Cross-Border Acknowledgment V- Education as Compliance Infrastructure — How EU Rule-of-Law Conditionality Governs Hungarian Universities.

Abstract Cross-Border Acknowledgment V: Education as Compliance Infrastructure — How EU Rule-of-Law Conditionality Governs Hungarian Universities argues that, in Hungary, higher education has been repurposed as a delivery mechanism for EU rule-of-law conditionality rather than a self-standing system of academic governance. Building on the Semmelweis University case documented in the Administrative Obstruction in EU Medical Education I–VI series, Cross- Border Acknowledgment of Academic Obstruction and Gatekeeper of Rights I–III, the article shows how the collapse of domestic remedies under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights creates a vacuum that is increasingly filled ex post by EU budget conditionality, Erasmus+ mobility restrictions and accreditation-based trust mechanisms.^1–^6 At the micro level, the Semmelweis dossier records denial of access to compulsory anatomy dissection based on unwritten “signature revocation” rules, containerized anatomy and over- enrolment, degraded cadaveric specimens, unstructured oral examinations, and problematic student-data practices, including a live SharePoint spreadsheet linking names, Neptun IDs, and internal status labels—all in a heavily international, fee-paying medical programme.^3,^4,^37,^39,^42,^44 These practices breach both the university’s own Study and Examination Regulations and basic European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for fair assessment, adequate resources, and transparent information management.^14,^19 At the meso level, the article shows how Hungary’s institutional remedies—Semmelweis University, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Ombudsman, case EBF–AJBH–309– 2025), the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH, case J- 427-3/2025), the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (MAB/477-4/2025) and the Administrative Court (7.Kpk.750.239/2025/2)—produce what the series terms a Passive Institutional Perceptive Engagement Record (PIPER): each body acknowledges the dispute and cites the correct legal framework, but none issues a merits-based decision on equal treatment, educational rights or data protection.^2–^6,^18 At the macro level, the article situates this micro-evidence within EU rule-of-law conditionality: Regulation 2020/2092 and Council Implementing Decision 2022/2506 linking cohesion-policy and Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds to “super-milestones” on judicial independence, anti-corruption, and academic-freedom safeguards; continued Erasmus+/Horizon restrictions for foundation-run universities; and the Commission’s handling of Standard Complaint No. 86019, which logs the Semmelweis case as rights-relevant but defers to a structurally deficient domestic system.^8–^10,^12,^13,^36摘要 《跨境认可V：作为合规基础设施的教育——欧盟法治制约如何规制匈牙利高校》一文提出，在匈牙利，高等教育已被重新定位为欧盟法治制约的执行机制，而非独立的学术治理体系。该文基于《欧盟医学教育中的行政阻挠I–VI》《学术阻挠跨境认可与权利守门人I–III》系列研究中记录的塞梅维什大学（Semmelweis University）案例，阐明了欧盟《基本权利宪章》第47条项下国内救济途径的失效如何造成制度真空，并日益由欧盟预算制约、伊拉斯谟+（Erasmus+）流动限制及基于认证的信任机制事后填补^1–^6。 在微观层面，塞梅维什大学的相关卷宗记录了该大学针对付费制国际化医学项目所实施的一系列违规行为：基于不成文“签名撤销”规则拒绝学生参与强制解剖实习、实施模块化解剖教学与超额招生、尸体标本质量下降、口试形式随意、学生数据管理存在漏洞——包括使用实时更新的SharePoint电子表格记录学生姓名、内普顿编号（Neptun IDs）及内部状态标签^3,^4,^37,^39,^42,^44。上述行为既违反了该校自身的《学习与考试条例》，也违背了公平评估、资源充足与信息管理透明化方面的欧洲标准与指南（ESG）^14,^19。 在中观层面，该文阐明了匈牙利的制度性救济途径如何产生本系列研究所称的“被动制度性感知参与记录（PIPER）”：塞梅维什大学、基本权利专员（监察员，案件编号EBF–AJBH–309–2025）、国家数据保护与信息自由局（NAIH，案件编号J-427-3/2025）、匈牙利认证委员会（MAB/477-4/2025）及行政法院（案号7.Kpk.750.239/2025/2）均承认存在相关争议并援引了正确的法律框架，但无一就平等待遇、教育权利或数据保护作出基于案情实质的裁决^2–^6,^18。 在宏观层面，该文将上述微观证据置于欧盟法治制约的整体框架下进行分析：《条例（EU）2020/2092》与《理事会实施决定（EU）2022/2506》将凝聚政策与复苏与韧性工具（RRF）资金与司法独立、反腐败及学术自由保障的“超级里程碑”挂钩；对基金会运营高校持续实施伊拉斯谟+/地平线计划（Horizon）流动限制；欧盟委员会处理了标准投诉第86019号，该投诉将塞梅维什大学案例认定为涉及权利问题，但却将处置权交由存在结构性缺陷的国内体系处理^8–^10,^12,^13,^36。