EU court adviser says Commission should not have unfrozen Hungary funds
A senior legal adviser at the EU’s top court has said the European Commission should not have released billions of euros to Hungary and that the decision should be annulled.
The opinion raises the stakes in a long-running dispute over corruption concerns and judicial independence under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government. It also reopens a politically sensitive decision taken by the Commission in late 2023.
What the EU court’s adviser is recommending
Tamara Ćapeta, an advocate general at the European court of justice, said the Commission should not have paid out the funds because Hungary had not actually carried out the judicial reforms required for the release.
An advocate general is an independent court adviser who issues a legal opinion to help the judges. The opinion is not binding. However, the court often follows this guidance.
Why the money was frozen in the first place
The Commission suspended payments to Hungary in 2022. It cited serious concerns about democratic backsliding, corruption safeguards and the independence of the judiciary.
Judicial independence means courts can operate without political pressure. It is one of the rule-of-law standards used by EU institutions when assessing how member states apply EU law.
The €10bn decision that triggered a lawsuit
In 2023, the Commission concluded Hungary had made sufficient changes to meet the conditions and lifted the suspension. That made Hungary eligible to receive about €10bn from various EU funds.
The European parliament filed a complaint in 2024, arguing the Commission had made “manifest errors”. Some MEPs also questioned the timing, saying the decision came just before a key EU summit where Orbán’s backing was needed for Ukraine-related decisions.
A warning on transparency and enforcement
Ćapeta said the Commission failed to properly assess the reforms and incorrectly applied the conditions when allowing the disbursement. She also criticised a lack of explanation and transparency in the Commission’s approach.
She underlined a clear principle: EU money should not be paid until required reforms are in force and effectively applied.
What could happen next for Hungary’s funding
Judges at the European court of justice are expected to deliver a final ruling in the coming months. If the court sides with the parliament, EU law experts have said the Commission may be pushed to recover the money indirectly, for example by reducing future allocations.
In parallel, billions more in EU funding remain suspended for Hungary. Orbán has repeatedly accused the Commission of political interference and of using payments as leverage in disputes.
A decision with wider consequences in Brussels
The case could set a precedent for how the Commission handles rule-of-law disputes and conditional funding. It may also reshape expectations for how clearly the EU must justify decisions that unlock money for governments under scrutiny.
For Hungary, the opinion adds pressure at a tense political moment, with Orbán facing a major domestic challenge in April from opposition figure Péter Magyar and his Tisza party, who has pledged to restore the rule of law and repair relations with the EU.