(AGENPARL) - Roma, 12 Febbraio 2026 - (AGENPARL) – Thu 12 February 2026 PRESS RELEASE No 15/26
Luxembourg, 12 February 2026
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-225/24 | Parliament v Commission
Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta proposes that the Court of Justice annul
the Commission’s decision lifting the suspension on the disbursement of
funds to Hungary
The Commission may not disburse EU funds to a Member State until the required legislative reforms are in
force and are effectively being applied. Furthermore, in any decision to disburse those funds the Commission
must demonstrate that each condition has been satisfied – thereby protecting EU financial interests, enabling
judicial review and informing not only the Member State concerned but all EU citizens
Under the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), 1 funding from the EU budget is conditioned on Member States’
respect for horizontal enabling conditions, one of which is compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.
In 2022, the Commission approved 10 operational programmes financed under the CPR funds in Hungary, but
suspended the disbursement of those funds until the country had fulfilled the requirements laid down in the
Charter. 2 In those decisions, the Commission set the detailed conditions that Hungary must satisfy in order to
address its non-fulfilment of the Charter requirements. Part of these requirements concerned the independence of
the judiciary.
In December 2023, the Commission adopted the contested decision 3 by which it concluded that Hungary had
satisfied the Charter requirements in relation to judicial independence and lifted the suspension on the
disbursement of funds for related programmes. As a result of this decision, Hungary became eligible to receive
approximately € 10.2 billion from various funds governed by the CPR.
On 25 March 2024, the European Parliament brought an action before the Court of Justice requesting the
annulment of the contested decision. It alleged that the Commission infringed the applicable law and committed
manifest errors of assessment, infringed its duty to state reasons and misused its powers.
In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta proposes that the Court of Justice annul the
Commission’s contested decision.
She considers that once the Commission has set, within the boundaries of its discretion, the specific
requirements that the Member State must satisfy in order to secure payment from the European Union’s budget, it
may not enable payment until each of those requirements have been fulfilled.
In relation to the first plea of the Parliament, Advocate General Ćapeta is of the opinion that the Commission
incorrectly applied the requirements imposed on Hungary when it permitted, without any explanation, the
disbursement of the budget before the required legislative reforms had entered into force or were being applied.
Furthermore, the Commission failed to carry out a proper assessment of the reforms relating to the
independence of the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary), to judicial appointments of members of the
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court, Hungary) and to the removal of the obstacles to making preliminary
references. Finally, the Commission did not adequately address the legislative developments that could
undermine or offset the objectives of the reforms Hungary had undertaken.
In relation to the second plea of the Parliament, Advocate General Ćapeta considers that the Commission infringed
its duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide any explanation for departing from the
requirements set out in its 2022 approval decisions. Even if such a decision is formally addressed only to the
Member State concerned, there are larger public interests behind that decision, namely the disbursement of public
money. For that reason, and especially in a situation where the release of the funds had previously been suspended
on account of concerns in respect of the rule of law, Advocate General Ćapeta considers that the Commission owes
an explanation not only to Hungary, but to the EU citizens at large.
In relation to the third plea of the Parliament, Advocate General Ćapeta concluded that the claims relating to the
misuse of powers were not sufficiently substantiated and proposed that the Court reject that plea.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to EU law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions,
bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act
is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
See Article 9(1) of the Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on
the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the
Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy.
The Commission identified four major deficiencies concerning the judicial independence, academic freedom, the so-called ‘child protection law’, and
the right to asylum.
Commission Decision C(2023) 9014 of 13 December 2023 on the approval and signature of the Commission assessment, in accordance with Article
15(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, of the fulfilment of the horizontal enabling condition ‘3. Effective application and implementation of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights’ with regard to the deficiencies in judicial independence in Hungary (non-published).
Communications Directorate