Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz

Constitutional Justice under Populism

The Transformation of Constitutional Jurisprudence in Hungary since 2010


Introduction

In 2018, I carried out a survey with Zoltán Szente, of the constitutional courts of ten European countries (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Croatia) with the help of constitutional law scholars from the countries concerned, paying particular attention to the constitutional context in which the constitutional court decisions were made, i.e. the main constitutional changes that took place after the years of the financial crisis. The methodological problem was whether it was possible to find any analytical criteria for the different European countries that would allow a comparison. In addition to the different constitutional arrangements, different constitutional questions have arisen in the constitutional court practice of the individual states. Although the practice of the ECtHR and the CJEU is influential for most of the European courts, these institutions are not primarily responsible for reviewing legislation. Yet, in response to the difficulties, we sought to compare the functioning and jurisprudence of these courts, asking what role the constitutional courts have played and continue to play in the constitutional resolution of crisis-related problems in socio-economic crisis situations.

Constitutional Justice under Populism

Tartalomjegyzék


Kiadó: Akadémiai Kiadó

Online megjelenés éve: 2024

ISBN: 978 963 454 971 0

In Hungary’s 2010 parliamentary elections, Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance and its coalition partner, the Christian Democratic Party won a landslide victory and the newly formed populist Orbán-government gained a two-thirds constitution-making parliamentary majority, which it has kept for four consecutive terms (so far). In the spring of 2011, the National Assembly adopted Hungary’s new Fundamental Law, which has since been amended twelve times. The transformation of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and constitutional jurisprudence has played a significant role in cementing the new regime. The changes can be followed in a chronological order in this book. The author starts with the explanation of the concept of constitutional adjudication, she then reviews the procedural-institutional developments and the critical doctrinal junctures of the past thirteen years with regard to the general assessment of the change in constitutional justice. Finally, the volume offers a reading of how the scholarly experiences and factual results of the thirteen years spent under populism compare to the ideal of constitutional-court-made constitutional justice.

Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz is research professor at the Institute for Legal Studies, HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences and professor of constitutional law at ELTE Law School, Budapest. She worked as law clerk at the Hungarian Constitutional Court in different positions between 2003 and 2013. She has published extensively on different aspects of constitutional law, including the practice of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, the impact of different contemporary challenges to constitutional adjudication, as well as the rule of law resilience of Hungarian legal system.

Hivatkozás: https://mersz.hu/gardos-orosz-constitutional-justice-under-populism//

BibTeXEndNoteMendeleyZotero

Kivonat
fullscreenclose
printsave