The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that Hungarian judges can turn to them, even if the Curia says otherwise.

“The principle of the primacy of EU law requires the lower court to override the decision of the supreme court of the Member State concerned,” the European Court of Justice said on Tuesday in a case involving Hungary that began with a seemingly normal trial and became a struggle for judicial independence.

In 2019, Judge Csaba Vasvári heard the case of a Swedish citizen accused of misuse of ammunition in the Central District Court of Pest. During the proceedings, the defense counsel objected to the knowledge and qualifications of the interpreter. There should be a register of freelance translators and interpreters in EU law.

There is no such thing in Hungary, so the case has opened up the question of whether the Hungarian and EU legal systems are in harmony.Vasvári therefore stayed the proceedings and lodged an application with the Court of Justice of the European Union. If you have already written to them anyway, you have added two other topics to your letter, similar to those of the EU and national legal systems. Later a Telex quoted, in which the judge requested the CJEU’s opinion:

• 1. Is the accused’s right to use his or her mother tongue in Hungarian proceedings in accordance with EU law if there is no or no qualified interpreter in Hungary?
• 2. Is it compatible with the rule of law enshrined in the Treaties of the European Union and the principle of judicial independence that the Chief Administrative Officer of Hungary, the President of the National Judicial Office (OBH), avoids senior judicial posts by with orders that are not controlled by the judiciary? Thus, no Hungarian or foreign citizen can be sure that his or her lawsuit will go to a particular judge without influence, which could also violate his or her right to a fair trial, which is also protected at EU and European level.
• 3. The fact that, since 1 September 2018, Hungarian judges have been earning less than prosecutors working at the same level and for the same length of service, which is offset only by the remuneration system, which is at the discretion of administrative heads. The latter raises the question of whether the Hungarian judiciary provides the necessary conditions for the independence of the judiciary provided for in EU law, ie that it is not possible to influence the sentencing with a reward.

However, a few weeks after Vasvár’s petition, Péter Polt himself, the Attorney General, appealed to the Curia.

According to him, Vasvár should not have applied directly to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Mansion also gave Polt the truth, and Vasvári was threatened with discipline due to the petition, which presumably became nothing for fear of international repercussions.

The CJEU is now examining this procedure. In April Advocate General Priit Pikamäe said thatthat

the disputed judgment of the Curia and the underlying national legislation infringe the possibility for Hungarian judges to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, thereby hampering the operation of the preliminary ruling mechanism.And now the court proceedings on the Advocate General’s Opinion are over, and according to Reuters, the European Supreme Court has ruled that Hungarian judges can go directly to the CJEU, take into account.

– .