Summary

• The European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, has made a career in Brussels out of corruption, impropriety, bias and incompetence.
• Ursula von der Leyen did not have the courage to fire Orbán’s man in Brussels after the fall of the Hungarian regime (even after evidence of Várhelyi’s pro-Russian espionage activities were revealed).
• Várhelyi has withheld evidence about his wife’s identity and professional activities.
• Imola Várhelyiné Horváth, Olivér Várhelyi’s wife, has been working as an advisor in the European Parliament to 11 MEPs from the far-right Patriots for Europe party.
• Imola’s experience is on health and pharmaceuticals, competencies her husband does not have, even though he is managing the brief for European health policies.
• The European Parliament did not require revealing this information under its transparency rules. Olivér Várhelyi only partially acknowledged this information via a recent discrete update in his declaration of interests file.
• The ethical violations of this conflict of interest signal several transgressions in the European Commission’s Code of Conduct and a weakness in enforcement.

“I know women!”

The European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, has long had a problem with women. His views on abortion and women’s rights are so out of step with the norms of society that the only way his Commissioner nomination could be confirmed was if his mandate on safeguarding sexual and reproductive health rights were to be removed from his portfolio (as well as the important post of Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority).

Olivér Várhelyi was a person no one in Brussels wanted as Commissioner, was the least competent person possible to govern on health issues, but given the situation between Brussels and the Orbán government in Budapest in 2024, was probably the best case scenario.

As a reminder, Politico captured the enthusiasm in the room during the European Parliament’s confirmation hearings:

“His claim to understand women’s rights well, given that he is “subject to it every year,” was the most mind-bending moment of the night. Várhelyi also invoked his wife and three daughters as proof of his allyship, to predictable groans.”

As he mentioned his wife, we need to then ask: Who is Mrs Várhelyi? The European Commissioner has worked hard to keep her existence a secret. Was this to perhaps fit some chauvinistic prescription of the role of a wife in some extreme conservative view of family values. Or was there something else going on?

I have grown to not trust Commissioner Várhelyi, his competence or his decisions, so this blind spot deserved closer attention.

Hiding in Plain Sight

While Olivér Várhelyi has tried to hide his wife from public scrutiny, it was not too hard to find her. In Hungarian naming tradition, the suffix “-né” added to a man’s name means “wife of.” So a simple search for the name “Várhelyiné” produced a person active in Brussels for the last two decades with the name: Imola Várhelyiné Horváth, or rather, “Imola Horváth, wife of Várhelyi.”

And from that, it was not difficult to find that Imola was working in the European Parliament as an advisor to at least 11 Hungarian MEPs from the far-right Patriots for Europe party, the third largest party in the EP.  

Imola has been an accredited assistant since at least 2024. There is very little information on what she had done before her husband first became European Commissioner or head of the Hungarian Permanent Representation Office (the equivalent of an embassy for EU Member States) in Brussels. But in the European Parliament, she is a group advisor (one of only three experts) preparing briefs and research for the 11 far-right Hungarian MEPs listed in the image above.

According to the European Parliament, accredited parliamentary assistants “are chosen by a Member or a group of Members and employed under a direct contract with the European Parliament. They are based on Parliament’s premises, in one of its three places of work – Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg – and assist Members directly in their work, under their direction and authority and on a basis of mutual trust.”

While Imola has a contract with the European Parliament, she is employed directly by the Hungarian members of the Patriots for Europe party, we can assume, just after the election in May, 2024. These MEPs are members of the Fidesz party that had governed Hungary during the Orbán years, as is Imola’s husband, Olivér Várhelyi.

Transparency? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Olivér Várhelyi has never mentioned his wife’s name in any statements or declarations of interest. Was he protecting her … or himself? At the same time, we need to ask whether Imola Várhelyiné Horváth declared her relationship in the European Parliament transparency records.

This was not required because European Parliament transparency rules do not demand that staff or assistants publicly declare their marital status or family relationships. An MEP cannot hire close relatives, but an advisor married to a European Commissioner seems to not be an issue, even if this person was advising 11 MEPs. The Anti-Nepotism Shield in the European Parliament does not apply here.

Nor did any nepotism shield apply when the Várhelyis both worked in the Hungarian Permanent Representation Office in Brussels, already as husband and wife. But was she just a “mere assistant”? What did Imola do? What was her area of expertise? How important was her advice?

The Home-based Health Advisor

In piecing together the breadcrumbs of what is Imola Várhelyiné Horváth’s professional career (they really tried to scrub the Internet clean), the first evidence was a 2007 listing by the European Council of all of the members of all of the Permanent Representation Office in Brussels. There we found both Imola and Olivér.

There are two valuable nuggets here. Imola is a doctor (PhD or physician) managing the health and social security briefs during the early years of the Hungarian membership to the European Union. Husband Olivér, a lawyer, was attached to the legal service. This is not enough, on its own, to assume that Imola has an expertise in health matters.

Fast forward a few years and we learn that Imola had worked for a pharmaceutical company in Brussels in 2010s and that she was considered quite influential. See a rough translation of a quote from an article in Direkt36 (March, 2025) on the rise of Péter Magyar and his split from the governing Fidesz party in Hungary.

“Here, his career began to take off, partly thanks to his wife. Magyar told Direkt36 that his wife (RM’s note: Judit Varga, the real power in the relationship, later became Hungarian Justice Minister), who held an assistant position in the EP, also dealt with public health issues, and through this he met a woman representing a pharmaceutical company, who turned out to be the wife of current European Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, who was already working in influential positions in Brussels at the time. Not only the two women, but later their husbands also became friends. Thus, after Várhelyi left the European Commission at the end of the Hungarian EU presidency and became the second person in the Cabinet, he chose Magyar as his chief of staff.”

Now the story of the present Hungarian leader, Péter Magyar and the spicy rise and fall of his bromance with Olivér Várhelyi between 2011 and 2015 is worth an article in itself (especially as their ambitions collided and spies started showing up in the Hungarian Permanent Representation Office where Olivér hired Péter as his chief of staff), but that satirical piece will have to wait for another time.

What is important to know from this passage was that in 2011, Imola was an influential person in Brussels working for a pharmaceutical company, was a doctor and had been a health attaché in the Hungarian Permanent Representation Office.

Lying … or Just Not Telling the Truth?

For the Parliamentary hearings to confirm his post as Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare in 2024, it is curious to note that Várhelyi’s declaration of interests does not mention that his wife had any profession.

This declaration of interests was submitted to the European Parliament for his hearing to ratify his nomination as European Commissioner. It is important to note that the candidate declared that his wife, with a PhD and high-level experience as a health policy expert at both government and industry levels, had zero professional activity.

The worst part is that he got away with it. Since no one knew of her name or identity, no one bothered to follow this claim up. This was a sad indictment of the low level of research within the European Parliament during the European Commissioner confirmation process.

And the 11 Hungarian MEPs for the Patriots for Europe party, who would be meeting with Mrs Várhelyi on a daily basis, decided to overlook this blatant misstatement in the nominee’s declaration of interests. Sweet!

But 17 months later, the European Commission quietly released an update to his declaration of interests. It seems he was advised on the risks of not declaring his wife’s professional activity, without actually declaring the identity of his wife. For six months this information has been hiding in plain sight.

This statement, without stating very much, confirmed that Imola Várhelyiné Horváth must indeed be the name of his wife. I wrote the Commissioner’s cabinet to officially confirm their relationship, but received no reply.

Some, like Manfred Weber, would want to say: “So what. The Commissioner’s wife is entitled to work and her position as a parliamentary assistant is not breaking any laws”. But we need to consider the ethical ramifications from such a situation. The fact that they tried to keep her identity a secret confirms their acknowledgement of some impropriety.

Pillow Talk

Why is this conjugal conspiracy an ethical issue?

When a husband and wife share similar professional interests (Imola with a long history of involvement in healthcare and pharmaceutical policy and Olivér being the European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare) it is quite clear that at the end of the day, their conversations won’t simply be about the weather.

• Imola will certainly have access to information outside of the normal public briefing process which she would then use to advise her 11 MEPs and the entire Patriots for Europe political party.
• What about official European Commission missions to meet with health stakeholders and interest groups that Imola may join in a spousal role? Will these stakeholders be aware of the political group she represents?
• She may have access to high-level meetings without having to disclose that she is an advisor to a large number of Patriots for Europe MEPs.

Some, like Manfred Weber, might want to argue: “In such situations, all Imola would need to do is recuse herself given the potential conflict of interest.” Perhaps, but that would imply that Imola or the Commissioner would identify herself as the wife, or as an advisor to 11 far-right MEPs. They did not.

It is Imola’s responsibility, as an advisor employed by the European Parliament, to share the best advice available to her Patriots for Europe MEPs. In other words, the third largest group in the European Parliament has potential access to inside information on EU health policy at the highest level.

That river of corruption flows in both directions.

The Patriots for Europe MEPs do not have to wait for the European Commission to officially propose health regulations for the European Parliament to approve. Imola is the best inside lobbyist these MEPs could ever dream of. Every day, MEPs can package talking points to be subtly slipped into some innocent pillow talk with the European Commissioner for Health. Given they share political ideologies (Olivér is a die-hard Fidesz Orbánist politician in line with the Patriots for Europe dogma), the influence would not need to be too manipulative or distorted.

This is even more troubling when we accept that the present European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, a lawyer, does not know very much about health issues. For example, he actually claimed that nicotine (consumed via vaping or nicotine pouches) is a carcinogen and as much of a health hazard as tobacco products. Given that he must be aware that his ignorance risks becoming a personal embarrassment, he likely relies on the healthcare expertise available to him within his own household.

Did Imola break any Parliamentary ethical codes? She is “just an assistant” so she did not have to declare anything. This is a weakness within the European Parliament transparency process. It is therefore not only the European Commission that needs to take a closer look at how such ethical issues are managed.

Violating the European Commission Code of Conduct

Olivér Várhelyi’s actions were not ethically correct and the Patriots for Europe MEPs were using the situation to undermine the integrity of the European policy process. But serving at the highest levels of moral standing has never been high up on the former spy-leader’s list of priorities. At the same time, though, his actions have violated the European Commission’s Code of Conduct.

Article 2 states:

6.   Members shall avoid any situation which may give rise to a conflict of interest or which may reasonably be perceived as such. A conflict of interest arises where a personal interest may influence the independent performance of their duties. Personal interests include, but are not limited to, any potential benefit or advantage to Members themselves, their spouses, partners (⁹) or direct family members. 

Article 5 states:

1.   Members shall comply with the duty of loyalty towards the Commission and discretion in discharging their duties. They shall act and express themselves with the restraint that their office requires.
2.   Members shall refrain from disclosing what is said at meetings of the Commission.

There is no doubt of a conflict of interest with Commissioner Várhelyi’s wife’s professional lobbying activities within their home. And there is no way to monitor what confidential information is shared with an advisor to the European Parliament once the lights go out. This is a violation of the European Commission’s Code of Conduct, one that Ursula von der Leyen needs to act upon.

Since the president has repeatedly backed down when faced with previous instances of scandalous behaviour from Olivér Várhelyi, the best we could hope for is that she appoint the Independent Ethical Committee to consider this situation and report back to both the European Commission and the European Parliament. Again, the European Commission’s Code of Conduct (written in the time of Jean-Claude Juncker) states:

4.   The President shall take any measure he considers appropriate, in the light of the information referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) or other available information, if necessary after consultation of the Independent Ethical Committee, such as:

(a)	the reallocation of a file to another Member or to the responsible Vice-President. The President shall inform the President of the European Parliament in due time of any such reallocation;

On the basis of an expected sanction by the Independent Ethical Committee, the President of the European Commission would almost certainly be required to “reallocate” Olivér Várhelyi. Will this happen? von der Leyen has made determined inaction a trademark of her presidency, so my expectations are quite low here.

Corrupt, Biased and Incompetent

In an earlier article, I gave several reasons why European Commission President von der Leyen should fire her beleaguered Health Commissioner. This article’s revelations merely puts one more pebble on the load of good reasons why this relic should be removed from office.

But Ursula von der Leyen chose to not take advantage of the downfall of the Orbán government in Hungary to remove this caustic Commissioner. While she lacked the courage to take a stand, perhaps an ethics investigation and sanctions would be enough to rid Brussels of this final scar of a hard-line regime. Or maybe I am the relic, still thinking in terms of integrity and character.

The best this revelation will probably achieve in a Brussels political climate slowly moving towards a Washington-style populist/demagogic model (with its open tolerance for corruption) is that now we know the identity of Olivér Várhelyi’s secret weapon, and that people who still have respect for the integrity of the policy process will keep their distance from the Várhelyis. In the Age of Leaderlessness, we will likely have to wait for the corrupt Commissioner to finally finish his term and leave the stage into some ignobled obscurity (… and let his wife’s career finally shine).