From January 1, 2026, Budapest will implement a complete ban on short-term rentals in the sixth district, which constitutes the heart of its historic center.
The decision may seem radical, but it is the result of a process that began in 2024, when residents of the 6th district were asked to express their opinion through a local referendum. Despite the limited participation rate, the majority voted in favor of permanently abolishing tourist rentals. In 2025, the country’s Supreme Court confirmed the legal validity of the decision, paving the way for its implementation.
The data that led to the decision
According to the data, in the city center, approximately 8% of available apartments were offered for short-term rental – a particularly high rate compared to other European capitals. At the same time, rents increased by more than 10% in just one year, displacing lower- and middle-income workers, from teachers and nurses to young professionals.
Residents and local authorities described daily nuisances: suitcase wheels in the streets late at night, noisy tourist groups, and significant deterioration of local community cohesion. “We choose the people who live here, not those who just stay for a few nights,” the district mayor has stated.
The municipalities decide
The central government itself played a decisive role in shaping the framework for local bans. In recent years, it increased the taxation of short-term rentals and gave municipalities the ability to establish their own rules or even complete prohibitions.
The 6th district acknowledges that the decision will cost it approximately 750,000 euros annually in tax revenue. However, the municipal authority considers the “sacrifice” necessary to restore residents’ access to affordable housing.
Relief, fear, and political controversy
The announcement has sparked mixed reactions. On one hand, residents publicly express their satisfaction – on social media groups, posts complaining about noise have been replaced by champagne icons. On the other hand, there are those who lose out: retirees who supplemented their income, small property owners who invested in real estate for their retirement, and small management companies that now see their business model threatened.
Critics speak of anti-market policies and argue that a strict, targeted regulation – instead of a complete ban – would have been more effective without destroying small savings.
