What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P10_TA(2026)0147

on theThe Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report

(2025/2239(INI))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

PE779.664

European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 on the Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report (2025/2239(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2018 on the need for a comprehensive EU mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 3 April 2019 entitled 'Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union – State of play and possible next steps' (COM(2019)163),(COM(2019)0163),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 17 July 2019 entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union - A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343),

– having regard to its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report,

– having regard to Directive (EU)a XXXXDirective 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,

– having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2021 on the creation of guidelines for the application of the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget,

12. Recalls the need to guarantee the autonomy of the prosecution service, thereby preventing any political interference in its work; calls on the Member States to further strengthen safeguards to ensure the impartiality of prosecutors, in light of the varying structures of national prosecution services; urges them to advance reforms in line with the recommendations of the 2025 Rule of Law Report, including enhanced protections for judicial independence and the autonomy of prosecutors in the context of parliamentary inquiries, as well as measures such as decoupling the term of office of the Prosecutor General from that of the Government; calls on the Commission to review the reforms implemented in this regard and to monitor their effectiveness; calls for disciplinary procedures for judges and prosecutors to be reformed to preclude their use by political authorities to exert control over the judiciary, and to ensure that they are handled by independent bodies;

13. Condemns the misuse of the judicial system for political purposes, including the persecution of political opponents and interference in corruption investigations; stresses that politically motivated prosecutions undermine public trust in constitutional principles and EU standards; highlights the importance of guaranteeing the autonomy and independence of the prosecution service, thereby preventing any political interference in its work, especially from the government; highlights the role of transparent appointment processes for prosecutors as a key factor in maintaining public confidence in criminal justice; condemns the abuse of amnesties and pardons for the benefit of politicians, as it threatens the principle of equality before the law; highlights its concern about repeated attacks on judges and prosecutors who are conducting high-profile political investigations linked to cases of corruption and abuse of power perpetrated against political opponents;

14. Stresses the important role of the national councils of the judiciary in safeguarding judicial independence, as they serve as a buffer between the judiciary and other branches of power, including in matters such as appointments, career development, and justice system management;

68. Welcomes initiatives to promote free, independent and pluralistic media, such as the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA); regrets, however, that in most Member States the EMFA remains far from being effectively implemented; calls on the Member States to immediately fulfil their obligations to ensure its swift and full implementation, including transparency in the allocation of state advertising online and offline, and the safeguarding of media pluralism and editorial independence; calls on the Commission to provide support to Member States in transposing the EMFA into national law, monitor its implementation, and consider infringement proceedings where obligations are not met; calls on the Commission to actively assist Member States in the application of the EMFA, including through the adoption of interpretative guidelines where necessary, and to closely monitor its effective enforcement, in particular in Member States where independent sources have raised media freedom concerns; stresses that, given the direct applicability of the Regulation, journalists and stakeholders are already entitled to invoke it before national and EU courts;

69. Calls on the Member States and candidate countries to ensure the protection of journalists and other media professionals in the EU in line with Commission recommendations (EU) 2021/1534 and (EU) 2022/758 ; underlines that the protection of journalists must encompass not only effective physical safety measures, but also safeguards against online threats, harassment and digital attacks, as well as access to information without undue barriers;

70. Condemns hate speech, both online and offline, including in the mainstream media, on social media and in public spaces, as it constitutes a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law; calls for stronger enforcement of media regulations to safeguard a diverse and inclusive media landscape; underlines that public figures must lead by example in ensuring respectful debate; recalls that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and should not be unjustifiably restricted; stresses that freedom of expression must not be used to justify hate speech or hate crimes; calls on the Member States to repeal or amend legislation that is not in line with European and international standards regarding freedom of expression and public debate;

111. Highlights that the lack of progress towards community-based services for persons with disabilities raises serious concerns regarding compliance with fundamental rights obligations;

112. Reiterates the obligation of Member States to respect EU and international law in the field of migration and asylum on land and at sea; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that migration and asylum policies, including the Pact on Migration and Asylum, are implemented in full compliance with the Charter, the principle of non-refoulment and the principle of responsibility-sharing to ensure that people’s rights to asylum and international protection are upheld; reiterates that practices such as stopping asylum seekers and forcibly returning them to the country they entered from without carrying out an individual assessment, arbitrary detention and obstruction of humanitarian aid are contrary to EU and international law;

113. Calls on Member States to implement migration and asylum policies in full compliance with the Treaties, the Charter and applicable international law; stresses that all persons on EU territory are entitled to respect for their human dignity, must not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, and are equal before the law without discrimination on any grounds, including nationality or migration status;

197. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

As Rapporteur of the own-initiative report on the Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report, I have sought to respond to the political priority expressed by the majority of the political groups in the LIBE Committee, as well as to the Commission’s request to issue our annual report earlier than in previous years. The accelerated timeline of the draft report has made it challenging to balance a thorough analysis with the constraints of a compressed drafting process.

In light of these constraints, I have chosen to concentrate on the overarching calls made in each chapter and to highlight key areas where the Commission’s reporting could be further strengthened.

I have deliberately refrained from naming specific Member States. This represents a significant concession on my part, as the Left Group has consistently advocated for explicitly identifying countries in reports and motions of the European Parliament when breaches of the rule of law, democracy, or fundamental rights occur. We firmly believe that providing concrete examples is essential for accountability and for demonstrating that all Member States are held to the same standards, without prejudice or regard to their position within the Union. However, the increasing influence of national politics in today’s Parliament makes it extremely difficult to reach an objective and non-partisan agreement among political groups if specific Member States were named. In order to ensure that the report remains as consensual and broadly supported as possible, I have decided not to name specific Member States in the draft report.

My main priority has been to uphold long-standing commitments of the European Parliament, including reaffirming the intrinsic link between the rule of law and fundamental rights, and ensuring the involvement of a network of independent experts in the Commission’s reporting process. Such an approach is essential to depoliticise the assessment, prevent critical issues from being overlooked, and ensure that emerging trends are clearly and consistently articulated.

Other priorities include the protection of journalists and civil society organisations; addressing fundamental rights violations facilitated or linked to the use of EU funds in some Member States; and ensuring the thorough, impartial and timely investigation of corruption cases, with particular priority given to those involving high-level officials, as a means to safeguard the rule of law and public trust in democratic institutions. Finally, EU institutions themselves must fully respect their obligations regarding the rule of law. Assessing their adherence to the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU — including the Union’s internal coherence in upholding these values across its policies and external actions — is indispensable to maintaining the EU’s credibility and legitimacy.

In this context, it is equally essential to reinforce the role of economic and social rights within the Union’s rule-of-law framework. A credible assessment of the state of the rule of law cannot overlook the profound impact that housing insecurity, unequal access to essential services and deepening social inequalities have on people’s ability to exercise their fundamental rights. When individuals cannot afford adequate housing, live in precarious conditions or face systemic barriers to social protection, their equal treatment before the law becomes theoretical rather than real. A holistic, people-centred approach to the rule of law must therefore address the structural socio-economic conditions that weaken democratic participation and undermine trust in public institutions.

I am also very concerned about the normalisation of racist narratives in public discourse, including by political actors and public authorities. Such rhetoric undermines equality before the law, fuels discrimination and hostility against racialised communities, and creates conditions in which individuals are unable to exercise their fundamental rights without fear or intimidation. Tackling racism and discriminatory narratives must therefore form an integral part of the Union’s rule-of-law agenda.

Ultimately, the goal of all EU institutions must be to provide an assessment of the situation of the rule of law across the EU that is objective, credible and shielded from party-political influences. I am deeply concerned about the growing risk of rule of law backsliding in several Member States, particularly in the context of the rise of far-right narratives and the increasing securitisation of public policy. At such a moment, it is essential that our evaluations remain firmly grounded in evidence, law and fundamental rights, rather than shaped by political convenience. Only by ensuring that our work is independent, rigorous and non-politicised can we maintain the credibility and legitimacy of the Union’s rule-of-law framework.

I intend to table amendments introducing recitals analysing general trends in the Member States. These recitals are designed to complement the operative part of the report by identifying patterns, emerging risks and systemic challenges, thereby reinforcing the analytical basis for our recommendations.

Through this approach, the draft report aims to combine timely political engagement with concrete proposals to enhance the effectiveness, transparency and impact of the Commission’s reporting, thereby contributing to a more robust and coherent rule-of-law framework within the European Union.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in her report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention