Ireland and Hungary: Two Legal Cultures, One European Question

In February 2025, Irish Legal News published an article partially about me — the first Hungarian-born barrister called to the Irish Bar — in which I called for solidarity with Hungarian judges. That piece has now turned just over one year old. Time has passed. Headlines have rotated. Political cycles have churned.

Author: Petra Polonkai

And yet, frustratingly and tellingly, it remains just as relevant today.
The contrast between Ireland and Hungary in matters of judicial independence has not narrowed. If anything, it has sharpened.

I write not as an academic observer peering through binoculars, but as someone who belongs — emotionally and professionally — to both systems. I was born and raised in Hungary. I studied law and practise in Ireland. I love both countries. That dual vantage point makes the divergence impossible to ignore.

Ireland: Independence as Cultural Oxygen

In Ireland, judicial independence is not merely a constitutional clause — it is cultural oxygen.

Under Bunreacht na hÉireann (The Irish Constitution, 1937.), judges are independent in the exercise of their functions. In practice, this independence is visible and tangible. Courts regularly review legislation. Executive decisions are challenged. The State loses cases and still, life continues.

No one blinks when a High Court judge finds against a Minister. That normality is precisely the point.

Public trust figures across the EU consistently place Ireland among the higher-ranking Member States for perceived judicial independence. That perception matters. Courts do not carry swords; they carry legitimacy. Once legitimacy erodes, the robe becomes just fabric.

Ireland certainly has weaknesses. We struggle with judicial numbers per capita. We are not pioneers of courtroom digitisation. Legal aid remains constrained in certain civil areas. These are structural and resource challenges — serious, but administrative in nature.

They are not existential.

Hungary: Reform or Restraint?

Hungary’s story is more complex and more contested.

Over the past decade, judicial reforms have been introduced, amended, negotiated with Brussels, recalibrated, and scrutinised. The European Commission has triggered rule-of-law mechanisms. Article 7 proceedings remain formally alive. EU funds have been frozen and partially released in connection with judicial benchmarks.

Formally, reforms have been enacted. Substantively, debate continues.

Hungarian judges themselves have publicly expressed concern about institutional pressures and the structure of judicial governance. Questions persist about appointment processes, disciplinary mechanisms, and the balance between judicial administration and judicial independence.

When judges feel compelled to protest for structural safeguards, something significant is happening.

It is important to be precise here. Hungary still has courts. It still has judges applying law daily. Many of them are deeply committed professionals. The issue is not whether judging occurs — it does. The issue is the systemic environment in which judging occurs.

Judicial independence is not binary. It is a spectrum. It can be weakened incrementally without ever formally disappearing.

Why This Matters Beyond Borders

Some might ask: why should Irish lawyers concern themselves with Hungary’s internal legal architecture?

Because judicial independence is not a local ornament. It is a shared European value embedded in EU treaties. When one Member State’s system raises rule-of-law concerns, it becomes a European issue. Mutual recognition of judgments, cross-border cooperation, and EU law supremacy all presuppose trust in each other’s courts.

If that trust erodes, the legal architecture of the Union trembles.

When I called for solidarity approximately a year ago, I did so from a place of gratitude toward Ireland. I have built my legal career in a jurisdiction where speaking openly about the structure of the justice system carries no professional peril. That freedom should never be taken for granted.

The anniversary of that article is not a celebration. It is a reminder.

The reason it remains relevant is precisely because the underlying tensions have not fully resolved. Hungary continues to negotiate its rule-of-law position within the EU. Ireland continues to function within a comparatively stable constitutional culture.

The contrast endures.

A Personal Reflection

Living between two legal cultures has taught me something simple but profound: institutions do not collapse overnight. They shift gradually. Language changes. Governance structures evolve. Appointments accumulate. Norms bend.

Then, one day, people look around and realise that what once felt unshakeable now feels fragile.

Ireland’s judiciary enjoys public confidence because independence has been normalised. Hungary’s judiciary faces scrutiny because independence has become politicised.

The lesson for both countries is the same. Judicial independence is not self-executing. It is defended daily — by judges who insist on integrity, by lawyers who speak plainly, and by citizens who understand that courts are the last quiet guardians of rights.

A year on, my position has not changed. Solidarity is not interference. It is recognition that the rule of law is a shared European inheritance.

And inheritances, as every good lawyer knows, must be carefully protected — or they quietly diminish. 

Cover photo: Petra Polonkai

For more insights on Central European political risk, EU institutional developments, and transatlantic relations, follow CEA Magazine and the CEA Talk podcast.

Support independent analysis and journalism at CEA Magazine: https://centraleuropeanaffairs.com/donation