The essay analyses the fourth and fifth amendments of the Hungarian Fundamental Law with special respect to the opinion of the Venice Commission and the resolution of the European Parliament. It will be pointed out that the fourth amendment transferred several legal regulations into the Fundamental Law which were previously qualified as unconstitutional by the Hungarian Constitutional Court. The Fundamental Law contains at the same time the declaration of a fundamental right and the unconstitutional limitation of it by the latter regulation. The inconsistency is evident, therefore the Constitutional Court has to choose in the future between the contradictory constitutional regulations. A possibility to solve this dilemma could be the separation of the legal norms of the constitution as lex generalis (e.g. rule of law, human dignity) and lex specialis which could not derogate the lex generalis, and ca nnot be applied accordingly.
VeniceCommission (2011a): Opinion on three legal questions arising in the process of drafting the New Constitution of Hungary – Adopted by the VeniceCommission at its 86th Plenary Session (Venice, 25–26 March 2011). CDL-AD(2011)001, 28/01/2011. http
Velencei Bizottság 614/2011. számú állásfoglalása (CDL-AD(2011)001): European Commission for Democracy through Law (VeniceCommission): Opinion on Three Legal Questions Arising in the Process of Drafting the New Constitution of Hungary <http
Halmai , Gábor and Scheppele , Kim Lane (eds.) Opinion on Hungary's New Constitutional Order: Amicus Brief for the VeniceCommission on the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law and the Key Cardinal Laws ( 2012
the VeniceCommission on the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law and the Key Cardinal Laws , February 2012, available at <http://halmaigabor.hu/dok/426_Amicus_Cardinal_Laws_final.pdf> accessed 30 November 2016
main guardian of the ECHR proper implementation) and non-judicial mechanisms of protection (such as the VeniceCommission, Steering Committee for Human Rights, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice etc). 35 The Rule of Law checklist adopted