and dismissals of management. Reforms aimed at strengthening the

independence of national public service broadcasters have been adopted in Czechia, clarifying

As long as EU trade and competition rules are respected. See Protocol to the Treaties (No 29) on the system

of public broadcasting in the Member States.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

the remit of public service media and providing more sustainable financing. In Portugal, a new

contract with the public service media provider has been signed and its resources strengthened.

Reforms are still ongoing or are in preparation in Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia,

Sweden, Denmark, Bulgaria, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In Greece, the new

appointment procedures of administrative bodies introduced positive changes, while concerns

continue about the legislative framework and political independence of public service media.

Concerns also persist in Slovakia with regard to the law of July 2024 dissolving the public

broadcaster and establishing a new entity. Previously voiced concerns regarding the

independent governance and editorial independence of public service media have not yet been

addressed in Romania, Malta, and Hungary. In Albania and Serbia, concerns as regards the

independence of the public broadcaster have increased.

Access to information

The right to access information from public authorities is crucial to enable journalists to carry

out their investigative work. It is also an important transparency and accountability tool for

civil society and citizens at large. Estonia, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Bulgaria,

Denmark and Greece have taken further measures, although the effectiveness of the legislative

changes in practice often needs to be verified.

Some efforts have been made in several other Member States where problems were previously

identified, such as Finland and Romania, while no further steps have been taken in Spain. In

Italy, rules regulating the disclosure of certain judicial information regarding criminal

proceedings remains a source of concern for journalists. In Montenegro, the legal framework

on access to information remains to be amended, and there are significant challenges in

ensuring its effective implementation.

Improving the safety and protection of journalists and addressing legal threats and abusive

court proceedings against public participation

Journalists continue to face physical and legal threats, and their safety is further compromised

by online smear campaigns in some Member States. Following up on the 2021 Commission

Recommendation on the safety of journalists and other media professionals

several Member

States and enlargement countries have adopted dedicated Action Plans and have taken steps to

set up dedicated support structures promoting the safety of journalists.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are a particular form of harassment

aimed at silencing journalists and human rights defenders dealing with public interest issues,

intending to create a chilling effect on media freedom and freedom of expression. Since May

2024, EU legislation has been in place to counter cross-border SLAPPs

, and Member States

are encouraged to align safeguards to also cover domestic cases. Additionally, EMFA provides

for protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications, in particular against the

use of intrusive surveillance tools.

EU legislation and the dedicated Recommendation issued by the Commission on SLAPP

have

helped stimulate further steps in national legislation. Belgium took measures to strengthen legal

protection for journalists, such as decriminalising defamation and introducing harsher penalties

for crimes committed against journalists. Greece and Ireland have also moved to introduce

Commission Recommendation of 16 September 2021.

Directive 2024/1069 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded

claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’).

Commission Recommendation C(2022) 2428) of 27 April 2022. The Recommendation, which covers national

cases, and the Directive, which covers cross-border cases, are complementary.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

specific procedural safeguards, and Ireland is revising its defamation laws. In Estonia, the

Association of Journalists has been designated as the national contact point for SLAPP issues.

In Poland, the Government intends to limit the severity of the penalty for the offence of

defamation. On the other hand, reform of the defamation regime has stalled in Italy and has not

been taken forward in Slovakia.

More generally, when it comes to the safety of journalists, positive developments have occurred

in some Member States, also following on the recommendations in the 2024 Rule of Law

Report. In Greece, awareness raising efforts continue on SLAPPs targeting journalists. In

Luxembourg, the Government has committed to strengthen the protection of journalists and in

Sweden, the national media regulatory authority has been tasked to monitor journalists’ safety.

In Montenegro, the authorities continue to provide prompt and effective institutional and law

enforcement response to new cases of verbal and physical violence against journalists. On the

other hand, reform processes are pending in Bulgaria and Malta, in spite of concerns about

journalist safety and their working conditions. In Serbia, the safety of journalists has become a

source of increasing concern.

4.4

Other institutional issues linked to checks and balances

A well-functioning system of institutional checks and balances is at the core of the rule of law.

It guarantees the functioning, cooperation and accountability of state authorities so that the

power they exercise is subject to the scrutiny of others.

Constitutional reforms and debates impacting on institutional checks and balances

In some Member States, steps to reinforce the constitutional system of checks and balances are

ongoing. In the Netherlands, state authorities took a series of initiatives to follow up on the

proposals of the State Commission on the Rule of Law. In Bulgaria, the constitutional reform

limiting the powers of the President in the procedure of appointing an interim government is

subject to another constitutionality check. In Italy, parliamentary discussion continues in

relation to the draft constitutional reform aimed at enhancing governmental stability and

introducing the direct election of the Prime Minister. In Malta, a legislative reform increasing

the threshold for citizens to directly petition a magisterial inquiry has raised criticism from

some stakeholders about its potential impact on prosecutions of high-level offences.

The system of checks and balances is particularly important in times of crises, when emergency

measures may become necessary. In those cases, safeguards such as limiting these measures in

time, ensuring they are strictly necessary and proportionate, and providing oversight and

scrutiny, are important. In Sweden, the Government presented a proposal to amend the

Constitution to set up a framework to better deal with serious crises. On the other hand, in

Hungary, the Government continues to use its emergency powers extensively, undermining

legal certainty and affecting the operation of businesses in the Single Market.

The inclusiveness, quality and transparency of the law-making process

The existence of a transparent, accountable, democratic and pluralistic process for enacting

laws is essential for good lawmaking and legal certainty. Several Member States have taken

steps to improve the consultation of stakeholders in the legislative process. Cyprus has

introduced systematic use of an online platform, significantly contributing to improving

stakeholder consultation. In Estonia, a reflection process identified areas for further

improvement in the consultation process. Member States are also looking into improving the

quality of the lawmaking process. In Denmark, the rules on the legislative process have been

amended to give Parliament more time to consider legislation. In Greece, the positive trend of

avoiding expedited legislative procedures continues and the statutory timeframe for public

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

consultations is being observed, while participation and transparency in the law-making

process could be further improved.

In other Member States, shortcomings remain about the involvement of stakeholders in the

legislative process. In Slovakia, practices bypassing stakeholders’ involvement in law-making

and frequent recourse to fast-track procedures continue to raise concerns. In Malta, no further

steps have been taken to introduce a formal framework for public participation in the legislative

process, though the Government declared its intention to establish a new department dedicated

to public consultation. In Bulgaria, the practical implementation of rules for law-making

continues to face challenges, with continued concerns about the quality of the legislative

process.

In Albania, challenges remain regarding the quality of the legislative process, including the

effectiveness of public consultations, the latter which is also an issue in Montenegro. In North

Macedonia, shortcomings remain in implementing processes for inclusive and evidence-based

policymaking. In Serbia, Parliament’s effectiveness and oversight function continued to be

hampered by the low frequency of sessions and the lack of genuine political debate.

Significant developments on Supreme and Constitutional Courts in the checks and balances

Constitutional jurisdictions play a key role in the effective application of EU law and in

ensuring the integrity of the EU legal order and are key actors of checks and balances. While

the establishment, composition and functioning of constitutional jurisdictions are within the

competence of Member States, when exercising that competence, Member States are required

to comply with EU law and EU values.

In some Member States, Constitutional Court rulings had major implications for checks and

balances. In Bulgaria, the Constitutional Court reviewed the election results in several polling

stations and found that the election of 16 Members of Parliament was illegal. This led to a

recalculation of the seats and the parties represented in Parliament. In Romania, Presidential

elections were repeated in 2025, following the Constitutional Court’s decision to annul the first

round of elections. In Czechia, constitutional limits have been applied to a procedural technique

allowing late amendments unrelated to the substance of a legislative proposal. In Poland, the

laws addressing the serious concerns related to the Constitutional Tribunal have not yet entered

into force, with the Government working on a revised proposal.

In Albania, the Constitutional Court continued to function effectively, while in North

Macedonia, the role of the Constitutional Court in the monitoring and enforcement of its

decisions has been strengthened. In Montenegro, a deep institutional and political crisis

emerged over the decision of Parliament to unilaterally declare the retirement of a

Constitutional Court judge, raising concerns about the respect for the independence of the

Constitutional Court. In Serbia, the fact that four positions at the Constitutional Court remain

vacant is a concern, since it has negatively impacted the efficiency of the Court.

Ombudspersons, National Human Rights Institutions and other independent authorities

National human rights institutions (NHRIs)

, Ombudspersons

, equality bodies and other

independent authorities have an important role in promoting respect for the rule of law and are

an essential element of the system of checks and balances. In some Member States, efforts are

ongoing to strengthen these institutions. In the Netherlands, the Institute for Human Rights has

The UN Paris Principles, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 (Resolution A/RES/48/134), set out

the main criteria that NHRIs are required to meet. NHRIs are periodically accredited before the Subcommittee

on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.

See the Venice Commission Principles for Ombudspersons.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

taken measures to address its governance issues, and in Lithuania the mandate of the

Parliamentary Ombudspersons was extended, with reinforced resources. In Luxembourg, a

reform to attach the Consultative Commission for Human Rights to Parliament instead of the

Ministry of State remains ongoing. In Austria, the Government has committed in its programme

to transparency and objectivity with respect to appointments to high-level positions at

independent authorities, which remains an area susceptible to politicisation. In Bulgaria, some

independent and regulatory authorities continue to operate with an expired mandate, and the

renewal procedures have been relaunched. In Croatia, significant steps were made to improve

follow-up to the People’s Ombudsperson’s recommendations and on access to information.

In other Member States, NHRIs, Ombudspersons and other independent authorities continue

to face challenges. In Belgium, the Federal Human Rights Institute raised concerns regarding

the budget of the inter-federal equality body. The Institute for Human Rights of Romania faces

serious issues regarding the shortage of human and financial resources.

As regards the four Member States which had yet to establish an NHRI in line with the UN

Paris Principles, Czechia has now set one up. However, in Romania, a final decision is still

pending regarding the accreditation of National Human Rights Institutions. In Italy, while five

draft laws are still pending in Parliament, no concrete measures have been taken to establish a

National Human Rights Institution. In Malta, the Government has been working on establishing

a National Human Rights Institution, but draft legislation has yet to be tabled to Parliament.

As regards the enlargement countries, in Montenegro, a new law on the Ombudsperson’s Office

is being drafted to fully align with the Paris Principles and to obtain A status accreditation.

Implementation of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights and national courts

Since 2022, the country chapters include figures on the implementation of leading judgments

of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), an important indicator for the functioning

of the rule of law in a country. Results vary between Member States. Across the EU, around

45.7% of leading judgments of the ECtHR relating to the Member States from the last ten years

are yet to be implemented, a slight increase on last year

In Denmark, the procedural rules were amended to allow the Director of Public Prosecution or

a convicted person to request reopening of a case dealt with in the criminal justice system in

order to comply with a final judgement from the European Court of Human Rights. In Greece,

a new ground for the reopening of proceedings was added in the Code of Civil Procedure,

allowing the re-examination of a case following a judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights finding a breach of the right to a fair trial. In Belgium, compliance by public authorities

with final rulings of national courts remain an issue and supervision on structural issues

identified by the European Court of Human Rights continues.

Enabling framework for civil society

Civil society organisations and human rights defenders are crucial for upholding EU values.

They serve as watchdogs, drawing attention to threats to the rule of law, promoting democratic

values and contributing to ensure that those in power remain accountable. The Commission has

been supporting Member States to implement the Recommendation on civic engagement,

which underlines the continued need for civil society organisations to be protected and

empowered so as to ensure a thriving civic space

Last year, the figure was 44%. European Implementation Network (2025), written input.

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/2836 of 12 December 2023 on promoting the engagement and

effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making processes.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Most Member States continue to ensure an enabling and supportive framework for civil society,

and the civil society space continues to be considered as ‘open’. Some Member States have

taken further steps to further improve it. In Poland, further steps have been taken to improve

the framework in which civil society operates, with stakeholders considering that, while the

Government’s engagement with civil society and improvements to their financing is at an early

stage, it is going in an overall good direction. Estonia is easing the reporting obligations on

civil society organisations. In Spain, a draft law amending the Citizen Security Law has been

put forward to address concerns previously reported by stakeholders. Steps have also been

taken to improve access to funding in Austria, where the implementation of the recent reform

of the tax framework for civil society organisations has shown positive results, and Sweden,

where a new legal framework entered into force in 2025. In Denmark, the Government intends

to establish a new funding model. In Ireland, steps were taken to address legal obstacles to

accessing funding, with an Electoral Commission review of the current legislation at an

advanced stage of preparation.

However, the trend noted in previous Reports of increasing challenges for civil society, with

new legal restrictions, insufficient funding or physical and verbal attacks, has continued. In

Hungary, a deteriorating environment for civil society organisations and legal uncertainty

further obstructs civic space. Parliamentary work on a new draft law on ‘transparency in public

life’ was postponed until autumn, and in its current form, it would bring significant

consequences for civil society organisations and media outlets’ activities including by

restricting their access to funding. In Slovakia, the civil society environment faces further

pressure, and new reporting and information disclosure obligations introduce additional burden

for civil society organisations.

Stakeholders raise concerns regarding new obstacles to the right to demonstrate in Belgium. In

the Netherlands, the space for civil society organisations has narrowed and is affected by a

combination of funding cuts and risks of new legal obstacles. In Germany, the lack of action

on the tax-exempt status of non-profit organisations continues to create obstacles in practice.

In Italy, a new Security Law seeking to combat terrorism and organised crime and improve

internal security raised stakeholder concerns over a possible impact on civic space and the

exercise of fundamental freedoms, while the Government considers instead that the new

provisions achieve a balance between the right to peaceful assembly and the right to free

movement and personal freedom. In Greece, the evaluation of the existing registration

regulatory framework was initiated while engagement with civil society organisations will still

need to be structured on a regular and sustained basis. In Hungary, recent amendments to

legislation and the Constitution, as well as their application in practice resulted in legal

uncertainty for the organisers and participants of public assemblies aimed at promoting equality

and diversity. As regards the enlargement countries, civil society organisations in Albania

remain free to operate overall, but challenges remain, including on registration requirements

and limited public funding. In Montenegro, civil society organisations function within an

overall enabling environment, while several challenges persist. In North Macedonia, the

Government initiated measures to enhance cooperation with civil society, while civil society

raised challenges, including online hate speech. In Serbia, civil society organisations face

increasing pressure and attacks.

National checks and balances in the use of intrusive surveillance software (“spyware”)

Even where the use of spyware is justified by national security, and in instances where it falls

outside the scope of EU law, national checks and balances need to ensure that safeguards are

in place. Fundamental rights such as the protection of personal data, the freedom to receive and

impart information, the freedom of expression, as well as the right to an effective remedy and

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

a fair trial, need to be respected. EU data protection legislation offers a comprehensive

mechanism of oversight and safeguards and is applicable in situations where spyware is used

for law enforcement purposes. The use of spyware, its regulation and the applicable oversight

mechanisms has also been examined by the Venice Commission

The 2025 Rule of Law Report has continued to monitor and report on developments, with

allegations of illegal use of spyware putting the spotlight on national checks and balances. In

Greece, the judicial investigation cleared all Greek state agencies and officials in the case of

responsibility for the use of Predator spyware, while a presidential decree aiming at

safeguarding the privacy of communications against software tracking has not yet been

adopted. Reports of journalists being targeted by the Paragon spyware in Italy raised

stakeholders’ concerns and were subject to an inquiry of the Parliamentary Committee for the

Security of the Republic, which published a report in June 2025 stating that it had not identified

any use of the spyware by Italian intelligence services to target Italian journalists. In Poland,

the investigative committee for the use of “Pegasus” software continues its activities. In

Hungary, concerns about the procedural safeguards and effective oversight in case of secret

surveillance measures outside criminal proceedings have not been addressed. In Serbia, civil

society reported that the Serbian authorities used spyware to unlawfully target journalists,

environmental activists and other individuals.

4.5

Single Market aspects across the four pillars

An effective justice system, the fight against corruption, good governance, legal certainty and

sound lawmaking all have a significant economic impact. They shape the business environment

and guide investment decisions, influence the smooth functioning of the Single Market, and

ultimately affect economic growth, and job creation.

Relying on new Eurobarometer data presented in the

2025 EU Justice Scoreboard,

country

chapters report on perceptions by companies of the independence of public procurement and

national competition authorities. These authorities are of key importance for the functioning of

the Single Market. As regards first-instance public procurement review bodies, the level of

perceived independence is highest for Austria, Finland and Italy, and lowest for Bulgaria,

Hungary and Croatia. For national competition authorities, the level of perceived independence

is highest for Austria, Finland and Malta, and lowest for Hungary, Bulgaria and Croatia.

As for the perceived level of investment protection, over two thirds of the surveyed companies

expressed confidence in Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Malta, Denmark, Sweden, Austria,

Slovenia and the Netherlands, while less than a third expressed confidence in Greece and

Cyprus

In the case of the enlargement countries, over half of the surveyed companies

expressed confidence in the investment protection in Montenegro and Serbia, and less than half

in Albania and North Macedonia.

As regards the

functioning of the justice system,

one key aspect from a Single Market

perspective is the specialisation of courts and judges to handle commercial cases, including

high-value cross-border cases. New rules on the creation of specialised commercial courts have

entered into force in Germany, aiming to provide more specialised and efficient proceedings

for companies in high-value disputes. In Latvia, the specialised Economic Court continues to

work efficiently, despite an overall increase of cases and a temporary reduction of active

judges. In Poland, a Digital Consumer and Competition Protection Court is being established,

while in Malta, the draft legislation to set up a new Commercial Court is now in Parliament. In

Report on a rule of law and human rights compliant regulation of spyware, adopted by the Venice Commission

at its 141st Plenary Session (Venice, 6-7 December 2024) - Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Cyprus, according to business representatives, the entry into operations of the Commercial

Court should be a priority, as delays in the administration of justice serve as a deterrent to

business growth, with SMEs particularly affected.

Other justice-related areas that benefit businesses are the availability of alternative dispute

resolution mechanisms and the costs of litigation. Efforts to promote the use of alternative

dispute resolution in Cyprus, including the modernisation of arbitration law, are supported by

businesses. In Finland, business stakeholders reported a favourable legal framework as regards

investment protection, but the high cost of litigation in intellectual property might hinder access

to justice. High court fees and the absence of a cap on court fees can affect access to justice in

Austria, including for businesses. In Estonia, a draft law envisaging increased fees would affect

business-related cases.

Challenges as regards the efficiency of justice can particularly affect businesses, whose

investment decisions rely on speedy handling of disputes. This is the case in Malta, where

stakeholders see delays and inefficiencies in courts as hampering business confidence.

Similarly in Portugal, stakeholders consider that efficiency shortcomings in the justice system

may hinder investment. In Slovakia, lengthy administrative proceedings have been identified

as an obstacle for businesses, affecting their ability to obtain the necessary permits and

approvals ..

The effective and timely enforcement of binding judicial decisions is also essential for

businesses operating across the EU’s Single Market. The country chapters also present

systematic information on mechanisms that are in place to assist in implementing judgments

by supreme administrative courts for each Member State.

As regards the

fight against corruption,

Greece introduced a dedicated management system to

reduce bureaucracy and increase standardisation of licensing, which is intended to act as a

protection against potential corrupt practices. In Malta, companies that are members of the

Chamber of Commerce are committed to apply anti-corruption measures. In Cyprus, where

business stakeholders consider public procurement as highly prone to corruption, the

Government’s efforts to improve efficiency, accountability and transparency in public

procurement should help to improve the business environment. In Italy, public procurement is

digitalised through an interinstitutional platform to counter specifically infiltration attempts by

organised crime through corruption. On the other hand, in Slovakia, companies see a

deteriorating business climate, including a negative trend of the economic policy conditions

impacting their operations. In Slovenia, concerns about undue influence and conflict of interest

in state-owned enterprises were voiced by some in the business community. In Hungary,

framework agreements concluded by central purchasing bodies have allowed certain economic

operators to become market leaders or to acquire a dominant position at the expense of their

competitors.

media environment

governed by clear and transparent rules not only protects the integrity

of our democratic space but also supports the functioning of the Single Market by ensuring a

level playing field for media service providers. Economic challenges faced by the media

represent a global phenomenon also felt across Europe. In addition to transparency of media

ownership and the fair and transparent allocation of state advertising to media entities,

transparent funding schemes to support the media industry are important in this regard. Such

funding schemes continue to have positive impacts in Austria, while the budget for such

schemes has increased significantly in Lithuania and reforms of media support mechanisms are

planned in Denmark, and Portugal.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

Effective

checks and balances

support the legal certainty and stable regulatory environment

critical for businesses to operate in predictable conditions. Legislative simplification efforts in

France are welcomed by businesses. In Malta, while business stakeholders are usually

consulted on some relevant legislation, they also point out that slow law-making processes or

sudden changes in legislation affect businesses. Legislative unpredictability, problems with the

quality of legislation and regulatory burden remain primary concerns for businesses and CSOs

in Romania. Businesses have identified unstable, fast-changing legislation as a major obstacle

for business in Greece and Bulgaria. In Cyprus, delays in the law-making process and in

adopting implementing acts are seen as challenges by businesses and investors. In Hungary,

businesses express concern about the consequences for legal certainty of the Government’s

frequent recourse to emergency powers, as well as about the quality of law-making more

generally. Foreign companies operating in strategic sectors have voiced concern about a lack

of impartiality and arbitrariness in regulatory decisions.

Stakeholders have also highlighted certain barriers related to cross-border investment

protection. In Croatia, business stakeholders raised the efficiency and quality of the justice

system, and the quality and frequent changes in legislation as the main challenges for

investment. In Latvia, foreign investors perceive some developments, such as the handling of

large-scale public contracts, as negatively impacting the business environment. Business

stakeholders are also affected by the way consultations are conducted. In Belgium and Czechia,

business stakeholders generally report that they are satisfied with their involvement in the

preparation of legislation.. In Romania, CSOs and businesses consider that public consultation

often remains a ‘box-ticking’ exercise, with very tight deadlines and no feedback, despite legal

requirements. In Lithuania, business stakeholders consider that the short timeframes for public

consultations negatively affect the protection of investors.

5. CONCLUSION

This year’s Rule of Law Report confirms the positive trajectory in several Member States and

it shows that the annual rule of law cycle provides a stimulus for reform. As in previous years,

national reforms have been taken forward in areas such as judicial independence, the fight

against corruption, media pluralism and institutional checks and balances. While progress is

uneven and challenges remain in certain Member States, the overall engagement with the

process remains strong, with a substantial number of the 2024 recommendations partially or

fully addressed.

The addition of the Single Market dimension brings further value to the report and over time,

it can be developed even further. It underlines how rule of law challenges can directly impact

economic confidence, legal certainty, and the effective functioning of the Union’s economic

framework. A predictable and transparent legal environment supports cross-border business,

consumer trust, and investor confidence. Strengthening the rule of law reinforces the resilience

and integrity of the Single Market. In line with the Political Guidelines, the EU will build a

closer link between the recommendations in the Rule of Law Report and the financial support.

And it will ensure that the future long-term budget has strong safeguards on the rule of law.

In parallel, the Rule of Law Report will be complemented by additional initiatives. In 2025,

the Commission will present a European Democracy Shield. It will aim to empower strong and

resilient democracies in the EU through measures that will reinforce situational awareness and

response capacity, strengthen democratic institutions, fair elections and free media, and boost

societal resilience and citizens’ engagement. In parallel, the EU’s first-ever Civil Society

Strategy will promote and protect the role of civil society organisations across the EU.

EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU

As the new annual cycle begins, the Commission invites the Council and the European

Parliament to continue both general and country-specific debates based on the report. It

encourages further dialogue at national level, involving parliaments, civil society, the judiciary

and the wider public. The Commission remains committed to supporting Member States in

implementing this year’s recommendations and to working collectively to safeguard the

Union’s core values.