Whether infringement procedures are suitable to enforce the EU’s foundational values is contested. According to critics, they lead to a miscategorisation of the problems because rule of law concerns are reframed as concrete EU law violations. Others see infringement procedures as a powerful alternative to the Article 7 procedure, stressing their potential to depoliticise rule of law-related conflicts. As we still lack systematic studies on the deployment and effects of infringement procedures in rule of law related cases, this chapter analyses all seven procedures with rule of law relevance launched against Hungary since 2010. It analyses whether the Commission indeed miscategorised the cases and how the Hungarian government reacted legally and rhetorically. The findings cast doubt on the premises that the procedures depoliticise the conflicts and that the correct categorisation of rule of law problems could induce compliance with the EU’s foundational values.
In response to noncompliance with the EU's fundamental values such as democracy and the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, the EU Commission has established the Justice Scoreboard, the Rule of Law Framework and the Rule of Law Mechanism. Moreover, the Commission has proposed linking the disbursement of funds to respect for the rule of law (Rule of Law conditionality). However, the deployment of these measures has not restored compliance. Drawing on the two dominant approaches in compliance studies, the management approach and the enforcement approach, this paper argues that with the exception of Rule of Law conditionality, the Commission's tools are characterized by a mismatch between the causes of the problems identified and the solutions chosen. Instead of sanctioning voluntary noncompliance, they rely on soft measures, which are recommended in cases of involuntary noncompliance, but which are not suitable in cases of deliberate noncompliance.
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in infringement procedures as a tool against dismantling the rule of law and democracy in Member States of the European Union (EU). Against this background, this article analyses all seven rule of law-related infringement procedures against Hungary since 2010. It examines how the European Commission justified the opening of the procedures and how the Hungarian government reacted legally and in its public communications. While it has been suggested that infringement procedures would lead to a miscategorisation of rule of law problems, this contribution shows that in the majority of cases, the Commission made clear references to democracy and the rule of law. Nevertheless, the procedures could not dissuade the Hungarian government from its controversial reforms, nor were they able to depoliticise the conflicts over EU foundational values.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.