As Council President, Hungary was responsible for organizing and leading Council meetings, mediating compromises among member states and EU institutions, and representing the Council internationally. The Hungarian government prioritized competitiveness, defense, enlargement policy, illegal migration, and demography during its presidency.
However, political disputes related to Hungarian domestic policies and foreign policy controversies, particularly Prime Minister Viktor Orbán meeting with Vladimir Putin overshadowed the term in the media, despite achievements at the working level.
The following report provides an overview of the workshop held to assess the outcomes of the Hungary´s Council Presidency. The workshop brought together Hungarian officials involved in organizing and implementing the Presidency, as well as German and Hungarian experts and academics, to evaluate the achievements and challenges faced during the six-month term.
The workshop took place under the auspices of ZeDem (Zentrum für Demokratieforschung) and was organized under the responsibility of Prof. Ellen Bos and Dr. András Hettyey, both teach and research at the Andrássy University Budapest.
Panel 1: From the inside
Under the moderation of András Hettyey, the following three experts from the inside took part in the panel: Ildikó Bogdál, Head of Department of the Ministry of European Union Affairs, Zsanett Gréta Papp, Institute for Energy Strategy at the Ministry of Energy, and András Schmieder from the Ministry of Defence.
As the first speaker, Ildikó Bógdal emphasized the importance of the Council Presidency in influencing the EU agenda, including the ability to propose priorities that reflect national and European interests. Bógdal highlighted that setting the agenda is a powerful tool, as member states collectively decide what to regulate. She stressed that Hungary´s program focused on themes such as peace, a strong and prosperous Europe, strengthening Europe´s competitiveness, managing illegal migration, supporting the pharmaceutical industry, and addressing demographic challenges.
Holding the presidency for the second time, Hungary leveraged its previous experience to navigate a complex international landscape marked by war in its neighbourhood, the vulnerability of international supply chains, and environmental change within the EU, with changes in both the European Commission and the European Parliament.
Regarding to Bógdal, Hungary has made significant progress in enhancing both short- and long-term competitiveness. Emphasis was placed on open strategic autonomy, the green and digital transition of the industrial base, and maintaining a competitive edge globally. However, concerns were raised about Europe losing its position in international markets. A notable outcome was the Budapest Declaration, influenced by the Draghi report, which proposed a “New European Competitiveness Deal” with 12 key areas of action, including the strengthening of the single market.
Recognizing an alarming decline in birth rates and the EU´s decreasing share of the global population, Hungary has prioritized demographic issues, a logical step given to its domestic concerns. Bógdal argued for the use of cohesion policy as a means of addressing demographic challenges at the EU level.
Zsanett Gréta Papp then focused on energy and climate policy, highlighting Hungary´s efforts to address cross-cutting issues under the umbrella of climate policy. With 1.500 working group meetings, 37 council meetings, and 230 Presidency events, Hungary demonstrated an active approach to facilitating smoother cooperation between the European Commission and member states, particularly in implementing National Energy and Climate Plans. According to Papp, Hungary aimed to adopt more ambitious and realistic climate policies, acknowledging that 2024 was a critical year, as it became the hottest year on record.
As key achievements, Papp put focus on the adoption of the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, initiatives under the Common Agricultural Policy to enhance climate resilience, regulations on microplastics, and bolstering the EU’s energy security and renewable investments, including nuclear energy.
The most significant climate event during Hungary´s Presidency was COP29. The central topic of the summit was the issue of climate financing, emphasizing the need to close funding gaps and achieve stronger commitments from major emitters. A key milestone was the establishment of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) in Climate Finance, which aims to replace the previous $100 billion annual target.
Papp stated that Hungary aims to play a pivotal role in advancing the future challenges, such as ensuring the full implementation of the Fit for 55 package, pushing for stronger global commitments on fossil fuel phase-outs at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, and strengthening climate finance mechanisms.
András Schmieder provided an in-depth perspective on Hungary´s efforts to strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) during its EU Council Presidency. A key initiative in this regard was the introduction of the European Defence Investment Programme (EDIP), aimed at harmonizing defense regulations across member states. The primary objective was to establish a General Approach within the Council, fostering greater coherence and collaboration in European defence policy.
Schmieder explained that the legislative process for the EDIP began with the European Commission submitting a draft to both the Parliament and the Council. The goal was to reach adoption before the first reading, necessitating extensive negotiations to achieve consensus among member states. This proved particularly challenging given the sensitive nature of defence policies, which countries have traditionally managed at the national level.
One of the main challenges highlighted was the need to reduce fragmentation within the European defence industry to enhance interoperability among member states. This would require improved access to financing from the civilian sector, given the heavy reliance of defence production on complex supply chains, which often involve civilian industries. Reflecting on his personal experiences, Schmieder noted that a significant obstacle was the prevailing distrust between the Commission and member states, which complicated negotiations. Furthermore, Schmieder also noted a certain mistrust on the part of the member states towards the Hungarian government.
Panel 2: From the outside
The second panel shifted from an internal to an external perspective and subjected the Hungarian Council Presidency to a critical diagnosis. Although prominent points of criticism formed the discursive centers, the progress actually made by Hungary was included in the analysis. In contrast to its predecessor, the second panel was more of a discursive nature than a series of presentations, which is why only the central core statements can be outlined here.
Under the moderation of Dr. András Hettyey, the participants in the second panel were Prof. Boglárka Koller, Jean Monnet Chair at the Ludovika University of Public Service, Dr. Sonja Priebus from the European University Viadrina Frankfurt Oder, and Prof. Ellen Bos from the AUB.
Boglárka Koller began by reflecting on the challenges of objectively evaluating an EU Council Presidency. She noted that official narratives often paint a positive picture, but a more nuanced assessment requires examining three dimensions: Policy, Politics and Polity.
Policy: From a policy perspective, Hungary achieved noteworthy results, particularly in the area of EU enlargement and progress towards full Schengen membership for certain countries. These achievementsreflect a productive policy agenda.
Politics: However, the political landscape was more complex. A key function of the Council Presidency is to foster positive relationships among top EU executives. In this regard, Hungary faced significant challenges, as diplomatic tensions emerged, including the exclusion of the Hungarian ambassador in Poland from the official ceremony for the assumption of the EU Council Presidency. These incidents indicated strained political relations.
Polity: The institutional context also posed challenges. As Ursula von der Leyen began her second term as President of the Commission, questions remained about the Presidency´s influence on institutional progress. Koller highlighted that self-evaluation by the Hungarian government was notably more positive than the external assessments, reflecting divergent perceptions of success.
Sonja Priebus emphasized the traditional expectation that the Council Presidency acts as an honest broker, facilitating balanced negotiations among member states. However, she argued that Hungary´s Presidency diverged from this role due to its political positioning.
As the first Presidency led by a right-wing populist government within the EU, there was considerable skepticism about its ability to fulfill its obligations impartially. This sentiment was particularly strong within the European Parliament, where doubts were raised about Hungary´s commitment to EU values and norms.
Priebus noted that Orbán´s foreign policy approach, including his self-styled “peace mission” with Russia and his alignment with Donald Trump, contributed to negative perceptions, especially in Germany. This diplomatic stance complicated Hungary´s ability to act as a neutral mediator.
Ellen Bos took us back, not only to the program of the Hungarian Council Presidency but also to the traditional expectation regarding the role of the presidency, i.e. to act as a neutral mediator. In its program, Hungary formally committed itself to this expected role and to act in the spirit of sincere cooperation between the member states and institutions.
On the other hand, as Bos shows, Orbán declared that Hungary´s Presidency would be political rather than technocratic, signaling a departure from the neutral, administrative role typically associated with the position.
This contradiction was symbolized by the Presidency´s provocative motto: “Make Europe Great Again,” (MEGA) which echoed populist rhetoric and raised questions about Hungary´s strategic intentions.
The Council Presidency is not expected to use its presidency to push through national political agendas. Accordingly, the role is seen less as a political one and much more as a coordinating and diplomatic one.
Not meeting up to its own programmatic commitments and the traditional and actual expectations, Hungary´s Council Presidency has been labelled either as a “Rebel Presidency” or a “Troll Presidency,”, described as disruptive and politically ambivalent. Bos argued that the Hungarian government demonstrated a schizophrenic approach from the outset.
Q&A Session
During the Q&A session, Hettyey prompted the panelists to reflect on Hungary´s strategic decisions during its EU Council Presidency, raising critical questions about its diplomatic approach and policy priorities.
One of the key questions was why Hungary did not use its Presidency as an opportunity to improve its strained relations with the EU. In response, Koller argued that enhancing diplomatic ties was simply not a priority for the Hungarian government. She suggested that other political objectives took precedence, indicating a strategic choice to maintain a confrontational stance rather than seeking reconciliation.
Another question came up when the discussion shed light on the domestic dimension of such a presidency. Bos made clear that Orbán was facinga couple of domestic challenges from a rising political star with its party, not to mention the bad performance of the Hungarian economy. Due to this, Orbán tried to use this presidency to regain the upper hand by raising his international political capital.
The discussion then shifted to the scope of issues addressed during the Presidency. Koller pointed out that while Hungary´s program aligned with many of the European Commission´s priorities — such as competitiveness and demographic challenges — the impact had been mixed. She noted that progress in the defence sector was limited, although this was not necessarily due to shortcomings of the Presidency itself, but rather to the complexity of defence integration within the EU.
Priebus added that despite political controversies, Hungary did achieve tangible progress in the EU enlargement process, in particular with Albania and Montenegro, providing renewed momentum to accession discussions. However, she emphasized that Ukraine was notably absent from these initiatives, reflecting a selective approach to enlargement that avoided politically sensitive issues.
Simon TAFLER
