In recent months, two countries with distinct legal systems and contrasting historical approaches to LGBTQIA+ rights protection— Hungary and the United Kingdom—have each introduced regressive legal and policy measures that significantly undermine the rights and dignity of LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly transgender persons.
This report analyzes the legal implications of recent actions in Hungary and The United Kingdom under international human rights law, focusing on violations of freedom of assembly, expression, and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in articles 11, 10 and 14 respectively, and finally proposes concrete legal recommendations.
Hungary:
In April 2025, the Hungarian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment enabling the prohibition of LGBTQIA+ public events, effectively authorizing state authorities to ban Pride marches. Once tolerated as symbols of visibility and resilience, Pride events now face criminal sanction under this newly established legal framework.
This amendment accompanies legislative changes to key pieces of legislation, including the Act on the Right of Assembly, the Act on Petty Offences, and the Act on Facial Image Analysis. These amendments reinforce Hungary’s so-called “anti-LGBT propaganda law,” which criminalizes the dissemination of any content that portrays LGBTQIA+ lives positively in the presence of minors, as stated by the propaganda law, ‘that “promote or depict” homosexuality or ”diverse gender identities to minors”
Under the revised legal framework, organizing a Pride march may be classified as a criminal offense and attending a Pride event that is deemed a petty offence, punishable by a fine of up to 200,000 HUF (approx. 500 EUR). These measures transform peaceful expression into penal conduct, eroding not only individual dignity but the very idea of pluralism and democratic participation.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has strongly condemned these measures, stating, “These legislative changes are deeply troubling. They stigmatize and discriminate against LGBTQIA+ individuals and restrict their fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. I call on Hungary to repeal these and similar discriminatory laws.”
The new legislation marks the latest stage in Hungary’s broader pattern of regression, that began with the 2020 ban on legal gender recognition and continued through persistent state-led stigmatization of LGBTQIA+ identities in media and education, by media vilification of LGBTQIA+ people, and political rhetoric framing queer identities as incompatible with national values.
Legally, these actions violate Hungary’s obligations under Article 11 ECHR (freedom of assembly and association), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 14 (non-discrimination). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in cases such as Baczkowski v. Poland, 2007, that restrictions on assembly must meet strict criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and thus that blanket prohibitions based on moral or ideological disagreement fail to meet these standards.
United Kingdom:
On April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that reinterpreted the definition of “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 to mean biological sex assigned at birth. This decision followed a legal challenge by the gender-critical group “For Women Scotland”.
So the ruling, arising from For Women Scotland v. Scottish Ministers, permits the lawful exclusion of trans individuals—even those with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs)—from single-sex spaces and services, such as shelters, hospital wards, restrooms, and professional development programs.
While the UK was once considered a global leader in trans rights (particularly following the Gender Recognition Act 2004), this ruling shifts the ground beneath trans people’s feet. Although legal gender recognition still exists in name it no longer guarantees access to rights that were once presumed secure.
The ruling impacts equality policies and monitoring mechanisms across the public sector. Equality policies and monitoring mechanisms based on gender identity are legally delegitimized, no longer guaranteeing access to sex-based rights, thus including challenges to inclusive hiring practices, gender-sensitive data collection, and participation in gender diversity programs. Trans women, for instance, may no longer be counted as women for the purposes of political quotas, gender pay gap reporting, or diversity statistics.
Furthermore, public bodies, including NHS trusts and universities, may now revise inclusion policies to align with the stricter biological definition of sex, potentially reversing years of progress in trans inclusion.
From a human rights perspective, this raises serious concerns under Article 8 ECHR on the right to respect for private life, as it reduces the practical effect of legal gender recognition, and Article 14 ECHR about non-discrimination, particularly when interpreted in conjunction with the previous cited article.
Furthermore, the ECtHR has consistently ruled that gender identity is a core aspect of personal autonomy. In Christine Goodwin v. UK (2002), the Court held that lack of effective legal gender recognition violated Article 8. In later cases, such as A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France (2017), the Court reiterated the State’s obligation to ensure dignity and legal certainty for transgender persons.
Legal Recommendations
1. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe should invoke Article 52 ECHR to request explanations from both Hungary and the United Kingdom regarding the conformity of their new laws with Convention rights, particularly Articles 8, 10, 11, and 14.
2. State Parties to the ECHR should consider initiating an inter-state application under Article 33 ECHR against Hungary to challenge systemic violations of LGBTQIA+ rights.
3. Hungarian civil society and political opposition should consider challenging the constitutional amendment before the Constitutional Court, invoking Hungary’s international treaty obligations under the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Conclusion
The Queer community has long been subjected to discrimination and targeting. While some progress has been achieved, the recent rise of far-right movements, coupled with the normalization of hate speech, has triggered a serious backslide in LGBTQIA+ rights across Europe. The developments in Hungary and the United Kingdom are not merely domestic legal shifts, they reflect a broader systemic erosion of fundamental rights.
These changes violate both the letter and the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights. Immediate legal, political, and civil society engagement is essential to uphold the dignity, safety, and equality of LGBTQI+ individuals. Failure to act risks entrenching a legal framework in which identity is acknowledged only nominally, while stripped of substantive protection in practice.
Sources:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/769565/EPRS_ATA(2025)769565_EN.pdf
https://politicsuk.com/uk-supreme-court-biological-sex-ruling-2025/