Acta Juridica Hungarica
Volume/Issue:
Volume 54: Issue 4
In courts we trust?
Author:
Csongor Kuti the University of Arst Tg. Mures Ernei, jud. Mures, nr. 799 547215 Targu Mures Romania

Search for other papers by Csongor Kuti in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
384–392
Online Publication Date:
26 Nov 2013
Publication Date:
01 Dec 2013
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/ajur.54.2013.4.6
Keywords:
constitutional court; review powers; constitutionalization; politicization
Full access

After the fall of authoritarian communist regimes and emergence of constitutional governments, constitutional review systems were designed in Central and Eastern Europe. Post-communist systems mostly followed the French and German models of abstract and concentrated review, with courts’ powers stemming from the Constitution and determined by the legislator. How can constitutional courts limit governmental power, and to what degree can they resist political attempts to alter their competence—these are the questions to which answer are sought referencing two recent Hungarian and Romanian constitutional court decisions. The two courts had to face different challenges and go down different paths—significantly departing even from their respective “traditional” stances—and they both arrived at controversial findings. This paper argues that it has not been primarily a problem of constitutional design, but rather contextual factors that have amplified the weaknesses of the system and consequently led to growing disenchantment and diminishing trust in the guardians of constitution.

  • In Chief Justice Marshall’s famous words: “It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.” Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137(1803).

  • PL-x nr. 134/2012, available at http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?idp=12702 PL-x nr. 283/2012 available at http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?idp=12794.

  • Emergency Ordinance no. 38/2012, Official Gazette no. 445/2012.

  • Law CXIX of 2010 for the modification of Law XX of 1949 on the Constitution of the Hungarian Republic. Law CXX of 2010 for the modification of Law XXXII of 1989 on the Constitutional Court.

  • Sadurski, W.: Constitutional Review in Europe and in the United States: Influences, Paradoxes and Convergences. Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, (2011) 11/15, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1754209

    Sadurski W. , 'Constitutional Review in Europe and in the United States: Influences, Paradoxes and Convergences ' (2011 ) 11 Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper : 15 -.

    • Search Google Scholar

  • I will return to this aspect later on.

  • Gilia, C.: Curtea Constitutionala sub imperiul reformei. Sfera Politicii, (2012) 6, 23–25 and Perju, V.: A sosit timpul pentru reformarea Curtii Constitutionale? available at: http://www.contributors.ro/idei-si-solutii/a-sosit-timpul-pentru-reformarea-curtii-constitutionale-partea-i

    Gilia C. , 'Curtea Constitutionala sub imperiul reformei ' (2012 ) 6 Sfera Politicii : 23 -25 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Report of the Presidential Commission for the analysis of the political and constitutional regime — To consolidate the rule of law, 2008, available at: http://www.presidency.ro/static/ordine/CPARPCR/Raport_CPARPCR.pdf.

  • In this paper the term “government” is used as synonym for the executive body.

  • Constitution of Romania, art. 114.

  • Constitution of Romania, art. 115.

  • http://www.cogitus.ro/administratie/prea-multe-ordonante-numarul-initiativelor-legislative-ale-guvernelor-din-ultimii-10-ani.

  • PL-x nr. 134/2012, for the modification of article 27 paragraph (1) of Law no. 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court.

  • Emergency Ordinance no. 38/201.2.

  • Law no. 177/2010 on the modification and completion of Law no. 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court.

  • Vedinas, V.: Cateva consideratii privind neconstitutionalitatea legii nr. 177/2010, adoptata de Senat la 24 august 2010. Revista de Drept Public, (2010) 3. 104.

    Vedinas V. , 'Cateva consideratii privind neconstitutionalitatea legii nr. 177/2010, adoptata de Senat la 24 august 2010 ' (2010 ) 3 Revista de Drept Public : 104 -.

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Veys, M (2008): Analysis of the ECPRD correspondents’ replies. In: Igot, N.- Rezsohazy, A.- Van Der Hulst, M.: Parliament & Judiciary. ECPRD Seminar, Belgian House of Representatives and the Belgian Senate. 2008, 223–233. available at: http://www.agora-parl.org/sites/default/files/ECPRD_UK.pdf

    Veys M. , '', in Parliament & Judiciary , (2008 ) -.

  • Decision no. 727 of July 9, 2012.

  • 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 decisions of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to revoke their presidents. Awkwardly enough, the Court found that it had no jurisdiction to rule upon the decisions of revocation. The argument rested on the fact that even if the bill that altered its jurisdiction and excluded from its competence non-legislative decisions of Parliament was found unconstitutional, the emergency ordinance, with the same content was still in force, therefore, “in order to maintain a state of constitutionality”, it had to reject the complaints. Decisions no. 728 and 729 of July 9, 2012.

  • PL-x nr. 283/2012

  • Decision no. 727 of July 9, 2012.

  • Decision no. 799 of June 17, 2011, on the legislative proposal for the revision of the Constitution of Romania.

  • Decision no. 738 of September 19, 2012.

  • Law no. 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court.

  • The Court uses the term “valen??” (valence) in its figurative sense: value, significance.

  • Ionescu, C.: Despre atributia Curtii Constitutionale de a examina constitutionalitatea hotararilor Camerelor legislative si ale Parlamentului. Curierul Judiciar, (2012) 8. 467.

    Ionescu C. , 'Despre atributia Curtii Constitutionale de a examina constitutionalitatea hotararilor Camerelor legislative si ale Parlamentului ' (2012 ) 8 Curierul Judiciar : 467 -.

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Decisions no. 53 and 54 of January 25, 2011.

  • According to Decision no. 1257 of October 7, 2009, fundamental institutions of the state are those enumerated by the Constitution.

  • Interestingly enough, the Court did not find it necessary to dwell upon the unorthodox practice of legislation through (emergency) ordinances, stating merely en-passant that the act under scrutiny was at odds with the constitutional reasons that could justify the urgent character of the act, constituting, therefore, an abuse.

  • Decision no. 421 of May 9, 2007. It must be noted that according to the original version of the Constitution (adopted in 1991), decisions of unconstitutionality in the ex-ante review procedure could have been overruled by Parliament, through a qualified majority vote. This provision though, was deleted from the 2003, revised, version of the Constitution.

  • Decison AB 184/2010. The tax was aimed at reclaiming 98% of those severance payments made to public sector workers that were higher than HUF 2 million.

  • Law no. CXIX of 2010 for the amendment of Law no. XX of 1949 on the Constitution of the Hungarian Republic, and Law CXX of 2010 for the amendment of Law no. XXXII of 1989 on the Constitutional Court.

  • It must be noted that Hungary recently adopted a new Constitution (Fundamental Law), which has been in force since January 1. 2012.

  • Decisions AB 23/1994 and AB 1260/B/1997.

  • Halmai, G.: Alkotmányos alkotmanysértés (Constitutional breach of constitution). Fundamentum, (2011) 2, 81–98.

    Halmai G. , 'Alkotmányos alkotmanysértés ' (2011 ) 2 Fundamentum : 81 -98 .

  • L.C. Golak Nath and Others v State of Punjab AIR, 1967 SC 1643.

  • Kesvananda Bharati v Statel of Kerala, 1973 SC 1961.

  • Decision AB 61/2011.

  • Halmai, G.: op. cit.

  • Rooted in Decision AB 239/B/1994

  • Dixon, R.: Transnational Constitutionalism and Unconstitutional Amendments. The University of Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper, (2011) 349, 12–15, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1840963

    Dixon R. , 'Transnational Constitutionalism and Unconstitutional Amendments ' (2011 ) 349 The University of Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper : 12 -15 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Halmai: op. cit. 81–98.

  • Drinoczi, T.- Kocsis, M.: A jogalkotási eljárás materiális feltételeiről (About the material aspects of the lawmaking procedure). Scientia Iuris, (2012) 1–2, 58–59.

    Kocsis M. , 'A jogalkotási eljárás materiális feltételeiről ' (2012 ) 1–2 Scientia Iuris : 58 -59 .

    • Search Google Scholar

  • Scheppele, K. L.: Democracy by Judiciary. Or, Why Courts Can be More Democratic then Parliaments. In: Czarnota, A.- Krygier, M.- Sadurski, W. (eds): Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism. CEU Press, (2005), 25–61.

    Scheppele K. L. , '', in Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism , (2005 ) -.

  • Former art. 145 para. 1 of the Constitution required a 2/3 majority in both chambers of the Parliament to override a decision of the Court

  • Gilia: op. cit.

  • Halmai: op. cit.

  • Rosenfeld,.: Constitutional Adjudication in Europe and the United States: Paradoxes and Contrast (working paper). International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2 (2004) 4, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=577003

    Rosenfeld , 'Constitutional Adjudication in Europe and the United States: Paradoxes and Contrast (working paper) ' (2004 ) 2 International Journal of Constitutional Law : 4 -.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Acta Juridica Hungarica
Acta Juridica Hungarica
Print ISSN:
1216-2574
Online ISSN:
1588-2616

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Éva Jakab

Co-Editor(s):
Viktor Lőrincz,
Fruzsina Orosz

Editor(s):
Samanatha Cheesman,
Zsuzsa Fejes,
Attila Kun,
Gábor Sulyok,
Márton Varju

Editorial Board

    1. Attila Badó
    1. Myátyás Bódig (Aberdeen)
    1. Zoltán Csehi
    1. Péter Cserne (Hull)
    1. Balázs Gellér
    1. András Jakab
    1. Miklós Király
    1. György Kiss
    1. Jan Kudrna (Praha)
    1. Herbert Küpper (Regensburg)
    1. Konrad Lachmayer (Durham)
    1. Andzrej Stanisław Mączyński (Kraków)
    1. Guido Pfeifer (Frankfurt am Main)
    1. Miklós Szabó
    1. Zoltán Szente
    1. G.J.J. Heerma van Voss (Leiden)
    1. Bernd Waas (Frankfurt am Main)
    1. Fryderyk Zoll (Osnabrück)

Advisory Board

    1. Péter Erdő
    1. Gábor Hamza
    1. Attila Harmathy
    1. László Kecskés
    1. Tibor Király
    1. László Korinek
    1. László Sólyom
    1. Lajos Vékás
    1. Imre Vörös

Acta Juridica Hungarica
P.O. Box 25
HU–1250 Budapest,Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 355 7384
Fax. (36 1) 375 7858
E-mail: acta.juridica@tk.mta.hu

  Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Information technology and the Law
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Worldwide Political Science Abstractss
  • Translation Studies Abstracts
  • SCOPUS
  • Cabell's Directories
  • HeinOnline

 

Acta Juridica Hungarica
Language English
Size  
Year of
Foundation		 1959
Publication
Programme		 changed title
Volumes
per Year		  
Issues
per Year		  
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  
Founder's
Address		 H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1216-2574 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2616 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Apr 2024 0 64 1
May 2024 0 7 1
Jun 2024 0 34 3
Jul 2024 0 9 0
Aug 2024 0 14 5
Sep 2024 0 57 1
Oct 2024 0 41 0