2024 report on the rule of law principle

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has reviewed the commission's report on the rule of law principle for 2024. I move for approval of the proposal in the report that has been submitted.

The Committee underlines the importance of respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law and emphasizes the need for continuous work to protect and uphold democratic institutions and values. The Committee appreciates the Commission's work in strengthening and defending the rule of law principle and notes that the annual rule of law report has come to play a central role in the work of upholding the rule of law principle, not least by the fact that the Council's rule of law dialogue is based on the report.

The report also shows that there are serious deficiencies in all areas examined by the commission. The committee therefore views with continued concern the problems that the commission has pointed out in several member states and emphasizes the importance of continuing to work to strengthen respect for the principles of the rule of law throughout the European Union.

Regarding the Commission's communication, the committee notes in its summary that the annual reporting on the rule of law over five consecutive years has shown that respect for the rule of law can never be taken for granted. At the same time, the Commission points out that the reports have also shown how dialogue can contribute to achieving progress. According to the Commission, the Member States and the EU as a whole are much better prepared to detect, prevent, and address new challenges concerning the rule of law.

Approximately two-thirds of the recommendations issued in 2023 have been addressed, in whole or in part. In some Member States, however, systematic problems persist, and the situation has deteriorated further. These concerns are addressed in the 2024 recommendations.

In addition to the developments in the 27 Member States, the situation in four candidate countries is also described for the first time, but for these countries, the Commission makes no recommendations.

Regarding Sweden, the Commission notes that the work on the first national action plan against corruption has been completed and that the government adopted a new, more comprehensive plan in July 2024. It is however pointed out that certain deficiencies in the ethical guidelines for high-level officials remain, and the ethical guidelines for all officials have not yet been updated. Furthermore, there are certain deficiencies in the requirements for the disclosure of assets for ministers because they do not cover significant debts. Furthermore, the Commission notes that a parliamentary committee is discussing rules on lobbying and loopholes within the framework for the financing of political parties. The investigation of the rules on transition restrictions has been completed. Areas judged to have a high risk of corruption are municipalities and public procurement, which the Commission notes is confirmed by a recently conducted national survey.

Regarding issues of media freedom and media pluralism, the commission notes that the restructured national supervisory authority, the Media Authority, has received new tasks. It notes that the political independence of public service media has been strengthened and that further measures in the area are planned.

The Commission notes that the principle of public access guarantees broad access to information. The Commission also notes that an investigation is examining the current constitutional protection for search services within the private sector.

According to the commission's assessment, Swedish journalists still have generally favorable working conditions. This is also shown by other international assessments, but it is of course important to continue to follow up and monitor these issues as well.

In an annex to the report, the Commission provides the following assessment of the recommendations to Sweden in the 2023 report. It is emphasized that Sweden has made no progress in ensuring that the system for appointing lay judges guarantees their independence, taking into account European norms for the independence of the judiciary. It has therefore, according to the Commission, not made any progress.

Sweden has completely completed the evaluation of the rules on cooling-off periods for the highest positions in the government regarding scope, impact, and application. Some progress has been made in strengthening the fight against bribery abroad and a few further steps have been taken in continuing the work to ensure that the ongoing reforms of the rules for the funding and activities of civil society organizations do not affect engagement in civil society to an unreasonable extent.

Regarding the development from this year's report, it is emphasized that Sweden should ensure that the system for appointing lay judges guarantees their independence, taking into account European norms for the independence of the judiciary. I can state that these are issues that the Institute for Human Rights has also mentioned that they monitor and delve into.

It is also emphasized that an appropriate follow-up of the evaluation of the cooling-off rules needs to be ensured. The fight against bribery abroad also needs to be strengthened by changing the existing statutory definitions to improve prosecutions of the execution of judgments in cases concerning bribery abroad. The Commission also recommends that Sweden continue the work to ensure that the reforms of the rules on the funding and activities of civil society organizations do not affect engagement in civil society to an unreasonable extent.

This is therefore emphasized based on the report that exists regarding the past year.

Regarding the committee's position, we emphasize that fundamental rights and the rule of law are fundamentals in a democracy and central to cooperation within the union. The committee wishes, in line with previous years, to emphasize the importance of these values being respected.

The Committee also values the Commission's persistent work, if I may say so, in strengthening and defending the rule of law principle. The annual rule of law report has come to play a central role in the work with this. It is also important to emphasize the direct dialogue that is ongoing with each respective member state. Openness, publicity, free debate, and free speech are crucial issues for well-functioning democracies. We need to constantly delve deeper into this and follow up on how it functions.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are gathered here in the Riksdag to discuss the 2024 report on the rule of law principle. The report is a tool that gives us a certain insight into the work being done in the member countries and any deficiencies that individual countries, including Sweden, should continue to work on. The report is simply a tool to identify weaknesses and address them before they create any major complications.

Within the EU, we must safeguard democracy, freedom of speech, and equality, but at the same time be clear that all power derives from the people. I have participated in a number of seminars and conferences in recent years, and at these gatherings within the EU, discussions always arise with other politicians and with officials from other countries. I would like to say that there is a pervasive concern among many. This concern often concerns the bureaucratic colossus that the EU has become – a colossus that in many ways seems to live a life of its own and that only grows and grows.

In the 2024 report on the rule of law principle, we can read that the EU and its member states shall, according to Articles 3.1 and 13.1 of the Treaty on European Union, respect the Union's values. Among these values, which are enumerated in Article 2 of the EU Treaty, is the rule of law: "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."

Before I go into the report, I want to make a brief reflection, because I react to the words "non-discrimination" and "justice" in the EU Treaty. I will think of a piece of legislation we have in Sweden.

In a judgment on 21 April 2015 in Norrköping District Court, it was established that Swedes are covered by the protection against hate speech, but it was also established that Swedes must tolerate more than minority groups. According to the law, Swedes must tolerate more hate, humiliation, threats, and insults than other groups. Is it fair? Is it non-discriminatory in line with Article 2 of the EU Treaty? Do we want to divide people into a "we and they," or should we uphold the principle of equality? Does it increase social cohesion if we reinforce the image of a "we and they"? These are questions, Madam Speaker, that require reflection.

The Committee agrees that the issues raised in the 2024 report are pressing and that changed circumstances due to political changes and technological developments may pose challenges for the rule of law principle.

I intended to enter into an area in this report, and that is the work surrounding countering corruption. Corruption is a problem seen in a majority of member countries, and there are also tendencies for it to increase. We see that the infiltration of organized crime into public administration is not only a problem in other countries within the EU. We see that this type of crime has also gained a foothold in Sweden.

The Commission notes that countries work with different variants of risk assessments regarding corruption within specific areas.

The EU directive on the protection of whistleblowers has resulted in some progress in some countries, but the report also shows that there are still obstacles to informing about suspected crime in a safe and good way.

I myself perceive a certain resignation when the report highlights that many experience not knowing where to report suspected corruption. They experience that they do not only take a personal risk if they proceed with reporting suspected errors and deficiencies in a specific operation, but the experience of the individual is that no major action will nevertheless be taken.

Madam Speaker! There is still a certain optimism. In the report, one can read that many EU countries are now looking into introducing new tools to report suspected corruption. These are important challenges that the member states must continue to work on.

The Committee on the Constitution is following the issue, and the Sweden Democrats are monitoring the development and will return to the question of whether the work that has been initiated yields any positive results or not.

When it comes to Sweden, the commission views, among other things, positively on the increasing economic resources that the government, in cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, has provided to the justice system, which shall focus on combating organized crime that many times involves corruption. For example, the government has adopted a new, more comprehensive plan against organized crime during 2024.

The Commission submits four recommendations to Sweden. One of these is to "strengthen the fight against bribery abroad by changing the existing statutory definitions to improve prosecution of enforcement of judgments in cases involving bribery".

Regarding the committee's common position, I can mention that the Commission states that 68 percent of the recommendations given in the 2023 report on the rule of law have been followed up by the member states, which is an increase from the previous year. What we can see is, therefore, that the 2024 report, like previous reports on the rule of law, serves a purpose. The compilation highlights various challenges in the member states, and we see that a majority of countries adopt the proposed recommendations and work on taking measures to improve any deficiencies in each individual country.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! For me, a civilized society is built on democracy, individual rights, and a functioning rule of law. These three values can be said to be under attack.

It is perhaps important to remember one thing, especially in the times we live in and which, with a slightly kinder expression, one could call formative. We are in a situation where we have war in our immediate vicinity, where it is spoken of that one can have different facts, and where today one can receive computerized support to advance opinions. All this combined should make us who believe in the fundamental values go back to the foundation – back to basics, Madam Speaker.

It is the case that democracy, which is the first of the three criteria, must always be defended and defend its position in an open and honest debate – a debate where one actually sticks to correct facts and where the person who is not ready to stand by their opinion will probably also come to a short end. We must be able to counter the one who, behind the protection of anonymity, wants to pump out a message but is not met in public debate.

We must also have a constitution that ensures we always guarantee a second chance. With new arguments, we can reconsider what we took a stand on previously. Therefore, it is dangerous to be too quick to change rules or to declare in the constitution things that actually belong in political debates.

Finally, we must ensure that the judges protect this system. It is actually that report we now have before us, namely: What do the instruments look like to protect the three fundamental functions required in a functioning democracy?

Reading the report, Madam Speaker, one can, as several have said, observe that it has done good work. It has also been expanded to more countries, namely the candidate countries.

We can observe that approximately two out of three measures have been implemented, but unfortunately, there are also member countries that still have problems and where there has even been a regression in this area. Even though the general tone of the report is positive, there is therefore reason for concern in certain respects. But we can only address those concerns by clearly explaining and arguing for how things should be. We can never impose anything on anyone in any other way than in an open discussion.

When it comes to Sweden in this report, several have already mentioned that there are essentially four areas that one has views on.

It concerns, among other things, the lay judges, where we have not taken any measures. That is probably because there has been a great consensus in this chamber that we have had a sensible system for appointing lay judges. If that needs to be reconsidered, it is a longer process than responding to the commission's report.

It is also noted that we have introduced many of the quarantine rules that are requested. Then it is said, somewhat in the way that is almost always done, that it is nevertheless sensible to evaluate the effect within a certain period.

The question of our work against bribes is raised, where we have completed certain parts. Here, I think there is reason to emphasize that with the new administration in the United States, which has seen that it prevents business to have strict rules, there will likely be an increased pressure and an increased need to stand up for what we perceive to be right and proper. Therefore, it is not enough to shrug your shoulders and say that it is noted that we have done something, for this will probably become an important issue given the new world order that is unfortunately emerging.

Finally, there are views on the work concerning the financing and governance of civil society. It is noted that we have taken certain measures, but it is still important to ensure that civil society is not steered towards certain views or certain roles to an excessive extent. Instead, we shall be very open in both the financing and the governance.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I believe it can be said that Sweden stands strong regarding the principles of the rule of law. The EU and Europe stand relatively strong. There are places where it does not look so good, but this report is extremely important as a tool to drive development forward. It is an important work to pay attention to. It is important that we debate this, and it is also important that we take it to heart. We all, in fact, want to live in a country where democracy, individual rights, and the rule of law prevail.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal to submit the report to the records.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! "Now it is about our fundamental view on democracy and the open society, now it is about the independence of the rule of law, about the separation of powers and about our previous consensus on the real threats to our freedom."

It is not my words, but it was Friedrich Merz, leader of the German Christian Democrats, who expressed himself this way after US Vice President JD Vance's speech in Munich a couple of weeks ago. When the same Merz, after the German election on Sunday, gave his victory speech, he went even further and asserted that the most important thing now is to strengthen Europe and liberate it from the USA. I can do nothing but agree with every word.

In light of what we are now seeing happening in the world, it feels more urgent than ever to highlight the 2024 report on the rule of law principle in the EU. On the other side of the Atlantic, where in modern times we have seen a close ally in the form of a strong democracy that has protected the separation of powers and the rule of law, we are seeing how these principles are now – in just a few weeks – being overturned by a regime where the right of the strongest is a clear ideal. What is happening is terrifying, and it must make us in Europe and within the EU unite and stand guard over our common project – a project where I want to assert that the rule of law is sacred.

Madam Speaker! According to the principle of the rule of law, all public power must always be exercised within the framework specified in the legislation. The concept of the rule of law encompasses an open, democratic and pluralistic legislative process, access to judicial review by independent and impartial courts, as well as the separation of powers.

It may seem like self-evident truths, but as is stated in the 2024 report, the principle of the rule of law can never be taken for granted. Circumstances in the world and in the EU change, politically or due to technological or other societal developments, and this entails challenges. They are different depending on the member state, but we all face them.

This is where the importance of the report that KU is debating today comes in. It serves as the basis for a dialogue between the member states regarding what these challenges are. In that way, the report can contribute to moving forward, achieving progress, and further strengthening the principles of the rule of law throughout the EU. That work must continue with determination, purpose, and great commitment from everyone who wishes to profess a belief in a vibrant democracy.

Madam Speaker! What is the situation in Sweden? Our judiciary receives a clear thumbs up. It functions effectively. But we need to do something about the lay judge system, which means that we have political representatives as judges.

When it comes to civil society, significant space is still provided, but a combination of funding cuts and faster referral times affects certain parts of it. Here in Sweden, we receive a specific recommendation from the commission: to ensure that the reforms implemented regarding the funding and activities of civil society organizations do not affect engagement in civil society to an unreasonable extent.

Madam Speaker! An area that I personally consider to be extremely important and which is highlighted in the report is corruption. Here we also receive a recommendation from the commission: to strengthen the fight against bribes abroad. But I want to add that it is not at all sufficient. We must also counter corruption here at home. We must not be blind to it. It exists, and furthermore, it is spreading.

Madam Speaker! On Transparency International's annual list of how widespread corruption is in different countries, we have unfortunately lost positions for several years in a row recently. In the measurement presented a few weeks ago, we had slipped down to eighth place. This is concerning.

Transparency International points out organized crime as one of the major risk factors behind the increased corruption. Through infiltration and extortion, central societal functions are increasingly affected. I have also seen this firsthand in my previous work as a prosecutor.

When we in KU were on a provincial trip to Skåne, I spoke with people who were employed by the County Administrative Board and worked against waste-related crime. One who specifically coordinated this said that a Skåne municipality – which was not mentioned, and I therefore do not know which one it was – did nothing about the dumping of waste on a property, despite well-known information about it. The person in question said that she even sat next to the official at the municipality and wrote a formal order to address this, and yet there was resistance. One can wonder what this is due to.

I do know, however, that waste crime is a growing industry in organized crime. There are real vulnerabilities in the municipalities here.

Ulrik Åshuvud, secretary-general for Transparency International here in Sweden, recently said: We see an increasingly sophisticated form of corruption that directly affects welfare. Companies are being exploited as criminal tools, and much of what we call welfare crime is in fact pure corruption. I can only agree with what he said.

During the autumn, I was tasked on behalf of the Center Party to lead the work of looking at where organized crime derives its revenues, its profits. We have presented a social analysis, where we also refer to reports and research at home. There we see that it is in just municipalities that there is a high risk of corruption linked to public procurement. This is also stated in this report.

It is a vulnerability when one privatizes public activities and does not have controls. That is what research from the mafia in Italy shows. There is therefore reason for us to be attentive to this.

Here, Hells Angels took 1 billion in profits on public contracts. This is, of course, completely unacceptable. We must do an enormous amount more in Sweden to stop that development.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! What happens when the rule of law wavers? What happens when our fundamental freedoms and rights become something fluid, when freedom of expression is circumscribed, when freedom of religion is restricted, or when property rights are eroded?

It is questions that are important to ask. The principles of the rule of law are not merely a legal technicality; they are a foundation for freedom and security in our Swedish society. It is one of the fundamental principles that has shaped Western civilization. And it is no coincidence that the societies that have built their legislation on these values are also the freest and most successful.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has reviewed the EU Commission's report on the rule of law principle, where the Commission provides a situational overview of the work to protect and strengthen democracy within the EU. I will not go into all the details. My colleagues will do that so well. I will speak a bit more broadly.

The principles of the rule of law are part of the fundamental values in a democracy and also in the EU cooperation. Respect for the principles of the rule of law is closely linked with the Western values that are to characterize the cooperation and the other fundamental values within the union, including freedom, democracy, equality and respect for human rights. But it is also about a secure and impartial legal system that is separate from political power.

Every new member state in the European Union must accept, respect, and have systems in place to live up to these values before it can become a member. And the country must continue to uphold them during the time it is a member. Therefore, these annual reports from the Commission, which we are dedicating this debate to today, are important for mapping the situation in the member states and highlighting trends and any potential risks.

Member states 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. An investigation is then conducted to see if the country has violated the fundamental values of EU cooperation. This can, for example, lead to EU funds to the country being frozen. That instrument has also been used to achieve changes in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! In the report, the EU Commission makes the assessment that the EU's member states and the EU as a whole are now much better prepared to detect, prevent, and address new challenges concerning the rule of law than they were five years ago. This is very positive. At the same time, there are still major problems in several member states, which we must take seriously.

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, the message is clear: We shall safeguard our Western values and the principles of the rule of law. The principles of the rule of law are based on law and order, responsibility and obligations, and a justice anchored in objective norms, not in subjective feelings or political trends.

This is something that the EU must stand up for, as the trade union but also the community of values that the union is intended to constitute. This includes respect for our fundamental freedoms and rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to property. Without this, there is no freedom.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal to submit the report to the proceedings.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! As my colleagues have pointed out, the committee is in agreement, and our proposal is to eventually submit the report to the archives. The fact that I am raising certain details should not be interpreted as me not sharing the views that have been presented by others here.

The report we are debating has been issued annually since 2022. In it, individual states receive recommendations from the commission on what would be good to improve and what could gradually be evaluated. What is new for this year is that some of the candidate countries are also included, specifically North Macedonia, which the Swedish Riksdag has had a democratic cooperation with, as well as Montenegro, Albania, and Serbia.

This year's work program for the commission, which some of us had the opportunity to speak with Commissioner Jessika Roswall about yesterday, establishes that the rule of law principle is the very heart of the union. It is the rule of law principle that is our defense and our protection, but also the prerequisite for creating an inclusive society and a union that holds together.

Madam Speaker! Sweden receives, so to speak, four recommendations for continued work in 2023. The first of them is the same as last year and concerns the fact that the system of appointing lay judges through proposals from political parties has not made any major progress regarding the lay judges' independence. The Commission proposes that that work continues. The Commission also proposes that the work to ensure that civil society's opportunities are not unnecessarily limited by reforms within the structure for financing and support of the same civil society continues.

The Commission further highlights the necessity of evaluating the measures being taken for, for example, protection against bribery from foreign powers. Last but not least, the Commission notes with some satisfaction that Sweden has made significant efforts to create regulations regarding the so-called revolving doors, that is, what should apply for those at the very top of the state leadership. Nevertheless, it needs to be followed up, the Commission argues.

Madam Speaker! In the work program for 2025, there is a vision of a bolder, simpler and faster union. One could think that this boldness might possibly include a bold decision not to be so millimeter-just that all member states receive exactly four recommendations. If the Commission has more or less to say in different cases, that is perfectly fine by me.

I also think that the reviews of the candidate countries' efforts, or lack thereof, are interesting. Next week, the Speaker of the Riksdag will be visited by the Speaker of the Serbian Parliament. There is something to discuss in the meetings that are to be held.

Serbia has made efforts in many areas, but still has a good deal left to do. The Commission notes, among other things, that the judiciary and the court system can still be subject to political pressure, that anti-corruption work has come a long way but also has a part left to go, and that rules regarding the media, for example transparency regarding ownership, remain to be implemented. As recently as the other day, perhaps even yesterday, reports came that the Serbian equivalent of Civil Rights Defenders had been attacked by Serbian police. It is the kind of events that we would like to see could be avoided.

I hope and believe that, for my part, reviews such as this can be a support in the long process that precedes membership in the union. I look forward to the day when we can welcome Serbia and other candidate countries to the EU.

Madam Speaker! I would like to devote some time and attention to civil society and its importance for the rule of law.

The Commission expresses a certain concern that engagement in civil society in Sweden may decrease, or has already decreased, as a consequence of the changes in the possibilities for funding of activities that we have seen recently and which others here have raised. I assume that the Commission primarily refers to changes in rules and resources from the state budget.

To that, one can add the debate that has been conducted in recent years. Words like "subsidy industry" and "fraud" and other suspicions have found space in our media. Civil society is an arena that is, to a shrinking extent, state-funded. That can make me worried, and obviously also the EU Commission.

We have a form of government that speaks of our society being built on free formation of opinion. I prefer to see that sentence as a thought about a structure that enables precisely that formation of opinion, and that the structure cannot be reserved for those who can afford to pay for it themselves. In other words: If it is to be possible for everyone, one must probably accept a certain amount of public support for the structure itself, whether it is giants like Rädda Barnen or, for example, the thousands of smaller local cultural and sports associations. Their importance in a crisis or war situation should not be underestimated.

If I had had plenty of time, I would have told you about the work in Villa 20 in Buenos Aires during covid. There, one can get a very good example of what it means to have a functioning civil society.

I finally note that the Commission expresses similar views regarding the engagement in civil society among the candidate countries mentioned in the report.

I move that we add the report to the records. But I hope that it is still taken out from time to time when we have matters we need to address.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! In a time when the rules-based world order feels more threatened than it has in a long time and the new administration in the USA seems to have missed the basic course in the principles of the rule of law, one is a little extra glad that within the EU cooperation there is a rule of law architecture that can contribute to counteracting the risk that this poses for individual member states but also for the EU as a whole if the rule of law principle is not upheld.

The Liberals have long worked for there to be an EU mechanism to monitor 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 are produced. It is therefore with great interest that we take part in one of the results of this work, namely the Commission's annual report on the rule of law situation in the EU. The report is a valuable tool in the work of strengthening and defending the rule of law principle and highlights the deficiencies that exist in the different countries in the union. By also including candidate countries, it becomes a good picture of the development in both the candidate countries and the member states. We get it in black and white what the current situation is and what needs to be improved.

Madam Speaker! The Commission notes that almost 65 percent of the first round of recommendations were followed up during 2023. This was a trend that continued during 2024, when 68 percent of the recommendations from the previous year were followed up. In other words, the work is yielding more and more effect. EU funding has also contributed to building up the capacity of the judiciary, the media, and civil society to uphold the rule of law principle.

On the positive side of the report, it is noted that many member states have implemented important legal reforms to address the challenges identified in the reports. On the negative side, it is noted that serious concerns remain, particularly in certain member states. Therefore, it is important that the EU has sanction possibilities, which the Liberals have also worked for, for example that EU support should not be granted to countries that violate fundamental freedoms and rights or the principles of the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! The independence of the courts is an important part of the rule of law. According to the surveys conducted prior to this report, the public and companies in most member states perceive that the independence of the judiciary improved or remained stable compared to 2023. Several countries have also accelerated legislative work to strengthen the independence of the courts. When it comes to the candidate countries, however, the results are relatively low, and the population does not perceive independence. These are important areas for these countries to continue working on in order to take the step into becoming member states.

Another important part is independent media. There, the commission notes a positive development since the last report in several Member States, particularly regarding transparency in media ownership. At the same time, challenges that were previously highlighted in some other Member States persist. Political and economic influence on the media still constitutes a source of concern, according to the commission. The commission emphasizes the importance of protecting media from political pressure and undue influence. This is especially important when one reads that the commission also notes that foreign governments attempting to manipulate public opinion and distort democratic debate constitute a threat to the EU's democracies.

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands well in the report. The perceived independence of the judiciary in Sweden is very high among the public and among companies. The Committee on the Constitution will soon be to handle a report that further strengthens the independence of the judiciary.

Furthermore, the commission notes, among other things, that the political independence of public service media has been strengthened and that further measures in the area are planned by the government. The commission also points out that the Institute for Human Rights has secure funding for its activities.

Sweden, however, receives four recommendations. Several of my colleagues have been involved in them. They concern, among other things, the independence of lay judges and the importance of ensuring good conditions for a strong civil society.

Madam Speaker! In summary, the report on the principles of the rule of law serves an important function for both the Union and the individual states. This applies in particular in a time when democracy is being tested in various ways.

I look forward to following the developments in the coming years, which hopefully will show that development occurs primarily on the positive side. The EU needs more than ever to be a standard-bearer for democracy and the rule of law. I move to approve the committee's proposal.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! What a time we live in. These are tough times right now. The global situation is uncertain in a way that is difficult to summarize in words. It is only to be stated that almost every day we wake up to news and developments that seriously threaten what we have long seen as self-evident and fundamental democratic rules of the game.

It is about respect for the principles of the rule of law and fundamental rights together with functioning institutions, an independent judiciary, free and independent media, and effective anti-corruption measures.

It is fundamental for democracy to function. It is a prerequisite for it to be vital and enjoy a great deal of trust among the citizens and for the trust in the political processes and decision-making bodies at all levels within the EU.

Madam Speaker! One must nevertheless state that in Sweden, we live relatively well in accordance with the principle of the rule of law. But we, of course, also receive a number of recommendations from the European Commission.

It is still worth noting that previous years' recommendations in broad agreement have been addressed by the parties in the Riksdag. Especially we in the Committee on the Constitution are very keen on and see the value of being scrutinized as a state and a member country.

It is something that we ourselves deal with quite a lot in our committee. Even though we sometimes call ourselves the good auditor, the EU Commission and the EU in this case are a good auditor to Sweden.

It is also no secret that I and my party are critical of parts of the EU. This concerns, for example, parts of the supranationality and the lack of transparency.

We probably cannot be so incredibly naive right now. It is a worrying development where democracy is in decline in the world. We see in the report that there are serious deficiencies even in some member states in the EU. It is a least worrying trend that Sweden is at a new low in the corruption index.

But this is also a time when everyone who can should step forward to defend the rule of law and to defend a rules-based world order where a few great powers or individuals do not try to divide the world by authoritarian means and seriously threaten our democracy. It is something I never thought I would need to say in the chamber. Sometimes it almost feels as if the world is currently more of a nightmare. I move to approve the committee's proposal.

2024 Report on the Rule of Law Principle

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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