Last week, Hungary was ordered by the EU’s top court to pay a fine of 200 million euros as well as a daily penalty of 1 million euros for not implementing changes to its migration policy as required by the EU court in previous judgements.
In its decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) classified the Hungarian migration measures as “unprecedented and exceptionally serious” infringements of EU law that “undermine in a particularly serious manner both the public interest and the interests of third-country nationals”. One gets the feeling that the EU judiciary is simply living in a parallel universe.
First, the cynical decision to only announce Hungary’s punishment after the European parliamentary elections speaks for itself. The CJEU obviously didn’t want people to cast their vote after hearing about this scandalous decision.
Luckily, however—unlike the citizens of Western European member states—Hungarians have already had the opportunity to express their opinion concretely on migration. In a 2016 referendum, they overwhelmingly rejected illegal migration and the idea of an EU-wide quota system.
The Hungarian government, implementing the will of the Hungarian people, introduced strict migration rules. The purpose of these rules was to thwart illegal entry into Hungary, and thus, to EU territory.
The central idea was the following: no asylum seeker is allowed to enter the territory of Hungary until the authorities have made sure that the person is indeed entitled to asylum. This was the purpose of the transit zones and, after their closure in 2020 due to the CJEU’s previous judgement, the obligation to submit applications outside of Hungary, at the embassies of safe third countries, such as Serbia.
Hungarian rules are based on practical experience. This shows that once a person has entered the territory of the EU, it is very difficult to send them back, even if the asylum application is rejected. In 2023, almost 60% of the asylum applications filed within the EU were rejected. What is more, only approximately 25% of those subject to a return decision were actually removed from the EU. This means that three-quarters of those without a right to stay in reality remain in Europe.
Thus, it is clear that under the current EU-system that it is worth it for migrants to come to Europe illegally, since they can most likely remain in Europe. Simply put, every year hundreds of thousands of people take advantage of the leniency and weakness of the EU migration policy and abscond in Europe, often posing a serious security threat.
In this context, the court’s judgement shall be evaluated as follows: member states that take control of illegal migration and act against the unsustainable situation will face severe financial penalties. The judgement of the EU court against Hungary reinforces the dysfunctionality of the EU’s migration policy, and seeks to destroy individual efforts against illegal migration.
What explains the existence of such a wide gap between the decision of the EU court and the experience of a member state when it comes to illegal migration?
The answer lies in the fact that mass migration into the EU seems to be not only a political goal but an ideological cornerstone of the current Brussels elite, including the EU court. The EU’s approach to migration policy is a one-dimensional story: it exclusively looks at it from a humanitarian point of view, stating that the EU should basically accept anyone and everyone who wishes to come here. Some arguments underline the human rights aspects, some point at labour market needs, some others argue that the only way to react to falling birthrates is mass migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. I have even heard the argument in the European Parliament from a fellow-member that the EU has a moral obligation to accept everyone because of colonisation.
The other side of the story: the cultural change that mass migration causes, the dramatic consequences regarding public security, the terrorist attacks against Europeans and Christians in particular, the growing problem of Islamisation and Muslim ghettos and no-go-zones in many parts of Western Europe are not taken into account. More and more often, these arguments are not even accepted or altogether banned in (at least) Western Europe today.
The reality is that the current European asylum system is abused en masse by those who are not actually refugees but want access to EU territory for economic reasons. And this is encouraged by the ideologically one-sided, pro-migration Brussels approach.
The practical problem is that those entitled to asylum and economic migrants cannot be distinguished at the moment when a member state decides on a given person’s access to the territory. The experience that once a person has already entered the territory of the EU, it is very difficult to send them back, urges the member states to strive to prevent illegal entry in the first place.
This is exactly what Hungary does at the national level when we introduce strict border protection and asylum laws. These laws strike a new balance between the rights of asylum seekers and the right of member states to protect their borders, reflecting on the realities described above. Something that the EU has continuously failed to do, even with the recently adopted Pact on Asylum and Migration.
In addition, one particular issue that EU rules currently regulate in a deficient way is the concept of safe third countries. Based on the current EU rules, it is against EU law for Hungary to declare inadmissible the applications of those who arrive in Hungary via Serbia (via which most asylum seekers arrive at the Hungarian border) based on the concept of a safe third country.
This is completely absurd, in light of the fact that Serbia has been a candidate for membership to the EU since 2012. It is obvious that those who want to apply for asylum in Hungary instead of Serbia are doing so simply in order to enter the territory of the EU, not because they are exposed to any persecution there.
The continuous abuse of international and EU asylum laws has encouraged member states such as Hungary to take control of migration policy. This fight by Hungary is overwhelmingly supported by the Hungarian people. It is also underpinned in our Fundamental Law which stipulates in Article XIV “that foreign population cannot be settled in Hungary”.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that Hungary is not helping those in real need of protection. Hungary has carried out its largest humanitarian program in response to the war in Ukraine, and has welcomed 1.3 million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of the conflict. We have provided them with all the necessary help, be it accommodation, medical care, access to the labour market, or education of children.
Hungary pays special attention to taking help where it is needed. Our Hungary Helps program aims to ensure that people in need do not have to leave their home countries, but can prosper in their motherland. Through this program, Hungary has helped people and local communities in Iraq, Syria, for instance, as well as in many African countries. Since the operation of the Hungary Helps Program, we have spent an amount of over 110 million euros through more than 350 projects. This illustrates how our strict policy against illegal migration and our humanitarian efforts go hand in hand.
It seems, however, that the Court of Justice of the EU is not a partner, but an adversary in the fight against illegal migration. This decision was not the first one to prove that the EU court has become a political actor. Yet, one thing is certain: Hungarians retain the right to decide who they wish to live with in their own country. It is high time for the EU court, together with all the other EU institutions, to accept the will of the people.
EU’s Top Court Uses Financial Blackmail To Impose Migration Rules on Member States
Balázs Hidvéghi
Photo: Phillippe Stirnweiss / European Parliament
Last week, Hungary was ordered by the EU’s top court to pay a fine of 200 million euros as well as a daily penalty of 1 million euros for not implementing changes to its migration policy as required by the EU court in previous judgements.
In its decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) classified the Hungarian migration measures as “unprecedented and exceptionally serious” infringements of EU law that “undermine in a particularly serious manner both the public interest and the interests of third-country nationals”. One gets the feeling that the EU judiciary is simply living in a parallel universe.
First, the cynical decision to only announce Hungary’s punishment after the European parliamentary elections speaks for itself. The CJEU obviously didn’t want people to cast their vote after hearing about this scandalous decision.
Luckily, however—unlike the citizens of Western European member states—Hungarians have already had the opportunity to express their opinion concretely on migration. In a 2016 referendum, they overwhelmingly rejected illegal migration and the idea of an EU-wide quota system.
The Hungarian government, implementing the will of the Hungarian people, introduced strict migration rules. The purpose of these rules was to thwart illegal entry into Hungary, and thus, to EU territory.
The central idea was the following: no asylum seeker is allowed to enter the territory of Hungary until the authorities have made sure that the person is indeed entitled to asylum. This was the purpose of the transit zones and, after their closure in 2020 due to the CJEU’s previous judgement, the obligation to submit applications outside of Hungary, at the embassies of safe third countries, such as Serbia.
Hungarian rules are based on practical experience. This shows that once a person has entered the territory of the EU, it is very difficult to send them back, even if the asylum application is rejected. In 2023, almost 60% of the asylum applications filed within the EU were rejected. What is more, only approximately 25% of those subject to a return decision were actually removed from the EU. This means that three-quarters of those without a right to stay in reality remain in Europe.
Thus, it is clear that under the current EU-system that it is worth it for migrants to come to Europe illegally, since they can most likely remain in Europe. Simply put, every year hundreds of thousands of people take advantage of the leniency and weakness of the EU migration policy and abscond in Europe, often posing a serious security threat.
In this context, the court’s judgement shall be evaluated as follows: member states that take control of illegal migration and act against the unsustainable situation will face severe financial penalties. The judgement of the EU court against Hungary reinforces the dysfunctionality of the EU’s migration policy, and seeks to destroy individual efforts against illegal migration.
What explains the existence of such a wide gap between the decision of the EU court and the experience of a member state when it comes to illegal migration?
The answer lies in the fact that mass migration into the EU seems to be not only a political goal but an ideological cornerstone of the current Brussels elite, including the EU court. The EU’s approach to migration policy is a one-dimensional story: it exclusively looks at it from a humanitarian point of view, stating that the EU should basically accept anyone and everyone who wishes to come here. Some arguments underline the human rights aspects, some point at labour market needs, some others argue that the only way to react to falling birthrates is mass migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. I have even heard the argument in the European Parliament from a fellow-member that the EU has a moral obligation to accept everyone because of colonisation.
The other side of the story: the cultural change that mass migration causes, the dramatic consequences regarding public security, the terrorist attacks against Europeans and Christians in particular, the growing problem of Islamisation and Muslim ghettos and no-go-zones in many parts of Western Europe are not taken into account. More and more often, these arguments are not even accepted or altogether banned in (at least) Western Europe today.
The reality is that the current European asylum system is abused en masse by those who are not actually refugees but want access to EU territory for economic reasons. And this is encouraged by the ideologically one-sided, pro-migration Brussels approach.
The practical problem is that those entitled to asylum and economic migrants cannot be distinguished at the moment when a member state decides on a given person’s access to the territory. The experience that once a person has already entered the territory of the EU, it is very difficult to send them back, urges the member states to strive to prevent illegal entry in the first place.
This is exactly what Hungary does at the national level when we introduce strict border protection and asylum laws. These laws strike a new balance between the rights of asylum seekers and the right of member states to protect their borders, reflecting on the realities described above. Something that the EU has continuously failed to do, even with the recently adopted Pact on Asylum and Migration.
In addition, one particular issue that EU rules currently regulate in a deficient way is the concept of safe third countries. Based on the current EU rules, it is against EU law for Hungary to declare inadmissible the applications of those who arrive in Hungary via Serbia (via which most asylum seekers arrive at the Hungarian border) based on the concept of a safe third country.
This is completely absurd, in light of the fact that Serbia has been a candidate for membership to the EU since 2012. It is obvious that those who want to apply for asylum in Hungary instead of Serbia are doing so simply in order to enter the territory of the EU, not because they are exposed to any persecution there.
The continuous abuse of international and EU asylum laws has encouraged member states such as Hungary to take control of migration policy. This fight by Hungary is overwhelmingly supported by the Hungarian people. It is also underpinned in our Fundamental Law which stipulates in Article XIV “that foreign population cannot be settled in Hungary”.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that Hungary is not helping those in real need of protection. Hungary has carried out its largest humanitarian program in response to the war in Ukraine, and has welcomed 1.3 million Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of the conflict. We have provided them with all the necessary help, be it accommodation, medical care, access to the labour market, or education of children.
Hungary pays special attention to taking help where it is needed. Our Hungary Helps program aims to ensure that people in need do not have to leave their home countries, but can prosper in their motherland. Through this program, Hungary has helped people and local communities in Iraq, Syria, for instance, as well as in many African countries. Since the operation of the Hungary Helps Program, we have spent an amount of over 110 million euros through more than 350 projects. This illustrates how our strict policy against illegal migration and our humanitarian efforts go hand in hand.
It seems, however, that the Court of Justice of the EU is not a partner, but an adversary in the fight against illegal migration. This decision was not the first one to prove that the EU court has become a political actor. Yet, one thing is certain: Hungarians retain the right to decide who they wish to live with in their own country. It is high time for the EU court, together with all the other EU institutions, to accept the will of the people.
READ NEXT
The UK’s Shotgun Clampdown Is Indicative of Much More
Trump, Putin, Zelensky, and the Geopolitics of Resources
Erasmus: How Brussels ‘Deconstructs’ European Values