Slovak MEPs are sharply divided over the European Commission’s possible move to freeze its EU funds amid concerns over the rule of law, with ruling party members condemning the move as politically motivated while the opposition remains divided.
As the EU grapples with the implications of rule of law conditionality for its budget, Slovak MEPs are divided over how the Commission should approach the potential freezing of EU funds.
This issue has arisen following reports that the Commission is considering taking action against Slovakia in response to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s decision to abolish the special prosecutor’s office responsible for investigating corruption. Such a move would echo the Commission’s earlier decision to freeze €6.3 billion in funds dedicated to Hungary over similar rule of law concerns.
“The European Commission does not have relevant arguments to justify this action,” Branislav Ondruš from the ruling party from Hlas-SD (NI) said in a discussion organised by Euractiv Slovakia.
Ondruš dismissed the alleged threats to the rule of law in Slovakia as a “virtual threat” and described the Commission’s consideration of suspending the funds as a “political game” driven by frustration over last year’s Slovak parliamentary elections, which saw Fico returned to power.
“Such an approach is highly dangerous, as it could be used against other member states if their election outcomes don’t align with the preferences of some people in Brussels,” Ondruš says.
MEP Katarína Roth Neveďalová, his colleague from Robert Fico’s Smer-SD (NI), claims that conditionality can be politically manipulated and believes Slovakia’s judicial system is not failing.
“If you keep telling people that there is corruption in Slovakia, they will think so,” Katarína Roth Neveďalová said in a debate.
With MEPs from the ruling parties condemning this possible perception against Slovakia, the opposition is not united on the issue.
Slovakia’s national competence or not?
Miriam Lexmann, opposition MEP (KHD/EPP), points out that any conditionality should be firmly rooted in EU treaties but says that “the Court of Justice of the EU has stated in several disputes that the issue of the rule of law is not clearly defined in the treaties”.
She warns that the withdrawal of funds because Slovakia’s special prosecutor’s office was abolished goes beyond the EU’s competence, as such structural decisions are within the member state’s scope.
For Lexmann, the main concern should be the fight against corruption and the protection of public funds contributed by taxpayers.
On the other hand, Ľubica Kravašová, MEP for the leading opposition party Progressive Slovakia (PS/RE), believes that linking the allocation of European funds to compliance with rule-of-law standards is crucial.
She insists that ensuring that all EU countries have effective judicial systems is a priority, which is necessary to fight corruption. Karvašová notes that this principle is part of the accession talks with Ukraine, underlining its wider importance within the EU framework
(Marián Koreň, Natália Silenská | Euractiv.sk)
Source: euractiv.com
