Hungary’s Rule-of-Law Image from the Outside in Spring 2026

When a foreign investor, lawyer, or adviser looks at Hungary today, they do not examine political slogans, but risks. They do not ask who is in government, but rather this: is the legal environment predictable, and can the stability of regulation be trusted?

From a foreign perspective, the fact of a change in government is therefore not an end in itself, but a signal. A signal that one period may be coming to an end – and that there may be a genuine opportunity for a more institutionally orderly mode of governance.

The Picture of Recent Years: Lawmaking as a Risk Factor

To the foreign eye, the problem with Hungarian lawmaking in recent years has not primarily been its substance, but its procedure. The following phenomena in particular have significantly undermined the country’s reputation for legal certainty:

• ad hoc legislative amendments, often without impact assessments,
• the mass use of individual members’ bills as a means of circumventing preparatory and consultation obligations,
• short and often merely formal public consultations,
• and regulatory turnarounds whose practical consequences then had to be corrected afterwards in a kind of “firefighting” mode.

For a foreign investor, this is not a theoretical issue. It is a due diligence item.

What Does a Foreign Partner Ask Today?

In our experience, the question is not whether “taxes are low,” but rather, for example:

• For how long can one expect a stable legal environment?
• How common is retroactive regulation or regulation entering into force on short notice?
• Is there an effective remedy if a regulation is flawed?
• Is lawmaking foreseeable, or does it follow political cycles?

In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to give reassuring answers to these questions.

What Does a Change of Government Mean from the Outside Now?

Abroad, a change of government does not automatically increase confidence; rather, it leads to cautious waiting. International actors are primarily watching to see whether:

• procedural discipline returns to lawmaking,
• the systemic role of individual members’ bills declines,
• there will be meaningful impact assessments and professional consultation,
• and the quality of legislation improves measurably, not merely in communication.

If visible change occurs in these areas, that will matter far more than any investment-promotion campaign.

Why Does This Look Different from the Outside Than from Within?

In Hungary, lawmaking often appears in the context of political debates. From abroad, however, it is viewed in a technocratic way: as a matter of processes, risks, and comparable patterns.

In a legal system that operates partly on an international plane, the quality of lawmaking is an export product – or, conversely, a factor triggering import restraint.

A Lawyer’s Position

As a law firm of Hungarian origin, launched from Germany and licensed in several jurisdictions – including the United Arab Emirates – we see clearly where a rule-of-law deficit becomes a business factor. That is why we are not interested in the communication of change, but in its procedural credibility.

The outside world is watching now. It is not applauding, not attacking – it is watching. And this is the moment when the quality of lawmaking is no longer a matter of domestic politics, but a matter of international reputation.