The European Court's conviction for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic

The refusal to comply with European provisions regarding the mechanism, albeit temporary, of the reception towards asylum seekers, drawn up by Brussels in 2015, led to the acceptance of the appeal against Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which the European Commission had previously presented . Now the three member states of the Union will have to follow up on the ruling, adopting devices suitable for the reception of migrants. The Court of Justice of the European Union has identified the non-execution of the European Council decision, adopted on 22 September 2015, which made the acceptance of approximately 120,000 applicants for international protection from Italy and Greece to other European states mandatory. The Court also found that Poland and the Czech Republic had failed to comply, based on a decision of 14 September 2015, that 40,000 asylum seekers had not been relocated, while Budapest was not part of this decision. These European Council decisions aimed to ease the pressure on migratory flows on Italy and Greece; at this juncture Warsaw's response had been that Poland could accept only 100 migrants, without, however, then following up on this intent; Budapest had not even indicated a possible number of migrants to be welcomed, while Prague had welcomed only twelve people instead of the fifty, who had declared that they could host. These behaviors, which add up to the refusal to comply and comply with the decisions of the European Council, even that of not keeping what was promised, even respecting the minimum quantities indicated by the countries themselves, has provoked a decision that is legal, but also, finally, political ; the Court, in fact, accepting the appeal of the European Commission, rejected the theses of the three countries, which had invoked their direct responsibilities in the field of public order and internal security and, far worse, a presumed malfunction of the mechanism for the relocation of refugees. The immediate effect of the ruling is the duty for the three countries to immediately adapt to the provisions of the Court, also to avoid a new appeal by the Commission, which could result in the application of fines. However, this ruling states that the issue does not only concern the judicial plan, but also affects the political one. For these states, joining the European Union is a matter of mere convenience, which has allowed them to have access to substantial funding, with which their governments maintain an economy, otherwise very lacking in terms of results. These are countries in which the undemocratic influence from the regimes from which they come, although a great deal of time has passed since the end of the Soviet empire, has not been overcome by the political fabric and also by a large part of the social fabric. The lack of democratic maturity prevents a conscious sharing with the ideals on which the Union is founded. This ruling may be the first step to determine less permissive rules for staying within the common European house and to establish more stringent gradual mechanisms for the adoption of measures in favor of the division, not only of financial aid, but also of problematic ones. which also generate unwanted obligations. Anticipating the deduction of community contributions automatically for each shortfall must be the first type of penalty provided, until then the expulsion of the members who have managed to comply with common obligations. Only in this way will it be possible to move forward moving forward towards European political unification.