The legal opinion by Advocate-General Tamara Ćapeta — to annul the Commission’s decision to unfreeze the funds — will guide the judges on their final ruling, which will be delivered in a few months. Advocates-general are not judges but legal advisers who help the court in complicated or unprecedented cases.
René Repasi, a German MEP and EU law professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam and the University of Geneva, said an annulment would mean the Commission should “request the money back.”
“If Hungary does not pay back, the Commission can lower other disbursements, which Hungary is entitled to receive, by the amount Hungary is obliged to pay back,” Repasi said.
When it comes, the court’s ruling will establish a precedent regarding the extent of the Commission’s discretion when assessing rule-of-law violations by EU countries, especially in the context of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), which sets strict conditions relating to fundamental rights and judicial independence for the disbursement of EU funds.
The Commission defended itself during a hearing in October 2025, saying that specific pre-established technical “milestones” on addressing judicial independence concerns had been formally met by Budapest, and therefore the Commission had to release the funds.
The Parliament’s lawyers say the Commission should have taken a broader view of systemic rule-of-law deficiencies in Hungary.