Hungarian Parliament to postpone vote on transparency law until after summer recess

“We are removing the transparency law from the legislative committee's agenda for this Thursday, and Parliament will not be making a decision on the matter until after summer, ” Máté Kocsis, the leader of the governing Fidesz party has told Index. The debate on the proposal aimed at silencing the independent press and NGOs is now set to be continued during the Parliament's fall session. According to Kocsis, the faction is united in its conviction that legal measures must be taken to protect sovereignty. However, there is still debate about the specific measures needed.

According to the original plans, the National Assembly would have voted next Wednesday on the proposal presented by Fidesz MP János Halász. The parliamentary factions received the draft agenda for next week's session shortly after noon on Wednesday, and this document still included a vote on the so-called transparency law. Around the same time, however, Kocsis shared a video on his Facebook page in which he said that numerous proposals had been submitted for the draft law that needed to be discussed, and as a result, he was not sure that it would be adopted during the spring session.

A few minutes later, he made a clear statement to the pro-government newspaper Index:

the transparency law would be removed from the agenda of Thursday's legislative committee meeting, and the National Assembly would not vote on the proposal before the summer recess.

Kocsis told the newspaper that the debate on the law would be postponed until the fall to allow time for considering proposals from expert organizations.

The Fidesz faction leader said that they had received comments from the Hungarian Banking Association, the Hungarian Association of Advertising Agencies, the Presidential Palace, the Hungarian Bar Association, and the Hungarian Publishers Association that were worth considering.

Additionally, members of the Fidesz faction have also expressed relevant views; for example, Minister of Construction and Transport, János Lázár said that it is not certain that the legislation will be adopted in its current form. “We are united in our belief that we must take action against any attempts at violating our sovereignty, whether they come from the East or the West.” However, as he said, there is debate about what tools should be used to achieve this.

In his Facebook video, Lázár also revealed Fidesz's position on the independent media. “Of course, there has been criticism in the press. There is, however, no need to pay attention to the criticism coming from those directly affected – such as Telex or 444 – which usually descends into mudslinging and personal attacks. These should be ignored," he said.

They would retroactively redirect funds taxpayers have already donated

It was on 14 May that Fidesz MP János Halász submitted the bill that would make it extremely difficult for organizations receiving foreign funding to operate and exist. Once the law is passed, the Sovereignty Protection Office will be able to recommend that organisations which receive funding from abroad, and which the SPO deems as a threat to the country's sovereignty, be placed on a list by the government.

But what constitutes a threat to the country's sovereignty? According to the proposal, anything that harms or portrays in a negative light

• the country's independent, democratic and constitutional character;
• the unity of the nation and its responsibility for Hungarians living beyond the borders;
• the primacy of marriage, family and biological gender;
• peace, security and cooperation with other countries;
• the country's constitutional identity and Christian culture.

According to the proposal, the country's sovereignty can be jeopardized by activities that are capable of influencing public opinion—and any activity that could influence the will of voters or democratic debate is considered as such.

Once on the list, the organization would no longer be able to collect 1 percent of tax donations (in Hungary it is possible to specifically allocate one percent of one’s personal income tax to certain organizations and causes of one’s choosing-TN) and would be obligated to request a "fully conclusive private document" from all of its supporters and pertaining to all of its funding, stating that the money did not come from abroad.

According to the law, all money coming from abroad may be a threat to the country's sovereignty, including funds obtained through transparent tenders. This also includes EU tenders entered by organizations operating in EU member states.

If it is found that the organization has nonetheless accepted foreign funding, the anti-money laundering authority will impose a fine equivalent to 25 times the amount of the funds received, which must be paid within 15 days. The proceeds from such fines and all assets of organizations dissolved in accordance with the law will be transferred to the National Cooperation Fund.

The agency may also conduct on-site inspections, which means that it may visit the listed organizations, where it may inspect all documents, computers, and data storage devices and make copies of them. It may also request the assistance of the police in carrying out these inspections.

An amendment to the bill submitted and adopted last week suggests stripping the organizations on the government's list (of those considered a threat to the country's sovereignty, as per the recommendation of the SPO) of the 1 percent tax donations retroactively, i.e. redirecting the funds offered to them by taxpayers this year.

Under the original bill, it would have only become impossible to offer the 1 percent tax subsidy to these organizations once the law will have entered into force, starting in 2026. The amendment also suggests that the tax authority should transfer the funds donated to these organiziations in this way to the László Batthyány-Strattmann Foundation for Healing.

After last week's meeting of the Justice Committee adopted this latest modification, we asked the Fidesz-delegated members of the committee to explain their decision: