What is Wrong with the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law?

  1. It is a further proof that the governing majority views the Fundamental Law as subservient to the raw force of power and not as a limit on exercising government power.
  2. It adds provisions to the Fundamental Law that the Constitutional Court had previously declared unconstitutional.
  3. It violates the right to free speech because it enables the oppression of opposing political views and artistic expression.
  4. It contradicts the right to human dignity because it opens the door for the State and local governments to criminalize homelessness instead of guaranteeing the right to adequate housing.
  5.  It discriminates against same sex couples, couples without children and other non-marital forms of familial relationships by leaving them without constitutional protection.
  6. It curtails the right to freedom of information and the fundamental principles of free election because it enforces undue restrictions on the publication of campaign materials and other forms of political advertising.
  7. It sanctifies the autocratic differentiation between religious groups because Parliament can decide, according to its own will, on whether or not to recognize a church.
  8. It violates the principles of fair trial because it allows the head of the judiciary’s administrative body to designate a case to any court arbitrarily.
  9. It ends the autonomy of universities and colleges because it subordinates these institutions to the Government in matters pertaining to organization and financial management.
  10. By conditioning student aid on post-graduation domestic employment, it imposes disproportionate burdens on university and college students’ right to self-determination and their right to freely choose their occupation.

Instead of the law of rule we want rule of law!

Share

Related articles

Civil Organizations to Venice Committee on Constitutional Court Worries

On January 25th, the Monitoring Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly requested that the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters review five further Acts, including the Act on the Hungarian Constitutional Court. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the HCLU and the Eötvös Károly Institute sent their opinion of the new Act on the Constitutional Court to the Venice Committee.

Superficial amendments - Organization of the judiciary remains inadequate

Last year the Government introduced fundamental changes to the judicial system. Although 30 separate provisions of the relevant regulation were amended in response to the serious concerns raised by the Venice Commission (VC), the organization of the judicial system remains centralized and still endangers the independence of the judiciary and the fairness of court proceedings – according to the Eötvös Károly Institute, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union.

Inadequate response to the Venice Commission’s criticism

In March 2012 the Venice Commission issued an opinion regarding the new Hungarian cardinal laws on the court system and the judiciary, stating that “the reform as a whole threatens the independence of the judiciary”. The Hungarian Government has initiated an amendment of the two cardinal laws in question, apparently as a result of the Venice Commission’s opinion. However, the proposed amendments do not eliminate the conceptional problems of the new regulation.