In both cases the European Commission launched infringement procedures against Hungary at the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the decision No. 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB the Constitutional Court established that “the opportunity of review reserved for the Constitutional Court should be applied by taking into account the obligation of cooperation, in view of the potential enforcement of European law”. In the present cases the Constitutional Court concluded that with regard to the fundamental rights’ context and the obligation of cooperation within the European Union, it is necessary to wait for the closing of the procedures pending at the European Court of Justice.

According to the latest rulings of the Constitutional Court, the fundamental rights indicated in the motions are closely related to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The relevant rulings establish that until the end of the procedures started in the same subject by the European Commission at the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Constitutional Court shall suspend its procedures launched for examining the conflict with the Fundamental Law and the annulment of:

  • Section 1(2), Section 1(4) and the text “shall record the association or the foundation as an organisation supported from abroad” in Section 2(2), Section 2(4) and (5) of the Act LXXVI of 2017 on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Foreign Funds and Section 94(1)h) and Section 95e) of the Act CLXXXI of 2011 on the Court Registration of Civil Society Organisations and Related Rules of Proceeding, and
  • the totality of the Act XXV of 2017 on the amendment of the Act CCIV of 2011 on National Higher Education, and certain provision of the Act CCIV of 2011 on National Higher Education.

The full text of the rulings is available on the Constitutional Court’s website (alkotmanybirosag.hu). Judges dr. Ágnes Czine, dr. Ildikó Marosi dr. Hörcherné and dr. Balázs Schanda attached concurring opinions, and judges dr. István Balsai, dr. Imre Juhász, dr. László Salamon, dr. István Stumpf and dr. Mária Szívós attached dissenting opinions to the rulings.