”We learn to build democratic institution faster than we learn to accept democratic scrutiny (…). Today the problem goes beyond the traditional reluctance of public authority to engage in dialogue or consultation. We have good legislation (or pretty fair legislation of course, thereis always room for improvement but what we see now is a fairly rapid deterioration, including at the legislative level, but mostly in the practises of the public institutions. So you have the law we have the formal compliance but actually in reality things are not okay.”

”It’s a real pleasure to be here among many colleagues and also with a group of people who care about the rule of law and civil society space. I don’t think we can take that for granted very often we don’t even think about these issues and then we only realise they’re under pressure or about to be gone when it’s too late so it’s really important to keep this on the agenda and to talk about it in a multidisciplinary setting not only involving academics but also practitioners and also non-lawyers. (…) You have a cumulative gradual erosion and it is detectable not only in Central Europe, it’s everywhere in Europe. This is why it has become really important to also build up European standards.”

”In certain cases we have EU legislation, we have the EMFA, we have the whistleblower directive and in this case this is mandatory legislation that has to be implemented by member states and then the commission will play its role as guardian of the treaty and see if there are any infringements of the national legislation with regard to this directive. So it’s what we call the rule of law toolbox.”

”We believe that without a minimum democratic consensus beyond political polarisation, the long-term restoration of the rule of law is simply impossible.(…) And of course, the consensus must be in accordance with main rule of law principles, but still must be the rule of law is `the rules of the game`. If everyone follows them, there is a rule of law. If everyone has their own rules of law, there is no rule of law.”

”So what we are doing basically the general tactic is to defend ourselves. We need to join and we not only need to defend ourselves but we also need to go on the offensive. So we started organising ourselves back in April immediately after the elections. We brought together NGOs, trade unions and independent media. As I’ve said (and as Marta was explaining the tactic) is simple let’s defend each other so whenever one is attacked the others are backing him up. So we hold the regular coordination meetings of the whole coalition and have also entered referendum campaigns together.”

”The creation of the rule of law in a state is a never-ending process. It’s a labour of Sisyphus. We would say in English, in legal historical terms in Sweden, we date the beginning of the rule of law to the 1620s and 1630s. These are the first examples of it. So you’re talking about a sort of 400-year perspective and the question then becomes who can have such a perspective and how to keep fighting for the rule of law in the face of adversity. So I have nothing but admiration for my colleagues on my right here. I think very much so that the lessons we’ve heard today are about the importance of both networking within the country but also how valuable it can be to get the experiences of your colleagues from other countries.”