Short-Term Rentals (Airbnb) in 2026: Municipal Regulation and Condominium Decision-Making Powers

Short-term accommodation services — letting apartments through Airbnb, Booking.com, and similar platforms — have become one of the most contested areas of Hungarian real estate law and local regulation over the past decade. The legislature has taken a multi-step approach to address the tension between touristic use and local housing interests. Below we examine the applicable legal framework, the actual regulatory instruments, and the constitutional issues raised.

Legal Foundations of Accommodation Services

The Applicable Decree: Government Decree 239/2009 (X. 20.)

The legal framework for short-term accommodation services is set by Government Decree 239/2009 (X. 20.) (on the detailed conditions for accommodation services and the procedure for issuing accommodation operating permits). The decree defines the types of accommodation services, including the private accommodation category — the typical form for apartment letting.

To operate accommodation services, the provider must fulfil a notification obligation to the local notary (this is a notification-based, not permit-based, activity — a material distinction). The local government registers the notification.

Relevant Provisions of the Fundamental Law

Two constitutional considerations collide in short-term rental regulation:

1. Fundamental Law Art. XIII — the right to property: “Everyone shall have the right to property. Property shall entail social responsibility.” It is the owner’s fundamental right to exploit their property — including by leasing it. Restrictions on property rights are permissible only on the basis of the necessity-proportionality test and only by statute.

2. Fundamental Law Art. XXII — the right to housing: “Hungary shall strive to ensure the conditions for dignified housing […].” Crucially, this is a state objective (an objective institutional-protection obligation), not a directly enforceable subjective right. A property owner cannot be sued on the grounds that touristic use of their property “violates the neighbour’s right to housing” — Art. XXII obliges the state to ensure housing conditions.

The raw text’s reference to a “right to rest enshrined in the Fundamental Law” in the context of neighbours is inaccurate. The Fundamental Law’s rest provision (Art. XVII(4)) concerns employees’ right to rest, not a neighbour-law context. Neighbours’ right to undisturbed enjoyment is protected by Civil Code § 5:23 (prohibition of unnecessary disturbance) and Civil Code § 2:43(a) (right to private life).

Municipal Regulatory Tools

Regulatory Powers Under the Mötv.

The Mötv. (Act CLXXXIX of 2011 on Hungary’s local governments) provides municipalities with authority to regulate local public affairs. Local housing policy, land use planning, and the determination of conditions for accommodation services fall within this authority.

In 2026, municipalities may utilize the following instruments:

1. Local Building Code (HÉSZ) and Zoning

The municipality may differentiate property use at the zoning level through the Local Building Code (HÉSZ) and regulatory plans. In principle, it may determine whether accommodation-service use is permitted in specific zones.

An important limitation: a complete, general ban raises constitutional concerns from the perspective of property rights (Fundamental Law Art. XIII). Zoning differentiation is consistent with the Fundamental Law only if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim — such as preserving the residential function in an excessively tourism-burdened zone.

2. Differentiated Building Tax

Within the framework of the Htv. (Act C of 1990 on local taxes), the municipality may levy a building tax (építményadó). The Htv. permits differentiation of the tax rate based on property characteristics and use, within the statutory upper limits:

• Htv. § 16 — the base of building tax is the property’s useful floor area (m²) or adjusted market value
• Htv. § 6(c) — the municipality may establish exemptions or reductions
• Htv. § 7 — the tax obligation may be differentiated based on the characteristics and use of the taxable property

In practice, some municipalities — particularly Budapest’s inner-city districts — set higher building tax rates for properties used for commercial accommodation rather than residential purposes. This is indeed an effective economic incentive toward long-term leasing. However, a “fivefold tax compared to neighbours” is not a universal statutory prescription but depends on individual municipal ordinances, and the rate must remain within the Htv.’s upper limits.

The Curia, in reviewing local tax ordinances, examines whether differentiation rests on a reasonable basis and does not result in unconstitutionally discriminatory tax burdens.

3. Tourism Tax (IFA)

Under Htv. §§ 30–34, the municipality may levy a tourism tax (idegenforgalmi adó), which the guest is obliged to pay but the accommodation provider collects and reports. The rate is determined by the municipality within the statutory ceiling.

The Condominium Act (Tht.) and Short-Term Rental Restrictions

Amendments to the Tht.

Act CXXXIII of 2003 on condominiums (Tht.) has undergone multiple amendments in recent years. The 2023 amendment — which affected Tht. §§ 18 and 24 — expanded the condominium community’s authority to restrict accommodation services:

• The general meeting may prohibit or restrict short-term accommodation services in the building through the organizational and operational rules (SzMSz)
• The decision requires a qualified majority under the Tht. (a two-thirds vote majority representing more than half of all ownership shares)

The “At Any Time, Without Justification” Misconception

The raw text’s claim that the general meeting may “at any time, without justification” ban letting is imprecise and misleading:

1. The decision is not unlimited: the general meeting resolution may be challenged in court (Tht. § 42) if it violates legislation, contravenes the SzMSz, or substantially harms the legitimate interests of the minority. The court examines whether the ban is proportionate.

2. Property rights protection: restricting an activity that is already being conducted and notified may raise concerns about acquired rights (right to property, freedom of enterprise — Fundamental Law Arts. XII and XIII). The legal certainty principle (Fundamental Law Art. B(1)) requires that restrictions are not retroactive and that legal subjects have sufficient time to adapt.

3. Appropriate transitional period: if the general meeting introduces a ban against already-operating accommodation services, it must provide a reasonable transitional period. Its duration — assessed by courts on a case-by-case basis — depends on the proportionality requirement.

Common Cost Differentiation

Under Tht. §§ 24 and 46, common costs are to be borne proportionally to ownership shares, but the SzMSz may establish divergent rules. In practice, some condominiums set higher common costs for commercially used (accommodation-service) properties, reflecting:

• Increased wear and tear (elevators, common areas, intercom system usage)
• Security costs (possible concierge service, CCTV monitoring)
• Higher utility consumption

However, “300% of common costs” is not a statutory rate. The differentiation must rest on a reasonable and proportionate basis; otherwise, the co-owner may challenge it in court (Tht. § 42). Case law holds that common cost levels must not be punitive — they may not serve solely to make the owner’s activity economically impossible.

The EU Dimension: Services Directive

The EU Services Directive (2006/123/EC) must not be overlooked, as it limits Member States’ ability to unjustifiably restrict service activities — including accommodation services. CJEU case law (e.g., C-724/18 and C-727/18 — Cali Apartments) holds that short-term rental restrictions are permissible, but:

• The restriction must serve a public-interest objective (alleviating housing shortages, preserving residential function)
• It must pass the necessity-proportionality test
• The measure must be non-discriminatory

Practical Advice

For Accommodation Providers

1. Research local ordinances — municipalities set different rules; building tax rates, tourism tax amounts, and any zoning restrictions vary by settlement
2. Check the condominium’s SzMSz — before purchase or commencing activity, request the SzMSz and confirm it contains no accommodation-service prohibition
3. Notification to the notary — the activity must be notified under Government Decree 239/2009; failure to notify is an offence
4. Tax obligations — the provider must collect tourism tax and pay personal income tax and social contribution tax on the income

For Condominium Decision-Makers

1. A prohibition resolution is not absolute — the decision may be challenged in court; the proportionality principle and acquired rights protection set limits
2. A transitional period must be allowed — already-operating providers must be given reasonable time to adapt
3. Common cost differentiation must be reasonable — higher costs must reflect actual additional usage, not be punitive

For Owners and Residents

1. Possession protection before the notary — if neighbouring accommodation services cause unnecessary disturbance (Civil Code § 5:23), possession protection proceedings may be initiated
2. Personality rights claim — repeated disturbance (noise, deterioration of common areas) may ground a claim for non-pecuniary damages (Civil Code § 2:52)
3. General meeting initiative — co-owners may request convening of the general meeting to regulate accommodation services in the SzMSz (Tht. § 35)

Short-term rental regulation remains a dynamically evolving field in 2026. Finding the balance between property rights, freedom of enterprise, housing interests, and protection of local public order is an ongoing task for legislators, municipalities, and courts — there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution.