Hungary wanted a vote on Ukraine arms funding; EU judges won’t weigh in

EU judges dismissed Hungary’s challenge to its exclusion from a vote on arming Ukraine with Russian asset profits but left its voting rights unresolved.(CN) — Hungary wanted its say on weapons funding for Ukraine, but the European Union’s second-highest court ruled Wednesday that dispute was beyond its reach.The General Court of the European Union dismissed Budapest’s challenge to a June 21, 2024, decision directing profits from frozen Russian assets toward military aid for Ukraine. Hungary had asked judges to overturn the decision and part of the official record documenting its adoption, arguing it had been unlawfully shut out of the vote.Choosing how to divide the money and which military assistance to fund involved political or strategic decisions, the court found. European Union treaties put those choices beyond its power to review.Hungary argues its complaint is about the voting process, not weapons deliveries. But the judges found the same limits applied to the procedures used to adopt those decisions. Appeals to equal treatment, democratic participation and the rule of law could not expand their authority.“Hungary cannot validly argue that the EU courts’ lack of jurisdiction to hear this action deprives it of the right to an effective remedy,” the court said.The judges therefore left unanswered the question of whether Hungary had been wrongly denied a vote.After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU barred transactions involving Russian central bank reserves and assets. The restrictions immobilized assets in Europe, where earnings accumulated as the war continued.In May 2024, EU governments agreed to put those profits toward arming and rebuilding Ukraine. They earmarked 90% for the European Peace Facility, a fund established in 2021. The arrangement drew on the earnings, leaving the frozen assets themselves untouched.Hungary backed the rules for using the profits but abstained from a separate decision directing the fund’s share toward Ukraine’s armed forces. That formal abstention allowed the other governments to proceed without Hungary blocking the agreement.Weeks later, Ukraine urgently requested lethal military equipment. A proposal for a new assistance measure failed to win Hungary’s approval. The presidency of the Council of the European Union then moved discussions on allocating the profits to the fund’s governing committee, which treated Hungary’s earlier abstention as grounds to exclude it from the vote.Budapest maintains that sitting out one decision should not have cost it a voice in the next. The fund and council argue the allocation is directly tied to foreign policy choices beyond judicial review. At the March hearing, Council lawyers also warned Hungary’s approach would let it block implementation of a policy it had allowed to proceed.In assessing the allocation, the judges pointed to what it funded: ammunition and artillery, missiles and air-defense systems and equipment from Ukraine’s defense industry. It specified purchasing arrangements and called for deliveries by Dec. 31, 2024. Those details reinforced its strategic character. The court also found exceptions allowing judicial review of sanctions against individuals or businesses did not cover this military assistance decision.Davide Genini, a researcher specializing in European security law at Dublin City University, saw the ruling as another step toward a European version of the American political-question doctrine, which puts some political choices beyond the courts’ reach. For him, the bigger question was how far EU judges can go in reviewing foreign policy decisions.Genini also saw an irony: The Orbán government had long argued foreign policy should largely be left to national governments, not EU judges. “Hungary has effectively been caught by its own argument.”The council did not comment on the judgment. Representative for the Hungarian government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Hungary was ordered to pay its own legal costs and those of the fund and the council. It can appeal to the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice, on points of law within two months and 10 days of notification. For now, the funding decision stands.Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads