More than a decade has passed since the European Court of Human Rights found that Hungarian judges’ freedom of expression had been violated in the Baka case. Yet the problem endures. The execution of the judgment remains incomplete, and the Hungarian government has failed to take meaningful steps to safeguard this fundamental right. For example, smear campaigns against judges who have expressed their professional opinions have been recurring for years in the government-controlled media. Now, Hungarian judges are facing a completely new phenomenon: judges are being listed based on their perceived political affiliations, after their names appeared in a leaked database of supposed users of an online platform linked to a political party. None of these judges have ever publicly expressed political views or engaged in political activity. Rather than protecting those targeted, court leaders are alluding to disciplinary or other proceedings against them. The public listing and the lack of protection further increase the vulnerability of Hungary’s judges.

Bad practices

The listing of Hungarian judges itself is not a new phenomenon. At a management meeting of the Budapest Environs Regional Court on February 22, 2019, the court president handed out a list containing the membership details of the Hungarian Association of Judges and distributed it with the expressed wish that the court leaders encourage judges to resign from the Association. In its decision, the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH) found that the court president had processed these data in violation of the GDPR, and therefore ordered the payment of a data protection fine.

At the end of 2019, the opposition mayor of Hódmezővásárhely announced his intention to compile a list of judges he considered politically biased, comparing them to judges who handed down death sentences during the pre-1989 dictatorship. Eventually, he refrained from carrying out his plan, which had sparked protests from court administration and civil rights defenders.

Following a highly attended demonstration held in Budapest on February 22, 2025, organized by the Hungarian Association of Judges in support of judicial independence, a pro-government columnist began listing the judges who had participated at the demonstration, stating that if any of these judges presides over a case of pro-government persons, the parties must immediately file a complaint against the judge on the grounds of bias, and they must not appear at any hearings.

Doxing attack on judges

In recent days, the listing of judges has reached a new level. On November 2, 2025, news broke that a database of nearly 200,000 people registered with an app linked to Tisza, the strongest Hungarian opposition party, had been leaked and published on the internet. The app was developed for participation in the opposition party’s primaries (this was only changed right after the data leak), as well as for obtaining information about the party’s events and getting involved in them. The pro-government press quickly began to pick out political analysts, journalists, and artists from the list, publishing their names and the fact that their addresses and phone numbers were included in the leaked list. Since several of these individuals stated that they had not downloaded or used the app, the authenticity of the leaked list was called into question.

The NAIH announced that it is investigating the data breach, as the listing of users’ personal data may constitute a criminal offense and a violation of data protection laws. Next, when an interactive Google Maps-based database appeared, allowing anyone to search for the home address of individual users whose data had leaked from the app, the NAIH issued a statement on the need to delete the data.

The disclosure of around 200,000 Hungarians’ personal data is the largest politically motivated rights violation in post-1989 Hungarian history. Judges appear to be a key target of this doxing attack. An anonymous blog spreading government narratives – which I am not linking to so as not to contribute to the data incident – named three judges who appear on the list and questioned their independence on this basis. Soon, government-aligned media outlets also reported that judges were included on the list, although not all listed their names. The political columnist mentioned earlier, who is also a Fidesz-founder, called for these judges to be dismissed. The anonymous blog also reported that an unnamed judge of the Kúria (the Supreme Court of Hungary) may also be on the list. Considering that the private addresses of the judges mentioned are possibly searchable on an interactive map, this also poses a rather alarming security risk. Could Hungarian judges become the next targets of pizza deliveries like some of their US counterparts?  Given that some media outlets are inciting society against these judges, even physical threats appear entirely realistic.

Without protection

In light of the information that came out, Mandiner, a media outlet close to the government, reached out to the National Office for the Judiciary (NOJ) to ask whether the principle of impartial and fair proceedings can be guaranteed involving judges listed in a database of political activists. It also asked whether a judge who is found to be an active supporter of a political party can remain in office, and whether the NOJ will initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. In response, the NOJ reiterated Hungarian legal provisions under which judges may not be members of political parties and may not engage in political activities. According to their response, if the president of the court exercising employer’s rights over the judge in question becomes officially aware that the judge has violated this rule, the necessary measures will be taken. The NOJ added that any disciplinary proceedings would be conducted by the Service Court.

The President of the Kúria – the only court leader to publicly describe the judges’ demonstration as political in nature – addressed the issue without being asked to do so. According to his press release, “The laws and the rules of the courts, including the Kúria, provide the necessary tools to protect judicial integrity and to apply the appropriate legal consequences in the event of a violation of the rules of conduct binding on judges. To protect the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and to maintain public confidence, the Kúria is ready, as it has been in the past, to conduct the appropriate proceedings. However, this is subject to the unavoidable prerequisite that accurate, verifiable evidence relating to a specific person is available.”

The presidents of the NOJ and the Kúria are the top-level judicial leaders in Hungary. Not only did they fail to protect the doxed judges, but they also hinted at possibly holding them responsible. However, the President of the Kúria can only initiate and not conduct disciplinary proceedings, and only against the Kúria’s own judges. The President of the Kúria has long been waiting to wrench disciplinary proceedings away from the independent Service Courts, and a National Judicial Council minutes document has revealed that he has even proposed a legislative amendment to this effect, without success so far.

Political activity?

The doxed judges whose personal data was breached and disclosed in the press may have been victims of a criminal offense. Thus, statements on holding the listed judges accountable or indirectly referring to their disciplinary responsibility by the top judicial leaders seem to be yet another step on the path of restricting judges’ freedom of expression. Why should these judges be held accountable? The judges in question did not engage in political activity; they merely downloaded a legally available app and registered as private individuals. Such behavior cannot reasonably be construed as improper political conduct. When the then-united opposition was planning to hold a national primary election four years ago, judges were not said to be prohibited from participating, just as those who return the government’s national consultation polls are not considered politically active. I believe they have the right to do all of this, even simultaneously. Denying this right could open the door to further restrictions and new forms of control, where even the act of voting might quietly become a matter of suspicion.

Although judges in Hungary are indeed prohibited from being members of political parties and engaging in political activities, no one can expect them to be devoid of political interests or preferences; they remain citizens, entitled to vote. There is only one case known in which a Hungarian judge took the podium at a political event back in 2004 and was given a warning for doing so, but that was because she had publicly expressed clear and demonstrative support for a political party. That is not the case here. Downloading an app does not result in party membership or open support and does not even require political preferences; it can be done simply for informational purposes.

I cannot accept the passivist position that judges should be so extremely cautious as to refrain from any form of participation in public life. This is a misinterpretation of the requirements of independence and impartiality, and an unjustified broadening of the prohibition of political activity.

The limits of freedom of expression have been addressed by several European forums, including the Venice Commission, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), and the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Beyond ensuring the separation of powers and judicial independence as a fundamental principle and guaranteeing the right to express views on judicial institutions and the state of democracy, there are currently no standards in Europe that precisely define the requirement for judges to remain distanced from politics. While judges in Germany can even be members of political parties, norms there also emphasize the importance of ensuring the independence of the profession, and this is no different in Hungary. In her 2020 article, Orsolya Szántai concluded that, provided that due care is exercised, the expression of opinions by judges not only does not pose a threat to the impartiality of the judiciary but can also serve the interests of both judges and society (the public good) even under Hungarian law.

In the present case, however, there is no mention of publicly expressing, voicing, or propagating opinions. All that happened was that these judges appeared in a database containing personal data of alleged app users, from which they were further listed on the basis of their judicial profession, questioning their impartiality and independence.

We should bear in mind that the authenticity of the list has not yet been ascertained. However, this is irrelevant in terms of listing judges. After all, the purpose of listing judges is to undermine public confidence in the courts and to reinforce the idea that the Hungarian judiciary, which has sometimes achieved significant results in its efforts to defend its independence, is politically biased or, as government officials have previously put it, consists of communists or bugs. This has but one goal: to intimidate judges. It is again linked to the undue restriction of their freedom of expression.

We must speak out against listing

At present, we do not know whether or how the listing campaign will continue. It is possible that disciplinary proceedings will not actually be initiated, or that they will be discontinued and end with an “acquittal” or “withdrawal” as has happened in several previous cases involving the judiciary that had a wide-ranging impact. For example, this is what happened in the case of former members of the National Judicial Council or the judge who turned to the Court of Justice of the European Union with a request for a preliminary ruling on judicial independence. Disciplinary proceedings can create a chilling effect, but they are not the only means by which such effects can arise. The mere anticipation of punishment, the atmosphere of threat, can work just as powerfully. In a state governed by the rule of law, such chilling effects cannot be tolerated. They demand a clear and immediate response.