At at 08:30 on Wednesday 27/8, we have the panel “Courts and Their Counterparts” chaired by @vmakszimov.bsky.social and Julián Manzano Gómez and with presentations by @vmakszimov.bsky.social, Julián Manzano Gómez, @hamriklukas.bsky.social, and @petrhrebenar.bsky.social! ecpr.eu/Events/Event...

3/ On substance: The Commission seems intent on waiting for the C-769/22 judgment before acting on Hungary’s latest anti-🏳️‍🌈 legislation. That’s a mistake, even if the #CJEU rules against Hungary. I explain why in this @unioslo-arena.bsky.social policy brief 👇

🔗 www.sv.uio.no/arena/englis...

In response to a Q from @financialtimes.com’s Márton Dunai if she will march tomorrow, Comm. Lahbib at a presser in Budapest seemed to prefer being at "a negotiating table" w/ Fidesz ministers. She will, of course, "assess". Asked if that's a no, she said: "That's your interpretation."

2/

Apparently, "the exceptionally short [3 day] deadline for judicial review of" the police ban makes it impossible to ask constitutional or EU courts for input. 🙃 So, administrative deadlines now trump examining whether Hungary’s laws align with EU law?
#EUPrimacyInAction 🤷
4/END

Kúria also stubbornly refuses to refer a ❓ to the #CJEU, in essence ignoring AG Ćapeta's opinion in C-769/22 published earlier this month. The Court’s logic is now even stranger:
3/

Reminder: this is the same legal basis being used to justify the #BudapestPride ban — Assembly Law amendments passed in March linking to the prohibitions in the so-called 2021 “Child Protection Law” at issue in C-769/22 in front of #CJEU.
2/

Eppo Bruins, apparently. From PR of BUD Pride organisers yesterday:
budapestpride.hu/en/news/reco...

tbh, I'm a bit sceptical of their list, e.g. "A European Commission official" ytd said Comm. Lahbib will only attend if it isn't banned. The legal uncertainty around its status is... convenient :)

the fact that the police partially based their ban on the precise legislative provisions (Gyvt. §6/A.) amended by the legislation attacked in C-769/22. Ominous sign or just kicking the can down the road 🤔?

Full Kúria judgment (in HU):
kuria-birosag.hu/hu/gyulhat/k...

8/END

For #EU nerds: interestingly, the court also rejected the request to send a preliminary reference to @cjeu.bsky.social, reasoning "the CJEU does not have jurisdiction over regulations that do not fall within the framework of EU law" but conveniently ignores...
7/8

IMHO: too early to celebrate. The Court had no issue applying the 15th constitutional amendment (in force since Apr 15, 2025), saying the child’s right to protection trumps all but the right to life — incl. peaceful assembly. Next time, police just need to ground bans in “fact-based reasoning”.
6/8

This is a rare public rift. Reminder: the Kúria’s President (one of the judges on the panel) —appointed via tailor-made law with no courtroom experience—regularly threatens lower court judges & punishes dissent:
🔗 verfassungsblog.de/taking-reven...
🔗 verfassungsblog.de/targeting-di...
5/8

Propaganda outlets ran headlines like “The police banned, but the Curia allowed the Sunday afternoon mini-Pride in Budapest.” The Court’s press dept. shot back, denying “that the Curia decided in favour of Pride” & said it was “considering taking further legal action.”
4/8

The court said the police decision "contained no assessable facts" & instructed the authorities to conduct a new procedure. On Sunday, the police acknowledged the march scheduled for the afternoon, which the NGOs celebrated as a legal victory.

3/8
🔗 helsinki.hu/siker-szabad...

Context: On Sat, Kúria annulled the police decision to ban an NGO-organised #LGBTQI rights march planned for 01.06, which authorities justified by the recent legal amendments targeting Budapest #Pride (to be held on 28.06)
2/8