Immunity of Three Politicians Suspended by MPs

On 28 September, parliament suspended the immunity of Balázs Hankó, Miklós Seszták and Péter Magyar. The decision followed three separate motions from the prosecution service concerning different cases and suspicions.

Suspending immunity is not the same as finding someone guilty, nor does it mean that the cases will necessarily result in charges or convictions. Parliament’s decision allows the competent authorities to carry out the necessary criminal proceedings in each case.

Why were the three cases brought before the National Assembly?

According to Telex’s report, the Prosecutor General’s Office requested the suspension of the immunity of Balázs Hankó, Miklós Seszták and Péter Magyar. The three requests related to separate proceedings.

The publication reported that Hankó was suspected of breach of fiduciary duty, Seszták of accepting a bribe in an official capacity, and Magyar of theft. These are suspicions being investigated by the competent authority, not facts established by a final court judgment.

What is known about the background to each case?

According to HVG’s report, the suspicion of breach of fiduciary duty in Hankó’s case arose from the alleged unlawful use of funds allocated to the National Cultural Fund’s Temporary College for Priority Cultural Programmes.

Telex linked Seszták’s case to proceedings involving Volánbusz and Magyar’s case to an incident involving a phone at an entertainment venue in 2024. Because the circumstances differ, the subsequent proceedings will also continue separately: parliament’s vote did not combine them into a single criminal case.

How does an immunity case reach a parliamentary vote?

The procedure is governed by Act XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly. The Speaker of the National Assembly refers a motion from the Prosecutor General seeking the suspension of immunity to the committee responsible for immunity cases.

According to the information provided by the National Assembly’s Committee on Immunity, the committee examines the request and then prepares a draft resolution for the plenary session. The committee therefore has a preparatory role; the National Assembly decides whether to suspend immunity.

Under the act, suspension requires the support of two-thirds of the members of parliament present. This threshold is based not on the total number of seats but on the number of MPs present at the vote.

What happened after the committee stage?

According to 24.hu’s report, the Committee on Immunity did not reach a decision supporting suspension. As a result, the proposal formally submitted to the plenary session recommended retaining immunity.

However, this did not bind the National Assembly. Following the committee stage, the plenary session was able to make its own final decision and, according to the publication’s report, voted to suspend immunity in all three cases. This illustrates how the committee’s position and parliament’s final decision can differ.

How did the National Assembly decide?

According to 24.hu’s report, the National Assembly suspended the immunity of all three politicians at its extraordinary sitting on 28 September. The publication reported that each decision was adopted with 139 votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions, while Fidesz–KDNP MPs did not take part in the vote.

The parliamentary resolution applies only to the individual cases for which the Prosecutor General’s Office submitted the motions. It does not remove the politicians’ immunity in general and cannot automatically be extended to other cases.

What does suspension mean in legal terms?

Immunity is a procedural safeguard. Its purpose is to prevent parliamentary work from being obstructed by unfounded or politically motivated proceedings. When suspending immunity, the National Assembly does not act as a criminal court, so it does not examine all the evidence in full or declare the person concerned guilty.

The direct consequence of the decision is that the procedural obstacle arising from an MP’s immunity is removed in the case concerned. The investigating authority and the prosecution service may then continue the case under the rules of criminal procedure and take steps that previously required the suspension of immunity.

The presumption of innocence continues to apply to those concerned after parliament’s decision. Criminal liability can be established only by a court in a final judgment.

What could happen next?

The next steps depend on the status of each proceeding and the decisions of the authorities. Further investigative measures may be taken and the status of those concerned under criminal procedure may be determined, after which the prosecution service may decide how to proceed based on its assessment of the evidence.

Suspension alone does not mean that charges will be brought. The proceedings may also be terminated if the statutory conditions are not met; if charges are brought, it will be for the court to assess the evidence and decide the question of criminal liability.

The duration and outcome of the cases therefore cannot currently be predicted on a sound basis. Parliament’s decision concluded one procedural stage, not the criminal cases themselves.

Why is the role of immunity debated?

Immunity can both support the uninterrupted functioning of parliament and create the impression that MPs are in a different procedural position from other citizens. This is why questions repeatedly arise about the types of cases in which this protection should be retained and the extent to which it is justified.

According to Forbes’s report, the votes once again raised the possibility of abolishing immunity for offences subject to public prosecution. However, the publication also reported that the chair of the Committee on Immunity warned of the risk of political abuse without appropriate institutional safeguards.

The latest decision did not settle any part of this broader debate. In legal terms, the key point is that the obstacle arising from immunity has been removed in three specific cases, while it remains for the justice system to decide whether the suspicions are well founded and whether those concerned bear any responsibility. This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice on any individual case.