Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:49:50.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB on the Interpretation of Article E)(2) of the Fundamental Law

Review products

Decision 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB on the Interpretation of Article E)(2) of the Fundamental Law. Athttp://hunconcourt.hu. Constitutional Court of Hungary, December 5, 2016.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2017

Ágoston Mohay  and
Norbert Tóth
Ágoston Mohay
Affiliation:
University of Pécs
Norbert Tóth
Affiliation:
National University of Public Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a case of first impression, the Constitutional Court of Hungary (CCH or Court) ruled on November 30, 2016 that, in exceptional cases, it is competent to consider whether Hungary's obligations to the European Union (EU) violate fundamental individual rights (including human dignity) or Hungarian sovereignty as protected by the Hungarian Constitution. The decision places Hungary squarely within the growing group of EU member states whose constitutional courts have decided that, despite the decisions of the European Court of Justice regarding the primacy of EU law, EU member states are not compelled to violate their domestic constitutional obligations in carrying out their shared EU commitments.

Keywords

European Union lawrelationship to national constitutionsrole of national constitutional courtssovereigntynational constitutional identityfundamental rightsultra vires review
Type
International Decisions: Edited by David P. Stewart
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 468 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Decision 22/2016 (XII.5), AB on the Interpretation of Article E) (2) of the Fundamental Law (Const. Ct. Hung. Nov. 30, 2016), available (in English) at http://hunconcourt.hu/letoltesek/en_22_2016.pdf [hereinafter Decision].

2 However, at the time of accession, Hungary's approach to EU law was governed by the so-called “EU integration clause,” which had been put into the previous constitution in 1989. The Fundamental Law of Hungary's article on the treatment of international law resulted in some minor amendments as compared to the previous one, and so did the new “integration clause.”

3 Fundamental Law of Hungary, Art. E, paras. 1–4, available (in English) at http://www.kormany.hu/download/e/02/00000/The%20New%20Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Hungary.pdf (official translation).

4 Decision 143/2010 (VII. 14), AB of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Hungary on the Constitutionality of the Act of Promulgation of the Lisbon Treaty, MK 2010/119/h (Const. Ct. Hung. July 12, 2010). For a brief summary of this decision in English, see http://www.codices.coe.int/NXT/gateway.dll/CODICES/precis/eng/eur/hun/hun-2010-2-007?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0.

5 Id., para. 2.5.

6 Case 6/64, Flaiminio Costa v. ENEL, 1964 ECR 585, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu. It is also true that the EU member states never put the principle of primacy expressly into founding treaties; only a non-binding declaration was attached to the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 that refers to this issue. See Declaration Concerning Primacy, Annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference, 2008 OJ (C 115), at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html.

7 Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523, 2015 OJ (L239/146) (establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece); Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601, 2015 OJ (L248/80) (establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece).

8 Case C-643/15, Slovak Repub. v. Council of the EU (pending); Case C-647/15, Hungary v. Council of the EU (pending). The Court of Justice of the European Union might deliver its judgment in the second half of 2017.

9 The judge-rapporteur is chosen from the fifteen members of the Constitutional Court of Hungary by the president to work on the given case and to draft the judgment. The president may also choose himself/herself to act as a judge-rapporteur, though it rarely occurs.

10 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, 2016 OJ (C 202) 13.

11 As summarized most recently in its outright monetary transactions decision: BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 21 June 2016, 2 BvR 2728/13, available (in English) at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2016/06/rs20160621_2bvr272813en.html;jsessionid=A3A4EF1159F040E47A225CAB0A381CB6.1_cid383.

12 Matthews v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24833/94, 28 Eur. H.R. Rep. 361 (1999).

13 The same concern was noted in the concurring opinion of Judge István Stumpf. Decision, Concurring Op., Stumpf, J., supra note 1, para. 106.

14 See, e.g., Case C-144/04, Mangold v. Helm, 2005 ECR I-9981, para. 36.

15 BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2/08, para. 249.

16 Decision, Concurring Op., Stumpf, J., supra note 1, para. 107.

17 Decision 4/1997 (I. 22), AB on the Review of International Treaties (Const. Ct. Hung. Feb. 22, 1997), available (in English) at hunconcourt.hu/letoltesek/en_0004_1997.pdf.

18 Case T-529/13, Izsák & Dabis v. Comm'n, 2016 OJ (C222/12). The application was dismissed, the appeal by the applicant is pending before the Court of Justice (Case C-420/16 P).

19 Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, 2004 ECR I-9609.

20 Case C-379/87, Groener v. Minister for Education, 1989 ECR I-3967.

21 Case C-438/14, von Wolffersdorff v. Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, ECLI:EU:C:2016:401, para. 64 (note that the German prohibition on titles of nobility is non-absolute, not strict).

22 Von Bogdandy, Armin & Schill, Stephan, Overcoming Absolute Primacy, Respect for National Identity Under the Lisbon Treaty, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1417 (2011)Google Scholar.