Investigation Committee Uncovering the Systemic Crisis of Child Protection

The establishment of the body was ordered by Parliamentary Resolution 19/2026 (V. 27.), while the election of its members was decided by Parliamentary Resolution 27/2026 (VI. 8.).

Objectives and Tasks of the Investigation

The primary objective of the investigation is to uncover the structural, financial, operator-related, and personnel crisis of the Hungarian child protection system. The committee's starting point is that more than 21,000 children live in specialized care, while the capacity shortage of the foster care network, underfunding, substandard infrastructure, shortage of professionals, and the inadequate functioning of the alert system severely jeopardize the safety of children.

Under the resolution, the tasks of the committee include:

• Investigating how operational deficiencies contributed to the overloading of specialized care and the emergence of conditions that endanger children's rights.
• Uncovering why cooperation among guardianship authorities, child welfare services, healthcare, educational, and law enforcement agencies, as well as institutional operators, was unable to prevent abuse and institutional vulnerability.
• Verifying whether the announced increases in state funding resulted in actual systemic improvement.
• Determining political, professional, or institutional responsibility, and making proposals for legislative measures to strengthen the system.

The resolution states that the task of the committee is not to investigate individual criminal or regulatory cases, but to identify systemic problems.

Investigation Committee Uncovering Those Responsible for the Pardon Scandal

This investigation was brought into being by Parliamentary Resolution 20/2026 (V. 27.), and the appointment of officers was provided for by Parliamentary Resolution 28/2026 (VI. 8.).

Objectives and Tasks of the Investigation

The objective of the committee is to uncover how the preparation of the presidential pardon decision, the countersign by the Minister of Justice, and the political and informal lobbying network operated in the Bicske pardon case, resulting in K. E. receiving a pardon. The investigation is based on the fact that, according to disclosed documents, the professional proposal and the position of the Minister of Justice originally did not support the pardon, yet the decision was made and became effective.

According to the resolution, the tasks of the committee are:

• To examine whether the institutional and procedural framework of pardon decision-making complied with the requirements of the rule of law, transparency, and child protection considerations.
• To uncover the roles played by the Sándor Palace, the Ministry of Justice, government and party-political background actors, and external intermediaries in the process, and whether informal lobbying activities bypassing official decision-making preparation mechanisms took place.
• To determine the political, professional, or administrative responsibility for the anomalies, and to propose legislative guarantees that exclude political influence.

The body's task is not to reopen the court case or establish individual legal liability, but to clarify the decision-making chain institutionally.

Rules of Operation, Deadlines, and Guarantees of Transparency

Although these are two separate investigations, the National Assembly has established identical and strict operational and procedural frameworks for both bodies to ensure effective fact-finding.

Procedural Powers

Both committees are entitled to hold hearings and request official documents within their scope of duties. The resolutions lay down a binding obligation stating that everyone is required to make the requested data available to the committees, and summoned persons are obliged to appear before the bodies. The work of the representatives may be assisted by one expert per member. Members and experts shall not receive separate remuneration; operational costs are covered by the parliament's budget.

Deadlines and Rules of Publicity

The committees shall establish their own rules of procedure based on the provisions of the House Rules. The final deadline set for completing the work and submitting the final report is December 31, 2026.

As a general rule, the reports are fully public and must be published on the website of the National Assembly. The resolutions also include an important guarantee in the event that, due to political division, the majority required to adopt the final report is not achieved: in such cases, the proposed draft report, along with the written comments and dissenting opinions made by committee members, must be made public together on a mandatory basis.

One of the most common situations giving rise to the greatest number of conflicts during probate proceedings is when the deceased dies without making a testamentary disposition. In such cases, the fate of the assets and debts is determined by the statutory order of succession under the Hungarian Civil Code. Although the rules are clear, a significant proportion of clients are not aware of the more important changes introduced by the Civil Code currently in force, particularly with regard to the rights of the surviving spouse or the extent of the compulsory share.

Under the rules currently in force, the general rate of personal income tax (PIT) is 15 per cent of the tax base. In everyday language, many people lump the different concepts together and simply call every case in which no tax is deducted from their gross salary a “tax exemption.” From a legal-dogmatic perspective, however, classical tax exemption must be sharply distinguished from tax allowances. While tax-exempt revenues do not form part of the tax base in the first place, the tax system also recognises different rules that result in a reduction of the private individual’s tax: these are tax allowances reducing the consolidated tax base.

A particular characteristic of personal income tax is that these tax allowances and tax exemptions may be claimed only against income falling within the consolidated tax base and the tax thereon, and exclusively up to that amount.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence represents a landmark step in reconciling innovation with the protection of fundamental rights in the digital sphere. The Regulation’s primary objective is to improve the functioning of the internal market and to promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) within the European Union. At the same time, the Regulation attaches particular importance to ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights—including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection—against the potentially harmful effects of AI systems.

When enforcing overdue monetary claims, the time and cost involved in court litigation often act as a deterrent for the claimant. However, the Hungarian legal system provides a faster alternative that dispenses with the taking of evidence, known as the order for payment procedure (FMH).

This substitute for litigation, a simplified civil non-contentious procedure, is one of the most effective legal tools for enforcing claims, provided that the obligor does not contest the debt on the merits.

The National Assembly has adopted its individual resolutions on the election of the members and officers of the investigation committees, thereby concluding the procedural process of establishing the bodies. Under the decisions, both the Investigation Committee Uncovering the Systemic Crisis of Child Protection and the Investigation Committee Uncovering Those Responsible for the Pardon Scandal have received their final personnel compositions, allowing the elected representatives to immediately begin performing their independent duties as set out in the resolutions.