2022 report on the rule of law principle

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the Committee on the Constitution, we have reviewed the EU Commission's third report on the rule of law principle. Based on this review, there is reason to emphasize the importance of respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law as such. The Committee appreciates the EU Commission's – if I may say so – diligent work in promoting and following up on these issues. I wish to move for approval of the proposal in the report from the Committee on the Constitution to submit the report to the records.

The questions regarding the principles of the rule of law have been prioritized by several EU presidencies even previously, and they need to be constantly followed up and taken most seriously.

What may in many ways have been self-evident is no longer. Authoritarian leadership and polarizing rhetoric have come to bring these questions to a head in European cooperation.

The European Commission's position remains constant. For my part, I have participated in a number of seminars and meetings where Commissioner Didier Reynders has emphasized the importance of these issues becoming part of every member state's parliament and that initiatives are taken to strengthen trust and confidence in democratic and societal institutions and the importance of a free press and independent courts.

The Social Democratic-led government's EU Minister Hans Dahlgren was proactive in the issues surrounding the so-called conditionality regulation for the protection of the Union budget, and one of the instruments for monitoring is precisely the annual review of how each respective member state meets the starting points. This has, among other things, resulted in a number of tightened requirements from the EU Commission, one of the tools of which is to withhold EU funds.

2022 Report on the Rule of Law Principle

The regulation entered into force on 1 January 2021. Two countries, Hungary and Poland, brought their respective actions against the Court of Justice of the EU to have the regulation declared invalid. In February 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU dismissed this action in its entirety, and in April, the Commission initiated a procedure against Hungary in accordance with the regulation. The corrective measures proposed by Hungary were not considered fully appropriate to address the problems. Hungary must therefore, moving forward, repeatedly inform the Commission about the implementation of the measures.

Previous presidencies in the Council, such as Germany and the Czech Republic, have also monitored and followed up on these issues. Continued strong leadership in this area is required, and it is of importance that current and future presidencies continue this work. The Swedish presidency emphasizes democratic values and the rule of law principle - our foundation - as one of the priority issues. It is welcome and needs to be emphasized. I also noted that Foreign Minister Tobias Billström - I believe it was yesterday - emphasized this precisely in discussions regarding measures against Hungary.

Popular anchoring, awareness, and broad knowledge of democracy, human freedoms and rights, and equality is a prerequisite. It is about trust in and confidence in our societal systems. It is of great importance that the issues continue to be highlighted and monitored in this way.

In focus for the report we are dealing with today are the judiciary, regulatory frameworks for combating corruption, the media's diversity and independence, as well as other institutional issues concerning checks and balances. National human rights organizations, ombudsmen, equality bodies, and other independent agencies fulfill important functions.

For the Swedish part, institutions such as the Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, as well as the Council on Legislation and also the Riksdag's oversight bodies towards the government, in this case the Committee on the Constitution, can be highlighted.

The Commission's report shows, however, that there are problems in these areas in several of the Member States. In line with previous years, the report addresses developments within four pillars: the judiciary, regulatory frameworks for combating corruption, media diversity and independence, and other institutional issues concerning checks and balances. The examples provided are taken from the assessments in the 27 country chapters with accompanying recommendations for each country.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden stands strong in the comparisons, even though there are, of course, also areas that particularly need to be addressed in our country as well. In the chapter on Sweden, the commission states that a parliamentarially appointed committee has been appointed with the task of working on how the independence of the Swedish judiciary can be further strengthened, and regarding corruption, the commission states that the perceived corruption in Sweden, similar to previous years, is among the lowest in the EU. Certain legal provisions are also being reviewed in this area. Infiltration of organized crime into public administration and the legal economy is highlighted as a cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker! The EU Commission has put forward four recommendations for the Swedish part.

The first is that the committee investigating strengthened protection for democracy and the independence of the judiciary should be allowed to continue its work, taking into account European norms.

The second recommendation focuses on the scope, effects, and implementation of quarantine rules for persons in leadership positions. It is argued that quarantine rules for persons in leadership positions in the state as a whole have a limited scope.

The Commission also notes that lobbying activities in Sweden remain unregulated. Corruption abroad also continues to be a problem area with only a moderate level of prosecution. And according to the Commission, there is some review to be done regarding the legal definition of the phenomenon.

Regarding freedom of the media and media diversity, the legal framework stands strong. Swedish journalists are said to have perhaps the most favorable working conditions in the world. However, it is noted that harassment, hate, and threats online have increased, and work is ongoing to further strengthen protection, not least for particularly vulnerable professional groups – journalists, civil servants, and others in similar positions.

Overall, the committee considers that the issues raised in the commission's observations and recommendations to Sweden are important and wishes to particularly emphasize the importance of preventing and countering corruption and undue influence.

That there is a great trust among citizens and in society for the political processes, the decision-making bodies, and the public administration is a central issue for democracy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! President Putin does not like chess. These words were uttered by the world chess champion and regime critic Garry Kasparov during a briefing before the 2011 Russian presidential election. The explanation came shortly thereafter. In chess, there are fixed rules and an uncertain result determined by the players' competence, ability, timing, and possibly a touch of luck. In Putin's Russia, the result is fixed and the rules are uncertain. They are determined by competence, ability, timing, and luck for the participants, but they guarantee that the regime's result is achieved.

In all its simplicity, this statement perhaps points precisely to what is crucial in this debate, namely the importance of the principles of the rule of law. Only in a state governed by the rule of law can a citizen be creative, take initiative, and contribute to society's development without risk. Through the rule of law, one knows the conditions, and that provides security. And then one dares to be innovative. The rule of law is therefore an essential prerequisite for our society.

It is precisely the question of the rule of law that stands at the center of the report that we are now debating with the bureaucratic name Commission Communication 2022 Report on the Rule of Law Principle - The Situation Regarding the Rule of Law Principle in the EU.

Mr. Speaker! What do we mean then by the rule of law principle? It appears from the document that the EU is and wants to be a values-based union built on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights - the combination of laws that guarantee fundamental rights for citizens and organizations and a justice system that guarantees that the laws are interpreted and applied fairly and impartially. No party's rights are subordinated, and no party's interests are placed ahead of anyone else's interests. The principles of the rule of law are what guarantee equal conditions and equal prerequisites throughout the union.

In recent days, we have seen how people in Israel are protesting against changes in the laws that shift the balance in the rule of law. The situation in Israel perhaps reminds us that we sometimes take things for granted that we should not take for granted, and therefore the protests can well be said to address the fundamentals of democracy.

The report does not aim to point out any country as being responsible for abuses of the rule of law; there are other instruments for that. Instead, it is intended to serve as an eye-opener or a warning signal if developments are heading in the wrong direction. In this way, it shall promote positive development and possibly be able to prevent the type of discussions that have taken place in Israel.

The analysis takes its starting point in four central principles for the rule of law's functioning: the judiciary's function, regulatory frameworks for combating corruption, the media's diversity and independence, and institutional issues concerning control and counterweights – or checks and balances, as it is usually called in English-language literature.

Mr. Speaker! It is quite easy to agree with these principles and their importance for a functioning rule of law. I want to highlight two of the points addressed in the report.

First comes the fight against corruption, where the report points to a seeming contradiction. While most European countries are judged to be relatively spared from corruption, seven out of ten citizens perceive that the countries' political systems in different parts and to varying extents are subject to corruption. It is good that citizens are attentive to corruption, but I believe it also leads to increased suspicion and thus possibly an increased belief that the corruption is greater than it actually is. Control falls with vigilant and suspicious citizens – citizens who must enjoy both freedom of opinion and expression as well as access to free media.

The second point I want to highlight is this matter of checks and balances. I perhaps want to do that most because it is not so common in Sweden to discuss balancing points – even though we were early with it when we established the Parliamentary Ombudsmen as a special function to audit the government. The Instrument of Government of 1809 was largely based on precisely control and counterweight between the Riksdag and what was then the King and today is the government. The significance of this can hardly be overestimated, either historically or in today's situation.

Mr. Speaker! Does Sweden then escape criticism in the report? Well, no criticism is directed, but recommendations are given, which has already been described by my committee colleague here. It is about us having to consider European norms for the independence of the judiciary and that we should review quarantine rules for leading figures in state service. The fight against bribes abroad should be intensified, and the funding of civil society organizations shall not unduly affect the engagement.

These are recommendations that point to a potential for improvement and which can, of course, strengthen democracy. There is every reason to adopt these recommendations in the same way as we assume all member states will adopt the recommendations in the report. If the principles of the rule of law are strengthened throughout the union, we will indeed get both better rules in Sweden and a reinforced, just, and democratic European Union.

Mr. Speaker! Kasparov taught us that this is important, and we shall listen and learn from the report. It is therefore very positive that there is a unanimous opinion from KU regarding the report on the principles of the rule of law. The rule of law is a central foundation for democracy in Sweden. I therefore move for approval of KU's proposal in the opinion on the 2022 report on the rule of law principle.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In the 2022 report on the rule of law principle and its country chapters, the commission reviews different trends in the EU's member states in four different areas, just as has been reported here.

As Ulrik Nilsson pointed out, these four different areas are important for the rule of law principle. This concerns the justice system, the regulatory framework for combating corruption, media diversity, and other institutional controls and counterweights.

This time, the report also covers some new issues that are significant if one wants to defend the principle of the rule of law, for example, public service media and that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are followed. In the country chapter, which we in the committee particularly welcome this year, there are also country-specific recommendations to Sweden and other countries.

The report is, according to the EU Commission, part of the EU's broader work to promote and defend its values, which also includes the action plan for democracy in Europe and other strategies. The report shows that there are problems in the area of the rule of law in several member states, which is obviously worrying. Research shows that democracy is in decline in the world and has been for the last decade. Neither the EU nor Europe is an exception.

Mr. Speaker! Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates the fundamental values of the EU: "The Union shall be founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities. These values shall be common to all Member States in a society characterized by diversity, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and the principle of equal treatment of women and men."

What should one do then when member states no longer live up to what they have promised - when they curtail the independence of courts, hinder journalistic scrutiny, do not safeguard freedom of the press and restrict the free and civil rights of minorities? I actually believe that it is in precisely this light that this report needs to be seen: that it is truly about a defense. These fundamental values, which it should be a self-evident matter for all member states to uphold, are precisely fundamental values. It should be a self-evident matter for all the world's countries, but unfortunately, the development in the world does not look that way.

In many contexts, of course, it is good that countries can be scrutinized from the outside, and one could briefly say that the recommendations to Sweden are relatively mild. For example, it was recommended that the constitutional law commission, which submitted its report last week – the report concerns the year 2022 – should be allowed to continue its work. Other recommendations concern, as previously mentioned, quarantine rules for persons in leading positions, bribery abroad, and the scope of civil society's funding and activities.

Finally, we in the committee particularly emphasize the importance of preventing and countering corruption and undue influence. A prerequisite for a vibrant democracy is that citizens have a high level of trust in the political processes, the decision-making bodies, and the public administration at all levels within the EU.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Protecting the European Union's fundamental values, including the rule of law principle, is something completely central to the European project that the EU constitutes. Yes, these values actually constitute the very core of the EU cooperation.

It is therefore very welcome that for some years now we have been able to take part in an annual review of the state of the rule of law in all EU countries, and it is that report that we are debating here right now.

The EU's fundamental values are expressed in the so-called Copenhagen criteria. Some of these formulations deserve to be reminded, and I therefore choose to quote them: "The Union shall be founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values shall be common to the Member States in a society characterized by diversity, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and the principle of equality between women and men."

Mr. Speaker! It is extremely important that we remind ourselves of these values and that we ensure we safeguard them. What I just quoted must never become empty words. Therefore, it is necessary with sanction mechanisms that kick in for the member state that does not live up to the criteria, and it is good that we have such mechanisms in place within the EU. We must also ensure that the EU utilizes this so-called democracy lock, i.e., the rule of law mechanism that makes it possible to stop payments of EU funds to countries that do not fully respect the rule of law principles, in order to thereby signal against those countries that do not live up to the requirements.

Unfortunately, we have seen some worrying trends, to say the least, in several EU countries over the recent years. In some places, we have seen how the independence of courts has been undermined. We have also seen media that are not allowed to operate completely independently, even though free media is a prerequisite for a vibrant democracy. This development has been clearest in Viktor Orbán's Hungary, which over the past year has had consequences for the country as the EU has withheld funds to Hungary because the country actually does not live up to the requirements of a full-fledged rule of law.

It is good that we exert pressure and demand concrete measures from member countries where the annual review shows deficiencies. That work must continue.

Mr. Speaker! We talk quite a bit about countries that have been the worst in class in this area, but let us not also turn a blind eye to what there is to criticize at home. We are doing well in many areas, for example regarding countries with the least corruption - we often rank high on Transparency International's annual list, where corruption is measured. Last year, however, we lost a couple of positions and received lower scores than our Scandinavian neighboring countries.

Here in the chamber, we have had two specific debates over the past month on the theme of corruption and improper influence on democratic institutions. I think it is good that we raise these issues. As has emerged in these debates, there are definitely things to improve in this area.

We in the Committee on the Constitution express ourselves in agreement in this report on the 2022 report on the rule of law principle. We take the opportunity to particularly emphasize the importance of preventing and countering corruption and undue influence, as Jessica Wetterling pointed out. It is good and important that we do so. The fact that citizens have a high level of trust in the political processes, the decision-making bodies, and the public administration is, in fact, completely central to democracy.

I think it is good that we in KU express ourselves in unity. I also think it is pleasing that seven parties are represented here today as we debate the report on the principles of the rule of law. I must, however, say that I am surprised that one of the parties – the second largest party in the Riksdag – is not here today. That party's members have been involved in drafting this in unity in KU. I think the principles of the rule of law are such an important issue that all parties represented in the Swedish Riksdag should stand here and speak about this. I regret that is not the case and that the Sverigedemokraterna are conspicuous by their absence today.

Mr. Speaker! I welcome an in-depth dialogue with the Commission to develop and maintain a liberal democratic order built on solid constitutional laws and institutions. In this work, the annual report on the rule of law is important. This review can and shall contribute to increasing respect for the rule of law within the entire EU. It can also point out weaknesses in the different countries, which can contribute to developing the EU project in the right direction.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In my second assignment, alongside the Committee on the Constitution, I am a substitute member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the spokesperson for aid policy. Through that, I have a both sad and distressing insight into a number of countries where the principles of the rule of law do not prevail, where people are not equal before the law, where some can be falsely accused and convicted, where others bribe their way past the justice system and can continue with criminal activities, where officials allow themselves to be bribed to perform their regular work duties, where decision-makers can place themselves above the judiciary and where prosecutors and judges who have tackled corruption themselves become accused and the justice is distorted.

What then characterizes a rule of law? With a circular argument, one could say that a rule of law is a state where legal certainty prevails, where the courts are independent, where the individual is protected against abuses from the state, where every individual case is handled according to an established framework of rules, without arbitrariness, and where an accused person is innocent until proven otherwise.

The principles of the rule of law are one of the fundamental values for a democracy and also for the European Union. Respect for the principles of the rule of law also forms the basis for the other fundamental values within the union, including freedom, democracy, equality, and respect for human rights. Every new member state must accept and respect these values before it becomes a new member.

Countries that make restrictions on the principles of the rule of law and undermine the independence of the judiciary can be subjected to a so-called Article 7 procedure. One then investigates whether the country has violated the union's fundamental values - Hungary has been mentioned a few times here today. This can lead to EU funds to the country being frozen. It can also lead to various rights that the member state has through its EU membership, for example the voting rights in the Council of the European Union, being stripped from the member state.

Without this common ground for which principles characterize a rule of law, the prerequisites for, for example, mutually recognizing judgments between EU member states are undermined. From that perspective, the European Union's assessments of the various member states' compliance with the rule of law principle are indispensable for identifying deficiencies. The report that we are discussing today forms the basis for various recommendations.

The review report is therefore of very great importance. It presents four different perspectives, or pillars, as they say: the judiciary, regulatory frameworks for combating corruption, the diversity and independence of the media, and other institutional issues concerning controls and counterweights. These include, among others, constitutional courts, national human rights organizations, ombudsmen, equality bodies, and other independent agencies and civil society organizations.

The Court of Justice of the EU's review of infringements acts as a guardian of the EU treaties, and the rule of law principle is a prerequisite for EU funds to be managed in a reassuring manner.

This report contains specific sections, country by country. The Swedish court investigation that was recently submitted to the Riksdag is mentioned here. The proposals given in that investigation regarding strengthened protection for the courts' independence are well-timed. The Commission recommends that European norms for the independence of the judiciary be taken into account.

Corruption in Sweden is among the lowest in the EU, but the commission notes with concern the infiltration of organized crime that occurs in public administration. Views are also expressed regarding quarantine rules for persons in leading positions in the state. Here, the commission recommends that the scope, effects, and implementation of quarantine rules for persons in leading positions in the state be evaluated.

Bribery abroad is another problem area where the commission notes deficiencies. It is recommended that the fight against bribery abroad be intensified, among other things by changing legal definitions and by improvements being made regarding prosecutions and final judgments.

However, it is assessed that Sweden has a strong legal framework to guarantee freedom of the press and media diversity. It is noted that there is no specific legislation regarding media ownership, but the commission notes that there are proposals for amendments to the Radio and Television Act.

The Commission also notes the ongoing review of civil society organizations and their funding. It notes the concerns expressed regarding how any potential restrictions could affect civil society engagement and recommends that funding and activities be designed so that they do not unduly affect engagement in civil society. It is a very important point, not least for me as a Christian Democrat.

The committee is, as stated, in agreement. We consider the commission's recommendations to be important. Various investigations are underway to produce concrete proposals to strengthen the protection of democracy and the independence of the judiciary, and to prevent and counter corruption and undue influence.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has examined the European Commission's report on the state of the rule of law in the EU 2022.

The report shows that there are problems with the rule of law in several member countries. If we add to that the reports from the last few weeks from Israel and the latest report from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg, the concern begins to gnaw. More and more countries in the world are classified as authoritarian, and fewer and fewer as democratic.

It is truly just a matter of regret that a parliamentary party chooses not to participate in this discussion.

The report contains recommendations to the various member countries for the first time, which we consider to be a clear improvement.

The Commission's views on Sweden concern, among other things, the independence of the courts, corruption, and the fact that lobbying activities, for example directed towards the Riksdag, are completely unregulated. This also includes the so-called revolving doors, meaning that we do not have any quarantine rules regarding politicians' transition to advisory roles or lobbying firms after completed political activity.

For the sake of comparison, I thought I would mention something about our neighboring countries.

In Denmark, it is also about revolving doors and the financing of political parties, where anonymous contributions are one of the points. Furthermore, the commission believes that the work on accessibility to public records can be improved and that sufficient resources need to be allocated to ensure the principles of the rule of law in general.

For Finland, the Commission's views concern the fight against corruption and the efforts to improve accessibility for better opportunities to participate in society.

To a large extent, it is similar views that are put forward for the countries in the Baltics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: accessibility, corruption and greater transparency regarding lobbyists.

Poland, on the other hand, has a number of challenges to address, including clearly separating the functions between the state prosecutor and the Minister of Justice, as well as phasing out a rather extensive immunity among high-ranking officials, which hardly contributes to combating corruption.

Madam Speaker! The Commission has, as I mentioned, had some specific comments regarding Swedish conditions. In addition to a general reinforced protection for democracy and the independence of the judiciary - with, as it is called, "consideration of European norms" - quarantine rules, corruption and the funding of organizations are highlighted. These are issues that we from Miljöpartiet have also raised in various contexts.

We regret that the corruption investigation appointed by the previous government was discontinued. At the same time, we see opportunities with a new and updated investigation, where we from all parties should be able to move forward regarding both the financing of political parties and improper influence on society's organizations. This could include a ban on anonymous contributions and that we as parties and politicians must become more open about whom and what we meet. We look forward to an invitation to talks with the Ministry of Justice with a parliamentarily composed group to expand the previously discontinued investigation into corruption.

With the hope of a constructive and urgent continuation, I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag place the report in the archives, put it on some well-visible bookshelf, and conclude the matter.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! My colleagues have explained the importance of both the rule of law principle and the report that we have to deal with.

The Liberals have long worked for there to be an EU mechanism to ensure that fundamental rights are respected and that public reports on the situation of the rule of law and the fundamental freedoms and rights in each member state shall be produced. It is therefore with great interest that we take part in the Commission's third annual report on the rule of law situation in the EU.

The report is a valuable tool in the work of strengthening and, not least, defending - just as many of the colleagues have pointed out, it is actually what we need to do today - the rule of law principle. It is also an important tool for highlighting the deficiencies that exist in the different countries within the union. In a time when the pandemic has put the resilience of the national systems to the test and Russia's invasion of Ukraine directly challenges the values that the EU is built on, this report feels extra important.

On the plus side, it is noted in the report that many member states have taken the previous years' reports to heart and implemented important legal reforms to address the challenges identified. On the minus side, however, it is noted that serious concerns persist in some member states. It is therefore important that the EU has sanction possibilities, for example that EU support is not paid out to countries that violate the fundamental freedoms and rights or the principles of the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands well in the report. Some recommendations are highlighted, and some of these are already being worked on in different ways. For example, the committee investigating reinforced protection for democracy and the independence of the judiciary recently presented its proposals, which will lead to significant improvements for democracy in Sweden. I look forward to the Riksdag getting to handle these during the mandate period.

A proposal that is not included in the Constitutional Committee's report but which the commission generally emphasizes as an important part of the system of checks and balances is constitutional courts. The report shows that these, not least during the pandemic, played an important role. It is an interesting proposal and something that we Liberals would like to see within the Swedish model to obtain an additional protection for Swedish democracy.

In summary, Madam Speaker, the report on the principles of the rule of law serves an important function for both the Union and the individual states, not least in a time when democracy is being tested in various ways. Even though there are many clouds of concern and apprehensions, I believe that these reports, which highlight the problems that exist and also address how the countries can deal with them, are precisely the kind of reports that are needed also in the future so that developments move more towards the positive than towards the negative.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 23.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)