CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32125/23 CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY NEW YORK against Hungary lodged on 17 August 2023 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns legislative amendments to the operation of foreign higher education institutions in Hungary. The applicant is a private university having its seat in the United States of America (State of New York). It began operating in Hungary in 1995, on the basis of an operating licence. In 2017 Act No. XXV of 2017 (“the 2017 Act”) was adopted amending certain provisions of the Higher Education Act, which introduced new requirements for the operation of educational institutions having their seats abroad. These amendments included, inter alia , the conclusion of an international treaty on the equivalence of higher education qualifications between the Hungarian Government and the relevant State where the foreign institution had its seat. The deadline set for the foreign education institutions to comply with the new requirements was prolonged on several occasions. The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the 2017 Act before the Constitutional Court, which stayed the proceedings awaiting the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the matter. On 6 October 2020, in its judgment in case C-66/18, the CJEU found the impugned section of the 2017 Act incompatible with Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (freedom of establishment), and with Article 13 (academic freedom), Article 14(3) (freedom to found educational establishments) and Article 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Hungarian Parliament then adopted Act No. LIV of 2021 (“the 2021   Act”) with a view to complying with the CJEU’s judgment. The new legislation required the conclusion of an international treaty for foreign higher education institutions which had their seats outside the European Economic Area. In 2019 the applicant moved its campus from Budapest to Vienna. It also introduced a second constitutional complaint against the 2021 Act alleging a violation of its fundamental rights protected by the Fundamental Law of Hungary, as well as the Convention. On 23 July 2021 the Constitutional Court decided that, since the 2017 Act had been amended, the examination of the applicant’s first constitutional complaint had become devoid of purpose and discontinued the proceedings. As regards the 2021 Act, on 25 April 2023 the Constitutional Court found that the impugned legislation could not be challenged, since it imposed an obligation on the applicant only indirectly and required an act by a public authority which, for its part, could be challenged in the ordinary courts. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 26   April 2023. The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that its ability to continue and/or restart its academic operations in Hungary was entirely at the discretion of the Hungarian Government which violated its academic freedom. It further complains, under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the violation of its right to operate a higher education institution. The applicant also complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, about the removal of the substance of its licence to operate a higher education institution in that it was unable to meaningfully invest or continue operations in Hungary. Under Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant further alleges a breach of its right to freedom of association. Finally, the applicant complains that the provisions of the 2021 Act were discriminatory, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with all of the above Articles, because they targeted the applicant institution, and that the Government refused to conclude an international treaty in its case whereas they did so for another comparable foreign higher education institution. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention by the restrictions resulting from the 2021 Act on its academic activities in Hungary? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 (see Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   346/04 and 39779/04, § 40, 27 May 2014)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, as a result of the restrictions by the 2021 Act allegedly removing the substance of the applicant’s licence to operate a higher education institution in Hungary (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no.   38433/09, §§   177-180, ECHR 2012; and, mutatis mutandis , Vékony v.   Hungary , no.   65681/13, §§   29-30, 13 January 2015)? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (compare Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V; and, mutatis mutandis , Vékony , cited above, §§ 35-37)?