Courts at the Forefront of Europe’s Value Conflicts

In his opening remarks, Zoltán Szalai, Director General of MCC, emphasized that courts have increasingly moved to the center of Europe’s constitutional and value-related disputes. Once regarded mainly as interpreters of legislation, judicial bodies now frequently rule on matters with profound constitutional and societal consequences. He posed a key question: does enforcing the rule of law through judicial decisions effectively expand EU competences beyond those conferred by the Treaties? While the principle of “unity through law” originally served to advance economic integration and secure peace through the common market, he suggested that the scope and function of judicial law-making today reflects a significant qualitative shift.   

András Zs. Varga, President of the Curia of Hungary, pointed to a noticeable change in recent years from technical legal disputes to open constitutional conflicts. The core fault line, he argued, lies between the primacy of EU law and the constitutional identity of the Member States. The elevation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to binding status and the growing influence of preliminary ruling procedures have intensified tensions between national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. He warned of a reversal in the traditional judicial hierarchy, where lower national courts may bypass constitutional courts, potentially undermining established legal remedy systems and creating an unpredictable dual legal environment. 

The Rule of Law and Competing Constitutional Visions 

Several speakers addressed the contested nature of the “rule of law” concept. It was noted that no universally accepted definition exists, raising concerns about its potential instrumentalization in reshaping the EU’s constitutional architecture. Competing interpretations were identified: one advocating for a uniform, centrally defined concept, and another recognizing plural constitutional traditions across Member States. 

The discussion highlighted that courts growingly operate at the point where differing value frameworks and legal philosophies intersect. As constitutional conflicts deepen, judicial forums risk becoming arenas for broader worldview debates. While adjudication may clarify legal principles, it can simultaneously intensify underlying disagreements. 

Judicial Coordination, Judicial Supremacy and the Institution at a Crossroads 

András Osztovits, Judge of the Curia of Hungary and Professor and Head of the EU Law Department at Károli Gáspár University, underlined that the preliminary ruling procedure remains the only formal mechanism ensuring uniform interpretation of EU law across 27 Member States. Without such coordination, divergent national interpretations could threaten the coherence of the legal order. At the same time, he stressed that the ideal relationship between the CJEU and national courts should be based on cooperation and mutual respect rather than hierarchy.

Institutional concerns featured prominently in the debate. Questions were raised about the use of Treaty provisions, such as Articles 2 and 19 TEU and Article 114 TFEU, as legal bases for expanding regulatory and judicial authority. The argument holds that competence boundaries are being defined through judicial interpretation rather than political agreement, underscoring structural questions about the separation of powers and accountability at the EU level.

Building on this institutional perspective, Martin Mendelski, Researcher at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, reflected on how differing legal traditions shape constitutional debates within the Union. Drawing on his personal background as a Polish national raised in Germany who completed his doctoral studies in Luxembourg, he noted that his own experience mirrors the diversity of legal cultures across the EU. Member States, he contended, have developed distinct historical and political conceptions of the “rule of law.” According to Mr. Mendelski, EU institutions often describe the rule of law as resting on six core pillars: legality, legal certainty, the prohibition of arbitrariness, judicial independence, effective judicial review, and the protection of human rights.

He further suggested that European courts are now operating within a deeper intellectual divide between competing worldviews: a liberal, progressive, and secular approach on the one hand, and a nationalist, traditional, and Christian perspective on the other. In his view, courts have become arenas where these broader philosophical differences surface in legal form.

András Tóth, Vice President of the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) and President of the Central European Lawyers Initiative, placed these developments in a broader historical context. He reasoned that a significant reorientation occurred during the presidency of Jean-Claude Juncker at the European Commission, when the Union’s institutional self-understanding began to evolve. According to Mr. Tóth, the EU moved away from its original focus on economic cooperation and material prosperity toward a more explicit ambition of fostering a European political identity, or “European demos.” He added that several Central and Eastern European Member States joined the Union primarily as an economic project rather than on the basis of a shared value identity, which partly explains current tensions.  

Rodrigo Ballester, Head of the Center for European Studies at MCC and Ministerial Commissioner in the Ministry for Culture and Innovation, likewise described what he termed as a growing ideological divide within the Union. In his assessment, the EU, once largely pragmatic in orientation, has embraced value-driven approaches. He questioned whether certain ideological assumptions have become embedded in legal reasoning and pointed to cases in which the CJEU asserted jurisdiction despite what he viewed as a limited cross-border dimension. As an example, he referred to a 2023 ruling requiring Bulgaria to recognize the parenthood of a same-sex couple from Spain.

The Future of European Integration

A recurring theme was whether the current trajectory of judicial development can continue without Treaty reform. Participants debated whether competence disputes should ultimately be resolved politically rather than judicially, and whether the principle of primacy should operate strictly within clearly defined EU competences.

Following the panel discussion, Hungary’s Minister for European Union Affairs, Mr. János Bóka, delivered the closing remarks. He observed that value considerations are playing an increasingly visible role in judicial decisions worldwide, not only within the EU. At the same time, he expressed concerns about the trajectory of the Court of Justice of the European Union, arguing that its jurisprudence reflects an expansive interpretation of competences. In his view, clearer institutional safeguards and a more defined separation of powers are necessary to preserve the balance between the Union and its Member States.