Skip to main content

For the EU, Rights Should Matter as Much at Home as Abroad

The European Union needs a more robust strategy to tackle rights abuses within its borders

Published in: European Voice

It felt like a real breakthrough. In June EU justice and home affairs ministers collectively acknowledged, for the first time ever, that more is needed to ensure that human rights violations in EU member states are adequately addressed. The ministers asked the European Commission to “take forward the debate” on ways to tackle challenges to,“in particular the rule of law and the fundamental rights of persons in the Union.”

Finally some momentum, after years of struggle to secure a meaningful EU response to a growing body of work by Human Rights Watch and others pointing to serious human rights abuses in EU member states. They range from mistreatment of migrants to xenophobic violence to discrimination against Roma to abusive police sweeps and ethnic profiling, and the list goes on. Even in cases in which EU institutions do take action – such as Hungary’s systematic efforts to undermine the rule of law and human rights, and France’s abusive expulsions of Roma – problems persist while the EU appears to have washed its hands.

Today, as the Commission convenes a high-level conference (21-22 November) billed as “an important opportunity to generate thoughts and ideas,” including on the question of EU internal rights enforcement, the situation doesn’t look as hopeful.

Somehow along the way, “fundamental rights” have been dropped from the equation. It seems increasingly like the Commission is working toward a new enforcement mechanism focused exclusively on safeguarding the rule of law, to be triggered only by the most extreme and systemic cases of “rule of law crisis.” One EU official told me this was to put member states at ease by making them feel that it could never apply to them.  

Rule of law is a core pillar of the EU with a rightful place in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). But that same article lists other values: human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and respect for human rights. This long overdue debate should not lose sight of its original purpose, or there is a real risk that the debate becomes an abstract one, removed from the reality it is meant to address – the abusive policies and practices that continue to occur in EU member states, with actual consequences suffered by actual victims.

The last thing the EU needs is another mechanism that looks nice on paper, but is never used. This is, after all, widely acknowledged to be the problem with the EU’s most powerful enforcement mechanism. Under article 7 TEU, a member state risks sanctions, including suspension of voting rights, for serious and persistent breaches of the values enumerated in article 2. The treaty also allows article 7 to be invoked preventatively, in situations where there is a risk of such abuses. But in practice the bar is set so high for support among member states and the European Parliament that action under article 7 is virtually impossible, earning it the telling nickname, “nuclear option”. While the idea for a new “rule of law mechanism” is apparently that it could be triggered by the Commission alone, the very narrow scope and high threshold contemplated for it suggest that it may hardly fare any better.

What the EU does need, urgently, is the political will to give real meaning to the full set of values listed in article 2, in a way that brings about actual results. As EU ministers made clear in their June statement, initiatives to improve scrutiny of and accountability for rights violations should have “a real positive impact on the lives of ordinary persons.”

This is the key message of a joint statement issued in August by Human Rights Watch and 47 colleague organizations which make up the Human Rights and Democracy Network (HRDN). The statement also put forward concrete suggestions for steps EU institutions and member states could take right away to enhance rights protection within the Union.

The Commission, for example, should make better use of an existing tool, infringement proceedings, and sustain them until the problems they were designed to address have been fully resolved. The Council Working Party on Fundamental Rights and Free Movement of Persons (FREMP), a forum where member states can discuss human rights challenges, should more fully embrace its mandate and engage systematically with other relevant actors – the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Parliament, nongovernmental organizations, and rights authorities in the Council of Europe and the United Nations – and ensure adequate follow-up on their findings.

But to make the most of the current momentum, the EU should use as inspiration last year’s landmark adoption by EU foreign ministers of an EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, which pledged to promote human rights across all areas of the EU’s external actions, “without exception,” and come up with a comprehensive internal human rights strategy that mirrors its external strategic framework, with a corresponding action plan to guide collective EU action. The ambition for effective rights promotion and enforcement within the EU’s borders should be no lower than for external relations.

This imperative, not abstract principles or political expediency, should guide this week’s deliberations.

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

Topic