The constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament is considering a draft report that would alter the way the European Court of Justice assesses the independence of national courts. The draft, presented on 29 June 2026, was authored by MEP Charlie Weimers of the European Conservatives and Reformists group and enjoys the backing of the European People’s Party.

The text, which comprises 25 recitals and 25 operative paragraphs, proposes a reciprocal dialogue mechanism. Under the new procedure the ECJ would be required to ask the national court under review to provide observations before deciding on its independence. Supporters argue that this would improve transparency and fairness and would prevent unilateral decisions by the Court.

Opposition and potential impact

Opponents warn that the measure would limit the ECJ’s capacity to act when a member state’s judiciary is compromised. They point out that the proposal could overturn recent ECJ rulings that found Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal and Hungary’s courts to fall short of the independence criteria set out in Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union.

Since the 1951 Treaty of Paris and the Treaties of Rome, the ECJ has ensured that EU law is enforceable across all 27 member states, guaranteeing uniform application and allowing individuals to rely on its judgments in cross‑border matters. Mutual recognition of judgments enables companies to enforce contracts in another member state without starting separate litigation, assuming national judges act independently.

Poland’s Law and Justice party and Hungary’s government under Viktor Orbán have introduced reforms that critics say weaken judicial independence. In December 2025 the ECJ’s Grand Chamber applied Article 19 TEU to declare the Polish Constitutional Tribunal no longer independent. The draft seeks to replace the Court’s discretionary power with a procedural safeguard that gives the national court a chance to comment before the ECJ decides on its independence.

Political and legal context

The initiative is part of a coordinated effort by the European Conservatives and Reformists, Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations groups to limit what they see as EU institutional over‑reach. The European People’s Party, despite its centre‑right orientation, supports the text. The committee’s hearing featured a former German Constitutional Court judge known for scepticism toward the ECJ and former ECJ advocate general Eleanor Sharpston, who previously sued the Court over her removal after Brexit. No representatives from Polish or Hungarian civil‑society groups or their judiciaries were invited.

Several European legal associations have called on the Parliament to reject the draft and instead improve the ECJ’s internal procedures, such as publishing case‑allocation criteria and broadcasting hearings. Legal scholars warn that the proposal creates a conflict‑of‑interest situation by giving national courts a say in the assessment of their own independence.

Consequences for the single market

If adopted, the proposal would raise the threshold for ECJ intervention in national judicial affairs. Critics say this could reduce protection of EU‑derived labour rights in jurisdictions where courts are politicised, increase legal uncertainty for businesses and deter investment in markets with fragile rule of law, and make it harder for consumer groups to enforce EU consumer‑protection directives when national courts are unwilling or unable to apply them impartially.

The cohesion of the single market could be undermined by divergent national interpretations of EU law without a strong central adjudicator.

Outlook

The debate unfolds amid growing tension between EU institutions and member states that claim their sovereignty is being eroded. The European People’s Party and the European Conservatives and Reformists argue the draft restores an appropriate balance between EU oversight and national autonomy, while left‑wing parliamentary groups and many civil‑society actors view it as an unprecedented attack on the ECJ’s legitimacy.

Committee chair Maria da Costa of the Socialists & Democrats has indicated that the report will be put to a vote before the end of the parliamentary term. Should the proposal be rejected, the committee may draft an alternative resolution focusing on transparency measures such as live‑streaming hearings and publishing detailed case‑allocation criteria while reaffirming Article 19 TEU.

The draft remains a focal point in the broader debate over EU governance and the balance between national constitutional identities and a uniform legal framework.