Rule of law cases – Hungary

lowering the retirement age of judges creates difference in treatment on grounds of age which is not proportionate; Directive 2000/78/EC

guarantee of effective judicial remedy for applicant of international protection, national court/tribunal required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment; Directive 2013/32/EU, Art. 47 CFR

Joined Cases C-715/17 (Poland), C-718/17 (Hungary), C-719/17 (Czech Republic); failure to assist Italy and Greece by relocating applicants for international protection to their respective territories

violation of academic freedom concerning amendments in Hungary's 2011 Higher Education Act that limit the operations of foreign academic institutions in Hungary; Art 14 CFR

restrictions imposed by Hungary on the financing of foreign civil society organisations through excessive transparency requirements; Art. 63 TFEU

the right to an effective remedy in asylum procedures; Directive 2013/32/EU, Art. 47 CFR

grounds for issuing an inadmissibility decision of an application for international protection (IP) and the time-limit imposed to make such a decision; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 33 Directive 2013/32/EU

Hungary challenged the vote on Art. 7 procedure for determining the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the EU’s fundamental values, Hungary argued that the vote result did not take into account the abstentions

Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in the area of procedures for granting international protection and returning illegally staying third-country nationals; Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32), Reception Directive (Directive 2013/33) & Qualification Directive (Directive 2008/115)

effective judicial protection even if courts cannot amend asylum procedure decisions but may only annul them and order a new procedure; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU

effective judicial protection even if courts cannot amend asylum procedure decisions but may only annul them and order a new procedure; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU

effective judicial protection even if courts cannot amend asylum procedure decisions but may only annul them and order a new procedure; Art. 47 CFR, Art. 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU

Under Hungarian law it was unlawful to refer irrelevant/unnecessary preliminary questions, and disciplinary measures could be taken if the national judge nonetheless decided to ask preliminary questions. This is in violation with EU law.

introduction of a ground of inadmissibility for applications for international protection in addition to those listed in the Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU and the Hungarian Criminal Code that criminalises any ‘organising activity’ enabling asylum proceedings to be brought by a person who is not entitled to international protection under national law

change of destination country in return decision by an administrative authority should be regarded as a new return decision requiring an effective remedy, transit zone as detention within meaning of Reception Conditions and Returns Directive; Art. 47 CFR

Hungary challenges the legality of Regulation 2020/2092 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget as it lacks a valid legal basis

By deciding in line with the Commission, the Court of Justice recognises that by making the possibility of making an application for international protection subject to the prior submission of a declaration of intent to an embassy located in a third country, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU asylum law.

In this case, the EP brings an action for annulment against Implementing Decision C(2023)90141 of 13 December 2023. The three pleas by the EP: i. alleging infringement of Articles 9(1) and 15 and Annex III of the Common Provisions Regulation 2021/1060 and manifest errors of assessment; ii. alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons; iii. alleging misuse of powers.