Hungary’s legislative framework for combating corruption: institutional roles, legal and conceptual issues

Purpose: This article aims to analyze Hungary’s legislative framework designed to prevent and combat corruption. Method: This study employs a methodological framework grounded in system-structural and formal-logical analysis. Results: The Fundamental Law of Hungary assigns the principal responsibility for preventing and combating crimes to the police, national security services, and the prosecutor’s office. The organizational frameworks of these bodies are established by statutory law and include specialized units dedicated to investigating corruption-related offenses. Furthermore, the Integrity Authority, established with the specific mandate of safeguarding the financial interests of the European Union, operates within a distinct legal framework. It is endowed with autonomous powers concerning corruption-related offenses. The legal framework for preventing and combating corruption consists of provisions in the Hungarian Criminal Code, which clearly defines and criminalizes various forms of corruption-related offenses. Conclusion: The legal status of the police, national security services, and the prosecutor’s office is established by the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which outlines their constitutional roles and functions. In contrast, the Integrity Authority, while legally authorized to conduct investigations into corruption-related offenses, does not appear to hold a clearly defined position within the framework of Hungary’s constitutional separation of powers. Its lack of explicit classification as a subject of constitutional and legal relations creates ambiguity regarding its constitutional status and role within the system of checks and balances.The central element of Hungarian anti-corruption legislation is the Criminal Code, which criminalizes various corruption-related offenses. However, Hungarian law does not define “corruption” as a distinct legal concept. The predominant focus of anti-corruption discourse placed on the legal categories of bribery and “integrity management”.