The professor and principal investigator of the “Crisis of the Rule of Law in the EU” project, Susana Sanz, has published both an article and a column addressing various issues related to the current state of the rule of law in the EU.
In the article published in the Revista Española de Derecho Europeo, Susana Sanz analyzes the first case the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has dealt with regarding the violation of judicial independence in Croatia, starting with the precedent of the Portuguese judges’ case concerning judicial independence, the rule of law, and effective judicial protection. The study introduces the general issues affecting the Croatian judiciary, a system that is not highly trusted according to surveys, nor does it stand out in the European Commission’s Justice Scoreboard.
Building on this, the article delves into the analysis of the Hann Invest et al ruling, which addresses three consolidated cases known by the Croatian High Commercial Court, which raised doubts about their compatibility with EU law, particularly with Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Similarly, Prof. Sanz Caballero offers a parallel analysis of the Advocate General’s conclusions and the CJEU’s ruling, focusing on the Court’s jurisdiction, the admissibility of the case, and the substance of the matter. One of the main conclusions is that, unlike the Advocate General, who did not consider the case admissible or found any violation of the TEU, the CJEU ruling establishes the opposite. Additionally, the judgment’s constructive tone stands out, showing a clear example of judicial activism as it instructs Croatian authorities on how to reform their procedural system, which is considered incompatible with European Union law.
Link to the article: https://www.revistasmarcialpons.es/revistaespanoladerechoeuropeo/article/view/sanz-era-cuestion-de-tiempo
In the column published in Las Provincias, Professor Sanz reflects on the concerning parallelism between recent political decisions in Spain and the United States, two democracies that, despite the ideological differences of their current executives, show disturbing similarities in their relationship with the rule of law.
In it, she highlights how the use of pardons as a political tool has become a recurring practice on both sides of the Atlantic. In Spain, the government has pardoned and promoted the amnesty of those who violated the constitutional order, even allowing them to vote on their own exoneration, an evident conflict of interest that undermines equality before the law.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Prof. Susana Sanz refers to outgoing President Joe Biden, who granted a presidential pardon to his own son despite having repeatedly denied he would do so, and issued a preventive pardon to all his close relatives, despite no charges against them. She also discusses Donald Trump, who began his new term with a wave of executive orders, including the controversial mass pardon of over 1,500 people convicted for the Capitol assault in 2021, many of whom were sentenced for violent crimes. Both uses of the presidential pardon appear to respond more to political interests than to reasons of justice.
The article points out that such events jeopardize fundamental principles such as the separation of powers, legal certainty, and respect for judicial decisions.
As part of her participation in the Yuste Campus summer course titled “The Protection of Common Values in the European Union” Professor Susana Sanz has contributed an article entitled “The Decline of the Rule of Law in the European Union: Proposals for Solutions” to the latest issue of Pliegos de Yuste. In her piece, Professor Sanz highlights the growing challenges to the fundamental principles and elements that underpin the Rule of Law. She notes that this trend is also evident within the European Union, leading to a broader crisis—particularly a crisis of values. The article focuses on analyzing various strategies to counteract this decline, emphasizing legal, diplomatic, and structural measures.
Some of the legal proposals discussed in the article include encouraging the strategic use and expansion of infringement proceedings, enabling the European Commission and EU Member States to take action when another State violates Union law. It also advocates for the increased use of inter-state complaints before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to report fundamental rights and Rule of Law violations. Another recommendation is the mandatory ratification of Protocol 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to allow for preventive judicial consultations. Diplomatic measures suggested include diplomatic boycotts, restricting high-level visits, using the European Parliament as a platform to expose misconduct, and suspending the six-month rotating presidency of the Council for States that fail to uphold democratic principles.
The article also explores initiatives aimed at raising public awareness of the importance of the Rule of Law. These include the creation of an Erasmus program for adults and professionals, a support fund for organizations defending the Rule of Law, and an inter-institutional ethics body. Finally, Professor Sanz reflects on the possibility of granting binding status to the opinions of the Venice Commission and the EU’s annual Rule of Law report, as well as the potential establishment of a mechanism for expelling Member States that systematically violate the Union’s fundamental values.
Link to the article: https://www.fundacionyuste.org/pliegosdeyuste24/
