The European Commission's decision to release billions of euros in frozen funds to Hungary has been sharply criticised by the top legal adviser to the European Union's highest court. Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta of the European Court of Justice stated on Thursday that the commission should not have disbursed the payments because Hungary had failed to adequately implement the required judicial reforms.
Background of the Funding Suspension
In 2022, the European Commission suspended payment of funds to the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán due to serious concerns over democratic backsliding. The commission argued that Hungary was not effectively tackling corruption or ensuring judicial independence, which are fundamental principles of the EU.
Conditional Release of Funds
A year later, in 2023, the commission concluded that Hungary had made sufficient changes to meet the requirements and lifted the suspension. This decision made Hungary eligible to receive approximately €10 billion from various EU funds, including cohesion and recovery funds.
Legal Challenge and Advocate General's Opinion
The European Parliament filed a formal complaint in 2024, alleging that the commission had committed "manifest errors" in its assessment. Some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) suggested the timing was politically motivated, as it occurred just before a crucial EU summit where Orbán's support was needed for aid to Ukraine.
Advocate General Ćapeta's opinion, while not legally binding, carries significant weight and is often followed by the court's judges. She argued that the commission had "incorrectly applied the requirements on Hungary" and failed to properly evaluate the judicial reforms. Ćapeta emphasised that the commission lacked transparency in its decision-making process and stated, "The commission may not disburse EU funds to a member state until the required legislative reforms are in force and are effectively being applied."
Implications of the Ruling
If the European Court of Justice sides with the parliament in the coming months, the commission may be forced to recoup the funds by reducing future payments to Hungary. This ruling is expected to set an important precedent regarding the commission's authority in rule-of-law cases across the EU.
Ongoing Tensions and Political Context
Billions in additional EU funding remain suspended for Hungary, leading Orbán to regularly accuse the commission of interfering in Hungary's internal affairs and using financial payments as a tool of coercion. Orbán, often described as the bloc's disruptor-in-chief, faces a significant political challenge in April from centre-right challenger Péter Magyar and his Tisza party. Magyar has promised to restore the rule of law and improve relations with the EU, and he currently leads in most opinion polls.
EU law experts highlight that this case underscores the ongoing tension between member states' sovereignty and the EU's commitment to upholding democratic standards. The final decision will have far-reaching consequences for how the EU enforces its rule-of-law mechanisms and manages fund allocations in the future.
