Finnish MEP Petri Sarvamaa (EPP) has launched a petition to pressure the head of the European Parliament into initiating yet another attempt to deprive Hungary of its voting rights in the EU Council, thereby preventing PM Viktor Orbán from assuming the role of interim Council president in July. Many MEPs, however, remain skeptical of the plot’s success and legal feasibility.
The letter Sarvamaa began to circulate in the Parliament asking for signatures on Monday, January 8th, is planned to be sent to EP President Roberta Metsola. The petition would request that Metsola initiate a vote on a resolution calling for the Commission to start another infringement (Article 7) procedure against Hungary for violating the rule of law.
“We believe that this action is necessary to protect the values of the European Union,” Sarvamaa wrote in the letter, seen by The European Conservative, “especially after Hungary’s actions to disrupt the decision-making of the Member States in the December EUCO [European Council].”
By “disruption,” the MEP referred to Hungary’s veto on the €50 billion Ukraine aid package, which the country was completely in its right to exercise under EU law.
The ultimate goal, Sarvamaa argued, is to suspend Hungary’s voting rights. This would also prevent its conservative prime minister Viktor Orbán from assuming interim Council presidency in July, after current President Charles Michel’s likely resignation.
To clear up any confusion, the EU Council is led by both a permanent president elected and appointed by members for 2.5 years (currently occupied by Charles Michel) as well as a different EU member state that changes every six months, on a rotational basis. Every country has its chance to shine every 13.5 years and Hungary’s term at the rotating presidency is set to kick off in July, just after the European elections.
As we reported, Michel announced his campaign for a seat in the European Parliament on Sunday, stirring up the emotions all around Brussels. Becoming an MEP in July would force him to resign from the Council presidency half a year early, automatically making the head of the country fulfilling the rotating presidency the interim president. In this case, Viktor Orbán.
Sarvamaa’s plan therefore is quite straightforward. “If Hungary were to be deprived of its right to vote in the Council, it would be quite clear that Hungary would not be able to hold the next presidency of the EU,” he explained. By definition, this would also keep out Orbán himself from the Council president’s highly representative chair.
As Sarvamaa hopes, if a new Article 7 procedure rules that Hungary is still in a “serious and persistent breach of EU values,” the Council could move to suspend its voting rights and—theoretically—take away its presidency with only a qualified majority.
While it sounds simple, the execution will be anything but, as there can be multiple problems with this plan.
First, nothing of this sort has ever been tried before in EU history. Article 7 has been triggered both against Poland and Hungary before, but never did the Council vote on restricting either’s voting rights—a move considered by many as too dangerous a precedent to be set.
Second, the whole process requires several votes and decisions from all three EU institutions, and six months may not even be enough for such a lengthy venture. First, a resolution needs to be proposed in the plenary and passed by a simple majority. Then, the Commission needs to start the procedure and all its relevant protocols. Multiple bodies need to prepare the charges and the Parliament needs to adopt another lengthy report to then submit before the Council. The Council then needs to vote unanimously (except Hungary) on whether it wants to penalize the country, and then vote again, this time with a qualified majority, about whether to take away its voting rights.
Furthermore, the suspension of voting rights is the only penalty specified by Art. 7(3) TEU, and nowhere else does the treaty say anything about being barred from assuming the rotating presidency simultaneously and automatically. Sarvamaa’s suggestion is just an idea, and nobody seems to be convinced that it is legal in the first place.
Moreover, Hungary has successfully addressed all the requirements the Commission has set about its previous rule-of-law procedure and is only waiting for the Commission to release the remaining €20 billion of frozen funds once it finishes its assessment. The fact that the Commission already released the first €10 billion equals admitting that what they have claimed are Hungary’s most concerning rule-of-law issues have been solved—depriving Brussels of reasons to restart the process.
Several MEPs commented that they feel Sarvamaa’s plot is hardly feasible in reality.
“I don’t think there’s any legal means to achieve this great goal,” Petras Austrevicius, an MEP of the liberal Renew told the EUObserver. “It won’t be easy to achieve a common position in the Council, since it’s a very sensitive issue and some [member states] might smell a potential risk to become the next ‘victim’ of such a procedure themselves.”
“I don’t see any support for this in the Council,” another diplomat agreed while remaining anonymous, saying that hardly any member state would dare to touch the rotating presidency, fearing a “slippery slope” in the end.
Another diplomat said that instead of panicking, the European parliament should stop exaggerating the problem.
“Let’s not overestimate the presidency’s impact on EU policy,” the diplomat said, explaining that the first presidency after the election and the last before the new Commission convenes hardly deals with any policy. “It’s not going to go anywhere … we’ll just have to pinch our noses for a few months.”
