Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2025, Publication : 113ème session CIT (2025)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Hongrie (Ratification: 1957)

Written information provided by the Government

The Government is committed to the full implementation of the Convention and to safeguarding freedom of association and the right to organize, as well as to the protection of workers’ rights.

The legal system provides adequate guarantees for the freedom to exercise trade union rights. The Government holds regular consultations with the national-level representative organizations of workers and employers on matters concerning the world of work, and remains open to adopting justified measures to respond to possible deficiencies in legal practice.

The Government considers the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory mechanism to be of great importance. In this context, it submits its national report to the ILO each year on the implementation of the relevant ratified Conventions and Recommendations, and it remains open to consultations with the ILO.

Regrettably, the Government has failed to provide a detailed response to the Committee of Experts’ observations regarding the implementation of the Convention during the 2024 national reporting cycle. This written reply aims to remedy that omission and to reaffirm the Government’s willingness and commitment to further national-level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee’s observations.

As for the consultations held with the social partners, it should be noted that the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Private Sector and the Government (VKF) was established in 2012 and has since become a prominent platform for social dialogue. Following consultations with the social partners, the rules governing the organization and functioning of the VKF were formally codified by government decree in 2024. The activities of the VKF focus primarily on wage policy, employment policy and general issues concerning the world of work. Negotiations on the minimum wage and the guaranteed minimum wage also take place within this forum. The Government provides substantial financial support to national social partners from both the national budget and European Union funds.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right protected and ensured by numerous international, European and national legal instruments. In Hungary, the entire legal system serves to protect fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article IX of Hungary’s Fundamental Law state that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, it is clear from current regulations that this fundamental right is not absolute and may be restricted under certain conditions. Regarding the restriction of freedom of expression, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article IX(4) of the Fundamental Law provide guidance.

Judicial practice is also of great significance in assessing this fundamental right, as numerous decisions have been made by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as at national level, including the Constitutional Court. These decisions define the concept, limits and criteria for assessing freedom of expression in the context of various personality rights.

In accordance with Article 10(2) of the European Convention, the European Court of Human Rights has established the criteria under which national authorities of the contracting States may restrict freedom of expression.

The fundamental right may be restricted if all of the following three conditions are met:

• (1) The interference – whether a “formal requirement”, “condition”, “restriction”, or “penalty” – is prescribed by law;
• (2) The interference must have a legitimate aim (for example, national security, territorial integrity, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others; preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary);
• (3) The interference is necessary in a democratic society, meaning that the necessity and proportionality test must be applied.

As a first step, there must be an examination to determine whether there is a legal basis for the interference and whether such a law is publicly accessible, comprehensible, consistent and predictable. Regarding workers’ expressions of opinion, Hungarian regulations clearly define the reference points in Act I, section 8 and section 9(2), of the 2012 Labour Code. Section 8 of the Labour Code also defines the legitimate aim of the interference, namely the protection of the employer’s reputation and legitimate economic interests. The third criterion of the necessity and proportionality test involves the determination of the extent to which the restriction qualifies as a necessary measure in a democratic society. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows general respect for the contracting States’ margin of appreciation in assessing whether, given the circumstances, the disputed interference was necessary.

The Constitutional Court in its Decision 30/1992 (V.26.) AB, stated that “freedom of expression has a privileged role among constitutional fundamental rights; it is essentially the mother right of various freedom rights” and emphasized that “the distinguished role of the right of freedom of expression does not mean that this right is […] unrestricted”.

Courts apply the necessity and proportionality test during restrictions. There are relatively few decisions examining this fundamental right within an employment relationship, but the Constitutional Court has stated the need to consider the specific nature of employment.

In labour law, the Constitutional Court uses the so-called “loyalty clause” as a standard, which appears in section 8(1)–(3) of the Labour Code. The Court stipulates that freedom of expression may be subject to stricter limitations in the world of work.

The Constitutional Court has identified the factors that courts must consider when assessing the restriction of workers’ freedom of expression, in addition to the general necessity and proportionality test:

• (1) the public or professional relevance of the statement;
• (2) the factual basis of the statement and its evaluative value judgments;
• (3) the harm caused by the statement and its negative impact on the employer’s reputation;
• (4) the good faith of the employee exercising freedom of expression;
• (5) the severity of the disciplinary consequence imposed by the employer.

From the case law of both courts, it is evident that the provisions set out in the Labour Code are consistent with the possibility of restricting the fundamental right. The courts have also recognized that freedom of expression manifests differently in the context of employment relationships due to their unique nature. Employment is a trust-based legal relationship, typically involving long-term cooperation between the parties. Employers and workers form a shared interest in dealings with external parties, in which the employer may find itself in a vulnerable position. During employment, the worker may gain access to information critical to the functioning of the employment relationship, which, if misused, could harm the employer’s economic interests. To protect these interests, section 8(1) of the Labour Code stipulates that during the employment relationship the worker – unless so authorized by the relevant legislation – shall not engage in any conduct by which to jeopardize the legitimate economic interests of the employer. This restriction is limited to the duration of the employment relationship. However, under section 8(2) of the Labour Code, outside their paid working hours, the worker must also refrain from any conduct – stemming from the worker’s job or position in the employer’s hierarchy – that directly and factually has the potential to damage the employer’s reputation, legitimate economic interest or the intended purpose of the employment relationship. This rule is also not unlimited. To ensure proportionality and a legitimate aim, the worker’s conduct must be assessed based on their job or position in the employer’s hierarchy, and the conduct must directly and factually be capable of harming the employer’s reputation, legitimate economic interest or the intended purpose of the employment relationship. Additionally, as a further guarantee protecting the worker, the employer is required to inform the worker in writing about the restriction in advance.

Section 8(3) of the Labour Code explicitly refers to the restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. However, the provision also sets out the legitimate grounds for such a restriction, in the interest of the protection of certain rights. Judicial practice confirms that fundamental rights cannot be exercised to the detriment of other rights, and the referenced subsection identifies the rights that may conflict with freedom of expression in employment relationships, namely the employer’s reputation, and legitimate economic and organizational interests. Furthermore, the provision clarifies that expression of opinion is not allowed only when it is seriously offensive and jeopardizes the protection of the above rights, hence the proportionality test.

In an employment relationship, the worker performs work in the interest of the employer, considering the employer’s economic interests. Consequently, the worker’s autonomy is inevitably diminished during the fulfilment of employment duties.

This is most evident in the fact that the employer decides the work schedules, thereby affecting the worker’s right to rest. Section 9(2) of the Labour Code thus allows for the restriction of the worker’s personal rights only where strictly necessary for reasons directly related to the intended purpose of the employment relationship and where proportionate for the achievement of the objective. Therefore, the legal regulation does not grant the employer unlimited rights to restrictions. In order to protect the worker’s interests, the employer is required to inform the worker in advance and in writing about the manner, conditions and expected duration of the restriction of personal rights, as well as the circumstances justifying its necessity and proportionality.

The current regulation respects the fact that personal rights may only be restricted in exceptional cases. Therefore, section 9(3) of the Labour Code stipulates that a worker may not waive their personal rights in a general and advance manner, and any legal statement concerned with the personal rights is only valid if made in writing.

In summary, the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Code comply with the criteria (necessity–proportionality test, cases of permissible restrictions on freedom of expression) established by the European Court of Human Rights – and adopted by the Hungarian Constitutional Court – which allow for the limitation of a fundamental right within a clear and appropriate framework. The current regulation ensures the rights of both employers and workers by considering the unique nature of employment relationships.

Registration of Trade Unions (Article 2)

According to section 69 of Act CLXXXI of 2011 on the court registration of civil organizations and the related procedural rules (hereinafter: Cnytv.), the provisions of this Act shall apply to trade unions unless another law governing the organization provides otherwise. Since no other law regulates the registration of trade unions, the rules applicable to associations – of which trade unions are a special form – shall govern their registration.

Under section 34(1) of the Cnytv., a simplified procedure is available (where the court must decide on the registration within 15 days), if the founding document submitted is based on a standard template as defined in legislation. These templates are provided by Decree No. 4/2017 (IV.3.) of the Minister of Justice on the standard statutes to be used in simplified registration and amendment procedures of civil organizations and sports associations. These templates may be used not only for initial registration but also for subsequent filings of amendments.

The main rules on organizational and operational structures are set out in Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (hereinafter: Ptk.). According to these rules, it is sufficient to include only the basic data of the association in its statutes. The court only reviews the minimum statutory requirements, which means no request for correction may be issued due to minor administrative deficiencies.

The Cnytv. also establishes that during the amendment registration procedure of an association, the court only examines the documents relevant to the specific amendment. Consequently, the court may not raise objections regarding parts of the statutes not affected by the modification.

Under the current legislation (section 2(2) of the Cnytv. and section 3:63 of the Civil Code), civil organizations – including trade unions – are required to provide proof of entitlement to use the registered office as a condition for registration.

According to section 21(1a) of the Cnytv., proof of entitlement to use the registered office must include a declaration – contained in at least a private document with full evidentiary force – by the property owner or lawful user authorized to grant further use, consenting to the use of the property as the organization’s registered headquarters. If the organization itself owns the property, a copy of the ownership certificate must be attached to the application.

The requirement for the inclusion of the company’s name in the official name of the association cannot be derived from legislation. Section 4(1) of the Cnytv. explicitly states that the trade union (as a specific form of association) is not required to include reference to the type or form of association in its name. Furthermore, a trade union may be established and may operate under a name that includes other expressions indicating the exercise of the right of association.

As noted in the Committee of Expert‘s observations, between 1 June 2017 and 31 May 2021 a total of 1,149 trade unions were registered and eight registration applications were rejected. The detailed data for the period 2021–25 is currently being collected. Once available, it will be submitted to the Committee.

The Government takes note of the views expressed by the Committee of Experts and the request to the Government to take the necessary measures to effectively address in practice the alleged obstacles to registration. At the same time, we note that apart from the previous observations submitted by the Workers’ group – indicating that the legal requirements for trade union registration may hinder the implementation of Article 2 of the Convention – the Government is currently not aware of any specific cases or legal practice in which the existing legal framework has effectively prevented the registration of any particular trade union. Furthermore, we wish to highlight that the VKF held nine meetings in 2022, ten in 2023 and nine in 2024. These sessions provided an opportunity for the Workers’ group to raise any such concerns.

The right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration (Article 3)

The establishment and operation of trade unions are regulated by Act CLXXV of 2011 on the right of association, public benefit status and the operation and support of civil organizations (hereinafter: Ectv.), as well as Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code.

According to section 15(1) of the Ectv., the registered data of trade unions is public. However, pursuant to section 15(3), the membership registry is not public due to the protection of personal rights. Within the framework of legality supervision proceedings, the prosecutor’s office is entitled to full access to documents [Ectv. section 15(4)]. As in the case of any other association, the prosecutor has the right to initiate legal proceedings against a trade union where a law has been violated and the corresponding claim is based on the protection of public interest. There is deemed to be a violation of public interest if the prosecutor identifies an error in the registry data in the motion. However, a deficiency or error in the founding document that does not affect registry data does not constitute a violation of public interest and therefore does not provide grounds for the prosecutor to file a claim.

Under Article 29(1) of Hungary’s Fundamental Law, the prosecutor’s office acts to protect the public interest and ensures that unlawful conditions are remedied. As defined in section 1(2) of Act CLXIII of 2011 on the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office contributes to ensuring compliance with laws and, in cases and procedures defined by law, acts to uphold legality when a violation occurs.

The powers of the prosecutor’s office do not imply general supervisory or review authority, nor operational control over the activities of trade unions. The prosecutor is only entitled to act if there is a clear violation of the law and, even in such a case, action is taken through court proceedings, not by direct administrative measures.

The Government emphasizes that the alleged practices referred to in the Committee of Experts’ comments do not correspond to the applicable Hungarian legal framework, and they do not form part of the lawful prosecutorial oversight. In the event of unlawful prosecutorial action, legal remedies are available. Specific legal disputes can be initiated in response to specific violations.

In the coming period, the Government intends to engage in consultations with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Hungary regarding the practices affecting trade unions, as raised by the Workers’ group.

Deduction of union membership fee

In 2023 in the VKF, the parties discussed the initiative related to the deduction of trade union membership fees on two occasions. During the negotiations, the relevant Government representatives emphasized that the primary objective of the related legislative amendments was to reduce administrative burdens on employers. According to section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991 on the voluntary payment of trade union membership fees by employees, the general rule is that the employer – with the exception of cases specified by law – is obliged, upon the worker’s written request, to deduct the trade union or other representative body membership fee from the worker’s wages and to transfer the specified amount to the trade union or other workers’ representation body indicated by the worker. According to the Government, the provisions concerning trade union membership fees in the status laws affecting certain public sectors do not disadvantage the workers and do not adversely affect the functioning of trade unions.

The right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities

According to section 4(3) of the Strike Act, the extent and conditions of minimum (“sufficient”) services may be determined by law, and this is indeed the case in sectors providing the most essential public services. The general framework provisions of the Strike Act only apply in the absence of specific legal regulations, in which case the parties must reach an agreement on the extent and conditions of minimum service during the mandatory pre-strike conciliation process.

With regard to amendments to the Strike Act, in recent years consultations have taken place on several occasions within the framework of the VKF. Within the Monitoring Committee of the VKF, thematic working groups were established. Among these, the working group for the amendment of the Strike Act held its first meeting on 19 March 2015, followed by several further meetings later that year.

With regard to the determination of minimum services, the Government has consistently upheld the position that guidance must come from the joint position of the social partners, and it attaches particular importance to the development of a unified position on the part of the trade unions.

To date, however, no joint proposal has been formulated by the social partners regarding minimum (i.e. “sufficient”) services and therefore the issue of amending the Strike Act has not yet been placed on the agenda following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – It is now my honour to invite the distinguished representative of the Government of Hungary, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Hungary to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, to take the floor.

Government representative – The Government of Hungary remains fully committed to the values and principles of the International Labour Organization (ILO), and in particular, to the fundamental rights and principles of the world of work also enshrined in the Convention, which Hungary ratified in 1957.

The Government regularly consults and engages in open dialogue with Hungarian social partners on matters concerning the world work and remains open to adopting justified measures to address any shortcomings in legal practice.

In recent years, the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Private Sector and the Government (VKF) has played an essential role in shaping labour policies and legislation, as well as promoting social partnership in Hungary. It held nine meetings in 2022, ten in 2023 and nine in 2024.

The Government promotes industrial relations through capacity-building programmes and awareness-raising initiatives for both workers and employers at national and local level.

The Government is also strongly committed to effectively cooperating with the Office as well as to completely fulfilling its duties as a Member of the ILO. We consider the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory mechanism to be of great importance. This supervisory system is unique at international level. The aim of the supervision is to regularly examine the application of standards in the Member States and to point out areas where there are problems in application or where they could be better applied. The credibility of the system, however, should be ensured by providing real professional background and reasoning for the supervisory work and not be used for political purposes. This is also crucial from the perspective of the ILO as a whole.

Hungary submits its national reports to the ILO each year, and we are open to consultations with the ILO. However, we acknowledge the lack of detailed responses to the Committee of Experts’ observations on the implementation of the Convention in the previous national reporting cycle.

Before the start of this session of the Conference, we provided written information to the Committee and reaffirmed our willingness and commitment to further national level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee of Experts’ observations. Today we would like to present briefly to the Committee Hungarian legislation and practice, as well as our reactions to the Committee of Experts’ observations.

First of all, the Hungarian legal system provides adequate guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize. These rights are guaranteed by the Hungarian Fundamental Law. Article 8 of the Fundamental Law specifically mentions trade unions, stating that trade unions may be freely formed and operate on the basis of the right of association. These provisions are further elaborated in the Act on the Labour Code, which governs employment relationships.

In line with the Convention, trade unions in Hungary are recognized as independent legal entities, free to define their internal structure, adopt their own rules, and manage their activities without interference from public authorities or employers.

In Hungary, freedom of expression is considered as a fundamental right protected and ensured by numerous international, European and national legal instruments. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 9 of the Hungarian Fundamental Law state that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, it is clear from current regulations that this fundamental right is not absolute and may be restricted under certain conditions.

In judicial practice, numerous decisions have been made by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as by the Hungarian Constitutional Court. These decisions define the concept, limits, and criteria for assessing freedom of expression.

The Hungarian Constitutional Court stated that “freedom of expression has a privileged role among constitutional fundamental rights”; however, this role does not mean that this right is unrestricted. The Constitutional Court has also stated the need to consider the specific nature of employment and in labour law it uses the so-called “loyalty clause” as a standard, which appears in section 8 of the Labour Code. The court stipulates that freedom of expression may be subject to stricter limitations in the world of work and has identified the factors that courts must consider when assessing restrictions, in addition to the general necessity and proportionality test.

From the case law of both the European and national courts, it is evident that the provisions of the Labour Code comply with the criteria established for the limitation of freedom of expression within a clear and appropriate framework and by considering the unique nature of employment relationships.

Secondly, on the registration of trade unions. According to the Act on the right of association, public benefit status, and the operation and support of civil organizations, the trade union is a special form of association. Trade unions are established as legal entities and by registration with the court. It is sufficient to include only the basic data of the association in its statutes and the court only reviews the minimum statutory requirements. This means no request for correction may be issued due to minor administrative deficiencies. The Government takes note of the views and requests expressed by the Committee of Experts. At the same time, we note that apart from the previous observations submitted by the Workers’ group, the Government is currently not aware of any specific cases or legal practice in which the existing legal framework has effectively prevented the registration of any trade union.

Thirdly, on the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities. According to the Hungarian Fundamental Law, the Prosecutor’s Office acts to protect the public interest and ensures that unlawful conditions are remedied. The powers of the prosecution do not constitute a general supervisory or controlling authority; they do not imply control over the activities, and in no way do they extend to the operational management of trade unions. Therefore, the Government emphasizes that the alleged practices referred to in the Committee of Experts’ observation do not correspond to the applicable Hungarian legal framework. In the coming period, the Government intends to engage in consultations with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Hungary regarding the practices affecting trade unions, as raised by the Workers’ group.

Fourthly, on the deduction of the union membership fee. According to the Act on the voluntary payment of trade union membership fees by workers, the general rule is that the employer is obliged – upon the worker’s written request – to deduct the trade union or other representative body membership fee from the worker’s wages and to transfer the specified amount to the trade union or other workers’ representation body indicated by the worker. As a derogation from the general rule, and with the aim to reduce administrative burdens on employers, special rules are applicable in given public sectors for employees, which prohibit the deduction of membership fees. In our view, these provisions do not conflict with the Convention and do not adversely affect employees or the functioning of trade unions.

In 2023, the VKF held discussions on the issue of trade union membership fees on two occasions. The Hungarian National ILO Council, referred to by the Workers’ group, is not entitled to hold tripartite negotiations on general economic and labour-related issues. As the representatives of the Government in the National ILO Council have indicated several times, the Council was established and operates in line with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and provides a tripartite forum for discussion with respect to matters concerning the activities of the ILO.

Finally, regarding the observations on the Strike Act and the definition of minimum service, we provide the following information. In recent years, several consultations have been taking place within the VKF regarding the possible modification of the Strike Act. A thematic working group has been set up to deal with this issue. The Government is open to continue the discussions related to the Strike Act. However, we are of the view that, in this matter, a unified position of the trade unions is of crucial importance.

Worker members – Freedom of association is that right which allows workers’ and employers’ organizations to control their own formation, their own decision-making processes and their own speech. To express these rights freely is the only way social dialogue and the pursuit of social justice are meaningful – the only means of improving conditions of labour, establishing peace and sustained progress. Freedom of association and the right to organize is therefore an enabling right as well as a right in itself.

Hungary ratified this Convention in 1957. We are discussing this case in the Committee for the first time. The Committee of Experts has made ten observations, and the recent ones are from 2015, 2017, 2021, 2022 and 2024.

Sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code of 2012 prohibit conduct, including the exercise of the right to express an opinion, whether during or outside working time, that may affect the employer’s reputation or economic and organizational interests. The Committee of Experts has expressed deep concern that the Government of Hungary has not taken any measures to ensure that these sections of the Labour Code do not impede freedom of expression in the exercise of trade union rights.

We must recall that whereas the Convention expects workers and employers and their respective organizations to respect the law of the land, the obligation on the State is to ensure that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.

The free expression of opinions, including during disputes with employers, is a core element of freedom of association and therefore worthy of the protections of the Convention. The maintenance of these provisions in labour legislation goes wholly against this.

Furthermore, the Government’s claim that the matter has been addressed as part of a discussion held in 2021 is disputed by our trade union colleagues who say that the discussion held in 2021 did not amount to a consultation.

We urge the Government to immediately amend these provisions without further delay through meaningful consultations with the social partners.

Secondly, there is the issue of excessive requirements and practical obstacles to the registration of trade unions. The Committee of Experts has expressed deep regret that nothing has been done in this regard.

We recall that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

The refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the imposition of the obligation of including the company’s name in the official name of associations, and the difficulties created for, or encountered by, trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code, is contrary to the obligations of the Government under the Convention.

These formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, nor should they allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations.

We join the Committee of Experts in strongly urging the Government to engage without delay, in consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers, to assess the need to simplify the registration requirements and to effectively address the obstacles to registration in practice. Information from the Government in this regard will be necessary, including statistics on the number of registrations and refusals to register trade unions.

Thirdly, workers’ and employers’ organizations have the right to organize their own administration and activities and to formulate their programmes and the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise. And yet, we are deeply concerned with the powers given to the national prosecutors to control trade union activities.

We understand that the national prosecutor has the power to review general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conduct inspections directly or through other State bodies, and enjoy free and unlimited access to trade union offices. In exercising this power, prosecutors have questioned the lawfulness of trade union operations several times, requested numerous documents and ordered additional reports if dissatisfied with the unions’ financial reporting.

These powers and how they are exercised on trade unions to interfere, impair and restrict the exercise of trade union rights does not comply with the Government’s obligations under the Convention. As a matter of urgency, the Government must address this concern in consultation with the social partners.

We also raise the issue of the legislative amendments which introduced changes to the check-off system and which prohibit employers from deducting or transferring union dues from the wages of public employees. According to the Government, in 2024, section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991 on the Voluntary Nature of Membership Fees in Workers’ Representative Organizations and section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992 on the Legal Status of Public Employees were amended to ensure that employers are no longer permitted to deduct union membership fees from employees’ wages or transfer these fees to trade unions.

The Committee of Experts indicated that, from the amended text of section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991, employers are obliged, except where otherwise stipulated by law, to deduct from employees’ wages trade union dues upon receiving a written request from the employee and transfer them to the trade union concerned. According to section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992, however, notwithstanding Act XXIX of 1991, employers are prohibited from deducting or transferring such dues from the wages of public employees.

We recall, in light of the Convention, that workers should have the possibility of opting for deductions from their wages under the check-off system to be paid to trade union organizations of their choice. This is the essence of the right to form or join a trade union of one’s choice.

We strongly urge the Government to attend to this matter without delay and to provide information on the outcome.

There are also aspects of our concerns dealing with amending the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Service Act and the Postal Services Act to ensure that workers’ organizations may participate in defining a minimum service and may refer the matter to a joint or independent body in case of disagreement. The Government must take all necessary measures to amend without delay this legislation in consultation with the social partners.

To conclude, I must reiterate, after 80 years or so of recognition of this right, that freedom of association is an enabling right. We urge the Government to guarantee its foundational protections in law and practice.

Employer members – We thank the Government of Hungary for the oral and written information on this case, of which we have fully taken note. The Employer members address the importance of States’ compliance relating to the application of this ratified ILO core Convention. The Convention was ratified by Hungary in 1957. Since 1989, the Committee of Experts has issued ten observations, and this case has not been discussed in the Committee before. The Government provided written information which was published on 19 May 2025. This case is about specific provisions which regulate the exercise of freedom of association.

First, about sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code: The Employers’ group would like to stress that the Convention covers workers’ and employers’ organizations. We note that in 2021, a discussion was held and that the publication addressing interpretive questions on trade unions’ right to freedom of expression was issued in 2022. However, according to the Committee of Experts, the discussions held in 2021 did not amount to a consultation. We ask the Government to consult with the social partners and to discuss this issue without undue delay.

Second, on the question of the registration of trade unions: According to section 69 of the 2011 Act on the court registration of civil organizations and the related procedural rules, the provisions of this Act apply to trade unions unless another law governing the organization provides otherwise. The main rules on organizational and operational structures are set out in Act V of the 2013 Civil Code.

The Committee of Experts expressed concerns about the requirements in relation to union headquarters, the refusal of registration due to flaws, the obligation of including the company’s name in the name of associations and the obligation to bring the by-laws into line with the Civil Code.

The Employer members would like to recall that according to Article 2 of the Convention, workers and employers without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and subject only to the rules of the organization concerned to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

The Committee of Experts recalled that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Furthermore, they should not allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations.

On the one hand, we note with concern that the Government failed to provide a reply to the 2017 allegations, but on the other hand, we welcome the fact that the Government provided detailed information on 19 May 2025.

According to the Government, between 1 June 2017 and 31 May 2021, a total of 1,149 trade unions were registered and eight registration applications were rejected.

The Employer members ask the Government to provide detailed information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations whose registration was denied or delayed, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period 2021 to 2025, as soon as possible. Furthermore, we recommend that the Government start without undue delay consultations with the representative organizations of employers and workers, to assess the requirements with the aim of applying the obligations of Article 2 of the Convention in law and practice.

Third, on the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration: According to Article 3 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. According to the reports, trade union activities were restricted by the power of national prosecutors conducting inspections directly or through State bodies and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices. Taking into account the request of the Committee of Experts, the Employer members expect the Government to respond to the allegations and to provide detailed information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors.

Fourth, on the deduction of union membership fees: In 2024, the law was amended to ensure that employers are no longer permitted to deduct union membership fees from employees’ wages or transfer these fees to trade unions. The Government argued that they had discussions on the issue of union membership fees with the VKF. However, the outcome of these discussions was not publicly available. The Employer members ask the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the VKF.

Fifth, on the Strike Act. We wish to reiterate that in our view neither the Convention nor other Conventions contain rules on the right to strike.

To conclude, the Employers’ group asks the Government first to provide without undue delay the requested information on the various issues. Second, to start a process of social dialogue with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to examine the aforementioned points. And third, to provide information on the progress and all measures taken in this respect.

Worker member, Hungary – First, I would like to thank the Hungarian Government for the information provided to us today. In the last decade, Hungarian trade unions have met new legislation which has caused difficulties in exercising the fundamental right to freedom of association. We made many observations on these issues under the ordinary supervisory mechanism of the ILO and filed special complaints, too. However, there were no answers to them by the Government, neither to the Committee of Experts, nor to us at home. We still experience difficulties in the registration of trade unions, in exercising our right to freedom of expression, in the deduction of member fees from salaries, and in the determination of the level of minimum service in public transport.

As for freedom of expression, the Labour Code of 2012 limits the rights of workers to free opinion. The wording of this limitation is rather general and broad (the opinion may not jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests), causing a lot of interpretation problems even for the courts, including the Hungarian Constitutional and Supreme Court. Moreover, the judicial interpretations are very complicated, and sometimes – as recognized even by lawyers – controversial.

This shows that the legal situation is now rather uncertain, while the sanctions for a legally – maybe – not correct opinion can be very serious: the termination of the employment relationship and payment of damages. This kind of law and practice can therefore threaten, or sometimes kill the exercise of the right to free expression in the workplace.

The Committee of Experts noted in its report that the Government has not taken any concrete steps, including legislative ones, to guarantee that the law does not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members.

Today, after more than ten years, reference to judicial decisions or legal studies is not enough. We need clear legal regulation with clear limitations and a clear determination of the content of this right, which really can ensure the exercise of this universal human right, rather than prevent trade unions from fully defending the occupational interests of their members or rely only on the loyalty obligations of workers.

Registration of trade unions in Hungary is not a simple formality, but rather a legal procedure before the court. Today in Hungary, it is much easier and faster to register a company than a trade union. Without lawyers, it is hardly possible for a newly established trade union to fit all criteria prescribed by law. Just a few examples of this: even to find the relevant regulations, one has to know the legal status of a trade union, because the laws concerned can be found under words such as civil organizations, associations or legal persons, but not under trade unions. To be registered, it is obligatory to fill in a 73-page application form accompanied by a 23-page explanatory document, which includes the criteria for all the different kinds of civil organizations. So trade unions first have to choose or find those points which concern them specifically.

Trade unions, moreover, have to annex a lot of verifications and other documents to the application, including proof of entitlement to use their office and a declaration from the property owner or lawful user to allow this use. There are also special legal regulations to verify the lawfulness of the chosen name of the trade union. All of the documents submitted to the court have to be at least private documents with full evidentiary force.

During the registration procedure, the court examines the statute of the trade union, checking whether its articles are in line with the regulations of the Civil Code and of other laws.

A simplified registration procedure is available for trade unions if their statute is based on a standard template as defined in the legislation, resulting in standard trade unions. However, if trade unions would like to change anything, even only one word in the template, the simplified procedure cannot be used.

Hungarian trade unions have signalled many times the above-mentioned difficulties at meetings of the tripartite National ILO Council which was established specifically for ILO matters and have also filed observations under the ordinary ILO supervisory mechanism. However, there has been no meaningful simplification of the registration procedure.

Concerning deduction of member fees, a new law in Hungary, in force from 1 January 2024, prohibits public sector employers from deducting trade union member fees from the salaries of civil servants, teachers, as well as healthcare and social sector workers, and transferring them to their trade unions. This prohibition is absolute: the employees/civil servants concerned and their trade unions are not even allowed to conclude individual or collective agreements to continue using the check-off system, which they could enjoy until this year.

Social partners were not involved in the preparation of the draft law, and while trade unions protested strongly against the new law, their interests and voices were not heard, not taken into consideration.

The official justification for the law was the reduction of the administrative burden on employers. However, during the previous three decades, the check-off system functioned well and smoothly, without making distinctions between public and private employers and employees or civil servants. In the private sector, the check-off system is still available.

The new law did not allow enough time for trade unions to prepare themselves for this huge change, how to organize the collection of member fees or how to ensure extra capacity to tackle this new administrative burden imposed solely on trade unions by the law.

Member fees, particularly at the workplace level, are the most important source of income for trade unions. Only after about half a year, many trade unions had already experienced the harmful effects of the new legislation: some of them lost many paying members and – according to recent data – their income also decreased significantly, while their administrative costs increased. Consequently, the new law weakened trade unions and their capacity without any reasonable or necessary cause in the public sector.

Concerning minimum service in the public passenger transport sector, since 2012, legal regulations have determined that the level of minimum service during strike actions is 66 per cent. It was never verified by the legislator that this level is really the strictly necessary minimum in the sector. In their observations to the ILO, trade unions argued that this level cannot guarantee the effectiveness of a strike. However, this level has not been changed by the legislator. A new modification of the Public Transport Act from 9 May 2025 made the determination of minimum service more difficult and controversial. So the situation became not better, but worse. To expect a unified position in this matter from workers and employers is simply not realistic.

In conclusion, we urge the Government to take every legislative and other necessary step, after really meaningful consultation with the social partners, to bring the Hungarian law and practice on the above-mentioned issues and points fully into line with the Convention, without any further delay. We also request the technical assistance of the ILO on this.

Employer member, Hungary – The Hungarian employers recognize the importance of the Convention and its implementation, and fully respect the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory mechanism. Therefore, we very much regret that the Government of Hungary has failed to provide a detailed response to the Committee of Experts’ request for observations regarding the implementation of the Convention during the 2024 national reporting cycle. At the same time, we are most pleased that the Government, both in writing and orally right here and now, has reaffirmed its willingness and commitment to further national-level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee of Experts’ observations. In spite of this, we are very sorry to see Hungary shortlisted due to the allegation of noncompliance with this Convention.

We respect freedom of expression as a fundamental right, which may be limited by the fundamental rights of others. According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, the exercise of this freedom may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, or for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence.

In our view, in the employment world, sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code set those limits on freedom of expression when they prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion, whether during or outside working time, that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests. To our understanding, the legislation is balanced. In these sections, there is no general prohibition on expressing an opinion about the employer. The expression of an opinion may not be made in such a way as to be capable of seriously damaging or endangering the reputation and legitimate economic and organizational interests of the employer.

In an employment relationship, the worker performs work in the interests of the employer, taking into account the employer’s economic interests. Therefore, the worker has no unlimited rights. The worker’s rights may be limited during the fulfilment of employment duties. It applies vice versa to the employer. The Labour Code does not grant unlimited rights to the employer to limit the rights of the worker either. The limitations made in writing by the employer in advance shall be strictly necessary for legitimate reasons and directly related to the intended purpose of the employment relationship. It is for the national court to assess the facts, the circumstances, the worker’s conduct and, of course, the employer’s conduct to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether in this case the worker’s conduct violates these measures or not.

Concerning the registration of trade unions, the registration and administration of trade unions do not fall under the competence of the employers’ organization. We believe that the measures for registration and administration apply to legal persons and should be implemented in the same way, without making any distinction. Allow me to give you an example.

A trade union is a legal person which has a name. The Civil Code clearly defines the requirement of name exclusivity, name validity and name freedom for all legal persons, ranging from non-governmental organizations to higher education institutions. Name exclusivity means that the name of the legal person must be different from the name of any other legal person operating in a similar field of activity, such as an association or foundation. The name should be unique and should not be confusing. The requirement of name validity is met if the name is not likely to mislead, in view of its importance and its function. In particular, the name must not give the impression that the activities of the organization relate to those of another legal person.

These above-mentioned rules also apply to trade unions. Nonetheless, we note that there should always be time and room to assess the need for simplification of registration and administration requirements in general, especially when technology is developing at such a rapid pace.

Concerning the control of activities of trade unions carried out by the national prosecutors, we underline that the law on controlling such activities should be equally applied to all associations, including trade unions.

Concerning the deduction of union membership fees, we confirm that the ban on the deduction of union membership fees was on the agenda of the VKF. It is not a burden for employers to deduct union membership fees from wages. Therefore, we did not request such a change. The current restrictions relate only to the public sector, which is not part of our membership.

Last but not least, about the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. We take the view that passenger transport services and postal services have such an impact on businesses and the population’s everyday life that it is vital to have special rules on strikes. We agree that the content, primarily the scope, of minimum services shall be regulated and subject to consultation.

In conclusion, we, the Hungarian employers, strongly stand for the principles of social dialogue and industrial relations. We appreciate the Government’s commitment to further national-level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee of Experts’ observations and look forward to discussing these issues in the relevant national-level tripartite forums.

Government member, Turkmenistan – Turkmenistan welcomes the distinguished delegation of Hungary and expresses its gratitude for the information provided on the current situation regarding the implementation of the Convention. We note the commitment of the Government of Hungary to its international obligations and its willingness to engage in open and constructive dialogue with both national social partners and the ILO, which demonstrates a readiness for productive cooperation within the ILO supervisory mechanisms. We especially highlight the efforts to strengthen social dialogue, particularly through the VKF. We also draw attention to the presented review of legislation and court practice concerning freedom of expression, which confirms compliance with international standards. With regard to trade union registration, a clear and predictable legal procedure has been presented. No country has a perfect system. However, the information provided shows that Hungary has the necessary legal guarantees and is open to improving its practices. We propose that all interested parties continue constructive dialogue at the national level, and we believe that an approach based on mutual respect and cooperation will lead to positive outcomes.

Worker member, Finland – I speak on behalf of the Nordic trade unions. Today we address a case of serious and persistent violations of the Convention by Hungary. A core issue here is the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities under Article 3 of the Convention – specifically, the right to strike and the excessive restrictions imposed through minimum service requirements in law and in practice.

Unfortunately, the concerns are nothing new. Since the 2010 amendments to the Hungarian Strike Act, the Committee of Experts has repeatedly addressed Hungary’s framework – consistently discovering arbitrary limits on workers’ ability to take lawful strike action. These are not theoretical concerns – they are rooted in a legal reality that has made strikes virtually impossible in certain sectors for over a decade.

Already in 2012, the Committee of Experts noted that unions’ efforts to determine minimum service levels were routinely rejected by courts, often without proper justification, and that no strikes had taken place as a result. The Government was urged to ensure that the Strike Act does not prevent workers from exercising their rights.

In 2014, the Committee of Experts emphasized that minimum service requirements must be confined strictly to what is necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and must not render strikes ineffective. Yet Hungarian law requires that minimum service agreements be reached or imposed by courts before any strike can proceed, leading to legal uncertainty and excessive delays.

Later observations, including those in 2015 and 2018, highlighted that the thresholds Hungary sets – 66 per cent in local and suburban passenger transport, 50 per cent nationally – bear no relation to what could reasonably be called “minimum”. In the postal sector, similarly excessive levels apply. Effectively, strikes are being stripped of their essential leverage.

Despite some tripartite dialogue having taken place, the Committee of Experts has consistently questioned its effectiveness. Workers’ organizations report that organizing a lawful strike remains practically impossible under the current legal framework far too often.

The proper and contextual interpretation here is clear: workers must be involved in defining minimum services, and in case of disagreement, an independent or joint body must resolve the matter swiftly. Minimum service must mean exactly that – minimum – limited strictly to safeguarding basic needs.

Yet, in both 2022 and 2023, the Committee of Experts was again forced to draw the same conclusions. The Government continues to cite legal certainty and public needs – justifications that now seem increasingly like a smokescreen to obscure the real intent for maintaining the current restrictive regime. No meaningful steps have been taken.

We must ask: how much longer must Hungarian workers wait to exercise the rights guaranteed for them? We urge the Committee to adopt strong conclusions. Hungary must bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

Government member, Serbia – We thank the Committee of Experts for its report and we take note of its observations. Our delegation has listened carefully to the distinguished representative of Hungary on the implementation of the Convention. Serbia recognizes the strong legal framework in Hungary that guarantees freedom of association and the right to organize and is in line with the international and EU legal instruments.

The alignment of the Labour Code with European Court of Human Rights standards and practice clearly demonstrates the clear commitment of Hungary to the enjoyment of labour rights. In line with this, we commend the adoption of the revised European Social Charter.

In order to fully realize rights in practice, we encourage the Government of Hungary to constructively engage in the consultation process with the Prosecutor’s Office regarding supervisory prosecutorial oversight, which does not fall within the current legal framework.

Furthermore, Serbia welcomes the readiness of the Hungarian Government to define clear, fair conditions for minimum and sufficient services during strikes, and we appreciate their opinions for discussions on the Strike Act.

The above measures will reinforce the integrity of democratic institutions and strengthen trust in the rule of law.

In conclusion, we would like to encourage continuation of open, inclusive and constructive social dialogue and cooperation among tripartite constituents in Hungary, in order to address issues listed in the report of the Committee of Experts.

Worker member, Germany – I speak on behalf of the German trade unions and wish to express our profound concern about the ongoing and systemic violations of the Convention by the Government of Hungary. Despite repeated observations and recommendations from the Committee of Experts, the Hungarian Government has continued to undermine fundamental trade union rights, both in law and in practice, implementing measures that constitute blatant harassment of trade unions and result in a shrinking space for trade unions and their rights.

Let me list the most recent developments. Since 1 January 2024, due to legislation adopted through Act LXX of 2023, public employers in Hungary are no longer permitted to automatically deduct union dues from the wages of public employees. This move, far from administrative neutrality, is a deliberate attempt to weaken trade unions in the public sector, shifting the entire burden onto individual workers. As a direct result, unions such as the Forum for the Co-operation of Trade Unions (SZEF), which represents only public service workers, have lost approximately 10,000 members within a single year. This has significantly damaged not only their financial base, but also their operational capacity to represent workers effectively. This development fits a broader pattern.

First, on the issue of freedom of expression, Hungarian labour law still contains sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code, which restrict workers from expressing opinions – even outside working hours – if such views are deemed harmful to the employer’s interests. This is an unacceptable limitation on trade union activity and democratic expression. Despite years of urging by the Committee of Experts, the Government has failed to take legislative action.

Second, regarding union registration, the process continues to be bogged down by bureaucratic hurdles and delays. The Government has hinted that solutions are in preparation; no meaningful progress has been reported.

Moreover, trade unions are increasingly forced to disclose sensitive internal data, including financial details and membership numbers. These requirements, combined with legitimate data protection concerns, threaten union autonomy and operational freedom.

We are also gravely concerned about allegations from the ITUC that national prosecutors have interfered in union operations – demanding documents, questioning decisions, and even conducting direct inspections. Such practices amount to State control over independent workers’ organizations and are clearly incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government has yet to respond to these serious allegations.

We are witnessing a coordinated dismantling of trade union power in Hungary. We therefore urge the Hungarian Government to reinstate automatic dues deductions in the public sector, to reform labour laws that restrict freedom of expression, to simplify and depoliticize union registration procedures, to end State surveillance of union activities and to amend restrictive strike legislation without further delay.

Government member, Georgia – First of all, I would like to express my respect to the ILO for the efforts to strengthen the international labour system. With regard to the current case, I would like to focus on the following matters. The Hungarian legal system clearly provides adequate guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize.

These rights are guaranteed in the Fundamental Law of Hungary which states in the relevant articles that everyone shall have the right to establish or join organizations, including trade unions. Regarding freedom of expression in Hungary, it is considered a fundamental right protected by numerous European, international and, of course, national legal tools.

What is important is that the provisions of the Hungarian Labour Code comply with the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights, which is a vital institution for the protection of human rights. The Hungarian legislation on the registration of trade unions, we think, also clearly provides an appropriate legal framework.

Of course, the issue of defining the conditions for minimum and sufficient services during a strike remains unresolved, and we commend the Government of Hungary for its openness to continuing discussions on the Strike Act. In conclusion, I would like to stress that, based on the existing legislative framework and measures in force, Hungarian legislation appears to be in line with the Convention.

Worker member, Belgium – The Belgian, Italian and French workers wish to express their solidarity with their Hungarian comrades regarding their legitimate concerns about the draft law on the “transparency of public life”. This draft law provides for the establishment of a list of organizations deemed to threaten the sovereignty of Hungary. It targets organizations that receive support from abroad and participate in public debate. According to the draft, the list is drawn up by the Government on a discretionary basis. However, inclusion on this list entails very serious consequences:

• The leaders must submit a declaration of assets and are considered politically exposed persons.
• Donors must prove that funds were not received from abroad.
• Only the anti-money-laundering authority may authorize the receipt of foreign support.
• Extensive administrative inspections may be conducted.
• Depending on the case, offenders may face suspension of their banking transactions, an administrative fine of 25 times the amount of support received, or even a ban on their activities.
• Judicial review is provided for, but only retrospectively, by way of annulment and without suspensive effect, and therefore without any practical effect.

Firstly, the draft law undermines the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association. Given its very broad wording, many civil society actors promoting democratic debate could face serious obstacles, or even be forced to cease their activities or go bankrupt. The draft law also risks having a chilling effect and discouraging citizens from participating in public debate. It also has a potentially stigmatizing effect on organizations receiving international funding, as it refers to anti-money-laundering measures, which combat financial crime and the financing of terrorism.

Secondly, these provisions jeopardize freedom of association. They restrict the freedom of trade unions to utilize their funds in the context of their international activities, for normal and lawful purposes. Similarly, the freezing of union bank accounts may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities. It must also be regretted that the draft law, which affects workers and their organizations, was not subject to social consultation through the VKF.

Thirdly, undermining the means of action available to trade unions and civil society risks weakening the system of checks and balances and, in so doing, undermining the rule of law. We therefore urge the Hungarian State to definitively abandon this draft law.

Government member, Kyrgyzstan – On behalf of the Kyrgyz Republic, I extend our appreciation for the opportunity to address the Committee regarding the case of Hungary. Kyrgyzstan highly values its strong bilateral relations with Hungary which stands as our only strategic partner within the EU.

Hungary’s legal framework, including its Fundamental Law and Labour Code, provides robust guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize, aligning with both European and international norms.

Kyrgyzstan welcomes Hungary’s proactive measures to ensure a transparent and fair trade union registration process, as well as its dedication to addressing concerns through constructive dialogue, including consultations with the prosecutor general’s office.

Additionally, the provision for the automatic deduction of trade union fees further demonstrates Hungary’s efforts to facilitate workers’ representation without creating an undue burden.

While certain challenges remain, we applaud Hungary’s openness to engagement and its commitment to social dialogue. These efforts reflect a genuine resolve to strengthen labour rights, in line with ILO principles.

In conclusion, Kyrgyzstan expresses its full confidence in Hungary’s continued progress and encourages the Committee to recognize its achievements. We stand in solidarity with our strategic partner and urge all parties to support Hungary’s constructive approach.

Worker member, Brazil – On behalf of the workers of Brazil, I extend fraternal greetings and solidarity to the working classes throughout the world. The Committee of Experts’ report, which forms the technical basis for the examination of this case, places particular emphasis on the deduction of trade union dues.

As occurred in Brazil following the coup d’état against President Dilma Rousseff, Acts Nos 29 of 1991 and 33 of 1992 were amended in Hungary to prohibit employers from deducting trade union membership dues from the wages of public employees, including education and home healthcare workers. This measure directly affects trade union financing and, consequently, the strength and capacity of trade unions to operate.

The adoption of such measures was not preceded by due social dialogue, and their effects were immediately felt by trade unions, which lost financial resources and members. As a result, trade unions have been weakened, upsetting the balance of power in collective bargaining, which in this case involves the State itself as the employer.

In Brazil, despite the change in Government, the harmful labour reform has yet to be overturned owing to the ultra-conservative composition of Parliament. As a result, problems with trade union financing persist, along with the gradual weakening of the working class. Our example illustrates the scale and seriousness of what is currently happening in Hungary.

In the Committee, we have heard countless times that there can be no effective democracy without strong trade unions capable of giving a voice to the working class and defending their interests. That is what this case is all about. Freedom of association, effective social dialogue and democracy. We regret the current developments in Hungary and hope that the Committee will urge the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, in consultation with the social partners, to give full effect to the fundamental right to freedom of association.

Government member, Israel – Israel would like to thank the Hungarian Government for the information it has provided the Committee during today’s morning session. Israel wishes to express its support for Hungary and to commend its steadfast commitment to the principles of freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize, as enshrined in the Convention. This commitment is clearly reflected in Hungary’s legal and institutional framework – most notably, its Labour Code, which guarantees workers the right to freely form and join trade unions without fear of discrimination or retaliation.

One notable example of Hungary’s efforts to promote fair labour practices and foster constructive social dialogue is the operation of the National Economic and Social Council (NGTT). This tripartite body brings together representatives of workers, employers, and civil society, providing a vital platform for open and meaningful dialogue on labour and economic policy issues. Through mechanisms such as the NGTT, Hungary ensures that the voices of workers are heard, valued and respected in the national decision-making process, in full alignment with international labour standards.

To conclude, by continuously strengthening its legal protections and promoting inclusive, participatory dialogue, Hungary demonstrates its ongoing dedication to upholding the core principles of the ILO and advancing decent work and social justice for all.

Government member, Azerbaijan – The Hungarian legal system provides adequate guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize. These rights are guaranteed in the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which clearly states in article 8 that everyone shall have the right to establish or join organizations, including trade unions.

As is known in Hungary, freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right protected and ensured by numerous international, European and national legal instruments. The provisions of the Hungarian Labour Code comply with the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights – and adopted by the Hungarian Constitutional Court.

We see that the Government of Hungary is open to continue discussions related to the Strike Act and considers a unified position on the part of the trade unions is of crucial importance. We highly welcome that. Further discussions and tripartite consultations might be needed at national level. The active engagement of the Hungarian social partners would also be necessary to meaningfully address the issues raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Government member, Türkiye – Türkiye acknowledges Hungary’s longstanding ratification of the Convention and welcomes the Government’s reaffirmed commitment to protecting the rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization.

We take note of the detailed written and oral clarifications provided by the Hungarian Government, particularly with regard to the recent amendments of the Labour Code. We understand that these revisions aim to enhance the effectiveness of collective bargaining and enterprise-level dialogue, while ensuring legal coherence and predictability.

We welcome the continued functioning of the VKF, which met 28 times between 2022 and 2024. This platform serves as a key mechanism for institutionalized social dialogue on wage policy, strike legislation and union-related matters.

On trade union registration, we appreciate the Government’s clarification that over 1,100 trade unions were successfully registered between 2017 and 2021. This reflects a functioning administrative system supported by simplified procedures and standard statutes. We encourage continued efforts to eliminate any practical or procedural barriers to ensure full compliance with Article 2 of the Convention.

Türkiye believes that dialogue and constructive engagement are essential in addressing concerns related to the implementation of international labour standards. In this regard, we encourage all stakeholders to approach the matter with a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. Türkiye also underscores the importance of cooperative engagement and welcomes Hungary’s expressed commitment to ongoing dialogue with the ILO and its readiness to further align domestic legislation with international obligations. In conclusion, Türkiye supports the Government of Hungary in its continued efforts to give full effect to the Convention and to foster an enabling environment for the freedom of association and collective action.

Government member, Kazakhstan – The Kazakhstani delegation commends Hungary’s commitment to upholding the principles of the Convention. Hungary’s comprehensive legal framework, robust social dialogue, and ongoing engagement with the ILO demonstrate clear dedication to protecting workers’ rights and trade union freedoms. We note Hungary’s proactive steps to address the Committee of Experts’ observations. Kazakhstan supports Hungary’s efforts to balance employer and worker interests while fostering an environment conducive to freedom of association. We encourage continued dialogue to ensure full compliance with the Convention and express our confidence in Hungary’s commitment to these shared values.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking on behalf of IndustriALL Global Union, which has three industrial affiliates in Hungary. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, the Government must implement all necessary measures, including legislative action, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not restrict workers’ freedom of expression or hinder trade unions and their leaders in fulfilling their mandate to protect the occupational interests of their members.

The increasing surveillance of workers’ Facebook activity, as part of broader restrictions on freedom of expression, significantly undermines organizing efforts by pressuring individuals to self-censor. This is particularly alarming given the lack of legal clarity, which enables employers to implement ostensibly lawful retaliatory measures designed to suppress dissent and collective action. In such cases, the burden falls on the worker to contest these actions in court – a process that is often complex, resource-intensive and fraught with conflict – making legal challenges rare in practice.

We call on the Government of Hungary to engage in social dialogue and adequate consultation with its social partners because even though there is in place the VKF, the role of social partners remains minimal and largely symbolic, and several legislative proposals, such as the recent new foreign agent law, have bypassed the Forum.

Furthermore, the Government’s justification for eliminating the payroll deduction of membership fees as an “administrative burden” is both baseless and misleading. The system had operated effectively since 1991 and continues to be the primary method of union membership dues collection in Hungary. Payroll deduction simplifies the process for members and ensures reliable financing for unions – especially critical given that membership fees are typically set at 1 per cent of a fluctuating base salary, which can only be accurately tracked through employer deductions.

The Government must take immediate action to eliminate all burdens and obstacles hindering union registration.

We demand that the Government urgently engage in meaningful consultations with the social partners to implement necessary reforms, including the simplification of registration requirements, particularly those related to union headquarters.

In addition, the Government must urgently amend the Strike Act, in consultation with social partners, to ensure clarity, fairness, and the protection of workers’ fundamental rights. The current law remains excessively vague, failing to clearly define which sectors are subject to minimum service requirements.

We call on the Government of Hungary to take immediate action to guarantee the resumption of sectoral collective bargaining, which has been critically lacking.

Observer, Building and Woodworkers’ International (BWI) – BWI represents millions of workers across the construction, building materials, wood and forestry sectors. These industries are marked by some of the most challenging conditions in the world of work – high-risk environments, short-term contracts and layered subcontracting chains. It is precisely in this context that workers need strong, independent trade unions to safeguard their rights, ensure workplace safety and secure fair pay.

Yet in Hungary, this fundamental right – the right to organize freely and form trade unions – is facing serious and persistent limitations.

The report from the Committee of Experts delivers a stark warning. Despite years of engagement and repeated observations, the Hungarian Government has once again failed to respond to credible, long-standing allegations about restrictive trade union registration practices.

The Committee of Experts outlined a pattern of systemic obstruction: union applications rejected over minor procedural flaws; rigid legal requirements forcing by-laws to conform with civil legislation; and unjustified conditions, such as mandating the inclusion of employer names in union titles.

These are not bureaucratic errors. They are deliberate structural barriers. They restrict freedom of association, diminish the voice of workers, and directly undermine the Convention – one of the ILO’s core Conventions.

Let us be clear: the refusal to simplify and reform these procedures is not a neutral policy choice. It fragments worker representation, weakens labour protections and corrodes trust in democratic institutions.

The Committee of Experts urged the Hungarian Government to engage in meaningful dialogue with workers’ and employers’ organizations and to take concrete action to remove these obstacles. That call must be answered with urgency and sincerity.

We join the Committee of Experts in calling on the Hungarian Government to take immediate and concrete action. Specifically, we demand that the Government initiate an inclusive tripartite consultation process with workers’ and employers’ organizations to review and reform the current union registration procedures. This must include eliminating excessive formalities, removing arbitrary barriers, and ensuring that the registration of trade unions is timely, transparent and consistent with international labour standards. The Government must also provide detailed data on registration approvals and refusals, to allow public accountability and international scrutiny.

Government representative – On behalf of the Government of Hungary, we take note of the observations made by the members of the Committee. We will consider them carefully, and will strive to take them into account. In my concluding remarks, I would like to emphasize that the Government of Hungary considers effective social dialogue at the national, sectoral and enterprise levels to be a key element of the world of work. At the legislative level, the Hungarian Fundamental Law provides the general framework and guarantees for freedom of association, as well as the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Our national regulatory environment regarding workers’ collective rights is in line with the standards set by international labour norms. Hungary remains firmly committed to the full implementation of the Convention and we are open to constructive dialogue, both domestically and internationally, as stressed by many speakers. We will continue to work in partnership with our social partners to promote fair labour relations, decent work and inclusive economic growth in Hungary.

Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank the various distinguished speakers who took the floor for their interventions and for the information provided, of which we fully have taken note. We reiterate what the Convention is a fundamental Convention and that we condemn non-compliance relating to the application of this Convention.

We are pleased that the Government, both in writing and orally today, reaffirmed its willingness and commitment to further national-level social dialogue. Considering today’s discussion, we would like to recommend the following. First, we ask the Government to provide without undue delay further information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period from 2021 to 2025: to respond to the allegations and to provide information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors, as well as on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the VKF.

Second, we urge the Government to start a process of social dialogue with the national representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to examine the discussed points, especially regarding the assessment of a need to simplify the registration requirements with the aim to apply the obligations of the Convention in law and practice.

Third, we ask the Government to provide information on the progress made and all measures taken in this respect.

To conclude, we count on the collaboration of the Government to start meaningful engagement with the social partners and to implement these recommendations.

Worker members – We have heard from our discussion today the fundamental importance of the Convention as an enabling right and the need for the Hungarian Government to guarantee its protection in law and practice, including taking immediate steps in consultation with the social partners to implement the repeated comments of the Committee of Experts again in both law and in practice.

The Committee of Experts’ report repeats its long-standing concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code are incompatible with the Convention by restricting workers’ fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Under this law, workers are prohibited from engaging in any conduct including their right to express an opinion in or outside of the workplace that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or economic interests.

Freedom of expression for trade unions, in pursuit of representing the interests of our members, necessarily sometimes includes the need to say things that are uncomfortable for the Government, an employer, or both.

It is only by challenging the comfort of those with power that we can shift the status quo and ensure decent work. Any prohibition on the free and frank discussion of fundamental labour rights and working conditions suffocates the ability of unions to drive forward social progress and economic well-being, in short, damaging our own legitimate interests.

Once again, as the Committee of Experts has done, we urge the Government to work with the social partners to amend this law to ensure that it does not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the ability of trade unions to defend the occupational interests of their members.

We are gravely concerned about allegations that national prosecutors have interfered in internal union operations demanding documents, questioning decisions and even conducting direct inspections of trade union offices. Such practices seek to assert State control over independent workers’ organizations and are clearly incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government has yet to respond to these serious allegations.

Unfortunately, the Government has opened up a new front by attacking public sector unions. Since January 2024, public employers in Hungary are no longer permitted to automatically deduct union dues from the wages of public employees. The effect of this will clearly be to weaken trade unions in the public sector.

In a joint statement issued by the SZEF and the National Federation of Workers’ Councils (MOSZ), the unions expressed deep concern that this legislative change will weaken social dialogue, damage labour relations and ultimately reduce the quality of public services in Hungary. We fully support this view and call on the Government to reverse this measure and to restore workers’ rights to adopt deductions from their wages under the check-off system in line with the Convention.

Regarding union registration, delays and bureaucratic hurdles continue to frustrate the registration and operation of trade unions. The Committee of Experts report once again calls on the Government to work with the social partners to streamline the trade union registration process and to provide meaningful data on the number of unions registered or denied registration to better assess compliance with the Convention.

We note from the debate that there appears to be some confusion as to whether legislation demands a certain nomenclature for unions, or whether the name of a union can in any way cause delays in, or refusal of, registration.

We ask that the Government clarify this urgently with the social partners, with the expectation that a union’s name should in no way be subject to external approval and certainly not be grounds for blocking registration.

We also note with serious concern that the right to strike remains restricted. The Committee of Experts has previously called for reforms to the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act to ensure that unions can take part in defining minimum service levels. The Government must act on this with urgency.

We also note with grave concern the general atmosphere for the exercise of civil liberties in Hungary and that civil space is being squeezed.

On 13 May a draft law on the transparency of public life was submitted to the Hungarian Parliament which, if passed, would pose a serious threat to civil society, including trade unions. Under this proposal, trade unions that receive any funding from foreign sources, including the EU, may be placed on a public watch list and subjected to financial and administrative sanctions simply for representing the interests of their members, by seeking to influence public officials through normal channels.

We remind fellow delegates that trade unions operate both domestically, regionally and internationally. For example, five Hungarian union federations are members of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and their attendance at some ETUC meetings is financially supported by the EU in recognition of the need to represent their members’ interests across the EU. Therefore, any interference in sources of funding interferes in a union’s rights to organize and carry out its activities in defence of its members’ interests. We urge the Government to immediately take steps to address this and other concerns aired today in this Committee.

Free and independent trade unions are the beating heart of a healthy civil society. The protections afforded by the Convention ensure that workers’ rights can be defended and, in turn, nurture a climate of respect for civil liberties and democratic freedoms. Any attempt to undermine the provisions of the Convention therefore has a far wider impact and raises serious concerns for the exercise of all other human rights.

We therefore urge the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to adopt without delay a time-bound concrete action plan to reform labour laws that restrict workers’ freedom of expression, reinstate automatic dues deductions in the public sector, simplify union registration procedures, amend restrictive strike legislation without further delay, avoid adopting any proposed measures that would chill legitimate trade union activity and the exercise of trade union rights.

Freedom of association is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right of workers and their unions under international law. And we must be clear, if a Government systematically attacks unions, silences workers and evades accountability, it fails to meet its obligations under the Convention.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with concern the restrictions in law and practice regarding the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities, as well as to further and defend the interests of their members in line with the Convention.

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee urged the Government:

• in consultation with the social partners, to take measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede or impair the fundamental rights provided by the Convention, including the right of workers’ organizations to defend the occupational interests of their members;
• to engage in consultations with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations to assess the need to simplify the registration requirements in law and practice, as well as those relating to their headquarters; and
• in consultation with the social partners, to address the obstacles to the registration in practice and provide data on: the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period 2021–2025, to respond to the allegations and to provide information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors; and on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the Permanent Consultative Forum of the Competitive Sector.

The Committee requested the Government to report any progress to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

Chairperson – I now invite the distinguished representative of the Government of Hungary to take the floor.

Another Government representative – We take note of the conclusions of the Committee. We reaffirm that Hungary remains firmly committed to the full implementation of the Convention, to fulfilling its duties as a Member of the ILO, and that we are open to constructive dialogue with the social partners at national level. The Government considers effective social dialogue at the national, sectoral and enterprise levels to be a key element of the world of work.