Hungary’s 139-6 vote ousts President Sulyok

Hungary's parliament voted 139 to 6 on Sunday to change the constitution, removing the sitting president and reshaping the courts (Le Figaro, Reuters). Viktor Orbán's Fidesz boycotted the session. Prime Minister Péter Magyar is dismantling the institutions Orbán spent 14 years building. He is using the same tool Orbán perfected: rewriting the constitution with a governing supermajority to decide who holds power. Brussels now has to decide whether rule-of-law standards still apply when the government breaking norms is pro-European.

What the amendment dismantles

The package targets the people and structures Orbán left behind. A transitional clause ends the mandate of President Tamás Sulyok, an Orbán-era appointee, giving him five days to sign the text before removal begins (Reuters). A new 70-year age limit for Constitutional Court judges forces out four sitting members, including the court's president (Euronews, CMS). That court can block or validate the new government's entire agenda, which is why its composition matters.

The amendment also restores the court's power to review budget laws, a check Orbán stripped away, and creates a constitutionally anchored asset-recovery office to track misused public and EU funds (CEAC Law, Frankfurter Rundschau).

Repair or reverse capture

The case for acting is real. Orbán embedded loyalists in the presidency, the courts and state television, then removed the checks that could have constrained them. Leaving that system intact would let a defeated political network hold effective power over the incoming government (CER).

The case against is equally strong. A rule written for one named president is not a neutral rule. It is a constitutional weapon aimed at one person. A retroactive age limit that forces out identifiable judges mirrors the kind of court-packing that EU rule-of-law standards exist to prevent (CMS). Le Monde described Magyar as pro-European while calling the procedure "contested." Le Figaro warned that restoring the rule of law does not justify abandoning legal safeguards (Le Monde, Le Figaro).

Sulyok challenged the amendment before the vote. He asked the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional law whose opinions carry weight across the continent even when they don't bind governments, to assess whether a clause written to end his mandate meets rule-of-law principles (Budapest Times). The Commission won't take up his case until October (Telex). Magyar's majority voted in July. A government that waits for external scrutiny signals openness to correction. One that pushes through first signals that speed matters more.

Brussels's consistency test

Three days before the vote, the Commission confirmed Hungary would join EPPO, the European Public Prosecutor's Office, which can investigate crimes against the EU budget that Budapest previously shielded from outside scrutiny. EU finance ministers approved a revised recovery plan that could unlock roughly €10 billion tied to anti-corruption milestones (Euronews, Telex).

EPPO accession is a strong signal. But signals are not prosecutions. The asset-recovery office now exists in the constitution, but its powers, independence and judicial oversight depend on implementing legislation that hasn't been written. The Commission can still withhold payments if milestones go unmet (CER). Whether it will is the real question. When Orbán governed, Brussels treated rule-of-law conditions as leverage against a hostile actor. Magyar is an ally. He inherited captured institutions, and dismantling them is legitimate work. But method matters, and pro-European intent is not a substitute for enforceable rule-of-law repair.