Brussels Presses Spain on Corruption

Pedro Sánchez presents his government as one of Europe’s defenders of democratic standards. Brussels has now given that claim a more awkward footnote. The European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law Report, published on 17 July, records only "limited progress" by Spain on anti-corruption, lobbying rules and judicial reform (European Commission, Ara).

The report does not bind Madrid and carries no automatic sanctions (Commission Q&A). But, as Maltese readers know from our own rule-of-law battles after Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination, a Brussels document can matter even when it does not immediately force a government’s hand. It creates a record. Spain’s critics, at home and across Europe, are already using it.

What the Commission found

The Rule of Law Report is the Commission’s yearly check-up on each EU member state’s courts, anti-corruption system, media freedom and institutional safeguards. Spain’s chapter reads less like a crisis bulletin than a list of repairs left too long on the shelf.

On corruption, the issue is pace. Major cases drag because of bottlenecks in financial expert evidence and poor case management (Infobae, La Voz de Galicia). Spain still has no mandatory public register for lobbying and no independent integrity watchdog with proper powers, although a draft law is moving through the system (20 Minutos).

The judicial criticism goes further. The Commission again urged Spain to change the way members of the CGPJ are chosen. The CGPJ is the body that governs the judiciary and appoints senior judges. Under the current model, parliamentary parties have heavy influence over who sits on it, and that council then shapes which judges rise through the system (Ara).

Brussels also told Madrid to separate the Prosecutor General’s term from the government’s political cycle. If the chief prosecutor’s tenure is tied too closely to whoever is in office, prosecutions can appear to follow political convenience, even when the legal work itself is defensible (El Español).

The most pointed criticism concerned political speech. The Commission said court judgments can be criticised in a democracy. But it warned that government and parliamentary figures should avoid comments that undermine judicial independence.

Who benefits from the wording

Inside Spain, the opposition gets the easiest gain. "Limited progress" is not an opposition slogan; it is a Commission phrase that Sánchez’s critics can quote without having to build the case from scratch (El Mundo). Transparency campaigners also gain a benchmark they can use when their demands are brushed off as party politics. The government, for its part, can contain the damage by saying this is routine monitoring and by pointing to draft reforms already under way.

Outside Spain, Hungary moved quickly. Before publication, Hungary’s EU affairs minister János Bóka said the report would show whether the Commission judges member states by the same standard (Origo, HVG). Government-aligned Hungarian media then argued that criticism of Spain proved Brussels applies double standards.

Independent Hungarian outlets drew a sharper distinction. Spain was criticised for lobbying gaps, slow courts and unfinished reforms. Hungary’s file concerns systemic corruption and the dismantling of checks on executive power. Slovakia’s government made similar claims about selectivity, but Slovak reporting focused on Bratislava’s own weaknesses (Aktuality).

An evidence file, not an enforcement tool

The Commission describes this annual cycle as preventive monitoring. Its recommendations are not binding. Spain’s chapter came with no funding freeze, no court case and no legal deadline. The limits of the exercise are visible in the numbers: according to EU Perspectives, only 47% of the 2025 recommendations had been fully or partly addressed within a year.

The report becomes sharper only when it connects to instruments with consequences. That can mean an infringement case, where the Commission sues a member state for breaching EU law. It can also mean a budget measure, where Brussels withholds funds until reforms are made (Commission). Neither route has been used against Spain.

What Brussels has produced is an evidence file. It records delayed corruption cases, missing lobbying rules, unfinished judicial reforms and political attacks on courts. Whether that record forces reform or becomes another headline Madrid waits out depends on Spain’s government, parliament and judiciary. So far, they have not answered.