Europaudvalget 2024-25
EUU Alm.del Bilag 619
Offentligt
3051235_0001.png
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}
EN
EN
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0002.png
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
1
, 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
2
.
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
1
2
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.
1
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0003.png
when they are ready
3
. 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
4
.
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
5
. 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.
6.
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.
A
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.
3
4
5
6
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.
2
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0004.png
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
7
.
This process, carried out in complementarity with other work strands such as the European
Semester
8
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
9
. 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
10
.
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
11
.
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.
7
8
9
10
11
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
3
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0005.png
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
12
.
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
13
. 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
12
13
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.
4
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0006.png
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
14
.
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
15
, 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
16
. The Justice Council also continued to discuss topical rule of law questions
during each six-month Council Presidency
17
.
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
18
. 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
19
.
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
14
15
16
17
18
19
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).
5
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0007.png
Rights and the Rule of Law and adopted two new opinions on the rule of law
20
. The
Committee
of the Regions
started a reflection on the local and regional perspective in the implementation
of the rule of law
21
.
The Commission organises
national rule of law dialogues
22
, 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
23
. 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
24
.
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
25
.
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.
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
6
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0008.png
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)
26
has triggered readiness checks of
Member States’ legislation ahead of the application of most of its provisions in August 2025
27
.
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
28
. 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
29
. Many Member States have taken concrete steps to
26
27
28
29
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.
7
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0009.png
do so, for instance by providing dedicated training, launching awareness campaigns, and
starting to develop support mechanisms
30
.
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
31
. 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
32
. 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
33
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.
30
31
32
33
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.
8
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0010.png
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
34
, withdrawing cases from judges
35
, case allocation
36
, or the admissibility of
requests for preliminary rulings
37
.
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
38
. 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
39
. 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
40
.
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
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.
9
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0011.png
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
41
. 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
42
. 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
43
. The objective of the 2025 recommendations
continues to be to support Member States in their efforts to take forward reforms
44
. 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
45
, as well as the Commission’s own data
gathering
46
. Member States and enlargement countries were invited to contribute, provide
41
42
43
44
45
46
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.
10
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0012.png
written input and participate in dedicated country visits
47
. A targeted stakeholder consultation
also provided valuable cross-cutting and country-specific contributions
48
. The Council of
Europe also provided an overview of its recent opinions and reports
49
. 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
50
. 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
51
. 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
52
. 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
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.
11
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0013.png
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
53
. The
Council of Europe has developed European standards on how these Councils should be
designed to effectively protect their independence, including as regards composition
54
. 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
53
54
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.
12
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0014.png
about whether judges are impervious to external factors
55
. 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
56
. This autonomy is crucial for enforcing both
national and European criminal laws.
55
56
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).
13
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0015.png
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
57
. 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
58
.
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
57
58
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.
14
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0016.png
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
59
. 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,
59
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.
15
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0017.png
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
60
.
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
61
consistently show that 8 of the 20 countries
ranking best internationally are EU Member States
62
. However, differences remain across
60
61
62
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.
16
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0018.png
Member States
63
. Enlargement partners score below the average in this ranking
64
. 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
65
. 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
66
.
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
67
.
63
64
65
66
67
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).
17
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.
18
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
19
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0021.png
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
68
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.
68
See Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec (2000)10 on codes of conduct for public officials.
20
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0022.png
-
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
69
.
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.
69
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).
21
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0023.png
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
70
.
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.
70
See Commission’s Report on the implementation and application of Directive (EU) 2019/1937, of 3rd July
2024.
22
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0024.png
-
Political party and political campaign financing
Transparency in political party financing helps prevent undue influence, as well as promote
democratic accountability
71
.
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
72
.
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
71
72
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).
23
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0025.png
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)
73
, 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
74
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)
75
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)
76
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
73
74
75
76
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.
24
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0026.png
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
77
, 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
77
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.
25
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0027.png
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
78
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
79
, 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
80
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
78
79
80
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.
26
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
27
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0029.png
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)
81
, Ombudspersons
82
, 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
81
82
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.
28
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0030.png
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
83
.
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
84
.
83
84
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.
29
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
30
EUU, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 619: Kommissionens årlige rapport om retsstatssituationen i EU
3051235_0032.png
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
85
.
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
85
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.
31
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.
A
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.
32
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.
33
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.
34