Hungary’s €10bn waits on one law

Hungary's proof that it completed EU-required reforms rests partly on a law now under constitutional review. The deadline to file that proof is 31 August — eleven days away. After that date, any incomplete reform milestone cannot count toward Hungary's recovery-fund payment (Commission closure notice, ECA).

The law is Act XVIII of 2026, which bundles transparency and energy reforms tied to EU-funds access. According to HVG and Népszava, it is the last unresolved EU-funds petition before Hungary's Constitutional Court. On 14 August, the court dismissed a separate challenge to a constitutional amendment, finding the petition attacked the amendment's substance rather than how it was adopted — the only basis on which Hungarian law allows the court to review amendments (444, Kontroll). That case was easy. Act XVIII is not: as an ordinary law, the court can review what it actually says, and the outcome directly affects what Hungary can show Brussels.

What the law does and why Brussels needs it

Act XVIII expands Hungary's public-data registry, effective 26 August, to cover state-owned companies and the government-linked asset-management foundations that channelled public assets under Orbán's government. Those foundations sat at the centre of EU concerns about conflicts of interest. Hungary's data-protection authority confirmed the expansion (NAIH). Government consultation documents tie follow-up decrees to energy-sector reforms linked to the recovery plan (kormany.hu).

Act XVIII is, in short, part of how Hungary proves to Brussels that promised reforms exist in law, not just in policy announcements. If the court strikes it down before the deadline, Hungary loses the legal basis for parts of its reform evidence. If the court upholds it, the path to payment clears.

The harder scenario is a ruling that arrives after 31 August. The Commission would face a question with no clear precedent: does a law under active constitutional challenge count as proof of completed reform? Or does the unresolved case itself justify withholding payment?

Who benefits from delay

The petitions were filed by Fidesz-KDNP, Viktor Orbán's party, now in opposition after Péter Magyar won a supermajority. An opposition party is using constitutional review to create deadline risk for a government trying to unlock EU money. Whether Fidesz filed these petitions to obstruct or out of sincere legal concern, the effect is the same — it compresses the calendar Magyar needs.

The Council (where EU governments vote) approved Hungary's revised recovery plan in July, putting around €10 billion in grants and loans within reach, but only after milestone verification (Council). The Recovery and Resilience Facility (the EU's post-pandemic performance fund, governed by Regulation 2021/241) pays on documented proof, not promises. Hungary must show completed reforms, file a payment request by 30 September, and the Commission must disburse by year-end. Payments come in verified tranches, not as a lump sum for political change (Tagesschau). The European Parliament, which sued the Commission over a previous decision to unblock Hungarian funds, adds oversight pressure on how strictly those conditions are checked.

A separate freeze on Hungary's cohesion funds (long-term EU budget money for poorer regions) runs under a different rule: the budget-conditionality regime tied to rule-of-law concerns about procurement and anti-corruption (Council Decision 2022/2506). That freeze has no 31 August cliff. The recovery-fund deadline is the urgent one.

Three actors, eleven days

Hungary's Constitutional Court can resolve the Act XVIII case before its recess ends on 28 August, leaving the law intact or striking it down. Magyar's government can draft replacement legislation, but anything enacted after 31 August cannot retroactively count as timely reform. And the Commission must decide whether a law under unresolved judicial challenge qualifies as completed reform.

Poland's recent positive recovery-plan assessment (gov.pl) confirms that Brussels releases money when evidence passes. The verification runs on documented proof, which is precisely why a domestic court case can jam it. The court in Budapest controls whether Hungary's evidence is legally intact by the time anyone in Brussels has to judge it.