MEPs condemn Hungary but diplomats play down threat to EU presidency

EU lawmakers doubled down on their criticism of Hungary on Thursday (1 June), backing a motion that threatens to use blocking tactics to disrupt Hungary’s EU presidency next year.

However, diplomatic sources have indicated that there is little prospect of national governments following the Parliament’s lead and pushing the for suspension of Hungary’s presidency.

As expected, MEPs backed the resolution, which accuses the Fidesz government of Viktor Orbán of “systemic corruption”, with a cross-party majority of 442 votes to 144. The text also “questions how Hungary will be able to fulfil this task in 2024 credibly, given its non-compliance with EU law and the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as well as the principle of sincere cooperation”.

Hungary, which last held the rotating presidency in 2011, is due to hold the six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers from July 2024, less than a month after the next European elections.

The resolution is not legally binding and any decision to strip Hungary, or any other country of the six month presidency, would require the unanimous agreement of the EU’s 27 governments.

Hungary 'unfit' to hold EU presidency, warn MEPs

Hungary’s multiple breaches of EU law make it unfit to hold the bloc’s rotating presidency in 2024, MEPs have warned in a resolution that is set to be adopted next week.

It has been dismissed as “nonsense” by Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga, who described the resolution as “very, very damaging”.

An honest broker

Although Germany’s Europe Minister Anna Lührmann told reporters this week that she had “doubts” about whether Hungary could successfully hold the presidency, citing Budapest’s handling of the rule of law and ambiguous stance in supporting Ukraine, there is little interest among diplomats in Brussels to push the issue.

“When a country enters into the role of the presidency, they assume this role, as an honest broker, they become neutral,” Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager told EURACTIV, adding that “if that is the approach of the Hungarians, then you have a normal presidency.”

The main tool used by the European Commission has been to block the disbursement of funds to Hungary from the post-pandemic recovery fund until a series of ‘milestones’ on judicial independence and social policy have been met.

“Unlocking the frozen funds at this stage would give Fidesz a carte blanche to continue their attacks on fundamental rights,” said Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, the French Green MEP who is the Parliament’s standing rapporteur on Hungary.

“It is time for the Council to question whether a member state under Article 7 procedure can credibly hold the Presidency of the EU,” she added.

At a press conference on Wednesday, Sophie in ‘t Veld, a Dutch liberal deputy, said that the MEPs should look at ways to “reduce cooperation to the bare minimum” during the Hungarian presidency.

The Brief — Will Hungary get cancelled?

Don’t change the rules if you expect others to stick to them. This old adage could well be applied to the ongoing debate about whether Hungary should be allowed to chair the EU Council Presidency next year. Because, if the EU changes the rules overnight, why should it expect Hungary to stick to them?

That could include giving a platform to government dissidents alongside Hungarian government officials at events, and MEPs boycotting the trilogue negotiations where MEPs, ministers and the European Commission broker compromises on EU laws, a move that would likely significantly slow down the lawmaking processes.

“We should strip this presidency of all the glitter and glamour: No photo ops, no glitzy press conferences,” she said.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has opened a new front in its separate rule of dispute with Poland.

In a letter by EU Justice commissioner Didier Reynders to the Polish government, seen by EURACTIV, the commissioner points to the adoption of a new law, which creates a special committee to investigate Russian influence on the internal security of Poland between 2007 and 2022 and which “raises serious concerns in terms of conformity with EU law.”

“It grants significant powers to an administrative body which could be used to bar individuals from public office and which hence could restrict their rights,” Reynders wrote.