Luxembourg: The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling in early 2026 that clarifies the legal effects of retroactive annulment of interim measures in proceedings involving Member States, providing additional jurisprudence on the operation of financial sanctions in the rule-of-law context. The judgment, in Case C-554/24 P Poland v Commission, has implications well beyond its facts and is being studied by national courts across the bloc as a procedural reference point for the interaction between interim relief and substantive judicial review.
The substantive rule-of-law dimension has been most salient in the cases involving Poland and Hungary. The Commission’s Article 7 procedure against Poland was withdrawn in May 2024 after the change of government in Warsaw and the implementation of judicial reforms. The Court of Justice’s January 2026 judgments in cases concerning the Polish Constitutional Court reaffirmed that the body did not meet the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, due to irregularities in the December 2015 appointments. The judgments cement jurisprudence that national constitutional courts cannot refuse to give effect to CJEU decisions on grounds of national constitutional autonomy.
For Hungary, the rule-of-law dimension is more dynamic. The Magyar government, expected to be sworn in following the April 2026 election landslide, has signalled an intention to address the institutional concerns that animated the European Parliament’s second interim report adopted on 25 November 2025. Hungary has until 31 August 2026 to complete 27 rule-of-law supermilestones under the Recovery and Resilience Facility, including reforms to judicial independence and anti-corruption frameworks. The Commission’s December 2023 release of 10.2 billion euros, after Hungarian judicial reforms, has been challenged by the European Parliament before the Court of Justice. The Advocate General’s recommendation in February 2026 was to annul the Commission decision, with the final ruling pending.
The e-Evidence Regulation, in application from 2026, has established a framework for the cross-border production and preservation of electronic evidence in criminal investigations. Service providers — including communications platforms, social networks and cloud services — must respond to European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders within defined timeframes. The framework addresses the fundamental challenge that criminal evidence increasingly resides on platforms whose data is stored across jurisdictions, with traditional mutual legal assistance procedures unable to keep pace with the operational tempo of investigations.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office continues its operational expansion. The EPPO’s most recent annual report showed more than 1,500 active investigations and ongoing damages claims exceeding 24 billion euros. A growing share of cases involve complex VAT and customs fraud across multiple Member States, alongside investigations into Recovery and Resilience Facility expenditure that have demonstrated the Office’s mandate to scrutinise the use of EU funds at a granular level. The number of participating Member States stands at 24, with three non-participants — Hungary, Poland and Ireland — outside the framework. Poland’s anticipated accession remains on the political agenda following the change of government.
The Procedural Rights Directives, including the right of access to a lawyer and the presumption of innocence, are subject to ongoing implementation monitoring. The Commission’s transposition reports have identified gaps in several Member States, particularly concerning the right to legal aid in cross-border cases and the practical access to defence counsel in pre-trial detention.
The European Arrest Warrant continues to operate under significant strain. National courts in some Member States have refused to execute warrants from jurisdictions where they assess that fundamental rights — particularly the right to an independent tribunal — would not be respected. The Court of Justice has developed a structured methodology requiring executing authorities to conduct a two-stage assessment of systemic and individual risks. The jurisprudence’s complexity has produced calls for legislative clarification of the framework.
Victims’ rights have been strengthened through the revised Victims’ Rights Directive, agreed in principle in 2025 and pending formal adoption. The revision extends rights to information, support and protection during criminal proceedings, and clarifies obligations on online platforms that host content depicting victims. The Directive on Combating Violence Against Women, agreed in 2024, complements the framework with specific provisions on intimate partner violence, sexual violence and cyber violence.




