On Friday, the Ministry of Justice accused the European Court’s Advocate General of adopting “the argumentation of the civil-society organisations financed by George Soros” when finding the amendment of the Hungarian higher education legislation to be in breach of EU law.

Regulation of the content and organisational structure of higher education falls within exclusive Member State competence. The opinion of the European Court’s Advocate General claiming that the amendment of the Hungarian higher education legislation stands in breach of EU law solely reflects the argumentation of NGOs financed by George Soros, they wrote. According to the Ministry, Juliane Kokott’s opinion is another example of the double standards applied in relation to Hungary as in a number of EU Member States laws similar to the Hungarian legislation regulate the operation of foreign educational institutions. On Thursday, Juliane Kokott said the amendment of the Hungarian higher education legislation – laying down that foreign educational institutions can only operate in Hungary if they are also engaged in genuine teaching activities in their own countries and cooperation is committed to an international treaty – infringes EU law. Due to the 2017 legislative amendment, the European Commission started an infringement procedure against Hungary. The Hungarian government disputes the findings stated in the action submitted by the European Commission in 2018, the Ministry stated. The Hungarian government’s position is clear, the regulation of the content and organisational structure of higher education falls within exclusive Member State competence, and Member States alone are responsible for its regulation, they wrote. Higher education institutions offering degrees are free to establish operations in Hungary. Degrees of another country can be issued in Hungary by a university which is also engaged in “genuine and accredited educational activities” in its country of origin. This obligation does not pose unreasonable requirements that cannot be met; other universities fulfilled these conditions without any problem, the communication reads. The opinion of the Advocate General is not binding on the court. The court will start deliberation in the case shortly; a judgment can be expected later.

(MTI)