Throughout my time at BCNL, I had the opportunity to research a pattern of civil society suppression in Europe, specifically Eastern Europe. I naturally gravitated towards LGBTQ+ issues and began tracking a troubling trend of selling far-reaching repressive measures under the guise of “protecting” society (though, usually specifically children), “gender ideology,” and the “LGBTQ+ agenda.” This summer while I was working in Bulgaria, AG Capeta of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued an opinion on one such law.
The Background
In 2021, the Hungarian parliament adopted Law LXXIX on “tougher action against paedophile offenders and amending certain laws to protect children.”[1] These amendments impose prohibitions or limitations on the depiction or promotion of content related to gender identities differing from sex assigned at birth, homosexuality, and gender reassignment. These new rules have been integrated into laws covering areas such as child protection, media, advertising, and public education.
Beyond these core restrictions, one specific provision empowers Hungarian authorities to pressure other EU Member States regarding foreign media content deemed non-compliant, and another mandates broader sharing of criminal records, particularly concerning sexual offences against children.[2]
Less than a month after the adoption of Law LXXIX, the European Commission sent a formal notice to Hungary stating that, in its view, the package of legislative amendments failed to comply with various provisions of EU law.[3] Hungary contested that any breach had occurred, and on December 19, 2022, the Commission brought infringement proceedings before the CJEU under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.[4]
The Commission alleges that five of the rules contained in Law LXXIX breach both EU primary and secondary law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which enshrines core EU values. They further claim that the remaining rules infringe secondary legislation and Charter provisions.[5]
Hungary asks the CJEU to dismiss the Commission’s action as unfounded.[6]
In an opinion delivered on June 5, 2025, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta proposed that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rule that the European Commission’s (Commission) action against Hungary’s 2021 Law LXXIX is well-founded on all grounds.[7]
An advocate general (AG) provides independent and impartial opinions to the CJEU.[8] Unlike judges of the CJEU, AGs have considerable latitude in terms of style, laws taken into account, alternative interpretations, and creative solutions.[9] Though opinions rendered by an AG are not binding, the CJEU tends to follow the solution put forward in AGs’ opinions in the majority of cases.[10] The CJEU’s ruling on case C-769/22 is expected in the autumn of 2025.[11]
The Opinion
In the first part of her analysis, AG Ćapeta focuses on the core issue of fundamental rights and EU values, framing Hungary’s contested legislation as a case primarily about violations of the EU Charter and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Departing from the Commission’s original plea order, the analysis prioritizes the claim that Hungary’s amendments breach Charter rights, specifically Articles 21 (non-discrimination), 11 (freedom of expression), and 7 (respect for private and family life). Crucially, the Opinion engages for the first time with the Commission’s use of Article 2 TEU as a self-standing ground for infringement, meaning the breach is considered within the scope of EU law but not as an autonomous claim outside that scope.[12]
In another interesting section, the Advocate General establishes that Article 2 TEU can be used by the Court as a legal yardstick to assess Member State compliance, particularly in infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU.[13] Article 2 TEU is not merely a political aspiration but a binding legal provision that defines the constitutional identity of the Union[14] and a practical condition for the functioning of the EU legal order, given the reliance of EU law on mutual trust between Member States.[15]
Ultimately, AG Ćapeta concludes that the root cause of the multiple Charter and Treaty infringements is Hungary’s rejection of EU values as expressed in Article 2 TEU. Accordingly, the Court should find a self-standing infringement of that article, thereby acknowledging the broader constitutional harm caused by the contested legislation.[16] AG Capeta further opines that while EU law respects national diversity, it does not allow Member States to breach shared EU values. The EU’s common constitutional framework sets ‘red lines’ that Member States must not cross, regardless of domestic traditions or public opinion.[17]
In the second part of the Opinion, AG Ćapeta addresses the Commission’s remaining pleas concerning Hungary’s violations of EU internal market rules and data protection laws.[18] Parts of the legislative amendments were found to infringe the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive by unjustifiably restricting the free provision of services from other Member States. For instance, one amendment categorizes all media featuring LGBTQ+ content as harmful to minors, requiring late-night scheduling. The Court found this discriminatory and unsupported by scientific evidence, amounting to censorship that undermines mutual recognition obligations.[19] Similarly, another law imposes similar limitations on public awareness campaigns, further deepening the breach.[20]
The legislation further empowers Hungarian authorities to pressure other Member States to comply with Hungary’s discriminatory media standards, in violation of the AVMS Directive’s “country of origin” principle.[21] Additionally, the legislation restricts not only audiovisual but also electronic and other service providers, breaching both the e-Commerce Directive and the Services Directive, as well as Article 56 TFEU.[22]
LGBTQ+ Rights in Hungary Since 2021
Since the Commission launched infringement proceedings in 2021, Hungary’s legislative anti-LGBTQ+ repression has only worsened. On March 18, 2025, the country’s parliament passed a law restricting the right of assembly for events supporting LGBTQ+ rights. The law, which effectively outlaws Pride and similar events, also authorizes authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those participating in and organizing these assemblies. Those found to be in violation of the rule face fines up to €500.[23]
Implications for Bulgaria
The legal developments in Hungary provide a stark warning for Bulgaria, where similar anti-LGBTQI+ legislation was passed in 2024.[24] Bulgaria’s amendments to the Pre-school and School Education Act, banning so-called “LGBTQI+ propaganda” in schools, mirror Hungary’s Law LXXIX in both language and purpose.[25] Just as Hungary’s legislation was found to breach the EU Charter and Article 2 TEU, Bulgaria risks comparable legal scrutiny from the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Hungarian case illustrates that appeals to parental rights or cultural values cannot justify violations of non-discrimination, freedom of expression, or human dignity. If challenged, Bulgaria’s restrictions are similarly unlikely to survive the proportionality and necessity tests under Article 52(1) of the Charter.
Beyond legal risk, Hungary’s trajectory exposes how anti-LGBTQI+ measures can erode democratic norms and civic space more broadly. In Bulgaria, these laws have already been accompanied by smear campaigns, attempts to revive “foreign agents” legislation, blacklisting of teachers, and harassment of civil society organisations (CSOs), echoing the chilling effect Hungary’s laws have had on public discourse.[26] This discriminatory legislation is not isolated; rather, it forms part of a broader strategy to stigmatize dissent and weaken democratic checks. Bulgaria must therefore consider the Hungarian case not just as a cautionary tale, but as a blueprint for what to resist. Immediate repeal of discriminatory laws and rejection of FARA-type bills are necessary not only to protect LGBTQI+ communities but to uphold the EU values that underpin Bulgaria’s democratic future.
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/690707/EPRS_ATA(2021)690707_EN.pdf
[2] Opinion at para 20, 21-24
[3] Opinion at para 8
[4] Opinion at para 12; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2008/art_258/oj/eng
[5] Opnion at para 25-26
[6] Opinion at para 27
[7] Opinion at para 363(1). https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=5104B22C08353EFF1FDB96472B810FCC?text=&docid=300973&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6159807 [Opinion]
[8] Article 253, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
[9] https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/european-industrial-relations-dictionary/advocate-general-cjeu
[10] https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/european-industrial-relations-dictionary/advocate-general-cjeu
[11] https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/hungary-broke-eu-law-with-anti-lgbtq-law-says-eu-court-legal-opinion/
[12] Opinion paras 28-33
[13] Opinion at paras 150–153, 189–194.
[14] Opinion at paras 155–158.
[15] Opinion at paras 159–163.
[16] Opinion at paras 273-275.
[17] Opinion at paras 219–224.
[18] Opinion at para 276.
[19] Opinion at paras 281-288.
[20] Opinion at para 289-293.
[21] Opinion at paras 300-311
[22] Opinion at paras 312-334, 340
[23] https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/20/hungary-bans-lgbt-pride-events; https://www.parlament.hu/irom42/11201/11201-0006.pdf
[24] https://civic-forum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Civic-Space-Report-2025-Bulgaria.pdf
[25] https://civic-forum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Civic-Space-Report-2025-Bulgaria.pdf
[26] https://civic-forum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Civic-Space-Report-2025-Bulgaria.pdf