Minister, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled this week that the so-called “Stop Soros” legislation violates European law in parts.

What consequences will Hungary draw?

Stephan Löwenstein

Political correspondent based in Vienna.

  • Follow I follow

As usual, we will wait for the official written justification of the verdict. Then a legal discussion begins with the Commission on how to implement it. It takes months, sometimes more than a year, regardless of the Member State. But what we see is astonishing: You are attacking the law, which is there to protect Europe from illegal migration and its illegal support. So basically the European Court of Justice and the European Commission want Hungary to let illegal migrants in.

In the past, Budapest ultimately implemented the decisions of the ECJ and raised no fundamental objections to them.

Most recently, Hungary dissolved the transit zones at the border, as requested by the ECJ, but appealed to the local constitutional court against certain aspects of the ruling to determine whether these are compatible with the Hungarian Basic Law - similar to what Poland did.

Does that mean a fundamental reorientation?

I have to correct that: there is no connection to the Polish case.

Every case in every Member State is different.

We have sought the opinion of the Constitutional Court.

In principle, it is not about the primacy of European law, but a question of interpretation.

Which interpretation?

We see that the European Union's migration system is not working. There is a lot of secondary migration. If asylum applications are rejected, the return will not work. In Hungary, with the transit zones, we had a very well-functioning system of legal regulations and physical measures. It has reduced illegal migration across Europe. The transit zones were closed towards the Schengen area and open towards safe third countries, namely Serbia. Now we had to close the transit zones. But if there are asylum applications that are rejected, these people cannot be sent home, but stay illegally on the national territory. This contradicts the principle of sovereignty, which is laid down in the Basic Law.And we won't let any illegal migrants in anyway - fortress Hungary is in place.

So a conflict with EU law after all?

No, it is not a question of whether or not EU law applies. Rather, EU law does not work effectively. You can see the serious problems at the borders of Lithuania and Poland. This is a crisis situation in which we could not wait for any resolutions. It took immediate action by the sovereign member states and creative solutions. We support the Polish border guards and send material aid to Lithuania to build a fence. I welcome the numerous statements made by European politicians who used to be against a fence and are now in favor. It is really irrational and morally questionable for Hungary to be threatened with fines and infringement proceedings for the same things that are being done in other countries.Hungary should also be given financial support for its fence construction. It cost the equivalent of 1.6 billion euros, of which only one percent has so far been reimbursed.

How should the procedure proceed?

Infringement proceedings should be halted until there is a common workable solution to deal with the migration crisis.

There are ideas.

We had a working system.

The principle on which it is based is that the decision as to who is allowed to enter the EU and who is not should be made as long as they have not yet entered EU territory.

This idea is now shared by other Member States too.

And many others build fences.

If there is a conflict between national and EU law, which one has priority?

The German constitutional court had to grapple with this “question of competence” (here Varga uses the German word) last year.

When an unstoppable force, European law, hits something solid, the national constitution, there is a collision.

The German government is also bound by the decision of the European Court of Justice and that of the Federal Constitutional Court.

I agree with the German position that in such an extreme situation the conflict can only be resolved through political and legal dialogue.

I find it problematic that in the German case the loyal cooperation was answered with an infringement procedure.

Let us return to the question of principle.

We can only talk about priority of EU law where communitized competences are at stake.

The treaties clearly stipulate which objects have been shared with other member states and the European institutions and which remain the responsibility of the member states to one hundred percent.

A constitutional court must first clarify whose competence it is when it has to decide on such a question.

It is sad that the debate on the Polish Constitutional Court case is so distorted by the media because no one makes this distinction.

Of course, life is colorful and you can always discuss where the boundaries between communalized and national competencies lie.

It cannot be said that the question is illegitimate.