Hungary's Government Has Taken Control of the Constitutional Court

The Hungarian government has filled the Constitutional Court with loyal judges to create a judicial rubber stamp for government interests, according to a study by Hungarian NGOs of recent Constitutional Court decisions.

The Hungarian Constitutional Court has been packed with judges supportive of the governing majority’s agenda. Through appointing new judges, amending rules and increasing the size of the court, the ruling Fidesz government has succeeded in shaping the Constitutional Court into a loyal body, as opposed to the independent and genuine counterbalance to government power it used to represent.

Three Hungarian NGOs—Eötvös Károly Institute, Hungarian Helsinki Committee and Hungarian Civil Liberties Union— studied 23 high-profile cases, 10 of which were decided before Fidesz-appointed judges constituted a majority, and 13 after. While rulings in all 10 cases decided before the judges selected by the current government formed a majority had been contrary to the interests of the government, as soon as the 'one-party' judges represented the majority, the imbalance became apparent: in 10 out of 13 cases the ruling favored the government's interests.

Some judges were found to have voted in support of the government in 100 percent of cases. Judges Egon Dienes-Oehm, Béla Pokol and Mária Szívós almost always decided in favor of the supposed interests of the government even before the new judges came to form a majority.

So how has the Hungarian Constitutional Court ended up like this? The two-thirds majority in parliament amended the legislation on the composition of the Constitutional Court in three ways:

As a consequence of all this, 11 of the 15 judges have been confirmed to the court by the Fidesz-KDNP (Christian Democratic People's Party) majority without any negotiations with the opposition.

Apart from the results discussed above, the study contains profiles of the individual judges, assessing their opinions on the judicial process and its relationship to democracy, elections, democratic debates, the separation of power and the safeguards of independence. The analyses present in detail the features of decision making characteristic of each judge. Summary tables also support the better understanding of the cases under examination and the judicial practice of judges.

Click here for a longer summary of the analysis. 

Share

Related articles

HCLU's analysis of the seventh amendment of the Fundamental Law

The seven-year-old Fundamental Law of Hungary has been amended for the seventh time. Any amendment of the Fundamental Law should theoretically be based on a broad political consensus because a constitution does not reflect the majority’s will, but instead provides a legal framework for a government gaining majority via any democratic election to implement their political commitments. An ideal constitution provides for the possibility to govern according to different ideologies and defines the clear limits of governance that shall not be transgressed.

The Truth About the Tavares Report

The Hungarian government provided detailed comments on the so-called Tavares Report regarding the situation of fundamental rights in Hungary, which will soon be discussed by Members of the European Parliament. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) and the Standards (Mérték) Media Monitor responded to the government’s inaccurate and unfounded comments in an analysis submitted to the factions of the European Parliament.

OPERATION STARVE & STRANGLE: How the government uses the law to repress Hungary's civic spirit

On 13 February 2018, the Hungarian government introduced in Parliament the ‘Stop Soros’ package, a legislative proposal of three bills that target civil society organisations working on migration.

● Bill T/1976 on the licensing of organisations supporting migration;

● Bill T/19775 on the immigration financing duty;

● Bill T/19774 on the immigration restraint order.