Hungary Files Motion for Immediate Removal of President Sulyok. He Is to Leave by July 20, He Speaks of Abuse of Power

On Saturday, Péter Magyar's Hungarian government formally submitted the seventeenth amendment to the constitution to parliament, which would end President Tamás Sulyok's term practically immediately — instead of the planned conclusion in 2029 — with his departure expected around July 20. The package also forces four Constitutional Court judges into retirement, including its chairman Péter Polt, and introduces a twelve-year cap on the length of a parliamentary mandate. In a Sunday interview, Sulyok refused to leave, saying that a law "tailored" only to the current president contradicts the principles of the rule of law — and he is not the only one pointing to the pace of the changes: Human Rights Watch also speaks of a process that is too fast and lacks proper consultation.

What the proposal contains

The text Magyar submitted to parliament on Saturday goes further than the June announcement of the "Cleansing Fire" operation — back then it was an intention, now it is actual legal provisions. Telex ↗ The day after the seventeenth amendment takes effect, Sulyok's term — which otherwise would have run until 2029 — is to end; parliament then has thirty days under constitutional rules to elect a successor, and Magyar promises a new president before August 20. Forbes.hu ↗

The package extends beyond the presidential question itself. It introduces an age cap of 70 for Constitutional Court judges, affecting four current members — most notably its chairman Péter Polt, who turned seventy last September. Index.hu ↗ Saturday's text also changes the length of future judicial terms — from the current twelve years to nine years, with no possibility of re-election. Telex ↗ The third pillar is a twelve-year cap on the total length of a parliamentary mandate — a measure that in practice will barely touch the fresh Tisza faction but will noticeably affect the longest-serving Fidesz MPs.

Sulyok: "there is no legal basis"

In an interview with the Polish weekly Do Rzeczy, the president reiterated that he has no reason to resign and that there is no constitutional legal basis for his removal. Index.hu ↗ His key argument concerns the general applicability of law: according to Sulyok, this is a norm "tailor-made" for one specific person — the current president — rather than a general rule applying equally to all future holders of the office. In his view, it is precisely this targeted nature that conflicts with the principles of the rule of law. Telex ↗ The judicial age limit ultimately has the same targeted character — it immediately removes precisely the court's current composition, not its future one.

The Venice Commission has already been to Budapest

To assess the process, Sulyok requested an opinion from the Venice Commission — the advisory constitutional law body of the Council of Europe. Its delegation, led by chairwoman Marta Cartabia of Italy, visited Budapest last week under an expedited procedure and met with Sulyok, Prime Minister Magyar, ministers, and the speaker of parliament. Euronews ↗ The commission can only issue a non-binding advisory opinion — its conclusions are not legally binding, and it has not yet published its final statement.

The criticism isn't coming only from Fidesz

The sharpest words have come, paradoxically, from a man who for years was Orbán's right hand. Gergely Gulyás, today head of the Fidesz parliamentary group, summed up the concern this way: "If this can be done to the head of state, to the Constitutional Court, to the parliamentary opposition, then from now on anything can be done to anyone in Hungary." Index.hu ↗ He noted that not even Fidesz, during its six terms in office with a constitutional majority, ever attempted to remove a sitting president or judges.

Orbán himself, though speaking in a different, tangential dispute over funding for former president János Áder's foundation, voiced similarly sharp criticism — speaking of "aggression, threats, intimidation" and "a direct path to arbitrary rule." Index.hu ↗

However, the criticism is not coming only from Fidesz. Human Rights Watch does acknowledge a legitimate goal — dismantling the power network that Fidesz built during its sixteen years in government — but it raises concerns about the process itself: the public, including civil society, was given only five days, until June 27, to comment on such a fundamental change. Human Rights Watch ↗ According to the organization, restoring the rule of law also requires following due process, not merely pursuing the right goal.

The limits of this view

Fidesz's outrage should be taken with a grain of salt — the party used that very same two-thirds lever for sixteen years to fill the courts, the prosecutor's office, and public media with its own people — after all, Sulyok and Polt are its former nominees. Even the twelve-year cap on parliamentary mandates, presented as a general anti-corruption measure, in practice affects almost exclusively Fidesz — the fresh Tisza faction will barely feel it.

But the concern is not purely a Fidesz matter or a purely domestic one. The fact that the Venice Commission, at Sulyok's request, is handling the matter under an expedited procedure, and that Human Rights Watch also objects to the pace of the changes, suggests that the question of precedent — namely, whether the same constitutional majority might in the future be abused by a government of a different political stripe — is real and independent of who currently occupies the Sándor Palace.

What hotinfo is following

The parliamentary vote on the seventeenth amendment — Tisza holds a two-thirds majority, so passage is nearly certain, though an exact date has not yet been set.

Sulyok's actual departure around July 20 and parliament's election of a successor within thirty days — Magyar promises a new president before August 20.

The fate of Péter Polt and the other three Constitutional Court judges — will they leave without resistance, or will they fight the age limit through legal channels?

The Venice Commission's opinion — though non-binding, it could influence the discussion about Hungary at the EU level.

Political scientist Gábor Török's proposal for Fidesz to boycott the parliamentary session — will it actually happen?