|
2019 |
Osservatorio sulle fonti / Observatory on Sources of Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section: Sources of Law in the EU member States HUNGARY By Viktor Zoltán Kazai, Central European University, Budapest |
|
Name of the Act/s |
Bill no. T/8044 on the amendment of certain acts regulating the legal status of Members of Parliament and the functioning of the National Assembly / T. 8044 számú törvényjavaslat az Országgyűlés működését és a képviselők jogállását érintő egyes törvények módosításáról |
|
Date of entry into force of original text |
Adopted, not yet promulgated |
|
Date of Text (Adopted) |
10 December 2019 |
|
Type of text (name in English / name in the official language) |
Parliamentary act / Törvény |
|
Enacted by |
Hungarian National Assembly |
|
Subject area |
parliamentary law, disciplinary measures |
|
Comment |
On 10 December 2019 the National Assembly adopted Bill no. T/8044 on the amendment of certain acts regulating the legal status of Members of Parliament and the functioning of the National Assembly. As Máté Kocsis, MP of the governing Fidesz-KDNP coalition said, this act is a response to the parliamentary opposition’s attempts to obstruct the work of the National Assembly. The amendment introduces two new forms of infringement: i) speech manifestly disturbing another MP’s speech or the presiding of the session and ii) disruption of the continuation of the session and the hindering of other MPs, parliamentary or public officials from exercising their rights and carrying out their duties. Ultimately, the MP who commits one of these infringements is obliged to leave the chamber if she disregards the warnings and calls to order of the Speaker. The rules on exclusion become more severe as well. According to the new rules, if the MP excluded from the session does not leave the chamber right after the oral warning, she can be banned from entering the premises of the parliament. The exclusion is a sanction very limited in time and does not deprive the MP of her right to vote in person. A ban from entering the premises of parliament however can last for a maximum of 60 working days (depending on the seriousness of the violation) and the MP can exercise her right to vote only by proxy. MPs lose their official mandate as Speaker, vice-president of the National Assembly and parliamentary notary if they are excluded from the session twice or banned from entering the parliamentary premises even once. MPs’ right to exercise control over public institutions becomes more restricted. In the future, parliamentarians may only request information from public institutions after preliminary consultation (i.e. they will not have to right to show up at public institutions without notifying them in advance about their inquiry). MPs will also have to respect stricter rules on confidentiality of information. |
|
Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any) |
It is admitted by the MPs of the governing majority that this act is a reaction to the behavior of the opposition parties who have adopted unconventional forms of expression and behavior to protest against controversial legislative reforms. See, for example, the case of the opposition’s attempt to obstruct the enactment of the administrative judicial reform: Kazai, Viktor Z.: Administrative Judicial Reform in Hungary: Who Gives a Fig about Parliamentary Process?, VerfBlog, 2019/5/01, https://verfassungsblog.de/administrative-judicial-reform-in-hungary-who-gives-a-fig-about-parliamentary-process/ About the previous amendments to the parliamentary disciplinary regime: Kazai, Viktor Z.: The Emerging Trend of Parliamentary Performance: Freedom of Expression in the Hungarian National Assembly, VerfBlog,2018/2/12, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-emerging-trend-of-parliamentary-performance-freedom-of-expression-in-the-hungarian-national-assembly/ See also the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Karácsony and Others v. Hungary, and Szél and Others v. Hungary: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-162831 According to the unanimous judgment of the Court, the restriction of the applicant opposition MPs’ freedom of expression by the Speaker of the National Assembly was not accompanied by effective and adequate safeguards from abuse. Consequently, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 10. |
|
Available Text |