Hungary's reset closes one rule-of-law battle, but Luxembourg's fight over the veto endures

For most of the past decade, the European Union's quarrel with Hungary served as a live demonstration of a structural weakness that troubles few member states more than Luxembourg: a bloc that runs on consensus can be held hostage by a single government willing to say no. The election of 12 April 2026, in which Viktor Orban conceded defeat to Peter Magyar's centre-right Tisza party, has begun to unwind that confrontation. But the machinery the standoff exposed, and the questions it raised for a small state that depends on a rules-based Union, has not gone away.

Tisza took roughly 141 of the National Assembly's 199 seats on about 53 percent of the party-list vote, against some 52 seats for Orban's Fidesz-KDNP, on a record turnout near 79 percent. Magyar was sworn in as prime minister on 9 May. Within weeks his government had started dismantling the vetoes that defined the Orban era abroad, even as the deeper domestic project of rebuilding judicial independence remained, by his own allies' account, a matter of years rather than weeks.

The money: conditionality and the frozen billions

The most concrete lever Brussels deployed against Budapest was financial. Under the rule-of-law conditionality regulation, in force since 2021, the EU can suspend payments to a member state where breaches of the rule of law threaten the sound management of the Union budget. In late 2022 the Council, acting on a Commission proposal, suspended a portion of Hungary's cohesion funding; further tranches of recovery and cohesion money were frozen on concerns over judicial independence, public procurement and the absence of an effective anti-corruption framework.

The Commission set Hungary so-called super milestones, 27 conditions covering courts and corruption that Budapest had to meet before recovery funds could flow. According to the Centre for European Reform, around 19 billion euros remained frozen as of early 2025, and Hungary permanently forfeited roughly 1 billion euros it failed to draw down in time. The mechanism's record was contested: a partial release of cohesion money in December 2023, after Hungary passed judicial reforms, drew criticism that the changes were cosmetic and prompted a legal challenge from the European Parliament, on which the Court of Justice has yet to rule.

The procedure: Article 7 and the limits of the nuclear option

Alongside the funds sat the EU's most political instrument. The European Parliament triggered the Article 7(1) procedure against Hungary in 2018, citing risks to judicial independence, media pluralism, academic freedom and minority rights. The process has produced seven hearings in the General Affairs Council without advancing to the sanctions stage, which requires unanimity among the other member states and has never been reached. A hearing was again on the Council's agenda for 16 June 2026.

The new government's posture has shifted the debate from confrontation to verification. Hungarian civil society groups, including the Helsinki Committee and Amnesty International Hungary, welcomed Budapest's commitments but warned against premature closure, arguing that member states cannot yet judge reforms that exist on paper but not in practice. "Only the practical application of the rules can highlight potential shortcomings," they cautioned ahead of the June meeting.

The veto: where Luxembourg's interest is sharpest

For Luxembourg, the most enduring lesson of the Orban years concerns not Hungary specifically but the rule that magnified its leverage: unanimity. Decisions on sanctions, enlargement and the EU budget require every capital to agree, and Budapest used that power repeatedly, blocking sanctions packages, stalling aid to Kyiv and preventing the EU from adopting its 2025 enlargement conclusions.

The cost of a single veto became vivid this spring. Magyar's government lifted Orban's long-standing block on the European Peace Facility, the instrument that reimburses member states for arms sent to Ukraine. Officials said the move could release some 6.6 billion euros that Orban had held up for roughly two years.

Luxembourg has long argued that such chokepoints are unsustainable. It is a member of the Group of Friends on Qualified Majority Voting, the nine states pressing to move EU foreign-policy decisions away from unanimity so that no single government can paralyse the bloc. The Grand Duchy's case rests less on grievance than on self-interest: a small country with an open economy and an outsized financial sector benefits from a Union that can act decisively and is bound by predictable rules rather than the whims of its largest or most obstructive members.

A consistent voice on values

Luxembourg's political class has been among the bloc's most outspoken on the rule of law, and the record is on file. Addressing the European Parliament on 7 October 2025, Prime Minister Luc Frieden warned that "Europe cannot give up on the rules-based system and international law. We must remain the voice of these values," stressing liberty, democracy and the rule of law as the Union's foundations. His predecessor Xavier Bettel, now foreign minister, had confronted Orban directly over Hungary's anti-LGBT legislation, telling the Parliament in April 2023: "I'm ashamed to see that some of my colleagues want to win votes at the expense of minorities." Luxembourg joined fifteen member states backing the legal case that led the Court of Justice to find the law in breach of EU values.

That continuity matters because the Hungarian episode is not simply closed by an election. Magyar's MEPs sit with pro-EU forces but have signalled they will press Hungarian interests on Ukraine, agriculture and migration; the practical reversal of institutional capture will take years; and the conditionality and Article 7 files remain formally open pending genuine reform. For Luxembourg, the more durable takeaway is structural. A change of government in Budapest eased the immediate crisis, but it did not alter the design flaw the crisis revealed.

The risk, as analysts have noted, is that relief at Orban's exit dampens the appetite for reform of the rules that allowed one capital to obstruct the rest. Luxembourg's interest points the other way. A Union that depends on every member behaving well is only ever one election away from its next standoff, somewhere on the map. The case for binding rules and for limiting the veto does not weaken because Hungary's politics changed; if anything, the past decade is the argument for it.