The study analyses the potential effects of the Treaty on the Hungarian Constitution and its application by the Hungarian Constitutional Court, and the more general-and at the European Law’s present stage of the development unavoidable-problem of the theoretical analysis of European Law as a branch of law.The study points out that the Hungarian Constitution’s Accession Clause (Article 2/A) has not solved the problem of the primacy of Community Law, as far as the relationship between EU Law and the Hungarian Constitution is concerned, therefore the Constitutional Court encounters a problem that is increasingly difficult to resolve, when facing issues relating to the incompatibility of Hungarian statutes with EU Law. The study criticises some solutions proposed by the Constitutional Treaty (e.g. the institution of “recommendations”-(the present practice of “guidelines” etc.) which is definitely unconstitutional according to the Hungarian Constitution and its application practice by the Constitutional Court. Finally the study complements the problems thus outlined with the fact that the concept of EU Law and its various parts have not been clarified from a dogmatic perspective-the time has come to systematize this enormous material of law, especially when a Constitutional Treaty makes the attempt to summarize the legal fundaments of the unprecedented effort to develop an economic and political integration in Europe.
The study aims to discuss three topics briefly. First the individual moments of the law-making process are described by discussing the problems of law-substituting decrees, then the role of the Curia (The Supreme Court of Justice) in codification will be dealt with, and finally, the increasing role of codification in building the bourgeois state will be treated.
Since the Treaty of Maastricht, EU law has become more open to international law and has engaged with it in different forms of interactions. The influence of EU law on universal law-making has found its way through different legal channels and techniques. The article thoroughly scrutinizes the impact of EU return acquis on the development of the international law governing the ‘expulsion of aliens’, which can be best analysed through the work of the UN International Law Commission (ILC) on the expulsion of aliens (2004–2014). The ILC’s approach has come a long way from the mere ignorance of EU law and the EU’s submissions by the special rapporteur in the early stages of the codification work until it has gradually taking into account major EU migration law concepts in ILC reports and in the draft articles. The 2014 ILC draft articles on the expulsion of aliens have finally been, in many aspects, inspired and influenced by EU law, especially the Return Directive (2008/115/EC). This short piece meticulously explores the inroads EU return law made in relation to the ILC work on the expulsion of aliens, by identifying and critically evaluating the tangible impact of EU law on the UN codification project.
The framework decisions, as the central legal act under the “third pillar” are some of the most significant non-typical documents from a dogmatic point of view within the EU law. The differences and specialities of this legislative act, correlated with the EC Treaty are available not only in the lawmaking process, but in juridical supervision as well. The main goal of this paper is to show the dogmatic and practical aspects of these two perspectives. First of all it is necessary to predict, why the framework decisions are not products of classic public international law (according to the position of the German Federal Constitutional Court), rather than special documents, and do they consequently belong to a supranational system. The missing infringement procedure within the police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters makes the judicial control of the Member State’s effective enlargement extremely difficult. Secondly it is important to demonstrate the alternative methods of the ECJ, which is based on case law from the Court of Luxembourg, in the field of the directives. In this context the study will analyze the consequences of the important “Pupino” Judgment.
The citizens’ initiative right enables them to directly articipate in the law-making process. Issues of great social importance can thus be brought to the attention of the ordinary legislator who is called to embed into a normative content the will of those whom it represents. The importance of the citizens’ initiative right for the strengthening of democracy led to its enshrining into States’ Constitutions, as well as its stipulation into EU regulations. Nonetheless, even though, in theory, the citizens’ initiative right represents a basic element in terms of participation of the people in the democratic decision-making process, in practice, the purpose of the regulation has not been reached. Thus, the citizens’ initiative right is rarely exercised, also because of a lack of information on its utility, significance and mechanisms. Based on these realities, within this study, we shall carry out an examination of the regulations concerning citizens’ legislative initiative in Romanian law and at the European level, for the purpose of highlighting the elements characterising this right and to promote it as a real democratic exercise, not only considering it as a generous theoretical construction.
Authors:Ilona Cserháti, Tibor Keresztély, and Tibor Takács
General Conference of the International Microsimulation Association , Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.
KIH ( 2013 ): A jogszabály-elokészítési folyamat racionalizálása [The rationalization of the lawmaking process]. Overview of the
As a telltale of the constitutional tangle caused by the overlap of legislative and executive lawmaking, it has to be remarked, that on the very same day that it found the first bill unconstitutional, the Court ruled upon two complaints lodged against
Czuczai , J.
, ‘ The autonomy of the EU legal order and the law-making activities of international organizations. Some examples regarding the Council most recent practice ’, ( 2012 ) 31 Yearbook of European Law 452 – 472