Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz

Constitutional Justice under Populism

The Transformation of Constitutional Jurisprudence in Hungary since 2010


New interpretative methods and substantive concepts in constitutional law

In examining the practice of European constitutional courts and supreme courts conducting judicial review, we have observed1 that there has been no trend to set aside classical standards such as the necessity-proportionality test, the requirement of a legitimate legislative purpose or the reasonableness test. Furthermore, the principles that the essential content of fundamental rights cannot be removed and arbitrary legislation is unacceptable have also remained in place. Within this broad framework, however, there has been a slight shift in the practice of constitutional interpretation, with constitutional courts taking greater account of political, economic and social circumstances. Since the legal model of constitutional adjudication allows for these to be taken into account according to a predetermined methodology, the courts have made use of this possibility, often without remaining in their ivory towers. However, as the doctrine of how and how much weight to give to the social, economic or political challenges to be assessed in a particular case is not well developed in the legal system, the assessment has often caused great difficulties in the reasoning. New theoretical approaches, concepts and yardsticks have therefore been developed in the course of constitutional jurisprudence in order to respond to issues considered to be of exceptional importance within the existing framework, while at the same time positioning the institutions themselves in such a way as to preserve their relevance in order to safeguard constitutionality.

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