The European Commission has secured a minor legal victory over Hungary. The European Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday that Budapest had broken EU law by voting against the relaxing of cannabis-related restrictions at the UN in 2020.
Europe’s highest judicial institution ruled on 27 January that „by failing to follow the position of the Union when the 63rd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations Economic and Social Council was reconvened to discuss the amendment of the listing of cannabis and related substances“, Hungary acted in violation of EU law.
Budapest “failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Decision (…), has infringed the exclusive external competence of the Union (…), and failed to comply with the principle of sincere cooperation“, M. Koen Lenaerts, president of the court read.
Restrictions rule
During the 63rd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at the United Nations in Vienna in 2020, member countries, including EU members, were discussing the classification and potential reform of cannabis and related substances. The discussions often focus on issues related to public health, medicinal use, and international drug control policies.
Prior to the UN session, the EU member states had come to a consensus on advocating for a specific position regarding the classification of cannabis. This included supporting a proposal to reclassify cannabis and related substances to allow for wider use in medical and scientific contexts, recognizing changing perspectives on cannabis use worldwide.
You might be interested
Hungary deviated from the EU’s agreed position during this session. Specifically, Hungary voted against the proposal that the EU had collectively agreed upon regarding cannabis classification, aligning itself instead with a more restrictive stance. This action directly contravened the EU’s agreed position and led to the legal case against Hungary by the European Commission.
Budapest’s failures
By choosing not to align with the EU’s position, Hungary effectively acted independently rather than as part of the bloc. This decision violated EU law, which requires member states to present a unified front on issues where they have agreed. The European Commission brought the case to the ECJ, leading to the ruling that declared Hungary had failed to meet its obligations under EU treaties.
The case C-271-23 involves the European Commission against Hungary. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Hungary failed to follow the EU’s position regarding the classification of cannabis and related substances during a United Nations session. Specifically, Hungary did not adhere to EU obligations related to this international decision-making, thereby violating EU treaties.
(Hungary) failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Decision, has infringed the exclusive external competence of the Union, and failed to comply with the principle of sincere cooperation. — the ECJ ruling
Following this ruling, Hungary will face penalties for its non-compliance with EU obligations. The ECJ’s decision likely includes recommendations for Hungary to align its policies with EU standards moving forward. If Hungary continues to disregard EU directives, it could face further sanctions or legal actions, which may escalate tensions between Hungary and EU institutions.
Political fallout
This ruling could also strain relations between Hungary and other EU member states, especially if Hungary continues to challenge or ignore EU policies. It showcases the EU’s intent to maintain a cohesive legal and political structure.
The ECJ’s ruling is a critical reminder that EU members must act in accordance with EU principles and obligations, affecting Hungary’s legal obligations and EU relations moving forward. Hungary may now experience even more external external pressure to comply with EU regulations, affecting its domestic policies and governance style.
“Hungary is ordered to pay the costs,“ the court said. The exact financial penalties are not outlined in the ruling, but Budapest is likely to have to to cover legal costs incurred by the European Commission during the proceedings. This financial burden sometimes serves as a pressure point to encourage compliance with EU mandates. On the other hand, the amount in question would, in less formal settings, easily pass as ‘peanuts‘ in comparison with the magnitude of other sums at take in the political tug-of-war between Hungary and the EU.
