2019

Osservatorio sulle fonti / Observatory on Sources of Law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section: Sources of Law in the EU member States

HUNGARY

By Viktor Zoltán Kazai, Central European University, Budapest

Name of the Act/s

Decision no. 2/2019 (III. 5.) of the Constitutional Court of Hungary /

2/2019. (III. 5.) AB határozat

Date of Text (Adopted)

25 February 2019

Type of text

Decision of the Constitutional Court of Hungary / AB határozat

Enacted by

Constitutional Court of Hungary

Reference to the Constitution (art)

Article E) (2) (Europe clause)

Article R) (4) (rule of constitutional interpretation, protection of constitutional identity and Christian culture)

Article XIV (4) (right to asylum)

Article 24 (1) (Constitutional Court)

The English version of the Fundamental Law is available at: https://hunconcourt.hu/uploads/sites/3/2018/11/thefundamentallawofhungary_20181015_fin.pdf

Subject area

transfer of competence to the European Union, collective expulsion

Comment

This is the second decision of the Constitutional Court interpreting constitutional identity. The first one was Decision no. 22/2016. (XII. 5.) (the so-called constitutional identity decision). Criticism has been raised as to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of constitutional identity, judicial dialogue and the relationship between EU law and domestic law (see articles below).

The summary by the Constitutional Court:

„On behalf of the Government of Hungary, the minister of justice submitted a motion to the Constitutional Court requesting the interpretation of the Fundamental Law concerning the relation between the Fundamental Law and the law of the European Union. The background of the case is that the European Commission sent an official notice to Hungary – in the framework of an infringement proceeding – in which it explained that according to the Commission’s interpretation the provisions of the Fundamental Law on asylum violate the relevant regulations of the European Union. The particular constitutional issue raised by the petitioner was the relation between the interpretation of the Fundamental Law by an organ of the European Union and the genuine interpretation provided by the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court pointed out: Hungary participates in the European Union in the interest of developing the European unity, for the purpose of expanding the freedom, prosperity and security of European nations. The Union law does not fit into the hierarchy of the domestic sources of law; it has been made part of the legal system by a constitutional order incorporated in the Fundamental Law. In most cases the parallel existence of Union law and domestic law does not cause any constitutional dilemma as the two normative systems are based on a common values. However, with regard to the assessment of certain national norms, the Constitutional Court and the European Union may reach different conclusions. Since the Fundamental Law requires compliance with the Union law, as a constitutional obligation, collisions may be resolved by paying respect to constitutional dialogue.

However, the genuine interpretation of the Fundamental Law is the duty of the Constitutional Court and all organs or institutions shall respect it in their own procedures. The Constitutional Court has committed itself to constitutional dialogue: in the present case it interpreted the Fundamental Law in line with the so called Europe-friendliness by interpreting the content of the norm to also comply with the law of the European Union.

Regarding asylum, the Constitutional Court underlined: the right to asylum is not the refugee’s individual subjective right and it stems from the international treaties undertaken by Hungary. A non-Hungarian national who arrived to the territory of Hungary through any country where he or she was not persecuted or directly threatened with persecution shall have a claim, protected as a fundamental right, to have his or her application assessed by the authority. It is the duty of the Parliament to determine and lay down in a cardinal Act the fundamental rules on granting asylum.”

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

Körtvélyesi, Zsolt and Majtényi, Balázs: sid=8c73dcaf-d777-42ee-9ac7-ee57f95dbb3f@pdc-v-sessmgr02">Game of Values: The Threat of Exclusive Constitutional Identity, the EU and Hungary, German Law Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 7 (2017), pp. 1721-1744

Halmai, Gábor: sid=8c73dcaf-d777-42ee-9ac7-ee57f95dbb3f@pdc-v-sessmgr02">Abuse of Constitutional Identity. The Hungarian Constitutional Court on Interpretation of Article E) (2) of the Fundamental Law, Review of Central & East European Law, Vol. 43 Issue 1 (2018), pp. 23-42

Available Text

in Hungarian:

http://public.mkab.hu/dev/dontesek.nsf/0/A69AEC612BA90BAEC125830C005216DB?OpenDocument

in English:

https://hunconcourt.hu/uploads/sites/3/2019/03/2_2019_en_final.pdf

2019

Osservatorio sulle fonti / Observatory on Sources of Law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section: Sources of Law in the EU member States

HUNGARY

By Viktor Zoltán Kazai, Central European University, Budapest

Name of the Act/s

Resolution 3063/2019 (III. 25.) of the Constitutional Court of Hungary / 3063/2009. (III. 25.) AB végzés

Date of entry into force of original text

Date of Text (Adopted)

12 March 2019

Type of text

(name in English / name in the official language)

Resolution of the Constitutional Court of Hungary / AB végzés

If federal State

□

If Regional State

□

Enacted by

Reference to the Constitution (art)

Subject area

judicial dialogue, relationship between law of the European Union and domestic law

If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source

Comment

In its resolution the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of judgement No. Kfv.I.35.772/2015/10 of the Curia [Supreme Court] and the judgement No. 14.K.27.168/2015/16 of the Kecskemét Administrative and Labour Court rendered in taxation case inadmissible.

The reason why this resolution is relevant lies in the fact that the applicant requested the Constitutional Court to suspend its review procedure and turn to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. In para 11 the Constitutional Court rejected the request in accordance with its previous case law.

In recent years the Hungarian Constitutional Court developed a habit of suspending its review procedure if a similar case is pending before the CJEU in the name of judicial dialogue, a doctrine originating from its Decision no. 22/2016. (XII. 5.) (the so-called constitutional identity decision). However, the Constitutional Court constantly refuses to turn to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

About the preliminary ruling procedure in the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court:

Naszladi, Georgina: The Hungarian Constitutional Court’s Judgment Concerning the Preliminary Ruling Procedure –Comments on a Rejection Order, Pécs Journal of International and European Law, Issue 1 (2015), pp. 37-43

Osztovics, András and Gombos, Katalin: Preliminary references and Hungarian courts: procedural context, trends and quality, in Varjú, Márton and Várnay, Ernő (eds.) The Law of the European Union in Hungary. Institution, Processes and the Law, HVGOrac, 2014

Fazekas, Flóra: EU law and the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in Varjú, Márton and Várnay, Ernő (eds.) The Law of the European Union in Hungary. Institution, Processes and the Law, HVGOrac, 2014

Available Text

http://public.mkab.hu/dev/dontesek.nsf/0/C97FDE421A6DD3C5C125804F0058A0FB?OpenDocument

2019

Osservatorio sulle fonti / Observatory on Sources of Law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section: Sources of Law in the EU member States

HUNGARY

By Viktor Zoltán Kazai, Central European University, Budapest

Name of the Act/s

Act XXXIV of 2019 on the amendments necessary for the implementation of the European Union reform on data protection /
2019. évi XXXIV. törvény az Európai Unió adatvédelmi reformjának végrehajtása érdekében szükséges törvénymódosításokról

Date of entry into force of original text

26 April 2019

Date of Text (Adopted)

1 April 2019

Type of text

(name in English / name in the official language)

parliamentary act / törvény

If federal State

□

If Regional State

□

Enacted by

Hungarian National Assembly

Reference to the Constitution (art)

Article I (3) (fundamental rights limitation test)

Article 43 (4) (State Audit Office, qualified majority requirement)

Article XXXI (5)-(6) (rights and obligations related to citizenship, qualified majority requirement)

Article XXIX (3) (rights of national minorities, qualified majority requirement)

Article 31 (3) (local governments, qualified majority requirement)

Article 4. (2) and (5) (status, rights and obligations on Members of the National Assembly, qualified majority requirement)

Article 5 (7) (standing order of the National Assembly, qualified majority requirement)

Article 2 (2) (election of Members of the National Assembly, qualified majority requirements)

Subject area

data protection

If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

Comment

To comply with the requirements stemming from the General Data Protection Regulation the Hungarian legislator already amended Act no CXII of 2011 on the Right of Informational Self-Determination and on Freedom of Information. The aim of the present act is to guarantee the consistency between Act no CXII of 2011 and the relevant provisions of other acts related to data protection.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

Short summary of the implementation of the GDPR in Hungary compiled by Baker and McKenzie, 19 July 2018, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3e045c27-67c6-43a5-a5e8-a0a30a07612b

Szabó, Endre: Az adatvédelmi tisztviselőről: a GDPR szabályainak elemzése, Infokommunikáció és jog, Vol. 15, Issue 70 (2018), pp. 3-10

Józan, Flóra : Gondolatok az adatvédelmi tisztviselőről, JURA, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (2018), pp. 394-413

Available Text

http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=213705.367038

2019

Osservatorio sulle fonti / Observatory on Sources of Law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section: Sources of Law in the EU member States

HUNGARY

By Viktor Zoltán Kazai, Central European University, Budapest

Name of the Act/s

Act no. XXVIII of 2019 on the amendment to certain acts related to climate politics / 2019. évi XXVIII. törvény az egyes klímapolitikai tárgyú törvények módosításáról

Date of entry into force of original text

18 April 2019

Date of Text (Adopted)

2 April 2019

Type of text

(name in English / name in the official language)

parliamentary act / törvény

If federal State

□

If Regional State

□

Enacted by

Hungarian National Assembly

Reference to the Constitution (art)

Subject area

environmental protection

If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source

Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018 amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments

Comment

The act serves the aim of complying with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol and to implement the 2018/410 EU Directive.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

The Environmental Implementation Review 2019, country report Hungary, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_hu_en.pdf

Available Text

http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=213690.366897