The following is the English translation of a press release kindly provided to us by the Center for Fundamental Rights.
In a recent migration case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—a key driver of EU centralization—has once again ruled against Hungary in a way that infringes upon its national sovereignty. The case concerned an individual living illegally in Hungary.
The court held that, based on the so-called ‘primacy of EU law’ doctrine (a principle not explicitly found in the EU’s founding treaties), national courts must follow the CJEU’s interpretation even when it contradicts a binding precedent set by the Curia of Hungary.
This signals a critical development not only regarding migration policy but also regarding sovereignty, as several similar cases are currently pending before the CJEU. It is unprecedented for the highest court of a Member State to have its established, legally binding judicial practice overridden in this manner.
This is not the first time, of course, that judges in Luxembourg have undermined the fundamental right of the Hungarian people to decide with whom they wish to live. In this effort of theirs, they have found allies in the von der Leyen-led European Commission and in domestic left-wing forces such as the TISZA Party, which, following the line of the European People’s Party, is attempting—through procedural and financial pressure—to force Hungary to dismantle its legal and physical border barriers.
The case itself began when the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing expelled a foreign national who sought to remain in Hungary but could not prove he had sufficient income to support himself, as required for legal residence by law. During his legal challenge to that decision, the Budapest Metropolitan Court—contrary to the interpretation established by the Curia—requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, which ultimately ruled in favour of the expelled individual. Under this extremely broad, Brussels-centric understanding of the primacy of EU law, the ruling means that, despite the Curia’s position based on Hungarian legislation, the individual in question may remain in Hungary.
This decision aligns perfectly with Brussels’s broader push, aided by politically aligned actors within Member States, to take control of EU policy on immigration, migration management, and border protection—without any democratic mandate and at the expense of the sovereignty of its Member States.
At the same time, it highlights how Brussels is willing to use EU law, as well as EU and human-rights courts, to impose its globalist policies on countries that seek to defend their sovereignty.
Related articles:
