A set of amendments tabled by the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) group to a European Parliament resolution on Slovakia would delete the central link between rule-of-law compliance and EU funding, replacing it with a generic statement that EU funds must serve the public interest. The amendments, submitted to the draft resolution B-10-2026-0245 on 18 May 2026, challenge the EU's authority to assess national constitutional changes or tie funding to rule-of-law standards, arguing for absolute Member State sovereignty.
The draft resolution, authored by a cross-party majority, expresses deep concern over the deterioration of the rule of law and fundamental rights in Slovakia and links this to potential misuse of EU funds. The ESN amendments, the only ones submitted, seek to reverse this narrative entirely. Amendment 1 inserts a new recital citing Article 4(2) TEU on respecting Member States' national identities, demanding that any rule-of-law assessment be objective and impartial. Amendment 2 deletes the original operative paragraph that expressed deep concern and stated that verifiable adherence to the rule of law and the Charter must be an essential precondition for receiving EU funds, substituting a generic statement that EU funds must serve the public interest. Amendment 3 replaces the resolution's criticism of Slovakia's constitutional amendments with language that fully respects them as a sovereign and exclusive prerogative, asserting that national constitutional identity can override EU law primacy.
Policy orientations and trade-offs The amendments represent a fundamental clash between EU integration and national sovereignty. The original text reflects the established EU position that the rule of law is a fundamental value (Article 2 TEU) and that its protection is a shared responsibility, including through financial mechanisms like the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation. The ESN amendments argue for a strict sovereigntist interpretation of the Treaties, citing Article 4(2) TEU on national identity. If adopted, the resolution would no longer link EU funds to rule-of-law compliance, weakening the EU's main enforcement tool. The trade-off is between protecting EU values and respecting Member State autonomy, with the ESN prioritizing the latter.
Impact on stakeholders EU regulatory bodies: The European Commission's ability to enforce rule-of-law conditionality would be undermined if the Parliament endorses the ESN position, reducing political pressure on the Commission to act. National authorities of EU countries: The amendments would strengthen the hand of governments facing rule-of-law scrutiny, particularly in Slovakia, by asserting that constitutional changes are beyond EU judgment. EU taxpayers: The link between EU funds and rule-of-law compliance is intended to protect taxpayers' money from misuse; removing that link could increase the risk of funds being used in ways that undermine democratic safeguards. EU civil society: Organizations advocating for rule-of-law standards would see a major setback, as the resolution would no longer condemn restrictions on fundamental rights in Slovakia.
Expected institutional follow-up The amendments will be debated and voted on in the European Parliament plenary. The original draft's authors (likely EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, and The Left) are expected to oppose the ESN changes. If the amendments are rejected, the resolution will retain its critical stance. If adopted, it would mark a significant shift in the Parliament's position on rule-of-law enforcement. The Council and Commission will monitor the outcome, as it could influence future legislative proposals on conditionality.
← Atlas › News › EU affairs & Institutions