European Commission v Hungary

European Commission v Hungary is an ongoing human rights case concerning the anti-LGBTQ law in Hungary. It pits the European Commission, the European Parliament, and a majority of the member states of the European Union against Hungary. The case is currently pending a final ruling, following a hearing before an exceptional formation of the Full Court of the European Court of Justice, consisting of all 27 judges.

It is the largest human rights case in the history of the European Union. It is also the first case on the basis of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which concerns the founding values of the European Union, as well as of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the inviolability of human dignity, as freestanding provisions. An Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has issued a preliminary opinion in the case in support of the applicants and against the defendant on all counts in the case.

In June 2021, the National Assembly of Hungary enacted the anti-LGBTQ law, which prohibits the broadcast, display, distribution, presentation, publication, and transaction of any and all content that chronicles history, covers literature, depicts characters, presents media, portrays people, or mentions rights related to LGBTI people to minors in commerce, communication, education, information, literature, and media.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

The original text of the law as first introduced in the National Assembly concerned only an increase in penalties against pedophiles who create, distribute, or possess child pornography, or commit child sexual abuse.^[6] The original law enjoyed broad support across the political spectrum in Hungary.^[5] However, a government politician filed a last minute amendment that targeted the Hungarian LGBTQ community.^[7] Opposition politicians boycotted the final vote in protest of the surprise amendment.^[4] Government politicians from the Christian nationalist far-right Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Fidesz) party and the Christian far-right Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP) as well as the formerly neo-Nazi far-right Jobbik – Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik) party passed the amended law over the opposition boycott.^[4][8]

The amended law is seen a political ploy by the Christian nationalist government of Viktor Orbán,^[8] which presents itself as an adherent of "traditional Christian values",^[6][9] in response to multiple scandals concerning child pornography and child sexual abuse by pedophiles who are diplomats and politicians in the Christian nationalist far-right Fidesz–KDNP Party Alliance (Fidesz–KDNP) government coalition,^[6][10][8] as well as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases committed by pedophile priests in the Catholic Church in Hungary,^[5][10] which is strongly supported by the Christian nationalist government,^[5][10] which adheres to the beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic Church,^[11] as a means to falsely conflate pedophiles with LGBTI people whom the Christian nationalist government views as a threat to Christianity in Hungary.^{[12][10][5][11]}

The law was condemned as an attack on freedom, democracy, equality before the law, fundamental rights, and the rule of law, as discrimination against LGBTQ people, and as a violation of the laws of the European Union by the European Commission and the European Parliament;^[13][14] as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights case law, and international human rights law by the Council of Europe and the European Commission for Democracy through Law;^[15][16] as discrimination against LGBTQ people and as a violation of international human rights law by the United Nations and the United Nations Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity.^[17][18]

The law was condemned on the same grounds by the Hungarian embassies of thirty countries,^[19] and by human rights organisations, including^[20] All Out,^[21] Amnesty International,^[22] Article 19,^[23] Civicus,^[24] Háttér Society,^[25] Human Rights Watch,^[26] ILGA-Europe,^[27] and Transgender Europe.^[28]

In July 2021, the European Commission gave formal notice to the Government of Hungary of its intent to launch infringement proceedings against Hungary over its anti-LGBTQ law for the failure of Hungary to adhere to the founding values of the European Union in general as well as numerous violations of the laws of the European Union in particular; Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (Article 2 TEU), Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Articles 1, 7, 11, and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.^[29]

It is the first time in the history of the European Union that the European Commission has launched an infringement proceeding against a member state of the European Union on the basis of Article 2 TEU,^[30][31] and Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 1 CFR), as freestanding provisions.^[12][32]

In July 2022, the European Commission formally referred the matter to the European Court of Justice after the Government of Hungary failed to provide a satisfactory response to the formal notice. By April 2023, a majority of the member states of the European Union—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden—in addition to the European Parliament, had joined the case as secondary applicants, siding with the European Commission against Hungary. No member state sided with Hungary.^[33]

On 19 November 2024, the case was heard before an exceptional formation of the Full Court of European Court of Justice, located at the Palais de la Cour de Justice in Kirchberg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, with all 27 judges sitting for the historic hearing,^[34] which indicates that the European Court of Justice considers the case to be of "exceptional importance".^[30]

The primary applicant, the European Commission, argued that the law itself harms minors, particularly LGBTI minors, by attempting to exclude and isolate them from Hungarian society. The Commission further argued that the law is so serious an attack on a minority that it systematically violates both Article 2 TEU and Article 1 CFR as freestanding provisions.^[3][12] The defendant, Hungary, argued that the whole affair is a "complete misunderstanding" and that the law is not designed to discriminate against LGBTI people or harm LGBTI minors, is neither homophobic nor transphobic, and does not affect the equality or rights of LGBTI people.^[3][12]

The legal academic blog Verfassungsblog noted that although the majority of the member states of the European Union and the European Parliament, backed the European Commission, their positions contained subtle differences centred on the invocation, assessment, and limitation of Article 2 TEU. Verfassungsblog divided the positions of the states into two main camps. Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, and Sweden backed the Commission's position, which considered applying Article 2 as an autonomous, independent provision, albeit with caveats—for example, Germany and Luxembourg highlighted that Article 2 should only be invoked after other aspects of EU law have been violated. By contrast, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, the Netherlands, Finland, Spain, and the European Parliament argued that Article 2 should only be invoked "in connection with other provisions".^[35]

On 21 November 2024, an assistant professor of European human rights law at the University of Groningen in Groningen, the Netherlands, John Morijn, stated in an interview with The Parliament Magazine that he considers the outcome of the case a foregone conclusion due to the "rock solid" legal basis of the case against Hungary. Morijn considers that the only true legal question is the extent of the ultimate ruling against Hungary, saying that, "[...] do you only win on internal market issues? Or do you also win on the heavier charges, for example, in the way that you stigmatise LGBTQ+ people by equating them with paedophiles, going directly against the very nature of fundamental rights and human dignity?"^[12]

On 5 June 2025, Tamara Ćapeta, an Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, issued a preliminary opinion in the case in support of the applicants and against the defendant, Hungary on all counts in the case. She recommended that Hungary be declared to be in violation of Article 2 TEU and Article 1 CFR as freestanding provisions.^[36]

Ćapeta considered that Hungary had contradicted several fundamental values and "significantly deviated from the model of a constitutional democracy" as outlined in Article 2 TEU.^[37] She rejected the Hungarian government's argument that the law is concerned only with child protection through shielding them from pornography, which, she considered "was prohibited by the law in Hungary already," and emphasised its disproportionate harm on LGBTI minors.^[38][2] In the "resounding opinion",^[2] Ćapeta found that the anti-LGBTQ law was unscientific, based on "a prejudice" that LGBTI lives are lesser compared to those of non-LGBTI people, and attempted to impose a climate of hostility and a culture of stigma on LGBTI people.^[39]

• LGBTQ rights in the European Union