The key question is what legal, financial, and institutional tools a potential TISZA government could use to recover state assets that have previously been transferred into private ownership, to foundations, or to other organizations that are partly independent of the state.

It is important to distinguish between three things: recovering state-owned assets, investigating previous asset transactions, and reclaiming assets acquired unlawfully. These issues are related, but they are not legally the same. Assets transferred into private hands cannot automatically be taken back simply because a change of government has occurred; the available procedure depends on the legal circumstances of each transaction.

1. Reversing the Transfer of Assets to Public-Interest Trust Foundations

One of the most important areas is the system of public-interest trust foundations (közérdekű vagyonkezelő alapítványok, or KEKVAs). These foundations previously received substantial state assets, including real estate and company shares.

The TISZA Party’s 2026 election programme also identified the restoration of state control over universities as an objective.

Possible steps for reorganizing or recovering these assets include:

Conducting a detailed inventory of the foundations’ assets, contracts, and liabilities.

Restructuring the operations and governance of public-interest trust foundations.

Establishing the legal and financial framework for returning assets to state ownership.

Ensuring that universities and other institutions continue to operate throughout the transition.

An important recent development: according to an official government announcement, the liquidation of 16 public-interest trust foundations that did not carry out higher-education activities was completed on August 31, 2026. The announcement stated that assets with a book value of at least HUF 1,284 billion had returned to direct state control. This does not automatically mean that all foundation assets, or the assets held by university foundations, have also been returned.

2. A Dedicated Office to Investigate Matters Involving Public Assets

Another instrument for recovering assets is the National Office for Asset Recovery and Asset Protection (Nemzeti Vagyonvisszaszerzési és Vagyonvédelmi Hivatal), established under Act XXXIV of 2026. The legislation is available in Hungary’s National Legislation Database.

The office’s responsibilities include:

Tracing the movement of state assets, from earlier decisions through contracts and financial transactions to the actual ownership structures.

Examining public procurement contracts, state subsidies, concessions, and transactions involving state-owned companies.

Identifying assets unlawfully transferred out of public ownership and taking steps to secure them.

Initiating administrative or judicial proceedings where there are appropriate legal grounds, and carrying out the investigative and prosecution-related duties specified by law.

Publishing reports on its activities.

The office is therefore not simply an asset-management organization. It is an institution intended to investigate abuses involving public assets and help recover assets that have been unlawfully removed from public ownership.

3. Reclaiming Assets Acquired Unlawfully

Cases involving suspected corruption, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, or other unlawful conduct must be treated separately.

In such cases, the process could typically involve the following steps:

Investigation: Examining contracts, financial transactions, ownership structures, and the decisions that led to the transfer of assets.

Securing assets: Where the legal requirements are met, taking measures to prevent assets from being concealed or transferred to others.

Legal proceedings: Initiating criminal proceedings, civil litigation, or another procedure appropriate to the case.

Recovery: Returning the assets or their value to the state on the basis of the outcome of judicial or other lawful proceedings.

The key point is that the fact that a previous transaction is politically controversial does not, by itself, establish that it was unlawful. Recovery requires an appropriate legal basis and the evidence required under the relevant proceedings.

4. Reviewing State Contracts and Privatization Transactions

Investigations could also cover the sale of state-owned companies, concessions, public procurement contracts, and state subsidies.

Each case would need to establish:

At what price was the asset transferred out of state ownership?

Was the procedure appropriate and transparent?

Did the transaction result in an unlawful advantage or financial loss to the state?

Is there a contractual or legal basis for challenging the transaction or seeking compensation for damages?

Not every privatization case can end with the recovery of the asset. Reviewing a lawfully concluded contract does not, by itself, invalidate ownership rights. In some cases, compensation may be possible; in others, a contract might be amended, while in still others, there may be no viable legal avenue for recovery.

5. What Obstacles Would a Government Face?

Recovering state assets involves several significant constraints:

Legal certainty: Property rights and previously concluded contracts must be respected.

Judicial oversight: State measures must be lawful and proportionate.

International legal risks: Some cases may involve EU law or international arbitration proceedings.

Financial risks: Asset recovery can involve litigation costs, compensation claims, and ongoing operational obligations.

Continuity of public services: Universities, cultural institutions, and other affected organizations must continue operating during the process of reorganizing their assets.

These are not merely theoretical concerns. The legislation establishing the office itself emphasizes the requirements of legality, independence, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights.

Summary

A TISZA government’s asset-recovery policy can be divided into two main areas: reorganizing public assets previously transferred into foundation structures, and identifying and reclaiming state assets that were unlawfully transferred out of public ownership.

In the first area, the key issues are the restructuring of foundation arrangements, the allocation of ownership rights, and the organization of public responsibilities. In the second, the decisive factors are the available evidence, the legal grounds for recovery, and the outcome of judicial proceedings.

The most important distinction is this: restoring state control is not the same as recovering all assets, and launching an investigation into potential recovery does not mean that unlawful conduct has already been proven.

The actual results will depend on how much property can lawfully be recovered, at what cost, and how transparently the authorities report the outcomes of their proceedings.