Model change in Hungarian tertiary education
Are the Hungarian tertiary education institutions autonomous, independent entities or are they controlled entirely by the state? This hypothetical question has been asked continuously ever since the democratic transition of Hungary because each government tried to change something about the legal status of Hungarian tertiary education. This year, the government decided on the transformation of the mode of operation of seven Hungarian higher education institutions, which many see as a further reduction in autonomy. In my publication, I deal with this issue and after it is presented briefly, I will bring pro and contra arguments both for and against the transformation of the legal status of concerned Hungarian universities. Read more… (Péter Soltész)
In its judgment in Case C-66/18 Commission v Hungary, delivered on 6 October 2020, the European Court of Justice condemned Hungary for failing to fulfil its obligations under EU law by adopting Law XXV of 2017 amending the Law on national higher education (commonly referred to as “lex CEU”). 
The Erasmus+ Programme, the European Commission’s current programme supporting education, training, youth and sport in Europe, aims to provide a total of €14.7 billion in funding in these policy areas between 2014 and 2020. Since the adoption of the Paris Declaration in 2015, the programme began allocating specific funding to innovative transnational cooperation projects promoting social inclusion. The aim of this note is twofold: firstly, to examine this specific priority and the projects selected for funding in greater detail, and secondly, to explore the potential of other Erasmus+ actions for the facilitation of social inclusion. 
The first appearance of the concept of vulnerable social groups in a European legal context can be traced back to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The expression was originally usedin relation to the Romani minority, however, in later decisions, the forum drew attention to the vulnerability of several different groups – among others, the mentally disabled, people living with HIV and asylum seekers. The recognition of vulnerability simultaneously requires special measures taken to protect the interests of those affected.