Part I — Situation overview

On 1 October 2026 the European Commission published its monthly infringements package. An infringement procedure is the step-by-step process in which the Commission, as guardian of the EU Treaties, calls on a member state it considers to be in breach to correct the error, and as a last resort turns to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Hungary appears in the package in seven cases. The most serious step: the Commission is bringing an action against Hungary before the EU Court of Justice. In its view, the state did not prevent MOL from enforcing, before a US court outside the Union, an arbitration award won against Croatia. The award was made under the Energy Charter Treaty (an international agreement protecting energy investments). In three cases the country received a reasoned opinion, the last stage before litigation. These concern the 35-year expressway network contract, legal aid in criminal proceedings (a free defence lawyer) and the absence of a national building renovation plan. Letters of formal notice arrived in three new cases: over the exclusive tax exemption of retail government securities, over sanctions that are too lenient for breaches of the rules on the exchange of tax information, and over the delay of the centralised clearance system for import.

The package is not without precedent. MIAK has dealt with the motorway concession in several earlier analyses: most recently on 19 September on the ceiling of the settlement, on 6 September on the procedural order of termination, and on 30 August on the missing register of concession commitments. The Commission’s current opinion reinforces the Government’s own exit process, so this analysis treats that thread only as part of the overall picture. The analysis of 14 June showed what it costs when an EU legal dispute reaches the fine stage. HVG and Portfolio concur that all seven cases arose under the previous government.

MIAK’s reading: the seven cases are not seven separate accidents but an inherited legal backlog, and they must be managed as a portfolio. Today the public cannot see in a single place how many open cases Hungary has, what stage each one is at, who is responsible for it, and which one could turn into a financial risk. Filling this gap is cheaper than paying a fine afterwards.

Part II — Foundations in the literature

Three sources provide the framework for interpretation. Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) describes the stages of the procedure: the Commission delivers a reasoned opinion, and if the member state does not comply within the deadline, it may bring the matter before the Court. Under Article 260, a financial sanction may as a rule be imposed only if the member state also fails to comply with a judgment already delivered. Article 344 states that member states settle disputes concerning the Treaties only by the procedures provided for in the Treaties; this is the basis of the Komstroy judgment invoked in the MOL case (a decision of the EU Court of Justice holding that the dispute settlement clause of the Energy Charter Treaty cannot be applied in intra-EU relations). Under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legal aid must be made available to those who lack sufficient resources, in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice; Directive (EU) 2016/1919 elaborates this principle for criminal proceedings. H. L. A. Hart, one of the defining authors of 20th-century Anglo-American legal theory, argues in The Concept of Law that an obligation is not the same as the likelihood of punishment. Compliance therefore does not depend on weighing the expected fine against the savings. The detailed discussion of the literature — by source, with quotations — can be found in section 6.4 Literature in detail.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable measures. The first makes the entire backlog visible, the second provides a clear state position in the most serious case, which has already entered the court stage, and the third provides a legislative timetable with deadlines for the case most directly affecting citizens’ rights.

3.1 Public infringement case list (within 30 days, by 1 November 2026)

MIAK proposes that the Government publish within 30 days a public, machine-readable case list of all of Hungary’s open infringement cases, and update it monthly. Each case should come with seven data items: the Commission’s case number, the objection in one sentence, the current stage, the next deadline, the responsible ministry, the planned solution and its date, and an estimate of the financial risk under Article 260. The list should also include judgments that have already been delivered but not complied with, for example the judgment of 21 April 2026 on the ‘child protection’ law, about which MIAK wrote in April. The baseline data of the seven cases now received are summarised in the table in point 6.2. The responsible ministries should send a half-yearly summary to the National Assembly’s committee on European affairs, which should discuss it at a public sitting. The proposal extends the logic of the A1 public money dashboard to legal obligations, the KP3 principle of transparent foreign policy to the handling of EU legal disputes, and the G1 principle of data-driven budgeting to the planning of possible fines. Articles 258 and 260 TFEU (see 6.4.1) provide clear stages, so the status of every case can be classified unambiguously. The list also shows that responsibility is not a matter of political debate but of deadlines.

3.2 A clear state position in the MOL case (within 30 days, before the defence before the Court is drawn up)

According to the Commission’s press release, under the settled case law of the EU Court of Justice a member state is also responsible for companies it effectively controls. The Commission takes the view that the Hungarian state effectively controls MOL, so the company’s conduct is attributable to the state. MIAK proposes that the Government lay down in a public decision within 30 days that Hungary accepts the Komstroy judgment and the primacy of EU law in the settlement of intra-EU investment disputes. It should then, through its ownership rights, initiate that MOL suspend and then withdraw the US recognition and enforcement proceedings, and not launch any new intra-EU investment protection arbitration. According to Portfolio, the Commission’s April opinion also mentioned such a new proceeding by a company controlled by MOL. MOL is a listed company, so the steps must be taken with respect for the interests of minority shareholders, relying on an independent legal opinion, and the entire process must be documented. This documentation can also form part of Hungary’s defence before the Court. The economic value of the claim need not be given up. The Government should initiate bilateral consultations with Croatia on how the dispute can be settled within the framework of EU law. According to Hart’s argument (see 6.4.3), an obligation is not an obligation because a sanction threatens. Applied to the MOL case: accepting EU law is not an admission of defeat but a basic condition of membership.

According to the Commission, in Hungary not all suspects and accused persons falling within the scope of the directive have access to legal aid, appointment is subject to a request, and the system of mandatory defence does not cover all cases of the directive. Prompt appointment is not guaranteed in every case either. Section 44 of Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure (Be.) lists the cases of mandatory defence, and Section 46 the appointment of defence counsel. MIAK proposes that the Ministry of Justice, within the two-month reply deadline, i.e. by early December, prepare a draft amendment put out to public consultation, and attach it to the reply to the Commission. The draft should settle three questions. Who must be provided with defence counsel ex officio, even without a request. Within what deadline the decision on appointment must be taken, at the latest before the first interrogation. And on the basis of what simple, uniform financial criteria legal aid is granted. A public impact assessment should be prepared for the draft under the I3 programme point, which also estimates the additional cost of appointed defence counsel fees and the capacity of the bar associations. The Government should submit the bill by February 2027, and the National Assembly should adopt it by 31 March 2027. The step is the criminal-procedure application of the I6 programme point on lowering the threshold for enforcing rights. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (see 6.4.2) lays down legal aid not as a favour but as a right. The correction is therefore not addressed to Brussels but to the accused person without means.

The three proposals are linked by one principle: compliance should be planned, visible and tied to deadlines, not crisis management. The case list shows the entire backlog, the MOL position closes the most serious dispute, and the legal-aid timetable proves that correcting the errors can be done on time. The procedural stages provided by the TFEU, the fundamental-rights benchmark of the Charter and Hart’s concept of obligation together say: the question is not how much the infringement would cost, but when it ends.

Part IV — Expected effects and risks

Dimension Expected effect Risk
Public administration The case list designates the person responsible and the deadline for each case; turnaround between ministries decreases If the list is not updated, it quickly becomes outdated and credibility declines
Budget Earlier closure can avoid the lump sums and daily penalties under Article 260 Extending legal aid and implementing the building renovation plan involve additional expenditure
Economy and capital markets Closing the MOL case reduces legal uncertainty in intra-EU investments MOL’s shareholders may perceive giving up the claim as a loss of assets; the Croatian consultations may drag on
Rule of law and fundamental rights Extending legal aid improves the protection of accused persons without means In the event of a shortage of lawyers’ capacity, appointment remains a formality
EU relations A visible reduction of the backlog strengthens Hungary’s negotiating position in other EU disputes In political debate, the public list may become a tool for blame between the previous and the current government

The main trade-off arises in the MOL case. If the company withdraws the US enforcement, the enforcement of a claim worth several hundred million dollars stalls. According to MIAK, this claim cannot be enforced within the Union anyway, and according to the Commission’s press release EU law expressly prohibits its enforcement. If the case goes as far as a judgment of the Court and then a second procedure under Article 260, the risk will burden the budget, not the company. The other risk is time. The three reasoned opinions and the three letters of formal notice must be answered by early December, and for this the ministries must work in parallel. The proposal becomes risky if the case list remains merely a communication tool and the actual solution dates are missed.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth following? (suggested KPIs)

MIAK proposes four key performance indicators (KPIs), from which it will be visible after six, 12 and 24 months whether the proposals have taken effect:

  • Public case list: the suggested target is that it appears by 1 November 2026, contains all seven October cases as well as the judgments not complied with, and is updated monthly thereafter.
  • Share of closed cases: it is worth following how many of the seven October cases the Commission closes within 12 months; the suggested target is at least four closures by 1 October 2027, and no case should reach the fine stage under Article 260.
  • MOL case: it is worth following whether the public government decision is adopted by 1 November 2026, and whether the US enforcement proceedings are suspended before the oral stage before the Court.
  • Legal aid: the suggested target is that the draft amendment is put out to public consultation by early December 2026, the National Assembly adopts the act by 31 March 2027, and a year later the change in the number of defence counsel appointed ex officio is measurable.

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s request is that the Government handle the October package not as seven separate firefighting operations, but on a public case list with deadlines. In the MOL case it should state unambiguously the primacy of EU law and, as owner, initiate the halting of enforcement outside the Union. And it should correct the legal-aid errors with a draft submitted by early December and an amendment adopted by spring 2027.

Two MIAK foundational values are affected. Transparency, because today the public learns only monthly, from the Commission’s press releases, where Hungary stands in EU legal disputes; its own case list turns this knowledge into a domestic, verifiable source. Accountability, because even in inherited cases it becomes possible to hold to account which ministry delivers when, and the cost of delay is not passed on to the next government.

Part VI — Reasoning and further sources

6.1 Press framing by spectrum

In the international band, Rapporteur (formerly Euractiv) put the MOL case at the centre. According to its title, Brussels is suing Budapest over MOL’s Energy Charter-based action, and its subtitle highlights that according to the Commission the Hungarian state is responsible for the conduct of the national oil company. The text of the article could not be downloaded publicly, so only the title and subtitle can be verified. The other sources in the international band did not highlight the package. The official EU press releases, including that of the Directorate-General for Energy, reported the Hungarian cases in the same technical tone as those of other member states.

In the domestic band, HVG (László Arató, Eurologus) emphasised the legacy framing: all the cases are a legacy of the Orbán government. The article explains in detail why it is the transfer of operating risk that distinguishes a concession from public procurement. It also mentions that the Government has ordered its own review, and that a criminal complaint has been filed in an M6 case. Portfolio ranked from an economic perspective: it regards the MOL case as the most serious Hungarian decision in the package, and reports the amounts of the arbitration award and of the US recognition. It separately highlights the timing, since the Commission acted in the motorway case at a time when the Government itself is working on the exit. On the government securities case, the paper also presents the practical tax burden. The public-affairs and conservative band, instead of the infringements package, carried on the same day the rule-of-law mission to Budapest of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) between 26 and 28 October. Index framed the news factually, through the Fidesz MEP’s initiative for prison visits. The headline of Magyar Nemzet asks whether the delegates will see the “Tisza arbitrariness”. Among the articles reviewed by MIAK, MIAK found no standalone article about the seven cases from the left-liberal band (Telex, 444.hu, Népszava) or the conservative band. None of the sources raised the point that the Government has no public overview of the entire backlog.

6.2 Facts and data

Hungarian cases in the package of 1 October 2026 (suggested baseline data for the case list):

Case number Subject Stage Next step Suggested responsible body Financial risk now
INFR(2025)2204 MOL: enforcement in a third country of an intra-EU investment arbitration award (Komstroy) Referral to the Court (letter of formal notice December 2025, opinion April 2026) Defence before the Court Government, justice portfolio, body exercising ownership rights Sanction only in a later procedure under Article 260(2)
INFR(2024)4006 35-year expressway network contract: public procurement instead of concession, 2023 amendments Reasoned opinion (letter of formal notice April 2024, supplementary July 2025) Reply within two months Transport and investment portfolio Referral to the Court possible
INFR(2025)2163 Legal aid in criminal proceedings (2016/1919/EU) Reasoned opinion (letter of formal notice November 2025) Reply within two months Justice portfolio Referral to the Court possible
INFR(2026)2022 Absence of a draft national building renovation plan (Directive 2024/1275/EU, deadline 31 December 2025) Reasoned opinion (letter of formal notice March 2026; nine member states affected) Submission of the draft within two months Portfolios responsible for energy policy and construction Referral to the Court possible
INFR(2026)2155 Only the interest on Hungarian retail government securities is tax-exempt (free movement of capital, Article 63 TFEU) Letter of formal notice Reply within two months Finance portfolio Early stage
INFR(2026)2158 Sanctions too lenient for breaches of the Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC) Letter of formal notice (five member states affected) Reply within two months Finance portfolio Early stage
INFR(2026)2164 Missing functionalities of the centralised clearance system for import (CCI) (deadlines 1 July 2024 and 2 June 2025) Letter of formal notice (seven member states affected) Reply within two months Finance portfolio, customs authority Early stage

Further data:

Data Value Source
Number of Hungarian decisions in the package 7 (1 referral to the Court, 3 reasoned opinions, 3 letters of formal notice) European Commission, 1 October 2026; Portfolio
Cases closed by the Commission at the same time (all member states) 87 European Commission, summary of the package
Arbitration amount awarded to MOL in 2022 approximately 183 million dollars, with interest and costs Portfolio, 1 October 2026
Claim recognised by the US federal court approximately 286 million dollars (April 2026) Portfolio, 1 October 2026
Tax burden on the yield of foreign government securities as a rule 15% personal income tax, in some cases an additional 13% social contribution tax; the interest on Hungarian retail government securities issued after June 2019 is exempt Portfolio, 1 October 2026
Request for a financial sanction in the current package in none of the Hungarian cases; in the same package, yes, in the Bulgarian electricity market case under Article 260(3) European Commission, 1 October 2026
Precedent for the fine stage a lump sum of 200 million euros and a daily penalty payment of 1 million euros for failure to comply with the asylum judgment EU Court of Justice, C-123/22, 13 June 2024

Two data items require a separate note. In the MOL case, the Commission did not set the member state a two-month deadline for the current decision. Such a deadline applies to the reasoned opinions and letters of formal notice. The deadline for the defence before the Court is determined by the service of the application and the Court’s Rules of Procedure. According to HVG and Portfolio, the Commission had earlier also considered the 35-year term too long. The official summary of 1 October does not mention this, only the lack of risk transfer and the 2023 contract amendments.

6.3 Policy dimensions

  • Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points) — the centre of the topic: A1 (public money dashboard) provides the model for the public case list, and A2 (procurement transparency) the procurement core of the motorway case;
  • Justice (programme points) — I6 (lowering the threshold for citizens to enforce their rights) is the conceptual basis of the legal-aid amendment, and I3 (legislative impact assessment) the framework for the cost estimate of the amendment;
  • Foreign policy (programme points) — under KP3 (transparent foreign policy), the Hungarian position represented in EU legal disputes and its justification should also be public;
  • Economy (programme points) — G1 (data-driven budget) is the principle for planning the fine risk, and G13 (capital markets union implementation) is affected because the government securities case is about the free flow of household savings at EU level;
  • Construction (programme points) — EP3 (energy efficiency renovation programme) can be the substantive basis of the national building renovation plan, together with its climate-policy counterpart K6 (building energy efficiency programme);
  • Transport and infrastructure (background material) — the financing and operation of the expressway network is the professional background to the motorway case; earlier MIAK analyses discuss the closure of the concession in detail.

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

Three articles of the TFEU provide the legal skeleton of the current package. Article 258 lays down the two stages of the procedure:

“If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

Under Article 260(1), after a judgment of the Court finding against it, the member state must take the measures necessary to comply. Under paragraph (2), if it fails to do so, the Commission may again bring the case before the Court, which may impose a lump sum or a penalty payment. Paragraph (3) makes an exception: if a member state fails to notify measures transposing a directive, the Commission may request a financial sanction already in the first action. Under Article 344, member states undertake to settle disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties only by the procedures provided for in the Treaties. Building on this and on Article 267, the Komstroy judgment (C-741/19) held that the dispute settlement clause of the Energy Charter Treaty cannot be applied in intra-EU relations. The seven Hungarian cases are thus today still at the Article 258 stage; a financial sanction does not directly threaten in any of them. This is precisely the time window that the case list proposed in 3.1 makes visible, before any case enters the Article 260 stage.

📖 Source: Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 26 October 2012)

6.4.2 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Title VI of the Charter lists the rights relating to justice. Article 47 lays down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and its third paragraph reads:

“Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”

Linked to this, Article 48(2) requires that respect for the rights of the defence be guaranteed to anyone who has been charged. Directive (EU) 2016/1919 elaborates these two principles for criminal proceedings and for proceedings based on a European arrest warrant. The Commission’s objections can all be measured against this benchmark. If legal aid is subject to a request, an accused person without means who is unaware of their rights is left without a defence lawyer precisely when they would need one most. If appointment is delayed, the defence remains a formality. Proposal 3.3 therefore places ex officio appointment and the decision deadline at the centre of the amendment.

📖 Source: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 26 October 2012)

6.4.3 H. L. A. Hart: The Concept of Law

Chapter X of Hart’s The Concept of Law examines the old question of how international law can be binding if there is no organised, central coercion behind it. According to Hart, whoever infers the absence of binding force from the absence of sanctions in fact accepts the theory that describes law as orders backed by threats. In this view, I have an obligation if it is likely that I will be punished in case of disobedience. Hart considers this a distortion. Obligation rests on the acceptance of the rule and on the general expectation of conformity, not on the likelihood of punishment. He observes that even when breaching rules, states do not claim that the rule does not bind them, but rather try to conceal the facts. In the infringement procedure this is a practical question. It is tempting to compare the likelihood and amount of a fine under Article 260 with the cost of compliance, and to decide on that basis. MIAK asks in proposal 3.1 for the financial risk to be indicated so that the cost of delay becomes visible. In Hart’s sense, however, the basis of the decision is not avoiding the fine but fulfilling the obligation undertaken. Proposal 3.2 therefore asks for the primacy of EU law to be declared in the MOL case, not merely for weighing up the chances of winning the case.

📖 Source: H. L. A. Hart: The Concept of Law

6.5 International comparison

The October package shows that the infringement procedure affects every member state. Over the absence of a national building renovation plan, besides Hungary, Belgium, Czechia, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovakia also received reasoned opinions. Over the delay of the centralised clearance system for import, Belgium, Greece, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal received letters of formal notice, and over overly lenient tax sanctions, Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The difference therefore lies not in the number of cases but in their seriousness and handling. In the case of Bulgaria, the Commission is already requesting a financial sanction from the Court in an electricity market case dragging on for more than five years. This shows what happens when a member state fails to close a case for many years. The Hungarian precedent is also known: the 2024 asylum judgment imposed a lump sum of 200 million euros and a daily fine of 1 million euros for failure to comply. In recent years several member states and the Union itself have withdrawn from the Energy Charter Treaty. Since the Komstroy judgment and the 2018 Achmea judgment on bilateral investment protection agreements between member states, intra-EU investment disputes are to be settled within the EU legal order formed by the member states’ courts and the EU Court of Justice. The MOL case is therefore not a uniquely Hungarian peculiarity, but a test of whether a state-controlled company follows this common rule.

Transparency and anti-corruption policy

  • A1 — Public money dashboard
  • A2 — Procurement transparency

Justice

  • I3 — Legislative impact assessment
  • I6 — Lowering the threshold for citizens to enforce their rights

Foreign policy

  • KP3 — Transparent foreign policy

Economy

  • G1 — Data-driven budget
  • G13 — Capital markets union implementation

Construction

  • EP3 — Energy efficiency renovation programme

Environment and climate

  • K6 — Building energy efficiency programme

Proposed new programme point: Public EU infringement case list and half-yearly parliamentary report — for the Transparency and anti-corruption policy area (every open case and judgment not complied with, with case number, stage, deadline, responsible ministry, planned solution and an estimate of the financial risk under Article 260, updated monthly).

6.7 List of sources

Press sources (MIAK foreign press monitor, 2 October 2026 — topic 1):

Official EU sources:

Domestic press sources (MIAK press monitor, 2 October 2026 — topic 3):

Knowledge base references (books):

  • 📖 Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012)
  • 📖 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012)
  • 📖 H. L. A. Hart: The Concept of Law

MIAK internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points; programme point ID: A1, A2)
  • MIAK policy area: Justice (programme points; programme point ID: I3, I6)
  • MIAK policy area: Foreign policy (programme points; programme point ID: KP3)
  • MIAK policy area: Economy (programme points; programme point ID: G1, G13)
  • MIAK policy area: Construction (programme points; programme point ID: EP3)
  • MIAK policy area: Environment and climate (programme points; programme point ID: K6)
  • MIAK policy area: Transport and infrastructure (background material)
  • MIAK foreign press monitor, 2 October 2026 — topic 1, score: 84/100
  • MIAK press monitor, 2 October 2026 — topic 3, score: 81/100

Generation metadata