A decade without compliance: Baka v. Hungary

Nearly ten years have passed since the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in the Baka v. Hungary case. The judgment requires Hungary to adopt legislative measures guaranteeing the irremovability of judges and protecting their freedom of expression, both essential elements of judicial independence and the rule of law.

Over time, the Baka v. Hungary case has become a striking example of the continued non-execution of ECtHR judgments by Hungary, despite the high stakes for the functioning of a democratic system based on checks and balances.

A notable recent development is the submission of a new Action Plan by the Hungarian government on 27 March 2026, in which legislative amendments are promised. However, this development is problematic: it remains unclear whether the envisaged reforms would address both core issues identified by the ECtHR, namely, the lack of judicial review in the removal of the President of the Kúria and the protection of judges’ freedom of expression. Furthermore, judicial stakeholders do not appear to have been meaningfully involved in the drafting process by the Government, raising serious concerns about the credibility, transparency, and effectiveness of the proposed measures.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has been monitoring the implementation of the judgment in the Baka v. Hungary case for years. Ahead of the upcoming meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in June 2026, supervising the implementation of ECtHR judgments, we submitted, once again, a communication showing the deficiencies of the implementation.

Our latest communication to the Committee of Ministers presents, among others:

• concrete examples of retaliation against judges for expressing critical opinions, highlighting the persistence of systemic pressure within the judiciary;
• developments related to the TISZA application data leak, including the initiation of proceedings against judges by court leaders and by private individuals; and
• public statements by political actors portraying judges as politically biased or engaged in political activity, thereby undermining their independence and contributing to a chilling effect on judicial freedom of expression.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s submission, which also includes recommendations, is available here: Rule 9(2) communication in the Baka v. Hungary case (11 April 2026)