From the 2026 budget audit
195 millió Ft for court and prosecution input on legislation — frozen, not cut.
Judicial consultation in drafting law has a genuine rationale; the line is held flat so real-terms erosion at inflation does the work of gradually right-sizing a bounded administrative function.
195 millió Ft held at its 2026 nominal level — roughly 45 Ft per taxpayer — declining in real purchasing power by 20–25% over a decade without any active decision.
What you see — and what you don't
The seen: courts and prosecutors who will apply the law giving legislators their considered view before the rule is passed — reducing unworkable statutes. The unseen: the courts and prosecution service are themselves separately funded and the consultation activity is bounded; a nominal freeze lets inflation quietly right-size the line without disrupting the function.
Objection
"Courts and prosecutors should be able to flag problems with draft laws before they pass — this is basic quality control."
Answer
That function is kept intact. The freeze does not cut the consultation; it holds the nominal allocation flat, so inflation does the gradual work of reducing the real resource devoted to an administrative activity that is self-limiting by nature. The quality-control argument for the function is sound; it does not require real-terms growth of the line.
Share if you think budget lines for bounded administrative tasks should shrink in real terms over time, not grow.
The analyst's verdict
Participation of judicial bodies in legislative preparation
Rationale
This appropriation funds the participation of judicial bodies — the courts, the prosecution service, and related institutions — in the preparation of legislation, by which the legislative drafter obtains the considered view of the bodies that will apply the law. The function has a defensible rationale: a legal rule drafted without the input of the institutions that adjudicate under it is more likely to be unworkable, and the consultation is a modest input into the rule-of-law machinery the chapter exists to fund. It is not, however, a line whose expansion is warranted — judicial participation in legislative consultation is a bounded, administrative activity, and the bodies concerned are themselves separately funded out of the courts' and prosecution service's own chapters. The line is held at its nominal level; real-terms erosion at typical inflation reduces its real share by roughly 20-25% over a decade without any active decision, which is the appropriate trajectory for a bounded administrative function inside a rule-of-law chapter.
Transition mechanism
Hold the allocation at 195.2 millió Ft in nominal terms. No active reduction; real-terms erosion at ~2.5% inflation does the work.
Affected groups
None. The courts and prosecution service continue to participate in legislative consultation; the activity is bounded and self-limiting.
Free Society Institute
Support independent analysis
Our research is free, open, and unsponsored. If you find it valuable, help us keep it that way.