ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

ROME — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is on course to narrowly lose a high-stakes referendum on justice reform Monday, according to a poll released as soon as voting ended at 3 p.m.   According to a survey by Swg carried on the La7 broadcaster, the margins were tight but 49-53 percent of the electorate was expected to vote against Meloni’s proposed reforms, while 47-51 percent were expected to vote in favor. A loss in the referendum would be likely to weaken her hand politically.

Voter turnout in Italy’s referendum on judicial reform reached nearly 15 percent by noon on Sunday, signaling a stronger-than-expected start to a vote seen as a key test for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Recent polling indicated that higher turnout could improve the chances of the “Yes” camp backed by Meloni’s government, while lower participation would make a “No” victory more likely. Government data put participation at 14.92 percent at midday. The early figure marks a stronger start than in comparable recent referendums, with turnout at noon standing at just 12.24 percent in the 2020 vote on cutting the number of MPs and 10.1 percent in the 2006 constitutional referendum. Regional data shows northern and central regions leading participation, with Emilia-Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Lombardy recording the highest turnout so far. Southern regions including Calabria, Basilicata and Sicily are trailing in turnout. At the heart of the vote is a deeply contested reform of the Italian judiciary. The most controversial element is a proposal to overhaul how members of the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM) — the body that governs judges’ careers — are selected. Instead of being elected, most members would be chosen by lottery under the proposal. Supporters of the reform argue the change would break the influence of internal factions within the judiciary and reduce politicization. Critics say it risks undermining merit and representation, potentially allowing underqualified and political candidates to oversee key decisions on appointments and discipline. Two further turnout updates are scheduled for 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. Sunday, with final results expected after polls close on Monday at 3 p.m. The referendum does not require a minimum turnout, meaning the reform will be approved or rejected based solely on the majority of votes cast.

ROME — Giorgia Meloni is running Italy’s most stable government in years, but her political future now appears closely tied to a major referendum on Sunday and Monday. The plebiscite will address the bitter and complex question of judicial reform — something right-wingers such as Meloni have pursued for decades, accusing judges of political interference and left-wing bias. The changes sought by the referendum are highly technical, but the vote will be viewed as a wider test of confidence in the prime minister and her government. If Meloni wins, the victory will cement her power before a general election expected next year. But if she loses, the opposition will smell blood. Voters will be asked to support the reforms by voting “yes,” or reject them by crossing “no” on their ballots. Here’s everything you need to know about the referendum, and what happens next. THE LOGISTICS Booths will be open on Sunday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and on Monday from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., while expats should have mailed their ballots by March 19. Exit polls will be published at 3 p.m. on Monday and official results will be confirmed later in the day. The constitutional referendum is binding No matter what the turnout WHAT POLLS SAY Italian law prevents the media from polling citizens within two weeks of the vote, but the latest numbers published March 7 identified a “growing trend” toward the “no” campaign. Still, the race looks finely balanced, with much depending on turnout. Turnout data — released throughout the day Sunday and at close of polls on Monday — could give an early indication of the results: A lower turnout is expected to favor the opposition, while higher figures should help Meloni. A man works next to a giant poster reading “Vote No to the law of the strongest”, ahead of the upcoming referendum on Justice reform, on March 20, 2026. | Stefano Rellandini / AFP via Getty Images The Iran war poses a risk to Meloni that may have ramped up since the last polls. Italian voters greatly dislike her ally, U.S. President Donald Trump, and are worried about rises in their already high energy bills thanks to the Middle East conflict. WHAT REFORMS ARE BEING PROPOSED? The government says it wants to break the judiciary into different career tracks to prevent groupthink and to stop cases being sewn up between judges and prosecutors from the same background. The reform suggests separating the career paths of judges and prosecutors — who currently share the same entrance exams and training programs — and adding a second prosecutors’ governing body to the existing one for personnel matters as well as a higher court in charge of discipline. Most members of the three courts will be selected by a lottery system rather than elected. HOW DID WE GET HERE? The Italian justice system has often been the center of political debates. Meloni’s government argues the reform is needed to fix an overly politicized and unaccountable judiciary, but the “no” campaign — led by the opposition — sees it as an authoritarian move to muzzle judges and reduce their independence.  In the 1990s, following the Mani Pulite (“Clean Hands”)corruption scandal that broke the Christian Democrats’ decades-long hold on power, politicians were discredited, while prosecutors were hailed as heroes and gained moral authority. This triggered lasting grievances on the right and a conviction that the judiciary has become a political force.  Things have not always been so binary. The idea of separating the career paths of judges and prosecutors was also previously supported by the left: Massimo D’Alema, who was secretary of the left-wing Partito Democratico di Sinistra and would soon become prime minister, proposed the reform as chair of a bipartisan parliamentary commission in 1997. But everything changed when Silvio Berlusconi came to power. The late prime minister took a more antagonistic stance toward the judiciary, alleging he was being prosecuted because of political interests. He nicknamed judges toghe rosse (“red robes”), accusing them of being Communist sympathizers and indulging a personal vendetta against him. He repeatedly attempted to rein in prosecutorial power, including curbing the use of wiretaps, instituting parliamentary immunity and shortening the statute of limitations.  In 2002 Berlusconi proposed a similar constitutional amendment to Meloni’s, but was forced to retreat after a fierce backlash. Since then most governments, like Mario Draghi’s in 2021, have focused on passing more targeted laws to improve efficiency. THE AYES HAVE IT: WHAT’S NEXT? If she wins, Meloni will take her victory lap, celebrating the reform and adding an arrow to her political quiver ahead of next year’s general election. She could attempt to ride the momentum and force an early vote before economic headwinds pick up, fueled by the energy crisis and the end of Italy’s EU-funded Covid recovery assistance. But she has said publicly that she wants to serve out her full term. THE NAYS HAVE IT: WHAT’S NEXT? Meloni has tried her best to avoid former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s referendum mistake: making it personal. When Renzi lost the vote on his constitutional reform in 2016 he was forced to step down, after running a campaign that tied his name and fate to the outcome. The current Italian leader has insisted she won’t resign if her proposals fail.  But she won’t come out of it unscathed, either. Meloni has presented herself as a strong and stable leader, untouched by scandals and internal party squabbles, something unseen in Italy’s modern history. Losing the referendum would amount to the first real dent in her political armor and would hand a significant win to the opposition, putting her on a bumpy track before next year’s general election.

When German historian Rainer Zitelmann reposted a photo of Adolf Hitler to warn against appeasing Russian President Vladimir Putin, he didn’t expect it to trigger a police probe. According to police, the problem was the image itself: Hitler was shown wearing a swastika armband — a banned symbol under Germany’s criminal code, which prohibits the public display of Nazi and other extremist insignia. Zitelmann was informed in February that authorities were examining the case. Zitelmann’s is just one of several recent investigations into online speech, which have raised questions about how far German authorities are going in enforcing strict speech laws — and whether efforts to curb extremism are colliding with satire and political criticism. Zitelmann said he posted the image as a warning, not an endorsement. Like Hitler, Putin cannot be trusted when he says he has no further territorial ambitions. “I’m usually against Hitler analogies,” he said. “They’re often inaccurate and used to discredit political opponents.”  But, he added, ”the parallels practically impose themselves.” A week earlier, a journalist found himself in a similar situation for mocking the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.  In a podcast, Jan Fleischhauer suggested the party’s youth wing, known as “Generation Germany,” might be better named “Generation Germany awake” — a reference to a banned Nazi slogan. Fleischhauer’s case comes after police had searched conservative commentator Norbert Bolz’s home in October for using the same slogan to mock a left-wing newspaper that had called for the AfD to be banned. “A good translation for ‘woke’: Germany awake!” Bolz had written. Fleischhauer reacted to his investigation with humor. “Maybe [the complaint was filed] … by an AfD supporter who was annoyed that I made fun of the AfD youth wing,” he said.  But, he warned, such cases risk chilling free speech. Jan Fleischhauer at the 69th Frankfurt Book Fair in Frankfurt am Main in October 2017. | Frank May/picture alliance via Getty Images “I come from the 1968 generation,” Fleischhauer said. “I thought the path of free speech had been cleared once and for all by the ’68 movement. But as we can see, all of that can be rolled back.” TRADEOFF The cases highlight a tension at the heart of Germany’s postwar legal order: how to guard against extremism without restricting free expression. After World War II, lawmakers — encouraged by the occupying Allied powers — moved swiftly to ban symbols of the country’s Nazi past, seeking to prevent fascism from reasserting itself. Critics now argue authorities are going too far. Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, wants the law scrapped or narrowed. “If one wants to keep it, it would have to be limited strictly to explicit endorsement of National Socialist ideology,” he said. “At the moment, it has become vague and ill-defined. The legislature urgently needs to change that.” But others warn that loosening the rules could embolden extremists.  Lena Gumnior speaks to MPs in the plenary chamber of the German Bundestag on May 16, 2025. | Katharina Kausche/picture alliance via Getty Images “The point is not to allow governments to suppress political expression, but rather to protect the principles of our liberal constitution,” said Lena Gumnior, a Green lawmaker. “It is about strictly prohibiting the use of unconstitutional symbols, particularly those associated with National Socialism, in order to protect our democracy.” A separate provision of Germany’s criminal code — which designates it an offense to insult or belittle a politician — also sparked controversy recently. In January, a retiree came under investigation after posting a Facebook comment about Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s visit to his town: “Pinocchio is coming,” he wrote, adding a long-nose “lying” emoji.  That case drew the attention of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, prompting a a post by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has taken a strong stance against European laws that regulate online speech. “Most Germans I’ve talked to don’t want their laws applied this way,” she wrote. “When you’re regulating speech at scale, on platforms based in America (whose American users, especially, deserve First Amendment protection), this creates problems worth solving.” German authorities have dropped the probes into Fleischhauer and the Pinocchio emoji. The investigation into Zitelmann was still open as of Friday. For Matthias Cornils, a law professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, the outcome matters more than the investigations themselves. “Courts often reject criminal liability, even in quite harsh cases,” he said. “The strong constitutional protection of freedom of expression, developed over decades, remains intact.”

When Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attended her first European leaders’ summit in Brussels in December 2022, few would have expected her to become one of the most effective politicians sitting around the table four years later.   In fact, few would have expected that she’d still be there at all, as Italian leaders are famously short-lived. Remarkably, her right-wing Brothers of Italy party looks as rock solid in polls as it did four years ago, and she now has her eye on the record longest term for an Italian premier — a feat she is due to accomplish in September. A loss in what is set to be a nail-biting referendum on the bitter and complex issue of judicial reform on March 22 and 23 would be her first major set back — and would puncture the air of political invincibility that she exudes not only in Rome but also in Brussels. Meloni has thrived on the European stage, and has become adept at using the EU machinery to her advantage. Only in recent months, she has made decisive interventions on the EU’s biggest dossiers, such as Russian assets, the Mercosur trade deal and carbon markets, leveraging Italy’s heavyweight status to win concessions in areas like farm subsidies. Profiting from France’s weakness, Meloni is also establishing a strong partnership with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — a double act between the EU’s No. 1 and No. 3 economies — to mold the bloc’s policies to favor manufacturing and free trade. CRASHING DOWN TO EARTH For a few more days, at least, Meloni looks like a uniquely stable and influential Italian leader. Nicola Procaccini, a Brothers of Italy MEP very close to Meloni and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, called the government’s longevity a “real novelty” in the European political landscape. “Until recently, Italy couldn’t insert itself into the dynamics of those that shape the European Union — essentially the Franco-German axis — because it lacked governments capable of lasting even a year,” said the MEP. “Giorgia Meloni is not just a leader who endures; she is a leader who shapes decisions and influences the direction to be taken.” But critics of the prime minister said a failure in the referendum would mark a critical turning point. Her rivals would finally detect a chink in her armor and move to attack her record, particularly on economic weaknesses at home. The unexpected, new message to other EU leaders would be clear: She won’t be here for ever. Brando Benifei, an MEP in Italy’s center-left opposition Democratic Party, conceded that other EU leaders saw her as the leader of a “ultra-stable government.” But, if she were to lose the referendum, he argued “she would inevitably lose that aura.” “Everyone remembers how it ended for Renzi’s coalition after he lost his referendum,” Benifei added, in reference to former Democratic Party Prime Minister Matteo Renzi who resigned after his own failed referendum in 2016. MACHIAVELLIAN MELONI Meloni owes much of her success on the EU stage to canny opportunism. At the beginning of the year, she slyly spotted an opportunity — suddenly wavering on the Mercosur trade deal, which Rome has long supported — to win extra cash for farmers that would please her powerful farm unions at home. She held off from actually killing the agreement, something that would have lost her friends among other capitals. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a signing ceremony during an Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit in Rome on Jan. 23, 2026. | Pool photo by Michael Kappeler/AFP via Getty Images The Italian leader “knows how to read the room very well,” said one European diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss European Council dynamics.   Teresa Coratella, deputy head of the Rome office at the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations, said Meloni had  “a political cunning” that allowed her to build “variable geometries,” allying with different European leaders by turn based on the subject under discussion. One of her first victories came on migration in 2023. She was able to elevate the issue to the top level of the European Council, and even managed to secure a visit by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Tunisia, eventually resulting in the signing of a pact on the issue. Others wins followed.  Last December, with impeccable timing, Meloni unexpectedly threw her lot in with Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever at the last minute, scuppering a plan to fund Ukraine’s defenses with Russian frozen assets, instead pushing for more EU joint debt. Italian diplomats said that Meloni is a careful student, showing up to summits always having read the relevant documents, and having asking the apposite questions. That wasn’t always the case with former Italian prime ministers.  They said her choice of functionaries — rewarding competence over and above political affiliation — also helps. These include her chief diplomatic consigliere Fabrizio Saggio and Vincenzo Celeste, ambassador to the EU. Neither is considered close politically to Meloni.   Her biggest coup, though, has been shunting aside France as Germany’s main European partner on key files, with her partnership with Merz even being dubbed “Merzoni.” ROLLING THE DICE Meloni’s strength partly explains why she dared call the referendum. Italy’s right has for decades complained that the judiciary is biased to the left. It’s a feud that goes back to the Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) anti-corruption drive in the 1990s that pulverized the political elite of that time, and the constant court cases against playboy premier and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, father of the modern center-right. The proposal in the plebiscite is to restructure the judiciary. But it’s a high-stakes gamble, and why she called it seems something of a puzzle. The reforms themselves are highly technical — and by the government’s own admission won’t actually speed up Italy’s notoriously long court cases.    Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni attends the European Council meeting on June 26, 2025 in Brussels. | Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Instead, the vote has turned into a more general vote of confidence in Meloni and her government. The timing is tough as Italians widely dislike her ally U.S. President Donald Trump and fear the war in Iran will drive up their already high power prices. Still, she is determined not to suffer Renzi’s fate and insists she will not step down even if she loses the referendum.  Asked at a conference on Thursday whether a loss would make Rome appear less stable in its dealings with other European capitals, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani was adamant that the referendum has “absolutely nothing to do with the stability of the government.” “This government will last until the day of the next national elections,” he added. A victory on Monday will put the wind in her sails before the next general elections, which have to be held by the end of 2027. It would also set the stage for other reforms that Meloni wants to enact: a move to a more presidential system, with a direct election of the prime minister, making the role more like the French presidency.  But a loss would galvanize the opposition — split between the populist 5Star Movement, and the traditional center-left Democratic Party. The danger is her rivals would round on her particularly over the economy. Even counting for the fact Italy has benefitted from the largest tranche of the Covid-era recovery package — growth has been sluggish, consistently below 1 percent, falling to 0.5 percent in 2025.  “We have a situation in which the country is increasingly heading toward stagnation and we have to ask ourselves what would have happened if we had not had the boost of the Recovery Fund,” said Enrico Borghi, a senator from Italia Viva, Renzi’s party. Procaccini, however, defended her, both on employment and growth. “It could be better,” he conceded. “But we are still talking about growth, unlike countries that in this historical phase are recording a decline, as in the case of Germany.”

BUDAPEST — If Brussels claws back €10 billion of EU funds controversially disbursed to Hungary, it will also have to recover as much as €137 billion from Poland too, Budapest’s EU affairs minister told POLITICO. The European Commission made a highly contentious decision in December 2023 to free up €10 billion of EU funds to Hungary that had been frozen because of weaknesses on rule of law deficiencies and backsliding on judicial independence. Members of the European Parliament condemned what looked like a political decision, offering a sweetener to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán just before a key summit where the EU needed his support for Ukraine aid. On Feb. 12, Court of Justice of the European Union Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta recommended annulling the decision, meaning Hungary may have to return the funds if the court follows in its final ruling in the coming months. Orbán has slammed the idea of a repayment as “absurd.” János Bóka, Hungary’s EU affairs minister, told POLITICO that clawing back the €10 billion from the euroskeptic government in Budapest would mean that Brussels should also be recovering cash from Poland, led by pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk. “We believe that the Commission’s decision was lawful … the opinion, I think, it’s legally excessive,” Bóka said. He warned that “if the Advocate General’s opinion is followed then the Commission would be legally required to freeze all the EU money going to Poland as well, which I think in any case the Commission is not willing to do.” The legal opinion on Hungary states the the Commission was wrong in unfreezing the funds “before the required legislative reforms had entered into force or were being applied,” Ćapeta said in February. Bóka said that would seem to describe the situation in Poland too. In February 2024, the EU executive released €137 billion in frozen funds to Tusk’s government in exchange for promised judicial reforms. But these have since been blocked by President Karol Nawrocki as tensions between the two worsen — spelling trouble for Poland’s continued access to EU cash. “It’s very easy to get the EU funds if they want to give it to you, as we could see in the case of Poland, where they could get the funds with a page-and-a-half action plan, which is still not implemented because of legislative difficulty,” Bóka said. Fundamentally, that is why Bóka said he believed “the court will not issue any judgment that would put Poland in a difficult position.” Bóka risks leaving office with Orbán after the April 12 election, with opposition leader Péter Magyar leading in the polls on a platform of unlocking EU funds, tackling corruption, and improving healthcare and education. The Commission is, separately, withholding another €18 billion of Hungarian funds — €7.6 billion in cohesion funds and €10.4 billion from the coronavirus recovery package. “I think Péter Magyar is right when he says that the Commission wants to give this money to them … in exchange, like they did in the case of Poland, they want alignment in key policy areas,” he said, “like support for Ukraine, green-lighting progress in Ukraine’s accession process, decoupling from Russian oil and gas, and implementing the Migration Pact.” “Just like in the case of Poland, they might allow rhetorical deviation from the line, but in key areas, they want alignment and compliance.” Poland’s Tusk has been vocal against EU laws, such as the migration pact and carbon emission reduction laws. Bóka also accused the Commission of deciding “not to engage in meaningful discussions [on EU funds] as the elections drew closer.” He added that if Orbán’s Fidesz were to win the election, “neither us nor the Commission will have any other choice than to sit down and discuss how we can make progress in this process.” Legal experts are cautious about assessing the potential impact of such a ruling, noting that the funds for Poland and Hungary were frozen under different legal frameworks. However, there is broad agreement that the case is likely to set some form of precedent over how the Commission handles disbursements of EU funds to its members. If the legal opinion is followed, “there could be a strong case against disbursing funds against Poland,” said Jacob Öberg, EU law professor at University of Southern Denmark. He said, however, that it is not certain the court will follow Ćapeta’s opinion because the cases assess different national contexts. Paul Dermine, EU law professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles agreed the court ruling could “at least in theory, have repercussions on what happened in the Polish case,” but said that he thought judges would follow the legal opinion “as the wrongdoings of the Commission in the Hungarian case are quite blatant.”

ROME — Facing possible defeat in an important referendum, Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Thursday put herself at front of the campaign, throwing her full political weight behind a vote that is increasingly shaping into a test of her authority. The March 22-23 referendum on judicial reform is a decisive showdown for Meloni. The Italian right has long looked for an opportunity to remold a legal system that it sees as skewed to favor the left. But the national plebiscite has evolved beyond a vote on the rules governing the careers and oversight of judicial officials and into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. The latest polls suggest she may be facing the first major reversal of her premiership, just as she appeared to be on a roll at home and in Brussels. Meloni’s tone was combative on Thursday, as she accused the current judicial structure of committing numerous miscarriages of justice, and calling some judgments “surreal.” Speaking at the Franco Parenti theater in Milan, Meloni doubled down on the central arguments of her campaign, insisting judges are unaccountable and out of control. She is also increasingly casting the judiciary as run by left-wing opposition “factions” and accusing judges of blocking her key goal of clamping down on illegal migration and crime. “If the reform doesn’t pass this time, we will probably not have another chance. We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk,” she said. “When justice doesn’t work you can’t do anything, no-one can do anything,” she said. “Except this time,” she added, urging people to get out and vote later this month. ENTERING THE RING In the months leading up to the vote, Meloni largely kept her distance from the campaign, encouraging allies and ministers to deliver the message while she limited herself to occasional remarks and sporadic attacks on judges. But with the final public polls last week suggesting her side will lose by around five points, the prime minister has now decided to step in more directly. Opposition figures say the move shows the government fears defeat. “The prime minister, in contradiction to her commitment not to involve the government in the referendum, has thrown herself headlong into the campaign,” said parliamentarian Alfredo D’Attorre, a senior figure in the opposition center-left Democratic Party,. “It is clear that she is very worried about the result.” He added voters might not be impressed if Meloni “spends the next two weeks being an influencer for the ‘yes’ vote” rather than governing Italy “at a moment of international tension.” Indeed, Meloni is having to weather political headwinds at home related to her alliance with U.S. President Donald Trump, who is highly unpopular in Italy, and the war in Iran that Italians fear will increase their already steep power bills. POLITICAL GAMBLE The challenge for Meloni is that the referendum campaign revolves around technical institutional changes that are difficult to explain, and even harder to mobilize voters around. “The arguments are very technical and abstract which doesn’t win hearts,” said Giovanni Orsina, a political historian at Luiss University in Rome. “The opposition has a solid core of voters who will turn out against Meloni regardless. How can she mobilize her supporters? By creating an enemy and a clash between good and evil.” Meloni has tried to frame the referendum around issues that resonate more strongly with her electorate, particularly migration and public security. Orsina said Meloni’s cautious entry into the campaign made political sense. “As prime minister, you cannot expose yourself too much,” he said. “If you become the face of the campaign and lose, you pay the price.” “She will be monitoring private polls and testing the waters. If she enters the campaign and the polls move in her favor, she will become a stronger presence. If not, she may step back to avoid taking the full blow.” The dilemma is clear: without Meloni’s direct involvement, the campaign risks losing momentum. But the more closely the referendum becomes associated with her personally, the greater the political damage a loss would inflict on her. “The referendum has turned out to be an unnecessary risk for Meloni,” said Orsina. “This was selected as the easiest of the reforms she planned to carry through, but even so, it much less easy than expected.”  Italians know all too well that former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi had to step down after a failed referendum on constitutional reform in 2016, but Meloni insists she’s going nowhere, whatever the result. “There’s no way I’ll resign under any circumstances. I want to see the end of this legislature,” she said.

Albania’s parliament on Thursday voted against lifting immunity for its former Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku, who is facing corruption charges, prompting warnings from Brussels about the implications for the country’s EU membership bid. Prime Minister Edi Rama and his ruling Socialist Party shielded Balluku, who is targeted for arrest by Albania’s special prosecutor, SPAK, for interfering with infrastructure projects totaling more than €200 million. Balluku was dismissed by Rama in late February, both as deputy prime minister and as minister for infrastructure and energy. She denies any wrongdoing. “The EU takes note of the results of today’s vote in the Albanian parliament. Commitment to the rule of law and the fight against corruption are of paramount importance for the EU accession process,” a European Commission spokesperson told POLITICO Thursday. “Ensuring a conducive environment for SPAK to effectively carry out its work is essential to credibly sustain Albania’s progress towards EU membership,” the spokesperson added. The embassies of Germany, the U.K. and the Netherlands also reacted to the vote, echoing Brussels’ sentiment calling for the judicial process not to be tampered with. For Albania to join the EU, “the effective prosecution of corruption, even in high-profile cases, is an essential prerequisite,” Germany’s embassy in Tirana said in a statement, calling for Albania’s government to respect the rule of law. “It is our clear expectation that the judiciary will be able to prosecute these cases swiftly and without hindrance,” it added. Rama responded with a statement on X, saying that “we all agree 100 percent” with the “expressed principles.” He insisted on Albania’s path into the EU by 2030 and that the government in Tirana fully supports SPAK. “The governing majority today did exactly what any democratic parliament in Europe would do,” the prime minister wrote. He argued that approving prosecutors’ requests to arrest an MP must follow the constitution and cannot be treated like “crossing Schengen borders without checks.” Balluku’s predecessor, Arben Ahmetaj, is also wanted by SPAK on corruption and money-laundering charges. The Albanian Ministry of Justice filed a request for Swiss authorities to extradite him in late 2025. Tirana Mayor Erion Veliaj, another member of Rama’s party, has been in pre-trial detention since his 2025 arrest on similar charges.

LONDON — Judges have ordered British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to reconsider the decision to block the return of a severely disabled mother currently detained in a Syrian camp with her young son. The government has been forced into a rethink after being found to have acted unlawfully in the case for a second time, in a judgment seen by POLITICO after it was handed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). “We note the court’s decision on this case and are considering the judgment,” a Home Office spokesperson said. “The government will always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of our citizens.” The U.K. has taken a different approach from nations like France and Germany in resisting taking back women and children from northeast Syria who left to live under the extremist group ISIS. The U.S. has been urging allies to repatriate citizens on compassionate and counter-radicalization grounds. “Layla,” as the mother in her 40s is pseudonymously known due to an anonymity order, is one of more than a dozen women and her children who have remained stranded in Syria since the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate was destroyed. She had traveled to Syria in 2014 with her husband, who’s now presumed dead. Stripped of her citizenship, she is detained in the Al Roj camp with her British son, aged around 10. The boy has been her sole carer from a young age after she was injured by an airstrike in 2019. Shrapnel is embedded in her neck, a stroke has caused a life-long neurological disability and she is paralyzed on her right side. A medical expert assesses that she is at risk of death without treatment and there is no prospect of her neurological defects improving. The Home Office’s Special Cases Unit advised that there are “sufficient compassionate and compelling circumstances” to grant her re-entry to the U.K. — but the final decision lies with the home secretary.  Successive ministers have prevented the mother’s return since she was deprived of her citizenship in 2017. The government has twice been criticized by the judiciary for delays in its handling of the case. The court first ordered the government to reconsider the case in November 2024. The legal ruling shows Security Minister Dan Jarvis advised in July last year that an offer should be made to repatriate the child, but was unsure if he would take the risk of allowing Layla into the U.K. Then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper ruled that, despite concern about the boy’s welfare she would take a “precautionary approach” in light of the “national security risk.” British security service MI5 assessed that Layla, referred to as “T7” in the judgment, was a willing participant in the decision to travel to Syria and that she aligned with ISIS. The security service’s general assessment is that individuals who traveled to Syria to affiliate with ISIS represent a threat. ‘GRAVITY OF THE CONSEQUENCES’ Layla’s legal team, backed by the Reprieve charity, put forward three experts who argued her threat to the U.K. is minimal. In evidence to the court, former MI6 counter-terrorism director Richard Barrett argued it was hard to imagine she would “present an unmanageable threat to national security.” The judges noted this was not zero risk, however, even when taking into account the extent of her mental and physical impairment. Sebastian Gorka has long argued that the U.K. must take back Britons in northeast Syria. | Jason Davis/Getty Images The three-strong SIAC panel ruled that the government’s decision was “inadequately reasoned” and agreed with Layla that a “more rigorous examination” is necessary, considering “the gravity of the consequences.”  They accepted that the home secretary can take a precautionary approach to avoid grave threats, but believed there was an “inadequate explanation for the secretary of state’s reliance on a precautionary approach in the circumstances of this case.”  “It follows that the decision falls to be set aside, and a fresh decision will need to be made,” justice Karen Steyn wrote in the conclusion handed down last Tuesday. She cited national security reasons for not giving further details in the public judgment for why the application for review was allowed. ‘INCUBATORS’ Donald Trump’s deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka has long argued that the U.K. must take back Britons in northeast Syria to aid the international fight against Islamic State. At a high-level conference in September, Head of U.S. Central Command Brad Cooper argued that the terror cult remains significantly influential in detainee camps. He described them as being “incubators for radicalisation,” where 57 percent of detainees are children. “Repatriating vulnerable populations before they are radicalized is not just compassion — it is a decisive blow against ISIS’s ability to regenerate,” he said. “Inaction is not an option. Every day without repatriation compounds the risk to all of us.” One high-profile detainee of Al Roj is Shamima Begum, the woman who traveled to Islamic State territory from east London when she was 15. Mahmood has vowed to fight against Begum’s challenging of the decision to strip her of citizenship in the European Court of Human Rights. Al Roj is controlled by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Reprieve estimates that there are around 15 British-born women remaining in Syrian camps, and around 30 British children. France has accepted back 600 women and children from camps and prisons in northeast Syria since 2019, Germany 108 and the U.S. 38, according to a tracker by the Rights and Security International charity. Britain stands on 25, with 21 of them children.