The establishment of the Authority is one of the elements of the country’s new government’s anti-corruption programme and forms part of a broader anti-corruption reform. Earlier, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the powers of the Integrity Authority, tightened asset declaration rules and adopted additional measures to enhance transparency in the use of public funds. The new Act has also been linked to measures aimed at restoring Hungary’s access to previously suspended European Union funding.
The Act was published on 28 July, and its main provisions entered into force on 29 July. Certain provisions will take effect in stages: the rules on fines will apply from 13 August, while a significant part of the amendments enabling the Authority to exercise criminal procedural powers will enter into force on 27 September 2026.
Status and Powers of the Authority
The Authority has been established as an independent central government body with a separate budget. It may not receive instructions from the Government or other public authorities and will report annually to Parliament. It will be headed by a president and four deputies, elected by Parliament by a two-thirds majority for a six-year term without the possibility of reappointment.
The new body will be responsible for protecting and recovering state and municipal assets, budgetary funds, property belonging to state-owned entities, and EU funds.
The Authority will be able to review public procurement procedures, concession agreements, the award of subsidies, the activities of state-owned companies and other transactions involving public assets. Its reviews may cover not only the direct recipients of funds but also related persons, contractual chains and subsequent flows of funds.
The Authority will have the power to request documents and explanations, conduct on-site inspections, copy electronic data and obtain information from public registers. Within the limits established by law, it may also receive information protected by banking, tax and commercial secrecy.
Individuals who obstruct a review may face fines of up to HUF 50 million, while organisations may be fined up to HUF 5 billion.
Where there is a risk that assets may be lost, the Authority will be able to place companies under special supervision. An appointed supervisor will have access to accounting records, accounts and contracts, while certain transactions will require the supervisor’s approval.
The Authority will also be able to bring court proceedings seeking to have transactions declared invalid and unlawfully transferred assets returned.
In addition, the body will have its own investigative and prosecutorial powers. It will be able to investigate offences involving public assets, bring charges, prosecute cases in court and appeal judicial decisions.
Criticism of the Act
Anti-corruption organisations broadly supported the establishment of the Authority, although concerns were raised about the breadth of its powers.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee (Magyar Helsinki Bizottság), a human rights organisation, noted that the Authority’s reviews may significantly affect the rights of individuals and organisations but, in most cases, will not be subject to appeal before an administrative court. The Committee also proposed defining more precisely the categories of persons subject to review and the grounds for placing private companies under supervision.
Some of these comments were taken into account: the final text of the Act contains more detailed conditions for the use of supervision and creates the position of a fundamental rights officer within the Authority. However, independent judicial review of most supervisory measures was not introduced.
Transparency International Hungary welcomed the establishment of the Authority as an important element of efforts to restore the rule of law but pointed to the insufficient development of civil-law mechanisms for asset recovery and safeguards for challenging the new body’s actions or inaction. The organisation also proposed increasing the transparency of centralised procurement data, strengthening whistleblower protection and extending risk assessments beyond contract recipients to cover subsidies, state loans, subcontractors, consortia and framework agreements.
Other experts and politicians noted that such a hybrid institution, combining broad supervisory, investigative, prosecutorial and civil-law powers, is unusual for Hungary and may create risks from a rule-of-law perspective. Concerns were also expressed that the new body could be used for the political persecution of representatives of the former government.