By Francesco Sylos Labini

In constitutional democracies such as Italy, there is a fundamental principle: no one can be punished or deprived of their rights without a decision by a judge, rendered after a fair trial. This is guaranteed by Articles 24 and 25 of the Italian Constitution, as well as by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

From an early age, we are taught that liberal democracy is based on the separation of powers — executive, legislative, and judicial — on the protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority, on political pluralism, and on full respect for individual and collective freedoms, beginning with freedom of expression.

A constitutional democracy cannot exist without the rule of law — the principle that everyone, citizens and institutions alike, is subject to the law, which must be clear, accessible, predictable, and applied impartially by an independent judiciary. For this reason, the rule of law should constitute a fundamental pillar of the European Union — the basis of its democratic functioning and the concrete guarantee of the values of justice, equality, and respect for human rights.

The case of sanctions against Jacques Baud, a former colonel of the Swiss intelligence services, clearly illustrates the collapse of the rule of law architecture in Europe. The European Commission placed him on a list of individual sanctions without any formal charges, without a trial, and without the possibility of defense. A decision in blatant violation of the fundamental principles that every democratic system should uphold.

The reason? He expressed critical opinions about NATO and the war in Ukraine, quoting — among other things — a 2019 statement by a Ukrainian official. In essence, he is accused of “pro-Russian propaganda.”

Reading his books, I not only found a well-informed and rigorous analysis of the ongoing conflicts, but I also understood the deeper meaning of intelligence work: careful analysis of sources, facts, and their strategic consequences. The lessons are simple yet essential: to resolve a conflict, one must understand its root causes and find a path that acknowledges and addresses the grievances of both sides. Precisely what has been systematically avoided in the case of the Russia–Ukraine war.

In Baud’s case, there was no legal accusation of breaking any specific law. No judge. No trial. No right to defense. No transparency. Twenty-seven European ministers or their delegates voted behind closed doors in Brussels to destroy the life of someone guilty only of expressing inconvenient opinions.

Baud currently resides in Brussels but cannot return to Switzerland. He has no access to his bank accounts. He cannot buy food or medicine, nor can anyone do it on his behalf. Even though access to basic necessities is considered a fundamental human right, in this case, it has been denied.

Such punishment is unprecedented in any democratic system: it is an arbitrary political act, devoid of any safeguards, that erased an individual’s livelihood overnight.

Deciding whether a person has committed a crime and imposing a punishment is the exclusive responsibility of the judiciary, which must act independently and in accordance with the law. Not the executive. And certainly not on the basis of personal opinions, especially when no existing law appears to have been violated.

Even Mussolini, in the height of his authoritarianism, took care to establish “special tribunals” to provide at least a façade of legality to his repressions. Today, the EU doesn’t even pretend: sanctions are imposed by executive order, without any judicial oversight.

The Baud case is therefore a dangerous turning point. Not only because of how a single individual was treated, but for what it implies in terms of principles. It marks a radical shift in the EU’s approach to dissent and freedom of expression, and more profoundly, it confirms the disintegration of the rule of law — one of the founding pillars of the European project.

And when the separation of powers collapses, when the executive grants itself the right to punish individuals without trial, we are no longer dealing with a liberal democracy. We are sliding toward a centralized authoritarian regime. A system where only the formal trappings of democracy remain, but where real political pluralism is absent, civil liberties are curtailed, and power is concentrated in the hands of an unelected elite.

In such a context, fear of ideas is not just a bad sign: it is the clearest indicator of the end of democratic debate.