Hungary dogged by Article 7 suspension of funds as MEPs continue debates

Questions over the state of the rule of law in Hungary and Poland dogged both member states as MEPs continued a debate in Strasbourg over the EU’s course of action for Article 7 proceedings.

Both states have persistently been accused of failing to abide by certain fundamental EU principle: the main issues with Poland are questions on the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, whereas Hungary is accused of allowing its political elite to wrongfully pocket EU funds as well as legally enshrine certain violations of fundamental rights against minorities and the LGBT community.

Article 7 is a legal mechanism written into the European treaties that allows the other member states to convene in the Council in cases where a member state is breaching the EU’s founding values – respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities – to deny them EU funds.

If breaches persists, the state in question will be called to answer before the other members of the Council, which then votes by qualified majority to suspend rights of the accused country, including voting rights within the Council, until all duties are fulfilled.

Other than the article 7 procedure there is also the “rule of law conditionality mechanism” which both Hungary and Poland are also facing, to suspend a member state’s access to EU funds for failing to comply with the tenets of the European Union.

Clément Beaune, Secretary of State for European Affairs of France and representative of the French presidency of the Council, said the presidency will be very vigilant with the reform process of Poland’s judiciary. With regards to Hungary, Beaune said: “We are ready and willing as we have been since the beginning of our presidency to take the necessary further steps.”

Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the European Commission, expressed said there appeared to be some positive movement in Poland to begin addressing the flagged issues. However, in the case of Hungary, she regretfully expressed that “no positive developments were observed with the Article 7 proceedings.”

Jeroen Lenaers of the EPP took a stance in favour of going ahead with reprisals against Poland and Hungary. “Helping member states deal with an unprecedented crisis should never come at the cost of being silent about rule of law issues at home,” he said, referring to the Ukrainian refugee criss.

Lenaers said that it would be cynical, at a moment where Ukrainians were dying for values like rule of law and democracy, to “turn a blind eye on the very same values at home.”

Gabriele Bischoff (S&D) and Michal Šimečka (Renew) were both in favour of taking action against Poland and Hungary respectively. Šimečka did not mince his words, stating “we need a robust EU response to cut off funds to Viktor Orban’s autocracy and if need be suspending voting rights in the council as per Article 7. Because dithering over EU values is what brought about this situation and it must end now thank you very much.”

Flying in the face of these narratives was non-attached Hungarian MEP Hidvéghi Balázs who called out an “ill-conceived ideological jihad” he accused the EU of mounting against Hunagry. Balázs viewed the election result as significative of “the spectacular failure of the Hungarian opposition” and “a resolute and clear rejection of all the political intervention attempts by the Brussels elite.”

Balázs went on to lambast the other MEPs informing them that Hungarians has opted to reject their “arrogant ideological lectures” and that faced with a terrible war and economic crisis what Europe needs is “sobriety and unity please… it’s high time to take your hands off Poland and Hungary.”