Hungarian Constitutional Court: climate inaction violates the rights of future generations

In a historic decision that will reverberate throughout Europe for a long time to come, on June 12, 2025, the Hungarian Constitutional Court dealt a decisive blow to the state's inaction on climate change. The judges declared the current legal framework inadequate and obliged parliament to adopt much stricter and more specific measures against climate change by mid-2026. The significance of this legal precedent became a hot topic at a webinar organized by environmental and legal organizations. In it, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Katalin Szujok (from Durham University and ELTE) explained the legal details of the decision. Constitutional judge and rapporteur in the case, Marcel Szabo, emphasized that it is precisely the principle of intergenerational justice that compels institutions to look beyond their short-term mandates. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Akos Eger from Friends of the Earth Hungary, the organization behind the campaign that led to the court ruling.

Right to a future
At the heart of the current ruling is the repeal of a specific key provision of Hungary's 2020 Climate Act. This provision set a target of reducing emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. However, according to the court, this target is outdated, does not meet the country's international commitments, and ignores scientific data on the speed at which the climate crisis is deepening. The judges are adamant that the state cannot simply set a minimum threshold for protection, but is obliged to continuously raise it in line with new knowledge and risks. Their argument is based on fundamental principles such as precaution, prevention, and intergenerational justice. According to the Constitutional Court, it is precisely the lack of real action to limit emissions that violates the right of future generations to a healthy environment. The Constitution does not allow institutions to stand idly by while the future of nature and people is threatened, they emphasize. Thus, the court does not simply repeal a paragraph of the climate law. It accuses parliament of complete inaction on climate change and obliges it to create a new, adequate legal framework by June 30, 2026, covering both emissions reduction and adaptation to the changes already taking place.

The road to court
How did we get here? Back in 2023, Hungary achieved the statutory target of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, seven years ahead of schedule. However, this was not the result of a targeted policy, but rather of the economic transformations after 1990. This effortless achievement sparked public discontent and criticism that the law was toothless and served only as a political smokescreen. This is when environmental organizations, led by Friends of the Earth Hungary, entered the scene. They launched a campaign claiming that the lack of ambition was not just political weakness, but a direct violation of the rights of young and unborn Hungarians. Their main argument is that the law effectively shifts the entire burden of dealing with the crisis onto the shoulders of future generations. With the support of 50 opposition MPs, they referred the matter to the Constitutional Court in 2024, and a year later, the current decision was reached.

Beyond good intentions: a "duty to progress."
The Hungarian court's decision transforms climate commitments from good intentions into a legal obligation. It gives the judiciary a tool to ensure that politicians take concrete, measurable, and binding measures. Dr. Csaba Kish, director of the Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA), commented: "The significance of the Hungarian Constitutional Court's decision cannot be overestimated. Not only does it reinforce the validity and applicability of the principle of non-regression (i.e., the prohibition on taking a step backward from already achieved environmental standards), but it also introduces a concept that we could call a 'duty to progress' (i.e., an obligation to continuously improve nature conservation in line with developments in scientific knowledge and risks)." According to him, this new concept could gain recognition outside Hungary, especially in networks such as "Justice and Environment," where practicing lawyers can apply it in their daily work, as well as in future strategic climate cases. "The court points out that if a law remains unchanged for a long time, but life and reality evolve in the meantime, the law may become detached from reality and thus violate intergenerational equality or the principles of precaution and prevention—just as happened with the Hungarian Climate Law," says Csaba Kish.

A look at Bulgaria
According to Plamen Peev, legal advisor to the BlueLink Foundation: "This decision by the Hungarian Constitutional Court is significant for the Hungarian legal system, but also for the role of constitutional courts in ensuring more binding legislative and strategic measures against the climate crisis. It introduces constitutional obligations related to environmental protection and intergenerational equality, and requires the legislature to adopt more ambitious and specific climate policies in line with constitutional principles." Peev recalls that in Bulgaria, the Constitutional Court has not yet considered a classic climate case. However, in its decision on Case No. 14/2020, the court recognizes the need to transform the relationship between humans and nature in the context of the climate crisis. It emphasizes that the legislator must balance private economic interests with the public interest in protecting ecosystems and a favorable environment, in conditions of limited ecosystem resources and increasingly frequent extreme climate events. The Hungarian case shows how such a balance can be achieved through judicial intervention in the protection of future generations.
 

BlueLink is publishing this article as part of the BeLife project, funded by the European Union's LIFE program. It empowers people to use the law to benefit the environment and climate by improving the resources available for environmental democratic rights, building the capacity of environmental and climate defenders, and improving the quality of environmental rights complaints. The information and views set out on the project website are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union.