Many petitioners – law professors, attorneys and political parties among them – requested the Constitutional Court to review the Constitution as amended by the Act No. 119/2010. on the Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the amended rules in the Act No. 31/1989. on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Hungary and the Amendment itself. The amended articles of the Constitution includes the restriction of the right of the Constitutional Court to review legislation on the budget, dues and taxes. The restriction allows the review only on the ground of violation of the rights to life and human dignity, protection of personal data, freedom of speech and belief, rights related to Hungarian citizenship. The amended articles also allow the Parliament to introduce taxes on incomes from the public sector retroactively to five tax years.
The petitioners argue that the amendment is violating the rest of the Constitution, especially its inviolable core (rule of law, recognition of the jus cogens international law), and its quick adoption violated the formal rules of adoption making the amendment constitutionally invalid.
The Constitutional Court reviewed the adoption procedure of the amendment and determined that the procedural rules were kept. The Constitutional Court formulated some concerns over the practice of the quick and frequent amendments, but it determined that these concerns do not constitute a power to annul the amendments and rejected the petition.
Constitutional amendments cannot be reviewed by the Constitutional Court
2011.07.18. 13:01 | Kelsen és Coase | Szólj hozzá!
The Constitutional Court examined the possibility to extend its authority to review the Constitution and its amendments. The international examples showed that the constitutional courts review constitutional amendments if such explicit authority was provided by the constitution itself. The Constitutional Court declared that the restriction of its reviewing powers and the practice of amending the constitution to make unconstitutional legislation constitutional is a serious danger threatening the rule of law and the protection of human rights. However, the Constitutional Court proclaimed that the Constitutional Court cannot react to a behaviour violating the rule of law with another behaviour – expanding its power unconstitutionally – violating the rule of law. That would mean that the Constitutional Court became the constituent power and an unlimited power. Therefore the Constitutional Court refused the petition to annul the constitutional amendments.
Three judges phrased gave dissenting opinion.
Címkék: refused rejected constitution rule of law
Ajánlott bejegyzések:
A bejegyzés trackback címe:
https://lexhungarorum.blog.hu/api/trackback/id/tr743076731
Kommentek:
A hozzászólások a vonatkozó jogszabályok értelmében felhasználói tartalomnak minősülnek, értük a szolgáltatás technikai üzemeltetője semmilyen felelősséget nem vállal, azokat nem ellenőrzi. Kifogás esetén forduljon a blog szerkesztőjéhez. Részletek a Felhasználási feltételekben és az adatvédelmi tájékoztatóban.
Nincsenek hozzászólások.
