Just the Facts | Article 7 and Hungary’s Voting Rights in the EU

Last week, on 27 May 2025, the General Affairs Council (GAC) of the European Union held its eighth hearing as part of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure concerning the rule of law Hungary. This procedure was triggered in September 2018 by the European Parliament. However, now seven years later, after several discussions on the state of play of the situation and eight hearings at the GAC, the procedure is still ongoing.

Recently, there has been growing exasperation among several Member States who are demanding stronger EU actions regarding Hungary. In March, during a ceremonial speech for Hungary’s National Day, the country’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, announced Easter “house cleaning”. This self-styled spring clean has included the introduction of a draft law on the “transparency of public life” targeting independent civil society organisations and media, as well as a law which would ban the Budapest Pride parade.

But what’s next for the Article 7 process, and could Hungary’s voting rights in the Council be suspended? This Just the Facts reviews the rule of law issues in Hungary and pores over procedures in the EU.

Article 7

Since 2014, the EU has expanded its ‘toolbox’ of instruments to uphold the rule of law in its Member States. Among these mechanisms is Article 7, which was first introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) and later developed with the Treaty of Nice (2001). Set out in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), one of the EU’s primary treaties, Article 7 is essentially there to address serious breaches of the EU’s founding values.

The EU’s core values are outlined in Article 2 of the TEU, which stipulates:

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.”

Article 7 includes two procedures for protecting EU values: preventative measures under Article 7(1) and sanctions under Article 7 (2-3).

With Article 7(1), either the Council of the EU, the European Commission, or the European Parliament can trigger the procedure for the Council to determine a clear risk of a serious breach of EU values. This then initiates a dialogue between the EU institutions and the Member State to address the concerns before the situation escalates. With Article 7(2-3), EU heads of state in the European Council determine (by unanimity) the existence of a serious and persistent breach. If a serious breach has indeed occurred, Article 7(2) allows for sanctions, including the suspension of a Member State’s voting rights. The decision to impose sanctions is taken by qualified majority in the Council.

During any of the steps of the Article 7 procedure that require voting in the Council of the EU and the European Council, the EU country in question does not participate. The graphic below further explains the processes of Article 7(1) and (2 – 3).

Hungary’s hearings

Since it was introduced, the Article 7 procedure has been triggered twice: the first time in 2017 by the European Commission against Poland and the second time in 2018 by the European Parliament against Hungary. The procedure against Poland ended in May 2024 as a result of the steps taken and commitments made by the Polish government under Prime Minister Donald Tusk who took office in late 2023.

In the case of Hungary, the Article 7 procedure is still ongoing and has remained in the preventative measures stage (Article 7[1]) since first being triggered by the European Parliament in September 2018.

There have now been eight hearings in total on Hungary, with the first being held in September 2019, and the most recent in May 2025. The hearings primarily cover the issues that were initially  raised by the European Parliament in September 2018, in particular the:

• functioning of the constitutional system and checks and balances
• fight against corruption
• protection of civic space
• freedom of media
• protection of LGBTQI rights

The Council has not yet moved to a vote on a “decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the rule of law”.  As the TEU does not lay out specific procedures for hearings under Article 7(1), the standard modalities are stipulated by the Council itself. In practice, there is no legal cap on the number of hearings the Council can hold, nor how long the whole procedure should take.

Continued democratic backsliding in Hungary

In Hungary, democratic backsliding has been a persistent issue in the country since Viktor Orbán became prime minister (again) in 2010. Orbán has transformed the media landscape, with many previously independent news portals now run by pro-Orbán, Fidesz-aligned forces, or simply forced out of the industry entirely. According to the Civicus monitor, the status of Hungary’s civic space is considered “obstructed”. Now in his fourth consecutive term (fifth in total), Orbán has introduced a myriad of changes to Hungary’s laws and constitution. These include a legislative package of judiciary reforms, establishing a system of administrative courts (December 2018); the “Defence of Sovereignty Bill” (December 2023), establishing the controversial “Office for the Defence of Sovereignty” that resulted in Hungary being referred to the Court of Justice; as well as the amendments (Section 6/A) to the Child Protection Act (Act LXXIX of 2021) which bans LGBTQ+ content in schools, among other measures targeting-LGBTQI+ rights. Importantly, on 5 June, the Court of Justice’s Advocate General concluded (in a non-binding, yet ultimately influential decision) that Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ legislation infringes EU law under Article 2 (TEU).

However, more recent developments, outlined below, have further increased exasperation among certain Member States and have placed renewed pressure on the Council to move to a vote on the Article 7(1) procedure concerning Hungary:

Pride ban

On 18 March 2025, Hungary adopted a law restricting freedom of assembly and banning public events that violate Section 6/A of the Child Protection Act, targeting events that portray gender identity, sex change, or homosexuality. The new law amends the law on misdemeanours and the law on the Right of Assembly, restricting public gatherings. It also expands the Facial Image Analysis Register to identify and fine event participants. As a result of this law, events such as Pride have been banned. Thousands in Budapest protested against the law. In a joint declaration published in May 2025, 20 Member States, including Ireland, condemned the law, calling the developments “contrary” to the fundamental rights protected under Article 2.

Draft Transparency Law

On 13 May 2025, a member of Orbán’s ruling party, Fidesz, submitted a draft bill entitled, the “Transparency of Public Life”. This proposed law would essentially enable the country’s controversial Office for the Defence of Sovereignty to target, defund and dissolve organisations in receipt of “foreign funding” and deemed “a threat to Hungarian sovereignty”. Some reports have pointed to the fact that this law will stifle any form of dissent and that even legitimate criticism of Orbán’s government could be considered a  a security threat. Civil society and media organisations have called the law “Operation Starve and Strangle” and some 10,000 people took to the streets of Budapest to protest against it.

A spokesperson from the European Commission confirmed with media that, if adopted, the bill would “would constitute a serious breach of EU principles and law” and that the Commission would “not hesitate to take the necessary action” if it is adopted. On 4 June, the Fidesz party announced it would postpone the vote on the Transparency of Public Life law until the autumn due to internal debates within the party. Civil society organisations such as Amnesty International have called the postponement a “huge joint success”.

EU foreign policy vetoes

Another reason that may prompt the activation of the Article 7 procedure is Hungary’s increasing abuse of its veto power in the Council of the EU, which has raised concerns among Member States and EU institutions. Under the EU’s unanimity rule in certain policy areas such as foreign affairs, Hungary has blocked or delayed crucial decisions. A prominent example is Hungary’s repeated obstruction of EU statements condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine, including vetoing sanctions’ packages and aid to Ukraine, despite broad EU consensus. Critics argue that such vetoes constitute hostage politics, undermining EU solidarity and effectiveness. The Hungarian government defends its actions as legitimate expressions of national sovereignty.

Possible next steps

So far, the EU has depended on the rule of law conditionality mechanism against Hungary in response to democratic backsliding. This is a relatively new instrument which aims to protect the EU’s budget.

To date, the Article 7(2) procedure and the suspension of a Member State’s voting rights has never been carried out before. However, if Hungary continues to breach EU values, certain Member States may intensify pressure by moving toward the next phase of Article 7(1) and voting on a Council decision as mentioned above. Representatives from certain EU Member States, including Germany, Sweden and Ireland have expressed explicit exasperation as to the drawn-out hearing process under the Article 7(1) procedure. Triggering Article 7(2-3), which requires unanimity among all other Member States could be politically difficult, and the requisite majority is still lacking. This means that full suspension remains unlikely in the short term. That being said, it is clear that with growing frustration over Hungary’s repeated use of vetoes, erosion of democratic norms, and alignment with foreign adversaries, momentum is building for bolder action.