The EU’s rule of law cycle is still struggling to turn country-specific recommendations into reform, and it is failing to identify and respond to some of the most serious new threats to our democracies in Europe, 2026 “Liberties” Gap Analysis finds. . The new study compares the European Commission’s assessment with what national civil society organisations are seeing on the ground. It draws on the annual Liberties Rule of Law Report, published every spring since 2020, analysis of the Commission’s own data, and inputs from Liberties’ member organisations across Europe.
Now in its seventh year, the European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report remains an important source for assessing the state of the rule of law in the EU. This year’s report is the second to be prepared under the new Commission and its chair, Michael McGrath, and the fifth to include country-specific recommendations.
Key Findings
Same recommendations, year after year. At least 96% of the recommendations the Commission issued in 2026 were issued in previous years and remain unaddressed. More than half (54%) show no progress or only limited progress. Just seven new recommendations were added this year, even though civil society reported a number of new problems. The share of recommendations with no progress at all has stayed between 29% and 34% every year, which points to deeply entrenched problems and too little pressure to fix them.
Warnings come too late. The Rule of Law Report is intended to help the EU catch problems before they become crises. In practice, serious developments are not always flagged with the urgency they need. The analysis looks at Denmark and Sweden as examples: both still rank highly on global democracy and rule of law indexes, yet both show worrying signs of backsliding. In areas such as checks and balances, overly long waiting times make the damage much harder to undo. The Commission’s report also largely overlooks cross-national challenges, including the growing impact of artificial intelligence on the rule of law.
A fragmented EU toolbox. The EU can respond to rule of law threats in several ways, from infringement proceedings to Article 7 to making EU funding conditional on reforms. But these tools are not properly linked. The Rule of Law Report should connect them and set out a clear path for tackling systemic problems. Instead, it risks becoming a ‘leftover tool’ that only picks up issues nobody else has dealt with. Hungary is a clear example. The removal of recommendations on the European Media Freedom Act also shows how gaps can open up between monitoring and enforcement.
“The Commission’s Rule of Law Report has the potential to be one of the EU’s strongest tools for preventing democratic backsliding. But when recommendations are repeatedly issued without being implemented, and new threats are not identified early enough, the system loses its power. The EU needs to move from documenting problems to driving solutions — with clearer benchmarks, stronger follow-up and real consequences when governments fail to act.”
Kersty McCourt, lead editor of the Gap Analysis and Senior Advocacy Advisor at the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)
The Commission’s plans to connect Rule of Law Report recommendations with National and Regional Partnership Plans under the new Multiannual Financial Framework could provide a powerful opportunity to improve implementation. But unless recommendations are meaningfully reflected in these plans, the same cycle of political resistance and stalled reform risks continuing.
Full Gap analysis is available here.
About Liberties
The Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) is a Berlin-based non-governmental organisation promoting and protecting civil liberties, human rights, and democracy across the European Union. With a presence in Brussels and a network of 24 member organisations across the EU, Liberties campaigns on issues including the rule of law, media freedom, SLAPPs, privacy, targeted political advertising, artificial intelligence, and mass surveillance. Unless otherwise indicated, the opinions expressed by Liberties do not necessarily represent the views of its member organisations.
Photo: Liberties
