Constitutional Court Caesura and the Admissibility of EU Fundamental Rights Standards¹

by | Cikkrészlet

with Nincs hozzászólás
Authors:
Lóránt Csink professor, University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences; chief counsellor, Constitutional Court of Hungary
Luca Sevaracz assistant lecturer, University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences

Abstract

This study first undertakes to present the 2012 turning point affecting the powers of the Constitutional Court, followed by an introduction to the institution of the genuine constitutional complaint. It then examines – by drawing on comparative legal perspectives – the admissibility of EU fundamental rights standards in the context of genuine constitutional complaint procedures.

Keywords: caesura, constitutional complaint, admissibility, EU law, EU fundamental rights standards, right guaranteed by the Fundamental Law

I. Introduction

The Fundamental Law entering into force on 1 January 2012, as well as Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter: CCA) resulted in a caesura in the history of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and in the system of separation of powers established since the transition. While between 1990 and 2011 the primary function of the Constitutional Court was essentially to be grasped in the counterbalancing of the National Assembly – thus the legislative power – through abstract norm control, since 2012 the body’s characteristic competence, also numerically outstanding, has become the constitutional complaint.[2] Within the latter competence, constitutional complaints against court decisions (Section 27 of the CCA) questioning the Fundamental Law-conformity of ordinary court decisions have become predominant.

Prior to this paradigm shift, Hungary joined the European Union in 2004, which also presented challenges for the body. The combined effect of the two changes is also noticeable: under the previous Constitution, EU legal issues were brought before the Constitutional Court within the framework of abstract norm control,[3] but since then, EU legal issues have typically arisen in the course of complaint proceedings. In this study, we examine how the Constitutional Court’s previous practice has changed and how it currently approaches the infiltration of issues related to EU fundamental rights standards into complaint proceedings.

The aim of this study is to present the paradigm shift affecting the powers of the Constitutional Court and, in this context, the institution of constitutional complaints against court decisions. Subsequently, section 3 of the study formulates further proposals for the purpose of broadening control over the courts with regard to the Constitutional Court’s admissibility practice and interpretation of its powers in the context of dialogue between European courts. For an actual paradigm shift to happen, it is essential that the body considers constitutional complaints challenging court decisions as broadly and thoroughly as possible.

Ön itt egy cikkrészletet talál. A teljes írást az Alkotmánybírósági Szemle nyomtatott változatában olvashatja el. Előfizetni a folyóiratra itt tud.

[1] This research was carried out using the European Constitutional Communication Network (ECCN) database, within the framework of the research project of the Comparative Constitutional Law Research Group at the National University of Public Service.

[2] Based on the case statistics of the Constitutional Court, the number of constitutional complaints challenging court decisions has been the highest every year since 2013. See: https://alkotmanybirosag.hu/ugyforgalmi-es-statisztikai-adatok/.

[3] E.g., Decision 30/1998. (VI. 25.) AB of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, Decision 143/2010. (VII. 14.) AB of the Constitutional Court of Hungary.