The Article 7 procedure concerning Hungary, which has been ongoing since 2018, focuses on serious breaches of the EU’s fundamental values, covering several rule of law and human rights issues not addressed by other EU procedures. The new government of Hungary has made several welcome commitments to address the systemic problems that have developed over the past decade and a half in the areas covered by the procedure, but addressing these properly is a longer-term process. In order to make an informed decision on whether the threat to the EU’s fundamental values has been removed, it will be necessary to examine not only legislative changes but also their practical implementation.

The procedure under Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union may be initiated to determine whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. These fundamental values of the EU include respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. With regard to Hungary, the Article 7 procedure was initiated in 2018 on the proposal of the European Parliament, based on the so-called Sargentini Report. Since the start of the procedure, representatives of the Hungarian government have been heard on numerous occasions in the Council by representatives of the other EU Member States, but no recommendations have been addressed to Hungary, even though the procedure would allow for this. Since 2018, the European Parliament has examined the developments during two comprehensive visits to Hungary; as a result, the Delbos-Corfield Report in 2022 and the Strik Report in 2025 summarised the violations of Article 2.

Meanwhile, other EU proceedings have also been launched in relation to Hungary: the European Commission has launched numerous infringement proceedings on the grounds that Hungary has violated EU law, and in several cases the Court of Justice of the European Union has already ruled that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law; in 2022, the conditionality mechanism was launched to protect the EU budget; and access to EU funds has been tied to conditions in other ways as well due to various issues related to corruption, the rule of law, and human rights. Nevertheless, the Article 7 procedure continues to play an important role, in part because it covers areas not addressed by other EU procedures or that cannot be addressed within the framework of other EU procedures, and it provides an opportunity to issue recommendations before sanctions are imposed.

Hungarian civil society organisations have been monitoring the developments related to the procedure from the outset, and over the past seven years have on several occasions compiled analyses highlighting the shortcomings that persist in various areas, as well as the government’s successive actions that violate and threaten the rule of law and human rights. In addition, they have formulated detailed recommendations to improve the situation. The General Affairs Council, where representatives of the Member States also discuss developments related to the Article 7 procedure, will hold a hearing on the matter at its next meeting on 16 June 2026. Below, we therefore briefly review the areas covered by the procedure and the changes that are expected or desirable in relation to them.

At the outset, it is important to note that the past four governmental terms have led to systemic deficiencies in the relevant areas that cannot be resolved overnight. It must also be emphasized that these problems can only be resolved in a truly satisfactory and long-term manner if the steps taken toward a solution are accompanied by respect for EU values and EU law, as well as international standards, and a genuine commitment to their enforcement – an indicator of this could be, for example, the proper implementation of the judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is also essential to involve stakeholders in decision-making, to conduct broad professional and public consultations, and to reach decisions in a transparent process, breaking with the practices of recent years. It must also be taken into account that the institutional system left to us by the previous governing majority is burdened with structural problems, the system of checks and balances lies in ruins, and changes must take place in an environment that currently still lacks the organisational and personal guarantees of institutional independence that must be established to ensure the stability of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. This is particularly important because the new government also holds a two-thirds (constitutional) majority in the Parliament: in the long term, democratic governance cannot rely solely on the self-restraint of the political majority in power; it requires lasting institutional safeguards.

During the election campaign, the TISZA party highlighted numerous issues in the areas covered also by the Article 7 procedure, including the system of checks and balances, the fight against corruption, the independence of the judiciary, and the shortcomings of the electoral system; and the new government has made forward-looking promises in many areas that are to be welcomed from the perspective of the rule of law and human rights. However, the few weeks that have passed since the new government was formed have naturally not been sufficient for these promises to take shape in concrete measures, and detailed proposals and solutions still need to be developed in many areas. Furthermore, while the creation of a new regulatory environment is an extremely important step, it is only the beginning: only the practical application of the rules can highlight potential shortcomings, thereby providing an opportunity for correction as well. As the practical problems related to the results of the judicial reform implemented to gain access to EU funds also demonstrate, evaluating how the rules are applied in practice is essential.

Although positive developments may, hopefully, make it possible to close the Article 7 procedure in the foreseeable future, Member States currently do not have, nor can they have, sufficient information to make an informed decision on the fate of the procedure at the Council’s June meeting; it would be premature to decide on this matter at this stage. This is not merely a formality: just as with the conditions of accessing EU funds, it is true for the areas covered by the Article 7 procedure as well that resolving the specific, systemic problems identified within this framework will contribute to making our country strong, liveable, safe, and just.