Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's government issued an emergency decree that directly terminates ongoing court cases and strips Budapest of its right to judicial review, marking what legal experts describe as the formal end of separation of powers in Hungary.
The Government Decree 15/2026, published overnight on February 3rd, declares that disputes over the government's "solidarity contribution" tax—a levy forcing Budapest to pay billions to the central government—"cannot be subject to litigation." The decree goes further, ordering courts to immediately dismiss all pending cases, including Budapest's ongoing administrative lawsuit challenging the tax's legality.
The government justified the measure by citing an emergency situation, though critics note Hungary has been under continuous "state of emergency" since 2020, a status that grants the executive branch extraordinary powers to bypass parliament and override normal legal processes.
Krisztina Baranyi, mayor of Budapest's Ferencváros district, told Klubrádió that "such a boundary has been crossed that this might be the beginning of the end. The separation of powers has officially ceased with this government decree." She added that Budapest now has "no legal tools remaining" to challenge central government decisions.
The decree's most controversial provision applies retroactively to cases already in progress, a move constitutional law experts describe as unprecedented in post-communist Hungary. The opposition Tisza Party's Budapest caucus issued a statement declaring the measure leaves the capital "without any legal recourse" against what they characterize as financially punitive actions by the central government.
In Hungary, as across the region, national sovereignty and European integration exist in constant tension. But this latest development transcends the familiar narrative of Budapest-versus-Brussels disputes. What occurred Monday night was the government using emergency powers to shut down domestic judicial review—not of EU regulations, but of its own citizens' constitutional challenges.
The "solidarity contribution" at the heart of the dispute requires Budapest and other municipalities to transfer substantial revenues to the central government, ostensibly for national redistribution. Opposition-led Budapest, under mayor Gergely Karácsony, has argued the levy is financially crippling and potentially unconstitutional, deliberately targeting Hungary's largest city for political reasons.
Rather than allow courts to adjudicate these claims, the government has now declared them non-justiciable by executive fiat. The decree states that if Budapest fails to pay within 15 days of the court dismissals, the State Treasury will automatically seize the funds.
Government sources, speaking on background, defended the measure as necessary to ensure municipalities fulfill their legal obligations and maintain fiscal stability during the emergency period. They emphasized that the solidarity contribution was established by law and that Budapest's refusal to pay constitutes obstruction of legitimate state functions.
Opposition legal analysts, however, note that the Kádár-era communist government employed similar decree-based governance to bypass parliamentary oversight. One widely-shared historical analysis on social media drew explicit parallels between current practices and the "decree governance" of Hungary's single-party era, when the Presidential Council issued legally-binding decrees that parliament merely rubber-stamped.
"From now on, every exam, every legal qualification test, should teach that in Hungary, the separation of powers has officially ended," wrote the satirical legal commentary page Diétás Magyar Múzsa. "Not just that prosecutors are appointed to head courts—like Zsolt Andor to the Constitutional Court or Zsuzsa Senyei to the Curia—but that Viktor Orbán, as prime minister, terminates lawsuits by government decree."
The move arrives as the European Commission continues its Article 7 procedure against Hungary over rule-of-law concerns, a process that could theoretically suspend Hungary's voting rights in EU decision-making. Brussels has repeatedly withheld billions in pandemic recovery funds and cohesion funding, citing judicial independence deficits and corruption risks.
EU officials privately acknowledge, however, that the Article 7 mechanism has proven largely toothless. Hungary continues to block sanctions and policy decisions it opposes, while the Orbán government maintains strong domestic support among voters who view such confrontations as defense of Hungarian sovereignty against foreign interference.
Domestic opposition parties face their own strategic dilemma. The Tisza Party, led by Péter Magyar and currently polling competitively with Fidesz, must balance sharp criticism of authoritarian overreach with appeals to voters who supported the government's nationalist positions. Magyar has announced a 56-day campaign blitz visiting all 106 electoral districts, framing the April elections as Hungary's last chance for democratic restoration.
Some legal observers note that Budapest might appeal to EU courts or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, though such proceedings take years and enforcement of judgments depends on government cooperation. The more immediate question is whether Hungarian courts will comply with the decree ordering them to dismiss pending cases—and whether judges are prepared to defy executive orders in defense of judicial independence.
What remains clear is that Monday's decree represents not merely another episode in Hungary's ongoing constitutional tensions, but a formal assertion that executive power supersedes judicial authority when the government deems it necessary. Whether this proves a turning point or simply another step in a long erosion will depend on how institutions, civil society, and ultimately voters respond in the weeks ahead.
