By Anna Konstantinidi Apergi, Special Advisor – Diversity Charter Greece
The recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Hungary’s legislation (LXXIX/2021) regarding so-called “LGBT propaganda” (European Commission v. Hungary – Case C-769/22), represents one of the clearest statements of EU law against phenomena of institutional regression.
The ECJ did not limit itself to a formal review of compatibility with individual directives, but examined the regulation in light of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, emphasizing that the Union’s fundamental values—and in particular human dignity, equality, and respect for human rights—are binding. In this way, the CJEU confirms that there is no “regulatory neutrality” when the result of a national regulation is the stigmatization and exclusion of a specific social group.
Specifically, equating LGBTQI+ visibility with content harmful to minors was found to violate core rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, such as freedom of expression and information, as well as the principle of non-discrimination. The invocation of “protection of minors” is legally untenable, as it cannot serve as a general restriction clause when it lacks proportionality and leads to the systematic silencing of identities and experiences.
The significance of the decision, however, extends beyond the narrow confines of this particular case. It fits into a broader European context, where a clear trend of regression on human rights issues—and particularly the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals—has been observed in recent years. The legal language of “protection,” “tradition,” or “public morality” is being revived as a tool to reshape the field of rights, attempting to shift the boundaries of what is considered acceptable.
See also: Landmark ruling by the ECJ. It requires legal recognition of gender identity in all Member States
In this context, the CJEU’s ruling serves as a bulwark. It sets clear limits on the invocation of national identity or the discretion of Member States, reminding them that membership in the Union requires compliance with a common set of values and the acquis communautaire.
This discussion cannot leave Greece out of the picture. Over the past two years, there has been a clear legislative inaction regarding the further enshrinement and expansion of the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals and, more broadly, of human rights. The absence of substantive initiatives is by no means neutral. It creates a vacuum, which is often filled by intensifying hate speech in public discourse, even by political figures.
Experience shows that regression does not always manifest itself through sudden, dramatic upheavals. More often, it occurs through the gradual erosion of safeguards, the delay of institutional interventions, and the normalization of discourses that target vulnerable groups. The lack of legal progress, combined with the intensification of public discourse, can serve as a precursor to restrictions.
In this light, the CJEU’s ruling does not merely concern the obligation of a Member State—Hungary, in this case—to comply, but serves as an interpretive tool and a political message to the entire EU that rights are not static but require constant vigilance, and that inaction—especially in times of regression—amounts to complicity.
