Hungary infringed EU law by voting against the Council’s common position regarding the rescheduling of cannabis, EU Court rules

PRESS RELEASE No 8/26

Luxembourg, 27 January 2026

Judgment of the Court in Case C-271/23 | Commission v Hungary (Rescheduling of cannabis)

Hungary, which cannot argue that the common position is unlawful, infringed the European Union’s exclusive external competence in that field, and acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation.

In November 2020, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision on the common position to be taken by the Member States, on behalf of the European Union, at the subsequent session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The purpose of that common position was, inter alia, to amend the scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances in two United Nations Conventions, namely the Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization.

When voting on those recommendations, Hungary’s representative not only voted in breach of the common position adopted by the Council, but also made a statement contradicting that common position.

In view of that situation, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations against Hungary. According to the Commission, Hungary infringed the European Union’s exclusive external competence and the Council decision on the common position, and acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation. In its defence, Hungary argued, principally, that that Council decision was unlawful.

In its judgment, the Court rules in favour of the Commission and finds that Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law.

The Court notes that the Council Framework Decision on drug trafficking defines the concept of ‘drug’ by referring to the two abovementioned United Nations Conventions. Decisions amending the scheduling of substances in those conventions can affect the application of the penalties laid down in that framework decision, and therefore can affect and alter EU law directly. The adoption of a position to be taken by the Member States on behalf of the European Union with regard to such decisions thus falls within the European Union’s exclusive competence.

Hungary disregarded that competence in the present case by acting in the way it did. That Member State thereby also infringed the Council decision on the common position that had been adopted in exercise of that exclusive competence.

Under the principle of sincere cooperation, the Member States are required to facilitate the achievement of the European Union’s tasks and must abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of common objectives. In the present case, by voting, within an international body, against a common position of the Council, Hungary compromised that principle as well as the principle of unity in the international representation of the European Union and its Member States. By disassociating itself from the common strategy established within the Council, it weakened the European Union’s negotiating power with regard to the other parties to the Convention.

Lastly, the Court states that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, a Member State cannot properly plead that an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union is unlawful. That would amount to allowing a Member State to take the law into its own hands by first infringing EU law and then waiting for the Commission to bring proceedings against it by way of an action for failure to fulfil obligations. That would run counter to the principle of the rule of law and the duties of solidarity which are accepted by the Member States and which form part of the fundamental basis of the legal order of the European Union. The position could be different only where the Member State challenges an act that contains such particularly serious and manifest defects that it could be categorised as a non-existent act.

If the Court of Justice finds that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations, the Member State concerned must comply with the Court’s judgment without delay. Where the Commission considers that the Member State has not complied with the judgment, it may bring a further action seeking financial penalties.