The European Commission has reportedly confirmed the existence of a Hungarian spy network operating from Hungary’s representation in Brussels. According to a document described by Politico, Hungarian intelligence agents attempted to obtain information from European Union officials, including details concerning the work of EU committees and internal decision-making processes.
The case concerns events from 2013–2016, although earlier journalistic investigations suggested that Hungarian intelligence activity in Brussels may have covered a broader period, from around 2012 to 2018. In autumn 2025, Direkt36, Der Spiegel and Belgium’s De Tijd revealed that Hungarian intelligence officers had allegedly operated under diplomatic cover at Hungary’s Permanent Representation to the EU and attempted to recruit Hungarian citizens working in EU institutions.
According to investigators’ findings, the objective was not merely to collect general political information. Agents allegedly tried to reach officials who could have access to documents, analyses and sensitive information from the point of view of relations between Budapest and Brussels. Direkt36 reported that recruitment efforts relied on various methods: appeals to patriotism, promises of career support, and offers to finance initiatives close to potential informants.
The timing of the escalation is particularly significant. According to the Commission report cited by Politico, the activity of Hungarian intelligence officers was initially discreet, but from 2015 onward became increasingly open. It was precisely in that year that Olivér Várhelyi, now the EU commissioner for health and animal welfare, took over as Hungary’s permanent representative to the EU. The European Commission’s official biography confirms that Várhelyi served as Hungary’s permanent representative to the EU from 2015 to 2019, and before that, from 2011 to 2015, as deputy permanent representative.
Várhelyi has consistently denied having any knowledge of recruitment attempts or intelligence activity directed at EU institutions. Following an internal investigation, the European Commission found no evidence that would allow responsibility to be attributed to him. This, however, does not close the political debate, because clearing the commissioner of wrongdoing does not amount to questioning the existence of the operation itself. According to media reports, the central problem remains that the network allegedly functioned within the institutional environment of Hungarian diplomacy in Brussels.
The scandal has significance beyond the conflict between the European Commission and Budapest. At the heart of the case lies the question of trust between member states and EU institutions. The permanent representations of member states are a natural part of the EU system of negotiation and law-making. If, however, one member state’s mission were used to conduct intelligence operations against EU officials, this would undermine the principle of loyal cooperation on which the Union’s functioning is based.
After the first publications, the European Commission announced the creation of an internal group to examine the matter. A Commission spokesperson said at the time that reports of espionage operations targeting the EU and its staff were being treated “very seriously.” Calls for a broader investigation also emerged in the European Parliament. Civil society organisations, including Transparency International EU, called for the creation of an inquiry committee, arguing that the case could represent a systemic threat to the integrity of the EU’s democratic institutions.
The political weight of the affair is reinforced by the broader context of relations between Hungary and the European Union. During the years covered by the case, disputes between Viktor Orbán’s government and Brussels were intensifying over the rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom and the use of EU funds. According to Direkt36, Hungarian intelligence was particularly interested in information that could give the government in Budapest advance insight into European Commission actions concerning Hungary.
The statements of Péter Magyar, who after political change in Hungary accused Várhelyi of not telling the whole truth about the presence of special services in the Brussels mission, have added a new dimension to the case. According to Magyar, it was widely known at the embassy that personnel connected to the special services had been sent to Brussels. These words do not constitute formal evidence, but they show that the scandal has also become part of the political reckoning with the Orbán era.
For Brussels, the most important question today is not only who knew about the operation, but also whether EU institutions are sufficiently resilient to similar actions carried out from within the Union itself. The Hungarian spy network case shows that the security problem facing the EU does not concern only Russia, China or third countries. It can also arise when the political interest of one member state is placed above the principle of trust on which the entire EU architecture rests.
