New principles of resource distribution in the EU and their impact on the countries of the Baltic region
The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021—2027 was adopted during the severe crisis caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In the face of a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, EU countries took unprecedented steps radically changing the principles of resource allocation in the Union. These included the recovery plan for Europe, making the EU budget conditional on respect for the rule of law and the new EU resources system. This article seeks to identify the essential characteristics of the decisions made within the Multiannual Financial Framework and define their significance for advancing integration. The study attempts to answer two questions: do these decisions mark the transition to a new stage of integration and to what extent do they comply with the law of the Union. Several EU initiatives related to debt redistribution are analysed, along with the impact of these initiatives on Eastern European countries, particularly those of the Baltic Sea region. The research explores the decisions from the standpoint of legal and political science. In particular, it is stressed that, when reaching a compromise on making the budget conditional on respect for the rule of law, the EU and its member states had to use a mechanism for postponing the execution of an act of the Union, which contradicts the basic principles of EU law. From a political point of view, the adoption of a package of legislative acts within the Multiannual Financial Framework means growing dependence of the member states and an increase in solidarity and loyalty within the Union.
1. Entin, M. L. 2020, Non-alternative nature of the development of the EU, Sovremennaya Evropa, no. 4, p. 25—36. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope420202536 (in Russ.).
2. Celi, G., Guarascio, D., Simonazzi, A. 2020, A fragile and divided European Union meets Covid-19: Further disintegration or ‘Hamiltonian moment’? Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, vol. 47, no. 3, p. 411—424.
3. Alogoskoufis, G., Jacque, L. 2019, Economic and Financial Asymmetries in the Euro Area, CGK Working Paper, no. 2, 53 p.
4. Verdun, A. 1996, An “asymmetrical” economic and monetary union in the EU: Perceptions of monetary authorities and social partners, Journal of European Integration, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 59—81.
5. Howarth, D., Verdun, A. 2020, Economic and Monetary Union at twenty: a stocktaking of a tumultuous second decade: introduction, Journal of European Integration, vol. 42, no. 3, p. 287— 293.
6. De Grauwe, P. 2006, Flaws in the Design of the Eurosystem, International Finance, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 137—144.
7. Lifshits, I. M. (ed.) 2020, Mezhdunarodnoe finansovoe pravo i pravo Evropeiskogo soyuza: vzaimodeistvie i vzaimovliyanie [International Financial Law and European Union Law: Interaction and Mutual Influence], monograph, M., Yustitsinform, 548 p. (in Russ.).
8. de la Porte, C., Jensen, M. D. 2021, The next generation EU: An analysis of the dimensions of conflict behind the deal, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 55, no. 2, 3, p. 388—402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12709.
9. Schulz, F., Grüll, P. 2020, EU recovery deal: the summit that will cement Merkel’s legacy, Euractiv, 23.07.2020, available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/angela-merkel-der-gipfel-ihrer-karriere/ (accessed 15.01.2021).
10. Vernikov, V. L. 2020, Coronavirus in Spain don’t scare tourists, Analiticheskaya zapiska instituta Evropy RAN [Analytical note of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences], no. 30 (213), 9 p., available at: http://www.zapiski-ieran.ru/images/analitika/2020/an213.pdf (accessed 15.01.2021) (in Russ.).
11. Grosse, T. G. 2020, A Hamiltonian Moment for the European Union, The Warsaw Institute Review, vol. 13, no. 2, available at: https://warsawinstitute.review/issue-2-2020/a-hamiltonian-moment-for-the-european-union/ (accessed 21.04.2021).
12. Turkina, A. V. 2019, Postroenie Byudzhetno-fiskal’nogo soyuza v Ev-ropeiskom soyuze i ego vliyanie na dal’neishuyu integratsiyu [Building a Fiscal Union in the European Union and its impact on further integration], PhD Thes., М., 206 p. (in Russ.).
13. da Costa Cabral, N. 2021, Borrowing in the European Union: from a pure national model to the antechamber of a European fiscal federal solution, Journal of European Integration, p. 1—16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1881499.
14. Van Middelaar, L. 2019, Alarums and Excursions: Improvising Politics on the European Stage, Agenda Publishing, 320 p.
15. Genschel, P., Jachtenfuchs, M. 2021, Postfunctionalism reversed: solidarity and rebordering during the COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of European Public Policy, 11.02.2021, available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2021.1881588 (accessed 16.04.2021).
16. Tooze, A. 2020, It’s a New Europe — if You Can Keep It. The continent has managed to take a great leap forward — but there still might be a crash landing, Foreign Policy, 07.08.2020, availalbe at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/07/merkel-macron-eu-its-a-new-europe-if-you-can-keep-it/ (accessed 15.09.2020).
17. Lifshits, I. M. 2020, Tax on financial transactions as a possible tool for the development of integration into the EU, Sovremennaya Evropa, no. 5, p. 165—172. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope52020165172 (in Russ.).
18. Blauberger, M., van Hüllen, V. 2021, Conditionality of EU funds: an instrument to enforce EU fundamental values? Journal of European Integration, p. 1—16, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1708337.
19. Closa, C. 2019, The Politics of Guarding the Treaties: Commission Scrutiny of Rule of Law Compliance, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 26, no. 5, p. 696—716 (710). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1477822.
20. Bachmaier, L. 2018, Compliance with the Rule of Law in the EU and the Protection of the Union’s Budget. Further reflections on the Proposal for the Regulation of 18 May, EUCRIM, no. 2, p. 120—126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2019-008.
21. Scheppele, K. L., Pech, L., Platon, S.2020, Compromising the Rule of Law while Compromising on the Rule of Law, VerfBlog, 2020/12/13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/1010.17176/20201214-060045-0.
22. Franzius, C. 2018, Der Kampf um Demokratie in Polen und Ungarn — Wie kann und soll die Europäische Union reagieren, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, no. 10, p. 381—389.
23. Kochenov, D. 2019, Elephants in the Room: The European Commission’s 2019 Communication on the Rule of Law, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, vol. 11, no. 2—3, p. 423—438. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40803-019-00126-x.
24. Neuwahl, N., Kovacs, C. 2020, Hungary and the EU’s rule of law protection. Journal of European Integration, p. 1—16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/202010.1080/07036337.2020.1717484.
25. Bogdanowicz, P., Taborowski, M. 2020, How to Save a Supreme Court in a Rule of Law Crisis: the Polish Experience: ECJ (Grand Chamber) 24 June 2019, Case C-619/18, European Commission v. Republic of Poland, European Constitutional Law Review, p. 1—22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1574019620000115.
26. Shishelina, L. N. 2020, Visegrad Group against the backdrop of the challenges of 2020, Sovremennaya Evropa, no. 5, p. 89—98. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope520208998 (in Russ.).
27. Kelemen, R. D. 2020, The European Union’s authoritarian equilibrium, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 481—499.
28. Makszimov, V. 2021, Hungary, Poland refer controversial rule of law mechanism to court, Euractiv.com, 21 March, available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/hungary-poland-refer-controversial-rule-of-law-mechanism-to-court/ (accessed 16.03.2021).
29. Wahl, T. 2020, Compromise on Making EU Budget Conditional to Rule of Law Respect, EUCRIM, no. 3, p. 174—176, available at: https://eucrim.eu/news/compromise-making-eu-budget-conditional-rule-law-respect/ (accessed 17.03.2021).
30. Voynikov, V. V. 2019, From the Mediterranean to the Baltic: the problem of implementing the principle of solidarity in the EU area of immigration and asylum, Balt. Reg., vol. 11, no. 2, p. 17—31. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2019-2-2.
31. Vanttinen, P. 2021, Baltic states favour rail over recovery, Euractiv.com, Jan 28, available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/baltic-states-favour-rail-over-recovery/ (accessed 16.03.2021).
32. Goulding Carro, S. 2021, EU reaches agreement on cross-border infrastructure funding, Euractiv.com, Mar 15, available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/eu-reaches-agreement-on-cross-border-infrastructure-... (accessed 16.03.2021).
33. Issing, O. 2020, The COVID‐19 crisis: A Hamilton moment for the European Union? International Finance, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 340—347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12377.