Hungary’s new government says it is close to an agreement with Brussels on frozen EU funds, but the outcome will test whether the European Commission is prepared to release money before all rule-of-law and anti-corruption concerns are fully resolved.
Hungary’s new Prime Minister Péter Magyar has said his government is close to reaching an agreement with the European Union on the release of frozen EU funds, while acknowledging that some questions remain over anti-corruption reforms.
Magyar said on Thursday that extensive preparatory talks with Brussels had resolved many important issues, but that there were still points to settle in relation to the fight against corruption. His remarks were reported by Reuters ahead of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Friday.
The negotiations are significant because Hungary is attempting to regain access to large amounts of EU money suspended during Viktor Orbán’s previous government over rule-of-law and corruption concerns. The funds include €6.5 billion in grants and €3.9 billion in loans from the EU recovery fund, as well as about €7 billion in structural funds.
For Budapest, the timing is urgent. Hungary has faced three years of economic stagnation and pressure on public finances. The new government is also working against deadlines attached to the EU recovery facility, under which funds must be committed and spent within a limited timeframe. Reuters reported earlier this month that Hungary was preparing a revised recovery plan and looking for ways to redirect funds into projects that could be implemented quickly.
For Brussels, the issue is more complicated. A deal with Magyar would mark a sharp change in EU-Hungary relations after years of confrontation under Orbán. But it would also require the Commission to show that any release of funds is based on concrete reforms rather than political goodwill towards a new government.
Hungary’s funds were frozen under several EU mechanisms. These included recovery-fund conditions, rule-of-law conditionality linked to the protection of the EU budget, and wider concerns over judicial independence, public procurement and corruption. The Commission has previously stated that Hungary must meet essential milestones before recovery money can be released, including reforms related to anti-corruption safeguards and the independence of oversight bodies.
One important part of Magyar’s case to Brussels is his plan for Hungary to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. He said his government would soon submit Hungary’s official request to join the EPPO, the EU body responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes affecting the Union’s financial interests. Hungary was one of the EU member states that had refused to participate under the previous government.
Joining the EPPO would be politically and legally significant. It would allow EU-level prosecutors to investigate suspected fraud, corruption or misuse of EU funds in Hungary, rather than relying only on national authorities. For Brussels, that would address one of the central weaknesses in Hungary’s previous anti-corruption framework: limited external oversight over how EU money was spent.
The Financial Times reported that Magyar was seeking to unlock more than €30 billion in frozen EU funds and that talks were focused on Hungary’s revised recovery plan, anti-corruption reforms and the possibility of making some funds usable beyond the current recovery-fund deadlines. According to the Financial Times, a political agreement could allow more detailed negotiations to continue, with possible approval by EU finance ministers in July.
The Commission will be under pressure from both directions. On one side, Hungary’s new government argues that it should not be financially punished for the failures of its predecessor if it is prepared to meet EU conditions. On the other, members of the European Parliament and rule-of-law specialists are likely to scrutinise any deal closely, particularly if funds are released before reforms are fully implemented.
That concern reflects earlier controversy over Hungary. In December 2023, the Commission released €10.2 billion in cohesion funds after concluding that Hungary had met conditions related to judicial independence. The decision was later challenged and criticised by some MEPs, who argued that it had been politically timed because Orbán was then blocking EU support for Ukraine. The Court of Justice of the EU confirmed in February 2026 that Hungary had become eligible for those funds following the Commission’s decision, according to the court’s press release.
The latest talks therefore raise a central question for EU conditionality: how should Brussels respond when a new government promises reform but has not yet completed it? If the Commission moves too slowly, it may weaken a pro-EU government trying to reverse previous rule-of-law damage. If it moves too quickly, it may weaken the credibility of the very conditions used to protect the EU budget.
Hungary’s position on Ukraine adds another layer. Magyar said Budapest would condition its support for Ukraine’s EU accession talks on an agreement concerning the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine. That suggests that even under a new government, Hungary may continue to use its leverage in EU decision-making, though in a less confrontational form than under Orbán.
The wider political context has changed rapidly. Magyar’s Tisza party came to power after defeating Orbán and has promised investigations into alleged corruption and abuse of power under the previous government. AP reported that Magyar planned to establish investigative committees into controversies from Orbán’s 16 years in power, including matters linked to public money and political control.
Those domestic reforms may strengthen Magyar’s position in Brussels, but they do not remove the Commission’s legal obligations. EU funds can be released only if the relevant conditions are met. The Commission will have to decide whether Hungary’s commitments, legal changes and institutional reforms are sufficient to justify unfreezing money, or whether payment should wait until the new safeguards are tested in practice.
For Hungary, access to EU money could relieve budget pressure and help the new government show that a change in political direction has immediate economic benefits. For the EU, the decision will shape the credibility of its rule-of-law enforcement. A carefully phased release could support reform while preserving conditionality. A premature release would invite accusations that Brussels is again trading legal standards for political convenience.
The deal now being discussed is therefore more than a financial settlement. It is a test of whether the EU can reward democratic and anti-corruption reform without diluting the standards that led the money to be frozen in the first place.
