LUXEMBOURG (CN) - Lawyers for Hungary faced off with EU officials and a coalition of member states at Europe's second-highest court Friday, accusing the bloc of freezing the country out of a vote on funding weapons for Ukraine.

The courtroom clash exposes deeper political fault lines behind Europe's support for Kyiv.

In May 2024, EU governments agreed that profits from frozen Russian state assets would help fund support for Ukraine, with 90% earmarked for military aid through the European Peace Facility (EPF). Hungary abstained from that decision.

A month later, the committee overseeing the fund met to decide how the money would be allocated among specific assistance measures for the Ukrainian armed forces. Hungary says it was wrongly shut out of that vote, with EU officials viewing its earlier abstention as a sign it had no right to participate.

Budapest argues the two steps are separate and that sitting out the earlier decision did not strip it of a vote on the later one. EU institutions disagree, saying Hungary's abstention meant it could not return later to influence how the policy was carried out.

On Friday, the dispute unfolded before the General Court of the European Union's Grand Chamber, a 15-judge panel led by President Marc Van der Woude and Judge-Rapporteur Damjan Kukovec.

At the start of the hearing, Hungary's lawyers framed the case as a straightforward dispute about procedure and voting rights rather than EU policy toward Ukraine.

"We firmly take the view that, in such circumstances, the EU Court must be able to examine the regularity of the procedure," a lawyer representing Hungary told the court.

Budapest argues that even in the sensitive field of foreign policy, where courts typically have limited powers, judges must still ensure EU institutions follow proper procedures and respect member states' rights in decision-making. 

Hungary also said the EU had misread its own rules, pointing to provisions defining which countries qualify as "contributing member states" to the fund. Under those rules, it argued, Hungary still counts as a contributor and should have been allowed to vote on how the funds were allocated.

Hungary insists its lawsuit is not about opposing EU support for Ukraine but about whether the committee lawfully excluded a member state from a vote.

Council of the European Union lawyers rejected that characterization, saying Hungary's challenge would effectively reopen a policy it had already allowed to move forward.

Council agent Jean-Baptiste Laignelot argued the court lacks authority because the contested decision falls within the EU's foreign and security policy, where judicial review is tightly restricted.

The June 2024 vote, he said, simply implemented a policy already agreed on by member states.

"Since the subject of the case today concerns the political and strategic decisions of the EU, the Court or the General Court have no jurisdiction," he said.

The European Commission largely backed that view but framed the dispute more narrowly. 

"I would like to reiterate what is the claim and the subject matter of this case," Commission agent Adrian Tokar said. "The claim is that the EPF committee has taken a decision without allowing Hungary to participate. [That] we have known that they were in the room, that they were not able to vote and [that] they were notified of the decision."

"That's the claim," Tokar continued. "The claim is not: EPF committee, you should not have given such and such amounts of euros to Ukraine for such and such ammunition. This is not the claim."

Lawyers for the High Representative for Foreign Affairs also backed the institutions' position, arguing Hungary's lawsuit effectively seeks to reopen decisions member states had already settled when they agreed on the framework for channeling windfall profits to support Ukraine's defense.

Several EU governments also stepped in to back the institutions. Germany urged judges not to expand judicial review into the EU's foreign policy system, warning Hungary's interpretation would allow member states to challenge strategic decisions after the fact.

Belgium made a similar argument, saying Hungary had exercised its sovereign right to abstain and must accept the treaty consequences. The Netherlands likewise said the contested decision cannot be separated from the EU's broader political choice to support Ukraine's armed forces, while Sweden argued the measure involves strategic decisions about supplying weapons to Kyiv that fall squarely within EU foreign policy.

The dispute underscores deeper tensions inside the EU over support for Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022.

The European Peace Facility (EPF), created in 2021, reimburses EU governments for sending weapons and ammunition to Kyiv and has become the bloc's main channel for military aid. Such decisions fall under the EU's foreign and security policy, where unanimity is normally required, but the treaties allow for "constructive abstention" in which a country steps aside without blocking the rest of the bloc.

Hungary has used that option repeatedly in debates over Ukraine, reflecting Prime Minister Viktor Orban's more cautious stance toward the war and EU military support for Kyiv.

Judges repeatedly questioned whether Hungary's claim can truly be treated as a procedural dispute or whether reviewing it would draw the court into foreign policy decisions.

"What are the consequences?" Judge Kukovec asked during the exchange with the parties. Is this "a purely Common Foreign and Security Policy issue?"

"If you were to allow the Hungarian action, then you'd say that Hungary, if I can put it that way, through the back door, can still block the whole action that was adopted by the Council," Council agent Bart Driessen told the court, warning it would undermine EU support for Ukraine.

A ruling is expected in the coming months. The decision could clarify how far EU courts may scrutinize actions tied to the bloc's foreign and security policy and how much influence a country retains after stepping aside from a vote, a question that could shape how the EU manages internal divisions over Ukraine, particularly with Hungary.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.

Source: Courthouse News Service