A conference held on Friday, February 27th, at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) in Budapest examined the growing role of European courts in driving the EU’s progressive agenda.
The event, titled “Courts at the Forefront of Europe’s Value Conflicts,” focused on the expanding influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Issues such as gender identity, same-sex marriage, media regulation, and freedom of expression are increasingly being decided by judges in Luxembourg rather than by elected national parliaments.
Martin Mendelski, a researcher at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, argued that different EU member states have developed their own historical and cultural understanding of the rule of law. By contrast, EU institutions promote a more universal interpretation.
Mendelski said there is a broader clash between two worldviews: a legal-secular, progressive approach and a Christian-traditional-national one. The current disputes are not just technical legal disagreements but deeper conflicts about sovereignty, morality, and the role of courts in society.
Several speakers criticised the leadership of the Luxembourg court. Koen Lenaerts, President of the CJEU, was described as highly capable but also activist in his approach.
András Osztovits, professor and head of the EU Law Department at Károli Gáspár University, said that leaders of the top EU institutions, including Lenaerts, openly support deeper political integration.
András Tóth, president of the Central European Lawyers Initiative, pointed to developments since 2014, when the European Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker took office.
He claimed that since then, EU institutions have increasingly promoted liberal-progressive ideas through legal decisions rather than open political debate. Questions about European values, he argued, should primarily be resolved in the political arena, not in courtrooms.
Rodrigo Ballester, head of MCC’s Centre for European Studies, listed several recent judgements that, in his view, show the court expanding its powers. These include rulings on the cross-border recognition of same-sex families and the use of gender-neutral language in official documents. He argued that such decisions go beyond the competences originally granted to the EU.
Ballester referred to a forthcoming ruling concerning Hungary. In 2025, the CJEU cleared the way for an infringement procedure linked to Hungary’s 2021 child protection law, which prohibits the promotion of gender transition and homosexuality in primary schools and during prime-time television.
In a preliminary opinion published last June, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta stated that restricting pro-LGBT content for minors violates “EU values” and therefore breaches EU law.
Ballester questioned why the final ruling has not yet been delivered, raising concerns about whether political timing—such as Hungary’s election campaign—could be influencing judicial processes. He argued that courts should remain independent of political considerations.
János Bóka, Hungary’s minister for European Union Affairs, said the CJEU is increasingly acting like a federal constitutional court, despite the EU lacking a clear separation of powers at the supranational level. For countries that wish to maintain strong national sovereignty, he warned, this raises serious concerns.
The ECJ is now directly engaging in social engineering, overstepping its role, influencing decisions regarding the future of Europe. These decisions are political in nature.
