According to the Parliamentary State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, all EU institutions, including the European Court, are working towards the implementation of the Soros plan.

Pál Völner said this at his press conference held on 26 July 2017 in Budapest in response to the fact that Yves Bot, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice advised the court to reject the Hungarian and Slovak petitions in his position adopted in the lawsuit that was instituted against the EU mechanism aimed at the distribution of asylum-seekers among the Member States. The Advocate General’s motion is not binding on the judges. Experiences show, however, that the ultimate rulings mostly coincide with the preliminary position. A ruling may be adopted in the autumn, or in the winter, at the latest.

DownloadPhoto: Endre Véssey

Mr. Völner said: the Advocate General’s motion has confirmed the worst assumptions.

It is as if Yves Bot had joined those who had spoken before him as part of the Soros plan, the European Commission and the European Council. The principal elements of his statement are politically driven, and with these he effectively seeks to hide the complete lack of legal arguments, the State Secretary added.

He said that while the position does contain “some forced legal arguments”, it did not refute the legal arguments cited by Hungary in its petition.

Mr. Völner also highlighted that in the some one-hundred-page-long document, the words solidarity, flexibility and urgency “occurred with some frequency”, and this means that “legal arguments are evidently lacking in connection with the position laid down by Hungary”.

DownloadPhoto: Endre Véssey

As he said, the Advocate General refers to urgency, but forgets that the rules for urgent procedures are specifically laid down in the regulations concerning the functioning of the EU, meaning that this argument likewise does not hold.

He reiterated: Hungary argues that there was a legislative process, and this fact is also confirmed by a decision of the court adopted in another case in 2015. He said: the Advocate General failed to resolve the contradiction that the document in question was either the amendment of the Dublin Convention whose formal requirements were not observed, or if it was some other document, the decision to be adopted will be contrary to the Convention.

He remarked: the Advocate General also avoided the question as to whether the positions and conclusions of the European Council are binding in any way.

He pointed out: Hungary’s legal position is unchanged, and if the court decides on the basis of legal criteria, we have every reason to be optimistic about the ruling. “We would find it most regrettable if the court also joined the political process”, Mr. Völner said, adding that this would in its very foundations call into question whether the forums of the EU observe the rules on the basis of which they would be required to operate.

The State Secretary indicated: they find it promising that three decisions have been adopted recently in which the court ruled contrary to the advice of the Advocate General.

Mr. Völner indicated that the Advocate General’s advice refers to solidarity in a number of instances, but there is no framework for this in the Dublin Convention. Anything beyond this is not about solidarity, but about how the Member States can be forced into obligations pointing beyond the relevant legal framework, the costs of which no one assessed at the time, he remarked.

As he said, no one considered the fact that, from the viewpoint of the threats citizens are facing, terrorism and cultural ideology, “they want to upset and jeopardise the European people’s peace and security as part of a forced process of unknown origin”, and in his view, the Advocate General, too, is joining their ranks.