Author: Tony Venables, Founder, ECIT Foundation
Should parliamentarians propose behavioral guidelines for the judiciary? Occasionally yes, since no institution is immune from legitimate scrutiny. However, respect for judicial independence and the separation of powers must remain an exception. When politicians criticise the administration of justice, it often marks a dangerous first step toward autocratic rule. In the European Union, public confidence relies on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the ultimate, independent guarantor against political interference and corporate lobbying.
Alarm bells rang when a draft report by MEP Charlie Weimers appeared on the agenda of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), titled “on the institutional framework of the EU and its interaction with national authorities in the application of Union law, with particular reference to Article 19 TEU.” We alerted The Good Lobby, which swiftly published an analysis by Professor Alberto Alemanno on the Verfassungsblog. As Alemanno rightly notes, the report fundamentally puts into question the ordinary citizen’s guarantee that an independent CJEU remains the court of last resort against national violations of EU-conferred rights.
By calling for Article 2 TEU values to explicitly prioritize the “national identities of the Member States,” the draft report aims to restrict citizens’ ability to appeal to Luxembourg against national breaches of the rule of law or fundamental European rights. Crucially, Article 19 TEU is the very cornerstone that empowers the CJEU to hold captured or compromised national judiciaries accountable. Undermining this framework strips mobile citizens of their shield against local overreach, turning EU citizenship rights into mere empty promises.
The report further argues against a “de facto centralisation of judicial authority” and demands a formal dialogue procedure between European and national courts, implying the balance has tilted dangerously toward Luxembourg. Yet anyone familiar with EU citizenship case law knows this portrayal is false. The CJEU consistently weighs Member State arguments, often upholding national prerogatives while carefully striking a balance to protect mobile European citizens from unnecessarily restrictive barriers. Court proceedings are already an exercise in ongoing dialogue and delicate balance.
At the AFCO public hearing on 15 July, the sharp divide over the Court’s constitutional role became clear. Supporters framed the report as a push for transparency and institutional safeguards. Opponents correctly warned that mixing procedural transparency with substantive limits on the Court’s authority risks undermining judicial independence, compromising the supremacy of EU law, and eroding the rule of law. Among the invited experts, former Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston acknowledged that while the CJEU should remain open to constructive scrutiny, reforms must never undermine its foundational role in safeguarding the EU legal order.
Combining issues of internal transparency with substantive restrictions on judicial power damages credibility; especially when the draft report itself lacks evidentiary backing for its general allegations. True transparency is always welcome, but it must start with a basic goal completely overlooked by both the report and the hearing: making the CJEU’s judgments far clearer and more accessible to the general public.
As this draft report makes its way through the Parliamentary process ahead of upcoming committee votes this autumn, MEPs who value European democracy and fundamental rights must step up. Now is the time to table counter-proposals and push back against this attempt to weaken our legal protections before it reaches the plenary stage.