ECHR Lawyers for Cases Against Hungary

Hungary has become one of the most active respondent states before the European Court of Human Rights in recent years. As concerns about judicial independence, the rule of law, media freedom and asylum rights have intensified, so too has the volume of ECHR litigation involving Hungarian authorities. Our ECHR lawyers advise individuals, journalists, NGOs and asylum seekers on potential violations of their Convention rights at the hands of Hungarian state bodies, providing expert guidance on domestic proceedings, exhaustion of remedies, and applications to the European Court.

Hungary’s Profile at the European Court of Human Rights

Hungary ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1992. Since then — and especially since 2010, when the political landscape changed dramatically — the number of ECHR applications against Hungary and the proportion resulting in findings of violations have both increased significantly. The Court has found violations against Hungary in cases involving arbitrary detention, judicial independence, asylum seeker rights, freedom of expression and media freedom, access to information, and surveillance.

Hungary has been subject to both individual judgments and findings that require structural reform. The Committee of Ministers, which supervises the execution of ECHR judgments, has a substantial caseload of unexecuted Hungarian judgments — a sign that systemic problems remain insufficiently addressed at the domestic level.

Rule of Law and Judicial Independence

Perhaps the most high-profile Article 6 case against Hungary involved the removal of a senior judge. In Baka v Hungary (application no. 20261/12, Grand Chamber 2016), the Court found violations of Article 6(1) and Article 10 after András Baka, the President of the Hungarian Supreme Court, was prematurely removed from his post following constitutional amendments that abolished the court he headed. The Court found that this removal — which appeared designed to silence his public criticism of government judicial reforms — violated both his right of access to a court and his freedom of expression. The case drew widespread attention as a symbol of the Hungarian government’s interference with judicial independence.

Judicial independence concerns have continued to generate ECHR cases. The restructuring of Hungary’s court administration and the creation of the National Judicial Office, which gave the President of the Office extensive powers over judicial appointments and transfers, was challenged in Strasbourg as undermining impartial adjudication. Cases involving judges who were transferred or passed over for promotion in circumstances suggesting executive pressure remain active in the ECHR system.

Asylum and Detention: Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary

One of the most significant ECHR cases against Hungary in recent years concerned the treatment of asylum seekers at Hungary’s transit zones on the Serbian border. Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (application no. 47287/15, Grand Chamber 2019) concerned two Bangladeshi nationals who were held for 23 days in the Röszke transit zone before being returned to Serbia. The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 3, holding that Hungarian authorities had failed to carry out a rigorous assessment of the risks the applicants would face upon return to Serbia — including whether Serbia’s asylum system offered adequate protection against refoulement to their country of origin.

The case is significant because it addressed the practice of pushbacks and returns to “safe third countries” without adequate individual assessment — a practice that Hungary had institutionalised through legislation defining Serbia as a safe third country through which asylum seekers had transited. The Court held that the mere classification of a transit state as “safe” does not relieve Hungary of its obligation to assess each case individually.

Hungary’s asylum system has continued to generate ECHR litigation. The virtual closure of Hungary’s asylum procedure to those arriving via Serbia, the systematic use of detention for asylum seekers, and the conditions in which asylum seekers are held have all been subjects of applications to the Court. For the latest developments on Article 5 detention rights, see our Article 5 page.

Surveillance and Privacy: Szabó and Vissy v Hungary

In Szabó and Vissy v Hungary (application no. 37138/14, 2016), the Court found that Hungary’s anti-terrorism surveillance law violated Article 8. The legislation authorised secret surveillance of anyone who might be connected to a security threat, without any requirement of a reasonable suspicion that the specific individual had committed or was planning an offence, without meaningful judicial control, and without any notification obligation. The Court found these provisions too broad and insufficiently safeguarded to satisfy Article 8’s requirements of lawfulness, necessity and proportionality. The case is a leading authority on the standards that surveillance legislation must meet under the Convention.

Freedom of Expression and Media Freedom in Hungary

Hungary’s media landscape has been a significant area of ECHR concern. The concentration of media ownership in hands sympathetic to the government, the withdrawal of advertising from independent outlets, the revocation of broadcast licences, and legislative measures restricting press freedom have all generated Article 10 litigation.

In Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary (application no. 18030/11, Grand Chamber 2016), the Court found a violation of Article 10 after a leading human rights NGO was refused access to public information — specifically, information about public defenders’ case statistics — that it needed for a research report. The Grand Chamber significantly expanded the scope of the right to access to information under Article 10, holding that the right to receive information is a genuine component of Article 10 and can impose positive obligations on states where information is essential to the exercise of the watchdog function.

The revocation of the broadcasting licence of Klubrádió — one of the last independent radio stations in Hungary — also reached the ECHR. The Court found violations of Article 10 in the non-transparent and discriminatory manner in which the media authority had denied the station’s licence renewal, effectively silencing a critical voice. For our full guidance on freedom of expression cases, see our Article 10 page.

Exhausting Domestic Remedies in Hungary

Before bringing an application to the European Court of Human Rights against Hungary, applicants must exhaust all available and effective domestic remedies. The Hungarian court hierarchy is as follows:

• First instance: District or Regional courts (járásbíróság / törvényszék), depending on subject matter.
• Appeal: Regional Courts of Appeal (Ítélőtábla) or Regional courts acting as appeal courts.
• Cassation: The Kúria (Supreme Court of Hungary) — Hungary’s highest court in the ordinary court hierarchy.
• Constitutional review: The Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court) — available for constitutional complaints where fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law are at issue.

In practice, whether a complaint to the Constitutional Court is required depends on the nature of the case. Where the Kúria has addressed the matter and no constitutional rights issue remains unresolved, an ECtHR application may be submitted. Where a constitutional complaint has prospects of success, it must generally be pursued first. Our lawyers analyse exhaustion requirements carefully on a case-by-case basis. For full guidance, see our guide to filing a complaint to the ECHR.

How Our ECHR Lawyers Help with Hungarian Cases

Our team advises on the full range of Convention violations involving Hungary: asylum and migration cases, detention and liberty, freedom of expression and media freedom, judicial independence and fair trial, surveillance and privacy, and discrimination. We have experience preparing applications against Hungary involving both individual violations and systemic issues requiring structural reform.

We advise at every stage: from initial assessment of whether a violation has occurred and what domestic remedies remain to be exhausted, through the preparation of an ECHR application, to representation before the Court. We work with Hungarian legal experts where domestic proceedings are ongoing and take over for the Strasbourg stage. Our lawyers advise in English, German, Russian, and other languages to ensure full understanding throughout the process.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it still possible to bring a case against Hungary given the rule-of-law issues?

Yes. Hungary remains a Council of Europe member state bound by the Convention. The ECHR continues to accept and adjudicate cases against Hungary, and the Court has issued findings of violation against Hungary at a high rate in recent years. While the execution of judgments by Hungary has been uneven, judgments of the Court remain binding on Hungary and are supervised by the Committee of Ministers. ECHR proceedings remain a meaningful avenue for redress.

I am an asylum seeker who was detained at the Hungarian border. Can I bring a case?

Possibly, yes. If you were held in a transit zone or immigration detention facility in Hungary, or if you were returned to a country where you faced a risk of persecution without an adequate individual assessment of your case, you may have claims under Articles 3 and 5. The time limit is four months from the date of the final relevant act. Contact our lawyers as soon as possible to assess your case.

Do I need to go to the Constitutional Court before applying to Strasbourg?

It depends. A constitutional complaint to the Alkotmánybíróság is required if it has a reasonable prospect of success — that is, if the Basic Law provision under which you seek review offers meaningful protection for the right at issue. In many fundamental rights cases, constitutional review is required. However, in cases where the Constitutional Court has already definitively ruled against similar claims, pursuing it would be futile and need not be exhausted. Our lawyers advise on this analysis for each specific case.