OTP Bank and several other market participants submitted a new constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court on Friday regarding the retail interest rate stop.
Constitutional Court Challenge Over the Interest Rate Stop
The filing targets the statutory transformation of emergency decrees under the 2026 XIV Act, specifically challenging Article 1 on the Budapesti Értéktőzsde website. According to the filing, the statutory provisions retroactively, unnecessarily, and disproportionately interfere with private law relationships without constitutional justification, failing to meet the legal certainty requirements set by the Fundamental Law.
Applicants ask the Constitutional Court to declare the specific statutory provision unconstitutional. While the current filing does not detail all participating financial institutions alongside OTP Bank, previous legal actions involving the measure included five major banks.
Did You Know? The original interest rate stop was introduced by the government on January 1, 2022, initially planned for just six months before being extended indefinitely and later integrated into regular legislation.
Pending prior complaints precede latest constitutional submission
The latest submission follows three prior constitutional complaints filed by OTP Bank and other market participants that remain pending without a substantive decision from the court. In September of last year, five institutions—OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Mortgage Bank, Erste Bank Hungary, K&H Bank, and Raiffeisen Bank—jointly challenged the measures. At one of the earlier petitions, the Banking Association named OTP Bank, OTP Mortgage Bank, Erste, K&H, and Raiffeisen as applicants.
Following parliamentary actions in May, the emergency measures were codified into regular law following a government transition. Financial institutions have long argued that the nationwide interest rate restrictions unfairly burden lenders by forcing them to absorb costs tied to the 2021 reference rate caps without the ability to pass unpaid interest onto capital or debt balances, restricted to the level of October 27. Even the Tisza government did not consider the current form sustainable.
Expert Insight: The ongoing legal disputes underscore the persistent clash between emergency state interventions in private loan contracts and the commercial predictability demanded by major commercial lenders operating within the banking sector.
Potential Implications for Borrowers and Lenders
At the end of last year, in 2025, a significant number of contracts fell under the scope of the interest rate stop, representing a total principal debt amount worth billions of forints. Previous discussions between the Ministry of Finance and banking representatives concluded without a formal agreement on phasing out the measure without triggering significant payment increases for vulnerable households. András Kármán stated in the summer that this regulation could remain in force until September 30, and although the government consulted with banks on the issue, a government decision was ultimately not made in time because an agreement with credit institutions could not be reached.
Constitutional court petitioners challenge emergency decree article
When was the latest constitutional complaint filed?
The constitutional complaint was submitted on Friday and published via the Budapesti Értéktőzsde.
Which financial institutions joined previous challenges?
Previous filings included OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Mortgage Bank, Erste Bank Hungary, K&H Bank, and Raiffeisen Bank, though the latest announcement did not list all participating institutions.
What do the applicants want the Constitutional Court to do?
The petitioners ask the court to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 1 of the 2026 XIV Act regarding emergency decrees.
What impacts do you think a Constitutional Court ruling could have on your own household borrowing costs?
Related reading