Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration minister confirms Hungary's blocking of Kyiv's EU accession process
Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration and Minister of Justice, has stated that Hungary has used the principle of unanimity in EU enlargement decisions to block Ukraine's progress on the path to accession.
Source: Stefanishyna in a comment to European Pravda
Details: Stefanishyna briefly spoke about the problems encountered in the accession process during a public discussion at the Ukrainian Lunch organised by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation in Munich.
Quote: "As we speak here, one member state is blocking Ukraine's accession process to the EU – it happened just yesterday."
More details: At first, Stefanishyna did not provide any additional information. Later, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Stefanishyna admitted that it was Hungary.
Earlier, Polish broadcaster RMF 24 had reported, citing sources, that the Hungarians had blocked the opening of the first negotiation cluster.
Quote: "Indeed, our counterparts from [EU] member states have informed us that the representatives of the EU countries failed to approve an official invitation to Ukraine to open the first cluster of negotiations on EU accession. Hungary is reported to be demanding that the list of conditions imposed on Ukraine be expanded."
More details: Ukraine and the EU are preparing to enter the practical phase of negotiations, beginning with the opening of the Fundamentals cluster. Under the standard EU enlargement process, a candidate country must first agree with Brussels on two roadmaps: one for the rule of law, including human rights, and another for public administration reform. The implementation of these roadmaps will shape Ukraine's overall progress in the negotiations.
Hungary is demanding that the EU include a third requirement in Ukraine's accession process – a plan for the protection of national minorities.
This disagreement has completely stalled progress on starting negotiations, as no further decisions can be made without opening the Fundamentals.
It remains unclear how long the delay may last. When asked by European Pravda, Stefanishyna declined to make any predictions.
"We hope that the process will be unblocked shortly, but for now, we are waiting for details and are ready to explain what steps Kyiv is already taking in cooperation with the Hungarian minority," she said.
Background: Earlier, the EU stated that Ukraine can open all negotiations clusters by the year's end.
Support UP or become our patron!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zelensky calls on West to slash Russian oil price cap in half as strikes on Ukraine escalate
The price cap on Russian oil should be cut from $60 to $30 per barrel in order to pressure Moscow to declare a ceasefire, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in his evening address on June 10. Zelensky's comments come after the European Commission unveiled its 18th package of sanctions against Russia, including a proposed reduction in the oil price cap from $60 to $45 per barrel. The proposed EU sanctions are a step in "the right direction," Zelensky said, but stronger measures are needed. "Russia's ability to continue the war is equal to its ability to sell its oil and bypass financial barriers," the president said. "That is why it is necessary ... to do everything possible to keep the price of Russian oil lower than they can withstand. Each of the partners knows what price cap is needed — $30, no higher. Such a price level will mean real pressure on Russia – they should be forced to seek peace." The current price cap on Russian oil was introduced by the Group of Seven (G7) and EU in December 2022 as a mechanism to limit the Kremlin's ability to finance the full-scale war in Ukraine. The measure bans Western companies from shipping, insuring, or otherwise servicing Russian oil sold above $60 per barrel. The EU planned to discuss further cuts to the price cap at a G7 summit in May, but the U.S. reportedly blocked the proposal, according to the Financial Times (FT). EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on June 10 that the amendments to the price cap proposed in the new sanctions package will be discussed at the G7 summit to be held on June 15-17. Zelensky called the EU's proposed cap of $45-per-barrel a "compromise price." "Enough compromises with Russia. Every such compromise is a postponement of peace. We are asking for a real reduction in the price of Russian oil, which would bring us closer to ending the war," he said. Russia's attacks on Ukraine are escalating, Zelensky said, necessitating the urgent need for stronger international pressure and tightened economic restrictions. "It is vital that there is no silence in response to the Russian escalation, and it is obvious that there is an escalation," he said. "Russia has been steadily increasing the number of lethal weapons in strikes for months now." The president's comments come after Russia launched one of the largest aerial attacks against Kyiv throughout the full-scale war. The night before, Ukrainian air defense forces shot down 479 Russian drones and missiles in a record-breaking strike. Read also: As Russia inches closer to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, new Ukrainian region might soon be at war We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
US Seeks to Halt Abrego Garcia Deportation Case After His Return
Days after Kilmar Abrego Garcia was brought back to the US to face human smuggling charges, the Trump administration asked a federal court to halt a lawsuit seeking answers over why the US hadn't facilitated his return following his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. Justice Department lawyers said Tuesday that the US complied with the Supreme Court's order when Abrego Garcia was returned on June 6 to face federal charges. Abrego Garcia's lawyers had said the US should still be held to account for stonewalling since his March 15 removal.
