Activists and MEPs want notoriously corrupt foreign officials to face EU visa-bans and asset-freezes, in a proposal backed by Estonia.

People guilty of “serious corruption” including “bribery, misappropriation of public funds, and the laundering of their proceeds” should be added to an existing EU list of global human rights abusers, said 71 MEPs in a letter to EU leaders dated 21 October.

The human rights blacklist includes Russian judges who tormented dissidents, Taliban virtue-enforcers, African warlords, and extremist Israeli settlers among the 151 individuals and 34 entities it names.

But the fact the EU did not have “corruption” as a criterion for inclusion, unlike similar legislation in Western allies Australia, Canada, the US, and UK, left a loophole, the MEPs warned.

“This allows corrupt foreign officials already sanctioned by other Western partners to continue to benefit from EU institutions and its financial systems,” they said.

The anti-corruption bolt-on would have a moral and a strategic value, said Polish rightwing MEP and former interior minister Mariusz Kamiński, who co-signed the letter.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

The European Commission will not help journalists facing jail in Egypt even though its multi-billion-euro EU-Egypt deal signed in 2024 is conditional on human rights.

On Thursday (29 October), it read out a prepared statement, noting the importance of independent media outlets and that its agreement with Egypt includes a commitment to universal values of democracy, rule of law and human rights.

The statement was read after Cairo cracked down on Lina Attalah, chief editor of the independent media outlet Mada Masr.

The journalist was convicted on Wednesday by a court in Cairo for operating a website without a licence even though she had made multiple attempts over the years to obtain such a licence.

Her latest application for a licence has been pending without response since 2023 and her site has been blocked in Egypt since 2017.

She was fined some €48,000 and ordered to shut down the outlet, highlighting a pattern of abuse against journalists and civil society throughout Egypt, a country deemed an essential partner for the EU in its efforts to curb migration.

As of early October, Egypt has imprisoned 25 journalists.

In response, the commission at a press briefing re-read its short statement on the importance of independent media in Egypt.

Asked if this also means it would press Egypt to drop its case against Lina Attalah, a commission spokesperson said he would not “go further than what we have already put out there”.

Pressed if the crackdown against her is a demonstration of the values cited in its €7.4bn agreement with Egypt, he deferred to another spokesperson before walking off the stage. No other comment was made on the matter.

The response has drawn criticism from rights defenders.

“We don’t need the EU to tell us that Egypt jails journalists. We need to know what it’s going to do about it,” said Claudio Francavilla of Human Rights Watch.

He said the EU has been funnelling billions to Egypt, conditioned on “concrete and credible steps” on human rights.

The exact wording of the agreement, which is published here, says that assistance to Egypt requires it “to make concrete and credible steps” towards respecting effective democracy, the rule of law, and guarantees respect for human rights.

“Egyptian authorities don’t seem to have read the memo. Lame statements like this one are hardly a reminder,” Francavilla said of the commission’s reaction.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman, accusing the EU Commission of maladministration over its handling of the bloc’s methane rules.

The complaint, filed on Thursday (29 October), targets two recent commission decisions. 

The first is for a July recommendation that member states hold off on fining importers that are in breach of the rules until 2030. 

The second is a proposal made earlier this month to delay the import rules by a year over supply worries — a decision that was made following heavy pressure from oil and gas companies, the White House and eventually by the summer, a majority of member states. 

But the EIA argues that neither decision is backed up by evidence that the rules actually threaten Europe’s energy supply or push up prices.

By delaying a law already adopted in 2024, the group says, the commission is “undermining integrity of both the legislative process and the EU rule of law.”

“Rather than ensuring that the EU Methane Regulation is implemented as agreed, the commission has responded to pressure from the fossil-fuel industry by weakening enforcement and proposing further delays, without providing credible evidence to justify these decisions,” said Jack Corscadden, senior climate campaigner at EIA.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Brussels is considering unprecedented restrictions on the rights of future EU members, including the possible suspension of voting rights for serious breaches of European values. France and the Netherlands favour stronger safeguards, while Italy and Austria warn that excessive conditions could undermine enlargement.

European Union governments have begun negotiations over proposals that would allow Brussels to impose additional restrictions on future member states, exposing divisions over how to prevent democratic backsliding without discouraging countries seeking accession.

The discussions, held among EU ambassadors on 28 October, concern draft safeguards proposed by the European Commission for inclusion in future accession treaties.

Montenegro, currently the most advanced candidate in the Western Balkans, is expected to become the first country subject to the proposed arrangements.

The measures would potentially allow the EU to suspend certain membership rights, including voting rights, during a transitional period lasting up to 15 years after accession.

However, the negotiations have revealed disagreement not only over the duration of the safeguards but also over the powers that should be granted to the Commission and the legal thresholds for intervention.

The controversy raises a broader question about the nature of EU membership: whether countries that have completed accession negotiations should immediately enjoy the same institutional rights as existing members.

France and the Netherlands seek stronger guarantees

According to Euronews’ reporting on the ambassadors’ discussions, France and the Netherlands have pressed for stronger guarantees that newly admitted states will continue respecting the rule of law and other EU obligations.

Their position reflects concern that the Union’s existing procedures have proved difficult to enforce against governments accused of undermining judicial independence or democratic institutions.

Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union already provides for sanctions, including suspension of certain membership rights, where a serious breach of European values is established.

However, the procedure involves demanding political and voting requirements.

The Commission’s proposed safeguards are intended to provide an additional instrument specifically applicable to newly admitted members.

They would operate during a defined period after accession and could be activated in response to serious breaches of EU values or the principle of sincere cooperation.

For governments supporting the proposal, the objective is to ensure that reforms undertaken during accession negotiations remain effective after membership has been secured.

Italy and Austria warn against excessive restrictions

Not all member states share this approach.

Italy and Austria, among countries supporting faster integration of the Western Balkans, have warned against imposing conditions that could make EU membership appear provisional or unequal.

Their concern is that candidate countries may face an increasingly complicated accession process even after meeting the formal requirements.

The credibility of EU enlargement depends partly on the proposition that successful reforms will eventually lead to full membership.

If new members are subjected to extensive additional restrictions, political leaders in candidate countries could find it more difficult to justify the domestic compromises required by accession negotiations.

The debate is particularly sensitive in the Western Balkans, where prolonged delays have already generated frustration over the pace of integration.

The challenge for Brussels is to strengthen safeguards without creating a permanent distinction between established and newly admitted members.

A proposed 15-year period

The Commission’s draft institutional safeguard would remain available for 15 years following accession.

This period is intended to permit intervention if a new member reverses reforms after joining the Union.

Yet ambassadors have questioned whether such an extended period can reasonably be described as temporary.

The proposed decision-making mechanism has also attracted criticism.

Under the draft, the Commission could propose restrictive measures that would take effect unless a qualified majority of member states rejected or amended them within two weeks.

This would reverse the usual political dynamic by requiring governments to assemble a blocking majority rather than actively secure support for sanctions.

The proposal could therefore make intervention easier than under the existing Article 7 mechanism.

Critics are concerned that the arrangement would give the Commission excessive influence over the institutional rights of newly admitted countries.

Supporters argue that a more effective enforcement mechanism is necessary precisely because existing procedures have proved difficult to use.

Monitoring could begin before accession

The proposed safeguards are not confined to the period following membership.

The Commission also wants stronger monitoring between the signing of an accession treaty and the date on which a country formally joins.

This period can last several years, during which a candidate government may change and reform commitments may weaken.

Under the draft arrangements, monitoring could include regular assessments, reviews involving existing member states and formal warnings.

As a last resort, accession could be postponed if there were clear evidence that a candidate would not meet the required conditions.

The voting procedure for such a postponement remains unresolved.

These provisions would add another stage of oversight to an accession process that already requires extensive negotiations and the implementation of EU legislation.

Montenegro faces a new uncertainty

Montenegro began accession negotiations in June 2012.

According to the European Commission’s enlargement records, all 33 screened negotiating chapters have been opened and 16 provisionally closed.

Its progress has made the country a leading candidate for the next round of enlargement.

However, its accession treaty may now become the vehicle through which the EU establishes a new framework for future entrants.

The implications extend beyond Montenegro.

Albania, Moldova and Ukraine are also pursuing accession, although they are at different stages of the process.

Any safeguards introduced for Montenegro could influence the terms eventually offered to those countries.

Enlargement becomes a test of EU governance

The Commission’s proposals reflect a wider debate over whether the EU’s institutions can function effectively with substantially more members.

New entrants would participate in decisions concerning the budget, sanctions, foreign policy and the internal market.

Their admission could also affect areas where unanimity remains necessary, potentially increasing the risk of institutional deadlock.

The European Parliament’s research service has identified the proposed safeguards as part of a broader programme addressing decision-making and governance ahead of enlargement.

Negotiations over the draft clauses will continue at the technical level, with ambassadors expected to revisit the matter in November.

The central disagreement remains unresolved.

The EU wants future members to maintain democratic and legal standards, but it must also decide whether those guarantees can be enforced without creating a separate class of membership.

Montenegro’s accession negotiations will provide the first practical test of that approach.