Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz

Constitutional Justice under Populism

The Transformation of Constitutional Jurisprudence in Hungary since 2010


General solutions

Although each case is different and each country has its own constitutional set-up, after reviewing the case law analyses in our book we have been able to identify interpretative methods and substantive constitutional concepts that have appeared in the practice of several constitutional review bodies.1 First, we had to establish that responding to social problems raises complex legislative issues, most of which are not subject to constitutional review in different European countries, furthermore, not all social problems reach the courts in the same form. Yet comparisons can be made, since the most serious social problems, such as the financial crisis, migration or the threat of terrorism, have developed in almost all European countries into problems which the States have dealt with by legislation, some of which have been subject to constitutional review in the light of the rule adopted, albeit in different procedures (ex-ante, ex-post, constitutional complaint) and possibly in the form of different questions, but in a very abstractly comparable way. In each case, the fundamental question underlying the detailed questions was the extent to which the body conducting the constitutional review can and does intervene in the shaping of constitutional policy in the event of a serious crisis and allow to examine how its ambitions affect constitutional interpretation.

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