The professional dialogue between the Hungarian government and the European Commission is taking place. The topic is the situation of the rule of law and the question of EU funds concerning Hungary. Our country will receive the resources to which it is entitled if it modifies the legal environment affecting the distribution of EU funds. Brussels considers the measures appropriate if they result in the principles of the rule of law being enforced at all levels of the distribution of EU funds.

On September 18, Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for Budget and Administration of the European Commission, announced at a press conference that the legislative amendments proposed by the Hungarian government as a compromise solution are "in principle suitable" to address the issues raised. You can learn more about the appropriateness of the amendments when the measures take the form of laws and regulations and enter the implementation phase in the domestic legal system.

In the meantime, according to Sunday's announcement, the European Commission definitely recommends the suspension of 65 percent of commitments to the Council of the European Union in the case of operational programs within the framework of the cohesion policy. Also on the agenda was the prohibition of legal commitments against public interest trust foundations in the case of programs implemented with direct and indirect management. The council has one month to decide on this, which can be extended by two months. The extension is necessary, as many important legislative amendments are only now being discussed by the Parliament.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament is "wanting blood" , Hungary is no longer a democracy, and the committee cannot agree with the government. This is the starting point of the EP decision that the body voted in mid-September following Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield's report. Although its legal significance is negligible, the decision is excellent for exerting political pressure.

Considerable sums are withheld from Hungary, on an unfathomable scale, in the order of tens of billions of forints. However, the legal basis seems unclear. The strongest relevant legal basis would be the conditionality regulation effective from January 2021, which, however, states clearly: money can only be withheld if the European Council has decided to do so. No such decision has been made yet.

There is also the question of the reconstruction fund after the coronavirus epidemic, in respect of which an "illegal state" prevails. Hungary already submitted the national recovery plan in May 2021, roughly in the middle ground compared to the other member states. This should have been accepted by the European Commission after several months of consultation. It didn't happen like that, the national plan has been in the parking lot ever since. At the level of the facts, the Brussels bureaucracy is already applying the sanctions of the mechanism, even though a responsible decision has not yet been made.

If we are looking for the political motivation of withholding money, it is enough to look at the Polish example. The Polish recovery plan was approved by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. The money would go to Poland, but it doesn't arrive. It is not enough for Brussels to simply follow the rules of the game – they are also binding on it. It conveys a bad message if the EU's enforcement of the rule of law takes place while undermining the values ​​of the rule of law.

In 2013, the European Parliament adopted the Tavares report, which dealt with the situation of fundamental rights in Hungary, and in which the rapporteur classified some of the domestic developments as anti-democratic. In connection with the report, Manfred Weber, on behalf of the European People's Party, said at the time that it was merely "a wish list of European left-wing parties that want to impose their own political program on Hungary."

At the time of the adoption of the Tavares report, different rules of the game prevailed in Brussels. At that time, the European Commission still adhered "guardian of the treaties" . The board tried to clarify the criticisms expressed in the report in a professional way, taking legal arguments into account. However, with the resignation of the Barroso Commission, "a new sheriff appeared in town". The board led by Jean-Claude Juncker considered that it is time for the EC to become a decisive player in EU party politics. At the same time, the spitzenkandidat, i.e. top candidate, system was introduced, the essence of which is that the key actors of the committee are now politicians elected by the European Parliament. This means that their actions and behavior are also politically motivated - mainly in accordance with the EP's pressure.

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, the European Parliament has received no substantive new rights. Yet, if we look at the actual political influence of the EP, the 2010s brought a radical change in this field.

Judith Sargentini's 2018 report of disputed validity should be interpreted in this context. The significance of the Sargentini report is still much greater than that of the Tavares report. "Article Seven" was initiated against our country, which could have serious consequences. Even the state's capacity to act may become vacant in the EU if it is established that the operation of the rule of law is endangered. Since then, no such decision has been made in the European Council against Hungary, however, the relevant decisions of the EP indicate from time to time that politicians treat this as a fait accompli.

Read the full Mandiner article

Author: Gergely Dobozi

Image: Edvard Munch: The Pioneer (1912) Wikipedia