A parliament official said the case would ‘clarify the Commission’s role and margins of discretion about unfreezing of cohesion funds for Hungary’.
The European Union has become embroiled in a damaging legal standoff between its legislature and its executive Commission over the release of billions in frozen funds to the government of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban.
The release of the funds came on the eve of a major decision on Ukraine for which Mr Orban’s consent was needed.
Parliamentarians from several groups said that the necessary rule of law commitments needed to release over 10 billion euros (£8.5 billion) in funds were not met by Mr Orban and claimed the approval by the Commission was a mere bargaining chip to make sure he would lift his longstanding objections to opening EU membership talks with Ukraine.
One day after the funds were approved, Mr Orban made a stunning reversal at a summit of EU leaders in December and, by letting his time window to oppose the decision lapse, paved the way for it to proceed.
The Commission considers that it acted in full compliance with EU law and will defend its decision before the EU courts
EU Commission spokesman Christian Wigand
As a result, the parliament took the exceptional step to sue the Commission in what could amount to an unseemly legal fight right during the heat of the campaign for the June 6-9 EU elections.
The Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen has denied allegations that this amounted to a trade-off.
“The Commission considers that it acted in full compliance with EU law and will defend its decision before the EU courts,” EU Commission spokesman Christian Wigand said.
Mr Orban has been in a dispute with the European Commission over Hungary’s alleged democratic backsliding for years, and as a result, billions in funding were withheld.
In response, Hungary vetoed statements at the EU on a range of issues — and even exported the problem to Nato, by holding up Sweden’s bid for membership in the trans-Atlantic military alliance before the Scandinavian nation finally joined this week.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has denounced Mr Orban’s use of the veto.
“I don’t want to use the word blackmail, but I don’t know what other better word (might fit),” she said in December.
The objections over the timing of the release of money on the eve of the EU summit also angered the EU parliament, leading to the all-party endorsement to start legal proceedings.
“We want to make sure that taxpayers’ money has been treated in accordance with the (EU) Treaties,” said Petri Sarvamaa, from the Christian democrat European People’s Party, or EPP, the biggest in the legislature.
The parliament might face an uphill battle, since the court would need to show obvious errors committed by the Commission, considered a big task.
Hungary had submitted all evidence the Commission had required to show the independence of its judiciary. The Commission is therefore under a legal obligation to adopt this decision
EU Commission spokesman Christian Wigand
The Commission said that even if the timing was awkward, it had to act since Hungary had moved to improve its rule of law record on the issues the EU had demanded.
“Hungary had submitted all evidence the Commission had required to show the independence of its judiciary. The Commission is therefore under a legal obligation to adopt this decision,” Mr Wigand said.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has been one of the most steadfast defenders of Ukraine during the war against Russia and she had pushed hard for the EU to approve the opening of membership talks.
Since she is the EPP’s candidate for a second term at the helm of the Commission, support for a court case against the Commission came as a surprise to some.
“This is not a political issue for the EPP, this is not an election issue — we only want to have legal clarity,” said Mr Sarvamaa.
By Press Association
