On 21 April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling without precedent in the past of the Union so far. For the first time, he utilized Article 2 of the Treaty as an independent weapon against a sovereign state and ordered him to abandon the protection of children from content promoting sex change and homosexuality.
The Court ruled that Hungary, by adopting government in 2021 to defend children from content promoting alleged sex change and homosexuality, violated European Union law. Sounds abstract. In practice, this means that a sovereign state has lost its right to decide what content is appropriate for its youngest citizens and will pay financial penalties if the laws do not change.
Act that started with protecting children from pedophiles
To realize the sentence, you gotta start from the beginning, that is, the law itself, around which there have been so many misunderstandings. On 15 June 2021, the Hungarian National Assembly passed Act No. LXXIX. Its full name is long and at first glance does not uncover anything: a law on tightening measures against pedophile offenders and amending any laws to defend children. In fact, part of the government was about combating kid sexual crime, including by extending access to the criminal evidence of the authorities liable for specified crimes.
In addition to these provisions, the law includes regulations which have triggered a real political hurricane throughout the European Union. The Hungarian legislature has decided to combine kid protection against pedophiles with kid protection against certain media and educational content. And that's where the right argument begins.
What was specifically amended by the Hungarian Law of 2021.
- The prohibition of making content available to minors, including advertisements that advance or present a departure from a biological sex identity, alleged sex change or homosexuality.
- Night frame: Media service providers required to issue specified content only between 22:00 and 5:00.
- Prohibition in education: classes on sexuality and sexual orientation must not be aimed at promoting departure from biological sex identity or homosexuality.
- Obligation for the Media Council (Médiatanács) to call on the competent authorities of another EU countries to respond to identified infringements.
- Extending the criminal record, that is, wider access to data on offenders of sexual crimes against children for eligible entities.
The intent of the bill was clearly defined by the Hungarian Government: it is to preserve the right of parents to decide in what spirit and on what values their children will be raised. From the point of view of the Christian tradition, on which European civilization was shaped, this is not only an understandable, but rather apparent request. The Code of Canon Law in Canon 226 expressis verbis states that parents have a "serious work and right" to rise children, and the Church has for centuries stressed that this is an first duty, prior to the state and any institution. The Hungarian legislature took the side of the family.
How the European Commission declared war on Hungary
Brussels' consequence was fast and this speaks quite a few the sensitivity with which the EU institutions treat this topic. As early as July 2021, just a period after the bill was passed, the European Commission sent a formal call to Budapest to remedy the deficiencies. In 2022, the case was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the following months, respective associate States and the European Parliament have joined the proceedings on the Commission's side. No country has decided to take Hungary's side. This fact requires a minute of reflection. This sovereign country, defending the right of parents to rise their children in accordance with its own strategy of values, remains completely alone in this conflict in the organization dimension of the European scene. This is not a legal issue, but it is simply a image of the political arrangement of forces in today's Europe.
The list of allegations with which the Commission took part was impressively long. In addition to the first provisions of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and a number of articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EC has referred to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the Electronic Trade Directive, the Services Directive and the GDPR Regulation. It was a broad front attack, calculated to completely dismantle Hungarian regulations.
What the Court held
The judgement of 21 April 2026 took all the Commission’s allegations into account. All of it. This is simply a uncommon procedural situation, indicating that the TEU did not intend to search any compromise or balance the right. It is worth examining the most crucial decisions.
Prohibition of making available to minors content presenting homosexuality or leaving biological sex identity The Court has qualified as discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and sex identity, which is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. At the same time, he pointed out that freedom of expression and information had been infringed (Article 11 of the Charter) and that the restrictions on freedom to supply services were disproportionate. In another words, according to the judges of the TEU, Hungary had no right to defend children from these content, even erstwhile the sole intent was the welfare and safety of minors.
A regulation ordering the issue of specified programmes between 22:00 and 5:00 has been assessed as a disproportionate measure. The Court considers that it restricts the freedom to supply media services beyond what is necessary. Whoever has children or remembers their own childhood knows that the night frame is just what children don't watch. This has proved to be besides far-reaching a protection for the EUSF.
"Stigmatisation and marginalisation, which boils down to the invocation, maintenance or strengthening of the social “invisibility” of parts of society, are contrary to the values of respect for the dignity of the human person, equality and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities within the meaning of Article 2 TEU." — Court of Justice of the European Union, judgement of 21 April 2026, paragraph 555
Prohibition of educational activities in a way that promotes certain views on sexuality and sex identity The Court found that both freedom of expression (Article 11 of the Charter) and the right to discipline (Article 14 of the Charter) were violated. According to the judges' assessment, the regulation leads to stigmatisation of ‘LGBT people’ and restricts access to what the Court has said to ‘sound education’. It is worth stopping with this wording. In fact, the TEU has determined that presenting sex ideology at school is an component of “sound education”.
Finally, the provision on extended access to data from the criminal evidence on offenders of sexual crimes against children, which was to service the safety of the youngest, was besides included in the list of infringements. The Court ruled that it did not meet the proportionality request and infringes Article 10 of the GDPR and Article 8 of the Charter. This may be the most eloquent component of the full judgment: even protecting children from pedophiles has become a reason for the explanation of the TEU to convict Hungary.
Of all the aspects of the sentence, 1 of the most serious concerns. For the first time in history, the TEU has ruled that a associate State has infringed Article 2 of the TEU and has made this infringement a stand-alone ground for uncovering an infringement in the infringement procedure.
Article 2 TEU is simply a programme provision of the Treaty, listing the values on which the Union is based: respect for the dignity of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality, the regulation of law, human rights, number rights. It sounds beautiful and in general at the same time, and this generality is the problem. So far, this provision has been treated in the doctrine of the law as a political declaration, not as a norm that can straight give emergence to State responsibility. The Court broke that explanation and entered a completely fresh territory.
‘The judgement is groundbreaking because, for the first time in history, in a case against a associate State, the TEU has found a breach of the State’s work by violating Article 2 TEU. In another words, for the first time, the Court held in its case-law that this provision could constitute a stand-alone basis for uncovering a breach of Union law. In this context, it is besides crucial to emphasise the general nature of the EU's values as expressed in Article 2 TEU, since concepts specified as “equality”, “democracy” and “legal state” are not specifically defined in primary law, and are so interpreted, which opens the way for abuse," said Patryk Ignaszczak, analyst of the Ordo Iuris global Law Centre.
The words of the analyst Ordo Iuris should be emphasized here. If concepts specified as ‘equality’ or ‘decentness’ can be interpreted freely by the Court, any State that establishes a law compatible with Christian tradition may be regarded as infringing the ‘values of the EU’. Polish law protecting the lives of conceived children? possibly it is simply a violation of “decentness”. Polish regulations on sexual education in schools? possible infringement of equality. This is not abstraction, only the logical consequence of today's sentence.
Respect for national identity? Hungary rejected
The Hungarian Government referred to Article 4(2) of the TEU in the proceedings before the TEU. It is simply a provision which obliges the Union to respect the national identity of the associate States, including their historical, cultural and spiritual traditions. This is simply a fundamental argument from the point of view of anyone who understands that Europe is simply a community of various nations, not a homogeneous super-state imposing 1 imagination of man and family.
The Court rejected this argument. He stated that even if the Union is obliged to respect national identity, it does not consequence from the fact that the obligations under Article 2 TEU can be understood differently by individual countries. In another words, "EU values" interpreted by the EUSEU take precedence over national identity. Unity beyond diversity. Luxembourg over Budapest. Court over nation.
The Court has besides formulated a conviction that should go to any textbook on the modern crisis in Europe. He stated that the Act contradicts ‘the identity of the Union itself as a common legal order in a plurality-based society’ (paragraph 556). The paradox is striking here: in the name of pluralism, the Court excludes 1 view of raising children. Pluralism, which does not tolerate Christian tradition, is not pluralism and is simply a fresh orthodoxy.
Consequences: financial penalties
Under the judgment, Hungary is required to amend the contested provisions. If they do not do so, the European Commission may mention another proposal to the Court, this time to impose financial penalties under Article 260 TFEU. Penalties may be severe: they shall be counted from the date of the uncovering of the infringement and may amount to EUR tens or hundreds of thousands per day, depending on the scale of the offence in the Court's assessment. It is an instrument of real economical pressure, which the Commission has been utilizing more and more willingly in fresh years.
However, the consequences of the judgement go further than the Hungarian budget. How well will the analyst Ordo Iuris point out:
"The word goes beyond Hungary itself as it sets the standard of explanation of EU law for all associate States: it confirms that regulations limiting access to content related to sexual orientation or "sex identity" may violate both the principles of non-discrimination and the freedoms of the interior marketplace and the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. Given the usage and explanation of the “values of the European Union” referred to in Article 2 of the TEU in the spirit of “progressive” in order to gradually reduce sovereignty and influence associate States, it can be considered that the fresh judgement of the TEU is another “step forward” in the process of taking over competences by the EU institutions”, adds Patryk Ignaszczak, analyst of the global Law Centre Ordo Iuris
So we're dealing with a trial. Not with a single incident, but with the systematic expansion of the competences of the EU institutions at the expense of the sovereignty of countries. The judgement of April 21, 2026 is another phase of this road. possibly the most crucial stage, due to the fact that beginning the door to usage Article 2 TEU as an almost unlimited tool.
What does this mean for Poland and another countries?
The question that lawyers and politicians in Warsaw, Prague, Bratislava and Zagreb are surely asking themselves is: can this happen to us? The answer is simple and worrying at the same time: yes, if our countries decide to pass regulations akin to Hungarian ones.
The Polish law protecting children from sexualisation in schools, if it contained rules analogous to Hungarians, could be the subject of identical proceedings. Similarly, any regulation on media content addressed to minors should address sex identity or sexual orientation. The Court has set a clear standard: protecting children from specified content is discrimination and a violation of European Union law.
This is the minute where we should consider what is happening to Europe. The continent, which was built on the Christian foundation, which drew its concept of human dignity from the Gospel, is increasingly turning distant from this heritage. And it does so not by free choice of nations, but by judgement from which there is no appeal.
jb
Source: ordoiuris.pl, rp.pl, push24.pl
