--- title: "EU Court Rejects Hungary's Challenge to the Use of Frozen Russian Assets for Aid to Ukraine" description: "The Court of Justice of the European Union rejected Hungary's lawsuit against the use of frozen Russian assets for military aid to Ukraine on 9 September, finding that it lacked jurisdiction." date: 2026-09-09T10:14:00.000Z lang: en url: https://xab.info/en/posts/eu-court-rejects-hungary-challenge-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine-aid tags: [eu-court, hungary, russia-assets, ukraine-aid, european-peace-fund] publisher: "XAB.info" --- # EU Court Rejects Hungary's Challenge to the Use of Frozen Russian Assets for Aid to Ukraine ![Flags of Ukraine, Hungary and the EU on a balcony — symbol of the dispute over frozen Russian assets](https://xab.info/media/2026/09/09/sud-es-otklonil-isk-vingrii-po-aktvam-rossii-dlya-pomoshi-ukraine/sud-es-otklonil-isk-vingrii-po-aktvam-rossii-dlya-pomoshi-ukraine-1.webp) ## 🎯 Key Points - The EU court rejected Hungary's challenge to the use of frozen Russian assets for aid to Ukraine. - The court found that the decision was taken by the committee of the European Peace Facility, not the Council of the EU, and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. - Hungary did not vote on the decision, so the committee did not include it in the decision-making process. - The court described the decision as political and strategic for the EU's interests, which excluded its appeal. - Hungary's lawsuit was filed as early as 2024. The Court of Justice of the European Union rejected Hungary's lawsuit on 9 September, which challenged the decision to use frozen Russian assets for military aid to Ukraine. As reported by Ukrainian and European media citing the text of the court's ruling, the key ground was procedural: the court found that the decision to allocate the funds was taken by the committee of the European Peace Facility, not by the Council of the EU. On this basis, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Budapest's case. ### Procedural aspect: why the court did not examine the case on the merits The court's ruling emphasizes that Hungary did not take part in the vote on the allocation of aid to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets. According to the court's finding, the committee of the European Peace Facility decided that the Hungarian side should not take part in adopting this decision. It was precisely this procedural construction that deprived the lawsuit of grounds for examination on the merits: the court did not assess the lawfulness of the use of the assets themselves, but limited itself to noting its lack of competence. ### Political and strategic nature of the decision The court also noted that the committee of the European Peace Facility took a political decision in response to Ukraine's appeal for assistance. In the court's assessment, this decision is of a strategic nature for the interests of the European Union as a whole. On this basis, the challenge to the committee's actions was deemed to fall outside the court's competence, which in fact closes off Hungary's ability to contest the mechanism through a judicial body. ### Timeline: the lawsuit was filed back in 2024 It is noted that Hungary filed its lawsuit challenging the decision on the use of Russian assets with the court as early as 2024. Thus, the court's ruling was issued a significant period after the lawsuit was filed and records the judicial body's position on procedural, rather than substantive, grounds of the dispute. This ruling is important for understanding how legal protection is constructed in the EU for decisions taken at the level of fund committees rather than the Council. ### Diplomatic context around Budapest The court's ruling fits into the broader context of Hungary's relations with Russia and with its EU partners. Previously, Hungary expelled ten staff members of the Russian mission, explaining this by stating that the diplomats had been engaged in activity impermissible under the Vienna Convention. Moscow reacted to this step with a promise of a firm response. At the same time, Budapest had earlier agreed to help Germany counter hybrid threats from Russia, expressing concern over the growing intensity of Russian hybrid activity on European territory. ## 🔍 Fact-Check Verification - [EU court rejects Hungary's lawsuit over Russian assets for aid to Ukraine](https://www.rbc.ua/ukr/news/sud-es-vidhiliv-pozov-ugorshchini-shchodo-1788948663.html) - Подтверждает отклонение иска, отсутствие юрисдикции, роль комитета Европейского фонда мира и подачу иска в 2024 году. - [EU court rejects Hungary's lawsuit against aid to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets](https://ru.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/09/09/sud-es-otklonil-isk-vengrii-protiv-pomoshi-ukraine-za-schet-zamorozhennyh-aktivov) - Подтверждает дату 9 сентября 2026 г. и суть решения суда по процедурным основаниям. - [EU court rejects Hungary's lawsuit over Russian assets for Ukraine](https://minfin.com.ua/2026/09/09/181325506/) - Подтверждает отклонение иска и аргументацию о компетенции суда. - [EU court rejects Hungary's lawsuit against the use of income from Russian assets to support Ukraine](https://www.interfax.ru/world/1114043) - Подтверждает факт отклонения иска и контекст использования активов для поддержки Украины. ## ❓ FAQ ### Q: Why did the EU court reject Hungary's lawsuit? **A:** The court found that the decision to use frozen Russian assets was taken by the committee of the European Peace Facility, not the Council of the EU, and on this basis ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the case on the merits. ### Q: Did Hungary take part in the vote on this decision? **A:** No. According to the court's finding, Hungary did not vote on the decision to allocate aid to Ukraine from frozen assets, and the committee decided that the Hungarian side should not take part in adopting it. ### Q: When did Hungary file the lawsuit? **A:** Hungary filed its lawsuit challenging the decision on the use of Russian assets with the court as early as 2024. ### Q: Can Hungary appeal this decision further? **A:** The court described the committee's decision as political and strategic for the EU's interests, so the challenge to the committee's actions remained outside the court's competence.