Hungarian President Tamás Sulyok has published the submission he sent to the Venice Commission, asking the Council of Europe’s constitutional advisory body to assess whether a proposed constitutional amendment that would end his mandate before the expiry of its term is compatible with European constitutional standards.
The 22-page document, published on the presidential office’s website on Monday, asks the Venice Commission to determine whether such an amendment would be lawful and whether a constitutional change specifically designed to remove the incumbent head of state would comply with European constitutional principles.
According to the presidential office, Sulyok first approached the Venice Commission on 29 May following the constitutional situation that emerged after Hungary’s April parliamentary elections. The statement argues that the proposed 17th amendment to the Fundamental Law threatens the rule of law and the separation of powers and represents a serious challenge to the foundations of constitutional democracy.
The Venice Commission is examining the request under an urgent procedure. On 2 July, a delegation from the Council of Europe’s constitutional advisory body visited Budapest, including Venice Commission President Marta Cartabia, Director and Secretary Simona Granata-Menghini, and Austrian member Christoph Grabenwarter.
The presidential office also criticized the government, saying that although it had expressed willingness to cooperate with the Venice Commission, it had not allowed the commission’s appointed experts to conduct the consultations requested for the case. It further noted that on 6 July the government decided to fast-track parliamentary consideration of the constitutional amendment without committing to wait for the commission’s opinion.
The published submission contains two separate requests and asks the Venice Commission to provide guidance across four groups of constitutional questions.
First, President Sulyok asks whether, in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is elected indirectly, a president can be held politically accountable and removed from office without any finding that the constitution or another law has been violated.
The submission notes that since 1990 Hungarian presidents have borne only limited legal responsibility rather than political responsibility. Under the current constitutional framework, a president may only be removed for intentionally violating the Fundamental Law or another law while exercising official duties, or for committing a criminal offence.
Sulyok argues that the current attempt to remove him is based on political considerations rather than constitutional grounds. He states that reasons cited publicly by the prime minister—including the need for a ‘systemic change’, a ‘strong democratic mandate’, ‘unworthiness’, or ‘unpopularity’—are not recognized by the Fundamental Law as valid grounds for dismissing a president.
‘Sulyok argues that the current attempt to remove him is based on political considerations rather than constitutional grounds’
The president also asks the Venice Commission to assess whether European constitutional standards permit changes to presidential accountability rules that would apply retroactively to an incumbent head of state, and whether removing a president for political reasons is compatible with the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty and the separation of powers.
In addition, Sulyok seeks the commission’s assessment of public statements made by the prime minister suggesting that the president should leave office and could be removed through constitutional means. He also asks whether a constitutional amendment whose identifiable purpose is to remove a lawfully elected president would be consistent with international constitutional standards.
In a supplementary submission, filed after the formal introduction of the proposed 17th constitutional amendment, Sulyok specifically requests an opinion on whether provisions allowing the early termination of the incumbent president’s mandate comply with European constitutional requirements relating to the rule of law, legal certainty, the separation of powers and fair procedure.
To support his arguments, the president cites previous opinions issued by the Venice Commission as well as case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.
The publication of the submission follows a dispute over public access to the document. According to Index, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ) requested the submission through a freedom of information request on 5 June. The presidential office initially refused, arguing that the material formed part of the decision-making process and that disclosure could interfere with both the Venice Commission’s deliberations and the president’s ability to present his position without external influence.
Following the refusal, TASZ turned to Hungary’s National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, which subsequently opened an investigation into the presidential office.
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
