The Right to Disconnect: Protecting Employees in the Digital Age

Remote and hybrid work have become a permanent feature of the Hungarian labour market by 2026. This shift has simultaneously blurred the boundary between working time and rest periods: constant digital availability – emails, Teams messages, group channels – creates the illusion that the employee is at the employer’s disposal twenty-four hours a day. The concept of the “right to disconnect” seeks to provide a legal answer to this problem. Below, we examine the normative foundations of this legal institution under current Hungarian and EU regulation, and how it shapes employer obligations.

The EU Regulatory Framework

The European Parliament Resolution and Regulatory Direction

In its resolution of 21 January 2021 (2019/2181(INL)), the European Parliament called on the Commission to propose a directive on the right to disconnect. The resolution stated that workers have the right not to be obliged to engage in work-related activities using digital tools outside working time, and that no adverse consequences may follow from exercising this right.

Although a standalone EU directive specifically regulating the right to disconnect had not entered into force by March 2026, the regulatory direction is clear, and several Member States – including France (Code du travail, L.2242-17), Spain (Ley Orgánica 3/2018, Article 88), Belgium (2022 Act), and Portugal (Lei n.º 83/2021) – have already codified the right to disconnect at national level.

The Working Time Directive as an Existing Safety Net

The Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC can be understood as a doctrinal precursor to the right to disconnect. The Directive mandatorily prescribes a minimum daily rest period (11 hours of continuous rest within every 24-hour period, Article 3) and a weekly rest day (Article 5), and sets a maximum working time limit (48 hours per week on average, Article 6). These provisions apply equally to digitally mediated work – an employer cannot argue that a “non-urgent” email sent in the evening does not constitute working time.

The Hungarian Labour Law Framework: The Labour Code

Rest Period Rules as the Normative Basis for Disconnection

The Hungarian Labour Code (Act I of 2012, hereinafter: Mt.) does not contain a specific named “right to disconnect,” but the current rest period rules and personality rights protections together constitute a normative framework from which this entitlement can be derived.

• Daily rest period (Mt. Section 104(1)–(2)): The employee must be provided with at least eleven hours of uninterrupted rest between the end of the day’s work and the start of the next working day. This rest period is entirely withdrawn from the employer’s disposition: during this time, the employer may not instruct the employee to work and may not expect monitoring of digital work tools.
• Weekly rest day (Mt. Section 105): The employee is entitled to at least forty-eight hours of uninterrupted rest per week.
• Limits on extraordinary working time (Mt. Sections 107–109): After-hours availability may only be required within the framework of extraordinary working time (overtime), subject to its statutory limits (250 hours per year, exceptionally 300 hours by collective agreement).

Distinguishing Standby Duty and On-Call Time

Sections 110–112 of the Mt. regulate standby duty (where the employee must remain at a location specified by the employer and be fit for work on the employer’s instruction) and on-call time. The key question: if the employer regularly expects after-hours digital availability from the employee, this is by its legal nature standby or on-call duty, which the employer must formally order and remunerate. An informal expectation – “be available on Teams in the evening” – does not substitute for formal ordering under the Mt., and without it, the employee may lawfully refuse to respond.

Personality Rights Protection in Employment

Section 9(2) of the Mt. provides that the employee’s personality rights may be restricted with regard to the employer’s legitimate economic interests, but such restriction may only be applied to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose and in compliance with the principle of least restriction. The right to private life and rest forms part of personality rights – Article VI(1) of the Fundamental Law guarantees everyone the right to respect for private and family life; furthermore, Article XVII(3) provides that every employee has the right to working conditions that respect their health, safety, and dignity.

Prohibition of Adverse Consequences and Retaliation

If an employee refuses to respond to an employer’s message during rest time, this cannot be treated as a breach of duty under Section 56 of the Mt., provided the employee is not subject to formally ordered standby or on-call duty. Adverse consequences applied by the employer – warnings, career disadvantage, termination of employment – may be challenged before the labour court under Section 285 of the Mt. and may constitute prohibited retaliation under Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and Promotion of Equal Opportunities.

The Employer’s Duty of Care

Internal Policy on Digital Availability

Under Section 17 of the Mt., the employer may adopt an internal policy – and, in light of current regulatory trends, should do so as a matter of duty of care – clearly specifying:

• the periods during which (typically rest time: e.g., between 18:00 and 08:00, at weekends, during leave) the employee is not required to monitor digital work tools;
• the exceptional circumstances (force majeure, system failures, situations requiring immediate emergency action) in which after-hours contact is lawful;
• the technical measures applied by the employer (e.g., delayed email delivery, activation of automatic reply messages, disabling notifications on work devices).

The French model, under which employers with more than 50 employees must negotiate a disconnect agreement with trade unions (Code du travail, L.2242-17), may also serve as a model for Hungarian regulation.

Technical Measures

The employer’s duty of care (Mt. Section 51(4) – ensuring healthy and safe working conditions) is not exhausted by adopting a policy. Effective protection must be ensured through technical measures (e.g., setting time limits on communication platforms, delayed email delivery during rest periods) and organisational measures (e.g., training managers, consciously reducing the “always available” corporate culture).

Psychosocial Risks and Occupational Safety Liability

Burnout as an Occupational Risk

The World Health Organization (WHO) lists burnout in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as an “occupational phenomenon” (code QD85). The WHO classification does not designate burnout as an independent disease but clearly links it to the occupational context.

Under Section 54(1) of the Hungarian Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act XCIII of 1993, hereinafter: Mvt.), the employer is obliged to comprehensively assess the risks affecting employees – including psychosocial risks (Mvt. Section 87, point 1/H). Stress, sleep disorders, and burnout resulting from constant digital availability form part of this risk assessment.

Occupational Disease and the Burden of Proof

If an employee suffers a psychiatric illness (depression, anxiety disorder, chronic sleep disorder) as a result of continuous after-hours availability, recognition as an occupational disease is governed by the list in Government Decree 217/1997 (XII. 1.), supplemented by the general definition under Section 87, point 1/A of the Mvt. Proving causal connection – demonstrating the link between working conditions and the illness – represents a significant evidentiary burden for the employee, but is not impossible: labour courts may evaluate the absence of employer rest period protection measures, irregularities in working time records, and timestamps of digital communications as evidence.

An important clarification: Hungarian case law in 2026 does not yet automatically classify burnout as a workplace accident or occupational disease. However, the direction of legal development is clear, and the employer’s failure to meet its preventive obligations may give rise to liability for damages under Section 6:519 of the Civil Code (Ptk.) and occupational safety fines under the Mvt.

The Employer’s Liability for Damages

Under Section 166(1) of the Mt., the employer is obliged to compensate the employee for damage caused in connection with the employment relationship. If the employer failed to ensure the conditions for disconnection – did not adopt an internal policy, did not implement technical measures, actively sanctioned unavailability during rest periods – and as a result the employee suffered health impairment, the employer’s liability for damages may be established. The employer may be exonerated under Section 167 of the Mt. only if it proves that the damage was caused by a circumstance outside its sphere of control that it did not need to anticipate and the prevention of which could not have been expected of it.

The Personality Rights Dimension under the Civil Code

Beyond the Mt.’s protective framework within the employment relationship, the general personality rights provisions of the Civil Code (Ptk.) are also applicable. The general personality protection under Section 2:42(1), and the specifically named rights to private life (Section 2:43(e)) and inviolability of the home (Section 2:43(f)), acquire particular significance in the employee’s home working environment. If the employer violates the employee’s private sphere through regular after-hours contact, the employee may enforce the remedies under Sections 2:51–2:54 of the Ptk. – including non-pecuniary damages (Ptk. Section 2:52).

Practical Summary for Employees and Employers

1. Refusing availability during rest time is lawful: if the employee is not subject to formally ordered standby or on-call duty, refusal to respond to digital work tools during rest periods under Sections 104–105 of the Mt. is lawful, and no adverse consequences may be applied.
2. Regular after-hours availability constitutes standby duty: if the employer expects continuous evening/weekend availability, this must be formally ordered and remunerated as standby or on-call duty (Mt. Sections 110–112).
3. Protect employees through internal policy: arising from the employer’s duty of care, it is recommended (and may soon become mandatory given the direction of legal development) to establish disconnection periods in an internal policy.
4. Psychosocial risk assessment is mandatory: under Section 54 of the Mvt., the employer is obliged to assess psychosocial risks arising from digital availability and take appropriate measures.
5. Failure may have damages consequences: if the employer does not ensure the conditions for disconnection and the employee suffers health impairment as a result, liability for damages under Section 166 of the Mt. and non-pecuniary damages under Section 2:52 of the Ptk. may be established.