Zeev Sternhell: From Anti-Enlightenment to Fascism and Nazism: Reflections on the Road to Genocide.

This important essay was removed from the webstite of Massuah (earlier it was available here). As I know, Prof. Sternhell wrote it when he received the Israel Prize. As it should not be forgotten, I uploaded it to my website. You can download it here.






Hungary and the EU – a collection of articles

I wrote quite a lot of articles about the conflict between Hungary and the EU in the last 5-6 years.  I also know some articles written by colleagues which can be interesting for scholars worldwide, so I decided to make a collection of them (please find them below).


  • Balázs Horváthy, Tamas Dezso Ziegler: Europeanisation Of The Hungarian Legal Order – From Convergence To Divergence. In: REVIEWING THE 10 YEARS OF CEE ACCESSION: SPILLOVER EFFECTS, UNEXPECTED RESULTS, AND EXTERNALITIES. (Hrsg. William B. Simons & Tom Hashimoto). Brill, Leiden-Boston. (soon to get published)
  • The Links Between Human Rights and the Single European Market – Discrimination and Systemic Infringement. Comparative Law Review, Vol 7, 2016 No 1 1-23. available here.
  • When The European Moral Vacuum Meets The Hungarian Autocratic Regime. SOCIAL EUROPE – Occasional paper, 2014 October, available hereAn extended version of this article (which also includes some references), published on Open Democracy,  can be accessed here.
  • Protectionism – A Side Effect of Hungarian Nationalism. SOCIAL EUROPE, available here.
  • In Defence of Today’s Anti-Fascist Protesters. OPEN DEMOCRACY, available here.
  • An introduction into Hungarian national thinking about history and comparison to the UK national thinking: together w/ Izolda Takacs: Myth of History, Euro-scepticism and Fundamental Rights) written for OPENDEMOCRACY, available here.

I also wrote a series of blog entries for London School of Economics – EUROPP back in 2012, when anti-democratic legislation started to flourish in Hungary:

  • The Anti-Democratic Tendencies Now Prominent In Some Parts Of Eastern Europe May Soon Become An Even Bigger Headache For The EU Than The Eurozone Crisis, available here
  • w/ Izolda Takacs: Hungary is Sleepwalking Into an Authoritarian state. But the European Union Is Limited In the Pressure It Is Able To Exert, available here.
  • w/ Izolda Takacs: With the Ruling Party’s Legislative Tsunami, Hungary May Now Be Sleepwalking Into An Authoritarian State, available here.
  • w/ Izolda Takacs: Hungary is Now a Distorted Democracy, available here.

Some other works of my colleagues can also be of interest for you. Please note these are only a handful of articles which I came across in the last months/years, but they contain some really interesting information:

  • Veronika Czina: Member State Particularism within the EU: an Analysis Based on the Most Recent Developments of the “Hungarian affair” UACES Conference Paper, available here.
  • The website of the `Lendulet Research Group on EU law` also contains a great amount of interesting materials including reports and articles. It can be accessed here.
  • A nice and really detailed report on single market and Hungary (called ‘The Legal and Regulatory Environment for Economic Activity in Hungary: Market Access and Level Playing-field in the Single Market’) can be accessed here.
  • A nice collection of articles on the change of the general constitutional framework in Hungary published in the journal Südost-Europa (Hungary’s Path Towards an Illiberal System Volume 63 no. 2 2015): the content and introduction is  available here.
  • It can be worth to read the chapter of Balazs Majtenyi (pp. 51-74) on the constitutional changes in Hungary (The EU and the Hungarioan National Cooperatrion System) in an FP7 report called `EU Human rights, democracy and rule of law: from concepts to practice`  (available here).
  • Balazs Majtenyi: Legislative Stupidities in the New Hungarian Constitution originally published in Rivista Pace Diritti Umani (Peace, Human Rights) is available here
  • Balazs Majtenyi: A Game of Values: Particular National Identities Awaken in Europe, published on Verfassungsblog, available here.
  • Gabor Halmai: An Illiberal Constitutional System in the Middle of Europe, published in European Yearbook of Hunar Rights, can be accessed here.
  • Kim Lane Scheppele wrote a huge amount of articles on the constitutional changes in Hungary, see the Princeton’s repository here.
  • Bojan Bugarič: Protecting Democracy and the Rule of Law in the European Union: The Hungarian Challenge. LSE discussion paper, available here. 
  • Boldizsar Nagy: Parallel realities: refugees seeking asylum in Europe and Hungary’s reaction (EU Migration Law Blog),  available here.
  • Boldizsar`s article `Hungarian Asylum Law and Policy in 2015–2016: Securitization Instead of Loyal Cooperation`published in German Law Journal can be accessed here.
  • Gabor Halmai: The Invalid Anti-Migrant Referendum in Hungary, published on verfassungsblog, available here.
  • Cass Mudde and Erin K. Jenne: Hungary’s Illiberal Turn: Can Outsiders Help? available here.

Declaration on the upcoming referendum


Hungarian Academics’ declaration on the Hungarian referendum on the European asylum quota  

We, undersigned academics concerned over the future of our country and of Europe adopt the following declaration as a sign of protest:

The quota referendum initiated by the government is senseless, unconstitutional and inhuman.

The referendum is senseless because there is no European initiative for ‘forced resettlement.’ The possible European quota regulation would aim at sharing asylum seekers in proportion to the Member States’ capabilities, in contrast to the standing rules that put disproportionate burden on border states, including Hungary. Under a quota system, Hungary should receive not more but less asylum seekers than under the current Dublin regime. The quota referendum and the governmental campaign — that misinforms rather than informs voters — are inadequate to address pressing moral and political questions raised by asylum.

It is unconstitutional, because a referendum can concern questions that are within the powers of the Parliament. European norms are adopted not by the Hungarian Parliament, but by the European institutions that include Hungarian representatives. The fact that the question could be put to a referendum is itself a sign that formerly independent institutions are now under undue political influence. The initiative of the government is discrediting the institution of the referendum.

The referendum is inhuman because it aims at denying support to people who are seeking to save their lives. Helping fellow human beings is a basic norm of European as well as universal human culture, a fundamental tenet of religious teachings, something that we considered self-evident at better times of our history. Those years when we turned against this solidarity are now remembered as the darkest pages of our history. The initiative of the government and the surrounding hate campaign is not only an impediment to the European quest for a common solution, but is also a move to turn the Hungarian nation against its noble traditions.   As teachers and researchers, we cannot even tacitly provide support to this.

1. Ádám Zoltán
2. Ambrus Mónika
3. Antal Attila
4. Barát Erzsébet
5. Barna Ildikó
6. Bartha Ildikó
7. Bencze Mátyás
8. Bíró Judit
9. Borbély Viktor
10. Boreczky Ágnes
11. Boros Judit
12. Bozóki András
13. Braun Gabriella
14. Braunitzer Gábor
15. Czinderi Kristóf
16. Csáki Tibor
17. Csákó Mihály
18. Császár Ivett
19. Csereklye Bözse
20. Cserne Péter
21. Darvas Ágnes
22. Deák Dániel
23. Erdélyi Eszter
24. Feischmidt Margit
25. Fekete Mária
26. Fekete Mariann
27. Felkai Gábor
28. Fleck Gábor
29. Fleck Zoltán
30. Fodor László
31. Fokasz Nikosz
32. Forrai Réka
33. Fóti Péter
34.  Gecser Ottó
35.  Gedő Éva
36.  Gerő Márton
37.  Gregor Anikó
38.  Győrfi Tamás
39.  Háberman Zoltán
40.  Halmai Gábor
41.  Hammer Ferenc
42.  Heller Mária
43.  Horváth Ágnes
44.  Hungler Sára
45.  Huszár Ágnes
46.  Indries Krisztián
47.  Jon Fox
48.  Kállai Péter
49.  Kazai Viktor Zoltán
50.  Kende Gábor
51.  Kispéter Erika
52.  Kóczé Angéla
53.  Kollányi Zsófia
54.  Kondor Péter
55.  Kopper Ákos
56.  Kovács Ágnes
57.  Kovács Kriszta
58.  Könczöl Miklós

59. Körtvélyesi Zsolt

60.  Kürti Judit
61.  Laczkovich Miklós
62.  Laczó Ferenc
63.  Lakner Zoltán
64.  Láncos Petra Lea
65.  Láng Eszter
66.  Lengyel György
67.  Majtényi Balázs
68.  Majtényi László
69.  Máté András
70.  Mestyán Ádám
71.  Mészáros György
72.  Mészáros Márton
73.  Miklós Barbara
74.  Miklósi Zoltán
75.  Mink Júlia
76.  Misetics Bálint
77.  Nagy Alíz
78.  Nagy Boldizsár
79.  Nagy Péter Tibor
80.  Neményi Mária
81.  Németh Krisztina
82.  Neumann László
83.  Olay Csaba
84.  Orosz Éva
85.  Örkény Antal
86.  P.Tóth Tamás
87.  Padisák Judit
88.  Pál Eszter
89.  Pap András László
90.  Patakfalvi-Czirják Ágnes
91.  Peragovics Tamás Ferenc
92.  Putnoky Péter
93.  Rafael Pablo Labanino
94.  Ropolyi László
95.  Salát Orsolya
96.  Schweitzer András
97.  Schweitzer Gábor
98.  Seláf Levente
99.  Selmeczi Anna
100.  Semjén András
101. Síklaki István
102. Sik Domonkos
103. Simonovits Bori
104. Sólyom Péter
105. Somody Bernadette
106. Susánszky Pál
107. Sz. Kristóf Ildikó
108. Szuhay Péter
109. Szalai András
110. Szalai Júlia
111. Szántó Diana
112. Szegedy-Maszák Zoltán
113. Szente Zoltán
114. Szigeti Péter
115. Szőllősi Gergely
116. Szűcs Zoltán Gábor
117. Szűcs-Zágoni Bella
118. Takács Erzsébet
119. Takács Judit
120. Tesfay Sába
121. Tóth Gábor Attila
122. Tóth István János
123. Tóth Zita Veronika
124. Törzs Edit
125. Unger Anna
126. Vadkerti Ildikó
127. Vajda Júlia
128. Valuch Tibor
129. Váradi Mónika Mária
130. Varju Márton
131. Vásárhelyi Mária
132. Végh Zsuzsanna
133. Vidra Zsuzsanna
134. Virág Tünde
135. Vokó Zoltán
136. Vörös Imre
137. Vörös Zoltán
138. Ziegler Dezső Tamás
139. Zsadányi Edit
140. Zsigó Frank Thomas
141. Zsugyó Virág

Two new judgments of the CJEU

 Case C‑165/14 Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record where he is the parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen and a national of a Member State other than the host Member State and who is his dependant and resides with him in the host Member State.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the same national legislation which requires a third-country national who is a parent of minor children who are Union citizens in his sole care to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record, where that refusal has the consequence of requiring those children to leave the territory of the European Union.

Case C‑304/14

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine.

Started to work in the FRAME FP7 project

FRAME is a large-scale, collaborative research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) coordinated by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and conducted by 19 research institutes from around the world. Our research focuses on the contribution of the EU’s internal and external policies to the promotion of human rights worldwide.

Our job will be to create a report on US-EU relations in the field of human rights. The website of the project can be reached here.

EU common commercial policy – some important links (for students)