Tartalomjegyzék

• Constitutional Justice under Populism • The Transformation of Constitutional Jurisprudence in Hungary since 2010
• Copyright Page
• Introduction
• 1. Constitutional review, Constitutional Courts and the institutional challenges of the 21st century in Europe
• chevron_right2. The Constitutional Court of the Fundamental Law. The beginnings
  • 2.1. Concerning the transformation
  • chevron_right2.2. The experience of competences
    • chevron_right2.2.1. The constitutional complaint
      • 2.2.1.1. Against a judicial decision. Review of the constitutionality of the law applied
      • 2.2.1.2. Review of legislation where the application directly infringes fundamental rights
      • 2.2.1.3. Against a judicial decision: Review of the constitutionality of a judicial decision
    • 2.2.2. Judicial referral – concrete norm control
    • 2.2.3. Ex-post abstract norm control
    • 2.2.4. Preliminary abstract norm control
  • 2.3. The approach to the pre-Fundamental Law case law
  • 2.4. The role of international law and EU law
• chevron_right3. After the beginning – new challenges – new responses
  • chevron_right3.1. The principles of interpretation
    • 3.1.1. A new set of interpretative methods or a reformulation of classic interpretative methods?
    • chevron_right3.1.2. Application of mandatory interpretation methods in the practice of the Constitutional Court
      • 3.1.2.1. Application of the new mandatory interpretation methods
      • 3.1.2.2. Politically sensitive cases
    • 3.1.3. Conclusions
  • chevron_right3.2. Constitutional protection of the identity of the Fundamental Law
    • 3.2.1. Populist constitutionalism
    • 3.2.2. The role of the “constitutional tradition” in the identity of the Fundamental Law
    • 3.2.3. The revival of the historical constitution?
    • 3.2.4. The protection of constitutional identity by the Constitutional Court
    • 3.2.5. Conclusions
  • chevron_right3.3. Some classic dilemmas of constitutional adjudication in a new light
    • 3.3.1. A “countermajoritarian difficulty”
    • 3.3.2. Activism and/or deference
    • 3.3.3. Constitutional review of the amendment of the Fundamental Law
• chevron_right4. The relationship between the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts in the protection of fundamental rights
  • 4.1. Constitutional presumptions
  • chevron_right4.2. The significance of the constitutional complaint
    • 4.2.1. Subject of the inquiry
    • 4.2.2. Constitutional complaint pursuant to Article 27 of the Act on the Constitutional Court
    • 4.2.3. Figures on inclusiveness and success rates
    • chevron_right4.2.4. The traditional approach – the importance of the admissibility procedure in the relationship between the ordinary court and the Constitutional Court
      • 4.2.4.1. Admissibility: what is “prejudice to a right guaranteed by the Fundamental Law?”
      • 4.2.4.2. Admissibility: what is the fundamental constitutional issue?
    • 4.2.5. Conclusions
  • chevron_right4.3. The enforcement of fundamental rights in the practice of ordinary courts and the role of the Constitutional Court
    • 4.3.1. Introduction
    • 4.3.2. The starting point – the purpose of the legal construct
    • chevron_right4.3.3. The doctrine of horizontal effect and the new constitutional bases – lessons from the judicial practice
      • 4.3.3.1. Right to property
      • 4.3.3.2. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression
      • 4.3.3.3. “Police officer’s portrait”
      • 4.3.3.4. Violation of the right to privacy
    • 4.3.4. Sub-summary: the horizontal effect and its practice under the Fundamental Law
    • 4.3.5. Conclusions
• chevron_right5. From crisis to crisis. Hungarian constitutional review in the European space
  • chevron_right5.1. Changes in the practice of the Constitutional Court in the context of the economic crisis, the migration crisis, the fight against terrorism, national security and the pandemic
    • chevron_right5.1.1. The standards of fundamental rights protection in normalcy and in emergency in Hungary
      • 5.1.1.1. The history of fundamental rights protection in Hungary
      • 5.1.1.2. What is a fundamental right in normalcy and in emergency in Hungary?
      • 5.1.1.3. Content of the state obligation to protect rights
      • 5.1.1.4. The test of fundamental rights restrictions
      • 5.1.1.5. Standards of human rights protection in the special legal order
      • 5.1.1.6. Conclusions
    • chevron_right5.1.2. The impact of the economic crisis on constitutional jurisprudence
      • 5.1.2.1. Background
      • 5.1.2.2. Changes in the practice of the Constitutional Court
      • 5.1.2.3. Foreign currency credit loan cases
    • 5.1.3. Migration
    • 5.1.4. Terrorism threat and security challenges
    • chevron_right5.1.5. Covid-19 and Constitutional Court in Hungary
      • 5.1.5.1. The special legal order
      • 5.1.5.2. The complicated practice of the Constitutional Court
  • chevron_right5.2. The Hungarian Constitutional Court in the European Constitutional Space
    • 5.2.1. Introduction
    • chevron_right5.2.2. European constitutional courts’ responses to social, economic and political challenges
      • 5.2.2.1. The change
      • 5.2.2.2. Continuity and change
      • 5.2.2.3. Stability and continuity
    • chevron_right5.2.3. The exceptions
      • 5.2.3.1. Specific routes
      • 5.2.3.2. The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights
    • chevron_right5.2.4. Main constitutional strategies to address social and economic challenges
      • 5.2.4.1. General solutions
      • 5.2.4.2. New interpretative methods and substantive concepts in constitutional law
  • chevron_right5.3. Possible reasons for changes in case law
    • 5.3.1. European trends
    • 5.3.2. Explanation of Hungarian Constitutional Court practice – in a crisis situation
• chevron_right6. Quo vadis, Hungarian Constitutional Court?
  • 6.1. On the benchmarks for evaluating constitutional review
  • 6.2. Not everything is what it appears to be
• Bibliography

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//