There were a number of hostile developments in Hungary during 2012. A controversial new Constitution came into force, which omits sexual orientation from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, while it restrictively defines marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. A number of other regressive legislative proposals were also made to ban ‘homosexual propaganda’, to introduce new crime of ‘propagation of disorders of sexual behaviour’ and to limit freedom of assembly and expression; these proposals were defeated in Parliament and explicit reference to sexual orientation and gender identity was included in the Hungarian legislation on hate speech and hate crime.

Russian president Putin signed a law that bans the so-called ‘propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations’, with Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus and Hungary attempting to implement similar restrictions. However, LGBT organizations are free to operate in Hungary. The first LGBT organization was founded in 1988, there are currently more than a dozen such organizations. A national umbrella organization bringing together NGOs involved in LGBT issues was set up in 2009. LGBT public events (including Pride Marches) have taken place in Hungary since 1997. Since 2007 violent anti-gay protestors have attacked the March several times. In 2011 and 2012 the police refused to grant permission for the Pride march, but the Court later overturned the decision.

According to Eurobarometer 2012, 42% of Hungarians believe sexual orientation discrimination is widespread. This is slightly below the EU27 average (46%). 34% believe gender identity discrimination is widespread. This is slightly below the EU27 average (45%). Hungarians scored 4.2 on a scale from 1 (‘totally uncomfortable’) to 10 (‘totally comfortable’) when asked how comfortable they would feel with an LGB individual in the highest elected political position in their country. This is significantly below the EU27 average (6.6). Hungarians scored 3.8 on a similar scale when asked about transgender/transsexual person in the highest elected political position in their country. This is significantly below the EU27 average (5.7).

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 154/2008. (XII. 17.)
The decision of the Constitutional Court found that introducing registered partnership for same-sex couples is not unconstitutional, but a constitutional duty: the legislator is required to introduce an institution similar to marriage for same-sex couples, because the legal recognition for their partnership follows from the right to human dignity, the right to self-determination and the right to personal development. The Court also found that there is no constitutional reason for having different rules for marriage and registered partnership for same-sex couples. The Court still declared the Registered Partnership Act of 2007 unconstitutional, as registered partnership was also available for different-sex couples.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO.  37/2002. (IX. 4.)
The decision of the Constitutional Court found that the Criminal Code cannot set a different age of consent for same-sex and different sex sexual relations. According to the Constitutional Court that amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court also found that sexual orientation is an inherent part of human dignity, thus exceptional reasons are needed to legitimate such discrimination.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 20/1999. (VI. 25.)
The decision of the Constitutional Court found that the fact that non-penetrative sexual relations  between different-sex siblings is not criminalized, but it is criminalized for same-sex siblings is discrimination based on sexual orientation, and thus is unconstitutional. It was the first time that the Constitutional Court claimed that the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of other status in Article 70/A of the Constitution also covers discrimination based on sexual orientation.