C-235/17, Commission v Hungary

1. Facts

• Issue: Hungary implemented a series of measures that terminated usufruct rights for both foreign and domestic investors.

• Legal Arguments: These measures were argued to restrict the free movement of capital under Article 63 TFEU and to infringe upon the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR).

• Court’s Finding: The Court determined that the Charter was applicable in this context.

2. Outcome

• The Court ultimately found that Hungary had breached Article 17 CFR.

• The use of the Charter was later also applied in cases involving NGOs and Central European University (CEU).

3. Impact and Analysis

• NGOs and CEU Cases: The infringement procedures related to NGOs and CEU were not successful in resolving the issues promptly.

• Lack of Interim Orders: The Commission failed to request interim measures, which could have mitigated the impact while the case was pending.

• Delayed Resolution: The actions were decided three years after the relevant law came into force.

• Consequences for CEU: The delay had significant negative implications for CEU, which had already relocated part of its programs to Vienna in the interim.