*** modified Wednesday 17 October noon ***
On Tuesday 16 January in Strasbourg, the political groups in the European Parliament had not yet finalised their position on the release by the European Commission of €10.2 billion last December to Hungary, which many of them had criticised, but had already moved towards the possibility of the institution taking the Commission to the Court of Justice of the EU, according to a draft resolution that will be put to the vote on 18 January.
On Wednesday 17 January, MEPs will debate the state of the rule of law in Hungary, and in particular the release of €10.2 billion decided by the Commission on the basis of the judicial reforms carried out in the country (see EUROPE 13313/9). The political groups are also due to debate the possibility of a vote of no confidence in the Commission.
However, the draft resolution does include a request to take a further step in the so-called 'Article 7' procedure under the Treaty on respect for the rule of law that has been opened against Budapest, including a call to withdraw Hungary's voting rights in the Council of the EU.
The draft resolution also states that, if adopted on Thursday, Parliament will instruct “its Committee on Legal Affairs to take the necessary steps as soon as possible, in relation to the Commission’s decision leading to the unfreezing of €10.2 billion, including the legal service analysis in accordance with Rule 149, with a view to review the legality of the decision [...] before the Court of Justice”.
The paragraph 11 of the draft resolution issues a reminder of “the possibility for the European Parliament to use any legal and political measures at its disposal, if the Commission releases funding without criteria being fulfilled or if it fails to ensure the full implementation of the relevant legislation, considering its responsibility to act as Guardian of the Treaty and to protect the EU financial interests”.
This development was immediately welcomed by German Greens/EFA MEP Daniel Freund on X. “The rule of law in Hungary has been compromised. The Orbán government’s reforms were totally inadequate. By releasing funds for Hungary, the European Commission has given in to Orbán’s blackmail. This procedure seriously violates the rule of law”, the MEP subsequently reacted in a press release.
At the political group press conferences on Tuesday morning, EPP President Manfred Weber (German) also felt that “the timing [of the decision on the release of part of the EU funds owed to Hungary] was rather strange”, in this case in the context of the last European Council, which saw Hungary finally soften its stance on Ukraine’s application to join the EU.
“The legal rationale for releasing the €10 billion must be made public (by the Commission). I want clarity, I want transparency. And it is the job of the European Parliament to seek transparency”, he explained, also admitting the existence of a “lively” discussion within his political family on how to hold the Commission to account.
Asked about a possible motion of censure against the Commission, the new interim Chair of the Renew Europe group, Malik Azmani (Dutch), explained that “there may be doubts in other groups, but for me and for us, it is clear that we cannot negotiate with our values when it comes to releasing new money, and it is not clear whether Hungary meets the conditions. As a Parliament, we have a role to play in terms of control, warning and the rule of law. For our group, it is the backbone of the EU”.
For her part, the co-president of the Greens/EFA group, Terry Reintke, considered it “very important to have a review of what happened at the December Council. This has caused a great deal of indignation in the European Parliament, not only within our group, but I believe among the political groups”.
“Viktor Orbán constantly uses his right of veto to blackmail the rest of the European Union. And that makes us all look weak. We are therefore pressing for the Article 7 procedure to be pursued”, she added.
The draft resolution also reiterates MEPs’ concerns about the state of the rule of law in Hungary and condemns both the failure of the EU Council to move forward with the ‘Article 7’ procedure and the Hungarian leader’s undermining of financial aid to Ukraine and the multiannual financial framework.
The provisional text also questions the future Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU, underlining “the important role of the presidency of the Council in driving forward the Council’s work on EU legislation, ensuring the continuity of the EU agenda and representing the Council in relations with the other EU institutions”.
In this draft, Parliament “questions if the Hungarian Government will be able to credibly fulfil this task in 2024, in view of its non-compliance with EU law and the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as well as the principle of sincere cooperation”.
The MEPs are also attacking the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, who, by leaving early (see EUROPE 13323/3), would give the Hungarian leader the opportunity to temporarily chair the European Council.
Parliament could thus issue a reminder that, in certain cases, the President of the European Council could be replaced by the member of the European Council representing the Member State holding the six-monthly Presidency of the Council and could ask “the Council to find proper solutions to mitigate these risks as soon as possible”.
The draft text also asks legislators to work to “end the abuse of the veto right and the blackmail in the European Council and other European Institutions”.
Link to the draft resolution of the EU Parliament: https://aeur.eu/f/aej (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic with the editorial team)