TISZA wins Parliament backing to strip Hungary’s gambling authority of key powers

Hungary’s Parliament has moved to reduce the Supervisory Authority for Regulated Activities’ (SZTFH) role in gambling licences, concessions and related approvals. For PSPs and operators, the important bit is simple: the body that sat in the middle of concession governance may be headed for a much narrower brief.

1. On Friday, 2 October, Parliament approved a move to reduce or limit SZTFH’s powers and dismantle its Concessions Council. The vote was 135 in favour, 46 against and six abstentions, backed mainly by TISZA and its two-thirds supermajority in Hungary’s National Assembly.
2. SZTFH was established in 2021 and oversees gambling alongside tobacco, mining, cybersecurity and other regulated activities. Under the TISZA government’s broader review of state institutions, its remit is now being re-examined, with possible termination of its authority over gaming licences.
3. The changes come from Bill T/639, submitted by the government on 8 September. The bill sought to remove SZTFH’s functions tied to concession agreements and dissolve the Concession Council. Under the proposed setup, SZTFH’s prior consent would no longer be required for concession tenders, invitations to submit offers, or the conclusion, amendment and termination of concession contracts.
4. TISZA also plans to appoint ministers to review how SZTFH granted concessions for key gaming contracts. Relevant parties have been given a 30-day window to present details of ownership and management structures.
5. The review sits inside Finance Minister András Kármán’s “breaking corruption” campaign, which TISZA presents as part of a push to restore trust in Hungary’s economy. Hungary has lagged behind all EU member states since 2023, and the government is using the gambling file as one of the sharper edges of that campaign.

SZTFH has pushed back on how its role has been described, saying it never had the power to award concessions directly; that authority belongs to the designated government. Its own position is that it handled prior consent and oversight, not the grant of concessions themselves. That distinction matters, because in licensing regimes the label on the power is often less important than who can slow, stop or reshape a deal in practice.