03/07/2025
In an unprecedented decision, the Hungarian Constitutional Court has annulled a central provision of the country’s Climate Protection Act, calling it unconstitutional and insufficient to address the escalating climate crisis. Article 3(1) of the 2020 law, which requires a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, will be annulled with effect from June 30, 2026. The Court ruled that this provision was incompatible with the country’s fundamental law, notably because it failed to respect the principles of intergenerational justice, precaution and environmental prevention.
This decision marks a turning point for environmental constitutionalism in Hungary, and underlines the increasingly vital role played by the courts in promoting climate action.
The Legal Background: A Constitutional Framework for Climate
The Court based its ruling on several fundamental provisions of Hungary’s Fundamental Law:
- Article P(1): declares that natural resources are part of the “common heritage of the nation” and imposes a duty to protect them for future generations.
- Article XX(1): recognises that everyone has the right to physical and mental health.
- Article XXI(1): guarantees the right to a healthy environment.
Together, these articles create a triple obligation for the Hungarian state, protect the rights of people living today, safeguard the well-being of future generations, and preserve the nation’s environmental and cultural resources for their inherent value.
A law already overtaken by reality
At the heart of the Court’s reasoning is the finding that Hungary has already achieved the 40% emissions reduction target by 2023. This makes the law functionally obsolete and legally symbolic rather than action-oriented. The Court emphasised that climate protection must be a dynamic legal process and not a static reference fixed in time. The ongoing threat of climate change requires up-to-date objectives that reflect current scientific knowledge and technological capabilities.
The ruling also notes that the law’s focus on reducing emissions, without corresponding measures for adaptation or climate resilience, fails to meet all of its constitutional obligations. Climate change, the Court explained, affects not only emissions, but also ecosystems, public health, agriculture and biodiversity, particularly in vulnerable regions such as the Carpathian Basin.
Holding Climate Laws to Account
Although the Climate Protection Act has symbolic weight, the Court warned that symbolism should not be a substitute for substantive action. Effective climate governance requires both high-level vision and legal specificity. The Court pointed out that strategies such as the Hungarian National Energy and Climate Plan (NEKT) can be useful, but their political nature lacks the enforceability and clarity of legislative provisions.
To this end, the Court invoked the principles of ‘precaution’ and ‘prevention’ as constitutional requirements. Environmental protection is not a one-off legal act; it requires continuous revision and strengthening of laws in response to new knowledge and changing conditions. If legislation remains unchanged while the science of climate risk advances, the result is a failure of governance and, in this case, a breach of constitutional duty.
What happens next?
Looking ahead, the Court has given the Hungarian Parliament until 30 June 2026 to adopt comprehensive climate legislation. This legislation must go beyond mitigation and include solid plans for adaptation and resilience. It must also take into account Hungary’s specific environmental vulnerabilities and be tailored to the needs of the Carpathian Basin.
Failure to act could expose the country to further legal challenges and, above all, to continued environmental degradation that would disproportionately affect younger and future generations.
The Hungarian Constitutional Court has sent a clear message: the climate crisis cannot be tackled with obsolete laws and minimal efforts. Constitutional obligations require clarity, ambition and regular review. The ruling affirms that climate protection is not a political favour, but a constitutional right and a shared responsibility owed to present and future generations.