Judges were open at the Wednesday hearing of the quota lawsuit, sought to understand the Hungarian position, and it is quite evident that they have dealt with the case in depth, Krisztián Kecsmár, Minister of State of the Justice Ministry stated after the hearing of the Hungarian and Slovak petition submitted against the EU quota scheme ended at the Court of Justice of the European Union on 10 May 2017.

At the press conference, the Minister of State said: they sincerely hope that the Luxembourg-based court will accept the Hungarian arguments, and the case will be closed positively for Hungary.

In the Hungarian petition, the Hungarian Government requested the annulment of the entire decision regarding the mandatory quotas, or at least of the part, pursuant to which Hungary would be required to take in 1,294 refugees, with reference to ten content-based and procedural arguments.

Mr Kecsmár highlighted: the legal arguments of the Hungarian Government are completely valid. These were gathered together for a reason, they were quite evident, and “it did not take a special effort to compile them”.

He added: at the hearing the judges attempted to refute the plaintiffs’ arguments and laid a great deal of emphasis on solidarity, in the context of which the legal counsel representing Hungary had the opportunity to state that, other than the taking in of asylum-seekers, there are a number of alternative ways for the sharing of burdens.

Poland intervened in the lawsuit on the side of Hungary and Slovakia, while the Council decision was supported by the European Commission, Greece, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and Luxembourg. In this context, Mr Kecsmár took the view: it is important to see why the individual parties lined up in support of the defendant. The underlying proposal was tabled by the European Commission, Luxemburg held the EU Presidency at the time, while Italy and Greece are beneficiaries of the proposed quota system.

French Advocate General Yves Bot announced that the court will publish its position on the case on 26 July, and the verdict will be delivered thereafter. The Advocate General’s motion is not binding on the judges. At the same time, experiences show that judgements tend to coincide with the preliminary positions.