<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-06-09T15:29:19Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/103291" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/103291</identifier>
      <datestamp>2026-05-20T10:17:04Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
        <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/ba70fa1e7c1d89f9</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/to-identity-and-beyond/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>To Identity and Beyond? - Commission v Hungary and the constitutional identity rationale</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Scholtes, Julian</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2026-05-20</dc:date>
        <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Art. 2 TEU</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Commission v Hungary</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Constitutional Identity</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Identity</dc:subject>
        <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
        <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
        <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
        <dc:description>Commission v Hungary proved, unsurprisingly, yet another bold leap forward in the Court’s value jurisprudence. Central to the reasoning of the Court has been the notion that Article 2 forms part of “the very identity of the Union as a common legal order”, which popped up five times in the 44 short paragraphs of the Court’s reasoning on Article 2. While much attention has already been paid to the judgment, the role of the Court’s “identity rationale” in the judgment merits a separate examination.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
