The European Union's General Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by Hungary's previous government that sought to halt billions of euros in military aid to Ukraine, financed through interest generated by frozen Russian central bank assets. The ruling, announced on Wednesday, marks a significant setback for Budapest's efforts to obstruct EU support for Kyiv.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, targeted a Council decision that channeled windfall profits from immobilized Russian assets into the European Peace Facility (EPF), the EU's main instrument for funding military assistance to Ukraine. Hungary, then led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, argued that the decision violated EU law by disregarding its veto, as Budapest was not classified as a "contributing member state" under the scheme.
In its filing, the Hungarian government contended that the principles of equality among member states and the EU's democratic functioning had been breached, asserting that a member state had been "unjustifiably and without a legal basis" denied its voting rights. The case was brought before the European Court of Justice, but the General Court, the EU's second-highest court, has now ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
In a press release, the court explained that the contested decision constituted a strategic choice under the bloc's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), an area that is largely shielded from judicial review. This legal doctrine has historically limited the ability of member states to challenge CFSP decisions in EU courts, a point that proved decisive in this instance.
Aid package and political shift
Between 2022 and 2024, the EU mobilized €6.1 billion under the European Peace Facility to address Ukraine's pressing military and defense needs. In 2024, the bloc increased the EPF's financial ceiling by an additional €5 billion through the creation of a dedicated Ukraine Assistance Fund, bringing the total support allocated via the facility to €11.1 billion. These funds have been crucial for Ukraine's defense against Russia's ongoing invasion.
The political context has shifted considerably since the lawsuit was filed. Following parliamentary elections in April, Hungary's new government has overhauled the country's foreign policy doctrine, now identifying Russia as a threat. This week, Budapest took the unprecedented step of expelling 10 Russian diplomats over what it described as "unacceptable" activities, a stark departure from the previous administration's pro-Moscow stance.
The change in Hungary's posture has also eased tensions with other EU member states, which had grown frustrated with Orbán's repeated blockades of aid to Ukraine. The new government has signaled a willingness to align more closely with EU consensus on Russia, though it remains to be seen how far this shift will go.
The court's decision is a relief for EU officials who had feared that a prolonged legal battle could delay or complicate the disbursement of funds. It also reinforces the legal framework that allows the EU to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, a mechanism that has become a cornerstone of the bloc's response to the war.
Meanwhile, the situation on the ground remains dire. Overnight Russian strikes on Kyiv killed at least five people and wounded dozens more, underscoring the urgent need for continued military and financial assistance. The EU's commitment to Ukraine's defense is likely to remain a central theme in the coming months, especially as winter approaches and energy infrastructure comes under renewed threat.
The ruling also has broader implications for the EU's legal order, as it reaffirms the limits of judicial oversight in foreign and security policy. While some legal experts argue that this leaves a democratic deficit, others contend that it is necessary to preserve the flexibility required for effective common action.
For now, the path is clear for the EU to continue using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, a policy that has already provided billions in aid. The new Hungarian government's more cooperative stance may further smooth the way for future decisions, though challenges remain, including the need to secure unanimous support for extending the EPF's mandate.
