Warsaw: As the European Commission assembles its next annual health-check on the rule of law, independent watchdogs are warning that the picture across the Union is not improving but quietly hardening into decline. A widely cited civil-liberties assessment covering 2025 found that the dominant trend is stagnation, with very limited progress among member states and a worrying rise in the number of countries where the safeguards that constrain executive power are slipping.
The most striking figure concerns checks and balances, the unglamorous machinery of courts, parliaments, ombudsmen and oversight bodies that keeps governments accountable between elections. According to the assessment, the number of member states experiencing regression in this area rose by almost half, from nine to thirteen, as ruling majorities chipped away at judicial independence, weakened scrutiny and concentrated authority. Media freedom and the fight against corruption fared little better, with progress described as patchy at best.
The Commission’s own rule-of-law cycle, now preparing its 2026 edition after a targeted consultation earlier in the year, has become the Union’s main instrument for tracking these developments. Each report issues country-specific recommendations covering justice systems, anti-corruption frameworks, media pluralism and institutional balance. The intention is to create peer pressure and a paper trail that can feed into harder tools, including the budget conditionality mechanism that links EU funds to respect for the rule of law.
Why it matters goes to the foundations of the project. The single market, mutual recognition of court judgments and the very trust between governments rest on the assumption that every member state plays by the same constitutional rules. When courts can be captured or watchdogs muzzled in one capital, the damage does not stay contained; it corrodes confidence in the whole system and hands ammunition to those who argue the Union cannot police its own values.
That is precisely the criticism aimed at the Commission. Watchdogs argue that after years of recommendations, most governments have failed to turn guidance into tangible action, exposing the limits of an approach built on naming, shaming and dialogue. The executive has been reluctant to escalate, wary of accusations of political interference and conscious that the most severe procedures move at a glacial pace. Defenders counter that quiet persistence and financial leverage have produced reforms that confrontation would never have achieved, and that abandoning engagement would simply cede the field.
The next report will land into this argument with unusual weight. Officials must decide whether to sharpen their language, lean harder on funding conditionality, or risk confirming the verdict that the mechanism documents decline without reversing it. For citizens in the affected states, the abstractions of judicial independence and institutional balance translate into something concrete: whether a court will protect them against their own government, and whether the Union they belong to is willing to do more than write it down.




