On Tuesday, Hungary will once again face scrutiny in the European Union under Article 7 of the EU Treaty. This time, in an unusual twist, Hungary itself will chair the meeting where it will be criticized for violations of the rule of law. Hungarian representative will also preside over Tuesday’s discussion on the rule of law… in Poland.

„Hungary is making a rod for its own back,” joked an EU diplomat, acknowledging the oddity of the situation. Hungary currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency, and Germany has requested a discussion at Tuesday’s meeting of European affairs ministers on Hungary’s adherence to the rule of law. Any member state can request an item to be added to the agenda.

Germany’s request was supported by France and the Scandinavian countries. Poland, however, remained silent. This creates a peculiar scenario: one Hungarian representative will chair the meeting where Hungary is criticized, while another Hungarian official will defend Budapest. Hungary is expected to face criticism for issues including the so-called „sovereignty protection law,” which targets critics of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, corruption, and visa facilitation for Russians.

In a further twist, a Hungarian representative—representing the EU’s most criticized member state for rule-of-law violations and alignment with Russia—will also preside over Tuesday’s discussion on Poland’s rule of law. Under PiS leadership, Poland and Hungary were often grouped together under the same scrutiny.

However, the current context differs. While Hungary faces scrutiny under Article 7’s punitive proceedings, Poland’s rule-of-law situation will be addressed in the framework of the annual Rule of Law Report, which carries less weight. The Article 7 procedure against Poland was closed in May.

In the European Commission’s July Rule of Law Report on Poland, the new government was commended for steps taken to restore the rule of law after PiS governance. However, the report also raised concerns, such as the legal doubts surrounding the dismissal of public media boards, the need to separate the roles of justice minister and prosecutor general, calls to limit the scope of immunity protections, and recommendations to repeal impunity clauses.