19 november 2025
Policy updates
World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Rankings: overall decline for EU Member States
The World Justice Project’s 2025 Rule of Law Index has revealed that in over two-thirds of EU Member States, adherence to the rule of law has declined in the last year. Slovakia and Hungary displayed a marked decrease in score, with Hungary declining on all eight assessed factors. This index ranks countries on their performance in eight core areas, including the absence of corruption, adherence to fundamental rights, criminal justice and regulatory enforcement. In contrast, several northern Europe countries were placed at the top of the global rankings, with Denmark revealed as the best adherer to the rule of law in the world. Poland is also considered to have improved since the last assessment.
Liberals in the EU Parliament call for Bulgaria to lose EU funding over rule of law violations
In Bulgaria, the recent arrest and detention of the Mayor of Varna, Blagomir Kotsev has led to condemnation of the state of the rule of law in the country, leading to calls for EU funding to be withdrawn. The arrest occurred shortly before a municipal budget vote. Renew Europe notes that the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Anti-Corruption Commission have increasingly been utilised as tools to supress political opposition in Bulgaria. Moreover, Eurobar statistics on the perceived independence of the judiciary ranks Bulgaria at below 30%.
Adjacent to this, criticism has ensued in association with Borislav Sarafov’s tenure as Acting Prosecutor General of Bulgaria. Bulgarian law states that an acting prosecutor cannot perform these temporary duties for more than 6 months, thus the extension of his role was in circumvention of procedural law. Whilst the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that Sarafov’s powers ceased after the 6-month limit of his role (21st July 2025), his appointment remains in effect.
Violence against Judges
Earlier this year, the ECHR recalled that personal attacks on judges as a result of their decision making are attacks on the integrity and independence of the judiciary, and thus on the rule of law itself. Whilst their comment followed from the delivery of conclusions of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina in June 2025, recent events in Albania leave these comments once again resounding.
On 6 October 2025, Judge Astrit Kalaja was shot in the Tirana Court of Appeals in Albania, resulting in his death. The alleged perpetrator was involved in a long-standing property dispute before the Court. This attack has led to urgent calls by the International Commission for Jurists for an effective and independent investigation into the incident. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE in Tirana added that ‘attacks on judges are a direct attack on the rule of law and democratic institutions’.
CJEU judgments
Administrative need as justification for relocation of judges
This preliminary ruling unified 5 requests from Poland on the interpretation of Article 19(1) paragraph 2 TEU read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). The circumstances of the case involved the appointment of approximately 20 judges of the Supreme Court to sit in the Civil Chamber for three months without their consent or prior consultation, and without the issuance of reasons for this decision.
The officials who had placed the judges in these temporary positions were themselves appointed irregularly to the Supreme Court. However, the CJEU found that the fact that the individuals responsible for relocating the applicants were appointed under conditions incompatible with Article 19(1) TEU did not alone lead to the conclusion that the judicial panels they formulated themselves non-independent.
The judgment found that the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that the president of a national court is not precluded from temporarily assigning judges to a different court, including one dealing with matters beyond the judge’s specialisation and where no recourse to appeal the decision is available, so long as there are legitimate reasons of proper administration present and there is legal basis for the decision. This is the case so long as the assignment is temporary, does not result in the judges being removed from the cases they are responsible for, and does not call in to question the judges’ assignment to their chambers of origin. The Court also took in to consideration the fact that this relocation did not appear to be targeting specific judges who had criticized the Polish judicial reforms.
Whether higher courts bind lower courts, where the former lacks adequate impartiality
This preliminary ruling arose from proceedings in Poland, where the Supreme Court of Poland had set aside an appeal brought by the Prosecutor General of Poland. The crux of the matter pertained to the ability of a lower court to assess the independence and impartiality of a higher court, where the CJEU had already ruled that there were inadequacies in the independence of this higher court.
The CJEU was tasked with ruling on the meaning of the second sub-paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU in light of Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of primacy of EU law. It interpreted this as precluding legislation and case law of a Member State which requires a national court to comply with a decision of a higher court, where this higher court has been deemed by a decision of the Court of Justice to fail to meet the requirements of independence, impartiality and compliance with previously established law. National law may not prevent the lower court from verifying the regularity of these judges on the basis of the same factors as were taken into consideration by the CJEU. Therefore, any decision of a judicial body of last resort which fails to meet these requirements, referring the case back to a lower court for re-examination, has no legal effect.
Whether the Commission was correct to grant Hungary funding, despite rule of law deficiencies
This hearing concerned the Commission’s decision to approve Hungarian funding programs of a value of more than €2 billion, despite deficiencies in the Hungarian judicial system in terms of respect for the rule of law and the principle of judicial impartiality. The European Parliament brought an action against this decision, seeking its annulment. They highlighted that one aspect of Hungary’s rule of law deficiencies is a points system for judicial appointment which prioritizes those coming from the executive branch.
Before a suspension of funds can be lifted under the Common Provisions Regulation 2021, it must be established that the Charter Horizontal Enabling Condition is fulfilled. In the European Parliament’s action -originally brought in 2024- they alleged that the Commission had made a manifest error of assessment), had failed to state its reasons for the decision, and had misused its powers. This third plea alleged that the decision the Commission had made was ‘a trade-off for Hungary lifting its veto over certain urgent decisions that required unanimity in the European Council’.
In this hearing, the Parliament drew attention to the fact that the Commission had rejected a decision in relation to Hungarian access to funds under the RRF on the basis of outstanding rule of law concerns, whilst, on the same day, lifting the suspension of funds under the Common Provisions Regulation on the basis of apparent compliance with the rule of law. The Commission responded that this could be explained by the differing legislative requirements to fulfil these respective provisions and warded against infringing on the state’s margin of appreciation in an manner resembling to a judicial “micro- regulator”. The Advocate General opinion is expected in February 2026 and the judgment thereafter.
ECtHR judgments
Lack of perceived impartiality of the Court
This case concerned the impartiality of a tribunal of an Albanian Constitutional Court, whose judges had adjudicated a case, as members of the Supreme Court in 2012, and once again participated in the constitutional proceedings in 2017. The case concerned property rights after the annulment of a property restitution decision.
By the nature of their adjudicative role, the judges effectively decided whether they themselves had contributed to the breach of the applicants’ constitutional rights. The Court found that the composition of the Court created an objectively justified fear of partiality. The Court therefore found that structural deficiencies in the Court’s composition constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 ECHR. In coming to this conclusion, the Court noted that two of the judges’ tenures had ended more than 15 months before the adjudication of the applicants’ case, however, their successors were only appointed 3.5 and 4.5 years later, respectively.
Procedural safeguards for intercepted phone calls used in court
This case concerned the right to a fair hearing (Article 6 ECHR). An applicant’s trial statements were deemed unreliable due to the unlawful means by which evidence was obtained – through secret telephone surveillance. The Court found that the reasoning justifying this secret surveillance was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable, therefore concluding that Article 6 had not been violated. Because the Estonian court had only limited access to the full transcripts of the intercepted telephone calls, this served as a procedural safeguard. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant had the capability to challenge the use and content of these intercepted telephone calls in a thorough and non-arbitrary manner further restricted the infringement on the right to a fair hearing. Additionally, the Court took into account that these reports were not decisive for the outcome of the proceedings.
Effective remedies and judicial appointment
This case concerned a former judge who, after serving in the Government, applied to return to the judiciary once his governmental mandate had ended. His request was rejected by the President of the Republic of Lithuania. When the applicant challenged this decision, the domestic courts refused to hear the case, reasoning that the appointment and reappointment of judges were matters solely within the discretion of the President. The Strasbourg Court held that this refusal deprived the applicant of an effective legal avenue to contest the decision, thus violating Article 6 § 1 (the right of access to a court). Furthermore, the Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the total absence of judicial oversight over the President’s decision.
Impartiality in the context of disciplinary hearings
In this case, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in respect of an disciplinary investigation into a prosecutor of Athens Court of Appeal. A disciplinary investigation was brought by The President of the Court of Cassation because Ms Tsatani had terminated criminal investigations. However, this disciplinary investigation and the surrounding activities of the President of the Court of Cassation jeapardised the impartiality of the hearing. Specifically, the proceedings were announced in parliament, despite being confidential and disclosed in the form of a press release. The leader of the investigation personally dismissed Tsatani’s motion of recusal against her, claiming it was ‘abuse of process’ and further scrutiny of Tsatani’s allegations against VT were not addressed by the disciplinary tribunal. The Court found that VT’s statement was in itself incompatible with the notion of an ‘independent and impartial tribunal’. Therefore, the proceedings violated Article 6 § 1.
Lack of assessment as to the legitimacy of sanctions imposed by Ukraine
This case concerns financial sanctions placed upon the applicant company under the Ukrainian Sanctions Act, and the lack of means to challenge these measures. Sanctions were placed on organizations deemed to threaten Ukraine’s national interests and security. The Court considered whether the legal basis for the imposition of sanctions met the “quality of law” requirement, in terms of precision and foreseeability. The Court found that the measures towards the applicant company were not sufficiently reasoned. The Court noted that even when national security is at stake, the rule of law requires that independent review mechanisms must always be possible where fundamental rights are at stake. A lack of ability to challenge the government’s decree that national security was at stake is tantamount to the arbitrary encroachment on Convention rights. Thus, as the Ukrainian judiciary failed to examine the legitimacy of the basis of the measures against the applicant company, there were inadequate guarantees against arbitrariness. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy). In coming to this decision, the Court took into account the six-year delay in which no court had assessed the legitimacy of the sanctions imposed on the applicant.
