Hungary's violation of European Union law in voting on the Council's common position on changing the classification of cannabis
The Court of Justice ruled in its judgment in case C-271/23 of 27.01.2026 that Hungary had infringed Union law by voting against the Council's common position on the change in the classification of cannabis.
In November 2020, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision establishing the common position of the Member States at the meeting of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. This position concerned the reclassification of cannabis and related substances in the United Nations conventions, based on recommendations from the World Health Organization. However, the representative of Hungary acted contrary to this common position when voting and made a statement that was incompatible with it, which raised questions about the compliance of his action with his obligations under European Union law.
The European Commission has brought an action against Hungary for failure to fulfil obligations. It alleged that Hungary had infringed the Union's exclusive external competence, had failed to respect the Council's decision on the common position and had acted contrary to the principle of sincere cooperation. Hungary's defence was mainly based on the illegality of the Council decision in question.
The Court of Justice upheld the Commission's action and found that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law. The Framework Decision on illicit drug trafficking³ defines the concept of ‘drug’ by reference to the UN Conventions, so that changes to the classification of substances are capable of directly affecting EU law. The establishment of a common position for the Member States on such decisions therefore falls within the exclusive competence of the EU, which Hungary had not respected by acting contrary to the Council decision.
The Court further stated that, under the principle of sincere cooperation, the Member States are required to facilitate the performance of the Union’s tasks and to refrain from any action which could jeopardise the attainment of its objectives. In the present case, by voting against the common position adopted by the Council in an international body, Hungary infringed not only that principle but also the requirement of unity in the external representation of the Union and its Member States. The departure from a common strategy weakens the Union’s coherence and negotiating position in relation to the other contracting parties to the Convention.
Finally, the Court stated that, in the context of infringement proceedings, a Member State cannot effectively plead the illegality of an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the Union. To allow such a defence would allow a Member State to unilaterally disregard a binding Union act and then face an action by the Commission, which would be incompatible with the principle of the rule of law and the principle of sincere cooperation, which are fundamental pillars of the Union legal order.
Finally, the Court stated that the only exception is where the act in question is vitiated by particularly serious and manifest defects of such intensity that it may be considered void.
