Since returning to power in 2010, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government has systematically reshaped Hungary’s judiciary, concentrating administrative control and eroding institutional independence. Legal reforms, selective appointments, and weakened disciplinary oversight have allowed the ruling Fidesz party to extend influence over the courts — a development critics say undermines free elections, press freedom, and citizens’ access to impartial justice.
Controversial appointments and EU scrutiny
A central figure in this system is Supreme Court (Kúria) President András Zs. Varga, appointed in 2020 after legislative changes enabled his promotion. In 2022, Hungary’s National Judicial Council reported procedural violations in several Kúria appointments, later corroborated by the Helsinki Committee. The European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report cited growing public concern over judicial independence and linked the issue directly to risks for democratic integrity. EU Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath publicly warned in July 2025 that the politicization of Hungary’s judiciary threatens fair elections.
Attempts to reshape the judicial structure
Orbán’s long-standing ambition to control politically sensitive cases resurfaced in 2018–2019, when his government sought to establish a separate system of administrative courts overseeing election disputes, public procurement, and tax cases. The Venice Commission cautioned that the legislation lacked safeguards against political influence. Although the plan was officially shelved, subsequent reforms retained mechanisms allowing administrative intervention in high-profile cases, sustaining the risk of pro-government rulings in electoral or regulatory disputes.
Judicial rulings and election outcomes
The impact of judicial decisions on politics was evident during the 2024 Budapest mayoral election. On July 6, Hungary’s Constitutional Court overturned a Kúria ruling as unconstitutional; two days later, the Supreme Court ordered a full recount of valid votes. While the opposition candidate’s victory stood, the sequence exposed how court interventions can shape perceptions of electoral legitimacy.
Corruption and political ties in judicial enforcement
The “Schadl–Völner” corruption case highlighted the nexus between judicial administration and political patronage. Investigators alleged that former Justice Ministry State Secretary Pál Völner accepted at least €211,000 in cash bribes from György Schadl, head of the Chamber of Judicial Officers, in exchange for favorable appointments. Testimonies also described attempts to pressure or remove judges deemed “inconvenient,” revealing deep entanglement between corruption networks and court management.
Pressure within disciplinary justice and media restrictions
Within disciplinary courts — meant to safeguard judicial independence — senior judges including Kúria President Varga and appellate leaders Katalin Éva Farkas and Dávid Éliás faced internal criticism and politicized attacks. Lower courts have also used privacy laws to restrict media scrutiny of government-linked figures: in 2019, the Kúria ruled that Orbán’s son-in-law István Tiborcz was “not a public figure,” blocking publication of an interview. In 2020, courts forced Forbes Hungary to retract an issue and banned an investigation into Hell Energy, citing EU data protection rules — moves condemned by international watchdogs as misuse of GDPR to stifle free expression.
Eroding checks and democratic integrity
The accumulation of such practices — from disciplinary intimidation to selective censorship — demonstrates a coordinated system of judicial control. When the Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional a judge’s referral to the EU Court of Justice, and the Constitutional Court must later overturn its electoral rulings, the balance of power collapses. Orbán’s calibrated mechanisms — personnel exceptions, judicial bans, and administrative leverage — enable interference even after votes are cast, turning the judiciary into a post-election instrument of control. For voters, this means the independence of Hungary’s courts is no longer a reputational issue but a direct threat to electoral fairness.
