Based on what has happened, one clear and grave conclusion can be drawn:
In Hungary, judicial decisions are no longer binding within the Fidesz’s political practice; at best, they are treated as mere recommendations — and this is now openly acknowledged.
The Budapest-Capital Regional Court issued a clear and unequivocal order prohibiting the distribution of a publication containing false information and suitable for political intimidation. The decision was lawful, well-founded, and binding on everyone. Nevertheless, the government-aligned media apparatus did not halt the distribution; instead, it deliberately continued it and even demonstratively promoted it.
In a rare but exceptionally strong statement, the Hungarian Association of Judges warned that
if anyone believes a court decision does not apply to them, they are calling into question the country’s legal order and the fundamental principles of the Fundamental Law.
This is no longer about the authority of the judiciary, but about the collapse of the enforcement of shared rules.
What makes this case truly serious is not the violation itself, but the attitude behind it:
- the banned material continued to be distributed,
- the court’s decision was mocked and trivialized on political and media platforms,
- government actors openly encouraged its dissemination.
This is not a misunderstanding, not an administrative error, not a legal dispute.
👉 This was a deliberate political message:
“Courts matter only until they stand in our way.”
The purpose of the publication was not to inform, but to instill fear, mislead the public on a mass scale, and exert political pressure. When the court stopped this, the response was not retreat, but escalation. This clearly shows that the violation was embraced, the conflict was intentional, and the constraints of the rule of law have become secondary to political gain.
The final conclusion
👉 In Hungary, according to the Fidesz’s exercise of power, courts no longer issue binding decisions — they merely offer recommendations. And for the first time, this is not even being concealed; it is openly defended.
This represents a qualitative rupture in the rule of law:
- not silent circumvention of the law,
- not a technical loophole,
- but a public rejection of the legal order in the form of a political demonstration.