The Tarnkappe of Judgment

On 10 September 2025, Verfassungsblog revealed the article To Uniformity and Past. Hungary’s Supreme Court docket and the Implementation of CJEU Rulings. The article raises vital questions on how Hungarian judicial establishments work together with the Court docket of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) within the framework of preliminary references. With out participating with each facet of that debate, I focus right here on a narrower however decisive subject: how the binding drive of precedent operates within the Hungarian authorized order when confronted with EU legislation.

The dilemma raised by the article can maybe be most clearly grasped by means of Wagner’s Nibelungenlied. The drama of Brünhilde, Günther, and Siegfried exhibits that energy is rarely an identical with its look. Brünhilde embodies legislation itself, but her energy doesn’t yield to Günther, who outwardly appears her rightful grasp, however solely to Siegfried’s intervention. In the identical method, the CJEU might declare the primacy of EU legislation, however such pronouncements stay declaratory until the nationwide choose offers them impact. The binding drive of precedent inside the Hungarian authorized order may be undone solely by the Kúria’s Uniformity (Grievance) Panel (UP), simply as Brünhilde’s energy could possibly be damaged solely by Siegfried. The unity of legislation, subsequently, doesn’t relaxation within the formal phrase, however within the institutional act that interprets look into actuality, and it’s on this rigidity between declaration and drive that the true drama of European legislation unfolds.

My reflection goals to not dispute the precept of primacy itself, however to light up how the truth of binding drive unfolds inside the institutional and constitutional framework of the Hungarian judiciary.

On the uniformity choices

Earlier than turning to the historic roots, a latest instance illustrates the load of uniformity choices in follow. Within the context of the C-630/23 judgment regarding overseas forex loans, the UP usually operates in two panels of 20 judges every. Nevertheless, on this case the Civil Regulation Chamber additionally joined, and a complete of 43 judges adopted Uniformity Determination No. 10/2025. In contrast, in Luxembourg the chamber deciding C-630/23 consisted of solely three judges from Greece, Eire, and the Netherlands, assisted by an Advocate Normal from Luxembourg, all from eurozone international locations the place the problem of foreign-currency-denominated loans doesn’t come up. This distinction exhibits how the Hungarian mechanism is designed to make sure legitimacy and depth in delicate fields of legislation. Hungarian legislation additionally permits dissenting opinions to be hooked up to uniformity choices, though they carry no binding drive.

Historic and constitutional foundations

Whereas this latest instance demonstrates how UDs function in follow, their significance can’t be absolutely understood with out contemplating their historic roots and the constitutional ideas that underpin them. Firstly, it ought to be famous that the establishment of uniformity choices (UDs) within the Hungarian authorized order is just not with out pre(ante)cedent. As early as 1881 (4. §), the Curia Regia safeguarded uniform jurisprudence, a task bolstered in 1890 and codified within the 1912 Act LIV (70. §), which made uniformity choices binding on all courts. In 1997, this perform was elevated to constitutional degree. Uniformity choices are thus not a creation of EU membership, however a long-standing aspect of Hungary’s authorized custom. Consequently, the operational ideas of UDs, embedded in nationwide custom, represent an integral aspect of Hungary’s constitutional identification and can’t be interpreted as if that they had arisen solely after EU membership (See: Balássy).

Secondly, it ought to be famous that, below a broad interpretation of Determination 22/2016. (XII. 5.) of the Constitutional Court docket (CC), uniformisation as an establishment will also be understood as an instrument for preserving constitutional identification. On this choice, the CC established two principal limits. Firstly, the joint train of competences might not infringe the sovereignty of Hungary. Secondly, it could not entail a violation of constitutional identification. In step with this, the parallel reasoning hooked up to the bulk choice emphasises that constitutional identification already existed previous to accession, and that the Accession Treaty can’t be interpreted as if Hungary had renounced it. It follows that the follow of UDs is just not merely a technical software of authorized utility, however an establishment belonging among the many constitutional achievements, serving as one of many safeguards of Hungarian state sovereignty and constitutional identification.

Interplay with EU legislation and judicial independence

A specific function of the Hungarian restricted precedent system is that decrease courts can, with applicable and detailed reasoning, depart from the authorized interpretation laid down in choices of the Kúria carrying precedential worth. This mannequin concurrently secures the upkeep of uniformity and the preservation of judicial independence, because the binding drive of an interpretation doesn’t exclude the event of a professionally substantiated divergent authorized view. The CJEU has additionally recognised the functioning of this authorized establishment on this kind. In World Ink Commerce, the Court docket said in paragraph [30] that nationwide laws which merely requires decrease nationwide courts to offer causes for any departure from such assessments is just not opposite to that precept.

Within the Hungarian system, the choices of the UP are in all circumstances linked to concrete, particular person disputes, introduced earlier than the panel both on the request of the events or on the initiative of the adjudicating judicial panel, in addition to of individuals designated in Part 33 of the Bszi. (Act CLXI of 2011). This function ensures that UDs [Bszi., Sections 25, 40, and 41/D(5)] usually are not issued merely as summary, common pointers however are adopted inside the framework of a selected authorized dispute, tailor-made to the information and the exact authorized query at stake.

Beneath Hungarian legislation, UDs don’t deal with the content material of EU legislation, as this competence stays with the CJEU. Decrease courts and the panels of the Kúria are entitled to consult with the CJEU in the event that they think about a UD to be opposite to EU legislation, as certainly occurred within the current case. Moreover, in the event that they deem the CJEU’s interpretation to vary from that contained in a UD, they might disregard the UD and observe the CJEU’s interpretation, though each are binding. This battle may be resolved by means of the system of treatments, which I’ll clarify under. Moreover this case, according to the reasoning within the RS case [C-430/21, para. 44] and the opinion of Advocate Normal Pedro Cruz Villalón in Case C-173/09, is just not in itself opposite to EU legislation, because the independence of the supreme court docket is assured and the system doesn’t exclude the opportunity of initiating preliminary ruling proceedings if needed. The CJEU itself confirmed in Dunai [Case C-118/17 (65) 2] that binding choices of a supreme court docket aimed toward guaranteeing uniform interpretation usually are not precluded by Union legislation, offered they don’t impede both the total effectiveness of the directive’s guidelines or the jurisdiction of nationwide courts to safe efficient judicial safety and, the place needed, to make a reference for a preliminary ruling.

Subsequently, the restricted precedent system doesn’t hinder courts from giving impact to the primacy of EU legislation. Quite the opposite, it reinforces it. If the Kúria observes that one among its earlier binding choices conflicts with a more moderen interpretation of EU legislation by the CJEU, it instantly adapts its personal follow to EU legislation. This has an instantaneous impact, because of the binding drive of UDs, making it unmistakably clear to the events that earlier Hungarian court docket choices incompatible with EU legislation can not be relied upon in pending circumstances. Accordingly, the Kúria’s exercise in guaranteeing uniformity doesn’t battle with the primacy of EU legislation, insofar because it doesn’t purport to offer an interpretation of EU legislation. Slightly, in making use of nationwide legislation and displaying how EU ideas are integrated into the home authorized order, it defines the framework for adjudication with out itself decoding EU legislation.

Hierarchy preserved, primacy secured

This division of competences additionally shapes the preliminary ruling mechanism. Solely questions of EU legislation’s interpretation or validity could also be referred to the CJEU, not questions concerning the legitimacy of the nationwide judicial organisation, the treatment system, or the allocation of competences, as this may already be extremely vires. UDs don’t include autonomous interpretations of EU legislation. As an alternative, inside the framework of Hungarian legislation, they might not directly mirror ideas derived from EU legislation. It follows from this particular function {that a} UD of the Kúria doesn’t interpret EU norms as unbiased sources of legislation, however, embedded inside the Hungarian authorized system, might present how home regulation already implements the necessities of EU legislation. Advocate Normal Michal Bobek highlighted in Euro Field Promotion (C-357/19 and C-547/19) that decrease courts might disregard the Kúria’s binding view if it contradicts EU legislation. Nevertheless, this empowerment is restricted, as its sole goal is to allow a reference to the CJEU for the interpretation of EU legislation and to make sure that such a proper is just not obstructed by formal hierarchical devices. The result’s a framework that preserves judicial hierarchy whereas safeguarding the primacy of EU legislation. On this sense, uniformity choices function as a part of the treatments system: they don’t transpose CJEU rulings however present the software to take away conflicting home precedents when events invoke their proper to enchantment.

Uniformity by means of treatments

The hierarchical construction of the judicial system relies on the proper of the events to authorized treatments. The duty of guaranteeing uniformity is vested within the supreme judicial discussion board. This ensures that judicial follow stays constant nationwide. If a decrease court docket departs from this framework, the system of treatments, exercised by means of appeals, ensures that the divergent choice is annulled.

Whereas the crucial formulation of the uniformity choice in statutory legislation is binding, it doesn’t in itself entail quick detrimental penalties, simply as an instruction issued in a better court docket’s judgment is binding but doesn’t of itself impose a direct sanction. If a decrease court docket fails to observe the adjudicative framework set by the upper court docket, this doesn’t robotically lead to antagonistic penalties. The remedial mechanism is simply activated if the events think about that the judgment departs from uniform judicial follow or from the framework set by the upper court docket, and subsequently lodge an enchantment. In such circumstances, the upper court docket, upon request of the events, annuls the choice that didn’t adjust to the binding uniformity choice, the binding choice of the Uniformity Grievance Panel, or the earlier instruction. This mechanism ensures that, by means of exercising the proper to enchantment, adjudication stays constantly uniform all through your complete nation. It’s exactly on this method that conflicts between a UD and a CJEU ruling may be resolved in favour of EU legislation.

Conclusion

The UP doesn’t “implement” or “transpose” the judgments of the CJEU. Nor does it assume an interpretative position. Beneath Article 267 TFEU, the ability to outline the content material of Union legislation rests with the CJEU alone. The UP has a distinct job. Its position is to adapt the Hungarian precedent system when a binding choice of the Kúria collides with CJEU case legislation. In such conditions, the UP declares that the sooner precedent not binds the courts. This doesn’t change the that means of EU legislation. It removes the home impediment that might in any other case undermine its impact.

The logic is straightforward. The CJEU says what Union legislation means. The UP ensures that no conflicting precedent in Hungary continues to say binding drive. By extinguishing that drive, the UP prevents authorized uncertainty and protects the primacy of EU legislation. Seen this fashion, the UP neither applies nor interprets Union legislation. It operates totally inside the Hungarian constitutional framework. Its perform is institutional, not doctrinal. It ensures that the construction of Hungarian legislation doesn’t impede the direct impact of EU norms.

The UP, subsequently, doesn’t “translate” CJEU judgments into Hungarian authorized language. As an alternative, it really works inside the Hungarian precedent system to eradicate these binding home guidelines that might in any other case contradict the necessities of Union legislation.