On 23 December last year, Hungary adopted its third anti-NGO law since prime minister Viktor Orbán first introduced Russia-style foreign agent campaigns against civil society in 2017, using NGOs as scapegoats in his identity politics.
Although the first two laws were successfully struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the chilling effect they created has continued to loom over Hungarian civil society.
Given this context, it comes as no surprise that Hungary's latest Sovereignty Protection Law has garnered immediate attention from the European Commission.
This law grants authorities the unchecked power to surveil NGOs, media outlets, activists, and journalists without limitation, and to subject them to official investigations — at their own expense.
The law’s extreme measures surpass even Russia's notorious Foreign Agent Law, its original inspiration. While the Russian law at least allows court supervision over decisions made under its purview, Hungary’s version provides no legal recourse or appeals, leaving those targeted entirely vulnerable to arbitrary state action.
The commission initiated its infringement procedure against Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Law on 7 February, and — as widely anticipated —the case was quickly referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 3 October.
While the commission will certainly portray its actions as swift and resolute, positioning itself as a guardian against Hungary’s further drift into authoritarianism, the reality tells a different story.
In truth, this referral marks the end of the 'bold' phase of the commission’s enforcement policy, which had previously imposed billions in fines on the Hungarian regime in an effort to curb its autocratic tendencies.
The specifics of the referral ensure that even if the court handles the case on an expedited basis, the law will likely remain in force until Hungary's 2026 elections — a timeline that aligns perfectly with prime minister Orbán’s intentions.
Hungary’s previous 2017 anti-NGO law and its so-called 'Stop Soros' legislation from 2018 provide clear examples of how such laws operate.
It's never a question of whether these laws violate EU regulations — they certainly do, and the court will eventually strike them down. The only uncertainty is when.
These laws are designed to create shrinking spaces for civil society through intimidation, surveillance and possible hidden blackmail over a period of time, usually before crucial elections. And then, when they meet their fate at the hands of the court, the regime creates a formally new law and the cycle starts from the beginning.
Since early 2024, the commission, particularly the cabinet of vice-president Věra Jourová, responsible for values and transparency, had been in frequent discussions with Hungarian civil society representatives and legal experts about the possibility of suspending the implementation of the law through "interim measures."
This legal tool would have temporarily halted the law’s enforcement while it was being reviewed by the court.
To date, the commission has only requested interim measures in two high-profile cases defending the rule of law and EU values. The first was in 2018, when it successfully prevented the implementation of a law lowering the retirement age of Supreme Court judges in Poland.
The second was in 2021, when the court suspended a Polish law that prohibited national courts from reviewing compliance with the EU’s requirement for an independent and impartial judiciary.
Despite the gravity of the situation, the commission has never taken such decisive action against Hungary.
There was a time when suspending the law through interim measure seemed poised to be the defining final act of outgoing commissioners Jourová and Didier Reynders — a legacy of standing up for rule of law in the EU like no other commissioner did.
Yet, this final act of legacy building never came to fruition.
Instead of setting a bold precedent with a request for interim measure, the opportunity faded, leaving Hungary’s sovereignty protection law in force and the window for meaningful action, at least for now, firmly closed.
By choosing not to request interim measures, the commission has effectively given Orbán a two-year window to fully exploit the Sovereignty Protection Law as it was intended — leading up to Hungary’s 2026 elections. This was, in fact, the designed lifecycle of the law from the outset.
The Hungarian regime has made no effort to conceal how it plans to use this new legislation, along with the newly established Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO).
In September, József Horváth, a former intelligence officer, was appointed head of the Sovereignty Protection Research Institute, the intelligence and data analysis arm of the SPO.
Horváth’s background is revealing: he began his career in the communist-era secret service. He was forced into early retirement in 2002 due to his overt ties to Fidesz.
From 2002 to 2010, he led a security company, UD Zrt, widely seen as Fidesz’s private intelligence arm.
In recent years, he has gained notoriety as a media commentator, relentlessly parroting government propaganda on issues like migration.
Given Horváth’s appointment and his track record, it is clear that the regime’s core strategy will be surveillance-based intimidation aimed at weakening critical media, independent civil society, and political opposition. This approach is not subtle — it's essentially done in broad daylight, signalling the tactics the Orbán government will employ to suppress dissent in the lead-up to the next election.
The commission had the opportunity to strip Hungary’s illiberal strongman of a key political tool, but it chose a different path. This decision was unlikely made solely by Jourová or Reynders; it was almost certainly a 'taken at the top' decision.
As in the past, the protection of member states’ prerogatives and sovereignty appears to take precedence over defending EU values and fundamental rights. The bold momentum that characterised the past two years is now over.
The European Parliament elections, with the resulting shift to the far-right, have diminished the influence of the institution's strongest advocates for holding rogue member states accountable — namely, the green and liberal groups. National elections in countries like Sweden and the Netherlands have further shifted the balance in the Council, giving more power to sovereigntist forces.
The EU is now entering a new era, one in which EU values and the rule of law will face unprecedented challenges across a growing number of member states. Yet, the 'guardian of the treaties' — the European Commission — seems, once again, hesitant to act decisively.
The court referral in the case of the Hungarian Sovereignty Protection Law symbolises that the heyday of democracy and rule of law protection in the EU is over.
Daniel Hegedűs is regional director for central Europe at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Daniel Hegedűs is regional director for central Europe at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.