Budgetary conditionality mechanisms have been widely praised to constitute effective tools to address Rule of Law backsliding within EU Member States. However, recent institutional practices have raised concerns about the legality of the application of such mechanisms, most notably with regard to the Commission’s decisions to unfreeze EU funds for Hungary and Poland without the prior implementation of the requisite national reforms. These cases, now the subject of pending litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union, raise important questions concerning the scope of the Commission's discretion in the (un)freezing of EU funds and the extent to which such discretion is amenable to judicial review. This Article argues that, in contrast to the initial decision to freeze EU funds, the Commission’s institutional discretion in the unfreezing of these funds is strictly circumscribed by substantive and procedural limitations originating from both the general principles of administrative law and the specific legal obligations enshrined in the budgetary conditionality mechanisms themselves. It further contends that a broader interpretation of standing under Article 263(4) TFEU would enhance judicial oversight of institutional conduct in this area of EU law through a more bottom-up approach. Ultimately, the Article demonstrates that judicial review by the CJEU of decisions to unfreeze EU funds rests on concrete and reviewable legal standards, thereby reinforcing the legality and accountability of the Commission’s conduct in the application of budgetary conditionality mechanisms.
Jakob Piep (Tue,) studied this question.