The President of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Koen Lenaerts, has ignited controversy after delivering a speech in Brussels Monday that many saw as a direct attack on Hungary, accusing the country of having become an “oligarchic system.” While Lenaerts did not name Hungary explicitly, his pointed remarks about “rulers who enrich themselves and their allies”—an accusation frequently levied at the Hungarian PM by his Brussels-backed opposition—left little room for doubt.
Speaking before an audience that included European Parliament President Roberta Metsola and Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath, Lenaerts warned that “EU funds must not serve to enrich an oligarchy surrounding a ruler or a ruling party.”
His statement came amid ongoing disputes between Budapest and Brussels over frozen EU funds linked to alleged ‘rule of law‘ concerns—a label the Orbán government has long denounced as a political weapon disguised as a legal principle.
The Belgian judge went further, arguing that all EU member states should be required to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which investigates crimes involving EU funds. Hungary has so far refused, citing sovereignty and the risk of political manipulation by unelected prosecutors in Luxembourg and Brussels.
Hungary’s response
The Hungarian government reacted swiftly. Balázs Orbán, political director to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, issued a detailed statement on X accusing the ECJ president of violating his own institution’s neutrality.
The Court cannot act as a political actor, nor may it assess or qualify the political structures or decisions of Member States. When the President of the CJEU publicly makes politically charged characterisations—for instance, by describing a Member State as an ‘oligarchic system’—he acts beyond the limits of judicial competence.
Balázs Orbán warned that such remarks undermine confidence in the Court’s impartiality, one of the cornerstones of the Union’s legal order. “Through his political interventions, Koen Lenaerts not only diminishes the authority of the institution he represents but also risks transforming the law itself into a political instrument,” he added.
The Hungarian official also pointed to the ECJ’s earlier decision to fine Hungary one million euros per day for reinforcing its border fence—a move Budapest defends as a measure protecting both Hungarian and European citizens. “The disproportionate nature of that sanction, combined with the Court President’s political tone, reveals a worrying shift: neutrality is being abandoned, and law is being weaponised,” he warned.
Judicial activism or institutional decay
The controversy exposes a deeper tension within the European Union—the growing perception that judicial institutions have become extensions of a political agenda, particularly in matters involving conservative governments. The language of ‘rule of law’ increasingly serves as a proxy for ideological conformity, targeting those member states that challenge Brussels’ liberal orthodoxy on migration, family policy, or sovereignty.
Critics argue that the EU’s judiciary, meant to safeguard the Treaties, is now engaged in what amounts to moral arbitration over national politics. By entering this terrain, Lenaerts and others risk transforming the ECJ from a guardian of law into a political referee, undermining its credibility across the continent.
At a time when the Union faces economic slowdown, political fragmentation, and rising public skepticism, the judiciary’s credibility may be one of its last remaining pillars. By allowing ideological bias to seep into legal discourse, Brussels risks further alienating the nations that still believe in a Europe of sovereign states, not one governed by unelected moralists.
For Hungary, this latest episode confirms what it has long argued: that the real rule-of-law crisis lies not in Budapest, but in Brussels itself.
