Hungary: Let Pride March Freely

Over the last decade, the Hungarian government has conducted a campaign against LGBTI rights using stigmatizing rhetoric and targeting those in civil society who stand up for equality. On 11 March, MPs of the Fidesz party that holds governing majority submitted a set of amendments to the Fundamental Law (Hungary’s Constitution) to establish a constitutional basis for banning the annual Pride marches. On 17 March, another bill was introduced by the same MPs, to amend the existing legislation on assemblies. The bill was fast-tracked through Parliament the next day, without consultation, and promulgated as Act III of 2025, and has entered into force on 15 Aprill 2025.

The new law (Act III of 2025) contains vague language which permits authorities to ban any assemblies advocating for LGBTI rights and depicting LGBTI themes. It makes it a crime to hold or organize and a petty offence to attend events that violate Hungary’s ‘Propaganda Law’ legislation, which prohibits the ‘depiction or promotion’ of homosexuality and divers gender identities to under-18s. Specifically, it introduced harsh penalties, including fines of up to 200,000 HUF (approximately 500 EUR) for individuals who participate in a banned Pride event. Those who hold or organize a banned assembly face, according to the Criminal Code already in effect, criminal charges and risk up to one year of imprisonment. The new law also widens the scope where the police may disperse a notified assembly. The new law maintained that publicly promoting any assembly before the notification is provided and accepted by the police constitutes, is, in itself, a petty offence. The timeframe for the notification of an assembly was amended, whereby organizers must give notice no later than 1 month Pride organizers can start the notification process for the Budapest Pride at the earliest on 28 May.

The new legislation also widens the scope for the possible use of facial recognition technology (FRT) to any petty offences, including petty offences related to assemblies. It provides a carte blanche authorisation to police and other authorities to identify anyone’s face on the streets, public spaces, if the authority deems it “necessary to prevent, deter, detect and disrupt offences and to bring offenders to justice” in relation to any petty offence. This is of particular concern in relation to a potential use to identify individuals suspected of attending assemblies which might be banned by authorities, such as the Prides.

These changes, especially when considered collectively, undermine the fundamental rights of LGBTI individuals and their allies, including their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. They effectively seek to push LGBTI people out of the public eye by labelling the “promotion” and “display” of homosexuality and transgender identities as prohibited “content” during demonstrations. This discriminatory law also represents a grave infringement on the privacy rights of every citizen in Hungary. It seeks to create an atmosphere of fear and silence for those who dare to express dissent. Such measures threaten not only personal privacy but also the very essence of freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly and must be repealed.

Ahead of the Budapest Pride, Amnesty International reminds Hungarian authorities that States have a positive obligation to protect, respect and facilitate peaceful assemblies, in law and in practice. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is protected under international law and standards in conventions Hungary is a party to, and it should not be subject to permission from authorities. Any such mandatory requirement should not be used as a means to control protests; instead, they should be understood merely as a means of providing information that a protest will be taking place.

Any restriction on assemblies must be prescribed by law, but also, cumulatively, be aimed at protecting a legitimate public interest, be necessary and proportionate, meaning that the same result cannot be achieved through other less restrictive means. The prohibition of a specific public assembly in advance therefore must always be a measure of last resort, based on a case-by-case assessment taking into account the specific circumstances of each assembly.

Any decision to disperse an assembly should also be taken only as a last resort and carefully in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality, that is only when there are no other means available to protect a legitimate aim which outweighs the right of people to assemble peacefully. In any such situation, the police and any other law enforcement authorities must, as far as possible, avoid any use of force and, in any event, must always restrict it to the minimum level necessary and comply with the fundamental principles of proportionality, precaution and non-discrimination.