11 June 2026
A Hierarchy of Harms
The specific result in Valeurs de l’Union is correct. An obviously discriminatory law which equates LGBTI+ persons with pedophilia violates EU law. However, the conceptual framework to reach that result is troubling. By limiting Article 2 TEU to “manifest and particularly serious” breaches of the values of human dignity, equality, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, the Court does not merely constrain the provision’s reach but encodes a majoritarian, visibility-based standard of human rights that departs from the focus on individual dignity. Continue reading >>
0 
20 May 2026
To Identity and Beyond?
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. Continue reading >>
0
11 May 2026
Wesensgehalt, Würde, Werte
Wesensgehalt, Würde, Werte – so lautet der magische Dreiklang, mit dem der EuGH das ungarische Anti-LGBTQ-Gesetz zu Fall bringt. Dass es sich um Verletzungen absoluter, d.h. keiner Rechtfertigung zugänglicher verfassungsrechtlicher Garantien der Union handelt, verdeutlicht den Ausnahmecharakter des Falles. Der vorliegende Beitrag widmet sich den Fragen der Maßstäbe für Wesensgehalts-, Würde- und Werteverstöße. Der EuGH wartet dabei mit einem neuen Ansatz auf – doch hinsichtlich der Werte des Art. 2 S. 1 EUV beginnt die Suche nach passenden Maßstäben gerade erst. Continue reading >>30 April 2026
The Red Lines of European Society
The Court of Justice ruled on 21 April 2026 that the Hungarian law portraying non-heterosexual and non-cisgender persons as dangerous violates the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The decision is historic. We focus on what we see as its two central innovations. First, after years of academic controversy, there is now clarity: Article 2 TEU itself is a justiciable provision that sets enforceable red lines as a separate ground in infringement proceedings. And second, the Court advances a collective singular to which it attributes the EU legal order: European society. Continue reading >>
0
29 April 2026
Heavy Artillery, Light Reasoning
In its judgment of 21 April 2026 in Commission v. Hungary (C-769/22), the CJEU took the decisive step: its “value turn”. The Court for the first time applied Article 2 TEU as an autonomous and standalone review standard. The judgment deploys what might be called heavy artillery. Yet, the firepower of the instrument stands in uneasy tension with the lightness of the reasoning marshalled to justify its use. Nonetheless, the critical observations advanced by Riedl ultimately underestimate both the structural logic of the EU legal order and the functional mandate of the Court. Continue reading >>24 April 2026
A Constitutional Court without a Constitutional Compass
The ruling in the case of the Commission v. Hungary was eagerly awaited by many, but it will have come as a surprise to few. Public statements by prominent members of the EU Court of Justice indicated a clear desire to extend the applicability of Article 2 TEU. The Court’s findings regarding the Commission’s pleas concerning infringements of the various acts of secondary law are well-motivated, but its reasoning on Article 2 TEU clearly demonstrates the suffocating grip of EU constitutional orthodoxy. Continue reading >>
0
09 July 2025
A Legal Scalpel Instead of an Axe
Hungary appears to be assuming the role of a Trojan horse in the European Union, advancing the interests of foreign powers. Of particular concern is Hungary’s conduct in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, especially in light of its obstruction of EU sanctions against Russia. Thus far, the EU’s conventional instruments have proven insufficient in curbing Hungary’s veto strategy. For this reason, I propose a path that is both legally feasible and politically realistic: a reinterpretation of Article 7 TEU that would allow for a targeted use of the instrument. Continue reading >>
0
03 July 2025
Constitutional Awakening of Values
On 5 June 2025, AG Ćapeta delivered her opinion in case C-769/22, raising a pivotal question for the EU’s constitutional future: Can Article 2 TEU serve as a standalone provision in infringement proceedings? While the issue has sparked debate – including on this blog – this post defends the Opinion as a constitutionally coherent and necessary step to safeguard the Union’s foundational values. It argues that AG Ćapeta’s approach is firmly rooted in existing case law and offers a compelling legal framework to address democratic backsliding. The post focuses on her use of the “good society” concept and the proposed “negation of values” test, examining their normative grounding and practical significance within EU law. Continue reading >>
0
27 June 2025
The European Union’s Fantastical Constitution
Recently, von Bogdandy and Spieker decided to boldly go where not even they had dared to go before. To overcome the possible Hungarian veto on prolonging EU sanctions against Russia, they propose that the explicit requirement in Article 31(1) TEU for such decisions to be taken by the Council acting unanimously should be overcome on the basis of Article 2 TEU. In their view, a Hungarian veto against further sanctions would violate the value of solidarity and the Hungarian vote should therefore not count. We argue that this would launch us into a whole new, and in our view, dangerous galaxy. Continue reading >>20 June 2025
Rethinking Article 2 TEU
The recent Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Ćapeta in Case C 769/22 European Commission v Hungary marks a key moment in the evolving case law on Article 2 TEU. The case concerns Hungary’s controversial 2021 legislation restricting access to content portraying or promoting LGBTI identities. This analysis traces how recent ECJ rulings have prepared the ground for this development and examines the Opinion’s implications for the future enforcement of the EU’s constitutional identity. Continue reading >>
0