A country that breaches the rule of law and EU core values, alongside those with European funds frozen, faces the rotating two-year presidency of the European Union. This topic will feature in the tenth debate this Wednesday. The question concerns Hungary’s alleged rule-of-law violations and fundamental rights, with the European Parliament prepared to respond. Hungary is slated to assume the presidency in the second half of 2024, while urging the Council to find an adequate solution as soon as possible; otherwise the Parliament could consider appropriate measures. This non-binding draft is backed by five political groups — the European People’s Party, Social Democrats, Liberals, Greens, and the European Left — and marks a tense moment in the ongoing Brussels–Budapest dialogue. The resolution risks adding further strain to a years-long split over democratic standards, just before the next European elections scheduled for June. Three weeks remain before Hungary takes the rotating reins of the biannual presidency, intensifying scrutiny of its readiness to lead the EU agenda.
This stance reflects a shift in sentiment since the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009 and since the role of the Council president evolved. The presidency carries a pivotal, six-month mandate to set the EU agenda, steer key discussions, and negotiate inter-institutional agreements on behalf of member states. In practice, this role requires a degree of impartiality, even as national interests naturally surface in council negotiations. Critics argue that the position should be held by a neutral actor, not by a state seen as at odds with EU principles.
MEPs note a pattern of concern surrounding Hungary’s alignment with EU values and institutions, signaling a willingness to push the issue into the mainstream debate. The debate questions whether the European Parliament has the power to revoke an incoming council presidency, a point frequently raised by Hungarian officials. Analysts from think tanks have observed that the parliament’s influence is constrained in this area, yet they acknowledge the potential political impact of such discussions on the Baltic and central European sector. These remarks underscore the broader unease about rule of law and democratic norms in Hungary.
systematic deterioration
MEPs condemn what they describe as deliberate and ongoing efforts to undermine the EU’s founding values, highlighting anti-EU messaging and a perceived deterioration in the rule of law and fundamental rights since last autumn. They raise concerns about abuses of whistleblower protections, LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of expression, and the status and rights of teachers, alongside broader social and labor rights. Discriminatory practices across various fields are singled out in the resolution, along with criticisms of government communications perceived as hostile to common European norms.
The draft resolution also targets the Council for not delivering substantial progress on Article 7 procedures, a mechanism that can suspend certain rights if a member state breaches EU values. Parliament signaled that it expects the Council to weigh its recommendations seriously and to act decisively if needed. Prolonged inaction could be viewed as a violation of the rule of law, with consequences that could ripple through EU governance and policy continuity.
Questions arise about how the Council should manage its presidency while maintaining a stable European agenda and ensuring transparent relations with other EU institutions. The central question remains: can Hungary reliably fulfill the presidency in 2024 if it is perceived as failing to meet EU standards? The answer carries implications for constitutional fidelity and cooperative governance across Europe. If gaps persist, Parliament could explore further measures consistent with EU law and the need to safeguard shared values.
Budapest warned
Predictably, the response from Budapest was cool and measured. Officials argued that the criticisms echo long-standing claims against Hungary and their interpretation of the country’s stance on security and foreign policy. They asserted that Hungary remains a committed EU member and that the presidency should be viewed through the lens of constructive participation rather than confrontation. The justice minister stressed that Budapest will not allow its leadership to be usurped or overridden, emphasizing the need to protect national sovereignty while engaging in EU processes.
One analyst suggested postponing the presidency as a potential path to ensure full compliance with rule-of-law obligations, noting that the sharing of the rotating presidency among three countries could provide a balanced approach to ensuring accountability. Other experts highlighted the broader legacy of intergovernmental leadership, recalling past prescriptions by Denmark, Cyprus, and Spain in similar arrangements and how they navigated rule-of-law discussions within the EU framework.
EU officials emphasized that chairing the union is a responsibility assigned by the Council itself, with the European Commission playing a limited coordinating role. A spokesperson stated that the presidency focuses on European interests and mediates in Council discussions, while respecting the rights and procedures of all member states. The resolution also criticizes the habit of Parliament learning about proposals through the press, urging quicker, clearer reporting on developments from the Commission as events unfold. The emphasis remains on maintaining momentum and transparency across EU institutions.