Hungarian Spying Scandal Could Shake EU Commission to its Core

The EU and its member states have been shocked, though not entirely surprised, by a reported Hungarian spying scandal, which seemingly also involves the current commissioner from that country, Oliver Varhelyi. Last week, an investigative report published by Hungary’s Direkt36, in cooperation with Belgium’s De Tijd, Germany’s Der Spiegel and Austria’s Der Standard, detailed how the Hungarian government spied on EU institutions and attempted to recruit Hungarian staff working at the European Commission in Brussels in the period 2013 to 2018. Several intelligence officers allegedly worked undercover at the Hungarian embassy, apparently with the knowledge and assistance of the ambassador at the time, Oliver Varhelyi himself. That Hungary is not considered a reliable ally has long been treated as a given by EU and NATO member states. Hungary has on multiple occasions aided authoritarian regimes or become entangled in scandals, such as when it extradited Russian arms smugglers to Moscow instead of to the US, allowing them to be immediately released upon arrival. Many also vividly recall when the Hungarian intelligence services helped smuggle the former North Macedonian premier Nikola Gruevski by car through several European countries after he faced corruption charges and imminent arrest at home. However, more interesting than the background of the current affair may be its potential consequences and outcomes. While the alleged spying primarily affected Belgium, other member states including Germany have been equally outraged. Varhelyi, a committed supporter of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has been regarded with suspicion by his EU colleagues since he was appointed a commissioner in 2019. Handed the powerful enlargement portfolio in the first commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen (2019-2024), he has already seen his position weakened when he received the politically marginal position of commissioner for health and animal welfare in von der Leyen’s second commission (2025-2030). Many believe that in numerous matters, Varhelyi has represented Orban’s interests rather than those of the EU, acting in contradiction to his mandate. The scandal, therefore, offers an excellent opportunity for many to embarrass both Orban and Varhelyi simultaneously. Yet genuine accountability may well turn into another chapter in the ongoing power struggles between major political parties and EU institutions. Although European Commission President von der Leyen initially emphasised that the Commission would launch a probe due to the seriousness of the allegations, she almost immediately added that she would not suspend the Hungarian commissioner, who naturally denies any knowledge of espionage. Even so, political groups could put significant pressure on von der Leyen, who survived two no-confidence motions just last week thanks to her allies. The president of the Renew Europe political grouping in the European Parliament, Valerie Hayer, stated that von der Leyen had “both the responsibility and the power to act” on the reports concerning Varhelyi. There are three possible ways to remove a European commissioner. First, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) can decide to do so under Article 247 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The ECJ may, upon application by the European Commission or the Council of the European Union – a body which represents the governments of the EU member states – acting by a simple majority, compulsorily retire a commissioner if they “no longer fulfil the conditions required for the performance of their duties or have been guilty of serious misconduct.” The second method is if the president of the European Commission requests it – a power granted under Article 17(6) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) – though von der Leyen clearly does not yet wish to take that step. The third option involves the European Parliament, which explains why the Renew Group’s discontent could prove worrisome for von der Leyen. The European Parliament does not have the formal power to remove any single commissioner from office; it can, however, pass a motion of censure under Article 234 TFEU that would apply to the European Commission as a whole. If such a motion passes with a two-thirds majority of votes cast and a majority of MEPs, the entire European Commission must resign. Based on this, both von der Leyen and Viktor Orban – two people who distrust and disdain each other – find themselves in a difficult position, meaning it may be in their mutual interest to cooperate. This is particularly ironic given that, just last week, Orban was loudly complaining in every possible forum that centrist forces had saved the European Commission president in the confidence votes. For Orban, if he waits too long and the affair drags on, it could easily become an unpleasant campaign issue ahead of Hungary’s April 2026 general election. Worse, in the event that his Fidesz party loses the election, the opposition Tisza party, which is part of the European People’s Party (EPP) grouping in the European Parliament, could end up nominating the next Hungarian EU commissioner. On the other hand, if Varhelyi resigns, it would be seen as an admission of guilt and would further isolate Orban in the EU and strengthen his political opponents. Fortunately for the Hungarian prime minister, his main challenger, the Tisza party, is not in an easy position either. The party has not yet fully integrated into the EPP’s structures, where a frontal attack against the European Commission president would certainly not be appreciated – even if they know that, given the upcoming Hungarian elections, they cannot afford to pass up this opportunity. Von der Leyen, meanwhile, is in an equally delicate position. If she downplays the investigation and more details continue to emerge, she risks another no-confidence motion for protecting a man she never wanted in the European Commission to begin with, while alienating her supporters in the European Parliament. Perhaps the European Commission president will wait a few more days, but the choice seems clear: it is hard to imagine that the Council of the EU would not find a simple majority to bring the case before the ECJ if the accusations are backed up by evidence. Politically, the swift transfer of the issue from the European Commission to the ECJ would be the most advantageous scenario for her. In that case, however, the next move would belong to the Hungarian prime minister, who so far has remained silent on the affair. One thing is certain: this latest Hungarian scandal will continue to dominate the headlines for weeks to come. Dániel Bartha is the President of the Centre for Euro-Atlantic Integration and Democracy (CEID). The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.