NGOs analyze Government reactions concerning the Venice Commission’s opinion on the new Constitution of Hungary

The Venice Commission issued an opinion on the new Constitution (the “Fundamental Law”) of Hungary in June 2011. Due to the lack of an official Hungarian translation and the misleading statements of government party representatives, the public may have a false impression of the content of the opinion. Therefore, the Eötvös Károly Institute, the Hungarian Helsinki Commitee and the HCLU have prepared a joint analysis on the reactions of the Government in light of the Venice Commission’s opinion.

The main statements of the analysis are the following:

1. As opposed to Government communication, the Fundamental Law is criticized thoroughly by the Venice Commission instead of being praised. The opinion of the Venice Commission raises serious concerns as to the circumstances of adopting the Fundamental Law and the grave substantial problems included in the opinion may be addressed only by amending the Constitution.

2. In contrast to statements of Government representatives, the opinion does not interpret the Fundamental Law in a mala fide way. European requirements are brought to the attention of the Hungarian Government mildly by the diplomatic analysis. In case of ambiguity or deficiencies, the Venice Commission interprets the text several times in a benign way, e.g. with regard to abortion or secularization. Moreover, the Venice Commission may not be condemned for showing that the wording of the Fundamental Law’s certain provisions may easily lead to an unacceptable interpretation.

3. Contrary to the Government’s standpoint, the opinion of the Venice Commission makes it clear that democratic structures are endangered by several provisions of the Fundamental Law. Examples include upholding the limited powers of the Constitutional Court to review laws, the new rules on limiting fundamental rights, the system of laws requiring a two-thirds majority that allows for the cementing of the current Government’s decisions on tax and social policy, or the Budgetary Council’s anti-democratic possibility to hinder the Parliament in adopting the state budget.

The analysis of the NGOs also gives a brief analysis of the Fundamental Law’s provisions commented on by the Venice Commission in light of the Hungarian constitutional traditions, and criticizes the text on that basis sometimes even harsher than the Venice Commission.

The full analysis is available here (pdf).

The opinion of the Venice Commission is available here.

Share

Related articles

The Third Wave – the New Constitution of Hungary

In their current, third analysis on the legislative work of the Hungarian Parliament,  the Eötvös Károly Policy Institute, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) examine whether the constitution-making process in Hungary meets the requirements deriving from the principle of the rule of law and compares the draft “Fundamental Law” (i.e. the draft of the new Constitution) submitted to the Parliament on 14 March 2011 with the present constitutional system.

Freedom of speech triumphs over Auchan Hungary Ltd.

The Budapest Court of Appeal has reversed the verdict of first instance on 14 Sept, 2006, in the case of Auchan Hungary Limited versus The Clean Air Action Group. According to the decision, András Lukács, President of The Clean Air Action Group was not guilty of defamation as originally charged. András Lukács was represented by Environmental Management and Law Association (EMLA) and HCLU.

The HCLU Takes the Case of the Silenced Judge to the ECtHR

Justice László Ravasz was sentenced by the Service Court of Second Instance attached to the Curia on 29 March 2012 on the ground of committing a disciplinary offence. The court initiated his dismissal and the President of the Republic dismissed him on 6 June. The judge committed the offence with the public expression of his views on the administration of the judiciary. It is the HCLU’s opinion that the sentence of the service court means an unacceptable constraint on the freedom of expression. Hence, the HCLU stands for the dismissed judge and represents him before the European Court of Human Rights in seeking remedies.