Moreover, distinguished legal scholars like Dimitry Kochenov, Laurent Pech and Kim Lane Scheppele have argued that if two countries (e.g., Hungary and Slovakia) are sanctioned in parallel, each of them is excluded from the vote on the other, thereby neutralizing their ability to veto one another’s punishment.
The rationale for this approach is a teleological interpretation of the article in question, which is intended to uphold EU values. Thus, it shouldn’t be providing a shield for autocrats via mutual impunity. And such a reading — focused on purpose and effectiveness — would support interpreting Article 7(2) flexibly, so that rule-of-law violators can’t exploit the unanimity rule to escape accountability.
It also aligns with the principle that treaty provisions shouldn’t be applied in a way that defeats their effectiveness.
The strategy carries risks, of course, as Hungary and Slovakia would likely challenge this procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, the court has consistently supported the EU’s fundamental values in recent judgments, such as in the 2021 Hungary v. European Parliament case (C-650/18).
This interpretation stays within the letter of the law, while addressing its exploitative loophole. It transforms Article 7 from a theoretical threat into a practical tool. And, crucially, it simply requires political courage — not treaty change.
Europe now faces the greatest challenge since its formation. The continent’s peace, prosperity and core values depend on confronting those who would destroy it from within, and if the bloc fails to act decisively, it risks remaining caught between a dysfunctional confederation and the “ever closer union” it hopes to become.
This proposed simultaneous suspension strategy offers a pathway forward. The legal tools to address this crisis exist — Europe just needs to use them, and meet the moment with creativity and courage.