Koen Lenaerts: "We are seeing that when order disappears, savage violence returns."

BarcelonaBelgian jurist Koen Lenaerts (Mortsel, 1954) is the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the most powerful judge in Europe. He is a professor of European law at the Catholic University of Leuven, and was a visiting professor at Harvard University. He was awarded a doctorate this Friday. honoris causa from the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

The CJEU has issued several rulings against governments, such as those of Poland and Hungary, for violating judicial independence. What mechanisms does the court have to ensure compliance with these rulings when a Member State refuses to cooperate?

— The Court of Justice, like any court in the world, doesn't have much say in the enforcement of its own judgments. This is the case in any legal system: the other branches of government must always enforce them. In our case, compliance is monitored by the European Commission, the member states of the Council of the EU, and national courts, which must implement our rulings. There are three mechanisms: the Commission can initiate infringement proceedings, and if they fail to comply, the state can be ordered to pay significant fines. And it works, I can assure you. There's also the conditionality regime, which links the receipt of European funds to respect for the rule of law. And, in the Council, member states debate whether the judgments are being complied with and lobby for them to do so. The third mechanism is national judges. If a national law conflicts with a European law, the national law must be discontinued. As you can see, the CJEU doesn't act on its own initiative: it's always the Commission, the Council, or the national courts that initiate the process.

In the face of certain political decisions, do you feel that justice may not be enough to defend democracy?

— I think it's the only peaceful means we have. And it's important to say: the only peaceful means. After the Second World War, the six founding states came to the conclusion that, without a rules-based order for people to live together peacefully and harmoniously, savage violence reigns. The idea prevailed that, to ensure peaceful and prosperous coexistence, rules accepted by all and enforced by the courts are needed. But in the current geopolitical context, we see what happens when this order disappears: savage violence returns, and the law of military power prevails.

Do you think the EU's founding values are in crisis in Europe?

— I would say no. If we look at the Union as a whole, the answer is clearly no. But, as in any legal system, there are internal forces that challenge some aspects. The greatest threat to European values is when a political majority adopts such a "correct" view that any dissenting opinion is seen as an enemy of the people. But the "people" is not the majority; it is an inclusive concept in which minorities must be respected.

What role does the Court play in defending these values?

— We must constantly defend them. Not because we invented them, but because they are in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, right after the article that legally establishes the Union. In our jurisprudence, these values are the very identity of the Union. Only those states that respect and promote these values can become members of the EU. It is not enough to be neutral; we must act to reinforce them. This way, Member States can be confident that they have a similar vision of the common good.

Not all countries think the same.

— We're now in Spain, in the southwest of the EU, but the Union also extends into Central and Eastern Europe. Many traumas from the past still exist in these places. If we think, for example, of Hungary, the Treaty of Trianon, just over 100 years ago, redefined the map and transformed the Kingdom of Hungary into the current republic. The loss of historical territories in Slovakia, Ukraine, and Austria is still a trauma for many. And this explains why relations with these countries are complicated. EU rules ensure that, even in these regions, there is no war, but rather understanding and coexistence. It's a peacemaking mechanism.

You know Harvard well. How do you perceive the growing hostility toward academic institutions in the US?

— As alumni As a former visiting professor at Harvard Law School, I am extremely proud of Harvard's position in the face of the Trump administration's attempts to limit academic freedom. Every autocratic system has three main enemies: academic freedom, media freedom, and judicial independence. Through these three areas, the Washington administration attempts to instill fear in the population to existential levels. It takes great courage to resist this pressure. Fortunately, America's great universities are strong enough to withstand this onslaught. We must hope that, as always happens in politics, the balance of power will be rebalanced.

The European Commission has expressed concern about the state of the judiciary in Spain. How does this appear from the perspective of the Court of Justice?

— This is a question I cannot answer. There are several pending cases in which Spanish courts have referred preliminary questions to us to clarify what EU law requires regarding judicial independence.

And what about the amnesty law?

— The same thing happens, it is also pending.