minister, European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled this week that the so-called “stop Soros” legislation partially violated European law. What are the consequences of Hungary?
As usual, we will wait for the official written proof of the verdict. Then have a legal discussion with the committee on how to implement it. Regardless of the member state, this will take several months, sometimes even more than a year. But what we have seen is shocking: You are attacking the law, which is designed to protect Europe from illegal immigration and its illegal support.So basically the European Court of Justice and European CommissionHungary is letting illegal immigrants in.
In the past, Budapest finally implemented the decision of the European Court of Justice and did not raise fundamental objections.Recently, Hungary disbanded the border crossing area at the request of the European Court of Justice, but opposed certain aspects of the judgment. Constitutional Court Calling whether these comply with the Hungarian Basic Law-similar to what Poland did. Does this mean a fundamental repositioning?
I must correct this: it has nothing to do with the Polish case. Every case is different in every Member State. We have consulted the Constitutional Court. In principle, this is not about the primacy of European law, but about interpretation.
Saturday at 9 a.m.
Which explanation?
We see that the migration system European Union Not working. There are many secondary migrations. If the asylum application is rejected, the return will have no effect. In Hungary, we have a well-functioning system of laws, regulations and physical measures through the transit zone. It reduces illegal immigration throughout Europe. The transit area is closed to the Schengen area and open to a safe third country, namely Serbia. Now we have to close the transit area. However, if an asylum application is rejected, these people cannot be sent back to the country, but stay in the country illegally. This is in contradiction with the principle of sovereignty stipulated in the Basic Law. In any case, we will not allow any illegal immigrants to enter-the Hungarian fortress is already in place.
So is there any conflict with EU law?
No, this is not a question of whether EU law is applicable. On the contrary, EU law does not work effectively. You can see the serious problems on the border between Lithuania and Poland. This is a crisis situation in which we can’t wait for any solution. It immediately adopted the actions of sovereign member states and creative solutions. We support the Polish border guards and provide material assistance to Lithuania to build fences. I welcome the numerous statements made by European politicians who opposed the wall and now support it. Hungary is threatened with fines and infringement lawsuits for the same things that other countries are doing. This is really unreasonable and morally questionable. The construction of the fence in Hungary should also receive financial support. It has spent the equivalent of 1.6 billion euros, of which only 1% has been reimbursed so far.
How should the procedure proceed?
Infringement litigation should be stopped until there is a common and feasible solution to deal with the immigration crisis. have a thought. We have a working system.It is based on the principle: Who decides I As long as they have not yet entered EU territory, they should be satisfied who can and cannot enter. This idea is now also recognized by other Member States. Many people build fences.
If there is a conflict between domestic law and EU law, which one has priority?
Last year, the German Constitutional Court had to resolve this “authority issue” (here Varga uses the German word). When an unstoppable force, European law, hits something solid, the national constitution, a conflict occurs. The German government is also bound by decisions of the European Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court. I agree with Germany’s position that in this extreme situation, conflicts can only be resolved through political and legal dialogue. I found that in the German case, loyal cooperation in response to infringement procedures was problematic.
Let us return to the question of principle.
We can only talk about the priority of EU law in the case of threats to commonality. The treaty clearly stipulates which objects have been shared with other member states and European institutions, and which objects are still 100% responsible for the member states. The Constitutional Court must first clarify its powers when it must make a decision on such issues. Regrettably, the debate on the Polish Constitutional Court case was so distorted by the media because no one made this distinction. Of course, life is rich and colorful, and you can always discuss where is the boundary between community capacity and national capacity. It cannot be said that this question is illegal.
